Next Article in Journal
A System Dynamics Framework for Port Resilience Enhancement Along Maritime Silk Road: Insights from ESG Governance
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Analysis of Standard Operating Procedures Across Safety-Critical Domains: Lessons for Human Performance and Safety Engineering
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Systems
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/systems13080718
systems-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Leaders’ Calling and Employees’ Innovative Behavior: The Mediating Role of Work Meaning and the Moderating Effect of Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment

by
Yuyang Cao
1,
Peng Wen
2 and
Liqiong Luo
2,*
1
Economics and Management College, Hubei University of Education, No. 29 Guanggu Second Road, Donghu New & High Technology Development Zone, Wuhan 430205, China
2
School of Economics and Business Administration, Central China Normal University, No. 152, Luoyu Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan 430079, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Systems 2025, 13(8), 718; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13080718
Submission received: 9 March 2025 / Revised: 28 April 2025 / Accepted: 7 May 2025 / Published: 20 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Systems Practice in Social Science)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The objective of this research is to investigate whether and how leaders’ sense of calling influences employees’ innovative behavior, and to explore the conditions that may define the boundaries of this effect. Based on the theory of interpersonal sensemaking, this research conducted an empirical analysis using data from 186 pairs of supervisor-subordinate matching questionnaires and developed a moderated mediation model. We hypothesized and found that: first, leaders’ calling directly enhanced employees’ innovative behavior; second, the relationship between the leaders’ calling and employees’ innovative behavior was mediated by the employee’s sense of work meaning; third, the supervisor’s organizational embodiment positively regulated the relationship between the leaders’ calling and the employee’s sense of work meaning. Specifically, when the degree of the supervisor’s organizational embodiment is higher, the relationship between the leaders’ calling and the employee’s work meaning will be stronger. At the same time, the supervisor’s organizational embodiment positively regulates the mediating effect. Specifically, when the degree of the supervisor’s organizational embodiment is higher, the mediating effect of the employee’s work meaning is stronger.

1. Introduction

The continuous improvement of employees’ innovation performance has become a hot topic in many academic fields. Stimulating employees’ innovative behavior is an important factor for an organization to survive and maintain market competitiveness. Previous studies have shown that leadership plays a key role in fostering employee innovative behavior [1,2,3]. The influence of leadership on employees’ innovative behavior is mainly reflected in three aspects: leader behavior, leaders’ relationships with followers, and the leader’s personal characteristics [4]. Most research has focused on the first two aspects and has paid little attention to the personal characteristics of leaders [1,2,3]. However, there is a significant correlation between leaders’ personal characteristics and employees’ innovative behavior [5], which cannot be ignored when studying how leadership affects employees’ innovative behavior. Bagheri et al. [4] proposed that a valuable extension of the literature on innovation is to investigate the effect of leaders’ personal characteristics on employees’ innovative behavior.
This study focuses on leaders’ calling—a personal attribute rooted in Western occupational psychology, defined as a transcendent motivation to pursue work imbued with a sense of purpose and meaning [6]. As calling reflects intrinsic motivation [7], and intrinsic motivation is a key driver of workplace creativity and innovation [8,9,10], it follows that intrinsic motivation stems from individuals’ interest in, satisfaction with, and positive challenges associated with task engagement [11]. Calling—as a positive predictor of job engagement and job satisfaction [12,13]—is closely related to motivational mechanisms. Therefore, we posit that leaders’ calling, as a motivational personal characteristic, may play a crucial role in fostering employees’ innovative behavior. However, previous studies have not provided answers to this question. Our study examines the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ innovative behavior.
Most studies on leadership and employees’ innovative behavior have focused on motivational mechanisms. The mediating variables include intrinsic motivation [14], creative self-efficacy [15], psychological empowerment [16], self-regulatory focus [17], and team effectiveness [18]. However, many of these mediators overlap conceptually and empirically [19]. Although there is a large amount of literature on the motivational mechanism of innovative behavior, the scope of these studies is narrow, and other specific manifestations or types of motivation have not received sufficient attention. In particular, work meaning—a distinct and critical motivational resource—has been shown to facilitate employees’ innovative behavior [20,21]. Based on the theory of interpersonal sensemaking, we propose that leaders’ calling enhances employees’ perceived work meaning, which in turn promotes their innovative behavior [22]. Our study examines the mediating mechanism between employees’ work meaning, leaders’ calling, and employees’ innovative behavior.
To better understand when leaders’ calling is more likely to be internalized by employees, we introduce the supervisor’s organizational embodiment (SOE) as a key boundary condition. Scholars have also called for future research on the influence of leadership on the possible moderating effects of this difference [23]. Supervisor’s organizational embodiment refers to employees’ beliefs about the leader’s shared identity with the organization [24]. This concept embodies an employee’s sense of the extent to which the leader represents the organization. Drawing on the theory of interpersonal sensemaking [22], we argue that employees’ interpretation of leadership cues depends heavily on whether they perceive the leader as embodying organizational values. When a leader is attractive, legitimate, and reliable [25], employees regard the leader as a role model and imitate their values, attitudes, and behaviors [26]. When SOE is high, leaders’ calling is more likely to be interpreted as consistent with organizational purpose, thereby enhancing employees’ sense of the meaningfulness of their work. Consequently, SOE serves as a theoretically coherent and contextually relevant moderator, strengthening not only the positive effect of leaders’ calling on employees’ work meaning, but also the overall mediating pathway from leaders’ calling to employees’ innovative behavior.
The contribution of our study mainly includes the following three aspects: First, we examine the direct relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ innovative behavior. Existing research mostly focuses on the relationship between leader behaviors, leaders’ relationships with followers, and employees’ innovative behavior. There is not enough research on whether leaders’ personal characteristics can promote employees’ innovative behavior. We examine the influence of leaders’ calling on employees’ innovative behavior from the perspective of motivation, which enriches the research on the influencing factors of individual characteristics on employees’ innovative behavior. Second, we examine the mediating effect of employees’ work meaning on leaders’ sense of mission and employees’ innovative behavior. Although motivation is an important mediating mechanism of external factors influencing employees’ innovative behavior, the scope of research variables is relatively narrow, and other specific manifestations or types of motivation do not receive enough attention. Unfortunately, few studies have focused on the role of work meaning as an important motivational mechanism in mediating the influence of leadership on employees’ innovative behavior. In this study, we used the interpersonal sensemaking theory to address this research gap by examining the mediating role of employees’ work meaning, which will further promote knowledge of the motivation mechanism and refine the important intermediary mechanism of motivation. Third, considering that leaders may have different influence in organizations, we examine the moderating effect of supervisors’ organizational embodiment on both the direct positive relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ work meaning, as well as the indirect effect of leaders’ calling on employees’ innovative behavior through employees’ sense of work meaning. Our study further enriches the boundary conditions under which leaders’ calling influences employees’ innovative behavior.

