Creativity Research Journal

ISSN: 1040-0419 (Print) 1532-6934 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Transformational and Transactional Leadership

and Their Effects on Creativity in Groups

Dong I. Jung

To cite this article: Dong I. Jung (2001) Transformational and Transactional Leadership and
Their Effects on Creativity in Groups, Creativity Research Journal, 13:2, 185-195, DOI: 10.1207/
S15326934CRJ1302_6

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1302_6

Published online: 08 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6590

View related articles

Citing articles: 51 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcrj20
Creativity Research Journal Copyright 2000–2001 by
2000–2001, Vol. 13, No. 2, 185–195 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Transformational and Transactional Leadership and

Their Effects on Creativity in Groups Leadership and Creativity
D. I. Jung

Dong I. Jung
San Diego State University

ABSTRACT: This study used a 2 (transformational vs. tions among organizational researchers (Amabile,
transactional leadership) × 2 (real vs. nominal group) 1998; Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron,
experiment to examine the effect of different leadership 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). For exam-
styles and brainstorming conditions on group mem- ple, Redmond, Mumford, and Teach (1993) argued
bers’ divergent thinking. Participants performed a that creative efforts made by individuals make an im-
brainstorming task, and their performance was as- portant impact on organizational performance when
sessed using fluency and flexibility. Results clearly sup- there are ongoing social and technological changes.
ported the hypotheses in that the participants in the However, Mumford and Gustafson (1988) suggested
transformational leadership condition and in the nomi- the importance of the environmental variables playing
nal group condition outperformed their counterparts in critical roles in stimulating people’s creativity because
the transactional leadership condition and in the real they provide all necessary resources for individuals to
group condition. This pattern was consistent across the pursue innovative ideas. In fact, Amabile et al. (1996)
2 measures of creativity. found strong positive relations between several organi-
zational environmental variables such as organiza-
With the recent explosion of the U.S. economy mainly tional encouragement and work-group support for
driven by high-technology industry, there seems to be a innovation and employees’ creativity.
growing consensus that the U.S. economy will lead the Redmond et al. (1993) posited that leadership in
world economy going into the 21st century (Gilder, groups constitutes an important environmental vari-
1998). Many organizational researchers and practitio- able in that it defines group goals, controls critical re-
ners have identified several competitive advantages sources, and provides rewards through an interactive
that the U.S. economy has over other competitors such leadership process. In other words, leaders create situ-
as superior social infrastructure and well-educated ational contexts and conditions in which followers en-
workforce (Farrell, 1998). However, it has been argued gage in creative efforts to accomplish their goals.
that innovation through creativity and entrepreneurial However, despite the theoretical relevance and practi-
vigor are some of the most important forces that sustain cal importance of leadership that plays a critical role in
the strong U.S. economic growth rate of over 3.5% in stimulating followers’ creative behavior, only a hand-
the late 1990s (Mandel, 1998). Based on this strong ful of studies have examined the relation between lead-
performance record, some popular business magazines ership styles and levels of creativity in work-group
predict even stronger growth of the U.S. economy for settings. For example, Sosik, Kahai, and Avolio (1998)
the next several years. For example, one recent issue of examined the effect of transformational leadership on
Business Week asserted that the U.S. economy is in the
early stages of a powerful new wave of innovation, and Manuscript received December 20, 1998; revision received May 24,
1999; accepted September 1, 1999.
there is much more to come (Farrell, 1998; Mandel,
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Dong
1998). I. Jung, Department of Management, College of Business Adminis-
As such, there is a heightened level of interest in tration, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182. E-mail:
stimulating creative behavior in groups and organiza- [email protected].

