Impact of Entrepreneurial Leadership on Innovative Work Behavior: Examining Mediation and Moderation Mechanisms

Abstract

Purpose: Based on social cognitive theory, the present study aimed to explore the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior through the moderating path of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in technology-based SMEs. The study also explains the mechanism through which a firm’s innovative environment mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and employees’ innovative work behavior.

Methods: To pursue the objectives, this study has used data from a sample of 350 supervisor–subordinate dyads working in cross sectional small and medium enterprises (SMEs) operating in the Jiangsu province of China. Based on social cognitive theory and specific continuum of self-efficacy theory, a conceptual model was developed and the hypotheses were tested with the help of SPSS 20.

Findings: Empirical findings recommend a significant positive effect of entrepreneurial leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior. The study suggested that firm’s innovative environment mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and the employees’ innovative behavior. The results also confirmed that entrepreneurial self-efficacy exerts a positive moderating effect on the association of entrepreneurial leadership and employees’ innovative behavior.

Conclusion: Findings of the present research work have several implications for the management and policymakers of high-tech SMEs who want to augment their employees’ innovative behavior in order to compete in a highly competitive and challenging business environment. To the best of authors’ knowledge, this work is the first attempt that presents an empirically supported comprehensive model for the development of employees’ innovative behavior within entrepreneurial-based high-tech SMEs. It contributes to literature by examining the mediation and moderation process for the development of employees’ innovative behavior.

Introduction

In transitioning economies, like China, the competitive business environment has made it challenging for the entrepreneurial-based high-tech small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to survive and grow. In such a turbulent environment, organizations that want to be successful, have to rethink about their priorities to align their business models with technological changes.^1–3 In this scenario, innovation has been acknowledged as an influential impelling cause for the survival, success and competitiveness of high-tech organizations.^4–9 However, it has become challenging for business leaders to encourage their members to leave the traditional way of thinking and task performance, and to devote their energy to creating innovative ideas.¹⁰ Innovation comes out when the employees working at all levels of organizational hierarchical structure show innovative work behavior, and devote their efforts to developing, promoting and implementing new ideas in the workplace.^11–15 A large number of research studies have been devoted to explore the antecedents of employees' innovative work behavior, and in this context the characteristics of the business leaders are deemed to be more essential in influencing the employees' work behavior and performance.^16–18 Numerous studies have suggested that leadership plays a critical role in shaping and promoting innovative work behaviors in all kind of industrial settings.^19–21 Precisely, Tung,²² Gumusluoğlu, Ilsev,²³ Rousseau, Aubé, Tremblay²⁴ proposed that employee innovative behavior is not produced automatically, but the leaders shape such behaviors by supporting and encouraging them during the creative process.

Even though a large number of studies have explored the critical role of leadership in driving innovation, there is a limited understanding for different leadership styles that effectively augment employees' creativity and innovative behavior at work.^25,26 Further, the studies on leadership are inconclusive as some of them stated a strong positive relationship between different leadership styles and employees' innovative behavior,^16,27,28 while other suggested weak or insignificant association between these two variables.^29–32 Basu and Green³³ and Bono and Judge³⁴ proclaimed that there is an adverse association between different leadership styles and employees' innovative behavior. In such a vague scenario, scholars as well as practitioners demand conclusive judgments on the expediency of different leadership styles to enable employees' participation in the challenging practices of an innovation process. Scholars have questioned the practicability of leadership styles in augmenting innovation, and it is mostly because of the general leadership styles (eg, transformational/transactional) are not particularly designed to facilitate and promote employees' innovative work behavior.³⁵ Furthermore, these leadership styles do not determine the distinct characteristics and behaviors that leaders should adopt to direct the innovation process through new ideas generation, and implementation within the organization.^36,37 The leaders should develop new leadership capabilities in order to stimulate innovative behaviors and lead the innovation process in their organizations.^38–40

In the last two decades entrepreneurial leadership (EL), along with other leadership styles, has become a hot topic for discussion and has gained wide scholarly attention in the entrepreneurship and leadership domain.^41–51 However, focusing on organizational context, further studies of EL in a wide range of entrepreneurial and SME contexts (size, stage of development, sector) is needed.⁵² Studies by Renko, El Tarabishy, et al²⁵ and Gupta et al⁴¹ offered a comprehensive EL construct, arguing that this leadership influences and directs the synergetic performance of group members toward accomplishing those organizational goals that relate to recognizing and exploiting contingencies, which ultimately influence the success of EL. Drawing from the notion of "cast enactment" in EL theory proposed by Gupta et al⁴¹ large numbers of the studies^53–57 have suggested EL as the most influential factor for innovative behavior, and highlighted its importance in stimulating and fostering innovation in highly dynamic and competitive business environments. So, it is critical to understand the mechanisms through which EL influences employees' innovative work behavior, and stimulates innovation performance of the organization.^58–60 Based on social cognitive theory (SCT), the present study will help us to understand the mechanism through which EL influences employees' innovative work behavior. This theory established the existence of a mutual relationship among individual characteristics, behavioral factors, and environmental factors.⁶¹ As per SCT, individuals having a high self-efficacy level are found to perform more risky and challenging tasks in comparison with individuals having low self-efficacy, who perceive the challenging tasks as uncertain and dangerous.⁶² The previous studies of Karwowski et al⁶³ and Tierney and Farmer⁶⁴ have confirmed that employees' self-efficacy, especially entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE), augments the innovative behavior and creative performance of employees^64–68 and also enhances their creativity.⁶⁹

Until now, most of the studies on ESE have focused on examining the direct impact of ESE on different entrepreneurial outcomes, for instance: entrepreneurial intentions;⁷⁰ opportunity recognition;⁷¹ and firm innovative performance.⁷² The theory of ESE⁷³ suggested that one can examine the mediating or moderating role of ESE between the association of antecedents and entrepreneurial outcomes. When we study the literature on leadership, we come to know that leadership behaviors occur in the context of organization and analyzing a bivariate relationship that would be incomplete without considering the organizational context in which organizational innovation takes place.⁷⁴ Therefore it is necessary to identify and examine factors that may interact with leadership behaviors in affecting organizational innovation.^75,76 Drawing from the previous literature,^77,78 we proposed that ESE strengthens the positive impact of EL on employees' innovative work behavior. As the previous studies have not shown interest in investigating the moderating role of ESE,⁷⁷ this work will be insightful to examine the effects of EL toward employees' innovative behavior through the moderating path of ESE, and ultimately will extend the existing body of knowledge. Drawing from the research studies conducted by Kang et al⁵⁸ and Jaiswal and Dhar,⁷⁷ we also proposed that a firm's innovative environment can mediate the relationship of EL and employees' innovative behavior.

The rest of the paper is organized in the following sections. In the first section, we have reviewed the literature in the context of EL, ESE, a firm's environment and employees' innovation behavior, and thereafter hypotheses of study are proposed. In the second part, the study has detailed research methodology and empirical findings. In the third part of the study, we have discussed the research findings in the light of its theoretical and practical implications, and end the paper with its limitations, future endeavors and conclusion.

Theoretical Background

Entrepreneurial Leadership and Innovative Work Behavior In a highly dynamic and competitive business environment, leaders play a critical role for the survival, success and growth of their business by directing the innovation process.^79–81 The literature on EL has acknowledged that the entrepreneurial leaders not only create new ideas themselves but also facilitate and encourage their employees to show their potentials in solving complex issues and performing challenging task through innovative means.^45,55,57,82 With their distinct characteristics, the leaders also develop employees' commitment and persistence to encourage their coworkers to generate new ideas and gain their support to realize them.^83–86 At an organizational level, directing the innovation process is a challenging task for business leaders as they have to facilitate perpetual new idea generation and exploitation. To lead the innovation process, a leader has to create a promising environment in which all the employees can be encouraged to participate in innovative practices and to engage in the generation and exploitation of new ideas.⁷⁷

Literature proclaimed that EL is a strong influential factor to stimulate and improve employees' innovative work behavior in a competitive business environment.^55,82 In a challenging business environment, an entrepreneurial leader can effectively direct the innovation process by facilitating their members in generating and realizing new ideas.⁸⁷ Characteristics of the entrepreneurial leader also effectively improve the impact of other leadership styles on the innovation process of their businesses.^53,60 The EL theory proposed that based on their functional abilities, entrepreneurial leaders not only enable but also stimulate their group members to discard their conventional way of performing the task and direct their energy toward execution of innovative and entrepreneurial actions.⁴¹ The entrepreneurial leaders also redesign their members' perceptions of their competencies by involving them in developing new and innovative ideas, and building their confidence to implement these ideas.^88,89 The functional competencies of entrepreneurial leaders also empower them to intentionally inspire and regulate their members toward innovation.^25,90 The leaders of high-tech entrepreneurial-based organizations realize their vision through identifying and stimulating the potential competencies of their group members, enabling them to generate new ideas, and reshaping their behavior, thoughts, and attitudes of implementing new ideas.^{36,52,58,91–94} Entrepreneurial leaders also create a promising environment and encouraging culture in which all of the group members consider innovation as one of their priority tasks and show their persistence in the face of challenges inherited in the innovation process.^36,82,95 Most of the previous research has investigated the outcomes of EL in large firms and their findings may not be applicable to the highly challenging, complex and uncertain context of high-tech SMEs.⁵² For that reason, the present study has tested the following hypothesis to examine the impact of EL on employees' innovative behavior in high-tech SMEs.

H-1: Entrepreneurial leadership has a positive impact on employees' innovation work behavior.

The Mediation Effect of the Firm's Innovative Environment

Entrepreneurial Leadership and the Firm's Innovative Environment The firm's environment refers to a shared perception of employees about different kinds of behaviors and actions that are supposed to be rewarded in a particular organization.⁹⁶ The leaders of any organization play a critical role in forming and shaping the firm's environment that leads to desirable behaviors and actions.⁹⁷ An innovative environment can be defined as "the shared perceptions of employees concerning the practices, procedures, and behaviors that promote the generation, introduction, and the realization of new ideas."⁹⁸

The functional competencies of entrepreneurial leaders empower them to inspire and intentionally stimulate their employees to act in an innovative way,^99–101 which also influences them to be more receptive to that innovative environment generated by their leaders.¹⁰² Entrepreneurial leaders build confidence in their followers by allowing them to suggest new and innovative business ideas without any hesitation or fear.^103−105 For instance, Kang et al⁵⁸ reasoned that there is a significant association between EL behavior and a firm's innovative environment – that has a contextual impact on employees' behavior in workplaces, supports the innovative struggles of employees, and stops them from being reactive.¹⁰⁶ Thus, entrepreneurial leaders create such a promising innovative environment, which not only enables but also encourages their followers to be innovative, and find new and creative solutions to the problems encountered in the workplace.^107,108

A Firm's Innovative Environment and Innovative Work Behavior Literature states that there are many contextual factors that also contribute to the individual's innovative behavior.¹⁰⁹ For example, it has acknowledged that most of the employees shape or regulate their behavioral patterns by observing their immediate supervisors and coworkers, and following the behavioral norms of the firm.^110,111 That is to say, when the overall organizational environment will helpful to augment employees' innovative behavior, employees of that organization will normally attempt to follow these embedded norms and will act innovatively^112,113 by watching their coworkers and leaders' innovative behavior.^114,115 Once a particular environment is sustained in the firm, it becomes a guiding principle for an innovative work process that not only guides but also leads to more innovative behavior.^115,116 In summary, the leaders who recognize an innovative firm's environment are found to be more empowered, and they exploit their intellectual assets to succeed in a dynamic and challenging business environment, and thus exhibit innovative behavior.^15,117 Taken together with all of the arguments, we have proposed the second hypothesis as follows:

H-2: A firm's innovative environment mediates the relationship between EL and employees' innovative work behavior.

Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Innovative Work Behavior Until now ESE has gained a lot of scholarly attention in entrepreneurship literature because of its important entrepreneurial outcomes.^70,118–122 Authors such as Markman et al ¹²³ and Schmitt et al ¹²⁴ have determined that ESE is one of the distinct features that has a direct influence on entrepreneurial pursuits, new venture performance, and personal success. Therefore, it is important for the scholars to devote more attention to explore and examine such influential factors. In examining the different mechanisms through which EL impact on employees' innovative behavior, various researchers, for instance, Huang et al⁸⁹, Baron and Tang¹²⁵, and Huang and Chen¹²⁶ have emphasized that the relationship between EL and innovative behavior may moderate by many contextual factors. Even though EL is being acknowledged as a foundation for innovation, it is not sufficient by itself.¹²⁷ It generates only a potential for the novel and creative ideas⁸² that must be acted upon later. Previous literature suggests that individuals' perceived belief of self-efficacy is a strong influential force for implementation of their intentions.¹²⁸ Self-efficacy refers to the degree an individual believes that he/she can efficiently perform tasks and actions to accomplish desired goals.¹²⁸ According to Miao et al¹²⁹ contingent to the belief of their self-efficacy, individuals with similar skills may perform poorly, adequately, or extraordinarily. Individuals with high self-efficacy for a specific task are more likely to pursue and then persist in that task than those individuals with low self-efficacy beliefs.¹³⁰ Entrepreneurship literature defines the ESE as the strength of an individual's beliefs that he/she is proficient in effectively performing the different entrepreneurial tasks.^131,132 The literature of ESE has so far mostly focused on examining the direct impacts of ESE on different entrepreneurial outcomes, for instance: entrepreneurial intentions;^{121,122,133,134} opportunity recognition;^124,135,136 and firm performance.^129,131,137 Drawing from the theory of ESE, Boyd and Vozikis⁷³ proposed that one can examine the mediating or moderating role of ESE between the relationship of antecedents and entrepreneurial outcomes. The empirical study of Hmieleski and Corbett¹¹⁸ suggested that the relationship between an entrepreneur's interpersonal behavior and venture performance is positively moderated by a high the level of ESE. Findings of Tang¹³⁸ advocate that a high level of ESE strengthens the positive relationship between environmental munificence and opportunity alertness. It also acknowledges that the entrepreneurs having strong ESE are likely to be more alert in recognition of market disequilibria, and to exploit the opportunities appropriately.¹³⁹ In previous studies, almost all of the research scholars have investigated the direct or mediating effect of ESE on employees' creativity or innovative behavior and have not shown their interest in examining the moderation path for this variable. As suggested by Bandura,¹⁴⁰ the self-efficacy theory falls between two continuum (ie, general to specific). In general, the generalized self-efficacy remains stable, but it is acknowledged that when it moves toward specificity, it becomes sensitive toward personal and contextual factors.¹⁴⁰ Following Bandura's two continuum concept, the creative/ESE falls within the continuum of specificity.^72,141 Thus, the creative/ESE is conditional to the personal and contextual factors^142–144 and may fall within the high and low continuum, which may moderate the mechanisms adopted to augment innovative behavior among the employees.^{77,127,139,145,146} Therefore, drawing from specific continuum of self-efficacy theory, it is suggested that ESE could play a moderating role in association between EL and employees' innovative behavior.

H-3: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy moderates the positive impact of EL on employees' innovation work behavior.

The theoretical framework (Figure 1) depicts all the hypothetical relationships among different variables of the study that were developed after an in-depth study of the relevant literature.

Methodology Sample Design and the Data Collection

The present study is based on the data collected from 350 supervisor–subordinate dyads working in cross-sectional technology-based SMEs operating in the Jiangsu province of China. Data was collected with the help of the master student enrolled in the department of management sciences of Jiangsu University, China. The Chinese students distibuted 500 questionnaires to supervisor–subordinate dyads of 50 high-tech SMEs operating across the major cities of Jiangsu province. The students met with supervisors and subordinates at different times, and offered them a cover letter indicating the voluntary of participation and confidentiality of their responses. We also made sure that we had randomly selected one subordinate for each supervisor. Data was collected from only those dyads who were directly involved in the idea generation, promotion, and implementation stages in their respective innovative jobs. The sample frame of the study consists of manufacturing, processing, designing, engineering, marketing, and product development departments as researchers have suggested that employees' innovative work behavior is pertinent to these departments.^147–149 Data was collected over the two periods of time so as to minimize the effects of common method bias.^150,151 Both of the surveys were properly coded so that they could be matched and supervisor–subordinate dyads could be formed. After removing uncompleted surveys, our final sample comprises a total of 350 supervisor–subordinate dyads out of 500 surveys (70% response rate) and such a high response rate is common in self-administered surveys conducted in Asian contexts.¹⁵² The survey involved 47 supervisors who responded to the questionnaire on innovative work behavior of 350 subordinates, as the average span of control of each supervisor was approximately seven to eight subordinates. The demographics of the respondents stated that, out of the total participants, 270 (77.14%) were males and rest 80 (22.86%) were females. The average age of the respondents was 35.7 years with an SD of 7.45 years, while their average tenure with in the particular organization was 5.15 years with an SD of 3.45 years.

Measurement Scales

Entrepreneurial leadership: To measure the perceptions of subordinates toward EL practices of their immediate leaders, we have used an eight-item ENTRELEAD questionnaire which was developed by Renko et al.²⁵ The Cronbach's alpha for this measurement scale was 0.89, which indicates a high degree of internal consistency.

Innovative environment: To measure a firm's innovative environment, we have utilized a three-item scale that was developed by Patterson et al¹⁵³ and Scott and Bruce.¹⁵⁴ Survey participants were asked to select a number from 1 through 5 that best describes their firm's innovative environment (alpha 5 0.68).

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The perception of employees' ESE was measured using an eleven-item ESE scale that was developed by Chen et al⁷⁰ and also used previously in other studies.¹⁵⁵

Innovative work behavior: Employees' innovative work behavior was measured by a ten-item measurement scale that was adopted from the study of De Jong and Den Hartog.⁸³ The leaders were asked to rate the frequency with which their subordinates displayed different behaviors on a five-point scale ranging from 1 ("never") to 5 ("always").

Control variables: Empirical research on employees' performance has specified that employees' age, gender, education, and tenure in a particular organization may influence their performance,⁷⁵ and for that reason, we have considered employees' age, gender, education, and organizational tenure as control variables in hypotheses testing.

Analyses and the Results Assessment of Measurements' Validity

To assess the reliability and validity of all construct measures, conformity factor analyses (CFA) is performed using the software solution AMOS 21. CFA results for the EL measurement construct has specified a good fit, goodness-of-fit indexes: χ²/df=3.87; goodness of fit index (GFI)=0.978; comparative fit index (CFI)=0.986; normed fit index (NFI)=0.976; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA)=0.056; P<0.05. CFA results for the innovative environment scale showed a good fit, goodness-of-fit indexes: χ²/df=3.76; GFI=0.928; CFI=0.978; NFI=0.956; RMSEA=0.048; P<0.05. CFA results for the ESE scale also indicated a good fit, goodness-of-fit indexes: χ²/df=3.58; GFI=0.984; CFI=0.985; NFI=0.983; RMSEA=0.062; P<0.058. The CFA results for the innovative work behavior scale also indicate good fit, goodness-of-fit indexes: χ²/df=2.34; GFI=0.980; CFI=0.983; NFI=0.978; RMSEA=0.054; P<0.05. Moreover, the factor loading for each item of the constructs exceeded the threshold value of 0.50 and Cronbach alpha coefficient of all the constructs is greater than 0.75, statistically significant at 5% confidence level.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Inter-Variable Correlations

Before going to analyze the hypothetical relationship between different variables of research, the study has provided the descriptive statistics of the selected sample and inter-variable correlations for all of the subject variables. The means, standard deviations, and inter-variable correlations are presented in (Table 1).

Results of Mediation Analyses

The hypothesis (H-2) of the study proposed that a firm's innovative environment acts as a mediator between the relationship of EL and innovative work behavior. To investigate the mediation effect, we followed Baron and Kenny's¹⁵⁶ criteria which suggests the three conditions that must be met to advocate the mediating effect in a given association. First, the independent variable should significantly relate to the dependent variable; second, the independent variable should significantly relate to the mediator; third, when controlling the mediating variable, the relationship between independent and dependent variable must be much smaller than when the independent variable is the sole predictor. Accordingly, we test the second hypothesis, which stated the mediation effect, by investigating the effect of EL when firm's innovative environment was entered into the model. As depicted in Model 3 of (Table 2), a firm's innovative environment became a stronger predictor of employees' innovative behavior (ΔR² = 0.21, P <0.05). Alternatively, the beta coefficient of EL became smaller then when it was the sole predictor of employees' innovative behavior. Findings from the analyses suggested that a firm's innovative environment partially mediates the link between EL and innovative behavior of employees and provides empirical support to our second hypothesis. Furthermore, a bootstrapping test was conducted with a bootstrap sample of 280 to confirm the mediating impact of the firm's innovative environment in the association between EL and employees' innovative behavior. The standardized mediating effect of EL on innovative behavior via a firm's innovative environment was significantly different from zero at the 0.005 level (coefficient of standardized indirect effect =0.048; P = 0.003; χ² = 104.44, χ²/df = 2.72, P=0.005; RMSEA=0.05; CFI=0.975; TLI=0.98, NFI=0.985). Therefore, the results from bootstrapping also provided support to our second hypothesis as it confirmed an indirect (mediating) effect of the firm's innovative environment in the relationship between EL and employees' innovative behavior.

Hierarchical Regression Model for Moderation

To simplify the interpretability of the interaction term (EL × ESE), we followed the hierarchical regression procedure (in which we entered control variables in the first step, in the second step we entered the main effects, and the interaction of independent and moderator come into the third step).¹⁵⁷ Moderation analyses (see Table 3) confirmed that ESE strengthens the positive effect of EL on employees' innovative work behavior as the interaction term (EL × ESE) was found to be statistically significant and in the proposed direction (β=0.16, P<0 0.05). Furthermore, it accounts for an additional 16% of the variance in employees' innovative work behavior (ΔR² =0.16, P<0.01). We have also plotted the slope of the simple regression (Figure 2) to examine the nature of the influence of EL on innovative behavior with respect to the levels of an individual's ESE.¹⁵⁸ The interaction term is illustrated in (Figure 2) which predicted that, at high level, ESE strengthens the positive impact of EL on employees' innovative behavior. Therefore, both the results provide empirical support to our hypothesis (H-3).

Discussion

In the last few decades, EL has gained a growing consideration among entrepreneurship and leadership scholars and practitioners.^92,159–161 Nonetheless, only a few studies have explored the outcomes of this leadership style in high-tech^44,162 and entrepreneurial-based SMEs.^36,89 Present study is aimed at exploring the mechanism through which EL affects employees' innovative work behavior, especially in high-tech SMEs. To pursue the objectives, we have developed a theoretical grounded conceptual model to test the direct, mediated, and the moderated effect of this leadership style on employees' innovative work behavior. The model suggests that this leadership style impacts on employees' innovative behavior with the mediation of the firm's innovative environment, and furthermore, this impact becomes stronger when we add employees' ESE as a moderator in the given model. Studies conducted by Alabduljader et al¹⁶³ and Choi et al¹⁶⁴ stated that transactional and transformational leadership has a direct positive effect on their immediate followers' innovative behavior. Kang et al¹⁶⁵ have also found in their study that the firm's innovative environment mediates the positive relationship among transactional and transformational leadership, and follower's innovative work behavior. The findings from Bagheri³⁶ Bagheri and Akbari⁸² claimed that EL is a key influential factor that enables, encourages, and promotes the employees' innovation work behavior. Our study added value to these findings, by examining the mediation role of the firm's innovative environment between EL and employees' innovative work behavior. Furthermore, Choi et al¹⁶⁴ indicate that perceived organizational support acts as a moderator between the positive relationship of transformational leadership and employees' innovation behavior. In our study, we have suggested a different mechanism by seeking the moderation effect of employees' ESE between the relationship of EL and employees' innovative work behavior. Our results not only complement the previous research findings, but also contribute to the literature with regard to leadership and innovative behavior, by bringing together ESE as a moderator and firm's innovative environment as a mediator between the relationship of EL and employees' innovative behavior. The literature also claimed that some of the contextual factors can strength the level of employees' innovative behavior. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first attempt in entrepreneurship, leadership, and innovation literature that offers an empirically supported comprehensive model to augment employees' innovative behavior, especially in high-tech SMEs.

Conclusion

This study aimed to explore the mediation and moderation mechanism to improve employees' innovative behavior in Chinese high-tech SMEs. Based on social cognitive theory, this work has examined the impact of EL on employees' innovative behavior through the moderating path of ESE. The study also explored the mediating effect of a firm's innovative environment in the association of EL and employees' innovative behavior. In line with the previous research findings of Bagheri,³⁶ Chen,⁵⁷ andMokhber et al¹²⁷ results of the present study suggested that EL has a significant positive impact on employees' innovative work behavior. The findings also confirmed that, at high level, ESE strengthens the positive relationship between EL and employees' innovative behavior. Results also declared that a firm's innovative environment mediates the relationship between these two variables. The study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by investigating the impact of EL on employees' innovative behavior through the moderating path of employees' ESE. To the best of authors' knowledge, this work is the first attempt in the leadership and entrepreneurship domain that has explored the mediating and moderating mechanism to improve employees' innovative behavior in entrepreneurial context.

Theoretical Implications

By probing the role of EL in improving employees' innovative behavior, this work makes a number of distinct contributions to entrepreneurship and innovation literature. First, by investigating the contribution of EL in augmentation of employees' innovative behavior, the present study assisted in the development of new theories on innovation, as it extended the leadership styles deemed effective in fostering employees' innovative behavior. Further, this work also extends the EL theory by applying it to explain the process of innovation in high-tech SMEs. Second, this work has extended the theory of organizational climate by explaining the mediating role of a firm's environment in association between EL and employees' innovative behavior. On the basis of their distinct functional competencies, the entrepreneurial leaders create a promising environment that facilitates and encourages their members to leave the traditional way of thinking, generate new ideas, and find innovative solutions to the problems encountered by them in the workplace. Our findings suggest that the entrepreneurial leaders can intentionally influence employees' innovative behavior by providing them with an innovative environment in which to generate novel ideas and accomplish them without fear of failure. In other words, the firm's innovative environment generated by EL, promotes employees' innovative behavior. Third, this work also extends the literature on self-efficacy by examining the additive effect of EL on employees' innovative behavior at different levels of employees' ESE. Our study suggests that it is more important to consider the personal characteristics of employees when we want to determine the most influential factors associated with their behavior. Findings from the present study not only declares that the higher an individual's ESE is associated with higher innovative behavior,⁵³ but it also strengthens the relationship of EL and employees' innovative work behavior.³⁶

Practical Implications

Findings from this work have a number of implications for the managers and leaders of high-tech SMEs who want to enhance the innovative capacity of their employees so as to improve the progress and competitiveness of their business. First, the findings of this work assist the current and prospective business leaders and the entrepreneurs in identifying the key roles that they can play in order to improve innovative capabilities among their employees and develop a promising and innovative environment to streamline the innovation process. Second, for entrepreneurial-based high-tech SMEs, it would be more advantageous for them to organize a brief and easy-to-administer psychometric test during the recruitment process in order to find candidates that have a high level of ESE. Further, managers should also ensure that such recruits are employed under the leadership that displays EL behavior.¹⁶⁶ When leaders encourage such employees they respond more positively and try to identify creative solutions to the problems encountered in the workplace. They also make the most of the various learning opportunities provided by the entrepreneurial leader.⁵³

Limitations and the Future Research

Some limitations are associated with this research work. First, this study is based on cross-sectional data which was collected from a single country that could be challenged. In future, we recommend longitudinal cross-country data-sets and comparison of findings from different countries that have different cultural backgrounds to support/challenge the outcomes of this model. Second, our measurement scale was not able to capture the multistage process of innovative behavior (idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation), as we have adopted a combined single measure of innovative work behavior developed by De Jong and Den Hartog.⁸³ In the future, researchers may try to develop and apply the measure of innovative behavior in a way that captures multistage processes based on the longitudinal research design.

Ethical Statement

This research work was carried out in compliance with the Ethical Code of Conduct of American Psychological Association (APA). After taking approval from the board of directors, the participants were offered a cover letter indicating the willingness of participation and confidentiality of their responses. All the participants willingly took part in the questionnaire survey and written informed consent was provided by the participants and institutions. This work was conducted under the supervision a Chinese professor and the Institutional Review Board of Jiangsu University has approved the study.

Acknowledgment

We are thankful to the editorial board and anonymous reviewers of the journal for their insight in improving the manuscript.

Disclosure

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in this research work.

