Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Drawing on the Event System Theory, this study develops a comprehensive model for understanding dual-focused empowering behavior in team set-ups toward creativity. The study utilizes a triangular qualitative approach for thematic analysis using data from reviews, 5 focused group interviews, and 30 semi-structured interviews with team leaders, applying the grounded theory. The major finding reveals that empowering leadership can yield significant implications for teams in shaping creativity. The study discovers two second-order themes, 6 themes, and 18 sub-themes in interpreting the empowering leadership role. Further, the study finds a potential linkage between focusing leadership behavior and creativity at the individual and team levels.

Keywords

empowering leadership team creativity grounded theory behavior team management

Introduction

An empowering leadership behavior (ELB) is critical and inevitable in shaping employees’ work behavior and performance within individual and the team level (Arnold et al., 2000; Srivastava et al., 2006). Empowering leadership is “the process of implementing conditions that increase employees’ feelings of self-efficacy and control, removing conditions that foster a sense of powerlessness, and allowing them the freedom to be as flexible as circumstances warrant” (Ahearne et al., 2005, p. 946). As leaders are the best known to empower the individual and team, their ELB varies from other competing behavior. Predominantly it engages to improve individual and group member skills compared to other leadership behaviors such as transformational leadership (TFL; Bass, 2008); ethical leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006); leader-member exchange (LMX; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995); shared leadership (Yammarino et al., 2012); supportive leadership (Salas et al., 1996); participative leadership (Armenakis et al., 1993).

Over the past decade, extensive research on ELB indicates that the field has reached saturation, but the team dynamics of empowering behavior using focused roles need further investigation (Hughes et al., 2018; X. Zhang et al., 2020; X. Zhang & Kwan, 2019). Evidence suggests that a particular focus on a leadership role by team dynamics can give ample outcomes in team management (Koo & Lee, 2022; Wu et al., 2010; X. A. Zhang et al., 2015). This focus can be categorized into group-focused and individual-focused leadership (Biemann et al., 2015; Jiang et al., 2015; Kunze et al., 2016; X. A. Zhang et al., 2015). Such team dynamics are formed with principles of shared and configurable properties of team management (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Wu et al., 2010). Many past studies have explored this dual-focus leadership with the lens of TFL (Koo & Lee, 2022; Kunze et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2010) and LMX (Han et al., 2021; Seo et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2018), pointing that both properties might be in ELB. Moreover, shared properties within a team foster a sense of information and resources sharing with members, while configurable properties are more customizable aligning with the needs of team and its member (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). A team focused approach views leadership as both a shared and configurable perspective (G. Chen et al., 2007; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Wu et al., 2010). In this regard, Hirschhorn (1991) recommended that leaders should focus on three key relationships within a team: (a) their relationship to a team as a whole, (b) their relationship to each individual member, and (c) each member’s relationship with the team as a whole. The first relationship highlights the shared property, while the second and third relationships emphasize on configurable properties. Past research has shown heightened concentration conceptualizing ELB from both individual-level empowering behavior (Ahearne et al., 2005; Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a, 2014b; Arnold et al., 2000; Konczak et al., 2000; Vecchio et al., 2010) and team level empowering behavior (Arnold et al., 2000; Kirkman & Rosen, 1997). Building on the previous literature, it can be inferred that empowering leadership embodies both shared and configurable properties within a team, shaping interactions between leaders and individuals (Hill & Bartol, 2016; Jada & Mukhopadhyay, 2019; Srivastava et al., 2006). Furthermore, ELB influences the followers’ creativity (Hughes et al., 2018; X. Zhang et al., 2020; X. Zhang & Zhou, 2014) and innovation (Hughes et al., 2018). However, no prominent studies have been conducted on group-focused and individual-focused orientation with the empowering leadership point of view. Moreover, Bangladesh’s economy is growing fast, and employment in service sectors is growing tremendously (Statistical Year Book [SYB], 2023). Policymakers are highly focused on empowering people in all areas of the service industry, and young people lead a significant portion of the industries, nearly 60% (SYB, 2023). Therefore, focusing on empowering leadership is timely and indispensable as an emerging nation.

Based on the Event System Theory (EST), each focus of ELB can be considered an event in a team. Researchers have shown different types of circumstances as events like organizational-level change (Kiefer et al., 2024), decision-making (Minniti et al., 2024), radical and incremental creativity (Halinski et al., 2024), and human resource systems (Song et al., 2023). These events enhance work performance and lessen crises (Halinski et al., 2024; Kiefer et al., 2024; Minniti et al., 2024). Accordingly, the consequences of the newness in the team orientation may give a new ground for two properties of empowering leadership. Hence, the ELB may have some potential for creativity, as in the previous dual-focus leadership with the TFL/LMX leadership lens. Therefore, we formulate a research question: “What are the factors critical to rethink ELB with shared and configurable properties that may influence creativity at individual and team levels?” In line with the research question, the current study aims to perform a qualitative study on exploring ELB to target creative individuals and teams from an emerging country perspective.

The next section of the study discusses theory and literature in the context of current research. Then, the study postulates the details of the methods used in the study, including design, sample and data, analysis, and interpretation process. After that, the study sketches the results and discusses the themes from the critical analysis, the roles of study outcomes, and the key implications of the study. The study ends with limitations and future directions.

Theory and Literature

Event System Theory (EST)

EST suggests that events drive significant change or diversity in behaviors or characteristics, leading to considerable influence on organizations and unlike stable traits or structures, they are distinct and occurring in specific boundaries of space, time, or occurrence (Y. Chen et al., 2021; Halinski et al., 2024; Kiefer et al., 2024). For example, while internalizing new leadership dynamics can dramatically change organizational policies, evoking unexpected behavioral changes among team members (e.g., affecting their motivation and work activities). Aligning with the EST, the two focused dynamics of ELB may serve as events that drag substantial changes in outcomes within a team and organization. Research shows that events trigger subsequent events, creating extended sequences that impact organizations (Morgeson et al., 2015). Following the logic, this study considers two types of empowering behavior (group-focused and individual-focused) events and wants to explore their nature and variability in followers’ behaviors.

Most studies based on events are designed to either occur or not occur with dichotomous responses (Y. Chen et al., 2021; Halinski et al., 2024). This study is designed using a dynamic ELB process. With the essence of EST, the researchers connect the events to work behavior like organizational-level change to performance (Kiefer et al., 2024), decision-making autonomy to handle a crisis (Minniti et al., 2024), radical and incremental creativity to job performance (Halinski et al., 2024), and human resource systems to employee uncertainty (Song et al., 2023). The study designed two events with leadership focus as the processes by which the followers’ creativity may be influenced. Y. Chen et al. (2021) explained that workplace event newness and criticality interact to foster employee improvisation, which is positively related to employee creativity. In EST, the degree of significance, necessity, or priority that an event holds for the employees within a workplace is known as workplace event criticality (Morgeson & DeRue, 2006). The EST emphasizes the key regulations, the level of individual attention required for an event, and its operational impact (Morgeson et al., 2015). Our study postulates the dual focus of ELB as the critical event that needs to be addressed to explore its consequences on creativity. Besides, it uses the EST as the integration part of the theory-building approach of “dual-focused ELB.”

Dual-Focused Leadership and Outcomes

In organizational literature, the concept of duel focused leadership, coined by G. Chen et al. (2007), arises from the perspective of team leaders, who may view the whole team as an entity and every team member as individual. The concept was further extended by Wu et al. (2010) by introducing the dispersion of individual focus among team members, considering individual treatment within the team from the mean difference of team dispersion as differentiated individual-focused leadership. The conception of dual-focus leadership got the attention of the team and organizational researchers (Jiang et al., 2015; Kunze et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2020; X. A. Zhang et al., 2015). They mostly explained the focus of leadership with TFL, LMX, or abusive leadership (Buengeler et al., 2021; Han et al., 2021; Jiang et al., 2015). Several researches have explored the impact of dual-focused leadership on various organizational outcomes such as team performance, employee satisfaction, and innovation (Jiang et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2010; X. A. Zhang et al., 2015). These studies have consistently shown that a leadership approach that balances the needs of the team as a whole with those of individual team members can lead to more positive outcomes for the organization.

The TFL plays a significant role in managing employees. Group-focused TFL can effectively mitigate the negative effects of Machiavellianism on employee commitment and citizenship behaviors (Koo & Lee, 2022). Besides, the leadership differentiation has various results with dark triad personality (e.g., Huang et al., 2020; Koo & Lee, 2022). The leader’s narcissism indirectly and negatively influences the employee voice (Huang et al., 2020). Collective-focused and differentiated individual-focused leadership influences the affective commitment. The contingent-reward is moderates the relationships (Kunze et al., 2016). Empowering leadership at the individual and team level (differentiation) influences career self-efficacy and career satisfaction (Biemann et al., 2015). Group-focused leadership positively influences, while differentiated individual-focused leadership inversely influences innovation (Jiang et al., 2015). Besides, individual-focused leadership at the individual-level influences task performance and group-focused behavior at the group level influences team performance and helping behavior (Wang & Howell, 2010).

Furthermore, research findings have established that leadership that focuses on the group can significantly enhance team performance by promoting team member exchange, and individual-focused leadership has impacted team members’ role performance (Chun et al., 2016). These results have direct implications for leadership practices within organizations. Group-focused leadership creates a sense of obligation, encourages helpful behavior, and improves performance, whereas individual-focused leadership promotes helpful behavior when individuals have a sense of responsibility (Lorinkova & Perry, 2019). Furthermore, both-focused leadership simultaneously performs different effects on the relationship between affect and creativity across various levels (To et al., 2021). It also has both-focused leadership that can be utilized to mitigate the indirect and inverse impact of team social capital on team innovation by team task conflict (Stollberger et al., 2023). Hence, dual-focused leadership, with its diverse methodological and leadership orientation, is critical in understanding its impact at both levels. Nevertheless, group-focused behavior is assumed to foster shared attitudes and behavior toward the group or teams (G. Chen et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2010). Surprisingly, the effectiveness and performance of top management team members increase, while the differentiated group-focused TFL decreases. The result is reversed when the leader’s liking is the basis of the relationship (Han et al., 2021). The effectiveness of team LMX differentiation can serve as a criterion for success (Yu et al., 2018). Therefore, dual-focused leadership and leadership differentiation influence the team and organizational outcomes differently and still need to be investigated (Buengeler et al., 2021; Erdogan & Bauer, 2010; Haynie et al., 2014; Seo et al., 2018). A summary of the literature on leadership focus is presented in Table A1.

Leadership Behavior and Employee Creativity

Employee creativity, a multifaceted concept, is a crucial element at the individual level within an organizational context. It is an indispensable element for organizational functioning (Amabile, 1988, 1996; Woodman et al., 1993). Employee creativity can be categorized into three main aspects: person, process, and outcomes (Anderson et al., 2014). These aspects are not isolated but are interconnected, forming a comprehensive understanding of employee creativity. The person dimension is influenced by individuals’ personality, talents, and skills (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988), the process dimension revolves around the generation and development of creative ideas (Rank et al., 2004), and the outcomes dimension, pertaining to the new and beneficial results derived from the preceding two dimensions (Amabile, 1996; George & Zhou, 2007). This comprehensive understanding of employee creativity is essential for effective management. Besides, leadership styles and organizational processes play a pivotal role in fostering an environment conducive to employee creativity. A diverse range of leadership styles, such as TFL (A. Y. Zhang et al., 2011), empowering leadership (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a, 2014b; Hughes et al., 2018), inclusive leadership (Jia et al., 2022), visionary leadership (Cai et al., 2023), servant leadership (Yang et al., 2017), and ethical leadership (Mo et al., 2019), have been identified as catalysts for enhancing employee creativity. Additionally, organizational factors, including supportive resources and information (A. Li et al., 2022; Mumford et al., 2012; S. Zhang et al., 2018), knowledge sharing and transparency (Donate et al., 2022), professionalism (Peng et al., 2019), leaders humility (Lehmann et al., 2023), and open communication (Mainemelis et al., 2015), play pivotal roles in facilitating and nurturing employee creativity. Therefore, leadership styles and dynamism may influence employee creativity in a new way.

Leadership and Creativity in Teams

Cultivating creativity within team dynamics is a pivotal and valuable element within organizational settings. This phenomenon is subject to significant influence from leadership styles, team processes, and mechanisms. A diverse spectrum of leadership styles, behaviors, and team processes plays a crucial and influential role in shaping team creativity and creative behaviors. These encompass inclusive leadership (Mitchell et al., 2024), temporal leadership (Duan et al., 2023), ethical leadership (Mo et al., 2019), shared leadership (Ali et al., 2020), self-serving leadership (Peng et al., 2019), visionary leadership (Cai et al., 2023), and paradoxical leadership (W. Wei et al., 2023). Moreover, the potential impact of these diverse leadership styles on team creativity warrants extensive investigation and engagement. The leader’s behaviors and the team’s environment, processes, and dynamics synergistically contribute to the team’s creativity and creative behaviors. Some other factors such as team social passion (X. Wei et al., 2024), social capital (Stollberger et al., 2023), high-performance human resource practices (Ma et al., 2017), cognitive diversity (Wang et al., 2016), creative efficacy (Shin & Eom, 2014), knowledge sharing (Men et al., 2019), task cohesion (Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2017), task conflict (Liu et al., 2022), and leaders’ humility (Leblanc et al., 2022) collectively contribute to furthering the comprehension of team creativity and creative behaviors. The need for further research in this area is relevant.

However, the dual focus of leadership has some positive consequences on employees’ outcomes in a team (G. Chen et al., 2007; Han et al., 2021; To et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2010; X. A. Zhang et al., 2015). Based on these criteria, it is expected that the dual focus of empowering behavior could impact team creativity. This means that when leadership behaviors focus on both empowering team members and fostering a creative environment, it is likely to positively influence the overall creativity of the team.

Methods

Research Design and Approach

To revisit the ELB toward creativity, the study utilizes Corbin and Strauss’s (1990) grounded theory approach incorporating qualitative research techniques. Grounded theory emphasizes the generation of ideas from data rather than using a deductive approach. The aim is to provide systematic, data-driven insights (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 2017). This approach categorizes participant abstract ideas into themes, is applicable across a broad spectrum of disciplines, and highlights the creation of practical observations through consensus and evolved conceptualization (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; H. Zhang et al., 2021). The study used a sequential three-phase qualitative approach, a literature review, a focus group interview (FGI), and semi-structured interview (SSI) processes (Figure 1) using the triangulation of data collection on the same topic (Aslam & Davis, 2024; O’Brien et al., 2014; Silverman, 2021). We adopted the qualitative design of interpretivist epistemological approach for data triangulation (Silverman, 2021). We also follow the full 21 protocol items of O’Brien et al. (2014)“The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR).” This design allows the researchers to make quick conclusions to advance the understanding of a topic within a time frame and give a thorough insight (Habib et al., 2024; Shah et al., 2023).

Figure 1.

Qualitative data collection phases.

Research Context

Bangladesh is an emerging economy, and employment in service sectors is shifting to the service industry (SYB, 2023). Policymakers are highly focused on empowering people in all areas of service and industry, while more than 60% of young people lead the industry (SYB, 2023). The study’s primary criteria are to understand and conceptualize ELB from a new angle with the advancement of existing understanding (e.g., Ahearne et al., 2005; Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a; Arnold et al., 2000; Konczak et al., 2000; Vecchio et al., 2010). Further, the endeavor is to see the properties of ELB either in a team or individual orientation or both with the theoretical view (G. Chen et al., 2007; Hirschhorn, 1991; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). After that, the research addresses the context of ELB to catch its potential effects on creativity. These processes will give more understanding of ELB reconceptualization into group-focused and individual-focused leadership that may give more ample results in individual and team orientation (e.g., Biemann et al., 2015; Koo & Lee, 2022; Li et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2020; X. A. Zhang et al., 2015).

Sample and Data Collection

We collect the data for this research in three phases. The first phase is conducted using the prominent journal sources from Web of Science, focusing on ELB conceptualizations (Table A4) and dual-focused leadership with diverse leadership roles (Table A1). The second and third phases were conducted in Bangladesh and we selected the sampling individuals and teams for the semi-structured and focus group interviews based on the judgmental sampling procedures (Etikan & Bala, 2017). We collect the second and third phase data during the months of August to September 2023. The design was carefully structured to minimize any potential harm to participants by ensuring that all procedures for protecting their privacy and confidentiality were followed. It was fully informed by transparent communication. The participants voluntarily participated in the interviews without any force. We also provide the details of the procedures in the following corresponding sections.

Review

The first phase is conducted based on the existing definitions, measures, and scales widely referred to and utilized to extend the research on the ELB domain. These are termed differently (e.g., empowering leadership, empowering leadership behavior, empowering leadership questionnaire, leaders empowering behavior questionnaire, and leader empowerment behavior) and presented in Table A4. Moreover, we analyzed the existing literature on dual-focused behavior with diverse leadership roles in Table A1.

Focus Group Interview

The second phase was conducted in a five-focused group of executives with direct team experience within the organization. It is one of the best and most popular strategies utilized across disciplines and provides more in-depth information through substantive inquiries (Aslam & Davis, 2024; Manzano, 2022). We randomly select the organization and direct contact by mail address and ask permission from their corresponding high officials. After getting permission, we select the individuals for a FGI. Before conducting the online discussion, we send them a consent form to fill out to provide their consent and demographic information, ensuring that the data will only be used for research purposes with the utmost confidentiality. We conduct focus group interviews in online Zoom meetings, which provide more engaged and accurate information than face-to-face interviews (Morrison et al., 2020).

We have selected five members for each focused group. The sample size is challenging, and the huge number of participants can be problematic (Aslam & Davis, 2024); focus group members 5 to 7 are ideal (Kreuger & Casey, 2014). The group members are selected from the prominent sectors of the country: a pharmaceutical company, a chemical formulation company, a research based organization, a government service organization, and a research-based training organization. The average discussion time is 59 min (Aslam & Davis, 2024; Kreuger & Casey, 2014). All organizational participants have a common nature of team leadership and more of a tendency for empowerment. We choose diverse organizations to draw more general conclusions. The demographic information is presented in Table A2.

Semi-structured Interview

In the third phase, we designed a semi-structured, in-depth interview with diverse sources of team leaders to get their insightful knowledge and explore more in-depth knowledge about empowering leadership. We formulated interview questionnaires after a critical review analysis of existing empowering leadership literature and concepts and dual-focus leadership, which are highly used in current literature. We addressed some key terms in the existing debate to capture our objectives and align with the research gap. Further, we follow the continuum of our key conceptualization (Hirschhorn, 1991; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Wu et al., 2010). Afterward, we construct the brief interview questionnaire (see Appendix B1). The semi-structured interview is more interactive and can connect the target and researchers (Al Balushi, 2016; Aslam & Davis, 2024). We approach the team leaders with working experience in small teams, ensuring various perspectives in a close team setup. We approached 34 team leaders and collected the data from 30 leaders (88%) that responded and allowed us to discuss (Aslam & Davis, 2024; Saunders et al., 2009). Before the interview, we give them a consent form with demographic information, emphasizing the importance of their role in the research and confirming the confidentiality of the data. The open interview was from 20 to 45 min, an average of 32 min. Their demographic information is presented in Table A3. The sampled leaders are selected from diverse types of organizations to cover the generalizability are non-government development organizations, research organizations, research-based educational institutions, government training institutes, pharmaceutical companies, banks, insurance, government treasury divisions, government agencies, accounting and auditing firms, and transportation authorities.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

We process qualitative data sets using the grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). We analyzed data using six-stage thematic analysis procedures are familiarizing with data, generating initial codes, searching themes, reviewing themes, defining and identifying themes, and reporting (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analyses require qualitative data to be coded and aligned with research questions to catch the pattern in which they appear (Saunders et al., 2009). An open coding was developed with 18 codes. The codes were then grouped into six themes and two second-order themes. There was sufficient data to support the themes (Byrne, 2022). We did the iterative process until the themes were developed. The thematic outcomes presented in Figure 2 are generated from review, FGI and SSI.

Figure 2.

Themes developed from codes and quotes supporting the themes.

Triangulation of Data

We adopted the qualitative design with data triangulation using review, FGI, and SSI to make the conclusions more inconclusive and robust (Aslam & Davis, 2024; O’Brien et al., 2014; Silverman, 2021). To do so, we follow the full 21 protocol items of SRQR including data triangulation (O’Brien et al., 2014). First, we collect the data independently from each of the three sources. Then, we match the coded data into sub-themes and make an alignment to satisfy sufficient support from each source unless it comes to a strong alignment (Aslam & Davis, 2024; Silverman, 2021).

Development of Construct/Sub-themes

In this phase, we analyze the responses by every sentences uses in the transcribed conservation in FGI and SSI (Aslam & Davis, 2024; Shah et al., 2023). We also aligned the review construct to contrast with the primary data of FGI and SSI. We also capture the sub-themes as the final version, which apparently had more responses and agreement with three sources, and then we finalize them as sub-themes. For example, a leader responded in the interview, “An empowering leader can empower the team members by upholding a friendly relationship with them and their members, and they should always be in touch with the team” So we captured the statement as a sub-theme like “Leaders invest time and effort in work and beyond.”

First Order Themes

In this phase, we iteratively analyzed the sub-themes to explain the deeper structure within the similarities and array of bold concepts as first-order themes to catch a higher-order theme (Aslam & Davis, 2024; Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Habib et al., 2024). For example, different sub-themes related to “learning with practical work of leader and examples” are leadership by doing, standards work by leaders, and benchmarking or worthy work by leaders, etc.

Alignment of Selective Second Order Themes

In this phase, we conceptually align the first-order themes into two broader perspectives: group-focused and individual-focused ELB. We selectively compare the developed first-order themes (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Habib et al., 2024; Shah et al., 2023), and found the broader field of leadership roles from our first-order themes as for example, “decision making in teams” or “distribution of authority in teams” is more group-focused whereas, “need based mentoring” or “learning by examples” is more individual-focused leadership behavior. Moreover, we also asked one further question, “do the leader need to maintain relationship with team, and members in a team, or members need to connect the team as a whole?” using the (Hirschhorn, 1991) leadership principles in team dynamics. We also found major support from the interview that empowering leaders needs to be group-focused and individual-focused. For example, a response from a semi-structured interview, “A team leader should engage with the team by considering it as his family, or he needs to consider members by caring for them very passionately. The members should engage with their team responsibilities and the leader’s instructions and think of themselves as integral parts of the team” (SSI, P2).

Finding Potential Effects on Creativity

In both interviews, we also asked the respondents that such types of ELB have influence over creativity. We found a significant number of respondents agreed that there is a high chance of impacts on employee creativity either individually or in the team. For example, “It can enhance the creativity because the empowering leaders give more chances to work independently which can broaden the individual capacity to think and work in a creative way” (FGI, F1).

Results and Discussion

The main goal of the research is to elucidate new approaches to ELB. The conversation’s outcomes revolve around six themes that have emerged from the coding process, encompassing the interactions between leaders and team members and the establishment of focus leadership dynamics in a team context. These six first-order themes extend the ELB and are significant as they provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and implementing ELB in multiple organizational contexts. The main themes are team decision-making, members’ interaction with leaders, distribution of duties and authority in teams, need-based monitoring and counseling, information dissemination and sharing, and learning by practical work and examples. While discussing the findings, we consider previous studies review studies. Table A1 displays the findings of two focuses on leadership behavior with diverse leadership approaches and their method and conclusions. Table A4 demonstrates the concepts, components, and constructs of the existing construct of ELB and who uses these at individual or team levels. Then, the individual responses (participants) from focus groups and semi-structured interviews are converted into text and generated into thematic ideas. We combine the ideas from all sources into specific sub-themes and themes. The themes and associated sub-themes and second-order themes are presented in Figure 2.

Theme 1: Decision Making in Team

Decision-making in a team encompasses the participation of most members of a team. ELB is an implementing condition through participative decision-making (Arnold et al., 2000). A study in the USA hotel industry explained that team members get fair treatment from an empowering leader by participating in decision-making (Srivastava et al., 2006). In research on salespeople and customers, these ELBs can rise by participation (Ahearne et al., 2005), and it is a redesigning approach to job attributes (Vecchio et al., 2010; X. Zhang et al., 2020). The team members valued the decision-making within the team, and they appreciated the team leader for such kinds of interactive initiatives within the team. It gives a more shared approach to team dynamics (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Some members and leaders believe that the empowering leader should be more oriented to making decisions by teams.

Generally, we make decisions for our team by engaging every member of our team, whether the situation is normal or worse, I think every leader, needs to be more oriented toward the team decisions; they need to share the ideas within the team members (FGI, Group 1, F22).

In group decision-making, empowering leaders try to incorporate the members’ participation with active contributions.

……members of the empowering team are not only dedicated to their work behavior but also actively work together to achieve a common goal; the leaders encourage to share more ideas before going to take decisions within the team, and they also create a platform for the members for giving their valuable opinions (SSI, P10).

Some leaders argue that individuals are more interested in getting recognition for their contributions from the team or team leaders. These recognitions may give them more ease in sharing information for team decisions.

……leaders need to be more cautious in treating the team members, when leaders need to cherish the members’ contributions in making decisions within the team. Leaders need to fulfill the requirements to be more open to team members, and if they contribute in decision making, leaders should award them, at least an oral (FGI, Group 5, F9).

Sometimes, the empowering leader cannot make decisions on their own in the team and s/he may disagree with the team members; in that case, the leader encourages the team members’ decisions instead of their own decisions (Ahearne et al., 2005).

As a team leader, I face some critical issues when it comes to making decisions in a team, all the members go beyond my decisions, and after that if I see that their collective decision is worthy, I still try to incorporate their suggestions for the sake of team effort or past contributions (SSI, P30).

To do so, the team leaders need to be more agreeable when making decisions in the team. Though it’s the most challenging job to satisfy all the team members, participation can give more robust results in team decisions and leadership dynamics. “……..when I see that engaging every team member gives more inspirations to the members and they become more dedicated to the work behavior, therefore I think why I need to take the decision alone” (SSI, P26). Therefore, we need to give the team members more chances to make decisions in team management to empower the team toward teams or organizations (Arnold et al., 2000). “The members get more chances to participate in decision-making makings, consider themselves more valuable for the team and are more directed to the positive work behavior guided the outcomes more synergistic” (FGI, Group 2, F10).

Theme 2: Member’s Interaction With Leaders

In any leadership approach, facilitating members’ interactions with other team members and leaders is crucial to team empowerment. It is the leaders who, through their interactions with the team members, provide the platform for team empowerment (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a; Arnold et al., 2000). The interactive role of the leader can be effective for employee empowerment readiness (Ahearne et al., 2005). These interactions should be supportive (Smallfield et al., 2020), facilitative (Wong & Giessner, 2018), and social (O’Donoghue & van der Werff, 2022). The more these interactions occur, the more deliberate the solutions for team issues become. The members also find a supportive figure in the leader, with whom they can discuss team concerns and personal matters that may or may not be directly related to work.

The empowering leader facilitates discussions regarding the work-related issues they face when they perform their jobs. They also discuss their individual problems related to work. Sometimes, they share their issues (psychological or family issues) with me. If I give them suggestions, they put more effort, even when they still have personal issues (SSI, P24).

A concerted effort gives the team more opportunity to tackle the hindrances or challenges to achieve work outcomes during adverse organizational or market conditions; interaction with team members initiates quick solutions that are best for leaders who want to empower their team (FGI, Group 5, F19).

The ELB gives more opportunities to share the problems from members’ perspectives. The leader helps the employees by maintaining a connection with each member of the team and trying to give relevant, quick and honest feedback to the members. “I think an empowering leader can empower the team members by upholding a congenial relationship with the team and its members, and they always need to be in touch with the team” (SSI, P2). Besides, “……the empowering leader can stay connected to the members by giving honest feedback considering the problems” (SSI, P20).

The ELB is not confined to the work set-up but is also beyond the working relationship. The leader allows much time for the well-being of the team members. “An empowering leader always needs to think about the people; he/she needs to invest more time for the wellness of his team” (FGI, Group 3, F13). “I think to encourage the followers; the leader needs to celebrate the team’s success from a small achievement to high” (SSI, P16).

Therefore, empowering leaders have to have some qualities to care about the problems of the followers. They focus on work-related problems or the psychology of individuals or teams. The team expects a quick response or feedback from the leader to deal with issues arising in the empowering team. The leader should appreciate every achievement to enhance the interactions beyond the work, and s/he should be the lighthouse of the team.

Theme 3: Distribution of Duties and Authority in Teams

The empowering leader is to distribute duties and authority among team members. Duties and authority toward the team can empower the team more (Arnold et al., 2000; Konczak et al., 2000), enhancing the sense of control and meaning at work (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). “Empowerment is a set of practices involving the delegation of responsibility down the hierarchy so as to give employees increased decision-making authority in respect to the execution of their primary tasks” (Leach et al., 2003, p. 28). Leaders updated members by sharing the facilities within the team to motivate the team and help them cope quickly. “If you want to empower your team, you must share your will and woe, why you take only the responsibility or duties as a leader, I think every leader must do it” (SSI, P12). “Oh, the leaders must be sensitive to their followers; leaders should share all the resources and job responsibilities; if not, why team? Why do we build a team?” (FGI, Group 4, F14).

The rights and responsibilities are intertwined; each one complements the others, which can make the team more effective. The leader can share the team’s benefits with the members, and in return, s/he can give the members the responsibilities. The connection between the two can give the team a more synergistic approach for team outcomes. This connection enforces the attitudes toward positive work behavior (Kearney et al., 2019; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Delegating authority to team members or lower-level employees empowers them (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a).

I have been working with a sales team for over two years. I think every team member is important; a leader must cautiously allocate the work responsibilities; sometimes, we share the responsibilities with the individuals, and sometimes, we share collectively to extract the benefits of the team based on the work types. Besides, we ensure that the benefits of the team match the responsibilities, and it is more worthy for team (SSI, P1).

The rights of the team members are crucial, and the leaders must address it: we are very aware of responsibility, but the leader must be aware of our rights; in a team relationship, the leader and member’s relationship must be reciprocal, and we need to care both (SSI, P14).

Teams are more effective in solving problems, but sometimes the teams with less authority need to wait for the approval of the team leader to solve the issues. Therefore, delegating authority can empower the team to solve the crisis. “The team leaders can empower the team by giving some authority by distributing some managerial role with the member, it can channel the authority to peoples and work in difficult situation” (FGI, Group 5, F17). “If the team leader holds all the authority, is it possible to solve the problems by group members? Therefore, the empowered leader needs to empower their followers by giving some authority” (SSI, P4). In a Norwegian system, sharing power and duties is a sociocultural technique for including subordinates in decision-making (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a).

Therefore, ELB must include some tendencies to share team facilities among the members, to share rights and responsibilities fairly, and to solve some team issues by delegating or channeling authority.

Theme 4: Need Based Mentoring and Counseling

Empowering leaders provides individual support for personal issues, support for the personal effort to be successful, and a personal environment and learning opportunities to fulfill individual needs. Every team member has different needs; sometimes, the employees’ need specific training and counseling to overcome a particular problem or gain specific skills (Arnold et al., 2000; Konczak et al., 2000). “Empowering leaders provides continuous and flawless suggestions to team member to recover their weakness or achieve a special knowledge, skill, or abilities” (SSI, P13). “Some team members need specific mentoring to work for a team and participate in team contribution” (FGI, Group 1, F21). These types of ELB encourage knowledge sharing among individuals and enhance their efficacy (Arnold et al., 2000; Srivastava et al., 2006).

Leaders’ support can enhance an individual’s capacity to solve a problem. To do so, leaders pay more attention to the individual’s needs and dedicate more time to gain team members’ work behavior (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a) “A leader must possess specific characteristics or elements such as empathy, communication skills, and a clear vision that help the followers to overcome personal goals, focuses, problems, and efforts” (FGI, Group 2, F24). “Every team participant expects some support from leaders; when the participants face some crisis to do the work, I think empowering leader must give such support to each team participant” (SSI, P6). It gives the employees guidance, encouragement, and support (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a, 2014b).

A leader emphasizes their job, encourages the members, and creates an opportunity to learn. Empowering leaders can create a learning culture within the team by promoting open communication, providing constructive feedback, and encouraging continuous learning and development, which increase the likelihood of enhancing the team’s productivity.

I think an empowering leader must have some qualities to empower every member of the team, such as helping attitudes to members, exchanging required information with members, creating a learning culture to solve the individual problems in the team, acknowledging personal effort, maintaining good relation with each member”(FGI, Group 3, F5).

Every empowering leader is the good teacher who is the source of encouragement, motivation, a guide to the people who work under him and faces a lot of issues during work and outside work and that highly requires some support or training from leader”(SSI, P18).

In conclusion, every team requires some sort of guiding, mentoring, or counseling to empower the team members. Empowering leaders can do this with the aforementioned qualities or leadership dynamics. These types of employee behaviors instigate performance and help team members or subordinates become self-reliant (Arnold et al., 2000); they also instigate innovative performance (Alotaibi et al., 2020; Konczak et al., 2000).

Theme 5: Information Dissemination and Sharing

A good piece of information from a leader benefits the team members. An empowering leader can share real-time information in various ways, such as through regular team meetings, one-on-one discussions, or even through digital platforms. This information can come from the upper management or from the heart or direction of the leader. The company’s rules, regulations, purposes, and decision processes must be informed to the individual by their corresponding team leader. Coordinating and information sharing are among the most influential processes of ELB, which provides autonomy support to the employees (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a). It also allows the leader to share wide information about the new development of the organization (Arnold et al., 2000; Jada & Mukhopadhyay, 2019). “Information is power, and if an employee knows a team leader’s rules and company policies, we can undoubtedly tell that his/her leader empowers him a lot” (FGI, G-3, F7). A precise knowledge of the organizational policies makes employees more responsible for their work. “Empowering leader should be cautious about their team’s organizational policies and procedures because this information makes them more empowered toward their work performance” (SSI, P21).

An empowering team leader’s role in providing valuable information to each team member is not just significant, but it also makes the team members feel confident and secure. This information helps the followers understand the leader’s perspective and guides their decision-making, whether as a team or individually within the team (Arnold et al., 2000; Konczak et al., 2000). As one participant highlighted, “……empowering leader should supply valuable information to all team members, as they are the ones who ultimately work for the team” (SSI, P3). Another participant noted, “The team members make decisions based on the information provided by the leader” (FFI, G-4, F3), underlining the leader’s influence on the team’s dynamics.

Empowering leaders share information about the goals and expectations of the team, not just to inform but to motivate and align the team members. The team members can measure the potential of their work and work attitudes for the team. “What the expectations of the leaders have, it should be informed time to time to empower the peoples of their team” (FGI, G-2, F18). “The goal set by the team leaders needs to be defined and clarified by the members, in the same way, to make the people more empowered in the group” (SSI, P28).

Theme 6: Learning by Practical Work and Examples

The empowering leader, through their actions, provides a platform for their team members to learn. By setting a standard of work roles and performing the job themselves, they create a learning environment where team members can quickly grasp the necessary skills and knowledge. Empowering leaders through hard work plays a pivotal role in setting high standards for their teams (Ahearne et al., 2005). It demonstrates an empowering leader’s commitment to his/her work and observational process to guide the employees to perform (Srivastava et al., 2006). These standards serve as a benchmark for the team’s performance, effectively eliminating the need for explicit instructions. As one participant appositely noted, “.…..a hardworking leader can set the standard by doing their own work in the team, rather than just suggesting” (SSI, P8). Empowering people is about giving advice and demonstrating the desired behavior through practical work. As one leader expressed,

I believe that as a leader, my hard work in the team will be observed and learned from by my team followers. My work behavior sets the standard for my team’s performance” (FGI, G-1, F25).

Team leadership practices arise from the practical examples created by the team leaders. They exemplify the people with their work behavior and real-life phenomena within the team.

I think to empower the people in a team, we need to put effort into the current scenario of the job when we give more focus on our job- no needs to be learned separately, a job learning by example is the best way of individual empowerment (SSI, P8).

“Empowering people is the art of behaving, what I expect with the people I interact as a leader” (FGI, G-4, F8). A standard set for the team is more worthy than anything. The empowering leader wants to influence their employees through work behavior (Ahearne et al., 2005). “An empowering leader is directed to set the standard behavior within a team by his own actions” (SSI, P19). Therefore, an empowering team can derive significant learning from the practical examples and actions taken by the empowering leader. This form of learning is more engaging than any strategy in team dynamics, and it can yield more favorable team outcomes. Beyond learning, these behaviors can influence the autonomous motivation to do the work among HR professionals in Europe (O’Donoghue & van der Werff, 2022). Besides, these behaviors are more influential than transformational and ethical leadership behaviors in raising voice behavior among employees in Indian Service organizations (Jada & Mukhopadhyay, 2019).

Theme-A (Second Order): Group-Focused Empowering Behavior

Group-focused leadership behavior is entitled to the interaction of the leader with team members holistically, considering the entire team as a single entity (Wu et al., 2010). The leaders communicate or interact with the members, give opinions and instructions, or solve problems from the corner point of the whole team. By analyzing the three first-order themes, we have learned that empowering leadership has some properties of group-focused features. Considering theme 1, if an empowering leader wants to decide on a team, they must incorporate all the team members to catch their attention; individual attention or interaction may not work there properly. Ensuring everyone’s participation in the team can give more fruitful decision-making and worthy output. Empowering leaders also encourages idea-sharing by rewarding team members. To find solutions in a team, the leader must discuss the matter with all the team members.

Sharing problems and prospects is a key to empowering leadership, which treats team members fairly and respectfully. Empowering leaders invest their time and effort in and beyond work responsibilities to engage with the team. Our analysis of the third theme reveals that empowering leaders distribute authority and duties among the team, ensuring a fair and balanced workload (Ahearne et al., 2005; Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014a). They share facilities and regularly delegate work responsibilities. They also solve team problems with the consultation of higher authority, ensuring that decisions are made with fairness and respect for all team members.

Therefore, ELB has some shared properties of focusing on a group or team. It gives the leader and members a cooperative and shared action opportunity to do the work (Vecchio et al., 2010). Based on these findings, we propose a second-order theme of “group-focused ELB.” The results aligned with the group-focused behavior through the lens of TFL, where they measure group-focused behavior with idealized influence and inspirational motivation, which highly represent shared attitudes in the group (Jiang et al., 2015; Koo & Lee, 2022).

Theme-B (Second Order): Individual-Focused Empowering Behavior

Leadership behavior, which considers individual or situational needs, is an approach to situational leadership (Fiedler, 1967). In team leadership, the role of individuals within a team is crucial and needs to be addressed by the leader (G. Chen et al., 2007; Hirschhorn, 1991; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000), a concept termed individual-focused leadership (Wang & Howell, 2010; Wu et al., 2010). From the analysis of three themes (4, 5, 6), ELB demonstrates an understanding and consideration of individual needs, aligning with the principles of individual-focused leadership. Need-based mentoring and counseling in the teams require initiatives from empowering leaders who focus on the team members rather than the team as a whole. Disseminating the company’s rules, regulations, purposes, and decisions gives the team a collective understanding, but when it comes to applying these rules and regulations in work activities, the team members require this information tailored to their individual needs (Konczak et al., 2000). An empowering leader teaches the team members by exemplifying work behavior; he/she determines the work effort by practice and sets the team standard by doing the work (Arnold et al., 2000). The individual members of the team need to learn from a leader team, but they also need to understand and practice the work requirements on their own to achieve a target skill like the leaders.

Therefore, ELB requires a configurable approach to revealing and haunting individual potential. This behavior is required for team growth, which each team member possesses in a team environment. This approach allows leaders to design more engaging programs based on the individual needs and requirements of the team members. The findings confirm the result of individual-focused TFL, based on individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation, which can be done by leaders’ initiative to every member of the team to enhance the commitment of HR employees (Kunze et al., 2016) and team innovation of the R&D team (Jiang et al., 2015). On the contrary, the result is the opposite, considering the differentiated TFL within the team or group (Bormann & Diebig, 2021; Wu et al., 2010).

Role of Empowering Behavior in Creativity

Empowering leadership behavior can influence creativity in several ways. It can enhance creativity (Harris et al., 2014; Hughes et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2018; X. Zhang et al., 2020; X. Zhang & Bartol, 2010; X. Zhang & Zhou, 2014), innovation (Hughes et al., 2018), and, with creative support, creative unethicality (Mai et al., 2022). However, dual-focused orientation in ELB is a new attempt toward creativity, and we find it in second-order themes that extend our theoretical understanding of existing dual-focused leadership (Jiang et al., 2015; Kunze et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2010). Besides, we take some conclusions based on the ELB and creativity. This study’s findings align with previous research on empowering behavior and creativity, providing a solid foundation for our conclusions.

The empowering leaders give more autonomy, authority, freedom, access to information, etc. It can give followers more chances to flourish, explore themselves, be more motivated to work, and be holistically creative (FGI, Group 3, F11).

…..why not? Every human being wants to be more clear about their job, a clear understanding of responsibilities, fair treatment in the team and for individual performance, respect and comfort from the leader and colleagues, if they get all those facilities with the intervention of the leader obviously they will be more creative (SSI, P11).

