Content uploaded by Sajid Bashir
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sajid Bashir on Oct 31, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcit20
Download by: [Capital University of Science & Technology] Date: 24 May 2016, At: 05:24
Current Issues in Tourism
ISSN: 1368-3500 (Print) 1747-7603 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20
Impact of ethical leadership on creativity: the role
of psychological empowerment
Basharat Javed, Atique Arif Khan, Sajid Bashir & Surendra Arjoon
To cite this article: Basharat Javed, Atique Arif Khan, Sajid Bashir & Surendra Arjoon (2016):
Impact of ethical leadership on creativity: the role of psychological empowerment, Current
Issues in Tourism
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1188894
Published online: 24 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Impact of ethical leadership on creativity: the role of psychological
empowerment
Basharat Javed
a
*, Atique Arif Khan
a
, Sajid Bashir
a
and Surendra Arjoon
b
a
Management and Social Sciences, Capital University of Science and Technology Islamabad,
Zone-V, Kahota Road Islamabad, Pakistan;
b
Department of Management Studies/Arthur Lok Jack
Graduate School of Business, The University of the West Indies, St Augustine Campus, St
Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago
(Received 2 March 2016; accepted 8 May 2016)
This study examines the relationship between ethical leadership and employee creativity
with mediating role of psychological empowerment. Data were collected from 183
supervisor–subordinate dyads in different hotels across Pakistan. Confirmatory factor
analysis confirmed the distinctiveness of variables used in our study. The results also
confirmed that ethical leadership promotes creativity at workplace, while
psychological empowerment mediates the effect of ethical leadership on creativity.
The cognitive evaluation theory was used to support findings. Implications are also
discussed.
Keywords: employee creativity; ethical leadership; psychological empowerment; hotel;
services Pakistan
Introduction
Creativity in business is of increasing concern in the research studies (Shalley & Zhou,
2008) and serves as a means of survival in an environment characterized by dynamic
changes (Amabile, 1996; Gourlay & McGrath, 2013; Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou,
2009; McMahon & Ford, 2012; Porter, 1998; Xia & Li-Ping Tang, 2011). Therefore, organ-
izations have focused on developing and fostering a culture of creativity (George & Zhou,
2001). Ethical leadership is seen as one of the main driving forces in developing and sus-
taining a culture of creativity. As such, the quest to understand ethical leadership continues
to be at the forefront among researchers, individuals, organizations, and societies across the
world (Gu, Tang, & Jiang, 2015).
In the current era, scholars have placed significant consideration on the contribution of
leadership in promoting creativity via developing new and novel ideas. Numerous studies
have found a positive relationship between ethical leadership, as well as, a negative
relationship between controlling/authoritative leadership and employee creativity
(Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Amundsen & Martinsen, 2015; Bryant,
2003; Gupta & Singh, 2015; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; McMahon & Ford, 2012; Shin
& Zhou, 2003; Tierney & Farmer, 2002,2004; Wang & Zhu, 2011). Ethical leaders:
build community, have effective communication with their subordinates, (Brown,
Treviño, & Harrison, 2005) and promote an environment which encourages innovative
thinking (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002).
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
*Corresponding author. Email: basharatmsedu@hotmail.com
Current Issues in Tourism, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1188894
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
Creativity in an organizational setting is a non-routine task and therefore ways to foster
creativity warrant serious consideration and commitment fromthe top in recognizing it as a pri-
ority for the organization. Creativity requires breaking the rules of traditional thinking, taking
risks, creating constructive conflict, and challenging authority (Baucus, Norton, Baucus, &
Human, 2008). In addressing the creative process to bring about these requirements, ethical
leaders recognize the need to promote psychological empowerment among their employees.
Psychologically empowered employees are intrinsically motivated, competent, and self-deter-
mined. Psychological empowerment therefore encourages creativity (Seibert, Wang, & Court-
right, 2011). It therefore appears that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship
between ethical leadership and employee creativity (Chughtai, 2014).
