This paper developed and tested a theoretical model linking subordinates’ moqi with their supervisor with change-oriented behaviors—specifically, creativity and taking charge—via leader–member exchange (LMX). Using a sample of 189 matched subordinate–supervisor dyads from 22 firms in China, a hierarchical modeling analysis showed that, as hypothesized, subordinate moqi with the supervisor positively affected employees’ creativity and taking charge. Additionally, LMX mediated the relationship between subordinate moqi with the supervisor and employees’ creativity and taking charge. This paper contributes to the current understanding of leadership from a followership perspective and its influence on change-oriented behaviors.
AmabileTM (1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In: StawFMCummingsLL (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. 10th edition. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 123–167.
2.
AmabileTM (1996) Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
3.
AndersonNPotočnikKZhouJ (2014) Innovation and creativity in organizations. Journal of Management40(5): 1297–1333.
4.
AshfordSJRothbardNPPideritSK, et al. (1998) Out on a limb: the role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly43: 23–57.
5.
AtwaterLCarmeliA (2009) Leader-member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly20: 264–275.:
6.
BarkemaHGChenX-PGeorgeG, et al. (2015) West meets East: new concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal58(2): 460–479.
7.
BastardozNVan VugtM (2019) The nature of followership: evolutionary analysis and review. The Leadership Quarterly30: 81–95.
8.
BasuRGreenSG (1997) Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: an Empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology27: 477–499.
9.
BensonAJHardyJEysM (2016) Contextualizing leaders' interpretations of proactive followership. Journal of Organizational Behavior37(7): 949–966.
10.
BlairBABlighMC (2018) Looking for leadership in all the wrong places: the impact of culture on proactive followership and follower dissent. Journal of Social Issues74(1): 129–143.
11.
BliesePD (2000) Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: KleinKJKozlowskiSWJ (eds) Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 349–381.
12.
BrislinRW (1986) The wording and translation of research instruments. In: LonnerWJBerryJW (eds) Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 8, pp. 137–164.
13.
BrowerHHSchoormanFDTanHH (2000) A model of relational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly11(2): 227–250.
14.
CarstenMKUhl-BienMWestBJ, et al. (2010) Exploring social constructions of followership: a qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly21(3): 543–562.
15.
ChanD (2006) Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology91(2): 475–481.
16.
ChenM-JMillerD (2011) The relational perspective as a business mindset: managerial implications for East and West. Academy of Management Perspectives25(3): 6–18.
17.
ChiaburuDSSmithTAWangJ, et al. (2014) Relative importance of leader influences for subordinates' proactive behaviors, prosocial behaviors, and task performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology13(2): 70–86.
18.
ChoiJN (2007) Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: effects of work environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior28(4): 467–484.
19.
ChurchillGAJr (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research16(1): 64–73.
20.
DansereauFJrGraenGHagaWJ (1975) A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance13(1): 46–78.
21.
DayDV (2014) Introduction: Leadership and organizations. In: DayDV (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organization. New York, NY: Oxford Library of Psychology, pp. 3–12.
22.
DulebohnJHBommerWHLidenRC, et al. (2012) A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange. Journal of Management38(6): 1715–1759.
23.
EmersonRM (1976) Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology2(1): 335–362.
24.
ErdoganBLidenRC (2002) Social exchanges in the workplace: a review of recent development and future research directions in leader–member exchange theory. In: NeiderLLSchriesheimCA (eds) Leadership. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 65–114.
25.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
26.
FreseMFayD (2001) 4. Personal initiative: an active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior23: 133–187.
27.
FullerBMarlerLEHesterK, et al. (2015) Leader reactions to follower proactive behavior: giving credit when credit is due. Human Relations68: 879–898.
28.
GilmorePLHuXWeiF, et al. (2013) Positive affectivity neutralizes transformational leadership's influence on creative performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior34(8): 1061–1075.
29.
GraenGBScanduraTA (1987) Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior9: 175–208.
30.
GraenGBUhl-BienM (1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly6(2): 219–247.
31.
GuQTangTL-PJiangW (2015) Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? employee identification with leader and leader-member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics126(3): 513–529.
32.
HallET (1976) Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Press–Doubleday.
33.
HendersonDJLidenRCGlibkowskiBC, et al. (2009) LMX differentiation: a multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly20(4): 517–534.
34.
HoganJHollandB (2003) Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: a socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology88(1): 100–112.
35.
HollanderEP (1992) Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly3: 43–54.
36.
HuLtBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
37.
KauppilaO-P (2016) When and how does LMX differentiation influence followers' work outcomes? the interactive roles of one's own LMX status and organizational context. Personnel Psychology69(2): 357–393.
38.
KimDPanYParkHS (1998) High-versus low-Context culture: a comparison of Chinese, Korean, and American cultures. Psychology and Marketing15: 507–521.
39.
KimSLHanSSonSY, et al. (2017) Exchange ideology in supervisor-subordinate dyads, LMX, and knowledge sharing: a social exchange perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management34(1): 147–172.
40.
KimT-YLiuZDiefendorffJM (2015) Leader-member exchange and job performance: the effects of taking charge and organizational tenure. Journal of Organizational Behavior36: 216–231.
