Creativity is modern era productivity. Many efforts have been made to enhance employee creativity. This study adopted the social exchange model of creativity to understand in-depth the integrated effect of affective and cognitive trust in supervisor (ATS/CTS) on employee creativity. We recruited 528 subordinates who completed a three-wave survey at one-month intervals. Multilevel modeling results showed that ATS and CTS were positively related to employee creativity. Moreover, information sharing served as a mediator for the relationship between CTS and employee creativity, but not between ATS and employee creativity. In addition, the mediation effect of information sharing on ATS-employee creativity was significant for employees with high levels of CTS but not for those with low levels of CTS. Our results suggested an integrated effect of ATS and CTS in information sharing and its consequences on employee creativity. We have confirmed and extended the social exchange model by examining the integrated effect of ATS and CTS on employee creativity. CTS seems to be a threshold in the relationship between ATS and employee information sharing. Our findings clarify ways to develop human resource training to promote ATS and CTS to foster employee creativity.
AmabileT. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
2.
BarczakG.LasskF.MulkiJ. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x
3.
BasitA. A. (2017). Trust in supervisor and job engagement: Mediating effects of psychological safety and felt obligation. The Journal of Psychology, 151(8), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2017.1372350
4.
BattistelliA.OdoardiC.VandenbergheC.Di NapoliG.PiccioneL. (2019). Information sharing and innovative work behavior: The role of work based learning, challenging tasks, and organizational commitment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(3), 361–381.https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21344
5.
BeckerT. E.AtincG.BreaughJ. A.CarlsonK. D.EdwardsJ. R.SpectorP. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 157–167.https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2053
6.
ChanS. C. (2014). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice: Does information sharing matter?Human Relations, 67(6), 667–693.https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713503022
7.
ChenX.-P.EberlyM. B.ChiangT.-J.FarhJ.-L.ChengB.-S. (2011). Affective trust in Chinese leaders. Journal of Management, 40(3), 796–819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410604
ChowW. S.ChanL. S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information and Management, 45(7), 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.06.007
ColquittJ. A.LePineJ. A.PiccoloR. F.ZapataC. P.RichB. L. (2012). Explaining the justice-performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer?Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 1–15.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025208
12.
CropanzanoR.MitchellM. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
13.
CuiG.WangF.ZhangY. (2022). Buffer or boost? The role of openness to experience and knowledge sharing in the relationship between team cognitive diversity and members' innovative work behavior. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03633-7
14.
De DreuC. K. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.628
15.
De JongB. A.DirksK. T.GillespieN. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1134–1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110
16.
DewettT. (2003). Understanding the relationship between information technology and creativity in organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj152and3_08
17.
DirksK. T.FerrinD. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.611
18.
EdmondsonA. C.KramerR. M.CookK. S. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, 12(2004), 239–272.
19.
EdwardsJ. R.CableD. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891
20.
GongY.CheungS. Y.WangM.HuangJ. C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1611–1633. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631038025
21.
GongY.KimT. Y.LeeD. R.ZhuJ. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827–851. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0177
22.
GuoM.BrownG.ZhangL. (2022). My knowledge: The negative impact of territorial feelings on employee’s own innovation through knowledge hiding. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(5), 801–817. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2599
23.
HahmS. (2017). Information sharing and creativity in a virtual team: Roles of authentic leadership, sharing team climate and psychological empowerment. KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems, 11(8), 4105–4119. https://doi.org/10.3837/tiis.2017.08.020
HauY. S.KimB.LeeH.KimY.-G. (2013). The effects of individual motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.009
26.
HochJ. E. (2014). Shared leadership, diversity, and information sharing in teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5):541–564. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2012-0053
HonA. H.BloomM.CrantJ. M. (2014). Overcoming resistance to change and enhancing creative performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 919–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415418
29.
HonA. H.LuL. (2015). Are we paid to be creative? The effect of compensation gap on creativity in an expatriate context. Journal of World Business, 50(1), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.03.002
30.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling. a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1–55.
31.
HuJ.ErdoganB.JiangK.BauerT. N.LiuS. (2018). Leader humility and team creativity: The role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000277
32.
HuangQ.DavisonR. M.GuJ. (2011). The impact of trust, guanxi orientation and face on the intention of Chinese employees and managers to engage in peer-to-peer tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. Information Systems Journal, 21(6), 557–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2010.00361.x
33.
JaiswalN. K.DharR. L. (2017). The influence of servant leadership, trust in leader and thriving on employee creativity. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(1), 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-02-2015-0017
34.
JamesL. R.DemareeR. G.WolfG. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306
35.