Creativity arises from an individual when his/her brain gets relaxed like a prince, and he/she requires issues that need to be solved; all these can happen with a leader’s support. I believe an empowering leader has the qualities to ensure these all (SSI, p. 29).

Therefore, empowering leaders can create or promote a working environment for the team members that instill them to be more creative-oriented (Konczak et al., 2000; Lee et al., 2018; X. Zhang et al., 2020; X. Zhang & Zhou, 2014). Contrarily, it enhances creative unethicality (Mai et al., 2022) and deviant behavior (Yam et al., 2022). The empowering behavior promotes the environment because of the multiple natures of this leadership behavior. New ideas, innovation, exploration, or thinking arise from the need and imagination of the individual. Empowering behavior not only gives more access to the imagination but also gives more ease of support to the followers or team members.

Creativity with Team Orientation

The study shows that ELB provides team members with a platform to grow within a team setting, fostering creativity in team dynamics. ELB encompasses various components that contribute to team creativity, such as providing learning stimulus, fostering independence within the team, exercising power and autonomy, motivating the team, demonstrating care for team members, observing the team closely, emphasizing dedication and so on. The result extends the study of Jiang et al. (2015), where group-focused TFL enhance team innovation and differentiated individual focused TFL reduces team innovation. Similarly, dual-focused TFL influences group effectiveness (Wu et al., 2010). Therefore, the new components of group-focused ELB help orient the team toward creativity. Based on these consensuses, we can propose two propositions as follows:

Proposition 1: Group-focused ELB have some orientation on team creativity

Proposition 2: Individual-focused ELB have some orientation on team creativity

Creativity with Individual Orientation

The findings explained that ELB provides team members with some individual orientation that gives the stimulus to be creative individually. ELB induces some components that contribute to individual creativity, like thinking with freedom, enhancing personal capacity, more access to information, freedom of work, encouragement, more space on personal issues, and more opportunity to develop self, and so on. The result expands the findings of Kunze et al. (2016), which state that collective-focused and individual-focused leadership climate influences affective organizational climate. Besides, individual-focused leadership strengthens organizational citizenship behavior (Bormann & Diebig, 2021), and career satisfaction (Biemann et al., 2015). Therefore, we can propose the potentials of individual creativity that may be generated from ELB by the following propositions:

Proposition 3: Group-focused ELB have some orientation on individual creativity

Proposition 4: Individual-focused ELB have some orientation on individual creativity

Based on the study’s findings and the propositions developed, we propose a conceptual model to show the potential relationship between the two properties of dual-focused ELB and its consequences on creativity in individual and team orientation (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Conceptual model.

Key Implications

This study aims to shed light on the critical role of ELB, focusing on team and individual and its impact on creativity through qualitative research techniques (Figure 3). With the current demand for more research on team-level focus and its implications on individual and team levels, it is crucial to understand the consequences of team-level leadership with a specific lens. By exploring how ELB in the team can affect followers’ creativity at both individual and team levels, we can better understand the power of ELB in addressing the challenges of the rapidly changing economy. In today’s world, where the economy is changing rapidly, there is a need for public and private initiatives to adopt ELB to meet the challenges of the emerging economy. The urgency of ELB is further strengthened by the government and statutory bodies, which are highly focused on shifting toward the service industry. The role of dual-focused ELB of small teams from a diversified organization proved that these types of behavior could contribute to creative teams and individuals. Focusing on the team will enhance the team’s capacity to generate new ideas while focusing on members will give them more autonomy to do work. Ultimately, it will instigate creative behavior.

The study advances the previous studies of dual-focused TFL Wu et al. (2010), Jiang et al. (2015), and Chun et al. (2016) to understand dual-focus empowering behavior with a qualitative approach. The existing empirical results find the link of dual-focused TFL to effectiveness, performance, and commitment at both levels. The present study provides an approach to dual-focused ELB and finds that ELB is multi-dimensional. It starts with giving autonomy and ends with the feedback and well-being of the employees. In a team set-up, it is more engaging with team members and provides them with more sharing, participation, and engaging attitudes. ELB is also more appealing to the individuals within the team because it allows for demand and needs specific support and solutions for the employees using mentoring, counseling, coaching, exemplifying, and informing. It also transfers and notifies the information flow from the upper management. The study further advances the findings of Biemann et al. (2015) to explain creativity as the potential outcome of qualitative research.

Moreover, the essence of EST indicates that these types of behavior influence the work outcomes of individuals and teams. The result finds that the multifaceted nature of two ELBs can influence individual and team creativity. Based on the existing findings with EST, team events can influence behavior at both levels (Halinski et al., 2024; Song et al., 2023). Addressing the issues developed by the themes can broaden creativity and influence work-related outcomes like satisfaction, productivity, and performance. The two behavior focuses may also have different individual and team outcomes. The findings suggest that the empowering leader can use these mechanisms in team dynamics to have more consequences for the team. The team leaders also suggest the importance of evaluating their present behavior with the findings of this study to contrast the requirements of leadership behavior, they required. Based on the EST, the dual focus of ELB creates behavioral events and changes in the systems or interaction, which influence the team’s newness and creativity (Y. Chen et al., 2021; Halinski et al., 2024; Kiefer et al., 2024). The event criticality created the leadership role, and team dynamism may influence individual attention and team orientation (Morgeson et al., 2015; Morgeson & DeRue, 2006).

Limitations and Future Works

The qualitative study design may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research should consider this framework to incorporate quantitative methods of survey or experiment across industries and countries. Besides, the potential researchers’ inherent bias in qualitative research can be considered a limitation. The objectivity measurement by quantitative analysis may reduce this limitation in future. The data collected from diverse industries from emerging nations targeting small teams may give more explanatory findings with the multiple teams from various organizations and large teams. A quantitative study on a similar field and context may give more inconclusive results for the linkage of empowering leadership and creativity. Cultural factors influence the determination of ELB from the perspective of an emerging country. Therefore, future research should consider these limitations to explore this research domain more. The present study comprehensively explains two focuses of empowering leadership behavior. Still, the framework may consider the new mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions to explore the study context from the perspective of multi-level orientations.

Footnotes

This research is a part of the PhD dissertation of the first author,completed at School of Management,Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Further,the authors acknowledge Md Shahinur Rahman’s valuable comments in the earlier version of the manuscript.

ORCID iDs

Md Mostafizur Rahman

Farhana Rahman

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval is not applicable. Focused group interviews were conducted online with permission from authorities and agreement from participants. In both interview,respondents were allowed to leave the interview at any time. They voluntarily participate without any coercion.

Informed Consent

The participants were requested to voluntarily participate in this study,implying informed consent,acknowledgment of their understanding of the study’s purpose,assurance of strict confidentiality.

Author Contributions

This study is the result of a team effort,and the authors have equally contributed to the research.

Funding

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

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the first author upon reasonable request.

References

Ahearne

Mathieu

Rapp

(2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945–955.

Al Balushi

. (2016). The use of online semi-structured interviews in interpretive research. International Journal of Science and Research, 57(4), 2319–7064.

Ali

Wang

Johnson

R. E.

(2020). Empirical analysis of shared leadership promotion and team creativity: An adaptive leadership perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(5), 405–423.

Alotaibi

S. M.

Amin

Winterton

(2020). Does emotional intelligence and empowering leadership affect psychological empowerment and work engagement? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(8), 971–991.

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). CAI.

Amabile

T. M.

(1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations (Vol. 5). Harvard Business School.

Amundsen

Martinsen

Ø. L.

(2014a). Empowering leadership: Construct clarification, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 487–511.

Amundsen

Martinsen

Ø. L.

(2014b). Self–other agreement in empowering leadership: Relationships with leader effectiveness and subordinates’ job satisfaction and turnover intention. Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 784–800.

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.

10.

Armenakis

A. A.

Harris

S. G.

Mossholder

K. W.

(1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703.

11.

Arnold

J. A.

Arad

Rhoades

J. A.

Drasgow

(2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(3), 249–269.

12.

Aslam

Davis

(2024). Analyzing consumer expectations and experiences of augmented reality (AR) apps in the fashion retail sector. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 76, 103577.

13.

Bass

B. M.

(Ed.). (2008). Bass and Stodgill’s handbook of leadership (4th ed.). Free Press.

14.

