Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 154, Issue 1, pp 229–242 | Cite as

The Curvilinear Relationship Between Ethical Leadership and Team Creativity: The Moderating Role of Team Faultlines

  • Shenjiang Mo
  • Chu-Ding Ling
  • Xiao-Yun XieEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In this study, we built and tested a theoretical model to determine how ethical leadership affects team creativity among teams composed of different characteristics. Following social learning theory and an antecedent–benefit–cost framework, we conducted analyses of multisource data from 50 team supervisors and 186 employees, which revealed an inverted U-shaped relationship between ethical leadership and team creativity. The teams exhibited more creativity when there was a moderate level of ethical leadership than when there were very low or very high levels. Moreover, from an interactional perspective, we found that team faultlines significantly moderated the curvilinear relationship between ethical leadership and team creativity such that the inverted U-shaped relationship was more significant among teams with weak team faultlines. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Ethical leadership Team creativity Team faultlines Curvilinear Interactional approach 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by Grant No. 71372056 awarded to Xiao-Yun Xie, Grant No. 71302102 awarded to Shenjiang Mo, and Grant No. 71232012 awarded to Zhongming Wang from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 221–232.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D. (1978). Measures of inequality. American Sociological Review, 43(6), 865–880.Google Scholar
  3. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “the social psychology of creativity”. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  4. Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 630–640.Google Scholar
  5. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.Google Scholar
  6. Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 52–61.Google Scholar
  7. Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 307–324.Google Scholar
  8. Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 129–148.Google Scholar
  9. Baer, M., Vadera, A. K., Leenders, R. T. A. J., & Oldham, G. R. (2013). Intergroup competition as a double-edged sword: How sex composition regulates the effects of competition on group creativity. Organization Science, 25(3), 892–908.Google Scholar
  10. Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45–87.Google Scholar
  11. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 709–743.Google Scholar
  14. Bellezza, S., Gino, F., & Keinan, A. (2014). The red sneakers effect: Inferring status and competence from signals of nonconformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 35–54.Google Scholar
  15. Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E. L., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20(1), 35–50.Google Scholar
  16. Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and composition: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 355–373.Google Scholar
  18. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group size and measures of group-level properties: An examination of eta-squared and ICC values. Journal of Management, 24(2), 157–172.Google Scholar
  20. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 349–444). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.Google Scholar
  22. Busse, C., Kach, A. P., & Wagner, S. M. (2016a). Boundary conditions: What they are, how to explore them, why we need them, and when to consider them. Organizational Research Methods. doi: 10.1177/1094428116641191.
  23. Busse, C., Mahlendorf, M. D., & Bode, C. (2016b). The ABC for studying the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect: A competitive mediation framework linking antecedents, benefits, and costs. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 131–153.Google Scholar
  24. Chan, R. Y. K., Cheng, L. T. W., & Szeto, R. W. F. (2002). The dynamics of Guanxi and ethics for Chinese executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 327–336.Google Scholar
  25. Chen, A. S., & Hou, Y. (2016). The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for innovation on creativity: A moderated mediation examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  26. Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., & Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations: The insulating role of creative ability. Group and Organization Management, 34(3), 330–357.Google Scholar
  27. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2008). The challenge of coordination in central government organizations: The Norwegian case. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 97–116.Google Scholar
  28. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  29. Cooper, D., Patel, P. C., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2013). It depends: Environmental context and the effects of faultlines on top management team performance. Organization Science, 25(2), 633–652.Google Scholar
  30. Den Hartog, D. N. (2015). Ethical leadership. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 409–434.Google Scholar
  31. Dunford, B. B., Jackson, C. L., Boss, A. D., Tay, L., & Boss, R. W. (2015). Be fair, your employees are watching: A relational response model of external third-party justice. Personnel Psychology, 68(2), 319–352.Google Scholar
  32. Everitt, B. (1993). Cluster analysis. London: Arnold Press.Google Scholar
  33. Farh, J., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173–1180.Google Scholar
  34. George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 439–477.Google Scholar
  35. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 605–622.Google Scholar
  36. Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 445–459.Google Scholar
  37. Gino, F., & Wiltermuth, S. S. (2014). Evil genius? How dishonesty can lead to greater creativity. Psychological Science, 25(4), 973–981.Google Scholar
  38. Gong, Y., Kim, T., Lee, D., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827–851.Google Scholar
  39. Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 61–76.Google Scholar
  40. Greer, L. L., & van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1032–1044.Google Scholar
  41. Gu, Q., Tang, T. L., & Jiang, W. (2015). Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader-member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 513–529.Google Scholar
  42. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.Google Scholar
  43. Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–343.Google Scholar
  44. Huang, L., Gino, F., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The highest form of intelligence: Sarcasm increases creativity for both expressers and recipients. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131(1), 162–177.Google Scholar
  45. Huang, L., & Paterson, T. A. (2014). Group ethical voice: Influence of ethical leadership and impact on ethical performance. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206314546195.