Creativity Research Journal 185

D. I. Jung

group creativity in an electronic meeting environment and come up with solutions. It is an individual’s care-
and found a positive relation between group members’ fully orchestrated efforts to put existing, conventional
perceptions of transformational leadership and group ideas together to create new approaches to solving
creativity. problems. As such, creativity does not just come from
This study extends prior work done by Sosik et al. an individual’s intellectual capacity to invent some-
(1998) on transformational leadership and creativity in thing new. Instead, creativity is an outcome of an indi-
two ways. First, it compares the effect of transfor- vidual’s accumulated creative thinking skills and
mational and transactional leadership on group mem- expertise based on past experience (Amabile, 1998). In
bers’ creative thinking in a face-to-face environment. addition, even though an individual has appropriate
Even if a growing number of organizations have creative thinking skills and expertise, a high level of
adopted electronic meeting systems such as Group De- creativity cannot be achieved if he or she lacks motiva-
cision Support Systems for creative idea generation, tion to mobilize his or her efforts to utilize such
interaction between the leader and followers occurs capabilities.
more often based on traditional face-to-face meetings. There are several personality traits that prior re-
Despite the conceptual argument made by a number of search has indicated help people increase their level of
researchers that transformational leaders actively en- creativity skills. For example, if an individual feels
courage followers to take innovative and creative ap- comfortable disagreeing with others or assuming the
proaches rather than conventional and traditional ones role of devil’s advocate, creativity can be enhanced not
when their subordinates attempt to solve their prob- only for himself or herself, but also for his or her group
lems (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; House, 1995; and organization (Amabile, 1998). Thus, creative solu-
Howell & Avolio, 1993), there have been very limited tions can be achieved when organizations encourage
empirical investigations supporting such an argument. individuals to try out different approaches that depart
Second, this study also examines the effect of nominal from the status quo without necessarily worrying about
versus real group condition on the level of creativity. being punished for negative outcomes (Amabile et al.,
Previous research generally supports the superiority of 1996). The creation of such an organizational environ-
nominal over real groups when individuals engage in ment may help employees acquire diverse perspectives
brainstorming tasks to generate creative ideas (Dennis on tackling the old problem as a matter of habitual
& Valacich, 1993; Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Furnham & process.
Yazdanpanahi, 1996). Examining effects of trans- However, previous research has demonstrated that
actional and transformational leadership on creativity intrinsic motivation is perhaps one of the most impor-
under two group conditions could provide additional tant factors that increases creative activities among indi-
insight into the role that leaders play in group pro- viduals in organizations (Amabile, 1983, 1996; Deci &
cesses. For example, it would be interesting to examine Ryan, 1985). Given the fact that individuals may have to
whether a transformational leader’s emphasis on and spend enormous amounts of time and effort to increase
encouragement for innovative thinking and behavior is their intellectual capacity, expertise, and creative-
powerful enough to help group members overcome thinking skills, the creation of an organizational envi-
productivity loss and evaluation apprehension, and ronment where creativity can be fostered may be a
thus results in higher performance in face-to-face than better strategy to induce innovation in an organiza-
nominal brainstorming situations. tion. There also is some evidence that indicates that in-
trinsic motivation can be enhanced substantially by
making subtle changes in organizational environment
Theoretical (Amabile, 1998).
Background and Hypotheses In the process of shaping a creativity-inducible orga-
nizational environment, a number of researchers have
Creativity and emphasized the important role that managers and lead-
Transformational Leadership ers can play. Leaders play an important role in group
processes because they define what the group’s goals
According to Amabile (1996, 1998), creative think- are and facilitate the whole process of motivating fol-
ing refers to how people approach existing problems lowers to exert their maximum efforts to collectively

