The Impact of Emotional Stability, Transformational Leadership and Innovative Behavior on Career Success through Self-Efficacy


Cite Us
Views (675)
Downloads (0)


Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the impact of emotional stability, transformational leadership, and innovative behavior on career success through self-efficacy from food manufacturing firms in Karachi, Pakistan. By following the quantitative approach, a structured questionnaire based on a five-point Likert scale was non-randomly disseminated to 304 employees working in food manufacturing industries with a response rate of 96%. Findings revealed that three of the constructs, transformational leadership, emotional stability, and innovative behavior have a positive and significant impact on the career success of employees along with the significant mediating effect of self-efficacy. The study concluded that if an employee puts the maximum effort to achieve the goal and a successful career will lead him to perform more productively, and this will be beneficial for the whole organization’s development.

 

Key Words

Emotional Stability; Transformational Leadership; Innovative Behavior; Career           Success and Self-Efficacy

 

Introduction

Career success of an employee plays a vital role in the field of organizational development. A successful career is when a person keeps a few essential elements from the beginning. There is an interesting rising in careers related to management and art,s but we all are less familiar about the careers in arts and management. DiRenzo et al. (2015) investigated that people having a protean career approach are more probable to implement their entire life on their career. In the past, people do not have any right to select their job and the task that is given to them as it was permanent and unchangeable; however, due to the emerging market economy later in the 1990s, Chinese workers had to regulate new conditions (Sun and Wang, 2009). According to the survey, people of China have more opportunities and choices to make and grow their own personally meaningful career (Zhou et al., 2012).  Moreover, Gattiker and Larwood (1986) argued that the dimensions of subjective career success include job, interpersonal, financial, hierarchical (related to promotion) and life success which are categorized in nature and purpose. In order to be competitive in the market, individuals must seek an education that enhances their careers. 

Career success refers to the positive job-related outcomes and accomplishments that an individual gather as a result based on their work experiences (Majd, 2018; Zacher, 2014). A person’s evaluation regarding his career advancement and career fulfilment is subjective to career success (Volmer et al., 2016). Employees feel more satisfied if they create career plans from the beginning and due to this, feel more satisfied with their professions (Converse et al., 2012; De Vos & Soens, 2008). Hence, successful planning leads to great performance, and individuals achieve objectives that enhance the feel of psychological accomplishments (Moon & Choi, 2016).

Career success plays an important role for every individual, whether he is a fresher or belongs to a managerial level. Ng and Feldmen (2014) proposed that there is no such study that has identified the elements that weaken one’s subjective success, so it is important to recognize hurdles at a broader level about subjective career success feelings. Also, the impact of self-efficacy has not been studied as a mediator between emotional stability, transformational leadership, innovative behavior and career success. There are few researches that found the impact of career success with other variables, but it is rarely seen with emotional stability, transformational leadership and innovative behavior especially in food manufacturing firms in the context of Pakistan.

According to the economic survey, there are 86 food manufacturing industries in which Karachi is 10.9% of the total, and the growth rate has been estimated 10% per annum. As per the news of ‘The Nation’, Pakistan’s food sector is changing significantly with an inclined shift in lifestyle and traditional eating habits. The food and its related products industry are considered as Pakistan’s 2nd largest industry accounts for 27% of its value-addition production, and the successful employment rate of the food manufacturing sector is 16%.

Therefore, the purpose of this quantitative study is to examine the impact of emotional stability, transformational leadership and innovative behavior on career success through self-efficacy from food manufacturing firms in Karachi, Pakistan. This study would be beneficial for the organizations to understand the ways for motivating employees so that they work in an efficient and innovative manner, and to develop such strategies that give advantage to the whole organization. Lastly, this study focuses on articulating and testing a theoretical framework and will contribute to literature which relates career success, especially in Pakistan.

