Moderating Role of Job Autonomy and Supervisor Support in Trait Emotional Intelligence and Employee Creativity Relationship

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between trait-based emotional intelligence and employee creativity. Drawing from the trait activation theory (TAT), the current study also examined job autonomy and supervisor support as interactive effects on emotional intelligence—employee creativity relationship. The study was conducted on 233 employees working at different positions, in two financial sector organizations. Using random sampling approach, data were taken on standard questionnaire from employees of the organizations of the study. Correlations and regression analyses revealed that the trait-based emotional intelligence has positive and significant influence on employee creativity. Moderated regression analysis showed that both job autonomy and supervisor support strengthened the emotional intelligence—employee creativity relationship. The implications of the study have been explicated in the research.

Keywords

Trait Emotional Intelligence Employee Creativity Job Autonomy Supervisor Support

Since the popularization of emotional intelligence (EI), studies blossomed and attracted substantial research interest to examine its influence on various positive individual behaviours and organizational outcomes. For example, studies revealed that a person with high EI exhibited greater cognitive and social functioning (Van Rooy, Viswesvaran, & Pluta, 2005), psychological well-being (Brackett & Mayer, 2003), leadership effectiveness and other organizationally desired behaviours and performances (O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011). While these findings are significant for organizational functioning and effectiveness, however less attention is devoted to explore the relationship between EI and employee creativity (Joseph & Newman, 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2011), an important and highly desirable behaviour in modern organization (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Further scholars have emphasized the need to examine potential intervening factors in EI-outcomes relationship (Choi, Anderson, & Veillette, 2009; O’Boyle et al., 2011). For example, researchers (e.g., Ivcevic, Brackett, & Mayer, 2007) have pointed out that there is a need to examine how EI facilitate creative behaviours in employees.

The current study examined job autonomy and organizational support as moderating variables in EI–creativity relationship. It is assumed that EI will interact with job autonomy and supervisor support to produce employee creativity. The argument is in line with the trait activation theory (TAT) (Tett & Guterman, 2000), which postulated that the person–situation interaction explains behavioural outcomes. According to the theory, trait-relevant situational factors exaggerate or attenuate the effect of personal dispositions on human behaviour by providing an occasion for individuals to respond in ways that are consistent or inconsistent with their innate traits (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Situational factors, according the theory, could be organizational, personal or psychological for the performance of trait-related behaviours. Consistent with this notion, in the present research, job autonomy and supervisor support are proposed as situations or cues that explain the relationship between trait-based EI (one of the two conceptualizations of EI) and employee creativity. Drawing from the TAT, it is argued that the presence of job autonomy and supervisor support will boost the relationship between employee’s trait EI and his creativity. A person with high autonomy and support will be able to utilize his cognitive and other psychological resources which in turn will help the person to come up with novel and useful ideas.

The current study is important from two ways. First, relationship between trait EI and employee creativity is empirically tested, which will address the need of research (e.g., Joseph & Newman, 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2011). Second, the moderating effects of two organizational level factors are tested to better understand individual dispositions (trait EI) on employee creativity to meet the demand to examine the mechanism of EI–creativity relationship (Ivcevic et al., 2007).

Literature Review

Employee Creativity

Numerous definitions of employee creativity exist in creativity literature. In general, it can be defined as employee’s ability to create novel and potentially useful ideas, products and process to the employing organization (Shalley et al., 2004; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). In recent past, research on employee creativity has been given increased attention in the organizational behaviour (Zhou & Shalley, 2008) because of its significant contribution in organizational effectiveness, success and survival (Gilson, 2008; Shalley et al., 2004), better physical health (Stuckey & Nobel, 2010) and higher general well-being and functioning (Richards, 2007) of employees. Extant research has suggested that personal factors (Oldham & Cummings, 1996), organizational or contextual factors (Shin & Zhou, 2003) and interplay of the two (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Choi et al., 2009) contribute in employee creativity. Creativity is the result of employee’s creative behaviour, so employee’s individual characteristics play significant role in it. Researchers have investigated various individual characteristics such as intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1983), creative personality (Oldham & Cummings, 1996), openness to experience (McCrae, 1987), creative self-efficacy (Tierney & Farmer, 2002) and affect and mood (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005) in creative behaviors. However, studying employee creativity in relations to trait EI, an important dispositional characteristic, is ignored by researchers.