186 Creativity Research Journal

 Leadership and Creativity

achieve their goals (Bass, 1990; Katz & Kahn, 1978). the transformational leader’s articulation of long-term
Leaders have a strong impact on how their subordinates goals and visions. The development of long-term vi-
go about achieving their goals (Redmond et al., 1993; sions among followers has been identified as one of the
Witt & Boerkrem, 1989). In other words, even if subor- key components of transformational leadership by sev-
dinates work on the same problem using the same re- eral researchers (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Conger &
sources, whether they try innovative and creative versus Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Kirkpatrick & Locke,
conventional and traditional approaches may depend on 1996).
the way their leader facilitates this working process. As One important role that leaders can play to foster
indicated earlier, previous studies on leadership and cre- creativity among subordinates is to help establish an
ativity have been quite limited, but a majority of them organizational environment in which subordinates
support the hypothesis that certain leader behaviors are feel safe in trying out innovative approaches without
important determinants of creative behavior and diver- the fear of punishment for failure (Amabile, 1998).
gent thinking in groups. For example, democratic, con- Transformational leaders tend to build creativity-in-
siderate, and participative leader behaviors were found ducing environments through intellectual stimulation
to be positively correlated with subordinate creativity (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Howell & Avolio,
(Hage & Dewar, 1973; Maier, 1970). More recently, 1993; Sosik et al., 1998). According to Sosik and his
Redmond et al. (1993) found that leader behaviors colleagues, intellectual stimulation is a key character-
that supported constructive problem solving and istic of transformational leadership, which “is likely
group members’ self-efficacy resulted in higher sub- to promote creativity by encouraging followers to
ordinate creativity. Finally, Sosik et al. (1998) found think ‘out of the box’ and by enhancing generative
a positive association between transformational lead- and exploratory thinking” (p. 7). Transformational
ership and group creativity in an electronic group leaders stimulate their followers to think about old
meeting environment. problems in new ways (Bass, 1985; Hater & Bass,
Transformational leadership involves active and 1988). Followers are encouraged to question their
emotional relationships between leaders and followers own values, traditions, and beliefs, as well as the
(Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; leader’s beliefs and assumptions. For example, when
Howell & Avolio, 1993; Yammarino, Spangler, & a group of subordinates engages in a brainstorming
Bass, 1993). Based on strong attachment between the task to generate innovative and creative approaches
leader and followers, a transformational leader seeks to to solve their problems, the transformational leader’s
transform followers’ personal values and self-concepts intellectually stimulating behaviors, statements, and
so that they can broaden and elevate their needs and as- attitudes can not only help followers spend more time
pirations to focus and achieve higher levels of needs on generating unconventional ideas, but also help
and potential (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; them reduce the potential effect of evaluation appre-
Bennis & Nanus, 1985; House & Shamir, 1993; hension, thus enhancing creativity in groups (Diehl &
Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). This high level of Stroebe, 1991).
value alignment between the leader and subordinates is In contrast to transformational leadership, trans-
what makes the impact that transformational leaders actional leadership tends to be based on an exchange
have on subordinates’ intrinsic motivation stronger process whereby followers are rewarded for accom-
than other leadership styles (Gardner & Avolio, 1998). plishing specified goals (e.g., Hollander, 1978; House,
Transformational leaders express the importance 1971). With transactional leadership, followers are
and value of desired goals in simple ways and establish typically given rewards in exchange for achieving cer-
challenging expectations (Bass & Avolio, 1990). tain levels of performance (Waldman, Bass, &
Through this transformational leader’s articulation of Yammarino, 1990). The exchange relationship be-
vision and subordinates’ strong identification with the tween transactional leaders and their followers is based
leader’s personal goals, subordinates raise their own on a contract that involves positive reinforcement for a
expectations to accomplish difficult goals. It is ex- higher level of performance. Emphasis is on facilitat-
pected that subordinates would exert extra efforts to ing the achievement of objectives agreed to by follow-
generate creative solutions for their problems due to ers, similar to path–goal theory (Avolio & Bass, 1988;
the heightened level of intrinsic motivation caused by Evans, 1974; House & Mitchell, 1974). In other words,

Creativity Research Journal 187

D. I. Jung

transactional leaders recognize followers’ needs and There are several theories that social psychologists
desires and clarify how those needs and desires will be have offered to explain productivity loss in group ver-
met in exchange for enactment of the followers’ work sus individual idea generation, including free riding or
role. social loafing, evaluation apprehension, and produc-
As such, subordinates are not expected to go beyond tion blocking (see Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991, for a
their initial expectations, nor are they motivated to try detailed discussion on each of these theories). For ex-
out creative solutions to change the status quo. Often- ample, the fear of negative evaluations from other
times, their performance is closely monitored based on a group members can prevent group members from pre-
preassigned standard, and the transactional leader tends senting as many ideas as they wish to offer in the brain-
to intervene into the followers’ work process only when storming process. However, the most important reason
their performance deviates from the standard. There are for the inferiority of the real group is the fact that only
no active and intentional efforts made by the one group member may speak at a time, which poten-
transactional leader to enhance followers’ creativity. tially limits time for each individual to present his or
Followers are extrinsically motivated to perform their her idea (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). As such, a recent
job under the transactional leader, which may hold cre- meta-analysis on brainstorming research concluded
ativity at the minimal level (Amabile, 1998). that real brainstorming groups generate a significantly
On the basis of the previous discussion and compar- lower number of ideas than nominal groups do (Mullen
ison between transformational and transactional lead- et al., 1991).
ership, the following hypothesis is advanced: Based on the previous discussion, the following hy-
pothesis can be advanced:
H1: Creativity as measured by divergent think-
ing among group members will be higher H2: Creativity as measured by divergent think-
under the transformational than transac- ing among group members will be higher
tional leadership condition. under the nominal than group condition.