The majority of ethical management scholarship usually describes the influence of
ethical leadership on the outcomes of societal learning or societal exchange (Brown &
Treviño, 2006; Brown et al., 2005; Chughtai, 2014). However, Tu and Lu (2013) used a
different approach and explained the psychological mechanism between ethical leadership
and creativity through cognitive evaluation theory (CET) based on the tenet that external
factor enhances employees’autonomy and competence, and therefore employees involve
their selves in the process of developing new ideas. In particular, CET provides the rationale
for considering factors that are at the basis of psychological empowerment through increas-
ing autonomy and developing competence. Following this line of study, we used CET fra-
mework to explain the psychological mechanism (e.g. psychological empowerment)
between ethical leadership and creativity. Ethical leadership could improve the followers’
internal empowerment by providing meaning, proficiency, self-resolve, and the impact
that will inspire employees to be creative.
In summary, our study contributes to the extant ethical leadership literature in several
ways: (1) we explore and provide a more insightful understanding of how the characteristics
of ethical leadership can empower employees to be creative through psychological empow-
erment, (2) we utilize CET to explain the process of how ethical leadership influences
employee creativity through the mediation of psychological empowerment, and (3) we
identify the implications of this research which can help organizations to better understand
and develop key knowledge of ethical leadership that can improve creativity. The concep-
tual model showing the proposed relationships is presented in Figure 1.
Literature review and hypothesis development
Ethical leadership and creativity
Brown et al. (2005, p. 120) defined ethical leadership as ‘the demonstration of normatively
appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
2B. Javed et al.
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement,
and decision making’. Ethical leaders are seen as leaders who have the following charac-
teristics: honesty, integrity, care for others, altruism, visibility, group determination,
reliability, supporting proper rights, along with their particular conduct as principled
folks who create well-balanced judgements (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Oldham and Cum-
mings (1996) stated that employees show more creativity when directed in an encouraging
and supportive manner. Here, it is imperative to differentiate between the concepts of crea-
tivity and innovation. Creativity represents ‘the production of novel and useful ideas in any
domain’, while ‘innovation is the successful implementation of creative ideas within an
organization’(Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996, p. 1155). Creativity indi-
cates the starting point of innovation, but it should be noted that it is not the only condition
for innovation. Innovation comes from many factors, for example, technology transfer may
also result in innovation (Amabile et al., 1996).
Creativity refers to the generation of novel and useful ideas relating to products, ser-
vices, processes, and procedures (Madjar et al., 2002; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). Creativity
seeks out new work means and novel ideas related to developing new opportunities
(Amabile, 1983). Seeking new opportunities forces employees to disagree with leader
(Cheung & Wong, 2011). Thus, employees need supportive behaviour of leader to
perform a non-routine role of creativity (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1987). In this regard,
ethical leaders develop sincere and compassionate relationship with followers who perceive
them as supportive in promoting their creativity. Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999) empha-
sized the quality of the relationship between the leader and the follower based on leader–
member exchange theory and found that a positive relationship improved employee crea-
tivity. Other studies found a positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee
creativity (Chughtai, 2014; Ma, Cheng, Ribbens, & Zhou, 2013). We therefore hypothesize
that:
H1: Ethical leadership is positively related to employee creativity.
Ethical leadership and psychological empowerment
Psychological empowerment is conceptualized as an experienced mental state or band of
cognitions. Conger and Kanungo (1988, p. 474) defined psychological empowerment as
‘a process of heightening feelings of employee self-efficacy through the identification of
conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organiz-
ational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information’. Empowerment
involves the concept of decentralization decision-making authority that is giving lower
level employees decision-making responsibilities and ensuring that they have the resources
to take decisions on their own (Barton & Barton, 2011; Mills & Ungson, 2003; Pardo del
Val & Lloyd, 2003). These are some characteristics promoted by ethical leadership (Shalley
& Zhou, 2008).