 

Theoretical Background and Development of Hypotheses

This research comprises four theories. Career success, as defined by Social capital theory, says that “any social structure that generates the value and assists in creating individual’s actions within that social structure” (Coleman, 1990). Self-efficacy and innovative behaviour as defined by Social cognitive theory, says that “self-efficacy is related to generating a new idea so individual should be able to generate new and creative outcomes and must have believed in his ability.” Innovative behaviour is more important than self-efficacy because it includes idea creation (Bandura, 1986). Emotional stability, as defined by Trait theory, conceptualizes personality as a hierarchical organization of cognition and behavior. The term personality trait refers to a possible and stable pattern of experiences and actions depending on the situation (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Transformational leadership, as defined by the Theory of transformational leadership and Transactional leadership, categorize the vision of leaders and sacrifice the self-interest for the organization Bass (1985).

 

Emotional Stability and Self-Efficacy

Human significant traits that include cognitive, motivational and emotional are controlled through self-efficacy (Bandura & Locke, 2003). In performance measure, conscientiousness is reflected as the strongest and reliable variable of the five personality behaviors (Caprara et al., 2011; Poropat, 2009; Barrick et al., 2001). Furthermore, the past study investigated emotional stability role and competence in career decisions and found emotional stability as a significant predictor of career-related concerns (Bubic & Ivanisevic, 2016). Similarly, another research has shown the positive relationship between emotional intelligence and psychological wellbeing at work (Carmeli et al., 2009). Also, Lounsbury et al. (2003) suggested that an individual who manages emotional abilities are more satisfied with their career. Similarly, Judge and Ilies (2002) demonstrated in their study that personality trait has a positive impact on the two types of motivation that includes expectancy and self-efficacy. Hence, the following hypothesis is developed:

H1: Emotional Stability has a Significant Impact on Self-Efficacy.

 

Transformational Leadership and Self-Efficacy

According to the Social cognitive theory, self-efficacy considered in workplaces as the significant factor of creativity (Bandura, 1986). Employees think that in transformational leadership, they can produce creative end results that in return, grow their self-efficacy (Bandura & Locke, 2003). Gong et al. (2009) proposed that learning orientation of employees and transformational leadership was positively associated with creative self-efficacy of employees. Transformational leadership is suggested as a foundation of career self-efficacy as transformational leadership aims to alter followers’ needs and attitudes trough motivation so that organizational goals become achievable (Rigotti, Korek, & Otto, 2018). Similarly, Walumbwa and Hartnell (2011) concluded that the relationship between transformational leadership and creative self-efficacy is positive and the relation directs to a higher level of the performance of employees. Also, in previous studies, it has been found that transformational leadership is positively related with self-efficacy (Munir & Nielsen, 2009; Liu, Siu, & Shi, 2010; Tims, Bakker, &Xanthopoulou, 2011). Mittal and Dhar (2015) also found the positive relation of transformational leadership and creative self-efficacy. Hence, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H2: Transformational Leadership has a Significant Impact on Self-Efficacy. 

 

Innovative Behavior and Self-Efficacy

Innovative behaviour is the actions that individual performance and it includes an individual’s new and creative thoughts (Slavkin HC, 2017). Self-efficacy is a very strong variable to measure employee innovation (Hu & Zhao, 2016). Past studies showed that career success enhances if the behavior of an employee is innovative (Dailey et al., 2015). Another research found a positive association between innovative behavior and self-efficacy (Grosser, Venkataramani, & Labianca, 2017). Also, Feng (2009) surveyed 366 workers of service enterprises and found that innovative behavior has a positive relationship with self-efficacy. Similarly, research conducted by Ng and Lucianetti (2015) found the significant relationship between innovative behavior and self-efficacy. A research that was conducted in the context of nurses in mainland China also found the positive impact of innovative behavior on self-efficacy (Dan et al., 2018). Thus, the following hypothesis is generated based on the above literature:

H3: Innovative Behavior has a Significant Impact on Self-Efficacy.

 

Self-Efficacy and Career Success

Bandura (1982) explored that self-efficacy is the viewpoint of one’s potential to manage cognitive resources that also motivate the behaviours for the successful achievement of the particular mission. Dennehy and Dasgupta (2017) found that employees put more effort into work that has higher career development and also supported with self-efficacy. Also, in previous research results showed that self-efficacy is a strong element and due to this, individuals are considering more persuaded with their careers (Abele and Spurk, 2009; Valcour and Ladge, 2008). Hence, the following hypothesis is generated on the basis of the above discussion:

H4: Self-efficacy has a significant impact on career success.

Below is the hypothesized conceptual framework of the existing study.

 

Research Framework

Emotional Stabiblity

Figure 1

 

Research Methodology

The study adopts a quantitative and deductive research approach. The sample was obtained from food manufacturing industries in Pakistan operating specifically in the metropolitan city, i.e. Karachi. A total of three hundred and four (304) questionnaires were distributed non-randomly to the employees of food manufacturing industries. Two hundred and fifty-four (254) filled questionnaires were received with a response rate of 96%.  It has five variable,s each containing four to seven items. The dependent variable in the study was career success. In addition to this, the independent variables were emotional stability, transformational leadership and innovation.

Respondents’ Profile

The total number of respondents for this study is 254, in which 138 are males, and the percentage is 54.3% whereas 116 are females, and the percentage is 45.7% of the sample. The statistics show that majority of the employees of food manufacturing firms are aged between 20 to 30 which makes up 87.8%, 27 employees are aged between 31 to 40, and only four employees are 41 & above. As per the organizational levels, 94 employees were in the category of lower-level management, 136 in the middle and 24 were in the upper level. Moreover, 40 employees belong to the private sector, whereas 214 belongs to the public sector.

 

Scales and Measures

This study used a total of 5 variables which were measured on a five-point Likert type scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). All items were self-reported and responded in the anon-contrived field-study setting.

 

Emotional Stability: Emotional stability is one of the traits of personality and defined as an individuals’ response to different events (McCrae & Costa, 2003). To measure emotional stability, four items were adapted from Wong and Law’s (2002) Emotional Intelligence Scale. A sample item reads, “I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties rationally”.

 

Transformational Leadership: Transformational leadership is a style that enhances employees’ efforts, helps them to attain new solutions and increases intrinsic motivation that reflects productively (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Sosik et al., 1997). The seven items of transformational leadership were adapted from Bass and Avolio (1995). A sample item reads, “My supervisor acts in a way that builds my respect”.

 

Innovative Behavior: Innovative behaviour is defined as an individual’s actions that create new and innovative ideas and share with the organization for the benefit (Slavkin, 2017). The six items of innovative behaviour were adapted from Scott and Bruce (1994). A sample item reads, “There is adequate time available to pursue creative ideas”.

 

Self-Efficacy: Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as a trait that particularly concerns the innovative outcomes that individual produce. To measure self-efficacy, six items were adapted from Tierney and Farmer (2002). A sample item reads, “I believe I could have handled a more challenging job than the one I will be doing”.

 

Career Success: Career success is defined as the positive occupational outcome that is the end result of work experience; it can be divided into objective and subjective career success (Judge et al., 1995; Seibert et al., 1999). The six items of career success were adapted from Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990). A sample item reads, “I am satisfied with the progress I have made towards achieving my overall career goals”.

 

Data Analysis

The technique used in this study is Structural equation modelling (SEM) with the help

of software Smart PLS 3.2.3 (Ringle et al., 2014) along with the bootstrapping technique of 1000 subsample. The technique is perfect for the measurement of a complex model, so PLS-SEM is used to evaluate the measurement and structural model and also for the accurate evaluation of the framework (Henseler et al., 2014; Hair et al., 2011). Moreover, the technique explains the connection between latent variables. Latent variables are the variables that are unobserved or hidden constructs that are liable for the connection among other constructs (Aibinu& Al-Lawati, 2010). Smart PLS has the capability to work with the unseen or hidden variables and also has the ability to identify the measurement errors (Chin, 1998). In this study, perception-based items are used and measured on a five-point Likert scale. For the evaluation of the values, two measures are considered, convergent validity and discriminant validity.