Creativity in Nominal
Group Versus Real Group Method

After Osborn (1957) suggested brainstorming as a Participants

mean of solving problems in a group, which is designed
to increase the quality and quantity of ideas generated by One hundred ninety-four undergraduate students
group members, a number of researchers have exam- from several upper division business courses at a large
ined the validity of the group idea generation method. public university participated in this study in exchange
However, despite Osborn’s claim that “the average per- for course credit.
son can think up twice as many ideas when working with Approximately 52% of the participants were men.
a group than working alone” (p. 229), the majority of The participants were randomly assigned to 53 groups
empirical studies that examined the productivity of real of mixed gender so that the gender ratio was kept simi-
versus nominal brainstorming groups have consistently lar across all of the experiment groups. Overall, over
found the superiority of the nominal group method 90% of the groups consisted of half men and half
(Furnham & Yazdanpanahi, 1996; Mullen, Johnson, & women. The size of group varied between 3 and 4 due
Salas, 1991; Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes, & Camacho, to the participants who did not show up for their exper-
1993). For example, Diehl and Stroebe (1991) reported imental sessions. However, over 70% of groups had
that nominal groups produced a greater number of ideas four group members.
than real groups did in 18 of 22 prior studies they exam-
ined. The superiority of nominal groups over real groups Research Design and
as measured by quality of ideas has also been reported Experimental Procedure
consistently in a number of prior brainstorming studies
(Dennis & Valacich, 1993; Hill, 1982; Lamm & This research used a 2 (transformational vs.
Trommsdorff, 1973). transactional leadership) × 2 (real vs. nominal group)

188 Creativity Research Journal

 Leadership and Creativity

factorial design. The 53 experimental groups were ran- credit. They emphasized their expectations on group
domly assigned across these four different conditions. members’ generation of quality ideas in exchange for
Group composition in terms of group size and gender their course credit by making such statements as “I un-
of members was maintained similarly in groups and derstand that you have agreed to participate in this
was statistically controlled for hypothesis testing. project in exchange for course credits!” and “You
During the brainstorming sessions, groups were led are expected to cooperate with your group members
by a confederate leader as described in the following. to receive the rewards I mentioned earlier.” In the
Group members performed a brainstorming task with transformational leadership condition, in addition to
regard to how to improve the quality of education so highlighting what the group had to accomplish, con-
that the business school obtains a better reputation in federates (a) emphasized the importance of the task
the country. They spent an hour getting to know each and its broader contribution to the business school to
other, listening to background information presented which they belong, (b) encouraged questioning of old
by their confederate leader, and receiving instruction stereotypes they hold about “good schools,”and (c) en-
on brainstorming activities. For the real group condi- couraged group members to think about new and inno-
tion, participants were seated around a table and were vative ways to analyze current problems and solutions.
asked to generate recommendations as a group. They To accomplish these objectives, confederates made
also were instructed to designate a facilitator who such statements as “So, let’s consider the broader im-
wrote down ideas and recommendations on answer plications of your participation in this project,” and
sheets in the real group condition. For the nominal “Your participation is extremely important to the qual-
group condition, participants were seated individually ity of education you, other students, and future stu-
and instructed to generate suggestions as an individual. dents will get in the future.”
The confederate did not participate in the brainstorm-
ing activities, but mainly served as a coordinator Measures
throughout the entire experimental session.
Transformational and transactional leadership were Leadership style. A postexperiment question-
manipulated by two confederates who displayed either naire was administered to verify the intended leader-
leadership style in each session. Each group was led by ship manipulation. Group members’ perceptions of
one of these two male confederates. The confederates leadership style were measured using items adapted
were fully counterbalanced in terms of leadership and from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form
group conditions they facilitated. Only male confeder- 5X) developed by Bass and Avolio (1997). Each item
ates were used in this study to minimize potential gen- was completed on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
der effects on participants’ perceptions, process, and (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample
performance. They portrayed each leadership style item representing transformational leadership is “My
based on scripts adapted from a leader-training pro- leader got me to look at the task from many different an-
gram developed by Bass and Avolio (1997). Confeder- gles.” A sample item representing transactional leader
ates interacted with group members about 1½ hr during behavior is “My leader pointed out what our goal was.”
each experimental session. Reliabilities for transformational and transactional
Confederates greeted group members when they ar- leadership scales were .84 and .86, respectively.
rived. When all of the group members had showed up
for their session, confederates introduced the nature of Creativity. Based on previous research on brain-
the task, background, and other important information storming task and creativity, creativity was measured
on brainstorming procedure. Upon receiving these in- using fluency and flexibility (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991;
structions, group members began brainstorming activi- Torrance, 1965). Although it is true that divergent
ties based on the preassigned condition of nominal thinking measured by fluency and flexibility in this
versus real group discussion mode for 35 min. In the study and creativity are not synonymous, divergent
transactional leadership condition, confederates em- thinking has been identified as an estimate for the po-
phasized what the group members had to accomplish tential for creative problem solving in a number of pre-
and linked the successful accomplishment of their task vious studies, and thus this approach was adopted in
to extrinsic rewards for them in the form of course this study (Runco, 1991; Sosik et al., 1998). This ap-