Trait EI–Employee Creativity Relationship

One school of thoughts on EI regards EI as a dispositional tendency representing cognitive, personality, motivational and affective attributes (Mikolajczak, 2009; Van Rooy et al., 2005). The trait model of EI blends emotional intelligence as ability with certain personality traits and competencies (Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Zeng & Miller, 2003), thus presenting broader personality construct. Trait EI refers to a constellation of emotional self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies and integrates the affective aspects of personality (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007). The conceptualization of trait EI as a personality trait is different from the taxonomy of human cognitive ability (Carroll, 1993), which is the basis of ability-based EI, the other school of thoughts on EI (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The emergence of trait EI construct shifted the interest in personality research from the study of the relationships between specific personality characteristics and dimensions of behaviour (e.g., creativity) to the exploration of the effect that the broader personality constructs have on behaviours (Poulou, 2010).

It is argued in the current research that people with trait EI are likely to engage in the creative process and exhibit creative behaviours. Although there is a lack of evidence linking directly the trait EI and employee creativity, relationship between the two can be indirectly drawn. Trait EI included both cognitive and personality elements (e.g., Petrides & Furnham, 2001). There are some evidences linking ability EI with creative behaviour (e.g., Joseph & Newman, 2010; Suliman & Al-Shaikh, 2006). A person with EI can use his psychological resources which facilitate thinking, reasoning and analysing situations (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), which in turn results in innovative and novel ideas. People with EI also use positive emotions, which help in getting varied ideas and thoughts which in turn influence their creativity. Personality has also been examined in relation to creativity. For example, creative personality was used to study the personality–creativity relationship (Feist, 1998). Creative personality is characterized by attributes, such as toleration of ambiguity and self-confidence, divergent thinking, broad interests (Gough, 1979) leading to creativity. For example, an employee with high self-confidence and divergent thinking is likely to approach the problem from different angles and without sense of hesitation or failures, which facilitate novel ideas. Other researchers have examined the Big Five Factor Model of personality on employee creativity. However, few dimensions of the model such as openness to experience and conscientiousness were found to be significantly related to employee creativity (George & Zhou, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 1997). Drawing from the above findings, it is argued that trait EI will facilitate creative behaviour in employees. Thus, it is conjectured that—

H1: Trait EI is significantly related to employee creativity.

Moderating Role of Job Autonomy in Trait EI–Employee Creativity Relationship

The present research hypothesized that the trait EI would be related to employee creativity. However, it is also argued that trait EI–creativity relationship would be more pronounced when employees have higher job autonomy than when their job autonomy level is low. Job autonomy refers to the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence to the individual in scheduling work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out. Job autonomy is one of the job characteristics developed by Hackman and Oldham (1975), which leads to a psychological state of experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work, which in turn leads to outcomes such as creativity. Theories and researches have documented the role of intrinsic factors in creativity (Amabile, 1988). For example, several researchers found positive association between job autonomy and employee creativity (Kauffeld, 2006). This may be because autonomy provides employees psychological resources such as empowerment, motivation (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010) to try new things which facilitate creative behaviour. However, some scholars opined that organizations must manage and foster internal organizational environment that supports the innovative behavioural traits among employees (Alpkan, Bulut, Gunday, Ulusoy, & Kilic, 2010; Dobni, 2010). The argument points towards the moderating variables of contextual factors and the job autonomy could be one of them. Thus, in addition to the main effect, it is proposed in the present study that job autonomy offers a stage or condition in which employees will behave in accordance with their own tendency based on the trait EI. For example, positive effect of trait EI will be manifested only when the employee perceived high autonomy in the job. Drawing from the TAT (Tett & Burnett, 2003), it is argued that job autonomy may create the setting in which an employee’s trait EI may be activated to enhance his/her creative behaviour. Overall, it is proposed that the relationship between trait EI and employee creativity could be either promoted or attenuated depending upon the level of job autonomy given to employees. Based on the theoretical consideration, following moderation hypothesis is formulated—

H2: Job autonomy will moderate the trait EI–creativity relationship such that the relationship will be stronger when the level of autonomy is higher.