2. Theory and Hypotheses

2.1. Leader’s Calling and Employees’ Innovative Behavior

Innovative behavior involves finding problems or solutions, generating new ideas, advocating new ideas, and implementing new ideas [27], all of which aim to improve processes, products, or procedures. Employees’ innovative behavior is recognized as a basic element of organizational success and efficiency. The existing literature mainly discusses the causes of employees’ innovative behavior at the individual and organizational levels [28]. For example, at the individual level, employees’ individual characteristics, such as creative self-efficacy [29], psychological capital [30], psychological empowerment [31], and proactive personality [32], have a positive impact on their innovative behavior. At the organizational level, innovation climate [33] and psychological safety climate [34] positively promote employees’ innovative behavior. Leadership style also impacts employees’ innovative behavior. For example, transformational leadership [33], transactional leadership [31], empowering leadership [35], and ethical leadership [34] significantly promote employees’ innovative behavior.
While previous research has primarily focused on leadership behaviors and relational dynamics, less attention has been given to the role of leaders’ personal motivational characteristics in fostering employees’ innovation [4]. One such characteristic is leaders’ calling, which refers to a deep, purpose-driven passion for their work [6]. Traditionally, studies on calling have concentrated on employees’ own experiences of calling and its effects on personal outcomes such as job engagement and job satisfaction [12,13]. However, drawing upon interpersonal sensemaking theory [22], we argue that employees also actively interpret leaders’ demonstrated values and attitudes at work. A leader with a strong sense of calling conveys enthusiasm, commitment, and a sense of meaningfulness, which serve as social cues for employees. Unlike other leader characteristics, such as self-efficacy or optimism, that emphasize competence and emotional states, calling uniquely integrates motivational intensity with a broader sense of societal purpose. This makes it especially influential in fostering employees’ proactive and creative engagement with their work [9].
Existing studies have found that leaders’ calling has a positive impact on employees’ team commitment, voice behavior, job performance, and job satisfaction [36,37,38], but these studies focus on conventional job outcome variables and lack the impact on innovation performance (i.e., employees’ innovative behavior). Leadership has long been recognized as a critical contextual factor influencing employees’ innovative behavior, not only through leaders’ behaviors, but also through their personal characteristics [39,40]. However, whether leaders’ calling affects employees’ innovative behavior has not yet been examined. Based on previous studies, it is not difficult to find that leaders’ calling impacts employees’ innovative behavior. There are three main reasons for this finding.
First, when leaders have a strong sense of calling through their intrinsic drive, they tend to exhibit good attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes. Employees observe and interpret these positive leadership cues through daily interactions. Owing to the role models of leaders, their positive behaviors and attitudes provide social learning objects for employees. Leaders’ perseverance, responsibility, and enthusiasm can inspire employees to internalize these values, thereby motivating them to engage in proactive and innovative behaviors. By mimicking leaders, employees’ positive behaviors acquired from leaders generate positive emotions and perceptions that stimulate creativity [41,42]. Second, leaders with a strong calling can foster employees’ innovative behavior by creating an innovative work environment. Leadership plays a key role in encouraging organizational innovative behavior [43]; leaders with a sense of calling show creativity [44], share knowledge, promote new ideas, and support employees in thinking outside the box [45]. Leaders with a high calling guide or foster a creative organizational climate that responds to environmental changes, challenges, and opportunities and encourages employees to engage in innovative work. Third, through social interactions and exchanges with employees, leaders with a strong calling can cultivate employees’ innovative behavior. In an organization, employees perform their work through interactions with their leaders. The tension of engaging in creative work can put enormous pressure on employees, which can lead to negative emotional states such as depression. These emotions are often not conducive to creative behavior. Through the social exchange process with employees, leaders with a strong calling can convey the support of leaders and the organization to them, help them overcome the fear of risk, and manage negative emotions to achieve a high level of creativity. Based on the above analysis, our study suggests that leaders’ calling may positively influence employees’ innovative behavior. Thus, we expect a positive relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ innovative behavior.
Hypothesis 1.
Leaders’ calling is positively related to employees’ innovative behavior.

2.2. Leaders’ Calling, Employees’ Work Meaning, and Employees’ Innovative Behavior

To enhance the conceptual clarity of our framework and avoid potential overlap with related constructs, we distinguish employees’ work meaning from intrinsic motivation, calling, self-efficacy, and psychological empowerment. Work meaning refers to employees’ perceptions of their work as personally significant, purposeful, and aligned with broader values [21], emphasizing cognitive evaluations of purpose and significance. In contrast, intrinsic motivation reflects an internal drive to engage in activities for inherent satisfaction or enjoyment [11], focusing on affective experiences during task engagement rather than perceptions of work value. Leaders’ calling represents a relatively stable orientation toward purpose and societal contribution [6], distinct from employees’ work meaning, which concerns their interpretations of the significance of their own work. Compared with work meaning, self-efficacy pertains to individuals’ beliefs about their competence in task performance [26], and psychological empowerment is a broader multidimensional construct encompassing meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact [20], emphasizing perceived control and influence rather than intrinsic purpose. Thus, although some conceptual proximity exists, work meaning remains a distinct construct that uniquely captures employees’ cognitive appraisals of purposefulness, serving as a theoretically meaningful mediator between leaders’ calling and employees’ innovative behavior.
Work meaning is an important predictor of a range of positive individual and organizational outcomes [21,46]. Moreover, it is the primary psychological state that people engage in during work [47]. Previous studies have shown that the meaning of work positively affects job satisfaction, organizational identity, organizational citizenship behavior [48], job engagement [13,49,50], and other positive work outcomes.
Interpersonal sensemaking theory proposes that employees actively construct work meaning by interpreting the behavior of others at work [22]. It is not difficult to find that leaders’ calling may positively affect employees’ work meaning. This is because individuals with a calling have the desire and ability to express their own feelings and validate those of others. When leaders show a sense of calling at work, they will have a clear purpose and positive values and influence employees by working tirelessly and enthusiastically to convey company values. Conceptually, leaders’ calling should be seen as a precondition for meaningful work, because it provides employees with a sense of meaning and purpose in their work [21,51], thus enhancing employees’ perception that work is meaningful. When leaders show a strong calling, they show a positive and complete cognitive and emotional state at work, which affects employees’ understanding of work and makes them feel that the work is meaningful and valuable, thus forming a sense of meaning [52].
A work meaning may motivate employees to engage in innovative activities to benefit the organization. On the one hand, the work meaning helps employees achieve their work goals and engage in productive activities [53]. Specifically, as an intrinsic motivation [54,55], work meaning can drive employees to respond to challenges and problems in innovative ways, thereby stimulating innovative behaviors [56]. For example, employees with a sense of meaning find purpose, value, and meaning in their work. Because these employees are intrinsically motivated, they are more inclined to translate their motivations into innovative behavior. On the other hand, the work meaning may include an individual’s perception of benefiting from the positive outcomes of the organization [46], which may increase employees’ willingness to utilize their abilities and energy to achieve innovative behaviors [57]; thus, they will achieve organizational goals (innovative behavior).
Amabile and Pratt [9] pointed out that the generation of individual creative ideas depends mainly on intrinsic factors (such as intrinsic motivation). Extrinsic factors (such as working environment) affect intrinsic factors, thus affecting individual innovation processes. Therefore, extrinsic factors (leaders’ calling) have an impact on employees’ intrinsic motivation (work meaning), thus influencing their innovative behavior. Leaders awaken employees’ work meaning through the strategies they formulate, policies they establish, and values they communicate with, and then stimulate employees’ work meaning to promote innovative behavior [58]. This means that leaders with a calling may have a positive effect on employees’ innovative behavior by stimulating their sense of work. Based on this, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2.
Leaders’ calling has a positive indirect effect on employees’ innovative behavior through employees’ work meaning.