References

1. Aagaard A. Sustainable Business Models: Innovation, Implementation and Success. Springer; 2018. 2. Santos G, Afonseca J, Lopes N, Félix MJ, Murmura F. Critical success factors in the management of ideas as an essential component of innovation and business excellence. Int J Qual Serv Sci. 2018;10(3):214–232. doi:10.1108/IJQSS-05-2017-0051 3. Yoon S-H, Thin NS, VTT T, Im E-T, Gim G-Y. A study on success factors for business model innovation in the 4th industrial revolution.Paper presented at: International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications; 2018. 4. Ortiz-Villajos JM, Sotoca S. Innovation and business survival: a long-term approach. Res Policy. 2018;47(8):1418–1436. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.019 5. Wojan TR, Crown D, Rupasingha A. Varieties of innovation and business survival: does pursuit of incremental or far-ranging innovation make manufacturing establishments more resilient? Res Policy. 2018;47(9):1801–1810. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.011 6. Cefis E, Marsili O. Good times, bad times: innovation and survival over the business cycle. Ind Corporate Change. 2019;28(3):565–587. doi:10.1093/icc/dty072 7. Exposito A, Sanchis-Llopis JA. Innovation and business performance for Spanish SMEs: new evidence from a multi-dimensional approach. Int Small Bus J. 2018;36(8):911–931. doi:10.1177/0266242618782596 8. Hendayana Y, Ahman E, Mulyadi H. The effect of innovation on business competitiveness of small and medium enterprise in Indonesia.Paper presented at: 2019 International Conference on Organizational Innovation (ICOI 19); 2019. 9. Kiveu MN, Namusonge M, Muathe S. Effect of innovation on firm competitiveness: the case of manufacturing SMEs in Nairobi County, Kenya. Int J Bus Innovation Res. 2019;18(3):307–327. doi:10.1504/IJBIR.2019.098251 10. Frishammar J, Richtnér A, Brattström A, Magnusson M, Björk J. Opportunities and challenges in the new innovation landscape: implications for innovation auditing and innovation management. Eur Manage J. 2019;37(2):151–164. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2018.05.002 11. Hou X, Li W, Yuan Q. Frontline disruptive leadership and new generation employees' innovative behaviour in China: the moderating role of emotional intelligence. Asia Pacif Bus Rev. 2018;24(4):459–471. doi:10.1080/13602381.2018.1451126 12. Sanz-Valle R, Jiménez-Jiménez D. HRM and product innovation: does innovative work behaviour mediate that relationship? Manage Decis. 2018;56(6):1417–1429. doi:10.1108/MD-04-2017-0404 13. Kahn KB. Understanding innovation. Bus Horiz. 2018;61(3):453–460. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011 14. Hosking DM, Anderson N. Organizational Change and Innovation: Psychological Perspectives and Practices in Europe. Routledge; 2018. 15. Bos-Nehles AC, Veenendaal AA. Perceptions of HR practices and innovative work behavior: the moderating effect of an innovative climate. Int J Human Res Manage. 2019;30(18):2661–2683. doi:10.1080/09585192.2017.1380680 16. Bednall TC, E. Rafferty A, Shipton H, Sanders K, J. Jackson C. Innovative behaviour: how much transformational leadership do you need? Br J Manage. 2018;29(4):796–816. doi:10.1111/bjom.2018.29.issue-4 17. Xerri MJ, Reid SR. Human resources and innovative behaviour: improving nursing performance. Int J Innovation Manage. 2018;22(02):1850019. doi:10.1142/S1363919618500196 18. Černe M, Batistič S, Kenda R. HR systems, attachment styles with leaders, and the creativity–innovation nexus. Human Res Manage Rev. 2018;28(3):271–288. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.02.004 19. Ismail A, Mydin AA. The impact of transformational leadership and commitment on teachers' innovative behaviour.Paper presented at: 4th ASEAN Conference on Psychology, Counselling, and Humanities (ACPCH 2018); 2019. 20. Laguna M, Walachowska K, Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn MJ, Moriano JA. Authentic leadership and employees' innovative behaviour: a multilevel investigation in three countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(21):4201. doi:10.3390/ijerph16214201 21. Faraz NA, Yanxia C, Ahmed F, Estifo ZG, Raza A. The influence of transactional leadership on innovative work behavior—a mediation model. Eur J Bus Social Sci. 2018;7(01):51–62. 22. Tung F-C. Does innovation leadership enhance creativity in high-tech industries? Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2016;37(5):579–592. doi:10.1108/LODJ-09-2014-0170 23. Gumusluoğlu L, Ilsev A. Transformational leadership and organizational innovation: the roles of internal and external support for innovation. J Prod Innovation Manage. 2009;26(3):264–277. doi:10.1111/jpim.2009.26.issue-3 24. Rousseau V, Aubé C, Tremblay S. Team coaching and innovation in work teams: an examination of the motivational and behavioral intervening mechanisms. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2013;34(4):344–364. doi:10.1108/LODJ-08-2011-0073 25. Renko M, El Tarabishy A, Carsrud AL, Brännback M. Understanding and measuring entrepreneurial leadership style. J Small Bus Manage. 2015;53(1):54–74. doi:10.1111/jsbm.2015.53.issue-1 26. Hansen JA, Pihl-Thingvad S. Managing employee innovative behaviour through transformational and transactional leadership styles. Publ Manage Rev. 2019;21(6):918–944. doi:10.1080/14719037.2018.1544272 27. Zaech S, Baldegger U. Leadership in start-ups. Int Small Bus J. 2017;35(2):157–177. doi:10.1177/0266242616676883 28. Amankwaa A, Gyensare MA, Susomrith P. Transformational leadership with innovative behaviour: examining multiple mediating paths with PLS-SEM. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2019. doi:10.1108/LODJ-10-2018-0358 29. Hammond MM, Neff NL, Farr JL, Schwall AR, Zhao X. Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aesthetics Creativity Arts. 2011;5(1):90. doi:10.1037/a0018556 30. Pieterse AN, Van Knippenberg D, Schippers M, Stam D. Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: the moderating role of psychological empowerment. J Organ Behav. 2010;31(4):609–623. doi:10.1002/job.650 31. Miao Q, Newman A, Lamb P. Transformational leadership and the work outcomes of Chinese migrant workers: the mediating effects of identification with leader. Leadership. 2012;8(4):377–395. doi:10.1177/1742715012444055 32. Pundt A. The relationship between humorous leadership and innovative behavior. J Managerial Psychol. 2015;30(8):878–893. doi:10.1108/JMP-03-2013-0082 33. Basu R, Green SG. Leader‐member exchange and transformational leadership: an empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader‐member dyads. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1997;27(6):477–499. doi:10.1111/jasp.1997.27.issue-6 34. Bono JE, Judge TA. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(5):901. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.901 35. Herrmann D, Felfe J. Effects of leadership style, creativity technique and personal initiative on employee creativity. Br J Manage. 2014;25(2):209–227. doi:10.1111/bjom.2014.25.issue-2 36. Bagheri A. The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation work behavior and opportunity recognition in high-technology SMEs. J High Technol Manage Res. 2017;28(2):159–166. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2017.10.003 37. Douglass A. Redefining leadership: lessons from an early education leadership development initiative. Early Childhood Educ J. 2018;46(4):387–396. doi:10.1007/s10643-017-0871-9 38. Chen Y, Tang G, Jin J, Xie Q, Li J. CEO s' transformational leadership and product innovation performance: the roles of corporate entrepreneurship and technology orientation. J Prod Innovation Manage. 2014;31:2–17. doi:10.1111/jpim.2014.31.issue-s1 39. Ma L, Tsui AS. Traditional Chinese philosophies and contemporary leadership. Leadersh Q. 2015;26(1):13–24. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.11.008 40. Xie Y, Xue W, Li L, et al. Leadership style and innovation atmosphere in enterprises: an empirical study. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2018;135:257–265. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.017 41. Gupta V, MacMillan IC, Surie G. Entrepreneurial leadership: developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. J Bus Venturing. 2004;19(2):241–260. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00040-5 42. Fernald LW, Solomon GT, Tarabishy A. A new paradigm: entrepreneurial leadership. South Bus Rev. 2005;30(2):1–10. 43. Kuratko DF. Entrepreneurial leadership in the 21st century: guest editor's perspective. J Leadership Organizational Stud. 2007;13(4):1–11. doi:10.1177/10717919070130040201 44. Koryak O, Mole KF, Lockett A, Hayton JC, Ucbasaran D, Hodgkinson GP. Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities and firm growth. Int Small Bus J. 2015;33(1):89–105. doi:10.1177/0266242614558315 45. Leitch CM, McMullan C, Harrison RT. The development of entrepreneurial leadership: the role of human, social and institutional capital. Br J Manage. 2013;24(3):347–366. doi:10.1111/bjom.2013.24.issue-3 46. Bagheri A, Pihie ZAL. Entrepreneurial leadership: towards a model for learning and development. Human Res Dev Int. 2011;14(4):447–463. doi:10.1080/13678868.2011.601594 47. Dean H, Ford J. Discourses of entrepreneurial leadership: exposing myths and exploring new approaches. Int Small Bus J. 2017;35(2):178–196. doi:10.1177/0266242616668389 48. Obschonka M, Fisch C. Entrepreneurial personalities in political leadership. Small Bus Econ. 2018;50(4):851–869. doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9901-7 49. Miles MP, Morrison M. An effectual leadership perspective for developing rural entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Bus Econ. 2018;1–17. 50. Tlaiss HA, Kauser S. Entrepreneurial leadership, patriarchy, gender, and identity in the Arab world: lebanon in focus. J Small Bus Manage. 2019;57(2):517–537. doi:10.1111/jsbm.v57.2 51. Paudel S. Entrepreneurial leadership and business performance. South Asian J Bus Stud. 2019;8:348–369. doi:10.1108/SAJBS-11-2018-0136 52. Leitch CM, Volery T. Entrepreneurial leadership: insights and directions. Int Small Bus J. 2017;35(2):147–156. doi:10.1177/0266242616681397 53. Newman A, Herman H, Schwarz G, Nielsen I. The effects of employees' creative self-efficacy on innovative behavior: the role of entrepreneurial leadership. J Bus Res. 2018;89:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.001 54. Zainol FA, Daud WNW, Shamsu L, Abubakar HS, Halim HA. A linkage between entrepreneurial leadership and SMEs performance: an integrated review. Int J Acad Res Bus Social Sci. 2018;8(4):104–118. doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i4/4000 55. Cai W, Lysova EI, Khapova SN, Bossink BA. Does entrepreneurial leadership foster creativity among employees and teams? The mediating role of creative efficacy beliefs. J Bus Psychol. 2019;34(2):203–217. doi:10.1007/s10869-018-9536-y 56. Abubakar LS, Zainol FA, Daud WNBW. Entrepreneurial leadership and performance of small and medium sized enterprises: a structural equation modelling approach. J Int Bus Entrepreneurship Develt. 2018;11(2):163–186. doi:10.1504/JIBED.2018.091220 57. Chen MH. Entrepreneurial leadership and new ventures: creativity in entrepreneurial teams. Creativity Innov Manage. 2007;16(3):239–249. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00439.x 58. Kang JH, Solomon GT, Choi DY. CEOs' leadership styles and managers' innovative behaviour: investigation of intervening effects in an entrepreneurial context. J Manage Stud. 2015;52(4):531–554. doi:10.1111/joms.12125 59. Kang JH, Matusik JG, Kim T-Y, Phillips JM. Interactive effects of multiple organizational climates on employee innovative behavior in entrepreneurial firms: a cross-level investigation. J Bus Venturing. 2016;31(6):628–642. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.08.002 60. Kim MY, Park SM, Miao Q. Entrepreneurial leadership and organizational innovation: improving attitudes and behaviors of Chinese public employees. Pub Serv Innovations China. 2017;151–184. 61. Shea CM, Howell JM. Efficacy-performance spirals: an empirical test. J Manage. 2000;26(4):791–812. doi:10.1177/014920630002600409 62. Bandura A. Self‐efficacy. Corsini Encycl Psychol. 2010;1–3. 63. Karwowski M, Kaufman JC, Lebuda I, Szumski G, Firkowska-Mankiewicz A. Intelligence in childhood and creative achievements in middle-age: the necessary condition approach. Intelligence. 2017;64:36–44. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.07.001 64. Tierney P, Farmer SM. Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. J Appl Psychol. 2011;96(2):277. doi:10.1037/a0020952 65. Gupta V, Singh S. Psychological capital as a mediator of the relationship between leadership and creative performance behaviors: empirical evidence from the Indian R&D sector. Int J Human Res Manage. 2014;25(10):1373–1394. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.870311 66. LH MICHAEL, ST HOU, HL FAN. Creative self‐efficacy and innovative behavior in a service setting: optimism as a moderator. J Creat Behav. 2011;45(4):258–272. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01430.x 67. Jaussi KS, Dionne SD. Leading for creativity: the role of unconventional leader behavior. Leadersh Q. 2003;14(4–5):475–498. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00048-1 68. Ng TW, Lucianetti L. Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: a social–cognitive theory perspective. J Appl Psychol. 2016;101(1):14. doi:10.1037/apl0000029 69. Liu D, Jiang K, Shalley CE, Keem S, Zhou J. Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: a meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2016;137:236–263. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001 70. Chen CC, Greene PG, Crick A. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? J Bus Venturing. 1998;13(4):295–316. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3 71. Ozgen E, Baron RA. Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums. J Bus Venturing. 2007;22(2):174–192. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.12.001 72. Forbes DP. The effects of strategic decision making on entrepreneurial self–efficacy. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2005;29(5):599–626. doi:10.1111/etap.2005.29.issue-5 73. Boyd NG, Vozikis GS. The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 1994;18(4):63–77. doi:10.1177/104225879401800404 74. Jung DD, Wu A, Chow CW. Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of CEOs' transformational leadership on firm innovation. Leadersh Q. 2008;19(5):582–594. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.007 75. Jung DI, Chow C, Wu A. The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings. Leadersh Q. 2003;14(4–5):525–544. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00050-X 76. Oke A, Munshi N, Walumbwa FO. The influence of leadership on innovation processes and activities. Organ Dyn. 2009;38(1):64–72. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.10.005 77. Jaiswal NK, Dhar RL. Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity: a multilevel study. Int J Hospitality Manage. 2015;51:30–41. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.002 78. Richter AW, Hirst G, Van Knippenberg D, Baer M. Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: cross-level interactions with team informational resources. J Appl Psychol. 2012;97(6):1282. doi:10.1037/a0029359 79. De Jong JP, Den Hartog DN. How leaders influence employees' innovative behaviour. Eur J Innov Manage. 2007;10(1):41–64. doi:10.1108/14601060710720546 80. Khan MJ, Aslam N, Riaz MN. Leadership styles as predictors of innovative work behavior. Pak J Social Clin Psychol. 2012;9:2. 81. De Jong J. Individual Innovation: The Connection Between Leadership and Employees' Innovative Work Behavior. EIM Business and Policy Research; 2006. 82. Bagheri A, Akbari M. The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on nurses' innovation behavior. J Nurs Scholarship. 2018;50(1):28–35. doi:10.1111/jnu.2018.50.issue-1 83. De Jong J, Den Hartog D. Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity Innov Manage. 2010;19(1):23–36. doi:10.1111/caim.2010.19.issue-1 84. Middlebrooks T. Creativity and innovation: provoking ideas for leadership. J Leadership Studies. 