Leaders’ expectations of innovation and employees’ innovative behavior: The roles of employees’ expected positive performance outcomes and innovative self-efficacy

Introduction

In the era of global digitalization and intelligence, employee innovation plays an integral role, enabling enterprises to establish new competitive advantages in the global market (Opland et al., 2022; Van Essen et al., 2022; Yi et al., 2023; Arthachinda & Charoensukmongkol, 2024). At the same time, leadership may be the most significant driver of an organization’s innovative competitiveness by influencing the extent to which employees innovate in their jobs (Pundt, 2023; Sürücü et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024a; Dar et al., 2024). Van de Ven (1986) defined employees’ innovative behavior as behavior that entails the generation and implementation of new ideas relating to products, services, and procedures within organizations. During the process of developing an innovation, employees are inevitably confronted with unprecedented challenges, which may arise from performance pressure, poor leader–member exchanges, resource deficiency, employment insecurity, and other factors (Ng, 2024; Arun Kumar & Lavanya, 2024). Therefore, in the field of innovation, which is ripe with uncertainty and potential risks (Akram et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021; Su & Zhang, 2023), individuals’ internal conflicts and struggles are particularly pronounced. The dilemmas facing individuals stem mainly from the contradiction between their desire to enhance their performance, demonstrate their self-worth, and gain recognition through innovation and their concerns about potential risks brought about by innovation (Elsayed et al., 2023). Engelen et al. (2018) pointed out that employees tend to rely heavily on the instructions and expectations of superiors in their work (Binyamin, 2020; Nie et al., 2023); especially in high power distance cultures (Liang et al., 2022). Unlike specific supportive behaviors (such as providing funds, time, or training), clearly communicated expectations allow employees to understand leaders’ value judgments relating to innovation more directly. Explicit communication of leaders’ innovation expectations not only guides employees’ actions but it also has a psychological function, helping them to overcome psychological barriers of risk aversion in innovation (Wang et al., 2024). It could therefore be more crucial than specific supportive behaviors (Liu et al., 2023). The above discussion suggests that clear communication of leaders’ expectations of innovation is particularly important and effective in a collectivist cultural context such as China’s, where the power distance and sense of risk aversion are high. Yet, research on leaders’ expectations and employees’ innovative behavior continues to lag behind, particularly in such cultural contexts. Consequently, we drew on the Pygmalion effect (Eden, 1984) to explore the relationship between leaders’ expectations of innovation and employees’ innovative behavior in the Chinese context.

Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) posits that the primary motivation driving individuals to engage in a certain activity is the expectation that the activity will yield positive outcomes. A large number of studies have confirmed that outcome expectations directly influence employees’ behavioral decision making (Li et al., 2021; Lent et al., 2021; Blaese et al., 2021; Hu & Meng, 2023). Zeelenberg et al. (2000) noted that one approach for managing uncertainty when making decisions is to develop outcome expectations pertaining to the potential results of different actions. Outcome expectations are a predictive mechanism based on past behaviors and feedback obtained from the external environment and entailing the cognitive processing of future events or behavioral outcomes (Bandura, 1991). As innovative behavior is characterized by high risks and rewards, outcome expectations will directly influence employees’ decision making and play a key role in employees’ assessments of the feasibility of innovation (Yuan & Woodman, 2010; Cingöz & Akdoğan, 2011; Battistelli et al., 2022). Employees consciously introduce new methods or technologies into their work roles or environments primarily because they expect them to be considerably better than existing ones, leading to improvements in both personal and organizational performance. Hence, we posit that employees’ expected positive performance outcomes can mediate the influence of leaders’ innovation expectations on their innovative behavior.

The research literature shows that the effects of leaders’ expectations are conditional. Leaders’ expectations can have varying impacts on different types of employees (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Zhao & Guo, 2019; Veestraeten et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2023). Previous studies have confirmed Vroom’s (1964) assertion, which emphasizes the joint influence of an individual’s outcome expectations and beliefs in their own abilities on behavioral choices (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Hsu et al., 2007; Townsend et al., 2010). Innovative self-efficacy reflects an individual’s assessment and judgment of their ability to achieve expected innovative outcomes. Given its conceptual and practical relevance to employees’ expected positive performance outcomes and innovative behavior, we selected innovation self-efficacy as a moderator that reflects individuals’ characteristics to explore how it interacts with expected positive performance outcomes to influence employees’ innovative behavior.

To sum up, this study answers questions on whether and how leaders’ expectations of innovation influence subordinates’ innovative behavior, and how this relationship changes under the influence of subordinates’ innovative self-efficacy. Our study contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First, although research in this area has contributed to our understanding of the relationship between leadership and employees’ innovative behavior, significant gaps remain. Previous studies have predominantly focused on the specific supportive behaviors of leaders toward employee innovation, such as positive feedback (Lee et al., 2021), knowledge sharing (Nurhidayati & Zaenuri, 2023), participative decision making (Farzana & Charoensukmongkol, 2023; Mata et al., 2023), and voice solicitation (Li et al., 2024b). However, few studies have explored whether leaders’ innovation expectations, considered as a cognitive factor (Whiteley et al., 2012; Veestraeten et al., 2021), are conducive to employees’ innovative behavior, especially in the Chinese context. In response to a call by Tierney and Farmer (2004) for “future tests of the Pygmalion process for creativity within different settings (pp. 429),” we investigated the relationship between leaders’ expectations of innovation and employees’ innovative behaviors in China and revealed the underlying mechanisms of this relationship.

Second, current understanding of how the Pygmalion effect occurs in the field of innovation remains limited. Therefore, we applied expectancy theory to explain the underlying mechanism and boundary condition of the Pygmalion effect in the context of employee innovation in China. Unlike intrinsic motivation or creative engagement (Xu & Wang, 2018; Wang & Wang, 2022), which focuses more on individuals’ internal experiences (Oldham, 1976; Schaufeli et al., 2006), expected positive performance outcomes reflect an individual’s predictions about innovation results. This concept, which integrates cognitive judgments and potential behavioral expressions, is important in a study of the relationship between situational variables and innovative behavior (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). While the logic of the proposed relationship of leaders’ expectations of innovation—expected positive performance outcomes—employee innovative behavior is appealing, its empirical verification remains a research gap.