41.
LebelRDPatilSV (2018) Proactivity despite discouraging supervisors: the powerful role of prosocial motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology103: 724–737.
42.
LiLZhengXSunS, et al. (2020) Does subordinate moqi affect leadership empowerment?Leadership & Organization Development Journal41(8): 1015–1034.
43.
LiRZhangZ-YTianX-M (2016) Can self-sacrificial leadership promote subordinate taking charge? the mediating role of organizational identification and the moderating role of risk aversion. Journal of Organizational Behavior37: 758–781.
44.
LiS-LHeWYamKC, et al. (2015) When and why empowering leadership increases followers' taking charge: a multilevel examination in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management32(3): 645–670.
45.
LiaoHLiuDLoiR (2010) Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: a social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal53(5): 1090–1109.
46.
LidenRCMaslynJM (1998) Multidimensionafity of leader-member exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management24: 43–72.
47.
LidenRCWayneSJStilwellD (1993) A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology78(4): 662–674.
48.
LinC-CKaoY-TChenY-L, et al. (2016) Fostering change-oriented behaviors: a broaden-and-build model. Journal of Business and Psychology31(3): 399–414.
49.
LiuDLiaoHLoiR (2012) The dark side of leadership: a three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal55: 1187–1212.
50.
McAllisterDJKamdarDMorrisonEW, et al. (2007) Disentangling role perceptions: how perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology92: 1200–1211.
51.
MarinovaSVMoonHVan DyneL (2010) Are all good soldier behaviors the same? supporting multidimensionality of organizational citizenship behaviors based on rewards and roles. Human Relations63(10): 1463–1485.
52.
MarinovaSVPengCLorinkovaN, et al. (2015) Change-oriented behavior: a meta-analysis of individual and job design predictors. Journal of Vocational Behavior88: 104–120.
53.
MorrisonEWPhelpsCC (1999) Taking charge at work: extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal42(4): 403–419.
54.
MumfordMDScottGMGaddisB, et al. (2002) Leading creative people: orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly13: 705–750.
55.
MuthénBMuthénL (2017) Mplus. Los Angeles, CA: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
56.
NgTWHFeldmanDC (2008) The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology93(2): 392–423.
57.
OldhamGRCummingsA (1996) Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal39: 607–634.
58.
OlssonLHemlinSPousetteA (2012) A multi-level analysis of leader-member exchange and creative performance in research groups. The Leadership Quarterly23: 604–619.
59.
ParkSHWestphalJDSternI (2011) Set up for a Fall. Administrative Science Quarterly56(2): 257–302.
60.
ParkerSKCollinsCG (2010) Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management36: 633–662.
61.
ParkerSKBindlUKStraussK (2010) Making things happen: a model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management36: 827–856.
62.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJ-Y, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903.
63.
QianJSongBJinZ, et al. (2018) Linking empowering leadership to task performance, taking charge, and voice: the mediating role of feedback-seeking. Frontiers in Psychology9: 2025.
64.
QuRJanssenOShiK (2017) Leader-member exchange and follower creativity: the moderating roles of leader and follower expectations for creativity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management28(4): 603–626.
65.
ReddingSGNgM (1982) The role of “face” in the organizational perceptions of Chinese managers. Organization Studies3: 201–219.
66.
RegoASousaFMarquesC, et al. (2012) Authentic leadership promoting employees' psychological capital and creativity. Journal of Business Research65: 429–437.
67.
RegoASousaFMarquesC, et al. (2014) Hope and positive affect mediating the authentic leadership and creativity relationship. Journal of Business Research67: 200–210.
68.
ScanduraTAGraenGB (1984) Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology69(3): 428–436.
69.
ShalleyCEGilsonLL (2004) What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly15: 33–53.
70.
ShalleyCEZhouJOldhamGR (2004) The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here?Journal of Management30(6): 933–958.
71.
ShinSJZhouJ (2003) Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal46: 703–714.
72.
StawBMBoettgerRD (1990) Task revision: a neglected form of work performance. Academy of Management Journal33(3): 534–559.
73.
TuYDLuXX (2013) How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work behavior: a perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics116(2): 441–455.
74.
Uhl-BienMRiggioRELoweKB, et al. (2014) Followership theory: a review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly25(1): 83–104.
75.
Van DyneLLePineJA (1998) Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal41: 108–119.
76.
WayneSJGreenSA (1993) The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations46(12): 1431–1440.
77.
YuklGA (2002) Leadership in Organizations. 5th edition. Albany, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
78.
ZhangXBartolKM (2010) Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal53: 107–128.
79.
ZhengXLiNBrad HarrisT, et al. (2017) Unspoken yet understood: an introduction and initial framework of subordinates' moqi with supervisors. Journal of Management45(3): 955–983.
80.
ZhengXLiLZhangF, et al. (2019) The roles of power distance orientation and perceived insider status in the subordinates' moqi with supervisors and sustainable knowledge-sharing. Sustainability11: 1421.
81.
ZhouJGeorgeJM (2001) When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal44(4): 682–696.