Moderating Role of Supervisor Support in Trait EI–Creativity Relationship

Supervisor support refers to the degree to which employees feel that their supervisor or manager value their contributions and care about their well-being (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). High support from supervisor makes employees feel heard, valued and cared about. According to organizational support theory (OST), support from organization makes employees feel obligated to help the organization achieve its goals and objectives (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) and manager or supervisor is an important part of organizational support. Creativity requires psychological safety, risk taking, trust, autonomy and feedback (George & Zhou, 2007; Zhou, 1998), which an employee can get from his manager/ supervisor. Supervisor’s support has been found to be related to employee’s creative behaviour in numerous studies (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Most of the existing researches on supervisor’s support and employee creativity have examined direct effect between the two variables. However, the current study proposed indirect effect of supervisor’s support on employee creativity. It is argued that the trait EI–creativity relationship would be more pronounced when employee have high level of supervisor’s support. Employees with high support from organization and management have been found to reciprocate with increased in-role and extra-role performance (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). In consistent with the TAT (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000), it is proposed that the relationship between trait EI and employee creativity could be either promoted or attenuated depending upon the level of support.

H3: Supervisor support will moderate the trait EI– creativity relationship such that the relationship will be stronger when the level of support is higher.

Figure 1 presents the conceptual model developed in this article. The model shows the hypotheses described above. The main argument of the model is that trait EI will influence employee creativity. Further, it is argued that trait EI–employee creativity relationship will be moderated by job autonomy and supervisor’s support in the organization.

Method

Respondents and Procedure

The present research was cross-sectional and used survey research. Data were collected from a total of 233 employees working at different organizational levels from two financial organizations. Organizations have introduced series of financial products and services and also started using technology to serve its customer well. Random method of sampling was used in this study. With the prior permission from the authority, data on standard questionnaire were collected during office hours. Respondent’s age varied between 23 and 60 years, with average for the sample being 35 years approximately. Approximately 60 per cent of the sample was male. Approximately 65 per cent of the respondents were graduates and postgraduates and the remaining were undergraduates. All the necessary information about the research such as objectives of the study, ways of answering the questionnaire, etc., was provided to respondents. Respondents were also assured of the confidentiality of their responses.

Figure 1.

Source: Author’s own construct.

Measures

Trait EI: Current study adopted TEIQue-SF developed by Petrides and Furnham (2006). It is a self-report scale consisting of 30 items and measures global trait EI. Items reflecting trait EI are ‘I usually find it difficult to regulate my emotions’ and ‘I’m usually able to influence the way other people feel’. The TEIQue-SF is derived from the full form of the TEIQue of Petrides and Furnham (2003). The scale used a Likert-style response format, anchoring 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree). Its’ validity has been tested on the population of different countries (Petrides, Pérez-González, & Furnham, 2007). A global trait EI score is calculated by summing up the item scores and dividing by the total number of items. Higher scores on the TEIQue-SF indicate higher levels of trait EI. Reliability of the scale was found to be 0.76 (Cronbach’s alpha) on the current sample.

Employee Creativity: To measure employee creativity, current study used 4-item innovative behaviour scale developed by Scott and Bruce (1994). Items reflecting innovative behaviour are: ‘I create new ideas for improvements’, ‘I often search out new working methods, techniques, or instruments’, ‘My ideas generate original solutions to problems’ and ‘I work actively to test new ideas’. Responses were taken on 5-point Likert-type scale ranging 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Higher score indicates high creative behaviour. Reliability of the scale was found to be 0.82 (Cronbach’s alpha) on the present sample.

Job Autonomy: Employee’s job autonomy was assessed using Work Autonomy Scale developed by Breaugh (1999). The scale consists of nine items. Example of item in the scale is ‘I am free to choose the methods to use in carrying out my work’. Responses were taken on 5-point Likert-type scale ranging 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Higher score indicates high work autonomy. Reliability of the scale was found to be 0.77 (Cronbach’s alpha) on the present sample.

Supervisor Support: Oldham and Cummings’s (1996) 8-item scale was used to measure supervisor support. A sample item is ‘my supervisor encourages me to develop new skills’ and ‘my supervisor praises good work’. Responses were taken on scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale has reliability 0.80 (Cronbach’s alpha) on the present sample.

Control Variables

Researchers have documented that various demographic factors, such as age, educations and experiences (tenure), influence employee creativity (Amabile, 1988; Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). Others have found negative association of employee creativity with tenure (Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, 2010), age (Janssen, 2003). Consistent with previous researches, employees’ age, education level and their work tenure were controlled in this study.