Third, we would argue that the relationship between employees’ expected positive performance outcomes and their innovation behavior is not straightforward, and there are other factors that work together with expected positive performance outcomes to affect employee innovation behavior. Malik et al. (2015) pointed out that an individual’s perception of their own abilities forms the “background” for human behavior. Therefore, we investigated the moderating role of innovative self-efficacy between expected positive performance outcomes and innovative behavior and developed a moderated mediation model. The study explains how personal dispositions, such as innovative self-efficacy, positively influence the effect of leaders’ innovation expectations on employees’ innovative behavior through their expected positive performance outcomes, thus adding to the innovation knowledge base.

Leaders’ expectations of innovation and employees’ innovative behavior

According to the Pygmalion effect, individuals tend to act in accordance with the expectations of the reference group. The expectations of the reference group serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy, prompting individuals to establish higher behavioral standards and make greater efforts to meet that standard (Eden, 1984; Kierein & Gold, 2000). Employees decide what they should do at work according to the expectations of reference groups and perceive their behaviors to be compliant with the desires of those viewed as influential (Merton, 1957; Ajzen, 1991). This self-fulfilling prophecy often occurs in relationships characterized by disparities in status and power differences (Baldwin et al., 2009; Sabat et al., 2021). Leaders possess the authority to provide rewards, support, and feedback to employees. When employees perceive that their superiors’ expectations of their performance are high, they tend to adjust their work behaviors according to those expectations (Goswami et al., 2022; Sims & Weinberg, 2024). Song et al. (2024) noted that in national cultures, in which the power distance and risk aversion level are high, employees want their leaders to issue propositions and directives clarifying what is considered appropriate. Previous studies have validated the Pygmalion effect in the field of employee creativity or innovation (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Tierney & Farmer, 2004; Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Jiang & Gu, 2017; Xu & Wang, 2018; Liu et al., 2021; Wang & Wang, 2022; Li et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023).

Leaders’ innovation expectations refer to their promotion of various creative professional activities among their subordinates (Tierney & Farmer, 2004). The innovation expectations of leaders convey three important messages to employees. The first concerns recognition and trust. Leaders communicate differentiated innovation expectations to different employees according to their innovative abilities and job innovation requirements (Qu et al., 2015; Qu et al., 2017; Xu & Wang, 2018; Liu et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2023; Nabi et al., 2023). Employees who receive and internalize these expectations will gradually form and reinforce their role identity, fostering the belief that “I am an innovator” (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Farmer et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2023). These expectations and the trust demonstrated by their superiors enhance their confidence, motivating them to participate actively in innovation activities and strive to validate their leaders’ expectations.

The second message concerns the organization’s goals and innovation values. Leaders’ expectations of innovation reflect the organization’s recognition of creativity, while also setting clear innovation goals and directions for employees (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Jiang & Gu, 2017; Li et al., 2022; Tolkamp et al., 2022; Farrukh et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2023). In the context of China’s collectivist and high power distance culture, employees demonstrate an implicit work norm of acting according to leaders’ expectations (Wang et al., 2017; Stamkou et al., 2019). Clear innovation values guide employees in making choices that meet organizational requirements (Zhang et al., 2022), while established innovation goals inspire them to level up their performance through continuous improvement and innovation (Danaeefard & Torshab, 2021).

The third message concerns innovation support and rewards. Leaders who hold high expectations of their followers exhibit leading behaviors that are conducive to their followers’ efforts, such as providing feedback, training, and promotions and building good relationships with subordinates (Tierney & Farmer, 2004; Whiteley et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2022). These supportive behaviors are reportedly beneficial for employees’ innovative behaviors (Su et al., 2020; Choi et al., 2021; Lyu et al., 2022; Hosseini et al., 2024). Additionally, leaders’ commitment to rewarding innovation efforts also motivates employees to innovate (Venketsamy & Lew, 2024). Daniels and Greguras (2014) pointed out that in environments with high power distance, leaders exert a stronger influence on followers, as followers tend to defer to authority, show greater respect for leaders, and internalize their expectations more deeply.

The mediating role of expected positive performance outcomes

The core of the Pygmalion effect lies in the transmission of beliefs (Karakowsky et al., 2012). Leaders’ expectations influence the motivation and subsequent performance of their subordinates in various ways. Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) enables a systematic analysis of the process of formation of individual motivation (Eden, 1988). The use of a lens of expectancy theory elicits a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying the Pygmalion effect. According to expectancy theory, individuals’ behaviors are based on outcomes, or, more specifically, on the expected outcomes of their actions (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). From the perspective of efficiency, employees’ innovations stem from their rational decisions aimed at maximizing personal or organizational performance (Abrahamson, 1991; Battistelli et al., 2022).

The expected positive performance outcomes of employees refer to their belief and expectation that their innovative behaviors can bring about improvements in their work outputs (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). However, innovation can be extremely risky and challenging in some work contexts and cultures, requiring careful cost-benefit analyses (Montani et al., 2021; Eisenbart et al., 2023; Qammar et al., 2024). Previous studies have shown that an outcome expectation is a logical inference about results derived from a comprehensive analysis of the environment (Pindard-Lejarraga & Lejarraga, 2024). Moreover, expectancy theory holds that the degree of effort expended by an individual on a particular behavior is determined by their perception of the outcomes that the behavior can bring about (Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009; Jiang et al., 2019). In this study, we posited that employees will use relevant environmental cues to anticipate whether innovation can bring about improvements in their performance outcomes and will accordingly decide whether or not to innovate (Shin et al., 2017). When individuals anticipate that their own performance or that of their organization will improve as a result of innovation, they will exert more effort innovating to achieve the expected performance. Schaarschmidt (2016) found that employees’ perceived external reputations positively influence their expected positive performance outcomes, which ultimately affects their willingness to participate in the implementation of service innovation. Latif et al. (2017) confirmed this conclusion. By contrast, Farzaneh and Boyer (2019) found that employees’ job insecurity reduces their innovative behavior by lowering their expected positive performance outcomes. Accordingly, we posited that leaders’ expectations of innovation can foster organizational values and norms that affect employees’ perceptions of potential performance enhancement associated with innovative behavior. Employees can innovate expecting positive performance outcomes.