Creativity Research Journal 189

D. I. Jung

proach also is in line with the definition used by factor analysis using varimax rotation was conducted.
Amabile et al. (1996), who defined creativity as “the Results produced a one-factor solution that explained
production of novel and useful ideas in any domain” (p. 59% of variance. Therefore, a single measure of flexi-
1155). As such, Guilford (1984) identified fluency and bility was used for hypothesis testing.
flexibility as crucial cognitive processes to the genera-
tion of divergent ideas. The use of both fluency and
flexibility to measure creativity in this study, instead of Results
using a single construct, also was justified by a rela-
tively low intercorrelation between the two measures (r Leadership Manipulation Checks
= .13, p > .05).
Fluency was measured as the total number of Two leadership styles were manipulated using con-
unduplicated ideas generated. Based on Torrance’s federates in this study. As such, postexperimental data
(1965) discussion, three subcategories of flexibility were collected to make sure that leadership manipula-
(adaptation, addition, and substitution) were assessed tion was perceived by the participants as intended.
and combined. The adaptation subcategory represents Participants’ perceptions about their confederate’s
a participant’s suggestion of adapting, fitting, or modi- leadership style was compared using one-way analysis
fying internal and external environments of the school. of variance. Results of manipulation checks revealed
The addition subcategory refers to a participant’s sug- that participants in the transformational leadership
gestion for adding or providing additional resources condition perceived their confederate leader as sig-
such as classroom facilities, number of faculty mem- nificantly more transformational, M = 3.71, than
bers, and computer equipment. The substitution sub- transactional, M = 3.35, F(1, 89) = 13.82, p < .001. Simi-
category represents a participant’s recommendation of larly, participants in the transactional leadership condi-
replacing old processing or technology with more ad- tion perceived their project leader as significantly more
vanced or better educational technology. transactional, M = 3.96, than transformational, M =
Two raters were trained to read and evaluate each of 3.53, F(1, 92) = 17.27, p < .001.
the recommendations and suggestions carefully and
independently based on a coding scheme prepared by
the author. The coding scheme included the definition Effects of Leadership and
of each of three categories discussed previously and Group Conditions on Creativity
asked two raters to indicate their ratings based on a 5-
point scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). Table 1 presents the scale means and standard devi-
They were not given any information as to different ations based on the overall samples. It also shows
leadership and group conditions in which participants means and standard deviations for different leadership
generated their recommendations. Following Diehl and group conditions.
and Stroebe’s (1987, 1991) recommendation, the two Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA)
coders’ ratings were considered in agreement when was first run to assess the influence of leadership style
their ratings of each category fell within 1 point of each and group condition and their interaction term on both
other on the 5-point scales. Using this procedure, ini- fluency and flexibility. Group member’s gender and
tial interrater coding agreements (prior to reconcilia- group size were used as covariates to control for poten-
tion of coding differences) for fluency and three tial effects on the outcome measures. The MANCOVA
subcategories of flexibility were 87% for fluency, results showed significant F values for main effects of
87.7% for adaptation, 91.2% for addition, and 98.5% leadership (F = 18.30, p < .001) and group (F =
for substitution. Any discrepancies were resolved 102.28, p < .001) conditions, as well as for the signifi-
through discussion between the two raters working to- cant interaction term (F = 5.10, p < .01). Because the
gether to arrive at a single score for each category. The MANCOVA results were significant, analyses of
final interrater agreements across all categories were covariance (ANCOVAs) were run to examine their ef-
well over 90%, indicating adequate interrater fects on each dependent variable separately. Table 2
reliabilities. To provide support for merging the three summarizes the results of the ANCOVAs. For the flu-
subcategories of flexibility, a principal components ency measure, neither of these covariates had signifi-

190 Creativity Research Journal

 Leadership and Creativity

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviation Among Dependent Variables

Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership

Overall Sample Nominal Group Real Group Nominal Group Real Group

Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Fluency 53.83 25.72 72.60 23.80 29.06 21.77 59.24 12.73 19.43 5.75
Flexibility 3.13 0.72 2.92 0.19 2.68 0.41 2.78 0.08 2.57 0.39
Adaptation 3.06 0.62 3.15 0.41 3.09 0.65 3.23 0.25 2.97 0.71
Addition 3.64 0.74 4.37 0.34 3.56 0.77 3.86 0.38 3.37 0.70
Substitution 1.35 0.42 1.26 0.25 1.39 0.41 1.25 0.40 1.37 0.47

Note: N = 194, J = 53.