Ethical leaders consider each employee’s developmental needs and strengths in order to
place them in positions in which there is a strategic fit (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Zhou,
1998). Such leaders deal with their employees with respect, rather than managing them
simply as a means to an end, particularly with regard to organizational outcomes and pro-
ductivity. Ethical leaders are adept at increasing: employees’self-respect and confidence;
level of ownership; team members’development and growth; and alignment between the
employees’ambitions and the organization’s goals (May et al., 2004; Zhu, 2008; Zhu,
May, & Avolio, 2004). In summary, ethical leadership protects and promotes employees’
rights, dignity, and autonomy which can result in psychological empowerment. Researchers
Current Issues in Tourism 3
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
have found this positive relationship between ethical leadership and psychological empow-
erment (Chughtai, 2014; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Den Hartog & De Hoogh, 2009; Tu & Lu,
2013; Walumbwa et al., 2011). We therefore hypothesize that:
H2: Ethical leadership is positively related to psychological empowerment.
Psychological empowerment and employee creativity
Creativity refers to the generation of original and practical ideas or problem elucidation
on products, processes, or services that are appropriate to the problem or opportunity pre-
sented (Zhou & George, 2003). As per this definition, creativity means generating new
ideas that are both novel and useful. The unique ideas with practicality indicate their
novelty as well as usefulness, and contribute both directly and indirectly to the organiz-
ation both in the short term and in the long term (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Crea-
tivity can therefore be considered a type of non-routine task in which employees go
beyond the standard operating procedures through psychological empowerment in the
development of new ideas.
Whilst employees identify that their job requirements are significant and personally
important, they exert additional effort to view a problem from numerous viewpoints
(Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Additionally, when they believe that they have the ability
and are given the requisite means to execute employment productively, they possess a
certain scope of self-determination above job set-up. They therefore can easily shape
ideal outcomes as a result of their behaviour and actions and they are more likely to
focus on idea generation and solution-oriented outcomes in a more attentive and persist-
ent manner (Deci & Ryan, 1991; Spreitzer, 1995; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Consequently,
psychologically empowered employees would tend to demonstrate more creativity in the
organization. Moreover, previous research supports the link between psychological
empowerment and creativity (Seibert et al., 2011; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). We therefore
hypothesize that:
H3: Psychological empowerment is positively related to creativity.
Mediating role of psychological empowerment
Chughtai (2014) identified the causal function of psychological empowerment linking
ethical leadership and creativity. In our study, we also examine the mediating role of
psychological empowerment between ethical leadership and creativity, but based on a
CET framework. CET framework explains the process of locus of causality mediating
the evaluation and motivation relationship (Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001). Deci and
Ryan (1980,1985) and Ryan (1982) stated that CET explained the situational factors that
either increase or decrease the employees’motivation to perform a given role. This
theory stated two aspects of situational factors like controlling as well as informational
aspect, which affect the employees’judgement of their competences and self-determination
of a particular task. Controlling aspect of situational factors brings employees under some
particular constraints and therefore pressurizes them to meet certain outcomes. However,
informational aspect of contextual factors provides important information to employees
regarding their task competency and self-determination without pressurizing them to
behave in a defined way. Thus, informational aspect plays a significant role in employees’
self-determination and competencies (psychological empowerment) regarding the given
task role.
4B. Javed et al.
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
By incorporating aspects of this framework, Spreitzer (1995) explored four dimensions
of psychological empowerment that include meaning, competence, self-determination, and
impact. Within the CET framework, meanings and impact of the job are viewed as initiators
of individuals’intrinsic task motivation, while competence and self-determination or auton-
omy increases task-related motivation (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). Based on this argu-
ment along with the depiction of ethical leadership, we argue that employees’perception of
ethical leadership can invoke task-related motivation such as psychological empowerment.
Ethical leaders serve as informational aspect of contextual factors. Ethical leaders align
workers’expertise with their work role and emphasize the significance of the workers’input
(May et al., 2004; Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, & Folger, 2010) which result in increasing
employees’empowerment (Avey, Wernsing, & Palanski, 2012). Ethical leadership further-
more supports employees in making tough ethical decisions and seek effective training
opportunities for them which results in developing greater feelings of empowerment
(Shalley & Zhou, 2008). Zhou (1998) also found that employees show more willingness
to take risks and generate creative ideas when they work in a high-task autonomous
work environment. Furthermore, psychologically empowered employees show more crea-
tivity (Rahman, Panatik, & Alias, 2014). Studies supports the linkage between psychologi-
cal empowerment and employee creativity (Janssen, 2005; Tierney & Farmer, 2011; Sun,
Zhang, Qi, & Chen, 2012; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993; Zhang & Bartol, 2010).