Controlling for Common Method Bias

Survey research suffers from common method variance or bias. To control the bias, several measures as reported in the literature were taken. First, data on independent and dependent variables were collected in temporal gap (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Consistent with this approach, data were collected in two waves, with a lag of 3–4 weeks. In Wave 1, questionnaire consisting of the trait EI was administered which was followed by administration of employee creativity scale and scale of moderating variables (Wave 2, in gap of 3–4 weeks period). Second, it was emphasized to the respondents that there was no right or wrong answers in the questionnaire. Assuring anonymity (Podsakoff et al., 2003) to respondents was the third approach used in this study. With respect to the multicollinearity of the scales used in the study, the variance inflation factor ranged from 1.05 to 2.29, which showed the non-existence of multicollinearity.

Results

The analysis was performed in combination of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and a hierarchical regression analysis including moderating effects. The CFA was conducted to evaluate the distinctiveness of the measures used in the study. This CFA resulted in acceptable model fit to the data. GFI = 0.87, CFI = 0.89, TLI = 0.87; RMSEA = 0.06 were found in the four-factor model compared to the single-factor model (GFI = 0.70., CFI = 0.39, TLI = 0.39; RMSEA = 0.36). These measures showed a good discriminate validity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Thus, CFA results revealed that self-reported variables were distinct from one another.

Means, standard deviations and correlations for the study’s variables are presented in Table 1. It was found that trait EI and employee creativity are significantly related. Further job autonomy and supervisor support are also found to be positively and significantly associated with the employee creativity.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations (SD) and Correlation Coefficients among Variables

	Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	Age	34.58	6.42	–
2	Tenure	9.53	1.68	0.12*	1
3	Qualification	1.06	0.58	0.06	0.04	1
4	TEI	3.68	0.33	0.06	0.08	0.09	1
5	EC	3.51	0.57	0.09	0.13*	0.17*	0.50**	1
6	JA	3.87	0.48	0.01	0.06	0.191	0.51**	0.48**	1
7	SS	3.71	0.58	0.09	0.07	0.04	0.55**	0.52**	0.17*	1

Source: Author’s own.

Notes: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

EC = Employee creativity; JA = job autonomy; SS = supervisor support; TEI = trait emotional intelligence.

Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses of the study were tested using hierarchical regression analysis. Table 2 summarizes the results of the regression analysis. It is clear from the data presented in the table that trait EI is significantly and positively related to employee creativity ( β = 0.58, t = 5.46, p < 0.01). This finding lends support to the hypothesis 1 of the study. A person with cognitive, affective and personality attributes is capable of coming up with novel and innovative ideas and use those ideas for improving the organization and the society in large.

Table 2.

Moderated Regression Analysis using Job Autonomy on Trait EI–Employee Creativity Relationship

	B	SE	β	t-Value	R²	ΔR²	ΔF	p-Value
Model 1
Age	0.11	0.08	0.09	1.42				0.15
Tenure	0.06	0.13	0.03	.45				0.65
Qualification	0.07	0.03	0.22	2.33				0.03
					0.01	0.01	0.75	0.52
Model 2
Age	0.09	0.07	0.08	1.35				0.17
Tenure	0.20	0.12	0.10	1.63				0.10
Qualification	0.06	0.02	0.22	3.01				0.03
TEI	0.58	0.10	0.58	5.46				0.00
JA	0.13	0.03	0.23	4.33				0.01
					0.28	0.27	37.97	0.00
Model 3
Age	0.09	0.06	0.08	1.43				0.15
Tenure	0.18	0.11	0.09	1.54				0.12
Qualification	0.02	0.05	0.02	0.45				0.65
TEI	0.41	0.10	0.41	3.85				0.00
JA	0.69	0.28	0.27	2.45				0.01
TEI*JA	0.16	0.03	0.44	4.57				0.00
					0.35	0.07	20.90	0.00

Source: Author’s own.

Notes: B = Unstandardized regression coefficients; β = standardized regression coefficients; JA = job autonomy; SE = standard error; TEI = trait emotional intelligence.