Biemann

Kearney

Marggraf

(2015). Empowering leadership and managers’ career perceptions: Examining effects at both the individual and the team level. Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 775–789.

15.

Bormann

K. C.

Diebig

(2021). Following an uneven lead: Trickle-down effects of differentiated transformational leadership. Journal of Management, 47(8), 2105–2134.

16.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

17.

Brown

M. E.

Treviño

L. K.

(2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.

18.

Buengeler

Piccolo

R. F.

Locklear

L. R.

(2021). LMX differentiation and group outcomes: A framework and review drawing on group diversity insights. Journal of Management, 47(1), 260–287.

19.

Byrne

(2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1391–1412.

20.

Cai

Fan

Wang

(2023). Linking visionary leadership to creativity at multiple levels: The role of goal-related processes. Journal of Business Research, 167, 114182.

21.

Charmaz

(2014). Grounded theory in global perspective: Reviews by international researchers. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9), 1074–1084.

22.

Chen

Kirkman

B. L.

Kanfer

Allen

Rosen

(2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 331–346.

23.

Chen

Smith

T. A.

Kirkman

B. L.

Zhang

Lemoine

G. J.

Farh

J.-L.

(2019). Multiple team membership and empowerment spillover effects: Can empowerment processes cross team boundaries? E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(3), 321–340.

24.

Chen

Liu

Tang

Hogan

T. M.

(2021). Workplace events and employee creativity: A multi-study field investigation. Personnel Psychology, 74(2), 211–236.

25.

Chun

J. U.

Cho

Sosik

J. J.

(2016). A multilevel study of group-focused and individual-focused transformational leadership, social exchange relationships, and performance in teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(3), 374–396.

26.

Corbin

J. M.

Strauss

(1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.

27.

Dennerlein

Kirkman

B. L.

(2022). The hidden dark side of empowering leadership: The moderating role of hindrance stressors in explaining when empowering employees can promote moral disengagement and unethical pro-organizational behavior. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(12), 2220–2242.

28.

Donate

M. J.

González-Mohíno

Paolo Appio

Bernhard

(2022). Dealing with knowledge hiding to improve innovation capabilities in the hotel industry: The unconventional role of knowledge-oriented leadership. Journal of Business Research, 144, 572–586.

29.

Duan

Zhang

M. J.

Liu

Ling

Xie

(2023). Investigating the curvilinear relationship between temporal leadership and team creativity: The moderation of knowledge complexity and the mediation of team creative process engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(4), 717–738.

30.

Erdogan

Bauer

T. N.

(2010). Differentiated leader–member exchanges: The buffering role of justice climate. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1104–1120.

31.

Etikan

Bala

(2017). Sampling and sampling methods. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 5(6), 00149.

32.

Fiedler

F. E.

(1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. Mcgraw-Hill series in Management.

33.

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), 605–622.

34.

Glaser

Strauss

(2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.

35.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

36.

Habib

M. D.

Alghamdi

Sharma

Mehrotra

Badghish

(2024). Diet or lifestyle: Consumer purchase behavior of vegan retailing. A qualitative assessment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 76, 103584.

37.

Halinski

Boekhorst

J. A.

Allen

Good

J. R. L.

(2024). Creativity during threat to organizational survival: The influence of employee creativity on downsizing survival selection. Journal of Management, 51, 1033–1065. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231216691

38.

Han

J. H.

Liao

Han

A. N.

(2021). When leader–member exchange differentiation improves work group functioning: The combined roles of differentiation bases and reward interdependence. Personnel Psychology, 74(1), 109–141.

39.

Harris

T. B.

Boswell

W. R.

Zhang

Xie

(2014). Getting what’s new from newcomers: Empowering leadership, creativity, and adjustment in the socialization context. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 567–604.

40.

Haynie

J. J.

Cullen

K. L.

Lester

H. F.

Winter

Svyantek

D. J.

(2014). Differentiated leader–member exchange, justice climate, and performance: Main and interactive effects. Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 912–922.

41.

Hill

N. S.

Bartol

K. M.

(2016). Empowering leadership and effective collaboration in geographically dispersed teams. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 159–198.

42.

Hirschhorn

(1991). Managing in the new group environment: Skills, tools, and methods. Authors Choice Press.

43.

Huang

Krasikova

D. V.

Harms

P. D.

(2020). Avoiding or embracing social relationships? A conservation of resources perspective of leader narcissism, leader–member exchange differentiation, and follower voice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(1), 77–92.

44.

Hughes

D. J.

Lee

Tian

A. W.

Newman

Legood

(2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549–569.

45.

Jada

U. R.

Mukhopadhyay

(2019). Understanding the effects of empowering, transformational and ethical leadership on promotive and prohibitive voice. Personnel Review, 48(3), 707–730.

46.

Jia

Jiao

Han

(2022). Inclusive leadership and team creativity: A moderated mediation model of Chinese talent management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(21), 4284–4307.

47.

Jiang

Wang

G. G.

(2015). To guide or to divide: The dual-side effects of transformational leadership on team innovation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 677–691.

48.

Kearney

Shemla

van Knippenberg

Scholz

F. A.

(2019). A paradox perspective on the interactive effects of visionary and empowering leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 20–30.

49.

Kiefer

Barclay

L. J.

Conway

(2024). Applying Event System Theory to organizational change: The Importance of everyday positive and negative events. Journal of Management, 51, 1066–1095. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241237221

50.

Kirkman

B. L.

Rosen

(1997). A model of work team empowerment. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 10(1), 131–167.

51.

Kirkman

B. L.

Rosen

(1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74.

52.

Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236.

53.

Konczak

L. J.

Stelly

D. J.

Trusty

M. L.

(2000). Defining and measuring empowering leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 301–313.

54.

Koo

Lee

E. S.

(2022). The taming of Machiavellians: Differentiated transformational leadership effects on Machiavellians’ organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(1), 153–170.

55.

Kreuger

Casey

M.A.

(2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications.

56.

Kunze

de Jong

S. B.

Bruch

(2016). Consequences of collective-focused leadership and differentiated individual-focused leadership: Development and testing of an organizational-level model. Journal of Management, 42(4), 886–914.

57.

Leach

D. J.

Wall

T. D.

Jackson

P. R.

(2003). The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: An empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(1), 27–52.

58.

Leblanc

Rousseau

Harvey

(2022). Leader humility and team innovation: The role of team reflexivity and team proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(8), 1396–1409.

59.

Lee

Willis

Tian

A. W.

(2018). Empowering leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 306–325.

60.

Lehmann

Pery

Kluger

A. N.

Hekman

D. R.

Owens

B. P.

Malloy

T. E.

(2023). Relationship-specific (dyadic) humility: How your humility predicts my psychological safety and performance. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 809–825.

61.

Liao

Shao

Huang

(2022). Angry but not deviant: Employees’ prior-day deviant behavior toward the family buffers their reactions to abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(3), 683–697.

62.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Kirkman

B. L.

(2017). Cross-level influences of empowering leadership on citizenship behavior: Organizational support climate as a double-edged sword. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1076–1102.

63.

Yam

K. C.

Long

L.-R.

(2015). When and why empowering leadership increases followers’ taking charge: A multilevel examination in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(3), 645–670.

64.

Liu

Wei

Xin

Cheng

(2022). Task conflict and team creativity: The role of team mindfulness, experiencing tensions, and information elaboration. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 39(4), 1367–1398.

65.

Lorinkova

N. M.

Perry

S. J.

(2017). When is empowerment effective? The role of leader-leader exchange in empowering leadership, cynicism, and time theft. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1631–1654.

66.

Lorinkova

N. M.

Perry

S. J.

(2019). The importance of group-focused transformational leadership and felt obligation for helping and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(3), 231–247.

67.

Mai

K. M.

Welsh

D. T.

Wang

Bush

Jiang

(2022). Supporting creativity or creative unethicality? empowering leadership and the role of performance pressure. Journal of Business Ethics, 179(1), 111–131.

68.

Mainemelis

Kark

Epitropaki

(2015). Creative leadership: A multi-context conceptualization. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 393–482.

69.

Manzano

(2022). Conducting focus groups in realist evaluation. Evaluation, 28(4), 406–425.

70.

Long

Zhang

Lam

C. K.

(2017). Why do high-performance human resource practices matter for team creativity? The mediating role of collective efficacy and knowledge sharing. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(3), 565–586.

71.