We therefore hypothesized the following relationship:
H4: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and
employee creativity.
Methodology
Sample and procedure
The data were collected under a study programme that aimed to look at the ethical leadership
and creativity relationship in employees working in different hotels (five, four, three, and two
stars) of the hospitality industry in Pakistan. Five stars hotels were Sarena hotel, Moven stag,
and Avari Hotel, four starts hotels like Hotel Grand Ambassador, Shangrila Hotel, Rose
Palace Hotel, Hospitality Inn, and Smart Hotel, three starts hotels comprise of New Cape
Grace Guest House, Envo Continental Hotel, Hotel one Gulberg, Hotel one Downtown,
Lahore Continental Hotel, Best Western Lahore, and Vacation Rentall Villas and finally,
Capeton Guest House, White Rose Guest House, and Swiss Cottage were two stars hotel
included in the final sample. Wahab and Cooper (2001) state that the services sector is
facing high environmental uncertainties and one of their goals is to find avenues for improv-
ing services. The industry has placed emphasis on capitalizing on employees’capability to
develop innovative ideas to improve service quality (Chang & Lee, 2015; Guttentag, 2015;
Hon, 2012; Javed, Bashir, Rawwas, & Arjoon, 2016;Lusch,Vargo,&O’Brien, 2007;
Mei, Arcodia, & Ruhanen, 2013; Ottenbacher, 2007;Richards,2014;Tsai&Lee,2014).
Thus, the hospitality industry was selected due to its focus on innovation.
Before disseminating the questionnaires, supervisors handling operations at different
departments were contacted to enquire about their willingness to take part in the investigation
and to ascertain the number of persons who would like to participate. Data were collected
from two sources: supervisors and their subordinates. The subordinate questionnaire included
the independent variable and mediator variables (ethical leadership and psychological
empowerment), and control variables (demographic variables), whereas the supervisor ques-
tionnaire included the mediator variable (psychological empowerment) and dependent
Current Issues in Tourism 5
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
variable (employee creativity). Data were collected from supervisors as well their subordi-
nates using a time lag of thirty (30) days between them in order to promote a more effective
understanding of the relationships among the Constructs that comprise our study.
Three hundred questionnaires were administered with 197 returned. The final sample
included one hundred and eight-three (183) supervisor subordinate dyads, after removing
14 sets due to missing data. The overall response rate was 61%. For subordinates, the majority
of sample members were male 73.8% and females were only 26.2%. In age category, 1.1%
were 22 years and under, 18% were in the range 23–26, 35.5% were in the range 27–30,
19.7% were in the range 27–30, and 25.7% were over 34 years. With respect to employees’
qualification, 27.9% attained their bachelor’s degree, 48.1% had master’s degrees, and 24%
had MS/M. Phil. degrees. With respect to employees’years of work experience, 49.2% were
in the 1–5 category, 25.7% were in the 6–10 category, 5.5% were in the 11–15 category, 9.3%
were 16–20 category, and 10.4% were 20 years and above. These demographics show a well-
represented approximation of the population of interest.
Survey measures
Five-point Likert scales with descriptors of strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) were
used to measure ethical leadership, psychological empowerment, and employee creativity.
With respect to ethical leadership, respondents completed the 10-item ethical leadership
scale developed by Brown et al. (2005). Sample items include ‘my supervisor disciplines
employees who violate ethical standards’, and ‘my supervisor discusses business ethics or
values with employees’. With respect to psychological empowerment, employees com-
pleted the 12-item psychological empowerment scale developed by Spreitzer (1995).
Sample items include ‘I am confident about my ability to do my job’and ‘I can decide
on my own how to go about doing my work.’With respect to creativity, leaders completed
the 13 items developed by George and Zhou (2001). A sample item is ‘Suggests new ways
to achieve goals or objectives.’Previous research has shown that gender, age, qualification,
and experience may affect employee creativity (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Scott &
Bruce, 1994; Shin & Zhou, 2003,2007). In our study, we found that these demographic
variables had no effects on employee creativity. Data used in our study were collected
from two separate sources (employees and their immediate supervisors) in order to avoid
the effect of common method variance which may affect the validity of research findings
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
Results
Validity analyses (common method bias)
We first conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to validate the distinctiveness of the
variables in this study. Table 1 shows that the model fits the data well (IFI = .91, TLI = .89,
CFI = .90, RMSEA = .05) (Hinkin, 1998; Steiger, 1990). These CFAs results confirmed the
satisfactory discriminant validity and showed the absence of common method bias.