  46. James, L., Demaree, R., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98.Google Scholar
  47. Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 24–42.Google Scholar
  48. Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. (2011). Who and what is fair matters: A multi-foci social exchange model of creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 86–106.Google Scholar
  49. Kluemper, D. H., McLarty, B. D., & Bing, M. N. (2015). Acquaintance ratings of the Big Five personality traits: Incremental validity beyond and interactive effects with self-reports in the prediction of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 237–248.Google Scholar
  50. Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3(2), 186–207.Google Scholar
  51. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340.Google Scholar
  52. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 645–659.Google Scholar
  53. Lee, Y. T., & Antonakis, J. (2014). When preference is not satisfied but the individual is: How power distance moderates person-job fit. Journal of Management, 40(3), 641–675.Google Scholar
  54. Lee, S., Yun, S., & Srivastava, A. (2013). Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between abusive supervision and creativity in South Korea. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 724–731.Google Scholar
  55. Li, J. T., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794–813.Google Scholar
  56. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.Google Scholar
  57. Luan, K., Ling, C. D., & Xie, X. Y. (2016). The nonlinear effects of educational diversity on team creativity: Educational diversity and team creativity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 4(54), 465–480.Google Scholar
  58. Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151–171.Google Scholar
  59. Meyer, B., & Glenz, A. (2013). Team faultline measures: A computational comparison and a new approach to multiple subgroups. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 393–424.Google Scholar
  60. Meyer, B., Glenz, A., Antino, M., Rico, R., & Gonzalez-Roma, V. (2014). Faultlines and subgroups: A meta-review and measurement guide. Small Group Research, 45(6), 633–670.Google Scholar
  61. Miao, Q., Newman, A., Yu, J., & Xu, L. (2013). The relationship between ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior: Linear or curvilinear effects? Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 641–653.Google Scholar
  62. Mo, S., Booth, S. A., & Wang, Z. (2012). How do Chinese firms deal with inter-organizational conflict? Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1), 121–129.Google Scholar
  63. Mo, S., & Shi, J. (2015). Linking ethical leadership to employee burnout, workplace deviance and performance: Testing the mediating roles of trust in leader and surface acting. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2821-z.
  64. Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. (2008). The rejection of moral rebels: Resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 76–93.Google Scholar
  65. Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 103–122.Google Scholar
  66. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43.Google Scholar
  67. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.Google Scholar
  68. Newman, A., Kiazad, K., Miao, Q., & Cooper, B. (2014). Examining the cognitive and affective trust-based mechanisms underlying the relationship between ethical leadership and organisational citizenship: A case of the head leading the heart? Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 113–123.Google Scholar
  69. Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. M. (2008). Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 225–234.Google Scholar
  70. Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313–338.Google Scholar
  71. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
  72. Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679–692.Google Scholar
  73. Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987). Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20, 53–65.Google Scholar
  74. Sethi, R., Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (2002). How to kill a team’s creativity. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 16–17.Google Scholar
  75. Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709–1721.Google Scholar
  76. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39(3), 684–708.Google Scholar
  77. Spell, C. S., Bezrukova, K., Haar, J., & Spell, C. (2011). Faultlines, fairness, and fighting: A justice perspective on conflict in diverse groups. Small Group Research, 42(3), 309–340.Google Scholar
  78. Stouten, J., van Dijke, M., Mayer, D. M., De Cremer, D., & Euwema, M. C. (2013). Can a leader be seen as too ethical? The curvilinear effects of ethical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 680–695.Google Scholar
  79. Tang, T. L., Tollison, P. S., & Whiteside, H. D. (1989). Quality circle productivity as related to upper-management attendance, circle initiation, and collar color. Journal of Management, 15(1), 101–113.Google Scholar
  80. Thatcher, S., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(3), 217–241.Google Scholar
  81. Thatcher, S. M. B., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Group faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 969–1009.Google Scholar
  82. Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. M. L., & West, M. (2004). Reflexivity for team innovation in China: The contribution of goal interdependence. Group and Organization Management, 29(5), 540–559.Google Scholar
  83. Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56(1), 5–37.Google Scholar
  84. Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42(4), 128–142.Google Scholar
  85. Tu, Y., & Lu, X. (2013). How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 441–455.Google Scholar
  86. Valentine, S., Godkin, L., Fleischman, G. M., & Kidwell, R. (2011). Corporate ethical values, group creativity, job satisfaction and turnover intention: The impact of work context on work response. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 353–372.Google Scholar
  87. van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Huang, X. (2005). Location-level links between diversity and innovative climate depend on national power distance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1171–1182.Google Scholar
  88. van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 38–53.Google Scholar
  89. van Knippenberg, D., Dawson, J. F., West, M. A., & Homan, A. C. (2011). Diversity faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance. Human Relations, 64(3), 307–336.Google Scholar
  90. Walker, A. G., Smither, J. W., & Waldman, D. A. (2008). A longitudinal examination of concomitant changes in team leadership and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 547–577.Google Scholar
  91. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(3), 355–387.Google Scholar
  92. Wright, B. M., & Cordery, J. L. (1999). Production uncertainty as a contextual moderator of employee reactions to job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 456–463.Google Scholar
  93. Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 851–862.Google Scholar
  94. Zhou, J., & Hoever, I. J. (2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 333–359.Google Scholar
  95. Zhu, W., Newman, A., Miao, Q., & Hooke, A. (2013). Revisiting the mediating role of trust in transformational leadership effects: Do different types of trust make a difference? The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 94–105.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Management and MarketingHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations