Creative Performance of Indonesian Game Developers: An Empirical
Study of Mediation Models of Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative
Process Engagement
OKTA PRIHATMA BAYU PUTRA1, AGUSTINUS BANDUR1,
ENGKOS ACHMAD KUNCORO1,2, SASMOKO1,3
1Management Department, BINUS Business School Doctor of Research in Management,
Bina Nusantara University,
Jakarta 11480,
INDONESIA
2Management Department, BINUS Business School Undergraduate Program,
Bina Nusantara University,
Jakarta 11480,
INDONESIA
3Primary Teacher Education Department, Faculty of Humanities,
Bina Nusantara University,
Jakarta 11480,
INDONESIA
Abstract: - Prior empirical research focused on creative performance was restricted to companies in the fashion
industry and manufacturing industries. However, research on creative performance in the game industry is still
lacking. Millennials and gen Z are the largest generational cohort in most companies. Previous studies show
that both generations will work better in a non-formal environment. This study investigates the connection
between creative performance and leader-member exchange in the context of game developers in Indonesia.
Also examined were the relationship's mediation effects of creative self-efficacy and engagement in the creative
process. The study sample included 253 Indonesian game development companies respondents, and the data
was analyzed using SMART-PLS. The findings showed that the relationship between a supervisor and a
subordinate positively connected to creative performance and that creative self-efficacy and participation in the
creative process mediated this positive association. This study recommends that managers and staff members
establish informal interactions outside of work. Both sides must understand that creating such partnerships can
lead to several advantageous results, including an increase in creativity.
Key-Words: - Creative Performance; Creative Self-Efficacy; Creative Process Engagement; Leader-Member
Exchange; Game Developers.
Received: February 25, 2023. Revised: June 19, 2023. Accepted: June 27, 2023. Published: July 7, 2023.
1 Introduction
If an organization wants to stay ahead of the
competition in today's quickly changing business
climate, it must constantly generate new ideas, [1].
Creativity is closely linked to innovativeness, [2],
meaning that new product development depends on
the amount of creative performance. Prior empirical
research focused on creative performance was
restricted to companies in the fashion industry, [3]
and manufacturing industries, [4]. However,
research on creative performance in the game
industry is still lacking. Creative performance is the
primary source of encouraging innovation,
increasing competitiveness, and gaining a
competitive advantage in business competition, [5]–
[7]. These advantages have made it crucial to
understand what inspires creative performance.
Previous studies have characterized employee
creativity as being influenced by top-down
leadership characteristics. Previous research has
looked into the advantages of transformational
leadership, [8], benevolent leadership, [9], moral
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.133
Okta Prihatma Bayu Putra,
Agustinus Bandur,
Engkos Achmad Kuncoro, Sasmoko
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1509
Volume 20, 2023
leadership, [10], and humble leadership, [11],
among leadership-related characteristics. There has
been little study on the connection between
management-employee interaction and creative
performance, and these studies tended to be top-
down appraisals of leadership. A dyadic interaction
may provide non-significant effects; nevertheless,
not all research has shown consistently favourable
impacts of leader-member exchange on creative
performance. When perceived responsibility entered
the interaction, the effect of LMX on employee
creativity was no longer significant, [12]. The lack
of consistency in LMX’s effect on creative
performance suggests that the link may be
dependent on a complex intervening process. To
summarize, we feel that the underlying LMX
mediating mechanism that influences creative
performance should be further studied.
Managers and academics must comprehend how
each team member's creative self-efficacy affects
team creative performance because creative
performance is so frequently used as the
fundamental unit of creative production in today's
organizations and businesses. Various mediation
mechanisms have been used in research to evaluate
the relationship between LMX and creative
performance like positive moods and intrinsic
motivation, trust in the supervisor, and knowledge,
[8], [11]. The outcomes of previous studies support
the justification for using creative self-efficacy as a
mediating variable in this study. When it comes to
forecasting team creative performance, creative self-
efficacy is a crucial factor, [13]. Furthermore,
creative self-efficacy can promote company success
by inspiring innovation, [14]. This approach could
be used to explain how benevolent leadership
affects team creative performance. It indicates that
this influence is moderated by creative self-efficacy.
Despite these important findings, further study
into another mediating influence of LMX on
creative performance is warranted. According to
certain research, engaging in the creative process
positively impacted employee creativity, [15].
Additionally, engaging in the creative process is a
crucial first step toward new work practices, [16].
However, creative process engagement can also
have a non-significant effect on creative
performance, [17]. The previous research findings
are inconclusive and should be investigated further.
As a result, we propose that creative process
involvement serves as a secondary mediator in the
LMX-creative performance relationship.
According to research in the field, the impact of
leader-member exchange can significantly impact
creative self-efficacy and creative process
engagement. Ultimately, these factors can influence
the creative performance of the employees.
However, little research has been done to identify
influencing factors and consequences of creative
performance in game development companies. The
study's first goal was to determine the effects of
leader-member interaction on creative performance
and the mediating function of creative self-efficacy
in the setting of video game developers. Second, this
study investigates how the creative process mediates
how LMX and creative performance interact. The
current study adds to the body of knowledge
regarding the creative performance of video game
developers.
2 Problem Formulation
2.1 LMX to Creative Performance
The LMX theory is built on the premise that leaders
do not treat all subordinates equally and instead
form high-quality social exchange relationships with
some and low-quality economic exchange
relationships with others. It was originally
developed as a counterargument to the traditional
leadership style, [18]. When subordinates and their
superiors engage in social interactions, they feel
obligated to respond with productive work habits,
[19].
Employees are often more creative and
imaginative because their leaders inspire them with
their knowledge and problem-solving talents and as
a source of informational feedback to help them
develop existing ideas and come up with fresh ones,
[20]. In addition, employees who reported having
better ties with their bosses were also more creative,
according to empirical research, [21].
Given that prior research has focused chiefly on
the impacts of LMX, the current study applies the
findings to the scientific research method of creative
performance in video game developer settings. As a
result, we come up with this hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Leader-member exchange is
positively related to creative performance.
2.2 Mediating Role of Creative Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy in the context of creativity or
innovation is the conviction that one can carry out
and complete specific tasks involving creativity or
innovation, [9]. The social cognitive theory claims
creative self-efficacy improves creative performance
when team members work on challenging,
unpredictable, non-routine circumstances without
preconceived solutions, [22].
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.133
Okta Prihatma Bayu Putra,
Agustinus Bandur,
Engkos Achmad Kuncoro, Sasmoko
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1510
Volume 20, 2023
Employees believed to be highly self-efficacious
start innovative solutions proactively and so like and
continue to do creative activities to achieve the
highest levels of creativity in their profession, [23].
On the other hand, those who lack self-efficacy
believe that their abilities are insufficient to attain
their objectives and avoid or give up even when the
work is less challenging, [24]. LMX was found to
be a crucial antecedent variable for self-efficacy in a
prior study on the subject [25]. Furthermore, self-
efficacy could act as a mediator in the link between
LMX and creativity, [26]. As a result, we come up
with this hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Creative self-efficacy mediates the
relationship between LMX and creative
performance.
2.3 Mediating Role of Creative Process
Engagement
Creative process engagement is participating in
creativity-related approaches or processes involving
(1) problem identification, (2) information searching
and encoding, and (3) idea and alternative
generation [27]. People who are highly engaged in
the creative process spend more time identifying
problems, looking for pertinent information, and
considering choices, increasing their likelihood of
developing original, effective, and practical
solutions, [28].
Similarly, LMX and participation in the creative
process have a beneficial relationship with
creativity, [29]. The idea that LMX influences
creativity through creative activities is plausible, but
less attention has been paid to the conceptual
mediating role of engagement in the creative
process, [15]. Thereby, it is assumed that LMX will
have an impact on creative performance by
engaging in the creative process. As a result, we
come up with this hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Creative process engagement
mediates the relationship between LMX and
creative performance.
3 Methodology
This study uses a quantitative research method.
Employees at game development firms in Indonesia
were polled for information. A total of 267 people
took part in the survey. The participants in the study
graded the LMX, creative performance engagement,
creative self-efficacy, and creative performance. We
gathered valuable data from 253 individuals after
deleting missing and incorrect questionnaires. Most
of the respondents were male (78%), and their
primary responsibilities were as animators (14%),
graphic designers (28%), and programmers (46%).
The data were analysed using structural equation
model.
Employees rated their level of creative
performance via nine items including “Employees
are able to use unconventional sources of reference
in generating solutions,” “Employees are able to
produce various solutions to 1 type of problem using
different approaches,” and “Employees are able to
provide solutions that can be implemented” (1 =
“strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly agree”) [30], [31].
We obtained a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of
0.891 for the scale ratings in this study.
Creative self-efficacy was measured using a
nine-item scale such as “I am able to focus on
generating creative ideas at work,” “I am able to
combine existing ideas so that it becomes a better
idea,” and “I am still able to generate creative ideas
even though I experience obstacles in the process”,
[32]. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for creative self-
efficacy was 0.920 in this study.
Creative process engagement was assessed using
eleven-item scale, such as “I took the time to
identify the problem at hand,” “I can see problems
from different perspectives,” and “I can break down
a difficult problem into sections to get a better
understanding” (1 = “totally disagree,” 5 = “totally
agree”), [27]. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
0.914.
Survey participants rated leader-member
exchange that ten-item scale, such as “Bosses and
employees help each other in completing the
workload,” “Bosses will defend their employees if
they are blamed by other parties, both from other
divisions within the company, or from outside the
company,” and “Bosses and employees congratulate
each other on birthdays or in celebration of
holidays” (1 = “strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly
agree”), [33]. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
0.914.
4 Result and Discussion
The PLS-SEM method, sometimes called partial
least squares structural equation modelling, is used
in this study's data analysis. This method is a two-
step procedure that entails both evaluation
measurements and structural models. The first is to
test the composite reliability (CR), a score that will
measure the construct’s latent variables. To be
regarded as appropriate, the CR must be 0.7 or
higher. The average variance extracted (AVE)
scores of all constructs likewise met the 0.5
threshold, implying high convergent validity.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.133
Okta Prihatma Bayu Putra,
Agustinus Bandur,
Engkos Achmad Kuncoro, Sasmoko
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1511
Volume 20, 2023
Table 1. Validity and Reliability
Variable
Items
Loadings
LMX
LMX1
0.814
LMX2
0.682
LMX3
0.772
LMX4
0.586
LMX5
0.779
LMX6
0.822
LMX7
0.782
LMX8
0.782
CPE
CPE1
0.728
CPE2
0.765
CPE3
0.730
CPE4
0.724
CPE5
0.758
CPE6
0.625
CPE7
0.751
CPE8
0.697
CPE9
0.830
CSE
CSE1
0.780
CSE2
0.768
CSE3
0.759
CSE4
0.800
CSE5
0.742
CSE6
0.750
CSE7
0.747
CSE8
0.647
CSE9
0.739
CPE
CP1
0.763
CP2
0.814
CP3
0.805
CP4
0.780
CP5
0.819
CP6
0.692
CP7
0.678
CP8
0.713
CP9
0.531
Due to not meeting the testing requirement, we
had to exclude one item from the 35 tested using
Smart-PLS. The remaining items in Table 1 also
have greater than 0.6 outer loadings and are reliable.
Items considered reliable should have Cronbach’s
Alpha > 0.7, CR > 0.7, and AVE > 0.5, [34].
Table 2. Discriminant Validity (Fornell-Larcker
Criterion)
Construct
CP
CPE
CSE
LMX
Creative
Performance (CP)
0.735
Creative Process
Engagement (CPE)
0.722
0.734
Creative Self-
efficacy (CSE)
0.756
0.761
0.748
Leader-member
Exchange (LMX)
0.738
0.768
0.725
0.756
Examining discriminant validity (DV) is the
second step in assessing the measurement model,
and it determines the level at which one variable
differs from the other variables in the model. In this
study, we employed the Fornell-Larcker criterion to
assess the DV. In Table 2, All four variables are
valid, as shown by the Fornell-Larcker Criterion
result and discriminant validity. This validity arises
from the fact that there is a higher number of
correlations between variables than between other
variables. Cross Loadings can be used to examine
discriminant validity in addition to the Fornell-
Larcker Criterion. Based on Table 3, all
measurement item loadings were higher than any
other cross-loadings, showing that the model’s
discriminant validity has been achieved, [34].
The structural model is examined to see how the
exogenous variables affect the endogenous variable
[34]. Three independent factors (CSE, CPE, and
CSE) and three dependent variables (CPE, CSE, and
CP) are used in this study. The four primary criteria
for evaluating a structural model are variance
explained (R²), effect size (f²), predictive relevance
(Q²), and path coefficient (β), as well as the result of
hypotheses testing, [34]. Table 5 shows the
outcomes of the current study’s structural model,
and the four criteria for evaluating the model.
