Charismatic leadership (CL) is a type of leadership that influences the behavior of subordinates through their charm and magnetism (House, 1977). It is crucial for driving organizational change, fostering creativity, and achieving performance objectives. The relationship between CL and creativity and performance has garnered significant attention from scholars (Bass, 1985; McClelland and Boyatzis, 1982). However, there are still substantial gaps and deficiencies in understanding how CL affects creativity and performance (Zhang and Xia, 2011), particularly regarding the multilevel perspective within different contextual settings (i.e., “situational opportunities or constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior as well as functional relationships between variables,” Johns, 2006, p. 386).

In contemporary research, investigating individual-level factors can provide more immediate insights into employees’ attitudes, behaviors, and active engagement in the workplace (Seong et al., 2023). Conger and Kanungo (1988) observed that charismatic leaders are uncomfortable with maintaining the status quo and tend to take decisive actions to change. Charismatic leaders, being sensitive to environmental changes and exhibiting non-conformist behavior (Conger and Kanungo, 1988), can influence subordinates to emulate their personal risk-taking and unconventional behaviors in line with social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). By fostering employees’ adoption of risk- and change-related attitudes and behaviors through leadership actions, the confidence and psychological safety necessary for navigating creative risks are enhanced (Guzzo et al., 1993), thereby promoting individual creativity. Consequently, task performance is also impacted (Oldham and Cumming, 1996; Cheng and Osman, 2021; Vila-Vázquez et al., 2024). However, individuals within organizations are exposed to various management practices beyond just leadership styles (Chiang et al., 2015). Scholars in human resource management have proposed that exploring the interactive effects of these management practices is crucial for understanding how organizations influence group member behavior (Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Delery and Doty, 1996). From this perspective emerges the notion that individuals experience interconnected employee management practices encompassing selection processes, training programs, performance appraisals, compensation schemes, and job design arrangements. This study examines how the interaction between this set of management practices, high-performance work systems (HPWS) (Gong et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2012; Takeuchi et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2020), and CL influences task performance through individual creativity.

Given that many organizations regard groups as their fundamental structure (Pieterse et al., 2012), and individual behaviors often manifest and execute within this context (Shalley et al., 2004), effectively managing creativity and performance necessitates the identification of both group members’ creativity potential and goal achievement capabilities, as well as a comprehensive understanding of group dynamics.

This challenges research and practice with an inherent multilevel focus, requiring insights into individual-level processes and group-level dynamics. To analyze creativity more comprehensively, scholars have recently recognized and embraced the significance of goal orientation theory (Gong et al., 2009; Hirst et al., 2009; Janssen and van Yperen, 2004). Hence, to better comprehend the inconsistent findings from previous studies on multilevel research (Chang et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2017) and address the gaps resulting from predominantly examining single-level constructs (Chiang et al., 2015), this study attempts to probe the interactive effect of group-level CL and GPO (Gully and Phillips, 2005; Hirst et al., 2009) on group creativity, and thus on group performance.

This research seeks to advance the literature on leadership, creativity, and performance by developing a multilevel moderated mediation framework proposing that CL, in conjunction with its boundary conditions, such as HR systems and group climate, is used for performance via creativity at the individual and group levels. Our analysis also contributes to the growing interest in multilevel influences on organizational behavior and dynamics, providing additional evidence and implications for the potential of this approach.

The role of a group leader encompasses establishing short- and long-term objectives, providing guidance to the group, and exerting influence within the group (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996). Previous research has demonstrated a significant association between leadership style and creativity and performance outcomes (Juyumaya and Torres, 2023; Wolfgang and Andrea, 2018). Among them, especially CL (the degree of a manager’s effect on followers in the leader-follower relationship; Seong and Hong, 2018) has been found to affect both creative thinking and behavior and overall performance (Dong et al., 2010; Wang and Yuan, 2016).

Despite some progress in research on the relationship between leadership and creativity, there are still inconsistencies and gaps in understanding (Zhang and Xia, 2011). Scholars suggest that more diverse perspectives should be explored to enrich this study area (Shalley et al., 2004). Recent developments highlight the importance of contextual or situational conditions, which are defined as “implicit or explicit cues provided by external entities regarding the desirability of potential behaviors” (Meyer et al., 2010, p. 122). Contextual conditions play a prominent role in predicting human behavior over extended periods (Cooper and Withey, 2009; Meyer et al., 2010) by exerting psychological stress on individuals within groups to encourage desired behaviors and hinder unwanted ones.

Creativity in the workplace has been defined as generating novel and improved ideas regarding organizational processes and outcomes to enhance practices and performance (Amabile, 1996; Anderson et al., 2014; Shalley et al., 2004). Individual creativity refers to generating new and valuable ideas by a group member (Gong et al., 2013). Research on creativity typically explores how individual variables interact with contextual factors to inspire creative thinking (Shalley et al., 2004; Woodman et al., 1993; Seong and Choi, 2023). Given that individuals are influenced by multiple management practices simultaneously, we propose that HPWS, which is defined as an integrated set of human resource management practices (HRMPs) such as selection processes and disciplinary management aimed at achieving superior performance and competitive advantage (Arokiasamy et al., 2024; Chiang et al., 2015; Ren et al., 2023), moderates the relationship between CL and individual-level creativity.

At the individual level, the interaction between CL and HPWS may suppress creativity. Amabile (1988) discussed a classic three-component model of individual-focused creativity from a social-psychological perspective, which includes motivation, domain-relevant skill/expertise, and creative thinking process. These components are closely associated with different dimensions of HPWS. For instance, when organizations engage in rigorous employee recruitment processes to find individuals who align with their group’s qualities (Epitropaki and Martin, 2005), it can lead to a high degree of homogeneity among group members. Simultaneously, this selection process fosters strong identification among group members towards each other. Drawing upon social identity (Tajfel, 1982) and social categorization (Turner, 1987) theories, employees perceiving high identity and high congruence tend to form tightly knit groups where conformity is favored over disrupting the status quo to maintain membership. In such a tightly knit environment, individuals are apt to avoid risk rather than challenge existing relationships to receive social approval while avoiding criticism and negative judgments from others. Those people may hinder knowledge exchange relevant to the domain-specific skills/expertise and inhibit the creative thinking process. Furthermore, strict disciplinary management practices and effective rules/regulations reinforce non-challenging employee behaviors by domesticating them within organizational boundaries.

In cases involving high-HPWS environments, as discussed by Zhou (2003) based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1991, 1986), leaders hold positions of authority that exert dominant influence over their employees’ behavior and shape both the content and direction of their work outcomes resulting in tense interactions that impact employee psyche. When informed about the higher risk associated with accomplishing creative work, this category of employees experiences a reduction in their beliefs regarding job success. In such instances, even when leaders extend support and offer incentives for creative endeavors, these employees may perceive such supportive behavior as burdensome or even confrontational. The more supportive actions leaders exhibit towards these employees, the more likely they will view these behaviors as impositions imposed upon them, consequently leading to heightened resistance psychology. Thus, belief and motivation for achieving creative outcomes are further impeded.

By contrast, the positive potential of individual CL toward individual creativity is more likely to be realized in a low level of HPWS, where individuals are more likely to be part of a heterogeneous work unit and are not strongly constrained by normative stress to conform. Employees are willing to underscore their uniqueness “to feel idiosyncratic and different from other team members in their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors” (Janssen and Huang, 2008; p. 72). Consistent with job demands-resources (JD-R; Demerouti et al., 2001) and discrepancy-arousal theory (Capella and Greene, 1982), when there is a discrepancy between work requirements and individual resources, as well as personal needs and supplies from the work setting (e.g., a low level of HPWS), group members are motivated to seek approaches and tactics that fulfill both job demands and their own needs. As such, this can facilitate motivation for changing the status quo, communication, and exchange of domain-relevant skills/expertise and the creative thinking process. In an environment with a low level of HPWS, which may reduce concerns about disrupting existing membership dynamics and interpersonal harmony resulting from rules and arrangements, individuals are more inclined to take social risks and deviate from established routines and rules (Ashmore et al., 2004). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Group creativity is defined as the generation of new and valuable ideas by group members working together (Shin and Zhou, 2007). At the group level, we propose a contrasting moderating effect for GPO compared to the hypothesized effect at the individual-level HPWS. GPO reflects group goal preferences in achievement-oriented contexts that influence group actions and reactions and a cognitive-motivational focus on a group’s collective abilities and capacities (Dweck, 1986; Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Elliot and Church, 1997). An externally oriented motivation characterizes it and influences group information exchange and sharing behaviors (Gong et al., 2013).

Charismatic leaders present a vision or strategies that offer solutions for complex challenges and difficult miscellaneous diseases faced by groups or organizations, attracting followers who trust in their exceptional abilities to manage critical issues (Bligh and Kohles, 2010). When there is a high level of GPO, it becomes more feasible to reach a consensus on cognitive-motivation frameworks or shared mental models concerning what matters to the group and how to accomplish it (Mathieu et al., 2000). This facilitates group actions such as developing shared goals and expectations, which can enhance the psychological safety climate. Unlike individual-level HPWS, which may lead individuals to seek social approval and worry about potential negative evaluations, a high level of group-level GPO fosters a psychologically safe work environment and increases trust derived from CL (Meglino and Ravlin, 1998; Smith-Jentsch et al., 2005). This heartens open communication, collaboration, information exchange, and knowledge sharing (Meglino and Ravlin, 1998; Smith-Jentsch et al., 2005). Knowledge and information are strategic resources for groups as they contribute to gaining heterogeneous competitive advantages and enhancing creative capabilities. The exchange and sharing of knowledge and information provide opportunities for knowledge integration, strengthen the mutual transformation of explicit and tacit knowledge, and boost employee communication. Accordingly, this stimulates new ideas, methods, and creative motivation (Hong et al., 2006; Jackson et al., 2006). In other words, since shared knowledge and information are essential sources of creative ideas and approaches within groups or organizations, the likelihood of creative generation depends on adequate knowledge exchange and sharing.

Furthermore, in groups with high GPO, the positive emotions derived from high CL, such as trust, psychological safety, and optimism about the future, may be amplified. According to broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), positive emotions expand an individual’s cognitive and behavioral repertoire by broadening their scope of thinking and action (Fredrickson, 1998). When individuals experience positive emotions in non-threatening situations, tend to engage in non-specific actions while becoming more focused and open-minded. In this state of openness, individuals are inclined to explore new approaches, develop innovative problem-solving strategies, and embark on original endeavors. These novel ideas, experiences, and actions significantly enhance individual cognition and behavior (Strumpfer, 2006), further expanding group behavior.

Consequently, group creative behavior is likely to improve. Positive emotions can also facilitate the development of enduring psychological and social resources through a constructive process based on “expansion” (Fredrickson and Losada, 2005). This constructive function is crucial in providing resources for fostering creative behavior. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Dong et al. (2010), DeGroot et al. (2000), and Bass (1985) have demonstrated that CL fosters high motivation for tasks and articulates goals, thereby improving task motivation and elaboration. This ultimately leads to superior performance outcomes; a higher level of CL can promote both individual task performance and group performance. Charismatic leaders set up quickly comprehensible goals for their subordinates while ensuring subordinates identify and align with their ideals and ambitions (McClelland and Boyatzis, 1982). They subsequently inspire group members to exert diligent efforts towards shared goals and visions by providing guidance, support, courage, and confidence. While pursuing these common objectives and visions, they cultivate mutual trust among group members while stimulating the group to improve individual task performance and overall group performance (McClelland and Boyatzis, 1982).

In addition, charismatic leaders with a heightened sensitivity to environmental changes do not rest on their laurels (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Meslec et al., 2020). Their behavior is characterized by adaptability, flexibility, and enterprising and adventurous spirits, enabling them to implement decisive measures that challenge the status quo swiftly (Conger and Kanungo, 1988), fostering creative behaviors. Creativity is the cornerstone for pursuing corporate objectives and ensuring profitability (Scott, 1995), while contributing to organizational growth and competitive development (Baer and Oldham, 2006).

Creativity is the cornerstone for pursuing corporate goals and ultimately securing profits (Scott, 1995) while contributing to organizational growth and competitive development (Baer and Oldham, 2006). Frymire (2006) argued that for organizations to thrive in the global economy, they must cultivate creative employees capable of applying creativity across all aspects of their work and their entire units. Asserted by predecessors (Oldham and Cumming, 1996; Scott et al., 2004), creativity can expedite work efficiency, enhance performance, and be conducive to organizational change and success.

Based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1991, 1986), a leader’s role modeling and support of subordinates increase subordinates’ self- and collective efficacy. When employees recognize their leaders’ support and trust, they develop greater confidence in themselves and their group, believing in their collective ability to overcome challenges. As a result, they are more likely to choose jobs that satisfy their and their collective abilities while being challenging. Group members focus on positively analyzing and resolving work-related difficulties and challenges, leading to improved creativity and, ultimately, improved performance.

By integrating these pathways along with contextual conditions and drawing upon prior research findings, this paper constructs a moderated mediation framework that explores the relationships between multilevel interaction of CL with boundary conditions and performance outcomes mediated by individual- and group-level creativity. Specifically, this study addresses a research model exploring the moderating effects of HPWS and GPO in the relationship between CL and task/group performance through individual- and group-level creativity. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

First, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the distinctiveness of our scales: (1) CL, HPWS, individual creativity, and task performance at the individual level (Company A), and (2) CL, GPO, team creativity, and team performance at the team level (Company B) by using AMOS 23.0. We compared our original four-factor model with plausible alternative models. The results demonstrated that the expected four-factor model at the individual level provides a significantly better fit than the alternative models (χ² (df = 234) = 617.15, p < 0.001, comparative fit index = 0.98, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.02). As well, the expected four-factor model at the team level provides a significantly better fit than the alternative models (χ² (df = 84) = 153.60, p < 0.001, comparative fit index = 0.95, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.05).

Table 1 presents the study variables’ means, standard deviations, and correlations.

We designed this study to advance further research on management practices regarding the multilevel dynamics of the relationships between leadership, creativity, and performance within the contextual conditions of the HR system and group climate. The findings revealed distinct patterns of boundary conditions at the individual and group levels. Figures 2, 3 demonstrate that the association between CL and creativity is contingent upon the degree of HPWS and GPO at individual and group levels. Specifically, our results indicated that individual-level CL with a low level of HPWS would inspire higher individual creativity, consequently leading to improved task performance. For the group level, an interactive effect was observed between higher CL and higher GPO, positively influencing group creativity and, thus, overall group performance. Conversely, when combined with low CL and GPO, CL may suppress group performance by impacting group creativity.