Leadership development: the key to unlocking individual creativity in organizations

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm LODJ 31,3 230 Received April 2009 Revised August 2009 Accepted September 2009 Leadership development: the key to unlocking individual creativity in organizations Jeffery D. Houghton Department of Management and Industrial Relations, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, and Trudy C. DiLiello Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Port Hueneme, California, USA Abstract Purpose – This paper sets out to develop and test a hypothesized model of the role of adult leadership development and youth leadership development as possible moderators of the relationships between creative self-efficacy, perceived support for creativity, and individual creativity. Design/methodology/approach – The study employs the multi-group nested goodness-of-fit strategy in LISREL 8.53 to test the interaction effects of two qualitative moderator variables. Findings – Results suggest that adult leadership development may moderate the relationship between perceived organizational support for creativity and individual creativity, while youth leadership development may moderate the relationship between creative self-efficacy and individual creativity. Research limitations/implications – Limitations include concerns regarding generalizability, possible social desirability and response set biases, self-report data, and causality. The primary implication is that leadership development, targeted at adults as well as children, may represent one important key for unlocking idle creative potential and enhancing overall organizational effectiveness. Practical implications – Organizations may wish to consider youth leadership development experiences as potential behaviorally based predictors of future job success for jobs that require creativity. Organizational decision makers should also carefully consider making leadership development opportunities available to organizational members at all levels. Originality/value – The study is among the first to examine both adult and youth leadership development as potential facilitators of creativity in organizations and has value for practitioners as well as for future creativity and leadership development researchers. Keywords Leadership, Development, Creative thinking, Individual psychology, Innovation Paper type Research paper Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 31 No. 3, 2010 pp. 230-245 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/01437731011039343 Creativity and innovation are critically important for organizations seeking to survive and thrive in today’s highly turbulent business environments (Kanter, 1983; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1997; Utterback, 1994). In the face of the current uncertainty in domestic and international financial markets, along with increasingly intense competition fueled by globalization, many of the world’s most successful companies are adopting a new corporate business model based largely on using individual creativity to facilitate organizational innovation (e.g. McGregor, 2007). In order to build The authors thank Teresa Amabile and Pam Tierney for helpful comments and feedback on their creativity constructs and measures. and sustain an organizational culture dominated by creativity and innovation, organizations must effectively identify and mobilize the creative resources of their members. When organizational members perceive a work environment that restricts or fails to encourage individual creative expression, a gap may exist between the level of individual creative potential and the actual amount of individual creativity practiced within the organization. Leadership development may represent one important key for unlocking this idle creative potential and enhancing overall organizational effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to develop and test a hypothesized model of leadership development and creativity in organizations. In short, we will examine the potential role of adult leadership development in moderating the relationship between perceived support for creativity and individual creativity as well as the potential role of youth leadership development in moderating the relationship between creative self-efficacy and individual creativity. Our hypothesized model of leadership development and creativity is presented in Figure 1. In the following sections we will develop and present our model on the basis of supporting theoretical and empirical evidence along with accompanying research hypotheses for subsequent analysis. Leadership development 231 Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity Creativity is a multifaceted concept that has been defined in a variety ways (e.g. Barron and Harrington, 1981; Guilford, 1950; Martindale, 1989; Sternberg and Lubart, 1999). Given the common themes across the various definitions, we join previous researchers (e.g. Amabile, 1983; Stein, 1974; Woodman et al., 1993) in defining creativity as the process of forming novel, useful and appropriate ideas in order to solve problems and increase effectiveness. Our conceptualization of creativity is distinct from the related concept of innovation. Although these terms have sometimes been used interchangeably or as a single competency, we view creativity as an individual or team level process, while innovation involves the successful implementation of creative ideas at the organizational level (Amabile, 1988; Cummings, 1965; Woodman et al., 1993). Given this viewpoint, individual creativity is a necessary but insufficient condition for successful organizational innovation, which in part can be driven by other factors (Amabile et al., 1996). Figure 1. Hypothesized model of leadership development and creativity LODJ 31,3 232 A strong internal belief in one’s ability to successfully engage in creative behaviors is generally considered an important part of the creative process (Amabile, 1983; Bandura, 1997; Ford, 1996; Tierney and Farmer, 2002). Indeed, self-efficacy beliefs for engaging in creative behaviors appear to be critically important in helping individuals to persist in their creative endeavors, especially in the face of difficult or challenging situations (Tierney and Farmer, 2002). Simply stated, creative self-efficacy is the subjective belief in one’s personal ability to be creative, that is, a personal assessment of one’s own creative potential (Tierney and Farmer, 2002). Creative self-efficacy is a specific application of Bandura’s (1997) conceptualization of self-efficacy as a targeted perception of capacity that involves viewing oneself as being good at creative problem solving and novel idea generation. Similar to the concepts of creative capability beliefs and creative self-image (Ford, 1996), creative self-efficacy is usually considered to be distinct from other self-views such as self-esteem and self-confidence, which involve broader and more generalized feelings. Creative self-efficacy, on the other hand, involves a specific judgment regarding the capacity for creative action (Tierney and Farmer, 2002). The greater the creative self-efficacy possessed by an individual, the more likely the individual will be to perceive opportunities to actually apply their creative potential in the form of creative action. Although this relationship could possibly be attenuated by factors such as a bad fit between the person and the job (Cummings and Oldham, 1997; Farmer et al., 2003; O’Reilly et al., 1991) or an organizational environment that does not support individual creative behavior (Amabile et al., 1996; Cummings et al., 1975; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Woodman et al., 1993), this relationship is still likely to be strongly positive. Indeed, in one of the few studies to empirically examine the role of creative self-efficacy in the creative process, Tierney and Farmer (2002) reported that creative self-efficacy predicted job performance above and beyond the effects of job self-efficacy. Hence, based on this theoretical and empirical evidence, we predict: H1. Creative self-efficacy will be positively related to individual creativity. Perceived organizational support for creativity The broad concept of perceived organizational support (POS) has received a significant amount of attention from researchers over the past two decades as evidenced by the large number of empirical studies on the subject (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Social exchange theory (e.g. Eisenberger et al., 1986) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) suggest that if one party treats another party well, the rewarded party will be compelled to return the favor. POS theory expands on this basic concept of reciprocity by specifying that in return for outcomes such as fair procedures, supervisory support, favorable job conditions and other rewards, employees will provide inputs such as reduced absenteeism and turnover along with increased organizational commitment and performance (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Empirical research on POS has generally supported these assertions. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of more than 70 studies reported significant relationships between POS and a variety of outcome variables including affective commitment, job satisfaction, positive mood at work, job involvement, and a desire to remain with the organization (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). In addition to these linkages, researchers have often suggested a relationship between POS and individual creativity (e.g. Amabile, 1988; Cummings et al., 1975, Shalley, 1995; Woodman et al., 1993; Zhou and George, 2001). Indeed, some theorists have identified perceived organizational support for creativity as a specific type of POS, defining it in terms of the extent to which employees perceive encouragement, respect, rewards, and recognition from the organization for those who demonstrate creativity (Zhou and George, 2001). Several popular models of individual creativity and innovation in organizations include the basic concept of perceived support for creativity. For example, Mumford and Gustafson (1988) identify a number of environmental conditions that may support innovation and creativity, including valued rewards, autonomy, risk taking, and alternate viewpoints. In a similar vein, Woodman and colleagues’ (1993) model of creativity suggests that an organizational environment supports creativity when leadership is more democratic and collaborative, when structures are more organic than mechanistic, when groups contain a diversity of individuals, and when training focuses on idea generation and the problem-solving skills needed for creativity. Likewise, Ford’s (1996) model of creativity contends that absorptive capacity, disposition toward risk, and the extent to which an organization is willing to pursue creative and risky courses of action are the primary factors that influence an organization’s ability to support creative action. Finally, Amabile’s (1988) classic model of innovation and creativity suggests that three elements combine to support and encourage creativity and innovation: (1) organizational motivation, defined as the encouragement of acceptable levels of risk coupled with the practice of challenging the status quo; (2) organizational resources, including the people, equipment, tools, training and other types of supporting mechanisms; and (3) supportive management practices, including autonomy and informative competency-focused evaluations. In short, these models suggest that organizations must increase the stimulants and remove barriers in order to support individual creativity and enhance organizational innovation. Based on the creativity theory reviewed here, we advance: H2. Perceived organizational support for creativity will be positively related to individual creativity. Leadership development Over the past few years, more and more attention has been focused on leadership development, as evidenced by the large numbers of