2015;9(3):42–44. doi:10.1002/jls.2015.9.issue-3 85. Ng TW, Feldman DC. Age and innovation‐related behavior: the joint moderating effects of supervisor undermining and proactive personality. J Organ Behav. 2013;34(5):583–606. doi:10.1002/job.1802 86. Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Mura M, Spiller N. Knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviour in healthcare: a micro‐level investigation of direct and indirect effects. Creativity Innov Manage. 2014;23(4):400–414. doi:10.1111/caim.2014.23.issue-4 87. Currie G, Humphreys M, Ucbasaran D, McManus S. Entrepreneurial leadership in the English public sector: paradox or possibility? Public Adm. 2008;86(4):987–1008. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00736.x 88. Freeman D, Siegfried JRL. Entrepreneurial leadership in the context of company start‐up and growth. J Leadership Stud. 2015;8(4):35–39. doi:10.1002/jls.2015.8.issue-4 89. Huang S, Ding D. Entrepreneurial leadership and performance in Chinese new ventures: a moderated mediation model of exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and environmental dynamism. Creativity Innov Manage. 2014;23(4):453–471. doi:10.1111/caim.12085 90. Surie G, Ashley A. Integrating pragmatism and ethics in entrepreneurial leadership for sustainable value creation. J Bus Ethics. 2008;81(1):235–246. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9491-4 91. Fontana A, Musa S. The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation management and its measurement validation. Int J Innovation Sci. 2017;9(1):2–19. doi:10.1108/IJIS-05-2016-0004 92. Freeman M. A theory of terrorist leadership (and its consequences for leadership targeting). Terrorism Political Violence. 2014;26(4):666–687. doi:10.1080/09546553.2012.751912 93. Choi SB, Kim K, Kang S-W. Effects of transformational and shared leadership styles on employees' perception of team effectiveness. Social Behav Personality. 2017;45(3):377–386. doi:10.2224/sbp.5805 94. Simsek Z, Jansen JJP, Minichilli A, Escriba-Esteve A. Strategic leadership and leaders in entrepreneurial contexts: a nexus for innovation and impact missed? J Manage Stud. 2015;52(4):463–478. doi:10.1111/joms.12134 95. Harrison R, Leitch C, McAdam M. Breaking glass: toward a gendered analysis of entrepreneurial leadership. J Small Bus Manage. 2015;53(3):693–713. doi:10.1111/jsbm.2015.53.issue-3 96. Ehrhart MG, Schneider B, Macey WH. Organizational Climate and Culture: An Introduction to Theory, Research, and Practice. Routledge; 2013. 97. Schneider B, Ehrhart MG, Macey WH. Organizational climate and culture. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:361–388. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809 98. Van Der Vegt GS, Bunderson JS. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification. Acad Manage J. 2005;48(3):532–547. doi:10.5465/amj.2005.17407918 99. Burns J. Leadership Harper & row Vol 181. New York; 1978. 100. Richer SF, Vallerand RJ. Supervisors' interactional styles and subordinates' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. J Soc Psychol. 1995;135(6):707–722. doi:10.1080/00224545.1995.9713974 101. Yukl G, Mahsud R. Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting Psychol J. 2010;62(2):81. doi:10.1037/a0019835 102. Wang YX, Yang YJ, Wang Y, et al. The mediating role of inclusive leadership: work engagement and innovative behaviour among Chinese head nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2019;27(4):688–696. doi:10.1111/jonm.12754 103. Mayfield M, Mayfield J. The effects of leader communication on worker innovation. Am Bus Rev. 2004;22(2):46. 104. Cheung MF, Wong C-S. Transformational leadership, leader support, and employee creativity. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2011;32(7):656–672. doi:10.1108/01437731111169988 105. Pradhan S, Jena LK. Does meaningful work explains the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour? Vikalpa. 2019;44(1):30–40. doi:10.1177/0256090919832434 106. Skinner J, Smith AC, Swanson S. Championing innovation: leadership approaches for fostering innovative environments. Fostering Innovative Cultures Sport. 2018;177–207. 107. Sethibe T, Steyn R. The impact of leadership styles and the components of leadership styles on innovative behaviour. Int J Innovation Manage. 2017;21(02):1750015. doi:10.1142/S1363919617500153 108. Javed B, Naqvi SMMR, Khan AK, Arjoon S, Tayyeb HH. Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: the role of psychological safety. J Manage Organ. 2017;25:1–20. 109. Bani-Melhem S, Zeffane R, Albaity M. Determinants of employees' innovative behavior. Int J Contemp Hospitality Manage. 2018;30(3):1601–1620. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-02-2017-0079 110. Ng TW, Wang M. An actor–partner interdependence model of employees' and coworkers' innovative behavior, psychological detachment, and strain reactions. Pers Psychol. 2019;72(3):445–476. doi:10.1111/peps.12317 111. Mumford MD, Hunter ST, Byrne CL. What is the fundamental? The role of cognition in creativity and innovation. Ind Organ Psychol. 2009;2(3):353–356. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01158.x 112. Shanker R, Bhanugopan R, Van der Heijden BI, Farrell M. Organizational climate for innovation and organizational performance: the mediating effect of innovative work behavior. J Vocat Behav. 2017;100:67–77. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.004 113. Williams F, Foti RJ. Formally developing creative leadership as a driver of organizational innovation. Adv Develop Human Res. 2011;13(3):279–296. doi:10.1177/1523422311424702 114. Al-Hawari MA, Bani-Melhem S, Shamsudin FM. Determinants of frontline employee service innovative behavior. Manage Res Rev. 2019;42:1076–1094. doi:10.1108/MRR-07-2018-0266 115. Wang P, Rode JC, Shi K, Luo Z, Chen W. A workgroup climate perspective on the relationships among transformational leadership, workgroup diversity, and employee creativity. Group Organ Manage. 2013;38(3):334–360. doi:10.1177/1059601113488163 116. Kruft T, Gamber M, Kock A. Substitutes or complements? The role of corporate incubator support and innovation climate for innovative behavior in the hosting firm. Int J Innovation Manage. 2018;22(05):1840006. doi:10.1142/S1363919618400066 117. Mokhber M, Khairuzzaman W, Vakilbashi A. Leadership and innovation: the moderator role of organization support for innovative behaviors. J Manage Organ. 2018;24(1):108–128. doi:10.1017/jmo.2017.26 118. Hmieleski KM, Corbett AC. The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational behavior with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and entrepreneur work satisfaction. J Bus Venturing. 2008;23(4):482–496. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.04.002 119. Zhao H, Seibert SE, Hills GE. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(6):1265. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265 120. Shinnar RS, Hsu DK, Powell BC. Self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, and gender: assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education longitudinally. Int J Manage Educ. 2014;12(3):561–570. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2014.09.005 121. Piperopoulos P, Dimov D. Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. J Small Bus Manage. 2015;53(4):970–985. doi:10.1111/jsbm.12116 122. Austin MJ, Nauta MM. Entrepreneurial role-model exposure, self-efficacy, and women's entrepreneurial intentions. J Career Dev. 2016;43(3):260–272. doi:10.1177/0894845315597475 123. Markman GD, Baron RA, Balkin DB. Are perseverance and self‐efficacy costless? Assessing entrepreneurs' regretful thinking. J Organ Behavior. 2005;26(1):1–19. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 124. Schmitt A, Rosing K, Zhang SX, Leatherbee M. A dynamic model of entrepreneurial uncertainty and business opportunity identification: exploration as a mediator and entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a moderator. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2018;42(6):835–859. doi:10.1177/1042258717721482 125. Baron RA, Tang J. The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. J Bus Venturing. 2011;26(1):49–60. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.002 126. Huang Y-F, Chen C-J. The impact of technological diversity and organizational slack on innovation. Technovation. 2010;30(7–8):420–428. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.01.004 127. Mokhber M, Tan GG, Vakilbashi A, Zamil NAM, Basiruddin R. Impact of entrepreneurial leadership on organization demand for innovation: moderating role of employees' innovative self-efficacy. Int Rev Manage Marketing. 2016;6(3):415–421. 128. Newman A, Obschonka M, Schwarz S, Cohen M, Nielsen I. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: a systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. J Vocat Behav. 2019;110:403–419. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.012 129. Miao C, Qian S, Ma D. The relationship between entrepreneurial self‐efficacy and firm performance: a meta‐analysis of main and moderator effects. J Small Bus Manage. 2017;55(1):87–107. doi:10.1111/jsbm.2017.55.issue-1 130. Walumbwa FO, Christensen-Salem A, Hsu I-C, Misati E. Creative self-efficacy and creative performance: understanding the underlying mechanisms.Paper presented at: Academy of Management Proceedings; 2018. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2018.75 131. McGee JE, Peterson M. The long‐term impact of entrepreneurial self‐efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation on venture performance. J Small Bus Manage. 2019;57(3):720–737. doi:10.1111/jsbm.v57.3 132. Chen Y, Zhou X. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firms' innovation behavior: the negative mediating role of social capital. Social Behav Personality. 2017;45(9):1553–1562. doi:10.2224/sbp.6734 133. Mauer R, Neergaard H, Linstad AK. Self-efficacy: conditioning the entrepreneurial mindset. Revisiting Entrepreneurial Mind. 2017;24:293–317. 134. Tsai K-H, Chang H-C, Peng C-Y. Extending the link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention: a moderated mediation model. Int Entrepreneurship Manage J. 2016;12(2):445–463. doi:10.1007/s11365-014-0351-2 135. Cumberland DM, Meek WR, Germain R. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm performance in challenging environments: evidence from the franchise context. J Develop Entrepreneurship. 2015;20(01):1550004. doi:10.1142/S1084946715500041 136. Ozgen E. How can foundations facilitate entrepreneurial activities? J Manage Policy Pract. 2017;18:4. 137. Khedhaouria A, Gurău C, Torrès O. Creativity, self-efficacy, and small-firm performance: the mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Small Bus Econ. 2015;44(3):485–504. doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9608-y 138. Tang J. Environmental munificence for entrepreneurs: entrepreneurial alertness and commitment. Int J Entrepreneurial Behavior Res. 2008;14(3):128–151. doi:10.1108/13552550810874664 139. Ahlin B, Drnovšek M, Hisrich RD. Entrepreneurs' creativity and firm innovation: the moderating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Small Bus Econ. 2014;43(1):101–117. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9531-7 140. Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Macmillan; 1997. 141. Tierney P, Farmer SM. Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Acad Manage j. 2002;45(6):1137–1148. 142. Yang H-L, Cheng -H-H. Creative self-efficacy and its factors: an empirical study of information system analysts and programmers. Comput Human Behav. 2009;25(2):429–438. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.005 143. McGee JE, Peterson M, Mueller SL, Sequeira JM. Entrepreneurial self‐efficacy: refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2009;33(4):965–988. doi:10.1111/etap.2009.33.issue-4 144. Kickul J, Gundry LK, Barbosa SD, Whitcanack L. Intuition versus analysis? Testing differential models of cognitive style on entrepreneurial self–efficacy and the new venture creation process. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2009;33(2):439–453. doi:10.1111/etap.2009.33.issue-2 145. Hmieleski KM, Baron RA. When does entrepreneurial self‐efficacy enhance versus reduce firm performance? Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 2008;2(1):57–72. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1932-443X 146. Indrawati NK, Salim U, Djawahir AH, Djawahir AH. Moderation effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in relation between environmental dimensions and entrepreneurial alertness and the effect on entrepreneurial commitment. Procedia-Social Behav Sci. 2015;169:13–22. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.281 147. Montani F, Battistelli A, Odoardi C. Proactive goal generation and innovative work behavior: the moderating role of affective commitment, production ownership and leader support for innovation. J Creat Behav. 2017;51(2):107–127. doi:10.1002/jocb.2017.51.issue-2 148. Odoardi C, Battistelli A, Montani F, Peiró JM. Affective commitment, participative leadership, and employee innovation: a multilevel investigation. J Work Organ Psychol. 2019;35(2):103–113. 149. Birdi K, Leach D, Magadley W. The relationship of individual capabilities and environmental support with different facets of designers' innovative behavior. J Prod Innovation Manage. 2016;33(1):19–35. doi:10.1111/jpim.12250 150. Lindell MK, Whitney DJ. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(1):114. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 151. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 152. Abbas M, Raja U, Darr W, Bouckenooghe D. Combined effects of perceived politics and psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. J Manage. 2014;40(7):1813–1830. doi:10.1177/0149206312455243 153. Patterson MG, West MA, Shackleton VJ, et al. Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. J Organ Behav. 2005;26(4):379–408. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 154. Scott SG, Bruce R. Creating innovative behavior among R&D professionals: the moderating effect of leadership on the relationship between problem-solving style and innovation.Paper presented at: Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference-IEMC'941994. 155. Prodan I, Drnovsek M. Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: an empirical test. Technovation. 2010;30(5–6):332–347. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.02.002 156. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 157. Aiken LS, West SG, Reno RR. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage; 1991. 158. Cohen A. Comparing regression coefficients across subsamples: a study of the statistical test. Sociol Methods Res. 1983;12(1):77–94. doi:10.1177/0049124183012001003 159. Middlebrooks A. Introduction—entrepreneurial leadership across contexts. J Leadership Studies. 2015;8(4):27–29. doi:10.1002/jls.2015.8.issue-4 160. Simba A, Thai MTT. Advancing entrepreneurial leadership as a practice in MSME management and development. J Small Bus Manage. 2018;57:397–416. 161. Magazi ST. The Impact of Entrepreneurial Leadership Competencies on Business Success for SME Start-Up and Growing Business Ventures in Namibia. Regent University; 2019. 162. Karol RA. Leadership in the context of corporate entrepreneurship. J Leadership Studies. 2015;8(4):30–34. doi:10.1002/jls.2015.8.issue-4 163. Alabduljader N, Solomon GT, Kang JH, Choi DY. Cognitive styles and entrepreneurial intentions: a cross-cultural comparison.Paper presented at: Academy of Management Proceedings; 2018. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2018.10402abstract 164. Choi SB, Kim K, Ullah SE, Kang S-W. How transformational leadership facilitates innovative behavior of Korean workers: examining mediating and moderating processes. Personnel Rev. 2016;45(3):459–479. doi:10.1108/PR-03-2014-0058 165. Kang JH, Solomon GT, Choi DY. Leadership and innovative behavior: intervening effects in an entrepreneurial context.Paper presented at: Academy of Management Proceedings; 2013. doi:10.5465/ambpp.2013.16406abstract 166. Maertz CPJr, Bauer TN, Mosley DCJr, Posthuma RA, Campion MA. Predictors of self-efficacy for cognitive ability employment testing. J Bus Res. 2005;58(2):160–167. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00111-5

Introduction In transitioning economies, like China, the competitive business environment has made it challenging for the entrepreneurial-based high-tech small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to survive and grow. In such a turbulent environment, organizations that want to be successful, have to rethink about their priorities to align their business models with technological changes.^1–3 In this scenario, innovation has been acknowledged as an influential impelling cause for the survival, success and competitiveness of high-tech organizations.^4–9 However, it has become challenging for business leaders to encourage their members to leave the traditional way of thinking and task performance, and to devote their energy to creating innovative ideas.¹⁰ Innovation comes out when the employees working at all levels of organizational hierarchical structure show innovative work behavior, and devote their efforts to developing, promoting and implementing new ideas in the workplace.^11–15 A large number of research studies have been devoted to explore the antecedents of employees’ innovative work behavior, and in this context the characteristics of the business leaders are deemed to be more essential in influencing the employees’ work behavior and performance.^16–18 Numerous studies have suggested that leadership plays a critical role in shaping and promoting innovative work behaviors in all kind of industrial settings.^19–21 Precisely, Tung,²² Gumusluoğlu, Ilsev,²³ Rousseau, Aubé, Tremblay²⁴ proposed that employee innovative behavior is not produced automatically, but the leaders shape such behaviors by supporting and encouraging them during the creative process. Even though a large number of studies have explored the critical role of leadership in driving innovation, there is a limited understanding for different leadership styles that effectively augment employees’ creativity and innovative behavior at work.^25,26 Further, the studies on leadership are inconclusive as some of them stated a strong positive relationship between different leadership styles and employees’ innovative behavior,^16,27,28 while other suggested weak or insignificant association between these two variables.^29–32 Basu and Green³³ and Bono and Judge³⁴ proclaimed that there is an adverse association between different leadership styles and employees’ innovative behavior. In such a vague scenario, scholars as well as practitioners demand conclusive judgments on the expediency of different leadership styles to enable employees’ participation in the challenging practices of an innovation process. Scholars have questioned the practicability of leadership styles in augmenting innovation, and it is mostly because of the general leadership styles (eg, transformational/transactional) are not particularly designed to facilitate and promote employees’ innovative work behavior.³⁵ Furthermore, these leadership styles do not determine the distinct characteristics and behaviors that leaders should adopt to direct the innovation process through new ideas generation, and implementation within the organization.^36,37 The leaders should develop new leadership capabilities in order to stimulate innovative behaviors and lead the innovation process in their organizations.^38–40 In the last two decades entrepreneurial leadership (EL), along with other leadership styles, has become a hot topic for discussion and has gained wide scholarly attention in the entrepreneurship and leadership domain.^41–51 However, focusing on organizational context, further studies of EL in a wide range of entrepreneurial and SME contexts (size, stage of development, sector) is needed.⁵² Studies by Renko, El Tarabishy, et al²⁵ and Gupta et al⁴¹ offered a comprehensive EL construct, arguing that this leadership influences and directs the synergetic performance of group members toward accomplishing those organizational goals that relate to recognizing and exploiting contingencies, which ultimately influence the success of EL. Drawing from the notion of “cast enactment” in EL theory proposed by Gupta et al⁴¹ large numbers of the studies^53–57 have suggested EL as the most influential factor for innovative behavior, and highlighted its importance in stimulating and fostering innovation in highly dynamic and competitive business environments. So, it is critical to understand the mechanisms through which EL influences employees’ innovative work behavior, and stimulates innovation performance of the organization.^58–60 Based on social cognitive theory (SCT), the present study will help us to understand the mechanism through which EL influences employees’ innovative work behavior. This theory established the existence of a mutual relationship among individual characteristics, behavioral factors, and environmental factors.⁶¹ As per SCT, individuals having a high self-efficacy level are found to perform more risky and challenging tasks in comparison with individuals having low self-efficacy, who perceive the challenging tasks as uncertain and dangerous.⁶² The previous studies of Karwowski et al⁶³ and Tierney and Farmer⁶⁴ have confirmed that employees’ self-efficacy, especially entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE), augments the innovative behavior and creative performance of employees^64–68 and also enhances their creativity.⁶⁹ Until now, most of the studies on ESE have focused on examining the direct impact of ESE on different entrepreneurial outcomes, for instance: entrepreneurial intentions;⁷⁰ opportunity recognition;⁷¹ and firm innovative performance.⁷² The theory of ESE⁷³ suggested that one can examine the mediating or moderating role of ESE between the association of antecedents and entrepreneurial outcomes. When we study the literature on leadership, we come to know that leadership behaviors occur in the context of organization and analyzing a bivariate relationship that would be incomplete without considering the organizational context in which organizational innovation takes place.⁷⁴ Therefore it is necessary to identify and examine factors that may interact with leadership behaviors in affecting organizational innovation.^75,76 Drawing from the previous literature,^77,78 we proposed that ESE strengthens the positive impact of EL on employees’ innovative work behavior. As the previous studies have not shown interest in investigating the moderating role of ESE,⁷⁷ this work will be insightful to examine the effects of EL toward employees’ innovative behavior through the moderating path of ESE, and ultimately will extend the existing body of knowledge. Drawing from the research studies conducted by Kang et al⁵⁸ and Jaiswal and Dhar,⁷⁷ we also proposed that a firm’s innovative environment can mediate the relationship of EL and employees’ innovative behavior. The rest of the paper is organized in the following sections. In the first section, we have reviewed the literature in the context of EL, ESE, a firm’s environment and employees’ innovation behavior, and thereafter hypotheses of study are proposed. In the second part, the study has detailed research methodology and empirical findings. In the third part of the study, we have discussed the research findings in the light of its theoretical and practical implications, and end the paper with its limitations, future endeavors and conclusion. Theoretical Background Entrepreneurial Leadership and Innovative Work Behavior In a highly dynamic and competitive business environment, leaders play a critical role for the survival, success and growth of their business by directing the innovation process.^79–81 The literature on EL has acknowledged that the entrepreneurial leaders not only create new ideas themselves but also facilitate and encourage their employees to show their potentials in solving complex issues and performing challenging task through innovative means.^45,55,57,82 With their distinct characteristics, the leaders also develop employees’ commitment and persistence to encourage their coworkers to generate new ideas and gain their support to realize them.^83–86 At an organizational level, directing the innovation process is a challenging task for business leaders as they have to facilitate perpetual new idea generation and exploitation. To lead the innovation process, a leader has to create a promising environment in which all the employees can be encouraged to participate in innovative practices and to engage in the generation and exploitation of new ideas.⁷⁷ Literature proclaimed that EL is a strong influential factor to stimulate and improve employees’ innovative work behavior in a competitive business environment.^55,82 In a challenging business environment, an entrepreneurial leader can effectively direct the innovation process by facilitating their members in generating and realizing new ideas.⁸⁷ Characteristics of the entrepreneurial leader also effectively improve the impact of other leadership styles on the innovation process of their businesses.^53,60 The EL theory proposed that based on their functional abilities, entrepreneurial leaders not only enable but also stimulate their group members to discard their conventional way of performing the task and direct their energy toward execution of innovative and entrepreneurial actions.⁴¹ The entrepreneurial leaders also redesign their members’ perceptions of their competencies by involving them in developing new and innovative ideas, and building their confidence to implement these ideas.^88,89 The functional competencies of entrepreneurial leaders also empower them to intentionally inspire and regulate their members toward innovation.^25,90 The leaders of high-tech entrepreneurial-based organizations realize their vision through identifying and stimulating the potential competencies of their group members, enabling them to generate new ideas, and reshaping their behavior, thoughts, and attitudes of implementing new ideas.^{36,52,58,91–94} Entrepreneurial leaders also create a promising environment and encouraging culture in which all of the group members consider innovation as one of their priority tasks and show their persistence in the face of challenges inherited in the innovation process.^36,82,95 Most of the previous research has investigated the outcomes of EL in large firms and their findings may not be applicable to the highly challenging, complex and uncertain context of high-tech SMEs.⁵² For that reason, the present study has tested the following hypothesis to examine the impact of EL on employees’ innovative behavior in high-tech SMEs. H-1: Entrepreneurial leadership has a positive impact on employees’ innovation work behavior. The Mediation Effect of the Firm’s Innovative Environment Entrepreneurial Leadership and the Firm’s Innovative Environment The firm’s environment refers to a shared perception of employees about different kinds of behaviors and actions that are supposed to be rewarded in a particular organization.⁹⁶ The leaders of any organization play a critical role in forming and shaping the firm’s environment that leads to desirable behaviors and actions.⁹⁷ An innovative environment can be defined as “the shared perceptions of employees concerning the practices, procedures, and behaviors that promote the generation, introduction, and the realization of new ideas.”⁹⁸ The functional competencies of entrepreneurial leaders empower them to inspire and intentionally stimulate their employees to act in an innovative way,^99–101 which also influences them to be more receptive to that innovative environment generated by their leaders.¹⁰² Entrepreneurial leaders build confidence in their followers by allowing them to suggest new and innovative business ideas without any hesitation or fear.^103−105 For instance, Kang et al⁵⁸ reasoned that there is a significant association between EL behavior and a firm’s innovative environment – that has a contextual impact on employees’ behavior in workplaces, supports the innovative struggles of employees, and stops them from being reactive.¹⁰⁶ Thus, entrepreneurial leaders create such a promising innovative environment, which not only enables but also encourages their followers to be innovative, and find new and creative solutions to the problems encountered in the workplace.^107,108 A Firm’s Innovative Environment and Innovative Work Behavior Literature states that there are many contextual factors that also contribute to the individual’s innovative behavior.¹⁰⁹ For example, it has acknowledged that most of the employees shape or regulate their behavioral patterns by observing their immediate supervisors and coworkers, and following the behavioral norms of the firm.^110,111 That is to say, when the overall organizational environment will helpful to augment employees’ innovative behavior, employees of that organization will normally attempt to follow these embedded norms and will act innovatively^112,113 by watching their coworkers and leaders’ innovative behavior.^114,115 Once a particular environment is sustained in the firm, it becomes a guiding principle for an innovative work process that not only guides but also leads to more innovative behavior.^115,116 In summary, the leaders who recognize an innovative firm’s environment are found to be more empowered, and they exploit their intellectual assets to succeed in a dynamic and challenging business environment, and thus exhibit innovative behavior.^15,117 Taken together with all of the arguments, we have proposed the second hypothesis as follows: H-2: A firm’s innovative environment mediates the relationship between EL and employees’ innovative work behavior. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Innovative Work Behavior Until now ESE has gained a lot of scholarly attention in entrepreneurship literature because of its important entrepreneurial outcomes.^70,118–122 Authors such as Markman et al ¹²³ and Schmitt et al ¹²⁴ have determined that ESE is one of the distinct features that has a direct influence on entrepreneurial pursuits, new venture performance, and personal success. Therefore, it is important for the scholars to devote more attention to explore and examine such influential factors. In examining the different mechanisms through which EL impact on employees’ innovative behavior, various researchers, for instance, Huang et al⁸⁹, Baron and Tang¹²⁵, and Huang and Chen¹²⁶ have emphasized that the relationship between EL and innovative behavior may moderate by many contextual factors. Even though EL is being acknowledged as a foundation for innovation, it is not sufficient by itself.¹²⁷ It generates only a potential for the novel and creative ideas⁸² that must be acted upon later. Previous literature suggests that individuals’ perceived belief of self-efficacy is a strong influential force for implementation of their intentions.¹²⁸ Self-efficacy refers to the degree an individual believes that he/she can efficiently perform tasks and actions to accomplish desired goals.¹²⁸ According to Miao et al¹²⁹ contingent to the belief of their self-efficacy, individuals with similar skills may perform poorly, adequately, or extraordinarily. Individuals with high self-efficacy for a specific task are more likely to pursue and then persist in that task than those individuals with low self-efficacy beliefs.¹³⁰ Entrepreneurship literature defines the ESE as the strength of an individual’s beliefs that he/she is proficient in effectively performing the different entrepreneurial tasks.^131,132 The literature of ESE has so far mostly focused on examining the direct impacts of ESE on different entrepreneurial outcomes, for instance: entrepreneurial intentions;^{121,122,133,134} opportunity recognition;^124,135,136 and firm performance.^129,131,137 Drawing from the theory of ESE, Boyd and Vozikis⁷³ proposed that one can examine the mediating or moderating role of ESE between the relationship of antecedents and entrepreneurial outcomes. The empirical study of Hmieleski and Corbett¹¹⁸ suggested that the relationship between an entrepreneur’s interpersonal behavior and venture performance is positively moderated by a high the level of ESE. Findings of Tang¹³⁸ advocate that a high level of ESE strengthens the positive relationship between environmental munificence and opportunity alertness. It also acknowledges that the entrepreneurs having strong ESE are likely to be more alert in recognition of market disequilibria, and to exploit the opportunities appropriately.¹³⁹ In previous studies, almost all of the research scholars have investigated the direct or mediating effect of ESE on employees’ creativity or innovative behavior and have not shown their interest in examining the moderation path for this variable. As suggested by Bandura,¹⁴⁰ the self-efficacy theory falls between two continuum (ie, general to specific). In general, the generalized self-efficacy remains stable, but it is acknowledged that when it moves toward specificity, it becomes sensitive toward personal and contextual factors.¹⁴⁰ Following Bandura’s two continuum concept, the creative/ESE falls within the continuum of specificity.^72,141 Thus, the creative/ESE is conditional to the personal and contextual factors^142–144 and may fall within the high and low continuum, which may moderate the mechanisms adopted to augment innovative behavior among the employees.^{77,127,139,145,146} Therefore, drawing from specific continuum of self-efficacy theory, it is suggested that ESE could play a moderating role in association between EL and employees’ innovative behavior. H-3: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy moderates the positive impact of EL on employees’ innovation work behavior. The theoretical framework (Figure 1) depicts all the hypothetical relationships among different variables of the study that were developed after an in-depth study of the relevant literature. Figure 1 Theoretical framework of the study.Notes: The theoretical framework summarizes the proposed relationship among different variables of study. The model suggests that the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership (EL) and employees’ innovative work behavior is mediated by the firm’s innovative environment. The model also proposed that the high level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy strengthens the relationship of EL and employees’ innovative behavior. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] Methodology Sample Design and the Data Collection The present study is based on the data collected from 350 supervisor–subordinate dyads working in cross-sectional technology-based SMEs operating in the Jiangsu province of China. Data was collected with the help of the master student enrolled in the department of management sciences of Jiangsu University, China. The Chinese students distibuted 500 questionnaires to supervisor–subordinate dyads of 50 high-tech SMEs operating across the major cities of Jiangsu province. The students met with supervisors and subordinates at different times, and offered them a cover letter indicating the voluntary of participation and confidentiality of their responses. We also made sure that we had randomly selected one subordinate for each supervisor. Data was collected from only those dyads who were directly involved in the idea generation, promotion, and implementation stages in their respective innovative jobs. The sample frame of the study consists of manufacturing, processing, designing, engineering, marketing, and product development departments as researchers have suggested that employees’ innovative work behavior is pertinent to these departments.^147–149 Data was collected over the two periods of time so as to minimize the effects of common method bias.^150,151 Both of the surveys were properly coded so that they could be matched and supervisor–subordinate dyads could be formed. After removing uncompleted surveys, our final sample comprises a total of 350 supervisor–subordinate dyads out of 500 surveys (70% response rate) and such a high response rate is common in self-administered surveys conducted in Asian contexts.¹⁵² The survey involved 47 supervisors who responded to the questionnaire on innovative work behavior of 350 subordinates, as the average span of control of each supervisor was approximately seven to eight subordinates. The demographics of the respondents stated that, out of the total participants, 270 (77.14%) were males and rest 80 (22.86%) were females. The average age of the respondents was 35.7 years with an SD of 7.45 years, while their average tenure with in the particular organization was 5.15 years with an SD of 3.45 years. Measurement Scales Entrepreneurial leadership: To measure the perceptions of subordinates toward EL practices of their immediate leaders, we have used an eight-item ENTRELEAD questionnaire which was developed by Renko et al.²⁵ The Cronbach’s alpha for this measurement scale was 0.89, which indicates a high degree of internal consistency. Innovative environment: To measure a firm’s innovative environment, we have utilized a three-item scale that was developed by Patterson et al¹⁵³ and Scott and Bruce.¹⁵⁴ Survey participants were asked to select a number from 1 through 5 that best describes their firm’s innovative environment (alpha 5 0.68). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The perception of employees’ ESE was measured using an eleven-item ESE scale that was developed by Chen et al⁷⁰ and also used previously in other studies.¹⁵⁵ Innovative work behavior: Employees’ innovative work behavior was measured by a ten-item measurement scale that was adopted from the study of De Jong and Den Hartog.⁸³ The leaders were asked to rate the frequency with which their subordinates displayed different behaviors on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“always”). Control variables: Empirical research on employees’ performance has specified that employees’ age, gender, education, and tenure in a particular organization may influence their performance,⁷⁵ and for that reason, we have considered employees’ age, gender, education, and organizational tenure as control variables in hypotheses testing. Analyses and the Results Assessment of Measurements’ Validity To assess the reliability and validity of all construct measures, conformity factor analyses (CFA) is performed using the software solution AMOS 21. CFA results for the EL measurement construct has specified a good fit, goodness-of-fit indexes: χ²/df=3.87; goodness of fit index (GFI)=0.978; comparative fit index (CFI)=0.986; normed fit index (NFI)=0.976; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA)=0.056; P Means, Standard Deviations, and Inter-Variable Correlations Before going to analyze the hypothetical relationship between different variables of research, the study has provided the descriptive statistics of the selected sample and inter-variable correlations for all of the subject variables. The means, standard deviations, and inter-variable correlations are presented in (Table 1). Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations and Inter-Variable Correlations [/RAW_REF_TEXT] Results of Mediation Analyses The hypothesis (H-2) of the study proposed that a firm’s innovative environment acts as a mediator between the relationship of EL and innovative work behavior. To investigate the mediation effect, we followed Baron and Kenny's¹⁵⁶ criteria which suggests the three conditions that must be met to advocate the mediating effect in a given association. First, the independent variable should significantly relate to the dependent variable; second, the independent variable should significantly relate to the mediator; third, when controlling the mediating variable, the relationship between independent and dependent variable must be much smaller than when the independent variable is the sole predictor. Accordingly, we test the second hypothesis, which stated the mediation effect, by investigating the effect of EL when firm’s innovative environment was entered into the model. As depicted in Model 3 of (Table 2), a firm’s innovative environment became a stronger predictor of employees’ innovative behavior (ΔR² = 0.21, P Table 2 Regression Analysis of Mediation for Innovation Work Behavior [/RAW_REF_TEXT] Hierarchical Regression Model for Moderation To simplify the interpretability of the interaction term (EL × ESE), we followed the hierarchical regression procedure (in which we entered control variables in the first step, in the second step we entered the main effects, and the interaction of independent and moderator come into the third step).¹⁵⁷ Moderation analyses (see Table 3) confirmed that ESE strengthens the positive effect of EL on employees’ innovative work behavior as the interaction term (EL × ESE) was found to be statistically significant and in the proposed direction (β=0.16, P =0.16, PFigure 2) to examine the nature of the influence of EL on innovative behavior with respect to the levels of an individual’s ESE.¹⁵⁸ The interaction term is illustrated in (Figure 2) which predicted that, at high level, ESE strengthens the positive impact of EL on employees’ innovative behavior. Therefore, both the results provide empirical support to our hypothesis (H-3). Table 3 Regression Analysis of Moderation for Innovation Work Behavior [/RAW_REF_TEXT] Figure 2 Graphical presentation of interaction term.Notes: The graphical presentation of interaction term and the influence of entrepreneurial leadership (EL) on innovative behavior with respect to the different levels of an individual’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE). [/RAW_REF_TEXT] Discussion In the last few decades, EL has gained a growing consideration among entrepreneurship and leadership scholars and practitioners.^92,159–161 Nonetheless, only a few studies have explored the outcomes of this leadership style in high-tech^44,162 and entrepreneurial-based SMEs.^36,89 Present study is aimed at exploring the mechanism through which EL affects employees’ innovative work behavior, especially in high-tech SMEs. To pursue the objectives, we have developed a theoretical grounded conceptual model to test the direct, mediated, and the moderated effect of this leadership style on employees’ innovative work behavior. The model suggests that this leadership style impacts on employees’ innovative behavior with the mediation of the firm’s innovative environment, and furthermore, this impact becomes stronger when we add employees’ ESE as a moderator in the given model. Studies conducted by Alabduljader et al¹⁶³ and Choi et al¹⁶⁴ stated that transactional and transformational leadership has a direct positive effect on their immediate followers’ innovative behavior. Kang et al¹⁶⁵ have also found in their study that the firm’s innovative environment mediates the positive relationship among transactional and transformational leadership, and follower’s innovative work behavior. The findings from Bagheri³⁶ Bagheri and Akbari⁸² claimed that EL is a key influential factor that enables, encourages, and promotes the employees’ innovation work behavior. Our study added value to these findings, by examining the mediation role of the firm’s innovative environment between EL and employees’ innovative work behavior. Furthermore, Choi et al¹⁶⁴ indicate that perceived organizational support acts as a moderator between the positive relationship of transformational leadership and employees’ innovation behavior. In our study, we have suggested a different mechanism by seeking the moderation effect of employees’ ESE between the relationship of EL and employees’ innovative work behavior. Our results not only complement the previous research findings, but also contribute to the literature with regard to leadership and innovative behavior, by bringing together ESE as a moderator and firm’s innovative environment as a mediator between the relationship of EL and employees’ innovative behavior. The literature also claimed that some of the contextual factors can strength the level of employees’ innovative behavior. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first attempt in entrepreneurship, leadership, and innovation literature that offers an empirically supported comprehensive model to augment employees’ innovative behavior, especially in high-tech SMEs. Conclusion This study aimed to explore the mediation and moderation mechanism to improve employees’ innovative behavior in Chinese high-tech SMEs. Based on social cognitive theory, this work has examined the impact of EL on employees’ innovative behavior through the moderating path of ESE. The study also explored the mediating effect of a firm’s innovative environment in the association of EL and employees’ innovative behavior. In line with the previous research findings of Bagheri,³⁶ Chen,⁵⁷ andMokhber et al¹²⁷ results of the present study suggested that EL has a significant positive impact on employees’ innovative work behavior. The findings also confirmed that, at high level, ESE strengthens the positive relationship between EL and employees’ innovative behavior. Results also declared that a firm’s innovative environment mediates the relationship between these two variables. The study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by investigating the impact of EL on employees’ innovative behavior through the moderating path of employees’ ESE. To the best of authors’ knowledge, this work is the first attempt in the leadership and entrepreneurship domain that has explored the mediating and moderating mechanism to improve employees’ innovative behavior in entrepreneurial context. Theoretical Implications By probing the role of EL in improving employees’ innovative behavior, this work makes a number of distinct contributions to entrepreneurship and innovation literature. First, by investigating the contribution of EL in augmentation of employees’ innovative behavior, the present study assisted in the development of new theories on innovation, as it extended the leadership styles deemed effective in fostering employees’ innovative behavior. Further, this work also extends the EL theory by applying it to explain the process of innovation in high-tech SMEs. Second, this work has extended the theory of organizational climate by explaining the mediating role of a firm’s environment in association between EL and employees’ innovative behavior. On the basis of their distinct functional competencies, the entrepreneurial leaders create a promising environment that facilitates and encourages their members to leave the traditional way of thinking, generate new ideas, and find innovative solutions to the problems encountered by them in the workplace. Our findings suggest that the entrepreneurial leaders can intentionally influence employees’ innovative behavior by providing them with an innovative environment in which to generate novel ideas and accomplish them without fear of failure. In other words, the firm’s innovative environment generated by EL, promotes employees’ innovative behavior. Third, this work also extends the literature on self-efficacy by examining the additive effect of EL on employees’ innovative behavior at different levels of employees’ ESE. Our study suggests that it is more important to consider the personal characteristics of employees when we want to determine the most influential factors associated with their behavior. Findings from the present study not only declares that the higher an individual’s ESE is associated with higher innovative behavior,⁵³ but it also strengthens the relationship of EL and employees’ innovative work behavior.³⁶ Practical Implications Findings from this work have a number of implications for the managers and leaders of high-tech SMEs who want to enhance the innovative capacity of their employees so as to improve the progress and competitiveness of their business. First, the findings of this work assist the current and prospective business leaders and the entrepreneurs in identifying the key roles that they can play in order to improve innovative capabilities among their employees and develop a promising and innovative environment to streamline the innovation process. Second, for entrepreneurial-based high-tech SMEs, it would be more advantageous for them to organize a brief and easy-to-administer psychometric test during the recruitment process in order to find candidates that have a high level of ESE. Further, managers should also ensure that such recruits are employed under the leadership that displays EL behavior.¹⁶⁶ When leaders encourage such employees they respond more positively and try to identify creative solutions to the problems encountered in the workplace. They also make the most of the various learning opportunities provided by the entrepreneurial leader.⁵³ Limitations and the Future Research Some limitations are associated with this research work. First, this study is based on cross-sectional data which was collected from a single country that could be challenged. In future, we recommend longitudinal cross-country data-sets and comparison of findings from different countries that have different cultural backgrounds to support/challenge the outcomes of this model. Second, our measurement scale was not able to capture the multistage process of innovative behavior (idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation), as we have adopted a combined single measure of innovative work behavior developed by De Jong and Den Hartog.⁸³ In the future, researchers may try to develop and apply the measure of innovative behavior in a way that captures multistage processes based on the longitudinal research design. Ethical Statement This research work was carried out in compliance with the Ethical Code of Conduct of American Psychological Association (APA). After taking approval from the board of directors, the participants were offered a cover letter indicating the willingness of participation and confidentiality of their responses. All the participants willingly took part in the questionnaire survey and written informed consent was provided by the participants and institutions. This work was conducted under the supervision a Chinese professor and the Institutional Review Board of Jiangsu University has approved the study. Acknowledgment We are thankful to the editorial board and anonymous reviewers of the journal for their insight in improving the manuscript. Disclosure The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in this research work. References [RAW_REF_TEXT] 1. Aagaard A. Sustainable Business Models: Innovation, Implementation and Success. Springer; 2018. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 2. Santos G, Afonseca J, Lopes N, Félix MJ, Murmura F. Critical success factors in the management of ideas as an essential component of innovation and business excellence. Int J Qual Serv Sci. 2018;10(3):214–232. doi:10.1108/IJQSS-05-2017-0051 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 3. Yoon S-H, Thin NS, VTT T, Im E-T, Gim G-Y. A study on success factors for business model innovation in the 4th industrial revolution.Paper presented at: International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications ; 2018. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 4. Ortiz-Villajos JM, Sotoca S. Innovation and business survival: a long-term approach. Res Policy. 2018;47(8):1418–1436. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.019 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 5. Wojan TR, Crown D, Rupasingha A. Varieties of innovation and business survival: does pursuit of incremental or far-ranging innovation make manufacturing establishments more resilient? Res Policy. 2018;47(9):1801–1810. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.011 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 6. Cefis E, Marsili O. Good times, bad times: innovation and survival over the business cycle. Ind Corporate Change. 2019;28(3):565–587. doi:10.1093/icc/dty072 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 7. Exposito A, Sanchis-Llopis JA. Innovation and business performance for Spanish SMEs: new evidence from a multi-dimensional approach. Int Small Bus J. 2018;36(8):911–931. doi:10.1177/0266242618782596 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 8. Hendayana Y, Ahman E, Mulyadi H. The effect of innovation on business competitiveness of small and medium enterprise in Indonesia.Paper presented at: 2019 International Conference on Organizational Innovation (ICOI 19) ; 2019. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 9. Kiveu MN, Namusonge M, Muathe S. Effect of innovation on firm competitiveness: the case of manufacturing SMEs in Nairobi County, Kenya. Int J Bus Innovation Res. 2019;18(3):307–327. doi:10.1504/IJBIR.2019.098251 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 10. Frishammar J, Richtnér A, Brattström A, Magnusson M, Björk J. Opportunities and challenges in the new innovation landscape: implications for innovation auditing and innovation management. Eur Manage J. 2019;37(2):151–164. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2018.05.002 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 11. Hou X, Li W, Yuan Q. Frontline disruptive leadership and new generation employees’ innovative behaviour in China: the moderating role of emotional intelligence. Asia Pacif Bus Rev. 2018;24(4):459–471. doi:10.1080/13602381.2018.1451126 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 12. Sanz-Valle R, Jiménez-Jiménez D. HRM and product innovation: does innovative work behaviour mediate that relationship? Manage Decis. 2018;56(6):1417–1429. doi:10.1108/MD-04-2017-0404 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 13. Kahn KB. Understanding innovation. Bus Horiz. 2018;61(3):453–460. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 14. Hosking DM, Anderson N. Organizational Change and Innovation: Psychological Perspectives and Practices in Europe. Routledge; 2018. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 15. Bos-Nehles AC, Veenendaal AA. Perceptions of HR practices and innovative work behavior: the moderating effect of an innovative climate. Int J Human Res Manage. 2019;30(18):2661–2683. doi:10.1080/09585192.2017.1380680 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 16. Bednall TC, E. Rafferty A, Shipton H, Sanders K, J. Jackson C. Innovative behaviour: how much transformational leadership do you need? Br J Manage. 2018;29(4):796–816. doi:10.1111/bjom.2018.29.issue-4 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 17. Xerri MJ, Reid SR. Human resources and innovative behaviour: improving nursing performance. Int J Innovation Manage. 2018;22(02):1850019. doi:10.1142/S1363919618500196 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 18. Černe M, Batistič S, Kenda R. HR systems, attachment styles with leaders, and the creativity–innovation nexus. Human Res Manage Rev. 2018;28(3):271–288. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.02.004 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 19. Ismail A, Mydin AA. The impact of transformational leadership and commitment on teachers’ innovative behaviour.Paper presented at: 4th ASEAN Conference on Psychology, Counselling, and Humanities (ACPCH 2018) ; 2019. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 20. Laguna M, Walachowska K, Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn MJ, Moriano JA. Authentic leadership and employees’ innovative behaviour: a multilevel investigation in three countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(21):4201. doi:10.3390/ijerph16214201 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 21. Faraz NA, Yanxia C, Ahmed F, Estifo ZG, Raza A. The influence of transactional leadership on innovative work behavior—a mediation model. Eur J Bus Social Sci. 2018;7(01):51–62. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 22. Tung F-C. Does innovation leadership enhance creativity in high-tech industries? Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2016;37(5):579–592. doi:10.1108/LODJ-09-2014-0170 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 23. Gumusluoğlu L, Ilsev A. Transformational leadership and organizational innovation: the roles of internal and external support for innovation. J Prod Innovation Manage. 2009;26(3):264–277. doi:10.1111/jpim.2009.26.issue-3 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 24. Rousseau V, Aubé C, Tremblay S. Team coaching and innovation in work teams: an examination of the motivational and behavioral intervening mechanisms. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2013;34(4):344–364. doi:10.1108/LODJ-08-2011-0073 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 25. Renko M, El Tarabishy A, Carsrud AL, Brännback M. Understanding and measuring entrepreneurial leadership style. J Small Bus Manage. 2015;53(1):54–74. doi:10.1111/jsbm.2015.53.issue-1 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 26. Hansen JA, Pihl-Thingvad S. Managing employee innovative behaviour through transformational and transactional leadership styles. Publ Manage Rev. 2019;21(6):918–944. doi:10.1080/14719037.2018.1544272 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 27. Zaech S, Baldegger U. Leadership in start-ups. Int Small Bus J. 2017;35(2):157–177. doi:10.1177/0266242616676883 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 28. Amankwaa A, Gyensare MA, Susomrith P. Transformational leadership with innovative behaviour: examining multiple mediating paths with PLS-SEM. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2019. doi:10.1108/LODJ-10-2018-0358 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 29. Hammond MM, Neff NL, Farr JL, Schwall AR, Zhao X. Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aesthetics Creativity Arts. 2011;5(1):90. doi:10.1037/a0018556 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 30. Pieterse AN, Van Knippenberg D, Schippers M, Stam D. Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: the moderating role of psychological empowerment. J Organ Behav. 2010;31(4):609–623. doi:10.1002/job.650 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 31. Miao Q, Newman A, Lamb P. Transformational leadership and the work outcomes of Chinese migrant workers: the mediating effects of identification with leader. Leadership. 2012;8(4):377–395. doi:10.1177/1742715012444055 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 32. Pundt A. The relationship between humorous leadership and innovative behavior. J Managerial Psychol. 2015;30(8):878–893. doi:10.1108/JMP-03-2013-0082 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 33. Basu R, Green SG. Leader‐member exchange and transformational leadership: an empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader‐member dyads. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1997;27(6):477–499. doi:10.1111/jasp.1997.27.issue-6 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 34. Bono JE, Judge TA. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(5):901. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.901 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 35. Herrmann D, Felfe J. Effects of leadership style, creativity technique and personal initiative on employee creativity. Br J Manage. 2014;25(2):209–227. doi:10.1111/bjom.2014.25.issue-2 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 36. Bagheri A. The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation work behavior and opportunity recognition in high-technology SMEs. J High Technol Manage Res. 2017;28(2):159–166. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2017.10.003 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 37. Douglass A. Redefining leadership: lessons from an early education leadership development initiative. Early Childhood Educ J. 2018;46(4):387–396. doi:10.1007/s10643-017-0871-9 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 38. Chen Y, Tang G, Jin J, Xie Q, Li J. CEO s’ transformational leadership and product innovation performance: the roles of corporate entrepreneurship and technology orientation. J Prod Innovation Manage. 2014;31:2–17. doi:10.1111/jpim.2014.31.issue-s1 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 39. Ma L, Tsui AS. Traditional Chinese philosophies and contemporary leadership. Leadersh Q. 2015;26(1):13–24. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.11.008 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 40. Xie Y, Xue W, Li L, et al. Leadership style and innovation atmosphere in enterprises: an empirical study. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2018;135:257–265. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.017 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 41. Gupta V, MacMillan IC, Surie G. Entrepreneurial leadership: developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. J Bus Venturing. 2004;19(2):241–260. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00040-5 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 42. Fernald LW, Solomon GT, Tarabishy A. A new paradigm: entrepreneurial leadership. South Bus Rev. 2005;30(2):1–10. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 43. Kuratko DF. Entrepreneurial leadership in the 21st century: guest editor’s perspective. J Leadership Organizational Stud. 2007;13(4):1–11. doi:10.1177/10717919070130040201 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 44. Koryak O, Mole KF, Lockett A, Hayton JC, Ucbasaran D, Hodgkinson GP. Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities and firm growth. Int Small Bus J. 2015;33(1):89–105. doi:10.1177/0266242614558315 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 45. Leitch CM, McMullan C, Harrison RT. The development of entrepreneurial leadership: the role of human, social and institutional capital. Br J Manage. 2013;24(3):347–366. doi:10.1111/bjom.2013.24.issue-3 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 46. Bagheri A, Pihie ZAL. Entrepreneurial leadership: towards a model for learning and development. Human Res Dev Int. 2011;14(4):447–463. doi:10.1080/13678868.2011.601594 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 47. Dean H, Ford J. Discourses of entrepreneurial leadership: exposing myths and exploring new approaches. Int Small Bus J. 2017;35(2):178–196. doi:10.1177/0266242616668389 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 48. Obschonka M, Fisch C. Entrepreneurial personalities in political leadership. Small Bus Econ. 2018;50(4):851–869. doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9901-7 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 49. Miles MP, Morrison M. An effectual leadership perspective for developing rural entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Bus Econ. 2018;1–17. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 50. Tlaiss HA, Kauser S. Entrepreneurial leadership, patriarchy, gender, and identity in the Arab world: lebanon in focus. J Small Bus Manage. 2019;57(2):517–537. doi:10.1111/jsbm.v57.2 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 51. Paudel S. Entrepreneurial leadership and business performance. South Asian J Bus Stud. 2019;8:348–369. doi:10.1108/SAJBS-11-2018-0136 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 52. Leitch CM, Volery T. Entrepreneurial leadership: insights and directions. Int Small Bus J. 2017;35(2):147–156. doi:10.1177/0266242616681397 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 53. Newman A, Herman H, Schwarz G, Nielsen I. The effects of employees’ creative self-efficacy on innovative behavior: the role of entrepreneurial leadership. J Bus Res. 2018;89:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.001 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 54. Zainol FA, Daud WNW, Shamsu L, Abubakar HS, Halim HA. A linkage between entrepreneurial leadership and SMEs performance: an integrated review. Int J Acad Res Bus Social Sci. 2018;8(4):104–118. doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i4/4000 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 55. Cai W, Lysova EI, Khapova SN, Bossink BA. Does entrepreneurial leadership foster creativity among employees and teams? The mediating role of creative efficacy beliefs. J Bus Psychol. 2019;34(2):203–217. doi:10.1007/s10869-018-9536-y [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 56. Abubakar LS, Zainol FA, Daud WNBW. Entrepreneurial leadership and performance of small and medium sized enterprises: a structural equation modelling approach. J Int Bus Entrepreneurship Develt. 2018;11(2):163–186. doi:10.1504/JIBED.2018.091220 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 57. Chen MH. Entrepreneurial leadership and new ventures: creativity in entrepreneurial teams. Creativity Innov Manage. 2007;16(3):239–249. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00439.x [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 58. Kang JH, Solomon GT, Choi DY. CEOs’ leadership styles and managers’ innovative behaviour: investigation of intervening effects in an entrepreneurial context. J Manage Stud. 2015;52(4):531–554. doi:10.1111/joms.12125 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 59. Kang JH, Matusik JG, Kim T-Y, Phillips JM. Interactive effects of multiple organizational climates on employee innovative behavior in entrepreneurial firms: a cross-level investigation. J Bus Venturing. 2016;31(6):628–642. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.08.002 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 60. Kim MY, Park SM, Miao Q. Entrepreneurial leadership and organizational innovation: improving attitudes and behaviors of Chinese public employees. Pub Serv Innovations China. 2017;151–184. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 61. Shea CM, Howell JM. Efficacy-performance spirals: an empirical test. J Manage. 2000;26(4):791–812. doi:10.1177/014920630002600409 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 62. Bandura A. Self‐efficacy. Corsini Encycl Psychol. 2010;1–3. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 63. Karwowski M, Kaufman JC, Lebuda I, Szumski G, Firkowska-Mankiewicz A. Intelligence in childhood and creative achievements in middle-age: the necessary condition approach. Intelligence. 2017;64:36–44. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.07.001 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 64. Tierney P, Farmer SM. Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. J Appl Psychol. 2011;96(2):277. doi:10.1037/a0020952 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 65. Gupta V, Singh S. Psychological capital as a mediator of the relationship between leadership and creative performance behaviors: empirical evidence from the Indian R&D sector. Int J Human Res Manage. 2014;25(10):1373–1394. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.870311 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 66. LH MICHAEL, ST HOU, HL FAN. Creative self‐efficacy and innovative behavior in a service setting: optimism as a moderator. J Creat Behav. 2011;45(4):258–272. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01430.x [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 67. Jaussi KS, Dionne SD. Leading for creativity: the role of unconventional leader behavior. Leadersh Q. 2003;14(4–5):475–498. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00048-1 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 68. Ng TW, Lucianetti L. Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: a social–cognitive theory perspective. J Appl Psychol. 2016;101(1):14. doi:10.1037/apl0000029 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 69. Liu D, Jiang K, Shalley CE, Keem S, Zhou J. Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: a meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2016;137:236–263. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 70. Chen CC, Greene PG, Crick A. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? J Bus Venturing. 1998;13(4):295–316. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 71. Ozgen E, Baron RA. Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums. J Bus Venturing. 2007;22(2):174–192. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.12.001 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 72. Forbes DP. The effects of strategic decision making on entrepreneurial self–efficacy. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2005;29(5):599–626. doi:10.1111/etap.2005.29.issue-5 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 73. Boyd NG, Vozikis GS. The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 1994;18(4):63–77. doi:10.1177/104225879401800404 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 74. Jung DD, Wu A, Chow CW. Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of CEOs’ transformational leadership on firm innovation. Leadersh Q. 2008;19(5):582–594. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.007 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 75. Jung DI, Chow C, Wu A. The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings. Leadersh Q. 2003;14(4–5):525–544. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00050-X [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 76. Oke A, Munshi N, Walumbwa FO. The influence of leadership on innovation processes and activities. Organ Dyn. 2009;38(1):64–72. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.10.005 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 77. Jaiswal NK, Dhar RL. Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity: a multilevel study. Int J Hospitality Manage. 2015;51:30–41. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.002 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 78. Richter AW, Hirst G, Van Knippenberg D, Baer M. Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: cross-level interactions with team informational resources. J Appl Psychol. 2012;97(6):1282. doi:10.1037/a0029359 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 79. De Jong JP, Den Hartog DN. How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour. Eur J Innov Manage. 2007;10(1):41–64. doi:10.1108/14601060710720546 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 80. Khan MJ, Aslam N, Riaz MN. Leadership styles as predictors of innovative work behavior. Pak J Social Clin Psychol. 2012;9:2. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 81. De Jong J. Individual Innovation: The Connection Between Leadership and Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior. EIM Business and Policy Research; 2006. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 82. Bagheri A, Akbari M. The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on nurses’ innovation behavior. J Nurs Scholarship. 2018;50(1):28–35. doi:10.1111/jnu.2018.50.issue-1 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 83. De Jong J, Den Hartog D. Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity Innov Manage. 2010;19(1):23–36. doi:10.1111/caim.2010.19.issue-1 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 84. Middlebrooks T. Creativity and innovation: provoking ideas for leadership. J Leadership Studies. 2015;9(3):42–44. doi:10.1002/jls.2015.9.issue-3 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 85. Ng TW, Feldman DC. Age and innovation‐related behavior: the joint moderating effects of supervisor undermining and proactive personality. J Organ Behav. 2013;34(5):583–606. doi:10.1002/job.1802 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 86. Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Mura M, Spiller N. Knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviour in healthcare: a micro‐level investigation of direct and indirect effects. Creativity Innov Manage. 2014;23(4):400–414. doi:10.1111/caim.2014.23.issue-4 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 87. Currie G, Humphreys M, Ucbasaran D, McManus S. Entrepreneurial leadership in the English public sector: paradox or possibility? Public Adm. 2008;86(4):987–1008. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00736.x [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 88. Freeman D, Siegfried JRL. Entrepreneurial leadership in the context of company start‐up and growth. J Leadership Stud. 2015;8(4):35–39. doi:10.1002/jls.2015.8.issue-4 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 89. Huang S, Ding D. Entrepreneurial leadership and performance in Chinese new ventures: a moderated mediation model of exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and environmental dynamism. Creativity Innov Manage. 