Table 1. Measurement model.
Model RMSEA IFI TLI CFI
Original model .18 .70 .68 .70
Revised .05 .91 .89 .90
6B. Javed et al.
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
Descriptive statistics and correlation
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and the alpha reliabilities.
Ethical leadership was significantly correlated with psychological empowerment (r= 470,
p< .01) and employee creativity (r= .348, p< .01) and in the expected directions. Psycho-
logical empowerment was significantly correlated with employee creativity (r= .520,
p< .01) and in the expected direction.
Hypothesis testing
Table 3 shows the results from the regression analysis. Results show a positive and signifi-
cant relationship between ethical leadership and employee creativity (as indicated by
un-standardized regression coefficient (B=.138, t=2.011, p=.046) and so H1 (ethical lea-
dership is positively related to employee creativity) was not rejected. Results also show a
positive and significant relationship between ethical leadership and psychological empow-
erment (as indicated by unstandardized regression coefficient (B=.426, t=6.826, p=.000)
and so H2 (ethical leadership is positively and significantly related to psychological
empowerment) was not rejected. Results show a positive and significant relationship
between psychological empowerment and employee creativity (as indicated by un-standar-
dized regression coefficient (B=.497, t=6.782, p=.000) and so H3 accepted (psychologi-
cal empowerment is positively and significantly related to employee creativity). Finally,
results indicated that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between
ethical leadership and employee creativity as bootstrapped 95% confidence interval
around the indirect effect did not contain zero (.126, .348).Therefore, H4 (psychological
Table 2. Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations among variables.
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Gender 1.26 .44 –
2 Age 3.50 1.10 .08 –
3 Qualifications 3.96 .72 .10 .18 –
4 Experiences 2.06 1.36 −.06 .72** .12* –
5 Ethical Leadership 3.92 .48 −.04 .08 −.11* .112 (.82)
6 Psychological
Empowerment
3.56 .44 −.00 .14 −.06 −.152 .46** (.78)
7 Employee Creativity
2.70
3.62 .46 −.04 .10 −.03 .230** .34** .52**
(.72)
Notes: N= 183; Correlation is significant at 0.01 levels (two-tailed); Correlation is significant at 0.05 levels (two-
tailed); αreliabilities are given in parentheses.*p< .05.**p< .01.
Table 3. The mediating effect of psychological empowerment.
BSE tp
Ethical Leadership→Creativity .138 .068 2.012 .046
Ethical Leadership→Psychological Empowerment .426 .062 6.826 .000
Psychological Empowerment→Creativity .498 .074 6.782 .000
LL 95% CI UL 95% CI
Bootstrap results for indirect effect .12 .34
Notes: Un-standardized regression coefficients reported. Bootstrap sample size 1000. LL = lower limit; CI =
confidence interval; UL = upper limit.
Current Issues in Tourism 7
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
empowerment mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and employee creativ-
ity) was also not rejected.
Discussion and implications
The purpose of the present study was to validate the effect of ethical leadership on employee
creativity and examine the underlying mediator mechanism of psychological empowerment
between ethical leadership and employee creativity. The results showed a significant
relationship between ethical leadership and employee creativity, ethical leadership and
psychological empowerment, psychological empowerment and employee creativity, and
psychological empowerment was found to mediate the relationship between ethical leader-
ship and employee creativity.