JavedB.RawwasM. Y.KhandaiS.ShahidK.TayyebH. H. (2018). Ethical leadership, trust in leader and creativity: The mediated mechanism and an interacting effect. Journal of Management and Organization, 24(3), 388–405.https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.56
JohnsonM. D.HollenbeckJ. R.HumphreyS. E.IlgenD. R.JundtD.MeyerC. J. (2006). Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 103–119.https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785533
38.
KaltiainenJ.LipponenJ.HoltzB. C. (2017). Dynamic interplay between merger process justice and cognitive trust in top management: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(4), 636–647.https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000180
39.
KesselM.KratzerJ.SchultzC. (2012). Psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and creative performance in healthcare teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2012.00635.x
40.
KhazanchiS.MastersonS. S. (2011). Who and what is fair matters: A multi-foci social exchange model of creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 86–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.682
41.
LegoodA.van der WerffL.LeeA.Den HartogD. (2021). A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 30(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2020.1819241
42.
LeungK.WangJ. (2015). Social processes and team creativity in multicultural teams: A socio-technical framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(7), 1008–1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2021
43.
LiN.YanJ. (2007). The mechanism of how trust climate impacts on individual performance. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(06), 1111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11782-009-0002-6
44.
LiboriusP.KiewitzC. (2022). When leader humility meets follower competitiveness: Relationships with follower affective trust, intended and voluntary turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 135(4), 103719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103719
45.
LyndonS.PandeyA.NavareA. (2020). Shared leadership and team creativity: Investigating the role of cognitive trust and team learning through mixed method approach. Personnel Review, 49(9), 1805–1822. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2019-0262
46.
MadjarN.GreenbergE.ChenZ. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 730–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022416
47.
MadjarN.Ortiz-WaltersR. (2009). Trust in supervisors and trust in customers: Their independent, relative, and joint effects on employee performance and creativity. Human Performance, 22(2), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280902743501
48.
MalmströmM. M.JohanssonJ. (2015). Social exchange in collaborative innovation: Maker or breaker. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0034-z
49.
McAllisterD. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/256727
50.
Mesmer-MagnusJ. R.DeChurchL. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013773
51.
NewmanA.DonohueR.EvaN. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001
52.
NewmanA.KiazadK.MiaoQ.CooperB. (2014). Examining the cognitive and affective trust-based mechanisms underlying the relationship between ethical leadership and organisational citizenship: A case of the head leading the heart?Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1803-2
53.
NgK.-Y.ChuaR. Y. (2006). Do I contribute more when I trust more? Differential effects of cognition- and affect-based trust. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00028.x
54.
SchaubroeckJ.LamS.PengA. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022625
55.
ShenW.HommelB.YuanY.ChangL.ZhangW. (2018). Risk-taking and creativity: Convergent, but not divergent thinking is better in low-risk takers. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 224–231.https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1446852
56.
SridharG.LyngdohT. (2019). Flow and information sharing as predictors of ethical selling behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(3), 807–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3743-8
57.
TianQ.SanchezJ. I. (2017). Does paternalistic leadership promote innovative behavior? The interaction between authoritarianism and benevolence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(5), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12431
58.
TuY.LuX.ChoiJ. N.GuoW. (2019). Ethical leadership and team-level creativity: Mediation of psychological safety climate and moderation of supervisor support for creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3839-9
59.
WebberS. S.KlimoskiR. J. (2004). Client-project manager engagements, trust, and loyalty. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 997–1013. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.294
60.
WengJ.SunT. T.. (2023). The influence mechanism of team power structure on multilevel creativity. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 29(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/259083
61.
WoodmanR. W.SawyerJ. E.GriffinR. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1993.3997517
62.
WuX.ChenY.YanR.GuanH. (2022). Core self-evaluation and employee creativity: A perspective based on the self-consistent theory. Management Review, 34(9), 243.
63.
XiaoY.ZhangH.BasadurT. M. (2016). Does information sharing always improve team decision making? An examination of the hidden profile condition in new product development. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 587–595.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.014
64.
XuZ.SuntrayuthS. (2022). Innovative work behavior in high-tech enterprises: Chain intermediary effect of psychological safety and knowledge sharing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1017121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1017121
65.
YanZ.WangT.ChenY.ZhangH. (2016). Knowledge sharing in online health communities: A social exchange theory perspective. Information and Management, 53(5), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.02.001
66.
YangJ.MossholderK. W. (2010). Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-and-foci approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.004
67.
YangJ.MossholderK. W.PengT. (2009). Supervisory procedural justice effects: The mediating roles of cognitive and affective trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.009
68.
ZhangX.ZhouJ. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.02.002
69.
ZhangX. J.KhanF.JinpengX.KhanK. U. (2019). Study of cognitive and affected trust in knowledge sharing evidence from Chinese firms - a review paper. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 13(1), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2019.1569825
70.
ZhouJ.GeorgeJ. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069410