The moderating role of employees’ innovative self-efficacy

According to expectancy theory, both the expectation that a certain action will produce desired outcomes (e.g., performance improvement or image enhancement) and the perceived ability to perform that action jointly constitute the driving force behind people’s actions (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Therefore, if outcome expectations are posited as the only rationale for innovative behavior, they are unlikely to suffice. Innovative self-efficacy is understood to be a personality factor that reflects employees’ ability and confidence to accomplish desired outcomes (Mehboob & Haque, 2024; Kafeel et al., 2024; Chughtai & Khan, 2024). Employees will draw on their self-efficacy to evaluate whether their innovative activities will be successful, considering risks and uncertainties before implementing an innovation. Innovative self-efficacy refers to an individual’s level of confidence regarding successful implementation of the innovation and to their evaluation of their own abilities to bring about innovation in specific situations (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). When employees decide whether to invest in innovative activities, expected positive performance outcomes become a critical extrinsic motivating factor. At the same time, innovation requires individuals to possess strong intrinsic motivational strength, which is reflected in their beliefs regarding their ability to innovate. Employees with high levels of innovative self-efficacy are confident in their abilities to innovate and believe that they can implement creative ideas and achieve corresponding outcomes (Zhang & Wang, 2022; Sun et al., 2024; Gelaidan et al., 2024). However, individuals with low levels of innovative self-efficacy fear that the leadership may deny them. Consequently, the likelihood of their demonstrating innovative behaviors is greatly reduced.

Goals of the Study

We aimed to explore the relationship between leaders’ expectations of innovation and employees’ innovative behavior. We also examined the mediating role of employees’ expected positive performance outcomes and the moderating role of employees’ innovative efficacy. Applying the above arguments, we posited that employees’ innovative self-efficacy would moderate the mediating effect of employees’ expected positive performance outcomes in the relationship between leaders’ expectations of innovation and employees’ innovative behavior. Specifically, we assumed that expectations of innovation conveyed by leaders would result in employees’ positive evaluations of innovation-induced performance outcomes and would therefore increase their willingness to innovate at work. Employees demonstrating innovative self-efficacy are convinced that they have the ability to innovate. Under the psychological influence of an “I can” belief, employees will be more likely to transform their willingness (“I want”) into actual actions and demonstrate innovative behaviors. In other words, innovative self-efficacy enhances the impact of leaders’ innovative expectations on employees’ innovative behavior through their expected positive performance outcomes. Figure 1 summarizes all of the hypothesized relations.

Figure 1. Hypothesized model

We formulated and tested the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Leaders’ expectations of innovation are positively related to employees’ innovative behavior.

Hypothesis 2: Employees’ expected positive performance outcomes mediate the relationship between leaders’ expectations of innovation and their innovative behavior.

Hypothesis 3: Employees’ innovative self-efficacy positively moderates the relationship between their expected positive performance outcomes and their innovative behavior. Higher levels of employees’ innovative self-efficacy correspond to a stronger relationship.

Hypothesis 4: Employees’ innovative self-efficacy positively moderates the mediating effect of their expected positive performance outcomes on the relationship between leaders’ expectations of innovation and employees’ innovative behavior, such that the mediating effect is stronger when employees have a high level of innovative self-efficacy.

Method

Participants and setting

In this study, data were collected from 217 frontline employees of a coal enterprise in China. Of the 201 individuals who provided usable responses, 68.16 percent were male. The average age of respondents was 41.48 years (SD = 7.97), with 83.58 percent of them having worked in the organization for over 10 years.

Measures

The employees completed measures of leaders’ innovation expectations, expected positive performance outcomes, innovative self-efficacy and innovative behavior. Employees reported the extent to which they agreed with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Table 1 presents all the items used to measure the study variables.

Procedure

The study was approved by Sichuan University in China. Data was collected randomly from the selected organization in coordination with the human resource department. The respondents consented to participate in the study after we had assured them of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. The survey was conducted at three time points, with an average interval of one month between time points. At Time 1, employees rated perceived leaders’ expectations of innovation and provided demographic information on their sex, age, education level, and company tenure. At Time 2, employees rated their own expected positive performance outcomes and innovative self-efficacy. At Time 3, they rated their own innovative behaviors. We initially explained the purpose of our study and provided guidelines for responding to the questionnaire to ensure that all participants would fully understand the content. Each employee who consented to participate was given a unique identification code known only to us. At the same time, special identification codes were marked on each questionnaire used at each of three time points before the data collection process. We distributed the questionnaires to the corresponding employees based on the pre-assigned codes. All completed questionnaires were returned to us directly. At the end of the third phase, we matched all of the questionnaires received from the respondents according to the identification codes. A total of 201 respondents provided usable data at the three time points.

Data analysis

We first conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), using Amos 17.0, to verify the uniqueness of the measurement model. Thereafter, we used SPSS 26.0 to complete hierarchical regression analysis testing the mediating role of employees’ expected positive performance outcomes on the relationship between leaders’ expectations of innovation and employees’ innovative behavior (Baron & Kenny, 1986). We used Model 4 in the PROCESS macro in SPSS26.0 with 5000 bootstraps resamples and a 95% confidence interval to test direct, indirect, and total effects. Finally, we also conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to test the moderating effect of employees’ innovative self-efficacy on the relationship between expected positive performance outcomes and innovative behavior and used the PROCESS macro in SPSS26.0 with Model 14 to investigate the moderated mediation effect (Hayes, 2013).