From Table 4, The effect of exogenous variables
on the endogenous variable is assessed using the
coefficient of determination (R2). Adjusted R
squared was employed in this study to calculate the
effect since it corrects for standard error and
provides a more reliable picture than R squared.
Based on Table 4, Creative Performance (CP)
obtained 0.655 of R squared adjusted. The result
means that 65.5% of CP is affected by CPE, CSE,
and LMX. Also, Creative Process Engagement
(CPE) obtained 0.588 of R squared adjusted.
Therefore, 58.8% of CPE is affected by LMX. Other
than that, Creative Self-efficacy (CSE) obtained
0.524 of R squared adjusted. Therefore, 52.4% of
CSE is affected by LMX.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.133
Okta Prihatma Bayu Putra,
Agustinus Bandur,
Engkos Achmad Kuncoro, Sasmoko
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1512
Volume 20, 2023
The change in R² when a certain exogenous is
removed from the model is referred to as effect size
(f²). It is worth noting that both CPE (1.438) and
CSE (1.110) in the model had a large effect size,
while CP had a medium effect size, [35]. The results
of testing the model’s prediction accuracy (Q²)
revealed that the path model’s accuracy is
satisfactory, with Q² values of 0.282, 0.300, and
0.347 for CSE, CPE, and CP, respectively. As
shown in Table 5, both Q² values are greater than 0,
showing that CPE, CSE, and LMX factors are
predictive.
Table 3. Discriminant Validity (Cross-loading
Criterion)
LMX
CPE
CSE
CP
LMX1
0.818
0.818
0.597
0.633
LMX2
0.675
0.675
0.463
0.460
LMX3
0.766
0.766
0.492
0.592
LMX4
0.574
0.574
0.372
0.409
LMX5
0.780
0.780
0.575
0.552
LMX6
0.829
0.829
0.640
0.631
LMX7
0.789
0.789
0.609
0.578
LMX8
0.783
0.783
0.582
0.570
CPE1
0.683
0.753
0.654
0.600
CPE2
0.667
0.785
0.677
0.601
CPE3
0.642
0.756
0.624
0.610
CPE4
0.625
0.737
0.534
0.550
CPE5
0.497
0.738
0.507
0.468
CPE6
0.267
0.583
0.395
0.341
CPE7
0.457
0.732
0.492
0.504
CPE8
0.399
0.668
0.460
0.405
CPE9
0.643
0.830
0.591
0.581
CSE1
0.603
0.612
0.782
0.581
CSE2
0.613
0.631
0.772
0.581
CSE3
0.541
0.606
0.754
0.541
CSE4
0.488
0.587
0.782
0.509
CSE5
0.420
0.503
0.724
0.492
CSE6
0.386
0.511
0.727
0.513
CSE7
0.563
0.557
0.760
0.633
CSE8
0.572
0.514
0.671
0.553
CSE9
0.622
0.580
0.758
0.646
CP1
0.647
0.585
0.608
0.763
CP2
0.615
0.610
0.642
0.814
CP3
0.583
0.570
0.601
0.805
CP4
0.571
0.597
0.591
0.780
CP5
0.620
0.564
0.593
0.819
CP6
0.445
0.506
0.560
0.691
LMX
CPE
CSE
CP
CP7
0.488
0.448
0.442
0.668
CP8
0.529
0.524
0.539
0.713
CP9
0.301
0.295
0.370
0.514
After running the validity and reliability tests, the
test for bootstrapping was done with 5,000
subsamples that exhibit the path coefficient in Table
4 to evaluate the significance of the associations and
established hypotheses. The original sample is used
to determine if variables have a positive or negative
impact. The effect is negative if the original sample
number for effect contains a minus sign. The result
is positive if there is not a minus sign. The
significance of an effect can be seen in the t-statistic
or p-value. The two-tailed t-value should be >
1.960, and the p-value < 0.050 for a significant path
on a 5% error rate.
Table 4. Path Coefficients
β
t-
value
p-
value
Supported?
CPE
CP
0.186
2.641
0.009
Yes
CSE
CP
0.386
5.252
0.000
Yes
LMX
CP
0.316
4.149
0.000
Yes
LMX
CPE
0.768
27.468
0.000
Yes
LMX
CSE
0.725
22.221
0.000
Yes
LMX
CPE
CP
0.143
2.638
0.009
Yes
LMX
CSE
CP
0.280
4.897
0.000
Yes
The path coefficients are computed to assess the
significance of the relationships (see Table 4 and
Figure 2). This requires that the strength of the
correlations and the t-values be used to confirm
significance. The leader-member exchange appears
to have a positive and significant direct impact on
creative performance. (β = 0.316/t = 4.149).
Thus, H1 is supported, as employees are typically
more creative and inventive because of their
leaders’ knowledge and problem-solving abilities
and as a source of informational feedback to help
them develop existing and new ideas. Previous
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.133
Okta Prihatma Bayu Putra,
Agustinus Bandur,
Engkos Achmad Kuncoro, Sasmoko
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1513
Volume 20, 2023
researches have also validated the findings, [20],
[21].
We checked both direct and indirect effects to
test our H2, which states that creative self-efficacy
mediates the relationship between LMX and
creative performance. The direct effect of LMX on
creative performance was significant (β = 0.316/t =
4.149). After introducing the mediated variable
creative self-efficacy in the model, the estimate of
LMX and creative performance was still significant
but reduced (β = 0.280/t = 4.897). It can be
concluded that creative self-efficacy partially
mediated the relationship between LMX and
creative performance. Hypothesis 2 was therefore
supported.
Fig. 2: Measurement Model of the Study
The next step involved checking whether the
indirect relationship between LMX and creative
performance was mediated by creative process
engagement. Therefore, we introduced another
mediator between LMX and creative performance in
the presence of creative process engagement. The
mediation effect was also significant (β = 0.143/t =
2.638), supporting our H3.
5 Conclusion
The creative self-efficacy and creative process
engagement works of literature will benefit from the
findings of this study. Even though past research has
shown that creative performance has a favourable
effect, there is a scarcity of research on the
underlying mediating mechanism. Several
investigations identified positive moods and
intrinsic motivation, supervisor trust, [8], and
knowledge, [11] were identified as mediators.
Specifically, in scientific research in game
developer contexts, we contributed to these findings
by demonstrating that creative self-efficacy and
creative process engagement mediate the favourable
effect of LMX on creative performance.
The findings of our research have several
speculative practical consequences. To begin,
executives and employees seeking creativity should
recognize the value of actively participating in
developing unique relationships with one another.
As a result, managers and staff members can
establish connections beyond contractual obligations
by reinforcing, inspiring, and comprehending one
another's needs. Both sides must understand that
creating such partnerships can lead to several
beneficial results, including increased creativity.
Understanding those supervisor-subordinate solid
relationships are a valuable resource, not a luxury, is
crucial because creativity is risky but potentially
profitable.
We advise team leaders or managers who want to
encourage creative team performance to take the
self-efficacy of team members into account and
create an environment with a high average level and
low variance on self-efficacy and process
engagement. In the game developer context, team
supervisors might begin by assigning simple tasks to
subordinates and gradually raising the level of
difficulty of game- developing tasks to help them
develop a positive, creative self-efficacy. The
management should also support exchanges of
practical information and knowledge. They should
increase the creative efficacy of employees by
providing enough support.
Additionally, people are encouraged to pursue
their passions for joy and fulfilment and participate
in creativity-related activities more frequently to be
creative. If the creative process engagement is
missed, the good influence of the supervisor-
subordinate connection may be neglected. Our study
was limited to using a convenience sample, which
raises questions about representativeness and
generalizability. The fact that we only considered
LMX from the viewpoint of the subordinate is
another drawback of our study. Future studies could
examine LMX from the perspectives of both leaders
and members, allowing for a more thorough
investigation of the connection between LMX and
creativity-based innovation. Future studies should
also look at the differences in creative performance
between individuals and teams, using multi-level
analysis to systematically examine how
organizational and human factors affect how
creatively a team works.
References:
[1] R. P. J. Rajapathirana and Y. Hui,
“Relationship between innovation capability,
innovation type, and firm performance,” J.
Innov. Knowl., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 44–55, 2018.
[2] Z. Su, D. Ahlstrom, J. Li, and D. Cheng,
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.133
Okta Prihatma Bayu Putra,
Agustinus Bandur,
Engkos Achmad Kuncoro, Sasmoko
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1514
Volume 20, 2023
“Knowledge creation capability, absorptive
capacity, and product innovativeness,” R D
Manag., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 473–485, 2013.
[3] S. Sutapa, M. Mulyana, and W. Wasitowati,
“The Role of Market Orientation, Creativity
and Innovation in Creating Competitive
Advantages and Creative Industry
Performance,” J. Din. Manaj., vol. 8, no. 2,
pp. 152–166, 2017.
[4] M. A. W. Ramos, P. S. Figueiredo, and C.
Pereira-Guizzo, “Antecedents of innovation
in industry,” Innov. Manag. Rev., vol. 15, no.
3, pp. 269–285, 2018.
[5] W. D. Anjaningrum and H. Rudamaga,
“Creative Industry: Enhancing Competitive
Advantage and Performance,” Asia Pacific
Manag. Bus. Appl., vol. 007, no. 03, pp.
123–146, 2019.
[6] H. Laksito and D. Ratmono, “Increasing the
competitiveness of creative industries based
on information technology and good
corporate governance in central Java,” Int. J.
Data Netw. Sci., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 83–90,
2021.
[7] N. Stojčić, I. Hashi, and Z. Aralica,
“Creativity, innovations and firm
performance in an emerging transition
economy,” Ekon. Pregl., vol. 69, no. 3, pp.
203–228, 2018.
[8] B. Banerjee, E. Alén, and B. Gupta,
“Transformational leadership and creative
performance: A dyadic analysis of
salespeople and their supervisors,” Asian J.
Bus. Account., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 201–233,
2017.
[9] Z. Xia, H. Yu, and F. Yang, “Benevolent
Leadership and Team Creative Performance:
Creative Self-Efficacy and Openness to
Experience,” Front. Psychol., vol. 12, no.
January, 2022.
[10] Q. Gu, T. L. P. Tang, and W. Jiang, “Does
Moral Leadership Enhance Employee
Creativity? Employee Identification with
Leader and Leader–Member Exchange
(LMX) in the Chinese Context,” J. Bus.
Ethics, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 513–529, 2015.
[11] Z. L. & W. Liu, “Humble Leadership and
Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of
Knowledge Hiding,” J. Bus. Manag. Econ.
Res., vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 29–45, 2019.
[12] Y. K. Dwityaputri and D. E. Purba, “How
Does Leader-Member Exchange Affect
Employee Creativity? The Role of Felt
Responsibility for Change,” vol. 229, no.
Iciap 2018, pp. 1025–1034, 2019.
[13] N. K. Park, W. Jang, E. L. Thomas, and J.
Smith, “How to Organize Creative and
Innovative Teams: Creative Self-Efficacy
and Innovative Team Performance,” Creat.
Res. J., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 168–179, 2021.
[14] N. Yodchai, P. T. M. Ly, and L. T. T. Tran,
“Co-Creating Creative Self-Efficacy To
Build Creative Performance and Innovation
Capability for Business Success: a Meta-
Analysis,” Creat. Stud., vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
74–88, 2022.
[15] C. S. Tan, X. S. Lau, Y. T. Kung, and R. A.
Kailsan, “Openness to Experience Enhances
Creativity: The Mediating Role of Intrinsic
Motivation and the Creative Process
Engagement,” J. Creat. Behav., vol. 53, no.
1, pp. 109–119, 2019.
[16] B. Bin Saeed, B. Afsar, A. Shahjehan, and S.
Imad Shah, “Does transformational
leadership foster innovative work behavior?
The roles of psychological empowerment,
intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement,” Econ. Res. Istraz. , vol. 32, no.
1, pp. 254–281, 2019.
[17] I. Martinaityte, C. Sacramento, and S. Aryee,
“Delighting the Customer: Creativity-
Oriented High-Performance Work Systems,
Frontline Employee Creative Performance,
and Customer Satisfaction,” J. Manage., vol.
45, no. 2, pp. 728–751, 2019.
[18] G. B. Graen and M. Uhl-Bien,
“RELATIONSHIP-BASED APPROACH
TO LEADERSHIP: DEVELOPMENT OF
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX)
THEORY OF LEADERSHIP OVER 25
YEARS: APPLYING A MULTI-LEVEL
MULTI-DOMAIN PERSPECTIVE,”
Leadersh. Q., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 219–247,
1995.
[19] B. Kuvaas, R. Buch, A. Dysvik, and T.
Haerem, “Economic and social leader-
member exchange relationships and follower
performance,” Leadersh. Q., vol. 23, no. 5,
pp. 756–765, 2012.