 

Demographics

Table 1. Profile of Respondents (N=254) (Shows the Demographic Profile)

Demographics

Frequency

%

Gender

 

 

Male

138

54.3

Female

116

45.7

Age

 

 

20-30

223

87.8

31-40

27

10.6

41 & Above

4

1.6

Qualification

 

 

Intermediate

14

5.5

Diploma

7

2.8

Bachelors

113

44.5

Masters

104

40.9

Others

16

6.3

Income

 

 

Less than 25000

92

36.2

25001-50000

98

38.6

50001-75000

38

15

75001-100000

10

3.9

100000 & above

16

6.3

Level of employment

 

 

Lower-level Management

94

37

Middle management

136

53.5

Upper management

24

9.4

Sector

 

 

Public

40

15.7

Private

214

84.3

 

Measurement Model

The measurement model is used to examine the relationship of variable with Likert scale items for the complex model, which includes mediation. In order to estimate such a complex model, the researchers used PLS-SEM using SmartPLS 3.2.3. To evaluate the reliability of a single-item, standardized loadings or simple correlation is examined. In order to the items to be reliable, their Cronbach’s alpha should be 0.55, and according to the results shown in Table 2, all items meet the threshold and are confirmed as reliable.

 

Convergent Validity

Validity is referred to as measure the correlation of constructs (Neumann, 2007). Average variance extract is used for the measurement of convergent validity (Hair et al., 2011). As suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981), there are two criteria that PLS consider in order to determine convergent validity. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR), and the average variance extracted (AVE).

As mentioned in Table 2, all the variables are reliable as they meet the thresholds that are set by Tabachnik and Fidell (2007). The benchmark of indicator loadings should be higher than 0.7, and composite reliability is 0.7, and above (Hair et al., 2011), AVE should be 0.5 and above (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

 

Table 2. Measurement Model Results

 Constructs

Items

Loadings

Cronbach's Alpha

Composite Reliability

Average Variance Extracted

CS

CS1

0.829

0.879

0.908

0.623

 

CS2

0.745

 

 

 

 

CS3

0.837

 

 

 

 

CS4

0.756

 

 

 

 

CS5

0.802

 

 

 

 

CS6

0.764

 

 

 

ES

ES1

0.654

0.702

0.816

0.527

 

ES2

0.807

 

 

 

 

ES3

0.723

 

 

 

 

ES4

0.712

 

 

 

IB

IB2

0.656

0.784

0.849

0.532

 

IB3

0.677

 

 

 

 

IB4

0.750

 

 

 

 

IB5

0.751

 

 

 

 

IB6

0.802

 

 

 

SE

SE1

0.735

0.808

0.862

0.512

 

SE2

0.633

 

 

 

 

SE3

0.750

 

 

 

 

SE4

0.764

 

 

 

 

SE5

0.775

 

 

 

 

SE6

0.617

 

 

 

TL

TL1

0.657

0.847

0.883

0.521

 

TL2

0.731

 

 

 

 

TL3

0.758

 

 

 

 

TL4

0.762

 

 

 

 

TL5

0.678

 

 

 

 

TL6

0.757

 

 

 

 

TL7

0.702

 

 

 

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity describes as where the degree is the measure, and a construct is different from other construct (Hair, Jr et al., 2014). It is necessary to create discriminant validity to check that there must be no statistical discrepancies (Hensler et al., 2015).

Additionally, discriminant validity includes, square root of the AVE (Correlation matrix), the table shows the square root of AVE, and there are particular variables that show more variances with its own items (Hair Jr et al., 2014). The other approach to check the discriminant validity is cross-loadings, the cross-loading of each construct should be greater than the cross-loading of other construct (Hair et al., 2011; Hair Jr.et al 2014). Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations, is the new technique to confirm the discriminant validity as suggested by Henseler et al., (2015). Table 3 shows the correlation matrix, i.e. the square root of the AVE; it should be greater than the latent construct’s correlation (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

 

Table 3. Fornell and Larcker Criterion

Correlation Matrix

CS

ES

IB

SE

TL

CS

0.790

ES

0.260

0.726

IB

0.461

0.160

0.729

SE

0.401

0.260

0.466

0.715

TL

0.473

0.281

0.535

0.396

0.722

Note: CS= career success; ES= emotional stability; IB= innovative behavior, SE= self-efficacy; TL= transformational leadership

 

The last requirement of the discriminant validity is shown in Table 4 which is HTMT table, the ratio of correlations should not be greater than 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015; Raza et al., 2016). Thus, all criteria of discriminant validity are met.