As shown in Table 2, our hypothesized 4-factor measurement model (leaders’ expectations of innovation, expected positive performance outcomes, innovative self-efficacy, and employee innovative behavior) provided a good fit with the data (χ2 = 152.794, df = 113, χ2/df= 1.352, CFI = 0.965, TLI = 0.958, IFI = 0.966, and RMSEA = 0.042), and all of the indicators significantly loaded on their corresponding latent factors (p < 0.001). We also compared this 4-factor model with other alternative models. χ2 difference tests showed that the 4-factor model had a significantly better fit than a 3-factor model (A) (△χ2 = 220.045, △df = 3, p < 0.001), 3-factor model (B) (△χ2 = 175.845, △df = 3, p < 0.001), a 2-factor model (△χ2 = 367.201, △df = 5, p < 0.001), and a single-factor model (△χ2 = 498.188, △df = 6, p < 0.001).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 3 presents means, standard deviations, correlations, and scale reliabilities for the variables in this study. As we hypothesized, leaders’ expectations of innovation were significantly and positively correlated with employees’ innovative behavior (r = 0.371, p < 0.01). Leaders’ expectations of innovation were also significantly positively related to employees’ expected positive performance outcomes (r = 0.237, p < 0.01), which, in turn, were significantly positively related to employees’ innovative behavior (r = 0.390, p < 0.01). Moreover, employees’ innovative self-efficacy was positively related to innovative behavior (r = 0.283, p < 0.01).

Tests for mediation of employees’ expected positive performance outcomes

Table 4 shows the results of the hierarchical regression. We found that leaders’ expectations of innovation were significantly associated with employees’ innovative behavior (M4, β = 0.358, p < 0.001). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Furthermore, leaders’ expectations of innovation was significantly related to employees’ expected positive performance outcomes (M2, β = 0.229, p < 0.01). After we included employees’ expected positive performance outcomes in the regression equation, the effect of leaders’ expectations of innovation on employees’ innovative behavior diminished but remained significant (M6, β = 0.284, p < 0.001). Partial mediation of employee expected positive performance outcomes was found. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

The results shown in Table 5 indicate that the indirect effect of leaders’ expectations of innovation on employees’ innovative behavior through employees’ expected positive performance outcomes was significant as the zero fell outside the 95% confidence level (0.022 and 0.127). They also revealed that the direct relationship between leaders’ expectations of innovation and employees’ innovative behavior was significant (0.117 and 0.308). Thus, both direct and indirect effects were significant in the same direction, confirming the partial mediation of employees’ expected positive performance outcomes.

Testing for moderation of employees’ innovative self-efficacy

Hypothesis 3 suggests that the positive relationship between employees’ expected positive performance outcomes and their innovative behavior would be stronger among those with high levels of innovative self-efficacy than among those with lower levels. The results shown in Table 6 were aligned with Hypothesis 3, as the coefficient for the interaction of employees’ expected positive performance outcomes and innovative self-efficacy was significant (M9, β = 0.141, p < 0.05). This result indicates that employees’ expected positive performance outcomes interacted significantly with innovative self-efficacy to influence employees’ innovative behavior. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Figure 2 elucidates the nature of this moderation. Specifically, it shows that the relationship between employees’ expected positive performance outcomes and their innovative behavior was stronger for those with high (M+1SD) levels of innovative self-efficacy compared with those with lower levels (M-1SD). The positive moderating effect of employees’ innovative self-efficacy on the relationship between their expected positive performance outcomes and their innovative behavior was thus confirmed.

Figure 2. The moderating effect of employee innovative self-efficacy

Moderated mediation analysis

The results shown in Table 7 indicated that the index of moderated mediation was 0.033, and its corresponding 95% confidence interval did not include a zero (0.002 and 0.073). There was also no zero in the 95% confidence intervals for the indirect conditional effect of leaders’ expectations of innovation on employees’ innovative behavior at the low (−1 SD) and high (+1 SD) levels of the moderator ([0.001, 0.069] and [0.027, 0.124], respectively). In addition, there was no zero in the 95% confidence intervals for the differences between the low and high levels (0.002 and 0.087). These results demonstrated that employees’ innovative self-efficacy significantly strengthened the positive indirect effect of leaders’ expectations of innovation on employees’ innovative behavior through their expected positive performance outcomes. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Discussion

To gain an in-depth understanding of the Pygmalion effect in employee innovation, we investigated the relationship between leaders’ expectations of innovation and employees’ innovative behavior. Drawing on expectancy theory, we hypothesized how (through employees’ expected positive performance outcomes) and when (with high employees’ innovative self-efficacy) leaders’ innovation expectations affect followers’ innovative behavior and constructed a moderated mediation model. We tested our hypotheses, which were validated. Our research results have important theoretical implications.

We found that leaders’ expectations are associated with employees’ work innovation. This conclusion confirms Eden’s (1984) assertion that “the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy is a promising tool in management (pp. 72).” It can help to advance research by extending the Pygmalion effect to the field of organizational innovation. Research on the Pygmalion effect in the organizational domain has already expanded from job performance (Chen & Klimoski, 2003; Whiteley et al., 2012) to creativity (Tierney & Farmer, 2004; Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Jiang & Gu, 2017; Xu & Wang, 2018; Liu et al., 2021; Wang & Wang, 2022; Chen et al., 2023). However, few studies have explored the relationship between leaders’ expectations and employees’ innovative behavior. As all employees’ innovative activities are likely to contribute to organizational innovation, shifting the focus to innovative behavior would allow for a more comprehensive and realistic analysis than simply focusing on the generation of ideas (creativity) (Kmieciak, 2021; Tsameti et al., 2023). This study was conducted in the Chinese context and confirmed the existence of the Pygmalion effect in employees’ innovative behavior. Our results indicate that in a culture characterized by high power distance and risk avoidance, whereas specific supportive behaviors would evidently impact positively on innovation, such behaviors may struggle to fully motivate employees’ willingness without the prerequisite of leader’s clear and explicit innovation expectations (Xu & Wang, 2018).