Moderation Analysis

Table 2 also dispenses the results of hierarchical regression analysis that test the hypothesis for the interactive effect of job autonomy between the trait EI and employee creativity. Approach of Cohen, Cohen, West and Aiken (2003) was used in conducting moderation analysis. In the first step, control variables (age, tenure and qualification) were entered. In the second step, the main effects of the trait EI and job autonomy were regressed on employee creativity. In the final step, the cross-product term representing the interaction of the trait EI and job autonomy was regressed on the dependent variable. To control multicollinearity, the standardized scores for predictors were computed (Aiken & West, 1991) and then a new variable for interaction term was created by multiplying standardized scores for predictors. It was found that interaction of trait EI and job autonomy had a significant influence on employee creativity adding 27 per cent (approximately) of the explained variance (ΔR² = 0.27, p < 0.01). The findings imply that job autonomy attenuated the influence of the trait EI on employee creativity. Hypothesis 2, which postulated that job autonomy will moderate the relationship between the trait EI and employee creativity, is supported.

Figure 2 presents the relationship between trait EI and employee creativity as a function of job autonomy. Examination of the interaction plot showed an enhancing effect of high job autonomy on trait EI and employee creativity relationship. Specifically, when job autonomy was high, employee creativity was quite high even in the people who are low in trait EI.

Figure 2.

Source: Author’s own.

Table 3 contains results of hierarchical regression analysis that test the hypothesis for the interactive effect of supervisor support between the trait EI and employee creativity. Using approach of Cohen et al. (2003), moderation analysis was conducted in three steps. In the first step, control variables (age, tenure and qualification) were entered. In the second step, the main effect of the trait EI and supervisor support was regressed on employee creativity followed by regressing the cross-product term as interaction on the dependent variable. To control multicollinearity, the standardized scores for predictors were computed (Aiken & West, 1991) and then a new variable for interaction term was created by multiplying standardized scores for predictors. It was found that interaction of trait EI and supervisor support had a significant influence on employee creativity adding 35 per cent (approximately) of the explained variance (ΔR² = 0.35, p < 0.01). The findings imply that supervisor support attenuated the influence of the trait EI on employee creativity. Hypothesis 3, which postulated that supervisor support will moderate the relationship between the trait EI and employee creativity, is supported.

Table 3.

Moderated Regression Analysis using Supervisor Support on Trait EI–Employee Creativity Relationship

	B	SE	β	t-Value	R²	ΔR²	ΔF	p-Value
Model 1
Age	0.11	0.08	0.09	1.42				0.15
Tenure	0.06	0.13	0.03	.45				0.65
Qualification	0.07	0.03	0.22	2.33				0.03
					0.01	0.01	0.75	0.52
Model 2
Age	0.09	0.07	0.08	1.35				0.17
Tenure	0.20	0.12	0.10	1.63				0.10
Qualification	0.06	0.02	0.22	3.01				0.03
TEI	0.34	0.07	0.34	4.93				0.00
SS	0.34	0.06	0.34	5.08				0.00
					0.36	0.35	55.46	0.00
Model 3
Age	0.09	0.06	0.08	1.43				0.15
Tenure	0.18	0.11	0.09	1.54				0.12
Qualification	0.02	0.05	0.02	0.45				0.65
TEI	0.37	0.07	0.37	5.30				0.00
SS	0.35	0.06	0.35	5.22				0.00
TEI*SS	0.10	0.05	0.12	2.08				0.03
					0.37	0.02	4.36	0.00

Source: Author’s own.

Note: B = Unstandardized regression coefficients; β = standardized regression coefficients; SE = standard error; SS = supervisor support; TEI = trait emotional intelligence.

Figure 3 presents the relationship between trait EI and employee creativity as a function of supervisor support. Examination of the interaction plot showed an enhancing effect of high supervisor support on trait EI and employee creativity. Specifically, when supervisor support was high, employee creativity was also high even in the people who are low in trait EI.

Figure 3.

Source: Author’s own.

Discussion

Innovation and creativity have become the mantra for organizational survival and growth in current times. Innovation and creativity come from employees working in the organization. However, one important variable related to employee is EI, which was given less attention in relation to employee creativity (Joseph & Newman, 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2011) by researchers, especially trait EI which is explored in the current study. Analysis of results of the study supported the influence of trait EI on employee creativity. The finding is in line with the findings of researchers who explored ability-based EI and some personality dimensions in relation to employee creativity (e.g., George & Zhou, 2001; Gough, 1979; Joseph & Newman, 2010). One explanation for this association could be trait EI, which is a combination of both cognitive and certain personality elements (e.g., Petrides & Furnham, 2001), providing employees psychological and intellectual resources to harness their cognitive abilities, which facilitate thinking and analysing on the issue, leading to the creativity. For example, trait EI includes happiness, optimism, perception and regulation of emotions among others. A happy and satisfied employee can generate more thoughts and ideas than unhappy employees. Similarly, an optimistic employee will put more efforts both physically and mentally with the expectation of achieving goal, which in turn enhances his creativity.