[20] J. E. Perry-Smith and P. V. Mannucci,
“From creativity to innovation: The social
network drivers of the four phases of the idea
journey,” Acad. Manag. Rev., vol. 42, no. 1,
pp. 53–79, 2017.
[21] J. Mascareño, E. Rietzschel, and B. Wisse,
“Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and
innovation: A test of competing hypotheses,”
Creat. Innov. Manag., vol. 29, no. 3, pp.
495–511, 2020.
[22] A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: The exercise of
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.133
Okta Prihatma Bayu Putra,
Agustinus Bandur,
Engkos Achmad Kuncoro, Sasmoko
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1515
Volume 20, 2023
control. New York, NY, US: W H
Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co,
1997.
[23] P. Tierney and S. M. Farmer, “Creative self-
efficacy: Its potential antecedents and
relationship to creative performance,” Acad.
Manag. J., vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1137–1148,
2002.
[24] A. M. Schmidt and R. P. DeShon, “The
Moderating Effects of Performance
Ambiguity on the Relationship Between
Self-Efficacy and Performance,” J. Appl.
Psychol., vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 572–581, 2010.
[25] G. E. Mathisen, “Organizational antecedents
of creative self-efficacy,” Creat. Innov.
Manag., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 185–195, 2011.
[26] H. U. I. Liao, D. Liu, and R. Loi, “Liao, Liu,
Loi - 2010 - LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES
OF THE SOCIAL EXCHANGE COIN A
SOCIAL COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE ON
THE JOINT EFFECTS OF
RELATIONSHIP QUALITY AND
DIFFERENTIATION ON CREATIVITY
University of Maryland.pdf,” vol. 53, no. 5,
pp. 1090–1109, 2010.
[27] X. Zhang and K. M. Bartol, “The Influence
of Creative Process Engagement on
Employee Creative Performance and Overall
Job Performance : A Curvilinear
Assessment,” vol. 95, no. 5, pp. 862–873,
2010.
[28] Y. Ma, H. Zhang, and Y. Dai, “How Job
Creativity Requirements Affects Employee
Creativity: Evidence From a Across-Level
Analysis,” Front. Psychol., vol. 12, no.
December, pp. 1–11, 2021.
[29] J. Jiang and B. Yang, “Roles of creative
process engagement and leader–member
exchange in critical thinking and employee
creativity,” Soc. Behav. Pers., vol. 43, no. 7,
pp. 1217–1232, 2015.
[30] E. P. Torrance, Torrance tests of creative
thinking. Norms-technical manual. Research
edition. Verbal tests, forms A and B. Figural
tests, forms A and B. Princeton: Personnel
Press, 1966.
[31] R. L. Mathis and J. H. Jackson, Human
Resource Management : Personnel Human
Resource Management, 13th ed. South-
Western Cengage Learning, 2010.
[32] A.-G. Tan, J. Li, and J. Rotgans, “Creativity
Self-Efficacy Scale as a Predictor for
Classroom Behavior in a Chinese Student
Context,” Open Educ. J., vol. 4, no. 1, pp.
90–94, 2011.
[33] R. C. Liden and J. M. Maslyn,
“Multidimensionality of leader-member
exchange: An empirical assessment through
scale development,” J. Manage., vol. 24, no.
1, pp. 43–72, 1998.
[34] J. F. Hair Jr, W. C. Black, and B. J. Babin,
Multivariate Data Analysis (MVDA). 2017.
[35] J. Cohen, Statistical Power ALanysis for the
Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1988.
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
The authors equally contributed in the present
research, at all stages from the formulation of the
problem to the final findings and solution.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
This work is supported by the Research and
Technology Transfer Office, Bina Nusantara
University as a part of the Doctoral Dissertation
Grant Ministry of Research and Technology / BRIN
2021 entitled “Pengaruh Creative Process
Engagement terhadap Creative Performance
Developer Game di Perusahaan Teknologi Game se
Indonesia dalam Era New Normal” with contract
date 12 Juli 2021 no 064/E4.1/AK.04.PT/2021 and
contract date 12 Juli 2021 no
064/E4.1/AK.04.PT/2021, 3530/LL3/KR/2021.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.133
Okta Prihatma Bayu Putra,
Agustinus Bandur,
Engkos Achmad Kuncoro, Sasmoko
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1516
Volume 20, 2023