(PDF) Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leaders' Influence on Subordinate Creative Performance Across the Creative Process

Criticisms of the dominant leadership perspectives in the literature are increasing and, as such, a growing number of scholars are calling for more complex and conceptually sound theories of leadership. With a multi-faceted perspective on effective leadership, detailed conceptual underpinnings, and increasing body of empirical support, the Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic (CIP) model of leadership has the potential to address many of these concerns and substantively contribute to our understanding of effective leadership. Despite such advantages , however, wide scale proliferation of the model remains elusive. As such, this effort provides the first comprehensive review of the CIP model to analyze its potential to expand our understanding of leadership in science and practice. In doing so this review frames and organizes the existing CIP literature, identifies key strengths of the model, addresses key limitations of the model, and outlines future research opportunities that would benefit from adopting a CIP perspective.

Theories contrasting charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders hold that these three leader types display differences in how they construe and attempt to solve the problems encountered in leading others. To test this hypothesis, a measure examining differences among people in their preferred leadership style, charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic, was developed. Subsequently, people were asked to solve leadership problems in two domains. Solution quality and originality were evaluated. It was found that different types of leaders solved different types of problems successfully. However, these relationships varied as a function of domain and designation of the individual as a leader. The implications of these findings for understanding leadership types, and leader performance, are discussed.

It has been argued that leaders rely on case-based, or experiential, knowledge when attempting to solve organizational problems. To test this proposition, undergraduates were provided with instruction in strategies for working with cognitive (e.g. causes) or social (e.g. actors) knowledge in solving leadership problems. It was found that both forms of instruction contribute to better vision formation, better planning, and generation of more creative solutions to leadership problems. The effects of training were not moderated by time pressure. However, it was found that calling leaders' attention to threats could compensate for training. The implications of these findings for understanding leader cognition are discussed.

This art icle was downloaded by: [ Pennsylvania St at e Universit y] On: 14 February 2013, At : 10: 36 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Creativity Research Journal Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and subscript ion inf ormat ion: ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ hcrj 20 Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leaders' Influence on Subordinate Creative Performance Across the Creative Process Jef f rey B. Lovelace a & Samuel T. Hunt er a a Pennsylvania St at e Universit y Version of record f irst published: 08 Feb 2013. To cite this article: Jef f rey B. Lovelace & Samuel T. Hunt er (2013): Charismat ic, Ideological, and Pragmat ic Leaders' Inf luence on Subordinat e Creat ive Perf ormance Across t he Creat ive Process, Creat ivit y Research Journal, 25: 1, 59-74 To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10400419. 2013. 752228 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Full t erm s and condit ions of use: ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s- and- condit ions This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warrant y express or im plied or m ake any represent at ion t hat t he cont ent s will be com plet e or accurat e or up t o dat e. The accuracy of any inst ruct ions, form ulae, and drug doses should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem and, or cost s or dam ages what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h or arising out of t he use of t his m at erial. CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 25(1), 59–74, 2013 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2013.752228 Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leaders’ Inﬂuence on Subordinate Creative Performance Across the Creative Process Jeffrey B. Lovelace and Samuel T. Hunter Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 Pennsylvania State University Using the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic (CIP) model of leadership as a framework, 2 primary research questions were examined. First, when engaging in different tasks along the creative process, does leadership style inﬂuence the creative performance of subordinates? Second, how does the level of stress, to which subordinates are exposed, moderate the relationship between leadership style and creative performance? Hypotheses were tested using a laboratory-based design, where 336 participants engaged in 3 unique creative tasks speciﬁcally designed to represent the different steps along the creative process. The results indicate that charismatic leaders inﬂuence subordinate creative performance above and beyond pragmatic and ideological leaders on middle-stage creative tasks. Moreover, higher levels of stress decreased individual creative performance in terms of ratings of quality, but not originality. Additionally, stress had the least amount of impact on those individuals with a pragmatic leader. Implications and directions for future research are discussed. In today’s rapidly changing and highly competitive global environment, the ability of organizations to facilitate creative performance in their employees is critical to organizational survival and overall success (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Mumford & Licuanan, 2004; Mumford, Hunter, Eubanks, Bedell, & Murphy, 2007; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999; Tushman, Anderson, & O’Reilly, 1997). As a result of this requirement for greater creative production, organizations pay more attention to, and place higher premiums on, innovation in the workplace (Byrne, Mumford, Barrett, & Vessey, 2009; Hunter, Cassidy, & Ligon, 2011). To better Portions of this project were funded by the National Science Foundation (CMMI-0928644). Thanks to Jim Farr and Jose Soto for their keen insights and recommendations during the execution of this study. Additionally, thanks to the undergraduates in Pennsylvania State University’s Leadership and Innovation Lab for their dedication to this study from data collection to the completion of the coding process. Last, thank you to Shanann, Vander, Pepper Lynn, Melissa, and Celia Kate for their support. Correspondence should be sent to Samuel T. Hunter, Psychology, Industrial & Organizational Area, Pennsylvania State University, 111 Moore Building, State College, PA 16802. E-mail: samhunter@ psu.edu understand the creative process, researchers have examined multiple variables and their roles in facilitating creativity. Variables have included constructs such as climate, team inﬂuences, and motivation (Amabile, 1996; Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007). Despite demonstrating signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the work environment and creativity, leadership has not received as much attention as other variables (Byrne et al., 2009; Wang & Casmir, 2007). Facilitating and maintaining creative performance is a signiﬁcant issue for many leaders (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009). From the quickly developing technological market place to the complex combat environments of the war on terror, leaders are called upon to inspire new and creative solutions to solve dynamic problem sets. This ever-increasing responsibility on leaders makes it all the more important to understand the process by which leaders inﬂuence the creativity of their subordinates (Byrne et al., 2009; Redmond, Mumford & Teach, 1993; Wang & Casmir, 2007). Although limited, there is growing evidence that leadership behaviors, styles, and attributes inﬂuence creative performance (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Elenkov & Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 60 LOVELACE AND HUNTER Manev, 2009; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Redmond et al., 1993; Tierney et al., 1999). Central to our study is the idea that not all leaders use the same approach to achieve successful creative outcomes. In particular, an emerging model of leadership suggests that many outstanding leaders differ not in their ability to achieve creative outcomes, but in methods they utilize to attain creative success (Mumford, Bedell, Hunter, Espejo, & Boatman, 2006; Bedell-Avers, Hunter, & Mumford, 2008; Mumford, 2006). Different leaders employ and focus on different behaviors and tactics that lead to successful creative performance on the aggregate. These differences in leadership style inﬂuence performance in varying ways at different stages of the creative process. Consequently, tasks oriented toward speciﬁc stages of the creative process might be better suited to certain leadership styles. As such, this study ﬁrst tests whether certain leadership styles in the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic (CIP) model of leadership differ in their inspiration of higher levels of creative performance during speciﬁc stages of the creative process. The second focus of the study emerges from the realization that performance is a function of both the person and the situation (Choi, 2004; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Redmond et al., 1993; Tierney et al., 1999; Woodman, Sawyer, & Grifﬁn 1993). As an illustration, Byron, Khazanchi, and Nazarian (2010) conducted a meta-analysis examining the effect of stress on creativity and found that the effect of stress on creative performance depends on the level of the stress stimuli and the type of stress involved. The ﬁndings demonstrated that low stress-inducing scenarios increased creative performance and high stress-inducing scenarios decreased creative performance. Additionally, subordinates gave greater latitude to leaders and sought greater levels of comfort and guidance during times of stress. Accordingly, this study focuses how creative performance varies across different levels of stress and, more centrally, whether or not these relationships different for varying styles of leadership. CREATIVITY Most scholars agree that creativity is deﬁned as a product or process that is both original and effective (Barron, 1955; Runco & Jaeger, 2012; Stein, 1953; Woodman et al., 1993). At the most basic level, creative performance begins with the individual who is the key to seeking out and manipulating knowledge and concepts (Byrne et al., 2009; Redmond et al., 1993). Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, and Herron (1996) explained that creativity acts as a springboard for innovation that requires creative ideas from internal and external sources. Innovation, therefore, is appropriately deﬁned as the successful implementation of creative ideas. Ultimately, to achieve innovative products organizations must produce creative ideas which they must transition into innovative output. Therefore, creative performance requires success across a series of processes to achieve innovation. Lubart (2001) detailed the long history of the process approach to creativity, which is heavily inﬂuenced by the work of Dewey (1910), Wallas (1926), and later Guilford (1950). More recently, Mumford and colleagues have proposed the eight-step process model for creative thinking (Baughman & Mumford, 1995; Hunter, Freidrich, Bedell, & Mumford, 2007; Mumford, Baughman, Maher, Costanza & Supinski, 1997; Mumford, Mobley, Uhlman, Reiter-Palmon, & Doares, 1991). The eight core processes are problem construction, information gathering, concept selection, conceptual combination, idea generation, idea evaluation, implementation planning, and monitoring. The processes of this model represent different stages along the creative process meant to help with the overall understanding of creative cognition in organizations. Although presented as eight discrete linear stages, they are better represented as a series of dynamic, interrelated activities. For reasons of parsimony, some researchers have conceptualized the eight processes using the heuristic of early, middle, and late stage activities (Hunter, Cassidy, et al., 2011)—an approach consistent with other process models of creativity (Amabile, 1996). The leadership implications of viewing creativity as a process, rather than a singular phenomenon, are noteworthy for several reasons. First, a process perspective on creative performance implies that innovation will require success across many different individual, team, and organizational activities (Mumford & Hunter, 2005). That is, for innovative products to make it to market, organizations must succeed at early processes such as opportunity recognition, middle stage processes such as idea generation, and late stage processes such as implementation planning. Taken a step further, early models of leadership express that leaders vary with regard to their success across contexts (e.g., Fiedler, 1964, 1967; House, 1971). It stands to reason, then, that leaders may be more or less successful in the management of these varying creative processes—a contention observed in some studies of leading for innovation (e.g., Mumford et al., 2006). Thus, understanding which leadership styles are most effective for the facilitation of varying creative processes will prove useful. Although the creative process model provides an indication of what activities are necessary for innovation, it is important to note that performance across these activities is impacted by a number of organizational factors (Woodman et al., 1993). In their assessment of workplace climate for creativity, Amabile et al. Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 INFLUENCING CREATIVE PERFORMANCE (1996) found support for encouragement of creativity, autonomy, resources, pressures, and organizational impediments as the main conceptual categories of work environment factors that inﬂuence creativity. Due to their position of authority within a given organization, leaders are uniquely placed to inﬂuence all these factors. Therefore, leaders within organizations must react accordingly to the perceived need for creative performance today by ﬁnding methods to supplement, maintain, and even increase the creative performance of their employees (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009). A limited number of studies have examined the impact of leadership on creativity. Redmond et al. (1993) found that leader behavior contributed to problem construction and self-efﬁcacy which led to subordinate creativity. Choi et al. (2009) examined how leader behavior can have detrimental effects on creativity ﬁnding that aversive leadership and unsupportive organizational climate were negatively related to creativity. Atwater and Carmeli (2009) found that leader member exchange had a positive relationship with an employee’s feeling of energy which led to high involvement in creative work. Elenkov and Manev (2009) found a direct relationship between visionary-transformational leadership and the rate of innovation adoption in companies across 27 countries in the European Union. Although other examples exist, these should sufﬁce to make the basic point: Leadership impacts creative performance. The primary question that remains; however, is how do leaders facilitate innovation? Therefore, it is important to discuss on leadership and its role in eliciting creative performance. LEADERSHIP A main focus of this study is the examination of how certain leadership styles inﬂuence creative performance during speciﬁc tasks. The CIP model of leadership was developed based on the work of Max Weber (1924), who presented the three forms of management authority: traditional, rational, and charisma (Hunter, Cushenbery, Thoroughgood, Johnson, & Ligon, 2011). Mumford and colleagues’ CIP model of outstanding leadership used Weber’s framework to identify three classiﬁcations of leaders: charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic (Caughorn, 2010; Friedrich, 2010; Mumford, 2006; Mumford, Antes, Caughron, & Friedrich, 2008). The CIP theory generally proposes that there is no single method to be an effective leader. Rather, leadership styles vary and individuals can be successful without, for example, being loved or admired by their subordinates and instead achieve success via rational appeals (Mumford, Strange, & Bedell, 2006; Strange & Mumford, 2002). 61 Mumford, Scott, and Hunter (2006) proposed that the three leadership styles differ in a number of ways—ways that are most pronounced and evident during crises where sensemaking is sought by subordinates. According to the theory, leaders apply a prescriptive mental model that establishes the framework necessary to direct sense-making activities. These prescriptive mental models have seven factors that differentiate charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: time orientation, type of experience available, nature of outcomes sought, type of outcomes sought, focus in model construction, locus of causation, and general controllability of causation (Mumford, Scott, et al., 2006). Each leadership style and the speciﬁc behaviors they display are discussed below. Charismatic Leadership Charismatic leaders are future-goal oriented, stressing the importance of their vision of the future (Mumford et al., 2004; Mumford, Scott, et al., 2006). More speciﬁcally, they help their followers understand the problems they face by providing a sense of identity, establishing a perception of shared experiences and a shared future, and laying out a pathway to solve the problems, enabling followers to make decisions in accordance with the shared vision (Bedell, Hunter, Angie, & Vert, 2006). Bedell-Avers et al. (2008) explained that charismatic leaders depend on a future-oriented vision, ﬁnding success in ordered environments, stressing positive experiences, targeting the masses, and attempting to inﬂuence followers’ actions and not necessarily their understanding of a situation. Generally, charismatic leaders’ strengths are identiﬁed by their ability to communicate using follower-based appeals with well-developed engagement skills using emotional persuasion, eloquence, and focusing on followers’ social and personal needs (Mumford, Scott, et al., 2006). Ideological Leadership Bedell-Avers et al. (2008) summarizes ideological leader behavior as typically emerging in chaotic situations, focusing on a past vision, using negative experiences like past failures, appealing to a core group of followers, and attempting to inﬂuence the basic causes of a situation. Ideological leaders, like charismatic leaders, are characterized by their ability to make strong follower-based appeals. In some cases, ideological leaders may even make stronger appeals than charismatic leaders because they are based on shared beliefs and values. Ideological leaders establish an emotionally salient vision that is based on traditional values established on shared beliefs (Bedell et al., 2006). The power of shared ideals for ideological leaders lies in their ability to share their direction 62 LOVELACE AND HUNTER with key lieutenants increasing their ability to inﬂuence, and, when skilled at problem solving, their ability to conceptually integrate change and crisis with shared ideals (Mumford, Scott, et al., 2006). Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 Pragmatic Leadership Pragmatic leaders create solutions based on the threats and opportunities presented by the situation. BedellAvers et al. (2008) explained that pragmatic leaders stress neither goals nor causes, usually arising in stable environments with local opportunities, focusing on problemsolving instead of a speciﬁc vision, using both positive and negative experiences, and usually appealing to elites that understand the problem. The success of pragmatic leaders is often found in their ability to develop viable solutions to problems (Bedell et al., 2006). They do not have the emotional impact of charismatic and ideological leaders, but their success in problem-solving often leads to tremendous inﬂuence in organizations (Mumford, Scott, et al., 2006). Pragmatic leaders depend on logic, as opposed to emotionally evocative arguments, to inﬂuence=develop their support base (Mumford, Antes, et al., 2008). CIP Model of Leadership and Creative Performance Previous research on various other theories and models of leadership consistently demonstrate that leadership style has a direct effect on subordinate task performance, which includes creative task performance (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Choi et al., 2009; Elenkov & Manev, 2009; Lyons & Schneider, 2009; Tierney et al., 1999). An essential premise of the CIP model of leadership is that different styles of leadership can be equally effective. Several studies examined the leadership styles of the CIP model of leadership and found evidence to support the assertion that multiple styles of leadership have the potential to lead to outstanding results and that the results do not differ on the aggregate (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008; Mumford, Bedell, et al., 2006; Mumford, Gaddis, Strange, & Scott, 2006; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). Thus, it stands to reasons that averages across tasks will show no performance differences on the quality and originality of subordinate creative performance, leading to hypothesis 1: Hypothesis 1: There will not be signiﬁcant difference for the overall creative performance (on quality and originality) of individuals in different leadership conditions. As previously explained, there are clear differences in the techniques and approaches used by each of the three CIP leadership styles. Thus, although overall performance levels are not predicted to differ across the CIP leadership styles, the types of behavior they emphasize and engage in are theorized to differ substantially. Establishing that CIP leadership styles have similar overall results, Mumford, Bedell, et al. (2006) examined the differences between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders, as well as their creative problem solving strategies and leader performance by conducting a thorough historiometric analysis of leader biographies. They found that leaders apply different skills and approaches in solving novel problems for organizations. Charismatic leaders focused on idea generation, pragmatic leaders focused on problem analysis, and ideological leaders focused on idea evaluation. Each leader’s ability to integrate ideas and potential solutions with external demands was the critical determinant of performance, not leadership style. Similarly, Bedell-Avers et al. (2008) examined individual leader’s ability to solve creative problems while evaluating quality and originality in different domains. They found that leadership style did not impact overall problem-solving performance. Meaning, different types of leaders are able to solve problems successfully using different methods. However, researchers did ﬁnd that different conditions facilitated high quality and original solutions from charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Pragmatic leaders typically produced solutions of average quality and originality across conditions; whereas, ideological and charismatic leaders produced high quality and original solutions contingent upon the situation=domain. Overall, the current literature indicates that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership are not associated with different aggregate levels of performance, but context does matter with regard to the quality and originality of outcomes in relation to leadership style. Different types of leaders use different methods and focus on different areas=tasks that correspond to different steps along the creative process. Although Mumford, Bedell, et al. (2006) and BedellAvers et al. (2008) focused on leadership style and the leader’s performance, this study aims to understand further the inﬂuence of each leadership style on the creative performance of subordinates. Overall creative performance of leaders appears to be fairly consistent across the CIP leadership styles based on the literature. However, Mumford, Bedell, et al. (2006) also evaluated leaders’ performance in regard to the eight core processes involved in creative thought and found differences in the performance level of the leaders at speciﬁc stages of the creative process (Hunter et al., 2007; Mumford et al., 1991). For our study, the eight core processes are organized into three different stages: earlystage, middle-stage, and late-stage creative performance. Early-stage creative Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 INFLUENCING CREATIVE PERFORMANCE performance includes problem identiﬁcation, information gathering, and concept selection. Middle-stage creative performance consists of conceptual combination and idea generation. Last, late-stage creative performance is composed of idea evaluation, implementation planning, and monitoring. Mumford et al. (2006) explained that pragmatic leaders focus on problem analysis translated to higher performance on problem identiﬁcation, information gathering, and concept selection. Ideological leaders also outperformed charismatic leaders on these processes. Results indicated that charismatic leaders focus on their future-oriented vision was heavily dependent on idea generation, which resulted in higher scores during the middle stage of creative performance, compared to ideological and pragmatic leaders. Ideological leaders’ tendency to be more evaluative led to higher scores on idea evaluation and solution monitoring. Therefore, when speciﬁc leadership styles are applied to speciﬁc stages of the overall creative processes, results will differ—hence the development of the following set of hypotheses. Hypothesis 2a: Hypothesis 2b: Hypothesis 2c: Participants led by a pragmatic leader will display the highest level of creative performance (on quality and originality) on early stage creative tasks, followed by ideological leaders and then charismatic leaders. Participants led by a charismatic leader will display the highest level of creative performance (on quality and originality) on middle stage creative tasks, followed by ideological leaders and then pragmatic leaders. Participants led by an ideological leader will display the highest level of creative performance (on quality and originality) on late stage creative tasks, followed by charismatic leaders and then pragmatic leaders. CONTEXT Crisis, as a contextual variable, is often associated with emergence of, and desire for, leadership. It is generally accepted that outstanding leadership styles emerge when there is a crisis situation (Beyer, 1999; Mumford, Scott, et al., 2006). Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl (2004) provided a practical example of charismatic leadership emerging after the attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Their analysis of public speeches and the media’s portrayal of President Bush prior to and 63 following the attacks demonstrated an increase in charismatic characteristics. It is important to understand that the context of the situation can impact how the leader’s message is perceived by subordinates, which consequently has major implications on the inﬂuence that leader may or may not have with their subordinates. The inﬂuence and impact of the leader directly affects performance outcomes. Although Bedell-Avers et al. (2008) found that leadership style did not result in differences in overall problem-solving performance; instead the situation mattered with respect to the production of high quality and original problem solutions, especially for charismatic and ideological leaders. Hunt, Boal, and Dodge (1999) found that in the absence of a crisis condition the effects of certain leadership styles decay faster than others. The context of the situation inﬂuenced the length of inﬂuence for certain leadership styles. In a meta-analysis examining the relationship of stressors and creative performance, Byron et al., Kha (2010) found that the relationship is more complicated than simply saying stressors increase or decrease creative performance. Basically, low-stress conditions increase creative performance and high-stress inducing tasks decrease performance. In their examination of creativity, Oldham and Cummings (1996) showed that several contextual characteristics had a signiﬁcant impact on performance. When referring to creative outcomes speciﬁcally, results indicated that individuals demonstrated the most creative work when they had high levels of creativityrelevant personal characteristics, worked on complex and challenging jobs, and had supportive supervisors that operated in a noncontrolling manner. Further, Oldham and Cummings identiﬁed that contextual variables that limit or restrict an individual’s excitement for a task have a negative impact on an individual’s intrinsic motivation and subsequently their creative performance (Amabile, 1983; Amabile, Hadley, & Kramer 2002). More speciﬁcally, Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham (2004) identiﬁed time deadlines and goals as contextual variables that impact creative performance by lowering an individual’s intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1996). Additionally, J. Andrew and Smith (2006) found that when marketing professionals experienced time pressure they produced less creative ideas. Also, F. M. Andrews and Farris (1972) found that, although some time pressure was actually associated with higher levels of creative performance, when the time pressure reached an undesirable level it had a negative impact on creative performance. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates that context of the situation has a major impact on creative performance. Higher levels of stress inﬂuence individual intrinsic motivation and have a negative impact on creative 64 LOVELACE AND HUNTER performance. Considering stress as a speciﬁc contextual variable leads to the next hypothesis. Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 Hypothesis 3: There will be an overall main effect in creative performance for task stress such that participants in the lower-stress condition will perform at a higher level than those in the higher-stress condition. Bedell-Avers et al. (2008) explained that pragmatic leaders show consistent performance across situations regardless of context. Pragmatic leaders’ use of problem solving skills and use of rational persuasion are essential to their consistent performance. Pragmatic leaders focus on rational ideas, and problem-solving skills are also reasons that people do not accept a pragmatic leader as quickly as they might accept a charismatic or ideological leader who pushes a speciﬁc vision and uses emotional appeals. Mumford and Van Doorn (2001) also suggested that because pragmatic leaders focus on social utility as opposed to an overarching social vision subordinates’ investment in the situation is limited and, as a result, may not inspire strong affective reactions (Bass, 1990). Therefore, there may be a range limitation on a subordinate’s reaction to a pragmatic leader. Although pragmatic leaders may not inspire the highest levels of performance, they will keep their subordinates more emotionally stable during a response to a crisis. Additionally, pragmatic leaders often gain trust from within the organization based on the consistency of their performance over time. Therefore, the manipulation of the perception of available time given for each for each creative task may vary based on each leadership condition—hence hypothesis four. study. The average age of the participants was 18.86. The participants were 74.7% women and 25.3% men. The ethnicity of the participant sample was of 76.0% Caucasian, 9.6% Asian, 7.2% African American, 6.9% Hispanic, and .3% Paciﬁc Islander. Covariates Participants were asked to complete several questions on personal and demographic information to control for possible individual differences during the study. Barron and Harrington (1981) explained that it is important to account for differences in levels of intelligence and for other individual demographic differences like age and gender. Mumford, Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro, and Johnson (1998), for example, found correlations between intelligence and divergent thinking consequence tasks, a method to gauge individual creative ability. As a result, information requested from participants included current GPA, SAT scores for math and verbal, participant gender, age, and academic major. The intent for collecting the information on individual differences was to account for likely sources of variance to ensure the variance detected was a result of the study manipulations. METHOD Personality. Feist (1998) pointed out that personality psychology and the study of creativity both stress the uniqueness of the individual. Additionally, Feist clearly demonstrated that personality variables cause variation in creative performance. Also, in their literary review, Barron and Harrington (1981) highlighted numerous studies that clariﬁed and supported the need to account for the variance in creative performance produced by personality differences. To control for the variance produced as a result of individual differences in personality it is important to measure personality differences. Therefore, all participants completed scales measuring the Big Five personality variables (Goldberg, 1992). The variables measured included extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and neuroticism. Each variable was measured using a 1–5 scale with responses ranging from disagree strongly (1) to agree strongly (5). The scale has an established Cronbach’s alpha .79 for all ﬁve subscales. Participants from a northeastern university were recruited from the psychology department’s subject pool and were randomly assigned into conditions. Conducting a power analysis using G Power (effect size ¼ .25, error probability ¼ .05, and power ¼ .95) indicated that a total of 251 participants were needed for the study. There were 336 individuals that participated in the Creative potential. Participants were evaluated on their creative potential using two different methods. First, they were required to complete a self-report measure of creative performance using four items on a 1–5 scale (Shalley et al., 2004). Second, participants also completed a series of divergent thinking tasks that asked the participant to come up with as many solutions as possible to a unique problem (Baer, 1993). Divergent Hypothesis 4: There will be an interaction between leadership condition and stress condition such that pragmatic leaders will show the least amount of change in creative performance followed by charismatic and ideological leaders. Participants INFLUENCING CREATIVE PERFORMANCE thinking tasks are reliable and valid indicators of creative potential (Hunter, Cassidy, et al., 2011; K. H. Kim, 2008; Merriﬁeld, Guilford, Christiensen, & Frick, 1962). The two tasks provide different methods of measuring an individual’s creative ability, which ensure that creative potential, or lack thereof, does not confound the study’s results. Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 Dependent Variables The two dependent variables were ratings of quality and originality made on three creative tasks. Speciﬁcally, the products generated by study participants were coded on a 1–5 scale with separate ratings for quality and originality using benchmarks established prior to coding. This modiﬁed Q-sort technique is based on the work of Redmond et al. (1993). Four coders were trained with a minimum of 20 hr to evaluate the participants’ products (ICCs of quality and originality across each of three separate tasks were above .81). Procedures The participants were introduced to the study by a confederate playing the role of an experimenter, and were randomly assigned to one of the three leadership conditions, as well as to either a low- or high-stress condition. During each session, participants were instructed that interaction with other participants was not permitted. The experimenter provided a general introduction to the participants and guided them through ﬁlling out their initial survey. Following completion of the initial survey, participants completed a series of divergent thinking tasks. Participants were then introduced to their leader, who was operating as a study confederate. The leader provided a basic description of the situation and the general subject matter of the three creative tasks that the participants would be required to complete. In the low-stress condition, it was explained that they were allotted 10 min for each task. In the high-stress condition participants were initially told that they would be allotted 15 min for each task. Before the task began, however, the experimenter interrupted the leader and asked to see the leader outside the lab room for a moment. The leader then returned to the room and informed the participants that due to an external error in scheduling, they would not have as much time to complete the three exercises. They had 5 min less per task, but there was no change in what they were expected to be able to accomplish. Regardless of the stress condition, all the participants had 10 min for each exercise. Prior to the start of each task, participants were reminded of the time requirements. Next, the participants were led through three creative tasks by the leader. The leader demonstrated the 65 behaviors and characteristics of one of the three CIP styles of leadership. The differences between leadership styles detailed in the literature were incorporated into the scripts for each leadership condition (Bedell Avers et al., 2008; Hunter, Cushenberry, et al., 2011; Mumford, 2006; Strange & Mumford, 2002). These differences depicted the varied approaches that each leader utilized to lead participants through the study’s creative tasks. Each leadership manipulation is labeled with the various mental model factors used by the different types of leaders. The stress manipulations are also detailed in the scripts. The three creative tasks that the participants completed as part of the study each represented activities that occur during a speciﬁc stage of the creative thought process (early-, middle-, and late-stage tasks). Each task was independent from the other tasks to allow task order to be rotated during each session to ensure that task order did not confound the results of the study. After completion of the creative tasks, the experimenter returned to the room and the participants were required to ﬁll out a ﬁnal survey that consisted of several manipulation checks. Participants were then debriefed and thanked for their participation. Manipulations Confederates were trained to execute speciﬁc manipulations for each task, leadership styles under the CIP model, and stress condition. Only female confederates were used to act as the leader to avoid confounding the study results with leader gender. Task manipulation. Participants engaged in three main tasks. Each task was speciﬁcally designed to represent activities that occur during one of the three stages of the creative process. The early-stage task required participants to complete an exercise focused on problem identiﬁcation, information gathering, concept selection, and conceptual combination. The middle-stage task required participants to address a situation through idea generation and idea evaluation. The late-stage task required participants to concentrate on implementation planning and monitoring for a speciﬁc crisis. Participants were given speciﬁc instructions detailing the requirements and limitations of their responsibilities to ensure they focused on only the activities related to a speciﬁc stage described in the task. Each task was autonomous from the other tasks to enable task order to be randomized. Leadership style manipulation. The work by Mumford and colleagues on the CIP model of leadership served as the basis for the leadership styles used Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 66 LOVELACE AND HUNTER in this study (Mumford, 2006). The three leadership styles described by the CIP model (charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic) were used to exhibit three theoretically outstanding leadership styles that research indicates are equally effective on overall ratings for creative performance. Speciﬁc behaviors, detailed in the literature, that differentiate the leaderships styles were integrated into the scripts developed for our study. The behaviors used to distinguish the leaders were time orientation of the leader (future, present, or past), types of experiences used by the leader (only positive, only negative, or both), types of outcomes sought by the leader (positive, transcendental, or ﬂexible), and use of emotions by the leader (emotional or rational). Confederates memorized the scripts to emulate each leadership style during designated sessions with participants. Each confederate emulating the leader’s role in the study randomly rotated between the three different leadership styles. There were three trained confederates that led participants throughout the study. Each participant was only exposed to one leadership style. Stress manipulation. Similar to the crisis manipulation in Hunt et al. (1999), the expected time available for the completion of the required tasks was manipulated in this study. The intent behind the manipulation was to create two stress conditions. In the lower stress condition, participants were informed from the beginning of the study that they had 10 min to complete each of the tasks. In the higher stress condition participants were initially informed that they had 15 min to complete each task. However, before they were allowed to start the ﬁrst task, the experimenter interrupted the session and asked to see the leader. When the leader returned to the room, they explained to the participants that due to an external source error, there were only 10 min for each task. It was explained to the participants that they were still expected to perform each task to standard. Participants were reminded of time requirements before beginning each task. The stress manipulation check results were examined during pilot testing. Although not statistically signiﬁcant, the results showed trending information that those in the high-stress condition found the tasks more stressful than those in the low-stress condition. Manipulation Checks At this time, there are no statistically supported scales available that use subordinate ratings to categorize leaders under the CIP model. The available scales are currently designed for historiometric coding of leadership style based on biographies and other historical materials (Hunter, Cassidy, et al., 2011; Mumford, 2006). Therefore, to assist in ensuring that the desired manipulations were successfully achieved a group of leadership and creativity researchers were recruited. A total of 12 researchers were consulted, all with at least 2 years of lab experience with leadership and innovation studies or with graduate level research focus experience on leadership and innovation. Six of the team members have published articles or book chapters on the topics of creativity or leadership. Each researcher was ﬁrst surveyed using a questionnaire that clearly deﬁned the leadership styles under the CIP model and gave examples of the speciﬁc behaviors that differentiate each leadership style. Next, researchers were given unlabeled sections of the scripts for each leadership condition and asked to identify the type of leadership style being utilized. Responses were recorded to ensure that the intended leadership style was evident to the panel of researchers. The same technique was used to ensure the planned creative task manipulations were also effective. The creative process model was reviewed by the panel of researchers. The panel of researchers was given the three creativity tasks and asked to classify each as early-, middle-, or late-stage tasks under the creative process model. Results from the surveys were examined and then used to facilitate small group discussion to make any minor necessary changes to the scripts to more effectively capture the intended behaviors of the script leadership style and better represent each speciﬁc stage of the creative process model. To ensure that the differences in subordinate performance were due to the behaviors of the leader and not another possible leader inﬂuence, differences in the perceptions of the leader competence and use of power were recorded. Participants completed items that gauged perceptions of competence in task, relationship, and change behaviors based on Yukl’s (2007) taxonomy. Using a 1–5 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, 31 total items were utilized. Also, the participants were asked to answer a series of questions adapted from the Yukl, Kim, and Falbe (1996) measuring power tactics utilized. The scale includes questions on legitimate, reward, expert, and referent power based on a 1–4 Likert-type responses. Additionally, questions on the importance of the task and the enjoyment of implementation were also adapted from the Yukl et al. (1996) scale and included. Additionally, participants completed a perceived stress scale, designed for this study, during the ﬁnal survey meant to demonstrate the increased perceptions of stress created by the stress manipulation. Using the manipulation check from Hunt et al. (1999) as an example, a two-item scale was utilized to evaluate the stress condition in the study. The 1–5 Likert scale captured perceptions of time pressure and stress. INFLUENCING CREATIVE PERFORMANCE RESULTS Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations are presented in Table 1. Although there were moderate to high correlations between the ratings for quality and originality for each task (.65, .49, and .67), the literature stipulates that they still represent unique components of creativity and should be addressed separately (Bessemer & O’Quin, 1999; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). The results of this study support this concept based on differences found between groups. Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 Manipulation Checks Several manipulation checks were incorporated into the ﬁnal survey to ensure that the leadership condition and stress condition had the desired impact on the participants. As predicted, across four measures of power bases, liking, willingness to follow, and perceptions of leader competence, there were no observed statistical differences for the three leadership styles depicted in the study. These ﬁndings lend support to the proposition that although the leaders behaved differently (as observed by small group discussion in laboratory meetings) the confederate leaders were all perceived as equally competent. Thus, differences in outcomes across leadership conditions can be attributed to stylistic, rather than competence or power-based, differences. It is of note that two other variables were collected regarding perceptions of the task itself: importance of the task and enjoyment of the task. Although no statistical differences were observed, enjoyment of the task approached signiﬁcance. Those in the charismatic (M ¼ 2.77, SE ¼ .06) and the ideological condition (M ¼ 2.72, SE ¼ .07) tended to rate the tasks as more enjoyable than those in the pragmatic (M ¼ 2.58, SE ¼ .06) condition. These trends provide some indication regarding the mechanisms operating for the leader types. Namely, it seems plausible that charismatic and ideological leaders enhance task enjoyment as a means to inﬂuence followers. Finally, a two-item scale adapted from Hunt et al. (1999) was used to record the amount of stress induced by the scenario. Although not statistically signiﬁcant, those in the low-stress condition (M ¼ 2.49, SE ¼ .08) generally perceived lower levels of stress based on the situation than those in the high-stress condition (M ¼ 2.54, SE ¼ .07). Covariates Using a stepwise analysis, all covariates were examined and it was determined that six covariates should be included in the ﬁnal analysis based on their signiﬁcance and the need to maximizes degrees of freedom. The following covariates were retained: ethnicity was coded 67 as Caucasian versus non-Caucasian; F(2, 318) ¼ 12.70, p .01); session leader session leader; F(2, 318) ¼ 3.79, p .05; divergent thinking ﬂexibility; F(2, 318) ¼ 9.27, p .05; consequences two ﬂexibility; F(2, 318) ¼ 5.17, p .05; and agreeableness; F(2, 318) ¼ 4.06, p .05. Tests of Hypotheses A repeated-measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA) was conducted to examine the effect of the leadership condition and stress condition on the quality and originality ratings of subordinate performance on the three creative tasks. Hypothesis 1 predicted that there would be no signiﬁcant differences between the overall ratings of creative performance (on quality and originality). However, there was a main effect for leadership condition for overall creative performance quality; F(2, 318) ¼ 5.68, p .00, but not for originality; F(2, 318) ¼ 2.68, p .07. The results are depicted in Figure 1. In terms of ratings on quality, individuals in the charismatic (M ¼ 2.73, SE ¼ .04) and ideological (M ¼ 2.77, SE ¼ .05) leadership conditions outperformed those in the pragmatic (M ¼ 2.56, SE ¼ .04) leadership condition. Individuals in the pragmatic condition did not perform as well in terms of quality as individuals’ with a charismatic or ideological leader. Hypothesis 1 was not supported. There was a signiﬁcant interaction between leadership conditions by creative task; F(4, 638) ¼ 4.68, p .01. See Table 2 for more details. Therefore, subordinate performance on each task was evaluated by each leadership condition to determine where the interactive effect took place. Hypothesis 2a, 2b, and 2c each predicted that there would be signiﬁcant differences on creative performance by each creative task. Hypothesis 2a focused on the early-stage task results, hypothesis 2b focused on the middle-stage task results, and hypothesis 2c focused on the late-stage task results. Recall that hypothesis 2a postulated that on an early-stage creative task those in the pragmatic leadership condition would outperform both ideological and charismatic leaders with those in the ideological condition outperforming those in the charismatic condition. On ratings of quality, there were no signiﬁcant differences between pragmatic (M ¼ 2.543, SE ¼ .06), ideological (M ¼ 2.69, SE ¼ .067), or charismatic (M ¼ 2.61, SE ¼ .06) leadership conditions. There were also no signiﬁcant differences on ratings of originality for pragmatic (M ¼ 2.63, SE ¼ .06), ideological (M ¼ 2.69, SE ¼ .06), or charismatic (M ¼ 2.65, SE ¼ .06) leadership conditions. Therefore, there was no support for hypothesis 2a. Hypothesis 2b stated that on a middle-stage creative task, those in the charismatic leadership condition 1.00 .23 1.00 .29 .28 1.00 .29 .21 .67 Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). FIGURE 1 Estimated marginal means of quality of creative performance by leadership condition. (Figure is provided in color online.) Note. Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 1.00 .40 .40 .65 .27 .25 1.00 .04 .24 .11 .19 .20 .20 .14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Leader condition 2.03 0.83 1.00 Stress condition 1.52 0.5 .02 Session leader 1.87 0.78 .11 Ethnicity—Caucasian=Other 0.24 0.42 .11 Age 2.88 1.80 .01 Gender .25 .44 .06 SAT verbal 609.44 144.58 .03 SAT quantitative 618.14 123.31 .05 DV thinking ﬂexibility 6.13 2.03 .11 Consequences 2 ﬂexibility 4.62 1.61 .12 Agreeableness 4.1 0.55 .04 Task 1—Quality 2.6 0.68 .08 Task 2—Quality 2.64 0.59 .22 Task 3—Quality 2.78 0.64 .11 Task 1—Originality 2.65 0.61 .05 Task 2—Originality 2.74 0.57 .26 Task 3—Originality 2.81 0.63 .01 1.00 .06 .01 .03 .08 .05 .02 .09 .00 .13 .14 .11 .06 .01 .07 .05 1.00 .04 .00 .05 .00 .08 .12 .12 .08 .03 .05 .04 .04 .05 .08 1.00 .01 .09 .10 .01 .09 .15 .09 .24 .22 .28 .21 .10 .19 1.00 .13 .04 .02 .01 .13 .11 .11 .04 .08 .00 .09 .04 1.00 .04 .24 .09 .07 .18 .01 .00 .06 .01 .09 .05 1.00 .61 .08 .04 .01 .14 .04 .10 .09 .07 .09 1.00 .06 .06 .19 .04 .03 .08 .07 .10 .06 1.00 .24 .00 .15 .16 .13 .13 .35 .14 1.00 .10 .03 .19 .08 .07 .22 1.00 .36 .28 .49 .22 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 SD M TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Study Variables Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 1.00 LOVELACE AND HUNTER 17 68 would outperform individuals in the ideological and pragmatic leadership conditions with those in the ideological condition outperforming individuals in the pragmatic condition. On ratings of quality, subordinates in the charismatic (M ¼ 2.76, SE ¼ .05) and ideological (M ¼ 2.70, SE ¼ .06) conditions signiﬁcantly outperformed those in the pragmatic (M ¼ 2.48, SE ¼ .05) condition. As seen in Figure 2, in terms of originality, those in the charismatic (M ¼ 2.95, SE ¼ .05) condition signiﬁcantly outperformed subordinates in the ideological (M ¼ 2.62, SE ¼ .05) and pragmatic (M ¼ 2.66, SE ¼ .05) conditions. Therefore, there was partial support for hypothesis 2b. Hypothesis 2c asserted that on a late-stage creative task, individuals in the ideological leadership condition would outperform those in the charismatic and pragmatic leadership conditions with subordinates in the charismatic condition outperforming individuals in the pragmatic condition. On ratings of quality, subordinates in the ideological (M ¼ 2.90, SE ¼ .06) conditions signiﬁcantly outperformed those in the pragmatic (M ¼ 2.67, SE ¼ .06) condition. Individual performance in the charismatic (M ¼ 2.81, SE ¼ .06) condition was not signiﬁcantly different than people in the ideological or pragmatic conditions. On ratings of originality, there was no difference between the ideological (M ¼ 2.84, SE ¼ .06), charismatic (M ¼ 2.81, SE ¼ .06), or pragmatic (M ¼ 2.80, SE ¼ .06) conditions. Therefore, there was minimal support for hypothesis 2c. Hypothesis 3 predicted that individuals in the low-stress condition would have higher levels of creative performance (on quality and originality) than individuals in the high stress condition. As seen in Figure 3, there was a main effect for stress condition for overall creative performance for quality, F(1, 318) ¼ 3.94, p .01, but not for originality; F(1, 318) ¼ .02, p .05. INFLUENCING CREATIVE PERFORMANCE 69 TABLE 2 Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance for Creativity Outcomes Quality and Originality Quality F Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 Between subjects: Leader condition Stress condition Leader condition stress condition Task Within subjects: Task Leader condition task Stress condition task Leader condition stress condition task df p g2 Originality F df p g2 5.84 2 .00 .035 2.38 2 .09 .015 6.90 1 .01 .021 .05 1 .83 .000 1.72 2 .18 .011 .80 2 .45 .005 1.74 1.50 .94 .46 2 4 2 4 .18 .20 .39 .76 .005 1.04 2 .35 .003 .009 4.68 4 .00 .029 .003 .88 2 .42 .003 .003 .90 4 .47 .006 2 Note. g ¼ partial eta squared. Results presented have been controlled for by ethnicity, session leader, divergent thinking ability, and agreeableness. FIGURE 2 Estimated marginal means of originality of creative performance by leadership condition by creative task. (Figure is provided in color online.) FIGURE 4 Estimated marginal means of quality of creative performance by leadership condition by stress condition. (Figure is provided in color online.) For quality, those in the low-stress (M ¼ 2.75, SE ¼ .04) condition signiﬁcantly outperformed individuals in the high-stress (M ¼ 2.62, SE ¼ .03) condition. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Hypothesis 4 postulated that there would be an interactive effect between leadership conditions and stress conditions; such that, those in the pragmatic condition would show the least amount change from the low to high stress condition followed by charismatic and then ideological leaders. For the charismatic condition, those in the low-stress (M ¼ 2.82, SE ¼ .06) condition were signiﬁcantly different than subordinates in the high-stress (M ¼ 2.63, SE ¼ .06) condition. For the ideological condition, those in the low-stress (M ¼ 2.86, SE ¼ .07) condition were signiﬁcantly different than subordinates in the high-stress (M ¼ 2.67, SE ¼ .06) condition. Only in the pragmatic condition was there no signiﬁcant difference between the low-stress (M ¼ 2.57, SE ¼ .06) condition and the high-stress (M ¼ 2.66, SE ¼ .06) condition. As depicted in Figure 4, both the charismatic and ideological conditions showed a signiﬁcant amount of change although there was no signiﬁcant difference in the pragmatic condition. Therefore, hypothesis 4 was supported. DISCUSSION Overall Creative Performance FIGURE 3 Estimated marginal means of quality of creative performance by stress condition. (Figure is provided in color online.) In this study, charismatic and ideological leaders’ subordinates performed signiﬁcantly better than individuals with a pragmatic leader in terms of ratings for quality. There are a few possible explanations for this overall performance difference. First, there may actually be performance differences based on leadership condition. Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 70 LOVELACE AND HUNTER The controls built into the scripts for the study would suggest the cause of the performance differences would be a result of a leader’s speciﬁc behaviors. However, an alternate explanation may be more likely. Mumford and colleagues articulated that pragmatic leaders emerge after having the opportunity to develop a reputation for consistent performance over time (Mumford, Bedell, et al., 2006). Pragmatic leaders focus on rational appeals and gain the support and trust of others around them once they demonstrate their ability to solve problems. This study gauges creative performance after a short, one-time interaction between the leader and the participant. Charismatic and ideological leaders’ ability to engage others on a more personal level and their use of emotional appeals may not require that same amount of time to emerge in a given situation. Consequently, it is reasonable to suggest that pragmatic leaders did not have the chance to establish themselves, under the study conditions, with their subordinates as effectively as charismatic or ideological leaders. Creative Performance on Specific Tasks Although the results showed no strong differences on the early- and late-stage tasks, there were performance differences on the middle-stage creative task. Charismatic leaders inﬂuenced the performance of their subordinates above and beyond ideological and pragmatic leaders on middle-stage creative tasks. Speciﬁcally, originality, but not quality, was greater when participants were led by a charismatic leader. They impacted the ability of individuals to come up with more novel, but not necessarily higher quality, output. This study replicated the results of Mumford, Bedell, et al. (2006), which demonstrated leader performance differences on middle-stage tasks that extend the results from leader performance to the creative performance of subordinates. Mumford, Bedell, et al. (2006) suggested that charismatic leaders performed best on middle-stage creative tasks because of their focus on the facilitation of idea generation. The concept that charismatic leaders perform and inspire better performance on middle-stage creative tasks has speciﬁc implications on practical settings and future research. Also, it supports that the idea that having both ratings of quality and originality is useful; without this distinction in outcome criteria observed differences across conditions may not have been as evident. Stress Effect In congruence with previous results, this study found that stress directly impacts performance levels (Byron et al., 2010; Hunt et al., 1999). In this study, the stress condition’s impact was isolated to ratings of creative performance for quality. The evaluation of the quality of the creative performance is based on whether the output is logical, complete, and coherent (Besemer & O’Quin, 1999; Redmond et al., 1993). In the low-stress condition, individuals produced higher quality responses than those in the high-stress condition. The manipulation check indicated through trending data that individuals found the high-stress condition slightly more stressful. In accordance with the literature presented in support of hypothesis 3, individuals were manipulated to think that they were battling time pressures which, according to theory, inﬂuenced their intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1983; Amabile et al., 2002; Oldham and Cummings, 1996). As a result, creative performance ratings of quality were negatively impacted. It is notable that ratings of originality were not impacted by the manipulation. It is possible that originality is a more internalized attribute that emerges regardless of stress level or intrinsic motivation. Additional research should test the impact of various levels of stress to examine if originality and intrinsic motivation might be more signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced by a much higher levels of stress. Regardless, it was again useful to have both ratings of quality and originality for creative performance. Leadership by Stress Effects Based on current ﬁndings in the literature, it was correctly hypothesized that pragmatic leaders would show the least amount of change based on the stress condition (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008). Pragmatic leaders are dependent on rational persuasion and their problemsolving skills. Although their tendencies often take them longer to gain support within an organization, it also causes less affective reactions to stressful conditions (Bass, 1990; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). Pragmatic leaders may not inspire the high levels of performance, but they are able to inﬂuence those around them to maintain more emotionally stable dispositions during crisis situations. Theoretical Implications The results of this study have several implications for leadership and creativity research. First, one of the fundamental elements of the CIP model of leadership is that multiple forms of leadership have the potential to result in outstanding performance (e.g., Bedell-Avers et al., 2008; Mumford, 2006; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). The indication is that no one style of leadership is better than any other style of leadership. The main effect for quality for creative output contradicts this portion of theory. Pragmatic leaders inspired much lower levels of idea quality in this study. The consistent poor performance of pragmatic leaders could simply mean that pragmatic leaders are not as good as ideological and Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 INFLUENCING CREATIVE PERFORMANCE charismatic leaders or something not accounted for by the study is going on. Mumford (2006) explained that pragmatic leaders establish themselves in organizations by showing that they are capable problem solvers over the course of time as they build their reputation for being able to get the job done. The leaders in this study were not able to establish a salient reputation with the participants of this study due to nature of the one-time interaction and time restrictions with individuals from a university subject pool. Further research would help clarify if the performance differences are found in both short-term versus long-term relationships and in an academic versus practical settings. The second implication of the study is that several ﬁndings support the basic premise for using both ratings of quality and originality when evaluating creative performance (Besemer & O’Quin, 1999). There are several points that support rating both quality and originality for creative performance outcomes. First, a main effect for quality was identiﬁed for overall performance. This same effect was not demonstrated for originality. Second, an interactive effect for originality was present for charismatic leaders on middle-stage creative tasks. Charismatic leaders’ focus on idea generation during middle-stage tasks inﬂuenced subordinates speciﬁcally on originality, but not quality. Third, stress was found to impact directly the quality of individual creative performance, but not the originality. Both quality and originality were impacted by manipulations in the study. However, separate manipulations inﬂuenced them both differently. Therefore, having both ratings enabled speciﬁc information to be identiﬁed that may otherwise have been missed by using only one rating for creative performance. Practical Implications The results of this study also have several practical implications, as well. First, based on the poor performance of pragmatic leaders, it is important to give them the time necessary to gain support from within the organization by developing a reputation for consistent performance. Pragmatic leaders gain their support over the course of time by proving that they are capable of solving problems. The poor performance of their subordinates during this study indicates that they are not the right ﬁt for short duration creative tasks. They need to be given opportunities to prove themselves to their subordinates. This may impact how a supervisor develops an up-and-coming pragmatic leader. Pragmatic leaders’ inability to positively impact subordinate performance when they are new to an organization could severely hamper the number of opportunities they are given earlier in their time within an organization. However, the support found for the consistency of pragmatic leaders’ 71 inﬂuence on subordinates’ performance, regardless of levels of stress, could be extremely beneﬁcial for organizations that operate in dynamic environments. The results of this study indicate that when there is a short duration middle-stage creative task, a charismatic leader appears to be the best person for the job. A greater understanding of leadership styles and their inﬂuence on subordinate creative performance may help to identify which type of leader should be selected during different stages of the creative process. Depending on the replication of these results in future research; the study results may be applied to the actual selection process for choosing certain leaders to take responsibility for speciﬁc tasks. Limitations There are a few limitations that should be considered in regard to this study. First, the limited ethnic and age diversity in the population of the subject pool may limit the generalizability of the results. Although lab studies often produce questions about generalizability, it is not unreasonable to suggest that undergraduates are capable of serving as surrogate subordinates in an experimental setting. Moreover, studies of subordinate attitudes in experimental settings are fairly common and have been shown to be applicable to practitioners (P. H. Kim, Dirks, Cooper, & Ferrin, 2006; P. H. Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004). Additionally, there is some indication that effects observed in ﬁeld settings and experimental settings are highly correlated (Anderson, Lindsay, & Bushman, 1999; Cohen-Chararsh & Spector, 2001). Thus, although generalizing to applied settings is cautioned, it does not appear unreasonable as a starting point for ﬁeld investigations. Second, Hunter, Friedrich, Bedell-Avers, and Mumford (2007) pointed out that a major limitation of many leadership studies is the inability to examine the impact of the different leadership styles over a longer period of time. Due to the limitations of the subject pool used, this study is not longitudinal in nature. This limitation may have impacted the performance of those individuals in the pragmatic condition since they did not have the time necessary to build a reputation for consistent performance that people grow to recognize and respect. Additionally, research is necessary to not only address the longitudinal nature of the study, but to attempt to replicate the results of this study and its predecessors in a ﬁeld sample. Last, the literature on scale development for the CIP Model of leadership is not extremely well-developed at this time. The majority of the research deals with coders of historical information or self-rated tasks based on provided scenarios. The availability of proven scales 72 LOVELACE AND HUNTER that produce reliable results are not widely available at this time. Future research into the matter would go a long way to assisting this speciﬁc need. To compensate for this shortcoming, this study used a series of separate manipulation checks to ensure difference in performance could be attributed to the study manipulations. Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 Future Research The results, limitations, and short-falls of this study highlight particular areas in need of further research. Mumford, Bedell, et al. (2006) explained that although leadership styles in the CIP model may did not differ on overall performance there may be speciﬁc difference at different stages of the creative process model. This study was able to partially replicate those results in a laboratory setting with subordinates’ creative performance. However, it is clear that two research directions are important to better understanding these results and to ensure that the results can be applied in practical settings. First, it is necessary to try to replicate the results in a longitudinal study. Results for pragmatic leaders were much lower for ratings of quality. These ﬁndings run counter to ﬁndings observed in previous studies (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008; Mumford, 2006; Mumford, Bedell, et al., 2006). A longitudinal study would help clarify if pragmatic leaders did not have time to establish themselves with the subordinates or if there really are differences in subordinate performance on creative tasks. Second, it is important to test whether these results can be replicated in an applied work sample. Much of the literature that delineates these leadership styles focuses on the study of historiometric data samples. Being able to conduct a study in an active organization would require a reliable and valid scale that could accurately and appropriately categorize leaders as charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic. The weaknesses of current scales for this type of research were evident in the manipulation check of perceptions of the leader in this study. An additional research area that would be useful to better understand the relationship between the leader and their inﬂuence on subordinate creative performance should focus on ratings of quality and originality for creative performance. In this study, several effects demonstrated how important it was to have both ratings. However, why some manipulations impacted certain ratings and not others is not clear at this time. Personality variables, personal needs, the type of leader, or the type of task are all examples of possible factors in the facilitation of quality and=or originality. There are very speciﬁc practical implications that may develop based on the ability to improve quality and originality on their own or in combination. REFERENCES Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376. 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 environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184. Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80, 52–61. Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. F. (1972). Time pressure and performance of scientists and engineers: A ﬁve year panel study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 185–200. Andrews, J., & Smith, D. C. (1996). In search of the marketing imagination: Factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 174–187. Anderson, C., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the psychology laboratory: Truth or triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9. Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 264–275. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-speciﬁc approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barron, F. (1955). The disposition towards originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 478–485. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogaill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and management applications. New York, NY: Free Press. Baughman, W. A., & Mumford, M. D. (1995). Process analytic models of creative capacities: Operations involved in the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 37–62. Bedell, K., Hunter, S., Angie, A., & Vert, A. (2006). A historiometric examination of Machiavellianism and a new taxonomy of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12, 50–72. Bedell-Avers, K. E., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Conditions of problem-solving and the performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: A comparative experimental study. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 89–106. Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1999). Conﬁrming the three-factor creative product analysis. Matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 287–296. Beyer, J. M. (1999). Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 307–330. Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004). Charisma under crisis: Presidential leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 211–239. Byrne, C. L., Mumford, M. D., Barrett, J. D., & Vessey, W. B. (2009). Examining the leaders of creative efforts: What do they do, and what do they think about? Creativity and Innovation Management, 18, 256–268. Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201–212. Caughron, J. J. (2010). Perspectives on leadership research. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Leadership 101 (pp. 27–52). New York, NY: Springer. Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 187–199. Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 INFLUENCING CREATIVE PERFORMANCE Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., & Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations: The insulting role of creative ability. Group & Organization Management, 34, 330– 357. doi: 10.1177=1059601108329811 Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. New York, NY: Heath. Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leadership’s effects on innovation and the role cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business, 44, 357–369. Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of Leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 149–190). New York: Academic Press. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientiﬁc and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309. Friedrich, T. L. (2010). The history of leadership research. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Leadership 101 (pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Springer. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. House, R. J. (1971). A path–goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–339. Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Dodge, G. E. (1999). The effect of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on follower: An experimental examination of two kinds of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 423–448. Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 435–446. Hunter, S. T., Cassidy, S. E., & Ligon, G. S. (2011). Planning for innovation: A process oriented perspective. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 515–568). Oxford, England: Elsevier. Hunter, S. T., Cushenbery, L., Thoroughgood, C. N., Johnson, J. E., & Ligon, G. S. (2011). First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership model. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 70–91. Hunter, S. T., Friedrich, T. L., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Creative cognition in the workplace: An applied perspective. In T. Davilla, M. J. Epstein, & R. Shelton (Eds.), The creative enterprise: Managing innovative organizations and people, Culture Volume 2 (pp. 171–193). New York, NY: Praeger Perspectives. Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 107–130. Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal versus external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence versus integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 49–65. Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing ability versus integrity based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104–118. Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present, and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 295–308. Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. (2009). The effects of leadership style on stress outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 737–748. Merriﬁeld, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., & Frick, J. W. (1962). The role of intellectual factors in problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1–21. 73 Mumford, M. D. (2006). Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mumford, M. D., Antes, A. L., Caughron, J. J., & Friedrich, T. L. (2008). Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level inﬂuences on emergence and performance. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 144–160. Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W., Maher, M., Costanza, D., & Supinski, E. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills, IV: Category combination. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 59–71. Mumford, M. D., Bedell, K. E., Hunter, S. T., Espejo, J., & Boatman, P. R. (2006). Problem solving-turning crises into opportunities: How charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders solve problems. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders (pp. 108–137). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mumford, M. D., Gaddis, B., Strange, J. M., & Scott, G. (2006). Theory. In. M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership (pp. 51–80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Press. Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A multi-level perspective on creativity. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: Volume IV (pp. 11–74). Oxford, England: Elsevier. Mumford, M. D., Hunter, S. T., Eubanks, D. L., Bedell, K. E., & Murphy, S. T. (2007). Developing leaders for creative efforts: A domain-based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 402–417. Mumford, M. D., Marks, M., Connelly, M., Zaccaro, S., & Johnson, J. (1998). Domain based scoring in divergent-thinking tests. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 151–163. Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91–122. Mumford, M. D., Scott, G., & Hunter, S. T. (2006). Theorycharismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: How do they lead, why do they lead, and who do they lead? In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mumford, M. D., Strange, J. M., & Bedell, K. E. (2006). Introductioncharismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: Are they really that different? In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mumford, M. D., & Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). The leadership of pragmatism: Reconsidering Franklin in the age of charisma. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 274–309. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634. Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55(1), 120–151. Runco, M., & Jaegar, G. J. (2012). The standard deﬁnition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 92–96. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958. Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology, 36, 311–322. Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). The origins of vision: Charismatic versus ideological leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 343–377. Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620. 74 LOVELACE AND HUNTER Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 10:36 14 February 2013 Tushman, M., Anderson, P., & O’Reilly, C. (1997). Technology cycles, innovation streams and ambidextrous organizations. In P. Anderson & M. Tushman (Eds.), Managing strategic innovation and change (pp. 3–23). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Wang, K. Y., & Casimir, G. (2007). How attitudes of leaders may enhance organizational creativity: Evidence from a Chinese study. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, 229–238. Weber, M. (1924). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York, NY: Free Press. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Grifﬁn, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321. Yukl, G. (2007). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of inﬂuence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 309–317.

Log In

Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leaders' Influence on Subordinate Creative Performance Across the Creative Process

Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leaders' Influence on Subordinate Creative Performance Across the Creative Process

Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leaders' Influence on Subordinate Creative Performance Across the Creative Process

Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leaders' Influence on Subordinate Creative Performance Across the Creative Process

Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leaders' Influence on Subordinate Creative Performance Across the Creative Process

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS