Results

Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and correlations are provided in Table 2. As expected, entrepreneurial leadership is significantly correlated with employee creativity (r = .58, p < .01), team creativity (r = .64, p < .01), creative self-efficacy (r = .52, p < .01) and team creative efficacy (r = .35, p < .01). Furthermore, creative self-efficacy is significantly correlated with employee creativity (r = .50, p < .01), and team creative efficacy is correlated with team creativity (r = .53, p < .01).

Table 2 Means, standard deviations and correlations


 

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Individual-level variables

1. Gender

1.45

0.50

                

2. Age

30.44

5.52

− 0.11

              

3. Education

3.77

0.68

0.13

0.04

            

4. Tenure

7.34

5.68

− 0.07

0.83**

− 0.05

          

5. Job type

1.42

1.12

0.02

0.05

− 0.04

0.04

        

6. Transformational leadership

3.89

0.44

− 0.03

− 0.12

0.05

− 0.08

0.07

      

7. Entrepreneurial leadership

3.65

0.67

− 0.09

− 0.02

− 0.06

− 0.01

− 0.00

− 0.00

    

8. Creative self-efficacy

4.08

0.61

0.11

− 0.09

− 0.01

0.03

− 0.10

− 0.02

0.52**

  

9. Employee creativity

4.07

0.62

− 0.02

0.01

− 0.08

0.01

− 0.07

0.00

0.58**

0.50**

Team-level variables

1. Team size

7.14

4.38

                

2. Team age

3.00

1.53

− 0.06

              

3. Leader tenure with the team

2.37

1.33

0.41**

0.05

            

4. Transformational leadership (agg.)

3.89

0.29

0.00

− 0.08

− 0.01

          

5. Entrepreneurial leadership (agg.)

3.58

0.48

0.20

− 0.10

0.23

− 0.21

        

6. Team creative efficacy (agg.)

3.81

0.38

0.01

− 0.07

− 0.04

− 0.17

0.35*

      

7. Team creativity

3.88

0.65

0.22

− 0.36*

0.17

− 0.18

0.64**

0.53**

    
  1. N = 237 for individual-level data and N = 43 for team-level data
  2. agg. aggregation
  3. *p < .05; **p < .01

We use HLM to examine the multilevel influences on employee creativity (see Table 3), and we use hierarchical regression analysis to examine the team-level influences (see Table 4). Before testing the hypotheses, we run a null model to examine the significance of systematic between-group variance. The results show that the proportion of variance is 20%, and the chi-square test is significant (χ2 [42] = 255.44, p < .001), supporting the use of HLM.

Table 3 Results of HLM predicting entrepreneurial leadership, team creative efficacy, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Employee creativity

Creative self-efficacy

Employee creativity

Employee creativity

Employee creativity

Level 1

 Intercept

− 0.06 (0.05)

− 0.06 (0.04)

− 0.06 (0.05)

− 0.05 (0.05)

− 0.05 (0.04)

 Gender

0.03 (0.03)

0.10 (0.03)**

0.01 (0.02)

0.03 (0.03)

0.03 (0.03)

 Age

− 0.01 (0.05)

− 0.10 (0.05)

0.01 (0.05)

− 0.01 (0.05)

− 0.00 (0.04)

 Education

− 0.05 (0.03)

− 0.03 (0.04)

− 0.05 (0.03)

− 0.06 (0.03)

− 0.06 (0.03)*

 Tenure

0.01 (0.04)

0.08 (0.04)

0.01 (0.04)

− 0.00 (0.04)

− 0.00 (0.04)

 Job type

− 0.03 (0.03)

− 0.06 (0.06)

− 0.01 (0.04)

− 0.03 (0.03)

− 0.03 (0.03)

 Creative self-efficacy

    

0.19 (0.06)**

    

Level 2

 Team size

0.01 (0.03)

− 0.01 (0.03)

0.05 (0.03)

0.04 (0.04)

− 0.01 (0.04)

 Team age

− 0.05 (0.05)

− 0.01 (0.03)

0.05 (0.05)

− 0.06 (0.04)

− 0.03 (0.04)

 Leader tenure with the team

− 0.02 (0.04)