Table 2. Analyses of Covariance Results for Dependent Variables

Source of Variation Ms df F

Fluency
Sex (Covariate) 273.52 1 0.86
Group Size (Covariate) 29.86 1 0.09
Leadership Stylea 4,701.05 1 14.78***
Group Typeb 64,957.99 1 204.27***
Leadership × Group 135.94 1 0.51
Residual 147.65 188
Flexibility
Sex (Covariate) 0.01 1 0.01
Group Size (Covariate) 0.95 1 8.01**
Leadership Stylec 0.57 1 4.78*
Group Typed 2.01 1 17.09***
A×B 0.08 1 0.65
Residual 0.12 188
a
M for transformational leadership condition = 57.26; M for transactional leadership condition = 50.98. bM for nominal group condition = 64.60; M
for real group condition = 25.07. cM for transformational leadership condition = 2.77; M for transactional leadership condition = 2.61. dM for
nominal group condition =2.87; M for real group condition = 2.61.
*p < .05. **p <. 01. ***p < .001.

cant effects. For the flexibility measure, participants’ ticipants in the real group condition. In addition, ideas
gender did not have a significant effect, whereas group generated by the nominal group participants were sig-
size had a significant effect on flexibility. nificantly more creative than those generated by the
Hypothesis 1 was proposed to test the main effect of real group participants. No significant interaction ef-
leadership style. Results of ANCOVAs clearly sup- fect was found for either fluency or flexibility measure.
ported this hypothesis. Participants in the transfor-
mational leadership condition generated significantly
greater numbers of unique ideas than their counterparts Discussion
in the transactional leadership condition. As shown in
Table 2, they also produced more creative ideas, as This study extends the line of research that has exam-
measured by flexibility, than participants in the ined the effects of transformational and transactional
transactional leadership condition. Hypothesis 2 was leadership on creativity in groups. A number of leader-
proposed to test the main effect of group condition. Re- ship scholars have made conceptual arguments for the
sults of ANCOVAs strongly supported this hypothesis importance of leadership in fostering followers’ cre-
in that participants in the nominal group condition gen- ativity, but a very limited number of studies have empir-
erated significantly greater numbers of ideas than par- ically examined such issues (Redmond et al., 1993;

Creativity Research Journal 191

D. I. Jung

Sosik et al., 1998). Particularly, despite the basic prem- ativity in groups and organizations, this study demon-
ise that many transformational leadership researchers strated that transformational leadership is more instru-
have made with regard to a transformational leader’s mental in fostering creativity than transactional
emphasis on innovation and intellectual stimulation in leadership by establishing group norms that allow mem-
the leadership process (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Conger & bers to focus on intrinsic motivation and satisfaction
Kanungo, 1987; Howell & Avolio, 1993), there has they can draw from the enactment of their task. Confed-
been only one empirical study that examined the effect erates in the transformational leadership condition em-
of transformational leadership on group creativity in a phasized the importance of having exploratory thinking
computer-mediated environment (Sosik et al., 1998). that may not be consistent with traditional solutions.
This study made an attempt to extend Sosik et al. by ma- Their intellectual stimulation may have enhanced gen-
nipulating different leadership (transformational vs. erative thinking by encouraging group members to ap-
transactional) and group conditions (real vs. nominal) in ply nontraditional thinking, fantasize, and transpose
a face-to-face setting. figure and ground when they engage in brainstorming
Results indicated that (a) transformational leader- activities (Sosik et al., 1998).
ship promoted higher levels of creativity measured by Finally, this study confirmed results found in prior
divergent thinking among group members, and (b) par- brainstorming research in that nominal groups pro-
ticipants in the nominal group condition produced duced almost two and one half times as many unique
higher levels of creativity than those in the real group ideas as real groups even after gender composition in
condition. These results were robust in terms of differ- groups and group size were statistically controlled. In
ent measures of creativity operationalized in this study addition, the quality of ideas measured by flexibility in
(i.e., fluency and flexibility). Therefore, this study pro- the nominal group condition was superior to the real
vides support for theoretical and conceptual claims group condition. Despite different perspectives for
made in prior research that certain characteristics of assessing brainstorming effectiveness in groups and
transformational leadership such as intellectual stimu- organizations raised by several group researchers
lation may help followers look at problems from a dif- (Runco, 1991; Sutton & Hargadon, 1996), this study
ferent perspective. This is in line with a conclusion found that the effectiveness of nominal groups in
made by Torrance (1988) that leaders who encourage brainstorming activities was superior to real groups
initial disagreement and consideration of a wide range even measured by a qualitative criterion.
of alternatives can promote creativity in groups. In ad- One interesting result to consider is that even if
dition, this study also confirms that nominal groups transformational leadership had a strong positive ef-
can think of and generate ideas twice as much as real fect on followers’ creativity in groups, there was no in-
groups can in brainstorming activities (Dennis & teraction effect between leadership style and group
Valacich, 1993). condition. In other words, as shown in Table 2, nomi-
Leaders often occupy a boundary role position in or- nal groups produced approximately 40 more ideas than
ganizations, where they define organizational culture, real groups did, and this difference did not change sig-
climate, and group norms (Redmond et al., 1993). As nificantly from transformational to transactional lead-
such, leaders shape the way that their subordinates get ership condition. This could have been due to the fact
things done. Through the role-modeling and mentoring that, despite transformational leaders’ encouragement
process, leaders show followers how to perform their for challenging each other’s assumptions and looking
task and, in return, followers want to emulate leader be- at a problem from an unconventional perspective, par-
haviors for higher levels of performance. In a sense, ticipants in the real group condition could not over-
leaders define what the reality is for their followers by come the fear of evaluation apprehension. They may
creating expected modes of behaviors or norms (Katz & have been concerned about how other group members
Kahn, 1978). Because of these interactive processes that perceived them when they wanted to present more cre-
leaders and followers go through while they perform ative and unconventional ideas. Alternatively, the lack
their task, leaders have a strong, direct impact on follow- of interaction effects in the ANCOVAs can be ex-
ers’ behavior (Redmond et al., 1993). Given Amabile’s plained by the production-blocking effect that oc-
(1998) conclusion concerning the environmental condi- curred in the real group condition. No matter what their
tions that managers can create to actively induce cre- leader emphasized during the experimental session,