both academic and practitioner-focused books and articles on the subject (e.g. Byrne and Rees, 2006; Day, 2001; McCauley and Van Velsor, 2004; Pearce, 2007). Leadership development may be defined as a process of expanding the capacity of individuals to assume leadership roles and to engage effectively in leadership processes (Day, 2001; McCauley and Van Velsor, 2004). Leadership development may take place formally, through a specific training program or planned course of experiences, or more informally, through 360-degree feedback, executive coaching, mentoring, networking, job assignments and action learning (Day, 2001). Although many scholars have argued that leadership development is a critical success factor for long-term organizational effectiveness (e.g. Conger and Benjamin, 1999), it is all too often viewed as an Leadership development 233 LODJ 31,3 234 unnecessary luxury by organizational leaders focused on the bottom line and immediate short-term results (Ruvolo et al., 2004). Quite to the contrary, we see leadership development as a key for unlocking and mobilizing individual creativity in organizations. In addition, although the vast majority of the literature on leadership development has focused on adults, we suggest that both adult and youth leadership development have important but differential effects on organizational creativity. Adult leadership development is commonly explained in terms of a selection, optimization, compensation (SOC) model (e.g. Baltes, 1997; Mumford and Manley, 2003). The SOC framework suggests that leadership capabilities and capacities are developed via a dynamic interaction between individuals and their environments (Mumford et al., 2007). According to this view, the leadership development process is shaped by the situations that individuals choose for themselves or are allowed to enter into by their organizations. More precisely, selection for participation in adult leadership development usually happens in two ways: organizational selection and self-selection (Mumford et al., 2007). Organizational decision makers are more likely to select people who have certain relevant skills, abilities, and characteristics that make them “visible” in the organization (Fiedler, 1996). Furthermore, in the context of developing leaders for creative efforts, organizations will tend to actively choose and perhaps even recruit for further development those individuals who already have some expertise and problem solving skills within the creative domains in which they will be operating (Mumford et al., 2007). Selection is not limited, however, to the choices made by the organization. Self-selection processes are also likely to be operating as individuals make choices regarding the kinds of roles they will accept and the kinds of leadership development opportunities they will seek (Mumford et al., 2007). As noted above, organizations are more likely to select highly valued and visible members to participate in leadership development and other training activities ( Johlke et al., 2002). Providing the opportunity to participate in leadership development activities is usually viewed by employees as a very positive action on the part of the organization and one that communicates the organization’s care and concern for the well-being of its members (Nadler and Nadler, 1989). In fact, empirical research has suggested a relationship between discretionary employee development opportunities and perceived organizational support (Wayne et al., 1997; Tansky and Cohen, 2001). Although there is no single “magic bullet” leadership development intervention that will provide all of the capabilities and capacities necessary for creative action, many interventions focus on providing technical expertise, creative thinking skills, organizational knowledge and other key competencies related to leadership and creative processes (Mumford et al., 2002; Mumford et al., 2007). Given the theoretical and empirical evidenced outlined above, it seems reasonable to suggest that adult leadership development will intensify the effects of perceived organizational support in enhancing perceptions of opportunities to engage in creative behaviors in the workplace. We therefore assert: H3. Involvement in adult leadership development activities will moderate the relationship between perceived organizational support for creativity and individual creativity such that the relationship will be significantly stronger for those individuals who have participated in adult leadership development activities than for those who have not. The process of leadership development is not limited to adults working in organizations. Although it is a relatively new area of research, youth leadership development has been a recognizable phenomenon in the US for several decades with organizations such as 4-H, the Boy and Girl Scouts, clubs, churches and civic groups employing a variety of strategies to develop young people for future leadership roles (Libby et al., 2006). Recently, researchers have begun to acknowledge the importance of youth leadership development within the larger context of youth development processes in general (e.g. Kress, 2006). Youth leadership development may be defined as experiences, ranging from highly structured to very informal, that allow young people to develop the competencies necessary to effectively lead others (Zeldin and Camino, 1999). Although youth leadership development efforts resemble leadership development efforts at the adult level, some scholars have suggested that youth leadership development tends to focus more on skill and knowledge acquisition than does adult leadership development, which tends to focus more on influence and decision-making (e.g. MacNeil, 2006). In addition, many youth leadership development programs focus either explicitly or implicitly on helping students to mobilize their creative potential. Furthermore, research on the development of creativity in children suggests that childhood developmental experiences can be predictive of subsequent creativity in adulthood (Runco, 2006; Russ, 1996). Based on this evidence, we suggest that children who are involved youth leadership development activities gain experience and skills in finding opportunities in their environments to apply their creative potential and that these experiences and skills will transfer into adulthood. We thus posit that adults who were involved in youth leadership development activities as children will be more likely to perceive opportunities to apply their creative potential by engaging in creative actions than adults who were never involved in youth development activities. Specifically: H4. Involvement in youth leadership development activities will moderate the relationship between creative self-efficacy and individual creativity such that the relationship will be significantly stronger for those individuals who have participated in youth leadership development activities than for those who have not. Methods Data and sample Primary data were collected by means of a web-based survey within the Army Contracting Agency, a strategic command within the United States Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD stresses the importance of leveraging workforce creativity in order to develop the critical new capabilities and competencies necessary for fulfilling its mission of averting enemy terrorization. Indeed, creativity and innovation have been identified by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) as ranking among the most effective means for facilitating the changes necessary for maintaining a competitive advantage. The data were gathered as part of a larger research program designed to examine a number of creativity-related issues within the DoD. A total of 693 individuals chose to participate in the survey out of a total workforce of approximately 1,900, yielding a 37 percent response rate. This response rate was better than average when compared with response rates for other surveys of federal employees and with response rates in general on surveys with a similar delivery Leadership development 235 LODJ 31,3 236 format (Sheehan, 2001). In the current survey, an invitation to participate was sent via two separate e-mails. The first e-mail included an informed consent notification, the purpose of the study, the approval and sponsorship of the study, a confidentiality statement and a link to the online survey. A second e-mail summarized the initial message, added a personal note, and provided a four-day extension along with a link to the online survey. A response rate check showed no indication of any type of systematic non-response bias with a fairly representative percentage response from each of nine regional offices. The average age of those surveyed was approximately 46 and the average job tenure was approximately 12 years. Cases were divided into four subsamples based on the subjects’ participation in adult and youth leadership development. Subsample 1 consisted of subjects who had participated in adult leadership development activities, subsample 2 consisted of subjects who had not participated in adult leadership development activities, subsample 3 consisted of subjects who had participated in youth leadership development activities, and subsample 4 consisted of subjects who had not participated in youth development activities. Listwise deletion for missing data resulted in final sample sizes of 289 (yes – adult LD), 344 (no – adult LD), 307 (yes – youth LD), and 326 (no – youth LD) for subsamples 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Measures All items were measured using a Likert-type scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree) and are shown in Table I along with reliability estimates for each scale dimension. Creative self-efficacy. Creative self-efficacy was measured using six items, four of which (items 1-4, Table I) were taken from Tierney and Farmer’s (2002) self-efficacy Items Creative self-efficacy scale a ¼ 0.84 1. I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas 2. I have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively 3. I have a knack for further developing the ideas of others 4. I am good at finding creative ways to solve problems 5. I have the talent and skills to do well in my work 6. I feel comfortable trying out new ideas Individual creativity scale a ¼ 0.84 7. I have opportunities to use my creative skills and abilities at work 8. I am invited to submit ideas for improvements in the workplace 9. I have the opportunity to participate on team(s) 10. I have the freedom to decide how my job tasks get done 11. My creative abilities are used to my full potential at work Table I. Measurement items and scale reliabilities Perceived organizational support for creativity scale a ¼ 0.94 12. People are recognized for creative work in this organization 13. Ideas are judged fairly in this organization 14. People are encouraged to solve problems creatively in this organization 15. This organization has a good mechanism for encouraging and developing creative ideas 16. People are encouraged to take risks in this organization 17. Rewards are given for innovative and creative ideas scale and two of which (items 5-6, Table I) were created for the present study in order to assess two additional nuances of creative self-efficacy not included in the existing items. One of the additional items assessed subjects’ perceptions regarding the extent to which they believe that they have the talent or expertise to do well in their work, while the other item measured subjects’ perceptions of the extent to which they feel that they possess the ability to take risks by trying out new ideas (see Amabile et al., 1999). The scale demonstrated good reliability with a ¼ 0:84. Individual creativity. Individual creativity was operationalized in terms of individual perceptions of opportunities to engage in creative behaviors using five items developed specifically for the current study (see Table I). A principal components analysis revealed a clean factor structure for our individual creativity construct relative to the other constructs in the present study with strong factor loadings (all . 