 

Table 4. Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Ratio of Correlations

CS

ES

IB

SE

TL

CS

ES

0.346

IB

0.558

0.230

SE

0.450

0.336

0.534

TL

0.541

0.365

0.658

0.457

 

Figure 2 shows two R square for each dependent variable. R square explains the accurateness between the variables. The above table shows that 27% chances in SE occur due to three independent variables emotional stability, transformational leadership and innovative behavior. Whereas, self-efficacy predicts 16.1% to career success.

 

Results of Path Analysis

R2=0.161

Figure 2

 

Table 5 exhibits the path analysis, whereas Figure 2 shows the relation of each path with the hypothesis. The coefficient size, sign and significance describe the hypothesis among independent variable on the dependent variable and is represented by the coefficient value (Wixom and Watson, 2001). Also, the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable is described through the value of the coefficient, whereas the significance of the hypothesis is concluded through the value of significance. Hypothesis considered significant when the p-values remain under 0.1. Therefore, the results can be concluded by seeing Table 5 and Figure 2 that all the hypothesis are accepted at the 0.1 significance level, and all the coefficients of all paths are positive.

 

Table 5. Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis

Regression Path

SRW

Effect Type

Remarks

H1

ES -> SE

0.167***

Direct effect

Supported

H2

IB -> SE

0.358***

Direct effect

Supported

H3

SE -> CS

0.410***

Direct effect

Supported

H4

TL -> SE

0.168**

Direct effect

Supported

 

Discussion

The results of the first hypothesis revealed the impact of emotional stability on self-efficacy (β=0.167, p<0.05), the hypothesis is accepted as it is highly significant. The empirical reviews also concluded that there is a positive relationship among emotional stability with self-efficacy (Bubic & Ivanisevic, 2016; Lounsbury et al., 2003). Emotional stability is an important contributor in increasing the self-efficacy of employees because when an employee is highly stable in their emotion, the more effectively he will come up with the outcomes (Amdurer et al., 2014).

The results of the second hypothesis revealed the effect of innovative behavior on self-efficacy (β=0.0.358, p<0.05), which is highly significant, showing that H2 is supported for this study. The above findings are also consistent with the results of Grosser et al. (2017) and Feng (2009). The result interprets that innovative behavior is necessary that increases the self-efficacy because an employee with innovative ideas enhances the ability to achieve the challenging task effectively (Dan et al., 2018).

The results of the second hypothesis revealed the impact of self-efficacy on career success (β=0.410, p<0,.05), which is significant, hence H3 is supported for this study. The results of this study are also confirming the research of Abele and Spurk, (2009), Valcour and Ladge (2008). Outcomes revealed that it is necessary to improve the level of self-efficacy in order to achieve success in a career in the organization. Also, employees with high self-efficacy are more possible and highly motivated, think positively and easily handle the challenging situations very effectively (Jones & Kriflick, 2005).

The hypothesis H4 shows the relationship between transformational leadership and self-efficacy (β=0.168, p<0.05). The result shows that the hypothesis is supported and it is significant. The results are also similar to the findings of Rigotti et al. (2018), Walumbwa and Hartnell (2011) and Gong et al. (2009). Transformational leadership is a necessary contributor to enhancing the self-efficacy of employees as it will raise the creativity of work and provide the benefit to the organization (Mittal &Dhar, 2015).

 

Conclusion

Achieving success is the core part of any organization’s way to the development, especially in any private sector to achieve the success for the organizations is totally based on the employee’s creative work performance and its belief to achieve a successful career, which ultimately results the organizations to be more flourished. This study is based on the research of an employee’s career success which highly affects an organization’s development in this era of rapid change and technology. The findings and results of this study would definitely be more beneficial and helpful to the organization in a way to find how an employee can perform in a way to achieve career success. This research is done on the food manufacturing company of a private sector in Karachi.