2.3. The Moderating Effect of Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment on the Relationship Between Leaders’ Calling and Employees’ Creative Behavior

A supervisor’s organizational embodiment refers to the extent to which employees identify their supervisor with the organization [59]. Depending on the degree of similarity between leaders and organizational characteristics, employees perceive their leaders as representatives of the organization or as empowered individuals. This also means that a supervisor’s organizational embodiment can influence employees’ reactions to the organization and the leader’s behavior. In recent years, scholars have begun to focus on how supervisors’ organizational embodiment enhances or weakens the influence of leadership on employees, namely, the moderating effect of supervisors’ organizational embodiment. For example, Shoss et al. [23] found that a supervisor’s organizational embodiment can moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and perceived organizational support. Dai et al. [60] found that supervisors’ organizational embodiment could further moderate the influence of perceived supervisor support and organizational support on employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. Su et al. [61] verified that supervisors’ organizational embodiment can moderate the relationship between developmental feedback and innovative employee behavior via creative self-efficacy.
We suggest that supervisors’ organizational embodiment may also moderate the relationship between leaders’ sense of mission and employees’ work meaning. First, to some extent, a supervisor’s organizational embodiment implies the power, status, and influence of leaders in an organization. At the same time, subordinates perceive that leaders, who are regarded as the embodiment of the organization, often have more resources at their disposal for the organization [24,62]. When leaders have a high sense of calling, they tend to use these powers and resources to better guide employees to attach importance to the value and significance of work [63], thus enhancing their work meaning. In contrast, when the supervisor’s organizational embodiment is low, the leader has less organizational power and resources, which leads to the limited impact of his calling on employees’ work meaning. Second, the supervisor’s organizational embodiment conveys the message that the leader and organization exhibit consistent behavior. When a leader’s style or behavior is perceived as representing the organization to a large extent, it implies that the organization approves and encourages the leader. At this point, a supervisor’s organizational embodiment pushes employees to imitate and learn more from their leader [64]. Therefore, when employees perceive a higher level of organizational embodiment from the leader, they are more likely to interpret the leader’s behavior as advocated by the organization and accept the leader’s influence. In contrast, when the leader’s organizational embodiment is low, employees will think that the leader’s performance is not based on the expectations and requirements of the organization, resulting in a weak influence of the leader’s calling. Based on these two points, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3.
Supervisors’ organizational embodiment positively moderates the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ work meaning, such that this relationship is stronger in the presence of higher supervisor organizational embodiment.