The above results are aligned with the preceding studies which found that perception of
positive leadership can significantly influence and encourage employees to bind in creative
work (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Ma et al., 2013). Since creativity is a non-routine task
involving high risk, employees need support from leadership. The positive relationship
between ethical leadership and employee creativity demonstrates that ethical leaders who
are characterized by traits such as trustworthiness, fairness, and balanced decision (Brown
& Treviño, 2006; Brown et al., 2005) can influence their employees to be engaged in creative
behaviour. The result that ethical leadership significantly predicted psychological empower-
ment is also aligned with the previous studies. De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) explained
that ethical leadership raises the meaningfulness of work function, by demonstrating a clear
link between employees’collective responsibilities with organizational targets. This aspect
of ethical leadership can increase employees’self-efficacy, confidence, competence, and job
satisfaction. Furthermore, ethical leaders include employees within the decision-making
process, which ought to enable them to work autonomously on their assignments as well
as their jobs (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Piccolo et al., 2010).
Our study found that psychological empowerment significantly predicted employee
creativity. Zhang and Bartol (2010) discovered that when employees feel efficacious and
believe that they will shape desired outcomes via their actions, they may focus on a particu-
lar challenge more determinedly. Such employees show more intention to take risks and
create more unique ideas. As such, they are therefore more expected to show higher
degrees of creativity in their work. Since psychological empowerment was found to
mediate the relationship between ethical leadership and employee creativity in our
current study, ethical leaders should then allow employees to satisfy the three basic psycho-
logical needs of relatedness, competence, and autonomy. This in turn promotes psychologi-
cal empowerment (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009) which fosters
the creative process (Deci et al., 1989). Moreover, CET explains the effects of external con-
sequences on internal motivation. In our study, ethical leadership serves as an external
factor that promotes employees’internal motivation and they are therefore more willing
to engage in creative activities. Employees who perceive their leaders as ethical will
have greater job impact, autonomy, and competence in their work; in other words, this per-
ception realizes employees’psychological empowerment (Piccolo et al., 2010) and which
further promotes creativity (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Based on our empirical analysis using
the CET framework, we found that ethical leadership externally affected employees’
psychological empowerment that fostered their creativity.
Theoretically, this study confirmed the mediating role of psychological empowerment
between ethical leadership and employee creativity. It therefore offers a useful insight in
understanding the underlying mechanism through which ethical leadership influences
8B. Javed et al.
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
employee creativity based on the CET framework. These findings extend the previous find-
ings of Chughtai (2014) who found a mediating role of psychological empowerment
between ethical leadership and creativity. The significant contribution of our study is that
previous studies examined the effect of ethical leadership on consequential outcomes
such as the process of social learning and social exchange (Brown & Treviño, 2006;
Brown et al., 2005; Ma et al., 2013). However, our study introduces and utilizes a CET fra-
mework (Deci, 1975) in explaining the relationship between ethical leadership and
employee creativity with underlying mediator of psychological empowerment.
Our study has important connotations for managers. By demonstrating that ethical lea-
dership influences employee creativity, managers should develop an ethical leadership style
by highlighting ethics in workplace such as respecting the rights and dignity of others and
by providing an environment and work practice that would encourage employees to
develop new ideas that can be put into practice. Given that our study revealed that psycho-
logical empowerment acts as a mediator between ethical leadership and employee creativ-
ity, leaders should pay more attention in developing ways to psychologically empowering
employees. For example, leaders should motivate employees to understand the intrinsic
value of work rather than focus on external rewards, give employees significant autonomy
in doing their work, and help them understand the significance and impact of their work on
others. Furthermore, leaders should act as ethical role models for their employees and
organizations should follow proper human resource policies regarding ethical and moral
standards, especially in respect to psychological empowerment.
Conclusion
Our research provides some methodological and theoretical strengths that increase our
confidence in the results. First, in order to reduce the potential effects of common
methods and single-source bias, we collected data on ethical leadership, psychological
empowerment, and employee creativity from different hotels in the hospitality industry
across Pakistan. Second, we collected data related to ethical leadership and psychological
empowerment from employees and employee creativity from leaders. Third, we collected
responses from supervisors and their subordinates using a time lag of 30 days between
them in order to promote a more effective understanding of the relationships among the
constructs that comprise our study. Our study has also some limitations. The first limit-
ation was that sample size was relatively small. Increasing sample size can help more in
the generalizability of the results. Future studies should be conducted with a longitudinal
research design in order to capture the impact of situational factors. Second, we used
psychological empowerment in explaining the relationship between ethical leadership
and employee creativity; however, there are a number of other mediator variables that
can be considered such as intrinsic motivation, psychological safety, trust in leadership,
and creative self-efficacy.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,45(2), 357–376.