As per the above research, the results interpret that three of the constructs, transformational leadership, emotional stability and innovative behavior have a positive and significant impact on the career success of an employee (Aslam et al., 2016; Rigotti et al., 2018; Dailey et al., 2015). Whereas, the mediator self-efficacy also has a positive and significant impact on career success (Abele and Spurk, 2009; Valcour and Ladge, 2008). The study concluded that if an employee put the maximum effort to achieve the goal and a successful career will lead him to perform in a more productive manner, and this will be beneficial for the whole organization’s development.

 

Recommendations and Managerial Implications

The research should also focus on other elements that affect in building career success of employees. Secondly, the organizations should provide the environment where the employees feel more satisfied and apply their innovative ideas which are not only beneficial for the employee’s career success but will also provide benefit to the whole organization. Thirdly, a supervisor should create the friendly environment in the organization, so the employees feel relaxed and share about the issues that they face in the organization, for example, promote respect between everyone, listen to your employees because open communication leads to a happier work environment, acknowledge the good work of employees and give them proper feedback. Also, the organization should appreciate the efforts of employees; in this way, it will enhance the transformational leadership qualities of an employee, and through this organization become more productive. Fourth, the supervisor should assign the tasks that fit with their abilities so that employee works more efficiently, and the employee will be more satisfied with the success of their career. Lastly, supervisor should identify positive emotions among the employees such as to monitor and manage the emotions of employees, this practice will build the emotional stability and self-efficacy in the employees and supervisor also give trust and believe so that employee works more confidently and build self-efficacy.

 


 

 


Figure 1
Figure 2

Amdurer, E., Boyatzis, R. E., Saatcioglu, A., Smith, M. L., % Taylor, S. N. (2014). Long term impact of emotional, social and cognitive intelligence competencies and GMAT on career and life satisfaction and career success. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1447.

Aslam, U., Ilyas, M., Imran, M. K., % Rahman, U. (2016). Intelligence and its impact on managerial effectiveness and career success (evidence from insurance sector of Pakistan). Journal of Management Development, 35(4), 505-516.

Caprara, G., Vecchione, M., Barbaranelli, C., %Alessandri, G. (2013). Emotional stability and affective self‐regulatory efficacy beliefs: Proofs of integration between trait theory and social cognitive theory. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 145-154.

Chughtai, A. (2018). Authentic leadership, career self-efficacy and career success: a cross- sectional. Career Development International, 23(6/7), 595-607

Dan, X., Xu, S., Liu, J., Hou, R., Liu, Y., % Ma, H. (2018). Relationships among structural empowerment, innovative behavior, self‐efficacy, and career success in nursing field in mainland China. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 24(5), e12674.

Fornell, C., % Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., %Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of Race on Organizational Experiences, Job Performance Evaluations, and Career Outcomes. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64-86.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., %Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-15.

Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., %Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182- 209.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., %Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.

Hu, B., % Zhao, Y. (2016). Creative Self-Efficacy Mediates the Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Employee Innovation. Social Behavior and Personality, 44(5), 815-826.

Li, M., Liu, Y., Liu, L., % Wang, Z. (2017). Proactive personality and innovative work behavior: The mediating effects of affective states and creative self-efficacy in teachers. Current Psychology, 36(4), 697-706.

Mittal, S., %Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: Mediating role of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of knowledge sharing. Management Decision, 53(5), 894-910.

Moon, J. S., % Choi, S. B. (2017). The Impact of Career Management on Organizational Commitment and the Mediating Role of Subjective Career Success: The Case of Korean R%D Employees. Journal of Career Development, 44(3), 191-208.

Ng, T. W., % Feldman, D. C. (2014 ). Subjective career success: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 169-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.06.001

Scott, S. G., % Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., %Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219-237.

Tierney, P., % Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative Self-Efficacy: Its Potential Antecedents and Relationship to Creative Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.

Wang, C.-J., Tsai, H.-T., % Tsai, M.-T. (2014). Linking transformational leadership and employee creativity in the hospitality industry: The influences of creative role identity, creative self-efficacy, and job complexity. Tourism Management, 40, 79- 89.

Wong, C. S., % Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243-274.


Follow Us