2.4. A Moderated Mediation Model

Thus far, we have proposed the mediating role of employees’ work meaning and the moderating effect of supervisors’ organizational embodiment. To further develop our moderated mediation model, we draw on interpersonal sensemaking theory and prior research on supervisors’ organizational embodiment to argue that SOE not only moderates the direct relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ work meaning, but also moderates the indirect effect of leaders’ calling on employees’ innovative behavior via work meaning.
Specifically, when employees perceive their supervisors as strongly embodying the organization, they are more likely to view the leader’s attitudes, values, and behaviors as representative of the organization’s broader expectations [23,62]. Under such conditions, leaders’ calling is interpreted not merely as a personal trait, but as organizationally endorsed, thereby exerting a stronger influence on employees’ work meaning. Greater work meaning, in turn, enhances employees’ intrinsic motivation and proactive engagement in innovative behaviors [9,21].
In contrast, when supervisors are perceived to have low organizational embodiment, employees may treat leaders’ expressions of calling as idiosyncratic and less relevant to their interpretation of work meaning. Consequently, the positive motivational pathway from leaders’ calling to employees’ innovative behavior via work meaning would be weakened.
Therefore, we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 4.
The positive indirect effect of leaders’ calling on employees’ innovative behavior through work meaning is moderated by supervisors’ organizational embodiment, such that this positive indirect effect is stronger in the presence of a higher supervisor’s organizational embodiment.
The hypothesized model is presented in Figure 1, which integrates the proposed relationships among leaders’ calling, employees’ work meaning, and employees’ innovative behavior. As shown, work meaning serves as a mediator, and supervisors’ organizational embodiment functions as a moderator of the indirect effect.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample and Procedures

This study adopted an empirical analysis method by conducting a questionnaire survey that lasted more than one month. The survey was conducted between April to June 2024. For practical reasons, we selected Chinese companies for our survey. Similar to businesses in other countries, Chinese companies are increasingly recognizing the importance of fostering employees’ innovative behavior. The sample consisted of Master of Business Administration (MBA) alumni from a university in Hubei Province, China, and their subordinates, representing a range of industries, including IT, Internet, biomedicine, machinery manufacturing, food, and real estate. Based on the contact information in the school’s MBA alumni book, we contacted 350 MBA alumni over the past three years. Our study required a survey of leader and employee matching. Initially, we screened 248 alumni who currently hold management positions (i.e., have direct reports). By e-mail, we explained the significance and purpose of our study in detail, emphasizing that the survey was anonymous and that the results will be used for scientific research only. Two types of questionnaires–leader and employee versions–were attached to the email. To ensure that the leaders and subordinates were from the same organization and worked together, we invited MBA alumni (leaders) to complete a matching questionnaire and randomly selected one direct subordinate from their team to participate. These teams were drawn from medium to large state-owned enterprises, private companies, and other organizations. The initial questionnaires were coded to achieve one-to-one matching between superiors and subordinates. The initials of the questionnaires were coded to match superiors and subordinates. In particular, the leader version of the questionnaire, which included leaders’ calling, employees’ innovative behavior, and leaders’ demographic characteristics, was filled out by MBA alumni (leaders). The employee version of the questionnaire, which included the employee’s work meaning, supervisors’ organizational embodiment, and the employees’ demographic characteristics, was filled out by a subordinate randomly selected by the alumni. Using the above procedure, we obtained 190 sets of valid questionnaires from leaders and employees. In accordance with the exclusion criteria, invalid questionnaires, such as those with uniform responses or conflicting answers to positive and negative items, were filtered out. After deleting four sets of invalid questionnaires, we finally obtained 186 sets of valid questionnaires.
As shown in Table 1, the proportion of male and female employees in the sample was 33.3% and 66.7%, respectively. The proportion of employees aged 25–35 in the employee sample was 59.7%, which was the most concentrated range. The education level of the employees in the sample was generally high, with 54.8% being undergraduates. The most common length of time that employees worked at the company was two to five years, accounting for 48.4%. Employees and leaders worked together for one to five years at most, accounting for 54.8%. In general, the basic characteristics of the employee sample in our study are consistent with the relevant situation and have high reliability.