Our findings revealed that expected positive performance outcomes constitute an important mechanism driving the Pygmalion effect and enriching the exploration of the self-fulfilling prophecy relating to innovation. Previous studies have analyzed the impact of leaders’ innovation expectations on employees’ creative activities from the perspective of psychological mechanisms, such as intrinsic motivation (Wang & Wang, 2022), creative process engagement (Xu & Wang, 2018), self-expectations of innovation (Liu et al., 2021; Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007), and creative self-efficacy (Tierney & Farmer, 2004; Jiang & Gu, 2017). The theoretical framework of the present study incorporated the Pygmalion effect, expectancy theory, and employee innovation. We examined how outcome expectations served as the psychological mechanism behind the relationship between leaders’ expectations and employees’ innovative behavior. The results indicate that leaders’ expectations of innovation create a positive environment for employees’ expected positive performance outcomes (Farrukh et al., 2022). At the same time, outcome expectations involving considerations of potential costs and benefits are important extrinsic motivational factors that merit attention alongside employees’ intrinsic interest (Yuan & Woodman, 2010).

A final point to be noted is that previous studies on employees’ innovative self-efficacy and innovative behaviors have primarily treated innovative self-efficacy as a state variable (Wilaphan et al., 2023; Yuan & Jiang, 2024). In this study, we examined innovative self-efficacy as a trait variable, exploring its moderating role in the relationship between expected positive performance outcomes and innovative behavior. Our findings confirmed that leaders’ expectations of innovation have significantly different impacts on individuals with varying levels of innovative self-efficacy. We explored the boundary conditions of the Pygmalion effect, and our results support an important point proposed by Karakowsky et al. (2012), namely that subordinates in the Pygmalion model are active cognitive agents rather than passive targets. When employees are faced with leaders’ expectations of innovation, they can actively predict innovation outcomes and assess their own innovative capabilities.

Managerial implications

Leaders should actively communicate their innovation expectations to their subordinates and foster relationships of trust between both parties. They should clearly and specifically convey these expectations and be adept at listening to subordinates’ ideas, thus confirming that their expectations have been understood. In addition, during the process of innovation, leaders should provide necessary support and feedback, encouraging subordinates to make full use of various resources and motivating them to achieve innovation goals.

The results extend innovation research by empirically demonstrating that leaders’ expectations are beneficial for promoting employees’ innovative behaviors. Employees take account of challenges and risks associated with innovation, examining the situation and context for clues that can help them to decide whether innovation is possible. A key situational factor that employees consider is the leadership within their organizations. Leaders’ attitudes and actions concerning innovation strongly impact employees’ willingness to face challenges and take risks (Amankwaa et al., 2022).

Leaders can share case studies of successful innovation within the industry and reward employees who have achieved significant improvements in their performance through innovation. They can also build an innovation platform within the company on which they can publish various innovation needs, and they can encourage employees to collaborate and participate in innovation projects. Employees who are committed to the innovation process may attain positive results brought about by the innovation, which will encourage them to be more proactive in finding creative ways to solve practical problems at work.

Leaders should provide various forms of training, create a fault-tolerant organizational atmosphere, and promptly recognize employees’ innovative performance to enhance their confidence in the innovation process. Employees with high levels of innovative self-efficacy are more likely to come up with new ideas and solutions, thus accelerating the organization’s innovation process.

Strengths, limitations, and future directions

We adopted an interactional approach, which showed that employees’ innovative behavior is influenced by the joint effect of willingness to innovate and their evaluation of their own capabilities. Previous studies have suggested that leaders’ innovation expectations are strongly motivating for employees with high levels of self-efficacy (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007). It can be inferred that employees’ responses to leaders’ encouragement are highly contingent on their perceptions of their own abilities. More attention should therefore be paid to the boundary conditions that could promote or constrain employees’ innovative behaviors.

This study had several limitations. First, as all of the variables were assessed by employees, same-source bias may have influenced our findings. Future studies should attempt to expand the sample size and measure variables from different sources to endorse these findings.

Second, we used a cross-sectional design, which meant that we could not ascertain causal relationships between variables. Future studies should be conducted using a longitudinal design to reconfirm the causal inferences that we made.

Third, the possible benefits derived from innovation are multidimensional. In addition to performance outcomes, which were the focus of this study, there are other potential benefits, such as job promotion and image enhancement (Battistelli et al., 2022). This study only focused on the benefits of performance outcomes from the perspective of efficiency. Future studies should focus on other benefits that innovation can bring about from multiple perspectives to develop a more in-depth understanding of the role of outcome expectations in employees’ innovation practices.

Conclusion

The findings of our study indicate that individuals usually consider the potential benefits that innovation may bring based on leaders’ expectations when engaging in innovative activities. Thinking rationally helps individuals to make innovation-related decisions and improve their performance. We also identified a boundary condition for this model. Employees’ innovative self-efficacy positively moderated the relationship between their expected positive performance outcomes and their innovative behavior. A higher level of innovative self-efficacy corresponded to a stronger positive impact of the employee’s expected positive performance outcomes on their innovative behavior. Furthermore, the results indicated that employees’ innovative self-efficacy positively moderated the mediation of their expected positive performance outcomes.

Acknowledgement: This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 71872119) and Shanxi Provincial Government Major Decision-making Consulting Project (grant no. ZB20240114).

Funding Statement: This research was funded by “National Natural Science Foundation of China” grant number [71872119], “Shanxi Provincial Government Major Decision-making Consulting Project” grant number [ZB20240114] and The APC was funded by “Shanxi Provincial Government Major Decision-making Consulting Project” grant number [ZB20240114].

Author Contributions: Study conception and design: Hao Zhou; data collection: Qian Ma; analysis and interpretation of results: Qian Ma, Hao Zhou; draft manuscript preparation: Qian Ma. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Availability of Data and Materials: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Hao Zhou, upon reasonable request.

Ethics Approval: Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest to report regarding the present study.

