Participative leadership and team creativity: the role of team intellectual capital and colleague social support
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While previous research has explored participative leadership’s impact on creativity through various mechanisms, they have largely overlooked the role of knowledge. Drawing on the input-process-output (IPO) framework, this study proposes that team intellectual capital (TIC) is a novel key knowledge mechanism explaining the relationship between participative leadership and team creativity. Moreover, the relationship between participative leadership and TIC is moderated by colleague social support, i.e. when the levels of colleague social support is high, the relationship is greater (vs. lower). Data was collected using supervisor-subordinate paired questionnaires with a multi-source, three-wave time-lagged approach, resulting in a final sample of 735 employees and their 150 supervisors from 150 teams in China. Data analysis was conducted using path analysis in Mplus 8.3, and the results strongly supported the hypothesized relationships. Overall, this study deepens the understanding of how participative leadership influences team creativity from the perspective of knowledge (TIC), which is crucial for organizations to gain a competitive advantage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it