0.06 (0.03)

0.06 (0.04)

0.06 (0.05)

0.03 (0.04)

 Transformational leadership

− 0.12 (0.15)

0.08 (0.11)

− 0.13 (0.15)

− 0.15 (0.22)

− 0.02 (0.12)

 Entrepreneurial leadership

0.75 (0.12)***

0.69 (0.08)***

0.75 (0.12)***

  

0.60 (0.12)***

 Team creative efficacy

      

0.84 (0.11)***

0.57 (0.14)***
  1. N = 237 team members (level 1), N = 43 teams (level 2). Unstandardized estimates are reported. Values in parentheses are robust standard errors
  2. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed test)

Table 4 Results of hierarchical regression analysis predicting entrepreneurial leadership, team creative efficacy and team creativity

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Team creativity

Team creative efficacy

Team creativity

Constant

0.28

0.14

0.20

Team size

0.01

0.00

0.01

Team age

− 0.13*

− 0.01

− 0.12*

Leader tenure with the team

0.01

− 0.04

0.03

Transformational leadership

− 0.20

− 0.14

− 0.12

Entrepreneurial leadership

0.77***

0.28*

0.60**

Team creative efficacy

    

0.60**

△R2

0.28

0.11

0.10

△F

20.78***

5.01*

8.95**
  1. Level 2 N = 43
  2. *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001 (two-tailed test)

Entrepreneurial leadership is significantly related to employee creativity, as shown in Table 3 (γ = 0.75, p < .001), and to team creativity, as shown in Table 4 (β = 0.77, p < .001). Thus, H1 and H2 are both supported.

H3 predicts that entrepreneurial leadership is positively related to creative self-efficacy. Model 2 in Table 3 shows significance (γ = 0.69, p < .001), supporting H3. To test the mediational effects of creative self-efficacy in H4, we regress both creative self-efficacy and entrepreneurial leadership in model 3. The results indicate that both creative self-efficacy (γ = 0.19, p < .01) and entrepreneurial leadership (γ = 0.75, p < .001) are significantly related to employee creativity, in accordance with H4.

Regarding the cross-level effects, in Table 3, we first regress team efficacy in model 4 to establish the effect of team-level efficacy on individual-level creativity and then simultaneously add entrepreneurial leadership and team creative efficacy to model 5 in order to determine the mediator of team creative efficacy. H6 is supported in model 4, as the team creative efficacy-employee creativity relationship is significant (γ = 0.84, p < .001). Likewise, the results in model 5 show that both entrepreneurial leadership (γ = 0.60, p < .001) and team creative efficacy (γ = 0.57, p < .001) are significantly related to employee creativity, supporting H7.

Table 4 shows the results of the influences at the team level. Model 2 supports H5 that entrepreneurial leadership is positively related to team creative efficacy (β = 0.28, p < .05). Model 3 shows that both entrepreneurial leadership (β = 0.60, p < .01) and creative team efficacy (β = 0.60, p < .01) are significantly related to team creativity, lending support for H8.

Bootstrapped CIs corroborate the significant indirect effects of entrepreneurial leadership on employee creativity through creative self-efficacy (CI95% = [0.04, 0.22]) and through team creative efficacy (CI95% = [0.05, 0.18]); in addition, the indirect effects of entrepreneurial leadership on team creativity through team creative efficacy (CI95% = [0.01, 0.39]) are significant. That is, the entrepreneurial leadership-employee/team creativity associations are partially mediated by creative self-efficacy and team creative efficacy, again supporting H4, H7 and H8.

Callback before_footer in local_aigrade component should be migrated to new hook callback for core\hook\output\before_footer_html_generation
  • line 7225 of /lib/moodlelib.php: call to debugging()
  • line 7292 of /lib/moodlelib.php: call to {closure}()
  • line 71 of /lib/classes/hook/output/before_footer_html_generation.php: call to get_plugins_with_function()
  • line 987 of /lib/classes/output/core_renderer.php: call to core\hook\output\before_footer_html_generation->process_legacy_callbacks()
  • line 154 of /mod/book/view.php: call to core\output\core_renderer->footer()