2014;23(4):453–471. doi:10.1111/caim.12085 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 90. Surie G, Ashley A. Integrating pragmatism and ethics in entrepreneurial leadership for sustainable value creation. J Bus Ethics. 2008;81(1):235–246. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9491-4 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 91. Fontana A, Musa S. The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation management and its measurement validation. Int J Innovation Sci. 2017;9(1):2–19. doi:10.1108/IJIS-05-2016-0004 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 92. Freeman M. A theory of terrorist leadership (and its consequences for leadership targeting). Terrorism Political Violence. 2014;26(4):666–687. doi:10.1080/09546553.2012.751912 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 93. Choi SB, Kim K, Kang S-W. Effects of transformational and shared leadership styles on employees’ perception of team effectiveness. Social Behav Personality. 2017;45(3):377–386. doi:10.2224/sbp.5805 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 94. Simsek Z, Jansen JJP, Minichilli A, Escriba-Esteve A. Strategic leadership and leaders in entrepreneurial contexts: a nexus for innovation and impact missed? J Manage Stud. 2015;52(4):463–478. doi:10.1111/joms.12134 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 95. Harrison R, Leitch C, McAdam M. Breaking glass: toward a gendered analysis of entrepreneurial leadership. J Small Bus Manage. 2015;53(3):693–713. doi:10.1111/jsbm.2015.53.issue-3 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 96. Ehrhart MG, Schneider B, Macey WH. Organizational Climate and Culture: An Introduction to Theory, Research, and Practice. Routledge; 2013. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 97. Schneider B, Ehrhart MG, Macey WH. Organizational climate and culture. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:361–388. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 98. Van Der Vegt GS, Bunderson JS. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification. Acad Manage J. 2005;48(3):532–547. doi:10.5465/amj.2005.17407918 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 99. Burns J. Leadership Harper & row Vol 181. New York; 1978. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 100. Richer SF, Vallerand RJ. Supervisors’ interactional styles and subordinates’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. J Soc Psychol. 1995;135(6):707–722. doi:10.1080/00224545.1995.9713974 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 101. Yukl G, Mahsud R. Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting Psychol J. 2010;62(2):81. doi:10.1037/a0019835 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 102. Wang YX, Yang YJ, Wang Y, et al. The mediating role of inclusive leadership: work engagement and innovative behaviour among Chinese head nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2019;27(4):688–696. doi:10.1111/jonm.12754 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 103. Mayfield M, Mayfield J. The effects of leader communication on worker innovation. Am Bus Rev. 2004;22(2):46. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 104. Cheung MF, Wong C-S. Transformational leadership, leader support, and employee creativity. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2011;32(7):656–672. doi:10.1108/01437731111169988 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 105. Pradhan S, Jena LK. Does meaningful work explains the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour? Vikalpa. 2019;44(1):30–40. doi:10.1177/0256090919832434 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 106. Skinner J, Smith AC, Swanson S. Championing innovation: leadership approaches for fostering innovative environments. Fostering Innovative Cultures Sport. 2018;177–207. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 107. Sethibe T, Steyn R. The impact of leadership styles and the components of leadership styles on innovative behaviour. Int J Innovation Manage. 2017;21(02):1750015. doi:10.1142/S1363919617500153 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 108. Javed B, Naqvi SMMR, Khan AK, Arjoon S, Tayyeb HH. Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: the role of psychological safety. J Manage Organ. 2017;25:1–20. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 109. Bani-Melhem S, Zeffane R, Albaity M. Determinants of employees’ innovative behavior. Int J Contemp Hospitality Manage. 2018;30(3):1601–1620. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-02-2017-0079 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 110. Ng TW, Wang M. An actor–partner interdependence model of employees’ and coworkers’ innovative behavior, psychological detachment, and strain reactions. Pers Psychol. 2019;72(3):445–476. doi:10.1111/peps.12317 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 111. Mumford MD, Hunter ST, Byrne CL. What is the fundamental? The role of cognition in creativity and innovation. Ind Organ Psychol. 2009;2(3):353–356. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01158.x [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 112. Shanker R, Bhanugopan R, Van der Heijden BI, Farrell M. Organizational climate for innovation and organizational performance: the mediating effect of innovative work behavior. J Vocat Behav. 2017;100:67–77. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.004 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 113. Williams F, Foti RJ. Formally developing creative leadership as a driver of organizational innovation. Adv Develop Human Res. 2011;13(3):279–296. doi:10.1177/1523422311424702 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 114. Al-Hawari MA, Bani-Melhem S, Shamsudin FM. Determinants of frontline employee service innovative behavior. Manage Res Rev. 2019;42:1076–1094. doi:10.1108/MRR-07-2018-0266 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 115. Wang P, Rode JC, Shi K, Luo Z, Chen W. A workgroup climate perspective on the relationships among transformational leadership, workgroup diversity, and employee creativity. Group Organ Manage. 2013;38(3):334–360. doi:10.1177/1059601113488163 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 116. Kruft T, Gamber M, Kock A. Substitutes or complements? The role of corporate incubator support and innovation climate for innovative behavior in the hosting firm. Int J Innovation Manage. 2018;22(05):1840006. doi:10.1142/S1363919618400066 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 117. Mokhber M, Khairuzzaman W, Vakilbashi A. Leadership and innovation: the moderator role of organization support for innovative behaviors. J Manage Organ. 2018;24(1):108–128. doi:10.1017/jmo.2017.26 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 118. Hmieleski KM, Corbett AC. The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational behavior with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and entrepreneur work satisfaction. J Bus Venturing. 2008;23(4):482–496. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.04.002 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 119. Zhao H, Seibert SE, Hills GE. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(6):1265. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 120. Shinnar RS, Hsu DK, Powell BC. Self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, and gender: assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education longitudinally. Int J Manage Educ. 2014;12(3):561–570. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2014.09.005 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 121. Piperopoulos P, Dimov D. Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. J Small Bus Manage. 2015;53(4):970–985. doi:10.1111/jsbm.12116 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 122. Austin MJ, Nauta MM. Entrepreneurial role-model exposure, self-efficacy, and women’s entrepreneurial intentions. J Career Dev. 2016;43(3):260–272. doi:10.1177/0894845315597475 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 123. Markman GD, Baron RA, Balkin DB. Are perseverance and self‐efficacy costless? Assessing entrepreneurs’ regretful thinking. J Organ Behavior. 2005;26(1):1–19. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 124. Schmitt A, Rosing K, Zhang SX, Leatherbee M. A dynamic model of entrepreneurial uncertainty and business opportunity identification: exploration as a mediator and entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a moderator. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2018;42(6):835–859. doi:10.1177/1042258717721482 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 125. Baron RA, Tang J. The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. J Bus Venturing. 2011;26(1):49–60. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.002 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 126. Huang Y-F, Chen C-J. The impact of technological diversity and organizational slack on innovation. Technovation. 2010;30(7–8):420–428. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.01.004 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 127. Mokhber M, Tan GG, Vakilbashi A, Zamil NAM, Basiruddin R. Impact of entrepreneurial leadership on organization demand for innovation: moderating role of employees’ innovative self-efficacy. Int Rev Manage Marketing. 2016;6(3):415–421. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 128. Newman A, Obschonka M, Schwarz S, Cohen M, Nielsen I. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: a systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. J Vocat Behav. 2019;110:403–419. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.012 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 129. Miao C, Qian S, Ma D. The relationship between entrepreneurial self‐efficacy and firm performance: a meta‐analysis of main and moderator effects. J Small Bus Manage. 2017;55(1):87–107. doi:10.1111/jsbm.2017.55.issue-1 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 130. Walumbwa FO, Christensen-Salem A, Hsu I-C, Misati E. Creative self-efficacy and creative performance: understanding the underlying mechanisms.Paper presented at: Academy of Management Proceedings ; 2018. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2018.75 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 131. McGee JE, Peterson M. The long‐term impact of entrepreneurial self‐efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation on venture performance. J Small Bus Manage. 2019;57(3):720–737. doi:10.1111/jsbm.v57.3 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 132. Chen Y, Zhou X. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firms’ innovation behavior: the negative mediating role of social capital. Social Behav Personality. 2017;45(9):1553–1562. doi:10.2224/sbp.6734 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 133. Mauer R, Neergaard H, Linstad AK. Self-efficacy: conditioning the entrepreneurial mindset. Revisiting Entrepreneurial Mind. 2017;24:293–317. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 134. Tsai K-H, Chang H-C, Peng C-Y. Extending the link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention: a moderated mediation model. Int Entrepreneurship Manage J. 2016;12(2):445–463. doi:10.1007/s11365-014-0351-2 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 135. Cumberland DM, Meek WR, Germain R. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm performance in challenging environments: evidence from the franchise context. J Develop Entrepreneurship. 2015;20(01):1550004. doi:10.1142/S1084946715500041 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 136. Ozgen E. How can foundations facilitate entrepreneurial activities? J Manage Policy Pract. 2017;18:4. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 137. Khedhaouria A, Gurău C, Torrès O. Creativity, self-efficacy, and small-firm performance: the mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Small Bus Econ. 2015;44(3):485–504. doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9608-y [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 138. Tang J. Environmental munificence for entrepreneurs: entrepreneurial alertness and commitment. Int J Entrepreneurial Behavior Res. 2008;14(3):128–151. doi:10.1108/13552550810874664 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 139. Ahlin B, Drnovšek M, Hisrich RD. Entrepreneurs’ creativity and firm innovation: the moderating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Small Bus Econ. 2014;43(1):101–117. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9531-7 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 140. Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Macmillan; 1997. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 141. Tierney P, Farmer SM. Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Acad Manage j. 2002;45(6):1137–1148. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 142. Yang H-L, Cheng -H-H. Creative self-efficacy and its factors: an empirical study of information system analysts and programmers. Comput Human Behav. 2009;25(2):429–438. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.005 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 143. McGee JE, Peterson M, Mueller SL, Sequeira JM. Entrepreneurial self‐efficacy: refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2009;33(4):965–988. doi:10.1111/etap.2009.33.issue-4 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 144. Kickul J, Gundry LK, Barbosa SD, Whitcanack L. Intuition versus analysis? Testing differential models of cognitive style on entrepreneurial self–efficacy and the new venture creation process. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2009;33(2):439–453. doi:10.1111/etap.2009.33.issue-2 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 145. Hmieleski KM, Baron RA. When does entrepreneurial self‐efficacy enhance versus reduce firm performance? Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 2008;2(1):57–72. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1932-443X [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 146. Indrawati NK, Salim U, Djawahir AH, Djawahir AH. Moderation effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in relation between environmental dimensions and entrepreneurial alertness and the effect on entrepreneurial commitment. Procedia-Social Behav Sci. 2015;169:13–22. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.281 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 147. Montani F, Battistelli A, Odoardi C. Proactive goal generation and innovative work behavior: the moderating role of affective commitment, production ownership and leader support for innovation. J Creat Behav. 2017;51(2):107–127. doi:10.1002/jocb.2017.51.issue-2 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 148. Odoardi C, Battistelli A, Montani F, Peiró JM. Affective commitment, participative leadership, and employee innovation: a multilevel investigation. J Work Organ Psychol. 2019;35(2):103–113. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 149. Birdi K, Leach D, Magadley W. The relationship of individual capabilities and environmental support with different facets of designers’ innovative behavior. J Prod Innovation Manage. 2016;33(1):19–35. doi:10.1111/jpim.12250 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 150. Lindell MK, Whitney DJ. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(1):114. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 151. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 152. Abbas M, Raja U, Darr W, Bouckenooghe D. Combined effects of perceived politics and psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. J Manage. 2014;40(7):1813–1830. doi:10.1177/0149206312455243 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 153. Patterson MG, West MA, Shackleton VJ, et al. Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. J Organ Behav. 2005;26(4):379–408. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 154. Scott SG, Bruce R. Creating innovative behavior among R&D professionals: the moderating effect of leadership on the relationship between problem-solving style and innovation.Paper presented at: Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference-IEMC’941994 . [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 155. Prodan I, Drnovsek M. Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: an empirical test. Technovation. 2010;30(5–6):332–347. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.02.002 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 156. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 157. Aiken LS, West SG, Reno RR. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage; 1991. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 158. Cohen A. Comparing regression coefficients across subsamples: a study of the statistical test. Sociol Methods Res. 1983;12(1):77–94. doi:10.1177/0049124183012001003 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 159. Middlebrooks A. Introduction—entrepreneurial leadership across contexts. J Leadership Studies. 2015;8(4):27–29. doi:10.1002/jls.2015.8.issue-4 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 160. Simba A, Thai MTT. Advancing entrepreneurial leadership as a practice in MSME management and development. J Small Bus Manage. 2018;57:397–416. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 161. Magazi ST. The Impact of Entrepreneurial Leadership Competencies on Business Success for SME Start-Up and Growing Business Ventures in Namibia. Regent University; 2019. [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 162. Karol RA. Leadership in the context of corporate entrepreneurship. J Leadership Studies. 2015;8(4):30–34. doi:10.1002/jls.2015.8.issue-4 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 163. Alabduljader N, Solomon GT, Kang JH, Choi DY. Cognitive styles and entrepreneurial intentions: a cross-cultural comparison.Paper presented at: Academy of Management Proceedings ; 2018. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2018.10402abstract [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 164. Choi SB, Kim K, Ullah SE, Kang S-W. How transformational leadership facilitates innovative behavior of Korean workers: examining mediating and moderating processes. Personnel Rev. 2016;45(3):459–479. doi:10.1108/PR-03-2014-0058 [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 165. Kang JH, Solomon GT, Choi DY. Leadership and innovative behavior: intervening effects in an entrepreneurial context.Paper presented at: Academy of Management Proceedings ; 2013. doi:10.5465/ambpp.2013.16406abstract [/RAW_REF_TEXT] [RAW_REF_TEXT] 166. Maertz CPJr, Bauer TN, Mosley DCJr, Posthuma RA, Campion MA. Predictors of self-efficacy for cognitive ability employment testing. J Bus Res. 2005;58(2):160–167. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00111-5 [/RAW_REF_TEXT]