192 Creativity Research Journal

 Leadership and Creativity

only one group member could speak at a time in the players in groups and organizations who develop,
real group condition, which prevented group members transform, and institutionalize group norms and orga-
from generating a greater number of ideas (large mean nizational culture, they should exert their best efforts to
difference between the two group conditions in Table 2 ensure that they establish a creativity-inducing organi-
supports this explanation). This overwhelmingly zational environment. Transformational leaders may
greater number of ideas in the nominal group condition help organizations develop a culture that promotes in-
could have contributed to a higher level of creativity trinsic motivation and rewards creative endeavors
qualitatively. This explanation seems plausible be- while minimizing the fear of failure among subordi-
cause a number of prior studies found that real groups nates (Amabile, 1998). This study provides additional
did not suffer from production-blocking effects when evidence telling us that transformational leadership be-
they generated ideas using a computer-based group- haviors can be acquired through training, and such be-
decision support system because such an environment haviors indeed increased followers’ creative and
enables members to input their comments simulta- divergent thinking in groups.
neously (Dennis & Valacich, 1993; Diehl & Stroebe, In conclusion, this study examined the effects of
1991). transformational and transactional leadership and dif-
ferent group conditions on followers’ creative thinking
in brainstorming activities. Despite some potential
Implications limitations that the study has, including student sample
and artificial experimental setting, it makes an impor-
The empirical findings reported in this study can tant contribution to our understanding of the effects of
offer some theoretical and practical implications for transformational leadership on creativity in a face-to-
the future study of transformational leadership and face context. Because creativity requires intrinsic mo-
creativity in groups. For example, this study demon- tivation among group members to put extra efforts
strated that transformational and transactional leader- into testing out new and innovative ideas, instead of
ship can be successfully manipulated to examine how merely carrying out a contractual agreement with
different leadership styles affect individual and group their managers and organization, future research on
performance as well as creative thinking and behav- transformational leadership and creativity can help
ior in an experimental setting. Although participants build a truly innovative company in which creativity
in this study interacted with the confederate during a does not just survive, but actually thrives (Amabile,
relatively short period of time, they still were able to 1998). This study adds one step toward unveiling the
develop perceptions of either transformational or complex processes through which transformational
transactional leadership as intended. Future experi- leaders and followers may interact to bring about inno-
mental studies can investigate how different leader- vation and creativity. As the business environment be-
ship styles affect creativity in the group process more comes more competitive, and as innovative and
rigorously by exposing leadership manipulation sev- creative groups of people have become key to numer-
eral times during an experimental session or based on ous highly successful organizations, one of the most
a longitudinal context. important roles that leaders and managers can play is to
There are several practical implications that this find out how they can inspire subordinates’ creative
study may offer to managers who want to help their potentials in the 21st century.
subordinates learn how to increase their creative be-
havior. Amabile (1998) argued that creativity can be
enhanced through different ways such as changing or- References
ganizational culture where employees are encouraged
to freely discuss and exchange ideas. Therefore, if Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A
managers are trained to employ the transformational componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45, 357–376.
leadership behaviors discussed in this study, they may
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social
help subordinates become more intrinsically motivated psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.
to put extra efforts into trying out new and creative ap- Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Re-
proaches to their problems. Because managers are key view, 76(5), 77–87