Current Issues in Tourism 9
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “the social psychology of creativity”.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environ-
ment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal,39(5), 1154–1184.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1987). Creative human resources in the R&D laboratory: How
environment and personality impact innovation. In R. L. Kuhn (Ed.), Handbook for creative and
innovative managers (pp. 501–530). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the
work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly,15(1),
5–32.
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2015). Linking empowering leadership to job satisfaction, work
effort, and creativity: The role of self-leadership and psychological empowerment. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1548051814565819.
Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in
creative work. The Leadership Quarterly,20(3), 264–275.
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Palanski, M. E. (2012). Exploring the process of ethical leadership:
The mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership. Journal of Business
Ethics,107(1), 21–34.
Barton, H., & Barton, L. C. (2011). Trust and psychological empowerment in the Russian work
context. Human Resource Management Review,21(3), 201–208.
Baucus, M. S., Norton, W. I. Jr., Baucus, D. A., & Human, S. E. (2008). Fostering creativity and inno-
vation without encouraging unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,81(1), 97–115.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The
Leadership Quarterly,17(6), 595–616.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspec-
tive for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes,97(2), 117–134.
Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and
exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,9(4), 32–44.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders’and other referents’normative expec-
tations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly,18(1), 35–48.
Chang, W. S., & Lee, Y. H. (2015). Policy momentum for the development of Taiwan’s cultural crea-
tive industries. Current Issues in Tourism,18(11), 1088–1098.
Cheung, M. F., & Wong, C. S. (2011). Transformational leadership, leader support, and employee
creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,32(7), 656–672.
Chughtai, A. A. (2014). Can ethical leaders enhance their followers’creativity? Leadership,
1742715014558077.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice.
Academy of Management Review,13(3), 471–482.
Courtright Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee crea-
tivity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement. Academy of Management Journal,53(1), 107–128.
De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with
leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’optimism:
A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly,19(3), 297–311.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal
of Applied Psychology,74(4), 580–590.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–80). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In
R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 38, perspectives on motivation
(pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’and ‘why’of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,11, 227–268.
10 B. Javed et al.
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2009). Empowering behaviour and leader fairness and integ-
rity: Studying perceptions of ethical leader behaviour from a levels-of-analysis perspective.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,18(2), 199–230.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to
creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,86(3), 513–524.
Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of team’s
engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management,30, 453–470.
Gourlay, A., & McGrath, R. G. (2013). The end of competitive advantage: How to keep your strategy
moving as fast as your business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Gu, Q., Tang, T. L. P., & 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.
Gupta, V., & Singh, S. (2015). Leadership and creative performance behaviors in R&D laboratories
examining the mediating role of justice perceptions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies,22(1), 21–36.
Guttentag, D. (2015). Airbnb: Disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommo-
dation sector. Current Issues in Tourism,18(12), 1192–1217.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires.
Organizational Research Methods,1(1), 104–121.
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity:
Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management
Journal,52(2), 280–293.
Hon, A. H. (2012). Shaping environments conductive to creativity: The role of intrinsic motivation.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,53(1), 53–64.
Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on
employee innovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,78
(4), 573–579.
Javed, B., Bashir, S., Rawwas, M. Y., & Arjoon, S. (2016). Islamic work ethic, innovative work be-
haviour, and adaptive performance: The mediating mechanism and an interacting effect. Current
Issues in Tourism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13683500.2016.1171830
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organ-
izational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly,14
(4), 525–544.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: Insights from service-
dominant logic. Journal of Retailing,83(1), 5–18.
Ma, Y., Cheng, W., Ribbens, B. A., & Zhou, J. (2013). Linking ethical leadership to employee crea-
tivity: Knowledge sharing and self-efficacy as mediators. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal,41(9), 1409–1419.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of
work and non work creativity support to employees’creative performance. Academy of
Management Journal,45(4), 757–767.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology,77(1), 11–37.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. (2009). How low does
ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes,108(1), 1–13.