0.60) and virtually no cross-loadings (none . 0.40) for any of the items, thus providing substantive evidence in support of the discriminant validity of our creativity constructs. The individual creativity scale demonstrated solid reliability with a ¼ 0:84. Perceived organizational support for creativity. Perceived organizational support for creativity was measured with six items (see Table I) from “KEYS: assessing the climate for creativity,” used with permission from the Center for Creative Leadership (Amabile et al., 1999). The KEYS scale has demonstrated fairly strong psychometric properties in past research (e.g. Mathisen and Einarsen, 2004) and showed very good reliability in the current study with a ¼ 0:94. Participation in leadership development. Two items were used to assess participation in youth and adult leadership development programs: “Have you participated, or are you now participating, in a formal Leadership Development Program?” and “As a child, did you participate in youth programs that helped you develop leadership skills?” If answering either question in the affirmative, subjects were then encouraged to respond with a brief description of the type of leadership development program they experienced. The DoD’s Defense Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP) and the Naval Facilities Leadership Development Initiative were the most often mentioned adult formal leadership development programs, while scouts (boy, girl, cub, eagle, etc), 4-H, church-based programs, and organized sports were the most frequently referenced youth leadership development activities. Analysis In order to test our hypotheses, we used the multi-group nested goodness-of-fit strategy in LISREL 8.53 as described by Jaccard and Wan (1996). This strategy tests the interaction effects of a qualitative moderator variable in two steps. The first step consists of determining a multi-group solution in LISREL in which separate parameter estimates are determined for each group along with an overall measure of model fit that considers both groups simultaneously. A nonsignificant chi-square statistic indicates an overall model that fits well across both groups. The demonstration of a good fitting overall model is a necessary prerequisite to moving on to the second stage of the analysis, which evaluates the proposed interaction effect. The interaction is tested by imposing an across-group equality constraint on the parameter of interest. In other words, the multi-group analysis is performed again but with the additional Leadership development 237 LODJ 31,3 238 constraint that the regression coefficients between the dependent and independent variables be equal in the two groups. If the two path coefficients are actually equal in the two populations, then the overall fit of the model in step two should not be adversely affected by this constraint. On the other hand, a significantly worse fitting overall model in step two indicates a substantial interaction effect (Jaccard and Wan, 1996). We used item-parceling techniques to simplify our model and to facilitate testing along the lines described above. In general, the use of item parcels allows for fewer parameter estimations and greater stability of estimates (e.g. Marsh et al., 1989). In addition, so long as items comprising latent constructs demonstrate unidimensionality, estimates should not vary significantly regardless of whether parcels or items are used (Sass and Smith, 2006). In addition, researchers have shown that when using items from a unidimensional scale, the parceling procedure is irrelevant (Little et al., 2002; Sass and Smith, 2006). In the current analysis, individual items for each construct were randomly divided, summed and averaged to create two parceled indicators for perceived organizational support for creativity, two parceled indicators for creative self-efficacy, and three parceled indicators for individual creativity. Item parcels are portrayed visually as part of our hypothesized model in Figure 1. Although not described in detail, we tested a number of alternative parceling methods and found no substantive differences in our subsequent findings. Results Standardized path estimates for the two adult leadership development subsamples are shown in Figure 2 with the estimates for the “Adult Leadership Development” group shown in bold and the estimates for the “No Adult Leadership Development” group shown in parentheses with measurement error effects omitted for clarity. Similarly, standardized path estimates for the two youth leadership development subsamples are shown in Figure 3 with the estimates for the “Youth Leadership Development” group shown in bold and the estimates for the “No Youth Leadership Figure 2. Standardized path estimates for adult leadership development Leadership development 239 Figure 3. Standardized path estimates for youth leadership development Development” group shown in parentheses with measurement error effects omitted for clarity. The hypothesized relationship between creative self-efficacy and individual creativity was significant (p , 0:001) across all four subsamples. Hence, H1 was fully supported. The hypothesized relationship between perceived organizational support for creativity and individual creativity was also significant (p , :001) across all four subsamples. Thus, H2 was also fully supported. Chi square goodness-of-fit statistics for the two adult leadership development subsamples are shown in Table II. As indicated in the table, the chi square difference of 5.15 between the multiple group model (Model 2) and the model with an equality constraint placed on the path between perceived organizational support for creativity and individual creativity (Model 3) was significant (p , 0:025). In contrast, the chi square difference of 0.17 between the multiple group model (Model 2) and the model with an equality constraint placed on the path between creative self-efficacy and individual creativity (Model 4) was not significant. Thus, H3 