Creativity Research Journal 193

D. I. Jung

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. Hollander, E. (1978). Leadership dynamics. New York: Free Press.
(1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad- House, R. J. (1971). A path–goal theory of leadership effectiveness.
emy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–338.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G.
charisma and beyond. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Balaga, H. P. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp.
Bachler, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vista 189–204). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
(pp. 29–50). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century: A specu-
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta- lative inquiry. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of
tions. New York: Free Press. work (pp. 411–450). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership. New House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. (1974). Path–goal theory of leadership.
York: Free Press. Journal of Contemporary Business, 5, 81–97.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of
transformational and transactional leadership for individual, transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M.
team, and organizational development. In R. W. Woodman & Chemers&R.Ayman(Eds.),Leadershiptheoryandresearch:Per-
W. A. Passmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and spectives and direction (pp. 81–107). San Diego, CA: Academic.
development (pp. 231–272). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership,
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full-range of leadership devel- transactional leadership, locus of control and support for inno-
opment: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. vation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit perfor-
Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden. mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891–902.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for tak- Katz, D., & Kahn, R. C. (1978). The social psychology of organiza-
ing charge. New York: Harper & Row. tions. New York: Wiley.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. A. (1987). Towards a behavioral the- three core charismatic leadership components on performance
ory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Acad- and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36–51.
emy of Management Review, 12, 637–647. Lamm, H., & Trommsdorff, G. (1973). Group versus individual per-
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determi- formance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorm-
nation in human behavior. New York: Plenum. ing): A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 361–
Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: 388.
More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, Maier, N. R. (1970). Problem solving and creativity: In groups and
78, 531–537. individuals. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming Mandel, M. (1998, August 31). You ain’t seen nothing yet. Business
groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality Week, 60–61.
and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509. Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generat- brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and
ing groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Per- Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23.
sonality and Social Psychology, 61, 392–403. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome:
Evans, M. (1974). Extensions of the path–goal theory of motivation. Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulle-
Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 172–178. tin, 103, 27–43.
Farrell, C. (1998, August 31). The 21st century economy: A rising Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner’s.
tide. Business Week, pp. 72–75. Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M.
Furnham, A., & Yazdanpanahi, T. (1996). Personality differences (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The
and group versus individual brainstorming. Personality and In- illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychol-
dividual Differences, 19, 73–80. ogy Bulletin, 19, 78–89.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relation- Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting cre-
ship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management ativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate cre-
Review, 23, 32–58. ativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
Gilder, G. (1998, June 1). The soul of Silicon. Forbes ASAP, 162, pp. cesses, 55, 120–151.
111–127. Runco, M. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Guilford, J. P. (1984). Varieties of divergent production. Journal of Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational
Creative Behavior, 18, 1–10. effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory.
Hage, J., & Dewar, R. (1973). Elite value versus organizational Organizational Science, 4, 577–594.
structure in predicting innovation. Administrative Science Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational
Quarterly, 18, 279–290. leadership and dimensions of creativity: Motivating idea gener-
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subor- ation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Jour-
dinates perceptions of transformational and transactional lead- nal, 11, 111–121.
ership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695–702. Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in con-
Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance. Are N + 1 text: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Sci-
heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517–539. ence Quarterly, 41, 685–718.

194 Creativity Research Journal

 Leadership and Creativity

Torrance, E. P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior. Englewood Witt, L. S., & Beorkrem, M. N. (1989). Climate for creative produc-
Cliffs, NJ: Personnel. tivity as a predictor of research usefulness and organizational
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its test- effectiveness in an R&D organization. Creativity Research
ing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contem- Journal, 2, 30–46.
porary psychological perspectives (pp. 43–75). New York: Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a
Cambridge University Press. theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management
Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to Review, 18, 293–321.
contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charis- Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993).
matic leadership. Group and Organization Studies, 15, 381– Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal
394. investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81–102.

Creativity Research Journal 195