Men

Fong

P. S. W.

Luo

Zhong

Huo

(2019). When and how knowledge sharing benefits team creativity: The importance of cognitive team diversity. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(6), 807–824.

72.

Minniti

Rodriguez

Williams

T. A.

(2024). Resilience within constraints: An event oriented approach to crisis response. Journal of Management, 51, 1133–1169. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231225166

73.

Mitchell

Boyle

(2024). Suspicion, inclusive leadership and team innovation: A motivated information processing approach. Journal of Business Research, 172, 114399.

74.

Morgeson

F. P.

DeRue

D. S.

(2006). Event criticality, urgency, and duration: Understanding how events disrupt teams and influence team leader intervention. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 271–287.

75.

Morgeson

F. P.

Mitchell

T. R.

Liu

(2015). Event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 515–537.

76.

Ling

C. D.

Xie

X. Y.

(2019). The curvilinear relationship between ethical leadership and team creativity: The moderating role of team faultlines. Journal of Business Ethics, 154, 229–242.

77.

Morrison

Lichtenwald

Tang

(2020). Extending the online focus group method using web-based conferencing to explore older adults online learning. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 43(1), 78–92.

78.

Mumford

M. D.

Friedrich

T. L.

Vessey

W. B.

Ruark

G. A.

(2012). Collective leadership: Thinking about issues vis-à-vis others. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 408–411.

79.

Mumford

M. D.

Gustafson

S. B.

(1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43.

80.

O’Brien

B. C.

Harris

I. B.

Beckman

T. J.

Reed

D. A.

Cook

D. A.

(2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245–1251.

81.

O’Donoghue

van der Werff

(2022). Empowering leadership: balancing self-determination and accountability for motivation. Personnel Review, 51(4), 1205–1220.

82.

Peng

Wang

Chen

(2019). Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 419–433.

83.

Rank

Pace

V. L.

Frese

(2004). Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 518–528.

84.

Rodríguez-Sánchez

A. M.

Devloo

Rico

Salanova

Anseel

(2017). What makes creative teams tick? Cohesion, engagement, and performance across creativity tasks: A three-wave study. Group & Organization Management, 42(4), 521–547.

85.

Salas

Driskell

J. E.

Hughes

(1996). Introduction: The study of stress and human performance. In Driskell

J. E.

Salas

(Eds.), Stress and human performance (pp. 1-47). Erlbaum.

86.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

(2009). Research methods for business students. Pearson education.

87.

Schilpzand

Houston

Cho

(2018). Not too tired to be proactive: Daily empowering leadership spurs next-morning employee proactivity as moderated by nightly sleep quality. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2367–2387.

88.

Seo

Nahrgang

J. D.

Carter

M. Z.

Hom

P. W.

(2018). Not all differentiation is the same: Examining the moderating effects of leader-member exchange (LMX) configurations. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(5), 478–495.

89.

Shah

Dhir

Joshi

Tripathy

(2023). Opportunities and challenges in food entrepreneurship: In-depth qualitative investigation of millet entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Research, 155, 113372.

90.

Shin

Eom

(2014). Team proactivity as a linking mechanism between team creative efficacy, transformational leadership, and risk-taking norms and team creative performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(2), 89–114.

91.

Silverman

(2021). Doing qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage Publications.

92.

Smallfield

Hoobler

J. M.

Kluemper

D. H.

(2020). How team helping influences abusive and empowering leadership: The roles of team affective tone and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(8), 757–781.

93.

Song

Guo

Cooke

F. L.

Chen

(2023). Does human resource system strength help employees act proactively? The roles of crisis strength and work engagement. Human Resource Management, 62(2), 213–228.

94.

Srivastava

Bartol

K. M.

Locke

E. A.

(2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.

95.

Statistical Year Book [SYB]. (2023). Statistics and Informatics Division (SID) Ministry of Planning Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Retrieved 15 August, 2024, from http://nsds.bbs.gov.bd/bn/posts/111/Statistical%20Yearbook%202023

96.

Stollberger

Ali Al-Atwi

De Cremer

(2023). Untangling the team social capital–team innovation link: The role of proportional task conflict as well as group-and differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership. Human Relations, 76(6), 871–900.

97.

M. L.

Fisher

C. D.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Zhou

(2021). Feeling differently, creating together: Affect heterogeneity and creativity in project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(9), 1228–1243.

98.

Vecchio

R. P.

Justin

J. E.

Pearce

C. L.

(2010). Empowering leadership: An examination of mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 530–542.

99.

Wang

X. H. F.

Howell

J. M.

(2010). Exploring the dual level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1134–1144.

100.

Wang

X. H. F.

Kim

T. Y.

Lee

D. R.

(2016). Cognitive diversity and team creativity: Effects of team intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3231–3239.

101.

Wei

Zhou

Wang

(2023). Learning to integrate conflicts: Paradoxical leadership fosters team innovation. Journal of Business Research, 165, 114076.

102.

Wei

Liao

Zhang

Dong

(2024). Does passion matter for team innovation? The conditional indirect effects of team harmonious versus obsessive passion via team reflexivity. Personnel Psychology, 77(2), 891–916.

103.

Wong

S. I.

Giessner

S. R.

(2018). The thin line between empowering and laissez-faire leadership: An expectancy-match perspective. Journal of Management, 44(2), 757–783.

104.

Woodman

R. W.

Sawyer

J. E.

Griffin

R. W.

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

105.

J. B.

Tsui

A. S.

Kinicki

A. J.

(2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90–106.

106.

Yam

K. C.

Reynolds

S. J.

Zhang

(2022). The unintended consequences of empowering leadership: Increased deviance for some followers. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(3), 683–700.

107.

Yammarino

F. J.

Salas

Serban

Shirreffs

Shuffler

M. L.

(2012). Collectivistic leadership approaches: Putting the “we” in leadership science and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 382–402.

108.

Yang

Liu

(2017). A multi-level study of servant leadership on creativity: The roles of self-efficacy and power distance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(5), 610–629.

109.

Matta

F. K.

Cornfield

(2018). Is leader–member exchange differentiation beneficial or detrimental for group effectiveness? A meta-analytic investigation and theoretical integration. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 1158–1188.

110.

Zhang

A. Y.

Tsui

A. S.

Wang

D. X.

(2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 851–862.

111.

Zhang

Leung

X. Y.

Bai

(2021). Uncovering crowdsourcing in tourism apps: A grounded theory study. Tourism Management, 87, 104389.

112.

Zhang

Frank Wang

Liu

(2018). Empowering leadership and employee creativity: A dual-mechanism perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(4), 896–917.

113.

Zhang

X. A.

Ullrich

van Dick

(2015). Getting everyone on board: The effect of differentiated transformational leadership by CEOs on top management team effectiveness and leader-rated firm performance. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1898–1933.

114.

Zhang

Bartol

K. M.

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

115.

Zhang

Kwan

H. K.

(2019). Empowering leadership and team creativity: The roles of team learning behavior, team creative efficacy, and team task complexity. In Mainemelis

Epitropaki

Kark

(Eds.), Creative leadership: Contexts and prospects (pp. 95–121). Routledge.

116.

Zhang

Qian

Wang

Chen

(2020). The role of reward omission in empowering leadership and employee outcomes: A moderated mediation model. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(2), 226–243.

117.

Zhang

Zhou

(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.

Unlocking Dual-Focused Empowering Leadership Behaviors Toward Multilevel Creativity: A Qualitative View

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theory and Literature

Event System Theory (EST)

Dual-Focused Leadership and Outcomes

Leadership Behavior and Employee Creativity

Leadership and Creativity in Teams

Methods

Research Design and Approach

Research Context

Sample and Data Collection

Review

Focus Group Interview

Semi-structured Interview

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Triangulation of Data

Development of Construct/Sub-themes

First Order Themes

Alignment of Selective Second Order Themes

Finding Potential Effects on Creativity

Results and Discussion

Theme 1: Decision Making in Team

Theme 2: Member’s Interaction With Leaders

Theme 3: Distribution of Duties and Authority in Teams

Theme 4: Need Based Mentoring and Counseling

Theme 5: Information Dissemination and Sharing

Theme 6: Learning by Practical Work and Examples

Theme-A (Second Order): Group-Focused Empowering Behavior

Theme-B (Second Order): Individual-Focused Empowering Behavior

Role of Empowering Behavior in Creativity

Creativity with Team Orientation

Creativity with Individual Orientation

Key Implications

Limitations and Future Works

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Informed Consent

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References