An important objective of the present study was to comprehend the moderating role of job autonomy and supervisor support in relationship between the trait EI and employee creativity. Results suggest that job autonomy has main as well as moderating effect. Job autonomy provides employees to plan, implement and make necessary decision with respect to the work. This freedom creates emotional attachment and engagement with the work and the organization (Wang & Cheng, 2010), provides employees with the necessary decision latitude (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010), which facilitate employees to come up with creative ideas. Other reason for this could be that job autonomy empowers employees psychologically to think in diverse ways and from diverse perspectives on an issue, which creates intrinsic motivation in employees leading to creativity (Hon, 2012; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Autonomy in job also creates sense of responsibility in employees and this sense of responsibility forces a person to utilize their cognitive resources which helps in creativity. The present study also found that job autonomy in interaction with the trait EI facilitates employee creativity. Thus, the finding is in consistent with the TAT (Tett & Guterman, 2000), an employee with trait EI seems to act strongly (exhibit creativity) when he has higher level of job autonomy. People with higher job autonomy are found to be motivated, committed and engaged (Amabile, 1983; Wang & Cheng, 2010), which influence their cognitive processes that facilitate innovativeness and creativity (Caruso & Salovey, 2004). It also implied that if employees are high on their trait EI but low in their job autonomy, then it is less likely to generate novel and useful ideas and use their ideas for improving the organization and the society. The finding is congruent with the knowledge creation theory (Nonaka & Toyama, 2004) that emphasizes the level of autonomy in the workplace in innovative thinking and creative solutions (Wenjing, Wei, & Shuliang, 2013).

Current study also examined the interactive effect of supervisor support in the trait EI–employee creativity relationship. Supervisor support is found to have direct as well indirect effect in employee creativity in the present study. Current finding is in line with the well-documented evidences on the association between supervisor/manager support and employee creativity (e.g., Amabile et al., 2004; Nair & Gopal, 2010). One reason for this association could be explained from the perspective of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960), which obligates people to respond positively to favourable treatment received from others. Consistent with the theory, employees who get support from manager/supervisor feel obligated to give return in terms of high performance (here creativity). Support from the manager in different forms, such as material, emotional and cognitive, helps employees generate their creativity. According to George and Zhou (2007), supervisor can enhance employee creativity through three ways: providing developmental feedback, displaying interactional justice and being trustworthy. The present study also found that supervisor support moderates the trait EI–employee creativity relationship. Thus, this finding also is in consistent with the TAT (Tett & Guterman, 2000). An employee with trait EI will be able to exhibit creativity when he gets support from his manager. This finding is in line with the finding of Mumford, Scott, Gaddis and Strange (2002), who showed that employee’s creative performance can be dramatically improved by supervisors’ support in the form of giving ideas, providing resources and feedback. Support from manager helps employee overcome the fear on challenging the status quo (Gong et al., 2009), generates sense of psychological safety which in turn enables employees to think and try new and useful (creativity). It also implied that if employees are high on their trait EI but lacks managerial support, will less likely be engaged in creativity.

Conclusions, Implications and Limitations

The study aimed at understanding the relationship between the trait EI and employee creativity with job autonomy and supervisor support as a moderating factor or shaper of the relationship between the two variables. Findings have shown that trait EI and employees’ creativity are positively and significantly related to each other. A person with trait EI has the tendency to explore things in different ways, come up with novel and useful ideas and brings improvement in organizational functions. Further, job autonomy as a moderating variable in the trait EI–employee creativity relationship was supported by the study. It indicated that combined influence of employee’s personality and cognitive traits (trait EI) do influence their creative behaviour but is likely to have better impact on their creativity when the trait EI is associated with the perception of job autonomy in the organization. When employees feel that they have freedom and autonomy in the work they do, they are likely to exhibit more creativity. Similarly, it is also found that support from their manager/supervisor has enhancing effect on employees’ tendency to be creative. An employee with the trait EI is likely to be innovative and creative when he finds his manager supportive and cooperative.

The present research has both practical and theoretical implications. Insights collected from this research may help organizations to enhance employee creativity. When organizations understand how different organizational cues lead to expression of traits, this knowledge allows organizations the opportunity to create situations that ‘activate’ the traits and get benefits from the trait-stimulated behaviours. This research proved that job autonomy and supervisor support, when comes along with trait EI, contribute in employee creativity. So, the organizations looking for creative employees not only hire employees with trait EI but also have to pay attention on the contextual factors, which can increase or decrease the behaviours associated with the traits. Organization needs to provide certain level of autonomy to employees so that employees can work independently and use their talent to create something new and useful in the organization. Similarly, management should also provide all necessary support to employees to make them feel comfortable, safe and motivated to come up with creativity ideas and thoughts and act on those thoughts. Theoretically, the study will extend contribution and enrich the literature of trait EI and employee creativity from job autonomy and supervisor support perspectives.

While the findings of the study were encouraging, it should be taken into account with some limitations. First is that although the two-wave design used in the study alleviates the weakness of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003), the self-report data on all variables of the study cannot entirely avoid the risk of common method variance. Second limitation is that the study is based on small sample and is conducted in one country, which may affect the ability to generalize the study results on wider population. Researchers have revealed that EI differ from culture to culture in its relevance for behaviour and effectiveness (Wong, Wong, & Law, 2007). Further, the study is co-relational which only assert the association among variables but causality cannot be ascertained. Taking all these limitations into account, the author recommends undertaking further research to have more meaningful insight of the relationship between the EI and employee creativity. Employee creativity is strongly affected by combination of both individual and organizational variables than by their individual dispositions, which were not included in this study. In future research, these issues should be taken into account to have better insights on the issue.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Aiken

L. S.

, & West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Alpkan

, Bulut

, Gunday

, Ulusoy

, & Kilic

(2010). Organizational support for intrapreneurship and its interaction with human capital to enhance innovative performance. Management Decision, 48(5–6), 732–755.

Amabile

T. M.

(1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Amabile

T. M.

(1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Staw

B. M.

& Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Amabile

T. M.

, Barsade

S. G.

, Mueller

J. S.

, & Staw

B. M.

(2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367–403.

Amabile

T. M.

, Conti

, Coon

, Lazenby

, & Herron

(1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

Amabile

T. M.

, Schatzel

E. A.

, Moneta

G. B.

, & Kramer

S. J.

(2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 5–32.

Anderson

, Potočnik

, & Zhou

(2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.

Blau

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

10.

Brackett

M. A.

, & Mayer

J. D.

(2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1147–1158.

11.

Breaugh

J. A.

(1999). Further investigation of the work autonomy scales: Two studies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13(3), 357–373.

12.

Carroll

J. B.

(1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Caruso

D. R.

& Salovey

(2004). The emotionally intelligent manager: how to develop and use the four key emotional skills of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Choi

J. N.

, Anderson

T. A.

, & Veillette

(2009). Contextual inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations: The insulating role of creative ability. Group & Organization Management, 34(3), 330–357.

15.

Cohen

, Cohen

, West

S. G.

, & Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression & correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

16.

Dobni

C. B.

(2010). The relationship between an innovation orientation and competitive strategy. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(2), 331–357.

17.

Eisenberger

, & Stinglhamber

(2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

18.

Eisenberger

, Armeli

, Rexwinkel

, Lynch

P. D.

, & Rhoades

(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51.

19.

Eisenberger

, Huntington

, Hutchison

, & Sowa

(1986). Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1026–1040.

20.

Feist

G. J.

(1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309.

21.

George

J. M.

, & Zhou

(2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513–524.

22.

George

J. M.

, & Zhou

(2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 508–522.

23.

Gilson

L. L.

(2008). Why be creative: A review of the practical outcomes associated with creativity at the individual, group and organizational level. In Zhou

& Shalley

C. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 303–322). New York, NY: Erlbaum.

24.

Gong

, Huang

J.-C.

, & Farh

J. L.

(2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.

25.

Gough

(1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398–1407.

26.

Gouldner

(1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.

27.

Hackman

J. R.

, & Oldham

G. R.

(1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170.

28.

Hennessey

B. A.

, & Amabile

T. M.

(2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 569–598.

29.

Hon

A. H. Y.

(2012). Shaping environments conductive to creativity: The role of intrinsic motivation. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53(1), 53–64.

30.

Ivcevic

, Brackett

M. A.

, & Mayer

J. D.

(2007). Emotional intelligence and emotional creativity. Journal of Personality, 75(2), 199–235.

31.

Janssen

(2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 347–364.

32.

Joseph

D. L.

, & Newman

D. A.

(2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78.

33.

Kauffeld

(2006). Self-directed work groups and team competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(1), 1–21.

34.

Mayer

J. D.

, & Salovey

(1997). What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey

& Sluyter

D. J.

(Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Basic Books.

35.

McCrae

R. R.

(1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265.

36.

McCrae

R. R.

Jr. , & Costa

P. T.

(1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In Hogan

, Johnson

& Briggs

(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

37.

Mikolajczak

(2009). Going beyond the ability-trait debate: The three-level model of emotional intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5(2), 25–31.

38.

Mumford

M. D.

, Scott

G. M.

, Gaddis

, & Strange

J. M.

(2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750.

39.

Nair

K. K.

, & Gopal

R. R.

(2010). Advocating different paradigms: Relevance of workplace creativity. SIES Journal of Management, 7(2), 142–150.

40.

Nonaka

, & Toyama

(2004). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creating as a synthesizing process. Knowledge and Process Management, 1(1), 2–10.

41.

O’Boyle

E. H.

, Jr., Humphrey

R. H.

, Pollack

J. M.

, Hawver

T. H.

, & Story

P. A.

(2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788–818.

42.

Oldham

G. R.

& Cummings

(1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.

43.

Petrides

K. V.

, & Furnham

(2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15(6), 425–448.

44.

Petrides

K. V.

, & Furnham

(2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17(1), 39–57.

45.

Petrides

K. V.

, & Furnham

(2006). The role of trait emotional intelligence in a gender-specific model of organizational variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(2), 552–569.

46.

Petrides

K. V.

, Pérez-González

J. C.

, & Furnham

(2007). On the criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence. Cognition & Emotion, 21(1), 26–55.

47.

Petrides

K. V.

, Pita

, & Kokkinaki

(2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98(Pt. 2), 273–289.

48.

Pieterse

A. N.

, Van Knippenberg

, Schippers

, & Stam

(2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609–623.

49.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, Lee

J.-Y.

, & Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

50.

Poulou

M. S.

(2010). The role of trait emotional intelligence and social and emotional skills in students’ emotional and behavioural strengths and difficulties: A study of Greek adolescents’ perceptions. International Journal of Emotional Education, 2(2), 30–47.

51.

Richards

(Ed.) (2007). Everyday creativity and new views of human nature: Psychological, social, and spiritual perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

52.

Scott

S. G.

, & Bruce

R. A.

(1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.

53.

Shalley

C. E.

, Zhou

, & Oldham

G. R.

(2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933–958.

54.

Shin

, & Zhou

(2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703–714.

55.

Stuckey

H. L.

, & Nobel

(2010). The connection between art, healing, and public health: A review of current literature. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 254–263.

56.

Suliman

A. M.

, & Al-Shaikh

F. N.

(2006). Emotional intelligence at work: Links to conflict and innovation. Employee Relations, 29(2), 208–220.

57.

Tabachnick

B. G.

, & Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

58.

Tett

R. P.

, & Burnett

D. D.

(2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517.

59.

Tett

R. P.

, & Guterman

H. A.

(2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle or trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 397–423.

60.

Tierney

, & Farmer

S. M.

(2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(8), 1137–1148.

61.

Van Rooy

D. L.

, Viswesvaran

, & Pluta

(2005). An evaluation of construct validity: What is this thing called emotional intelligence? Human Performance, 18(4), 445–462.

62.

Wang

A. C.

, & Cheng

B. S.

(2010). When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 106–121.

63.

Wenjing

, Wei

, & Shuliang

(2013). An empirical study on the effects of creative personality and job autonomy on individual innovation performance of knowledge workers. International Business and Management, 6(2), 24–30.

64.

Wong

, Wong

, & Law

K. S.

(2007). Evidence of the practical utility of Wong’s emotional intelligence scale in Hong Kong and mainland China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–60.

65.

Woodman

R. W.

, Sawyer

J. E.

, & Griffin

R. W.

(1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

66.

Zeng

, & Miller

C. E.

(2003). Examinations of measurements of emotional intelligence. Ergometrika, 2, 38–49.

67.

Zhang

, & Bartol

K. M.

(2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.

68.

Zhou

(1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 261–276.

69.

Zhou

, & Shalley

C. E.

(2008). Handbook of organizational creativity. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Taylor & Francis Group.