that involvement in adult Model 1. Null 2. Step 1: Multiple group model (No across-group constraint) 3. Step 2a: Equality constraint model (POS for creativity ! individual creativity) Model 3-2 difference 4. Step 2b: Equality constraint model (Creative self-efficacy ! individual creativity) Model 4-2 difference x2 df 2,714.51 42 46.50 22 51.65 23 46.67 x 2 difference df 5.15 1 0.17 1 23 Table II. Chi square goodness-of-fit statistics – adult leadership development groups LODJ 31,3 240 leadership development activities moderates the relationship between perceived organizational support for creativity and individual creativity was supported. Chi square goodness-of-fit statistics for the two youth leadership development subsamples are shown in Table III. As demonstrated in the Table II, the chi square difference of 0.005 between the multiple group model (Model 2) and the model with an equality constraint placed on the path between perceived organizational support for creativity and individual creativity (Model 3) was not significant. On the other hand, the chi square difference of .3.68 between the multiple group model (Model 2) and the model with an equality constraint placed on the path between creative self-efficacy and individual creativity (Model 4) was significant at the a ¼ 0:10 level and approached significance (c:v: ¼ 3:84) at the a ¼ 0:05 level. Thus, H4 that involvement in youth leadership development activities moderates the relationship between creative self-efficacy and individual creativity received moderate support. Discussion Our findings suggest that both adult leadership development and youth leadership development activities may play important roles in unlocking individual creativity in organizations. Based on our data, adult leadership development activities appear to magnify the effects of perceived organizational support for creativity on perceptions of opportunities to actually practice creativity. Similarly, it appears that participation in youth development activities in childhood may help organizational members to perceive opportunities to apply their creative potential even in the face of possible environmental obstacles within their organizations. These findings have important implications for today’s organizational leaders who want to assemble and mobilize the maximum level of creative resources available for their organization. First, given the possible role of youth leadership development experiences in facilitating individual creativity in adulthood, organizations may wish to consider certain types of childhood development experiences as behaviorally based predictors of future job success for jobs that require creativity. More specifically, behaviorally based interview questions could be designed to assess youth leadership development experiences as a means to help select individuals who may, as a result of their past experiences, be more adept at finding ways to use their creative potential in the workplace. Second, given the possible Model Table III. Chi square goodness-of-fit statistics – youth leadership development groups 1. Null 2. Step 1: Multiple group model (No across-group constraint) 2. Step 2a: Equality constraint model (POS for creativity ! individual creativity) Model 3-2 difference 4. Step 2b: Equality constraint model (Creative self-efficacy ! Individual creativity) Model 4-2 difference x2 df 2762.58 42 51.04 22 51.045 23 54.72 x 2 difference df 0.005 1 3.68 1 23 role of adult leadership development programs for facilitating individual creativity by intensifying the positive effects of perceived support for creativity on individual creativity, organizational decision makers should carefully consider making leadership development opportunities available to organizational members at all levels. Our findings are limited in several important ways. First, our sample consisted exclusively of employees from the Army Contracting Agency, a strategic command with the Department of Defense (DoD). We hasten to suggest that this kind of sample is actually especially appropriate for creativity research. Like many other contemporary organizations ranging from Apple Computers Inc. to General Electric that are currently embracing new corporate business models based largely on creativity and innovation, the DoD has recently placed a strong emphasis on mobilizing all available creative resources in order to maintain its competitive advantage. Nevertheless, as with any sample drawn from a single organization, the generalizability of our findings to other organizations of interest cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty. Second, our data was self-reported and collected through a single survey at a single point in time, causing some concern regarding possible measurement problems such as response set and social desirability biases. Yet despite their inherent limitations, self-reported items collected in a single administration are widely used in behavioral research, particularly in the measurement of cognition and other unobservable processes. Baldwin (2000) states that self-reports are valuable when “there is no other source for the information” (p. 3). Because the source of information investigated in the current study was at the individual level and was based on the perception, the personal experience, and the efficacy of the individual, the use of self-reports seems appropriate in this case. Third, our self-reported retrospective single item measurement of involvement in leadership development activities weakens the credibility of our findings. Although, as noted above, we asked study participants to describe their adult and youth leadership development and found high frequencies of responses focused on certain common development activities (e.g. scouting for youth development and a DoD leadership program for adult development), we have no way of knowing the full extent and the precise nature of the development activities experienced by each respondent. As discussed earlier, youth leadership development experiences tend to focus more on skill and knowledge acquisition while adult leadership development tend to focus more on influence and decision-making, but these distinctions are far from set in stone and the actual experiences of our subjects may have varied substantially. Youth development activities in particular are likely to differ both in their content and duration and therefore in their impact on creativity, especially given the considerable length of time since the development experience. A more effective approach would involve a longitudinal design that would more fully assess the nature of the leadership development activities experienced by the subjects before subsequently assessing their workplace creativity. Finally, although we have provided theoretical and empirical evidence in support of the idea that youth and adult leadership development activities may serve as important moderators that help to facilitate individual creativity in organizations, causality cannot be proven with empirical methodologies such as SEM. Indeed, it is possible that some other factors could be causing the relationships reported here. For example, it is possible that the creative benefits from participating in leadership development activities result not Leadership development 241 LODJ 31,3 242 from the experience itself but from the individual’s motivation, disposition or opportunity to participate in the activity. In conclusion, future researchers should continue to examine the role of both adult and youth leadership development in facilitating individual creativity in organizations across other samples of interest. For example, studies could be designed to directly assess the training effects of a specific leadership development program on the perceptions of opportunities to engage in creative behaviors among training participants. As mentioned above, there is also a need for longitudinal research designed to follow participants in youth leadership development activities into adulthood to more directly assess the efficacy of youth leadership development for facilitating creativity and other behaviors of interest in the workplace. Through studies such as these future researchers may be able to continue to aid organizational leaders in identifying ways to unlock creative potential in order to maximize organizational effectiveness in today’s turbulent and highly competitive business environments. References Amabile, T.M. (1983), “The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 357-76. Amabile, T.M. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 123-67. Amabile, T.M., Burnside, R.M. and Gryskiewicz, S.S. (1999), User’s Manual for KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC. Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), “Assessing the work environment for creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1154-84. Baldwin, W. (2000), “Information no one else knows: the value of self-report”, in Stone, A.A., Turkkan, J.S., Bachrach, C.A., Jobe, J.B., Kurtzman, H.S. and Cain, V.S. (Eds), The Science of Self-Report: Implications for Research and Practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, pp. 3-7. Baltes, P.B. (1997), “On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developing theory”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 366-80. Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman & Company, New York, NY. Barron, F. and Harrington, D.M. (1981), “Creativity, intelligence, and personality”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 439-76. Byrne, J.C. and Rees, R.T. (2006), The Successful Leadership Development Program: How to Build It and How to Keep it Going, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA. Conger, J.A. and Benjamin, B. (1999), Learning to Lead: How Successful Companies Develop the Next Generation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Cummings, A. and Oldham, G.R. (1997), “Enhancing creativity: managing work contexts for the high potential employee”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 22-38. Cummings, L.L. (1965), “Organizational climates for creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 220-7. Cummings, L.L., Hinton, B.L. and Gobdel, B.C. (1975), “Creative behavior as a function of task environment: impact of objectives, procedures, and controls”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 489-99. Day, D.V. (2001), “Leadership development: a review in context”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 581-613. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-7. Farmer, S.M., Tierney, P. and Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003), “Employee creativity in Taiwan: an application of role identity theory”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 618-30. Fiedler, F.E. (1996), “Research on leadership selection and training: one view of the future”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 241-50. Ford, C.M. (1996), “A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1112-42. Gouldner, A. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 53-62. Guilford, J.P. (1950), “Creativity”, American Psychologist, Vol. 5, pp. 444-54. Jaccard, J. and Wan, C. (1996), “LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression”, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences: Vol. 07-114, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Johlke, M.C., Stamper, C.L. and Shoemaker, M.E. (2002), “Antecedents to boundary-spanner perceived organizational support”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 116-29. Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change Masters: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the American Corporation, Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, NY. Kress, C.A. (2006), “Youth leadership and youth development: connections and questions”, New Directions for Youth Development, Vol. 109, pp. 45-56. Libby, M., Sedonaen, M. and Bliss, S. (2006), “The mystery of youth leadership development: the path to just communities”, New Directions for Youth Development, Vol. 109, pp. 13-25. Little, T., Cunningham, W., Shahar, G. and Widaman, K. (2002), “To parcel or not to parcel? Exploring the question, weighing the merits”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 151-73. McCauley, C.D. and Van Velsor, E. (2004), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. McGregor, J. (2007), “The world’s most innovative companies”, Business Week Online, May 4, p. 9. MacNeil, C.A. (2006), “Bridging generations: applying adult leadership theories to youth leadership development”, New Directions for Youth Development, Vol. 109, pp. 27-43. Marsh, H.W., Antill, J.K. and Cunningham, J.D. (1989), “Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny: bipolar and independent constructs”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 625-63. Martindale, C. (1989), “Personality, situation, and creativity”, in Glover, J.A., Ronning, R.R. and Reynolds, C.R. (Eds), Handbook of Creativity, Plenum Press, New York, NY. Mathisen, G.E. and Einarsen, S. (2004), “A review of instruments assessing creative and innovative environments within organizations”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 119-40. Mumford, M.D. and Gustafson, S.B. (1988), “Creativity syndrome: integration, application, and innovation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 27-43. Mumford, M.D. and Manley, G.G. (2003), “Putting the development in leadership development: implications for theory and practice”, in Murphy, S. and Riggio, R. (Eds), The Future of Leadership Development, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Leadership development 243 LODJ 31,3 244 Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B. and Strange, J.M. (2002), “Leading creative people: orchestrating expertise and relationships”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 705-50. Mumford, M.D., Hunter, S.T., Eubanks, D.L., Bedell, K.E. and Murphy, S.T. (2007), “Developing leaders for creative efforts: a domain-based approach to leadership development”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 402-17. Nadler, L. and Nadler, Z. (1989), Developing Human Resources, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 487-516. Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996), “Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 607-34. Pearce, C.L. (2007), “The future of leadership development: the importance of identity, multi-level approaches, self-leadership, physical fitness, shared leadership, networking, creativity, emotions, spirituality and on-boarding processes”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 355-9. Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714. Runco, M.A. (2006), “The development of children’s creativity”, in Spodek, B. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 121-31. Russ, S.W. (1996), “Development of creative processes in children”, in Runco, M.A. (Ed.), Creativity from Childhood through Adulthood: The Developmental Issues, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 31-42. Ruvolo, C.M., Petersen, S.A. and LeBoeuf, J.N.G. (2004), “Leaders are made not born: the critical role of a developmental framework to facilitate an organizational culture of development”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 10-19. Sass, D. and Smith, P. (2006), “The effects of parceling unidimensional scales on structural parameter estimates in structural equation modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 566-86. Shalley, C.E. (1995), “Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 483-503. Sheehan, K.B. (2001), “E-mail survey response rates: a review”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue 2/sheehan.html Stein, M.I. (1974), Stimulating Creativity, Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York, NY. Sternberg, R.J. and Lubart, T.I. (1999), “The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms”, in Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Tansky, J.W. and Cohen, D.J. (2001), “The relationship between organizational support, employee development, and organizational commitment: an empirical study”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 285-300. Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2002), “Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1137-48. Tushman, M. and O’Reilly, C.A. III (1997), Winning through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Utterback, J.M. (1994), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111. Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffen, R.W. (1993), “Toward a theory of organizational creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 293-321. Zeldin, S. and Camino, L. (1999), “Youth leadership: linking research and program theory to exemplary practice”, New Designs for Youth Development, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 10-15. Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2001), “When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 682-96. Further reading Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. About the authors Jeffery D. Houghton is an Associate Professor of Management and Director of the Master of Science in Human Resources and Industrial Relations (MSIR) program at West Virginia University. He has presented his research at various professional meetings and has published numerous articles in a variety of respected journals. He holds a PhD in Organizational Studies from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Jeffery D. Houghton is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jeff.houghton@mail.wvu.edu Trudy C. DiLiello is a Program Manager for the Naval Facilities Expeditionary Logistics Center. She was an instructor for the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) where she taught for eight years. Prior to joining the DAU, she was a Contracting Officer for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. She holds a Doctorate of Public Administration from the University of La Verne. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints Leadership development 245