References

Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586–612. https://doi.org/10.2307/258919 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Akram, T., Lei, S., Haider, M. J., & Hussain, S. T. (2020). The impact of organizational justice on employee innovative work behavior: Mediating role of knowledge sharing. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.10.001 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Amankwaa, A., Susomrith, P., & Seet, P. S. (2022). Innovative behavior among service workers and the importance of leadership: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(2), 506–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.10.001.10.1007/s10961-021-09853-6 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Arthachinda, P., & Charoensukmongkol, P. (2024). Effect of perceived group inclusion on innovative behavior and its subsequent impact on team performance: Moderating effects of team characteristics. Management Research Review, 47(9), 1341–1359. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2023-0708 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Arun Kumar, P., & Lavanya, V. (2024). Igniting work innovation: Performance pressure, extraversion, feedback seeking and innovative behavior. Management Decision, 62(5), 1598–1617. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2023-0839 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Baldwin, A. S., Kiviniemi, M. T., & Snyder, M. (2009). A subtle source of power: The effect of having an expectation on anticipated interpersonal power. Journal of Social Psychology, 149(1), 82–104. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.1.82-104. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 38, 69–164. [Google Scholar]

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

Battistelli, A., Odoardi, C., Cangialosi, N., Di Napoli, G., & Piccione, L. (2022). The role of image expectations in linking organizational climate and innovative work behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(6), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2021-0044 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Binyamin, G. (2020). Do leader expectations shape employee service performance? Enhancing self-expectations and internalization in employee role identity. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(4), 536–554. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.68 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Blaese, R., Noemi, S., & Brigitte, L. (2021). Should I Stay, or Should I Go? Job satisfaction as a moderating factor between outcome expectations and entrepreneurial intention among academics. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(3), 1357–1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00744-8 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.001 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Chen, J., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Cheung, G. (2023). Cue consistency matters: How and when newcomers respond to supervisor creativity expectations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(22), 4291–4312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2023.2189022 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040651 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Choi, J. N., & Chang, J. Y. (2009). Innovation implementation in the public sector: An integration of institutional and collective dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 245. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012994. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

Choi, W. S., Kang, S. W., & Choi, S. B. (2021). Innovative behavior in the workplace: An empirical study of moderated mediation model of self-efficacy, perceived organizational support, and leader-member exchange. Behavioral Sciences, 11(1), 2182. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs11120182. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

Chughtai, M. S., & Khan, H. S. U. D. (2024). Knowledge oriented leadership and employees’ innovative performance: A moderated mediation model. Current Psychology, 43(4), 3426–3439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04502-7 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Cingöz, A., & Akdoğan, A. A. (2011). An empirical examination of performance and image outcome expectation as determinants of innovative behavior in the workplace. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 847–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.099 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Danaeefard, H., & Torshab, A. A. (2021). Explaining the mediating effect of employee morale between organizational goal ambiguity and innovative work behaviour: Evidence from the public sector of Iran. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(1), 31129–1148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1891424 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Daniels, M. A., & Greguras, G. J. (2014). Exploring the nature of power distance: Implications for micro-and macro-level theories, processes, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1202–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527131 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Dar, N., Ahmad, S., Badar, K., & Kundi, Y. M. (2024). Unraveling the link between innovative work behavior and despotic leadership: The roles of supervisor conflict and dispositional resistance to change trait. International Journal of Conflict Management, 35(4), 816–834. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2023-0180 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Eden, D. (1984). Self-Fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: Harnessing Pygmalion. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/258233 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Eden, D. (1988). Pygmalion, goal setting, and expectancy: Compatible ways to boost productivity. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 639–652. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4307530 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Eisenbart, B., Lovallo, D., Garbuio, M., Cristofaro, M., & Dong, A. (2023). Future thinking and managers’ innovative behavior: An experimental study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(6), 1660–1679. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2022-0102 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Eisenberger, R., & Aselage, J. (2009). Incremental effects of reward on experienced performance pressure: Positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.543 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Elsayed, A. M., Zhao, B., Goda, A. E. M., & Elsetouhi, A. M. (2023). The role of error risk taking and perceived organizational innovation climate in the relationship between perceived psychological safety and innovative work behavior: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1042911. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1042911. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

Engelen, A., Weinekötter, L., Saeed, S., & Enke, S. (2018). The effect of corporate support programs on employees’ innovative behavior: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12386 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618–630. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040653 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Farrukh, M., Meng, F., & Raza, A. (2022). Believe they can succeed, and they will: Intrapreneurial behavior and leadership. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(3), 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2020-0393 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Farzana, S., & Charoensukmongkol, P. (2023). Using approach-inhibition theory of power to explain how participative decision-making enhances innovative work behavior of high power distance-oriented employees. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness-People and Performance, 10(4), 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-10-2022-0304 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Farzaneh, F., & Boyer, A. (2019). Job insecurity, innovative employee behavior and outcome expectations. SSRN Electron J, 16, 586. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3395005 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Gelaidan, H. M., Al-Swidi, A. K., & Al-Hakimi, M. A. (2024). Servant and authentic leadership as drivers of innovative work behaviour: The moderating role of creative self-efficacy. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(6), 1938–1966. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2022-0382 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/258770 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Goswami, A., Carsten, M., & Coyle, P. (2022). Antecedents and consequences of leaders’ implicit followership theories. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 95(2), 495–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12385 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]

Hosseini, A., Ganji, S. F. G., & Dana, L. P. (2024). Gender, emotional support and innovative behavior: Psychological capital as a mediator. Management Decision, Early Access, 62, 4095–4117. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2023-0266 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.003 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Hu, X., & Meng, H. (2023). Digital literacy and green consumption behavior: Exploring dual psychological mechanisms. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 22(2), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2122 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Jiang, W., Chai, H., Li, Y., & Feng, T. (2019). How workplace incivility influences job performance: The role of image outcome expectations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 57(4), 445–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12197 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Jiang, W., & Gu, Q. (2017). Leader creativity expectations motivate employee creativity: A moderated mediation examination. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(5), 724–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1109535 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Kafeel, L., Khan, M. M., & Ahmed, S. S. (2024). Authentically flown to innovation: Authentically triggered innovative work behavior through flow at work with moderating role of creative self-efficacy. International Journal of Innovation Science, 16(3), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-05-2022-0099 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Karakowsky, L., DeGama, N., & McBey, K. (2012). Facilitating the Pygmalion effect: The overlooked role of subordinate perceptions of the leader. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(4), 579–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02056.x [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Kierein, N. M., & Gold, M. A. (2000). Pygmalion in work organizations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 913–928. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200012)21: [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Kmieciak, R. (2021). Trust, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior: Empirical evidence from Poland. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(5), 1832–1859. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2020-0134 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Latif, T., Qadeer, F., & Farooqi, S. (2017). Individual innovative behavior: Interplay of reputation, job requirement and expected positive performance outcomes. Asian Management Research Journal, 2(2), 3–21. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322103341_Individual_innovative_behavior_Interplay_of_reputation_job_requirement_and_expected_positive_performance_outcomes [Google Scholar]