McMahon, S. R., & Ford, C. M. (2012). Heuristic transfer in the relationship between leadership and
employee creativity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1548051812465894.
Mei, X. Y., Arcodia, C., & Ruhanen, L. (2013). Innovation and collaboration: The role of The
National Government in Norway. Tourism Analysis,18(5), 519–531.
Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment:
Organizational constitution and trust as controls. Academy of Management Review,28(1),
143–153.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of Management Journal,39(3), 607–634.
Ottenbacher, M. C. (2007). Innovation management in the hospitality industry: Different strategies for
achieving success. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,31(4), 431–454.
Current Issues in Tourism 11
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
Pardo del Val, M., & Lloyd, B. (2003). Measuring empowerment. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal,24(2), 102–108.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D. N. D., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between
ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior,31(2-3),
259–278.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & 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.
Porter, M. E. (1998). ‘Clusters and the new economics of competition’.Harvard Business Review,76,
77–90.
Rahman, A. A. A., Panatik, S. A., & Alias, R. A. (2014). The influence of psychological empower-
ment on innovative work behavior among academia in Malaysian research universities.
International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research,78, 108–112.
Richards, G. (2014). Creativity and tourism in the city. Current Issues in Tourism,17(2), 119–144.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive
evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,43(3), 450–461.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual
innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal,37(3), 580–607.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological
and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96(5), 981–1003.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual
factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly,15(1), 33–53.
Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2001). Effects of social-psychological factors on creative per-
formance: The role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and modeling experi-
ence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,84,1–22.
Shalley, C. E., & Zhou, J. (2008). Organizational creativity research: A historical overview. In C. E.
Shalley & J. Zhou (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual charac-
teristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management,30(6),
933–958.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence
from Korea. Academy of Management Journal,46(6), 703–714.
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.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement,
and validation. Academy of Management Journal,38(5), 1442–1465.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). ‘Structural model evaluation and modification’.Multivariate Behavioral
Research,25, 214–12.
Sun, L. Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level inves-
tigation. The Leadership Quarterly,23(1), 55–65.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship
to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal,45(6), 1137–1148.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of
Management,30(3), 413–432.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance
over time. Journal of Applied Psychology,96(2), 277–293.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee crea-
tivity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology,52(3), 591–620.
Tsai, C. T., & Lee, Y. J. (2014). Emotional intelligence and employee creativity in travel agencies.
Current Issues in Tourism,17(10), 862–871.
Tu, Y. D., & Lu, X. X. (2013). How ethical leadership influence employees’innovative work behav-
ior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics,116(2), 441–455.
Wahab, S., & Cooper, C. Eds. (2001). Tourisms in the age of globalization. London: Routledge.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011).
Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–member exchange,
12 B. Javed et al.
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes,115(2), 204–213.
Wang, P., & Zhu, W. (2011). Mediating role of creative identity in the influence of transformational
leadership on creativity: Is there a multilevel effect? Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies,18,25–39.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity.
Academy of Management Review,18(2), 293–321.
Xia, Y., & Li-Ping Tang, T. (2011). Sustainability in supply chain management: Suggestions for the
auto industry. Management Decision,49(4), 495–512.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement.
Academy of Management Journal,53(1), 107–128.
Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation:
Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,83(2), 261–276.
Zhou, J. (2008). New look at creativity in the entrepreneurial process. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal,2(1), 1–5.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the
expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal,44(4), 682–696.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intel-
ligence. The Leadership Quarterly,14(4), 545–568.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions
for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,22, 165–218.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Expanding the scope and impact of organizational creativity
research. Handbook of Organizational Creativity,28, 125–147.
Zhu, W. (2008). The effect of ethical leadership on follower moral identity: The mediating role of
psychological empowerment. Leadership Review,8(3), 62–73.
Zhu, W., May, D. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The impact of ethical leadership behavior on employee
outcomes: The roles of psychological empowerment and authenticity. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies,11(1), 16–26.
Current Issues in Tourism 13
Downloaded by [Capital University of Science & Technology] at 05:24 24 May 2016