Lee, W. R., Choi, S. B., & Kang, S. W. (2021). How leaders’ positive feedback influences employees’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of voice behavior and job autonomy. Sustainability, 13(4), 1901. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041901 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Lent R. W., Morris T. R., Tatum A. K., Wang R. J., Moturu B. P. et al. (2021). Predictors of workplace sexual identity management behaviors: A test of the social cognitive career self-management model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 127(1103566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103566 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Li, C., Murad, M., Ashraf, S. F., & Wang, J. (2024a). Leadership styles, team innovative behavior, and new green product development performance. Management Decision, Early Access, 62, 3208–3234. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2023-0935 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Li, X., Wang, C., & Hamari, J. (2021). Frontline employees’ compliance with fuzzy requests: A request-appraisal–behavior perspective. Journal of Business Research, 131(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.052 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Li, X., Cheng, M., & Xu, J. (2022). Leaders’ innovation expectation and nurses’ innovation behaviour in conjunction with artificial intelligence: The chain mediation of job control and creative self-efficacy. Journal of Nursing Management, 30(8), 3806–3816. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13749. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

Li, X., Wang, Y., Zhu, Y., & Zheng, L. (2024b). How and when leader voice solicitation facilitates innovative behavior: The role of pride and collectivism orientation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 45(4), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-02-2023-0066 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Liang, W., Lv, C., Yu, Y., Li, T., & Liu, P. (2022). Leader’s implicit followership and employees’ innovative behavior: Chain mediation effect of leader-member exchange and psychological empowerment. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 815147. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815147. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

Liu, Y., Vriend, T., & Janssen, O. (2021). To be (creativeor not to be (creative)? A sensemaking perspective to creative role expectations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(1), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09669-0 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Liu, H., Xu, F., & Wu, C. (2023a). The role of synergistic interplay among LMX, leader creativity expectations and job characteristics in stimulating creative process engagement. Management Decision, 61(3), 610–636. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2021-1113 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Liu, Y., Zhao, L., Liu, P., & Yang, Z. (2023b). Effect of workplace status on employees’ creativity from the perspective of expectation identity: A moderated chain double mediation model. Chinese Management Studies, 17(4), 718–738. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-12-2021-0550 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Lyu, B., Liao, X., & Yang, Y. (2022). Relationships between temporal leadership, transactive memory systems and team innovation performance. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15, 2543–2559. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S380989. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

Malik, M. A. R., Butt, A. N., & Choi, J. N. (2015). Rewards and employee creative performance: Moderating effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1943 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Mata, P. N., Mata, M. N., & Martins, J. (2023). Does participative leadership promote employee innovative work behavior in IT organizations. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 20(5), 2350027. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021987702350027X [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Mehboob, F., & Haque, R. (2024). Empowering innovative work behaviors: Unfolding the contextual, personal and behavioral spectrum. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 18(4), 1114–1132. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-09-2023-0380 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Merton, R. K. (1957). Continuities in the theory of reference groups and social structure. New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar]

Montani, F., Torres, C., Ferreira, M. C., Mendonça, H., Silva, A. J. et al. (2021). Self-image goals, compassionate goals and innovative work behavior: The role of organizational support for innovation across countries. Journal of Business Research, 137, 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.072 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Nabi, M. N., Liu, Z., & Hasan, N. (2023). Examining the nexus between transformational leadership and follower’s radical creativity: The role of creative process engagement and leader creativity expectation. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18(10), 4383–4407. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-05-2021-0659 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Ng, T. W. (2024). Workplace hurdles and innovative behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 149, 103968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.103968 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Nie, Q., Peng, J., & Yu, G. (2023). Leader expectations facilitate employee pro-environmental behavior. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 32(2), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12500 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Nurhidayati, N., & Zaenuri, Z. (2023). Innovation behaviour improvement strategy through knowledge-sharing behaviour based on knowledge-oriented leadership and knowledge-sharing climate. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 14(3), 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKMS.2023.132043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Oldham, G. R. (1976). Job characteristics and internal motivation: The moderating effect of interpersonal and individual variables. Human Relations, 29(6), 559–569. [Google Scholar]

Opland, L. E., Pappas, I. O., Engesmo, J., & Jaccheri, L. (2022). Employee-driven digital innovation: A systematic review and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 143, 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.038 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Pindard-Lejarraga, M., & Lejarraga, J. (2024). Information source and entrepreneurial performance expectations: Experience-based versus description-based opportunity evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 172, 114411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114411 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Pundt, A. (2023). Humor in leadership and employee creative and innovative behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 55, 101723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101723. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

Qammar, A., Aslam, M. S., Khan, S. R., Jabeen, N., & Amentie, M. D. (2024). Does age matter for innovative behavior? A mediated moderation model of organizational justice, creative self-efficacy, and innovative behavior among IT professionals. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2024, 5391150. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5391150 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Qu, R., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2015). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity expectations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(22), 86–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.004 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Qu, R., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2017). Leader-member exchange and follower creativity: The moderating roles of leader and follower expectations for creativity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(4), 603–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1105843 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Sabat, I. E., Goldberg, C., King, E. B., Dawson, J., & Zhang, L. (2021). Pygmalion in the pipeline: How managers’ perceptions influence racial differences in turnover. Human Resource Management, 60(4), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22044 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Schaarschmidt, M. (2016). Frontline employees’ participation in service innovation implementation: The role of perceived external reputation. European Management Journal, 34(5), 540–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.005 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607. https://doi.org/10.5465/256701 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Shin, S. J., Yuan, F., & Zhou, J. (2017). When perceived innovation job requirement increases employee innovative behavior: A sensemaking perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2111 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Sims, R., & Weinberg, F. J. (2024). More than follow the leader: Expectations, behaviors, stability, and change in a Co-created leadership process. Group & Organization Management, 49(2), 332–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221093456 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Song, L., Zhang, D., Lyu, B., & Chen, Y. (2024). Chinese leadership. In Oxford research encyclopedia of business and management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.376 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Stamkou E., van Kleef G. A., Homan A. C., Gelfand M. J., van de Vijver F. J. et al. (2019). Cultural collectivism and tightness moderate responses to norm violators: Effects on power perception, moral emotions, and leader support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(6), 947–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218802832. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

Su, W., Lyu, B., Chen, H., & Zhang, Y. (2020). How does servant leadership influence employees’ service innovative behavior? The roles of intrinsic motivation and identification with the leader. Baltic Journal of Management, 15(4), 571–586. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-09-2019-0335 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Su, W., & Zhang, Y. (2023). More positive, more innovative: A moderated-mediation model of supervisor positive feedback and subordinate innovative behavior. Current Psychology, 42(33), 29682–29694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04047-1 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Sun, Z. Y., Li, J. M., Li, B., & He, X. Y. (2024). Digital leadership and deviant innovation: The roles of innovation self-efficacy and employee ambitions. Current Psychology, 43(26), 22226–22237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06030-4 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Sürücü, L., Maslakçi, A., & Şeşen, H. (2023). Inclusive leadership and innovative work behaviors: A moderated mediation model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 44(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2022-0227 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069429 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30(3), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2002.12.001 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Tolkamp, G., Vriend, T., Verwaeren, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Nijstad, B. (2022). Disentangling the creative process: An examination of differential antecedents and outcomes for specific process elements. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(6), 1329–1346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09808-0 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Townsend, D. M., Busenitz, L. W., & Arthurs, J. D. (2010). To start or not to start: Outcome and ability expectations in the decision to start a new venture. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.05.003 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Tsameti, A., Bellou, V. M., & Tsamantouridis, K. (2023). Employee voice and innovative behavior in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 46(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1984941 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Van de Ven, A. H., (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Van Essen, H. J., de Leede, J., & Bondarouk, T. (2022). Innovation energy: The stimulus converting employees’ innovation properties into innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 31(2), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12490 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Veestraeten, M., Johnson, S. K., Leroy, H., Sy, T., & Sels, L. (2021). Exploring the bounds of Pygmalion effects: Congruence of implicit followership theories drives and binds leader performance expectations and follower work engagement. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(2137–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051820980428 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Venketsamy, A., & Lew, C. (2024). Intrinsic and extrinsic reward synergies for innovative work behavior among South African knowledge workers. Personnel Review, 53(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2021-0108 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Willey & Sons. [Google Scholar]

Wang, K., Bailey, E. R., & Jachimowicz, J. M. (2022). The Passionate Pygmalion effect: passionate employees attain better outcomes in part because of more preferential treatment by others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 101, 104345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104345 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Wang, Z., Gao, M., & Panaccio, A. (2021). A self-determination approach to understanding individual values as an interaction condition on employees’ innovative work behavior in the high-tech industry. Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(1), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.444 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Wang, H., Lu, G., & Liu, Y. (2017). Ethical leadership and loyalty to supervisor in China: The roles of interactional justice and collectivistic orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(3), 529–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2916-6 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Wang, X., & Wang, M. (2022). The boundary conditions of leader creativity expectations influencing employee creativity: Job characteristic factors. In: ITM Web of Conferences (vol. 45, p. 01076). Les Ulis: EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20224501076 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Wang, X., Wang, M., & Xu, F. (2022). The role of synergistic interplay among proactive personality, leader creativity expectations, and role clarity in stimulating employee creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 699411. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.699411. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

Wang, T., Yu, B., Liu, M., & Zhou, Y. (2024). How leader bottom-line mentality impedes employee innovative behavior: A Pygmalion effect perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Early Access, 46, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2024-0167 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). Leaders’ conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion effects. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 822–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.006 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Wilaphan, K., Noawanit, S., & Ngudgratoke, S. (2023). Transformative leadership and innovative behavior in medical education: Mediating effects of psychological empowerment and creative self-efficacy. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 18(2), 50–69. [Google Scholar]

Xu, F., & Wang, X. (2018). Leader creativity expectations and follower radical creativity: Based on the perspective of creative process. Chinese Management Studies, 13(1), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-04-2018-0489 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Yi, R., Liu, S., & Lyu, B. (2023). A bibliometric and visualization analysis of Artisan entrepreneurship. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 37, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2023.2290152 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Yuan, S., & Jiang, R. (2024). Perceived insider status and innovative behaviour of the new generation of employees: Mediating effect of innovative self-efficacy and moderation of group competitive climate. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 34(1), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2023.2290431 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.49388995 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Zeelenberg, M., van Dijk, W. W., Manstead, A. S., & van de Pligt, J. (2000). On bad decisions and disconfirmed expectancies: The psychology of regret and disappointment. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 521–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402781 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Zhang, G., & Wang, Y. (2022). Organizational identification and employees’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of work engagement and the moderating role of creative self-efficacy. Chinese Management Studies, 16(5), 1108–1123. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-07-2021-0294 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Zhang, G., Zhang, X., & Wang, Y. (2022). Perceived insider status and employees’ innovative behavior: The role of knowledge sharing and organizational innovation climate. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(2), 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2022-0123 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Zhao, H., & Guo, L. (2019). The trickle-down effects of creative work involvement: The joint moderating effects of proactive personality and leader creativity expectations. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.042 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]