3.2. Measures

In the preparation of the scale of the main variables, we used five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” or “never” to 5 = “strongly agree” or “very frequently” to measure the study variables. The full survey items used in this study are presented in Appendix A.
Calling. We used the Brief Calling Scale (BCS), a four-item scale developed by Dik et al. [65]. In this scale, the items are described as follows: “I have a calling to a particular kind of work”, “I have a good understanding of my calling as it applies to my career”, “I am trying to figure out my calling in my career”, “I am searching for my calling as it applies to my career”. Part of the questionnaire was completed by the leaders. The higher the score, the stronger the leader’s calling. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91.
Work meaning. We used the three-item scale developed by Spreitzer [20]. Among them, the descriptions of the items are: “The work I do is very important to me”, “My job activities are personally meaningful to me”, and “the work I do is meaningful to me”. Employees completed a part of the questionnaire. Higher scores indicated a stronger sense of work meaning. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85.
Innovative behavior. We used the six-item scale designed by Scott and Bruce [8]. Sample items were as follows: “Searches out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas”, “Promotes and champions ideas to others”, and “Develops adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas”. Leaders filled out a part of the questionnaire, and the higher the score, the better the innovative behavior of employees. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.93.
Supervisors’ organizational embodiment. Using the measures of Eisenberger et al. [62] and Shoss et al. [23], we used five items to assess how well employees identified with their leaders and the organizational embodiment of their work. The scale is based on the concept of a supervisor’s organizational embodiment, that is, employees’ perceptions of the common characteristics of leaders and organizations, as well as leaders’ and organizations’ experiences of how employees are treated. The representative items are: “My supervisor is representative of [name of organization]” and “My supervisor and [name of organization] have a lot in common”. Employees completed a part of the questionnaire. Higher scores indicated higher levels of supervisors’ organizational embodiment. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85.
Control variables. According to previous literature [31,66], we consider some major demographic variables of employees as control variables, namely: (1) Gender: “1” for male, “2” for female; (2) Age: “1” represents under 25 years old, “2” represents 25 (inclusive)-35 years old, “3” represents 35 (inclusive)-45 years old, “4” represents 45 (inclusive)-55 years old, and “5” represents over 55 years old (inclusive); (3) Education level: “1” for junior college below, “2” for junior college, “3” for undergraduate, “4” for master degree, and “5” for doctoral degree or post-doctorate; (4) organizational tenure: “1” represents less than 1 year, “2” represents 1 (inclusive) to 5 years, “3” represents 5 (inclusive) to 10 years, and “4” represents 10 (inclusive); (5) leader–follower dyad tenure: “1” represents less than 1 year, “2” represents 1 (inclusive) to 5 years, “3” represents 5 (inclusive) to 10 years, and “4” represents 10 (inclusive) years or more.

3.3. Analytic Strategy

First, we used Lisrel 8.70 to test the discriminant validity between the four main variables. Second, we used SPSS (version 20.0) to analyze the correlations between the variables. We then used the hierarchical regression method to examine the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ innovative behavior (Hypothesis 1) and the moderating effect of supervisors’ organizational embodiment on the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ work meaning (Hypothesis 3). Finally, the SPSS PROCESS program developed by Hayes [67] was used to test the mediating effect of employees’ work meaning (Hypothesis 2) and the moderating effect of supervisors’ organizational embodiment on the mediating mechanism (Hypothesis 4). The SPSS PROCESS program can better analyze complex mediating and moderating effects. Based on the bootstrap method, this procedure provided 95% confidence interval results for the hypothesized relationships. If a hypothesis did not include zero in its confidence interval, it was considered true with a 95% probability.

4. Results

4.1. Assessment of the Measurement Model

We conducted CFA on the primary study variables. As can be seen from the results in Table 2, compared with the other four models, this four-factor model fit the data adequately (χ2 = 296.35, df = 129, RMSEA = 0.08, CFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.92).

4.2. Correlation Analysis

Table 3 provides the descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and correlation coefficients of the study variables. This correlation pattern is in line with our expectations. Results showed that leaders’ calling was positively correlated with employees’ work meaning (r = 0.18, p < 0.05) and was also positively correlated with employees’ innovative behavior (r = 0.24, p < 0.01). In addition, employees’ work meaning was positively correlated with their innovative behavior (r = 0.25, p < 0.01).

4.3. Tests of the Study Hypotheses

Table 4 reports the empirical results for all the hierarchical regressions in this study. The regression model M1 reports the regression results with only the control variables added. In column 2, regression model M2 adds the core explanatory variable, leaders’ calling, based on model M1. The results show that leaders’ calling significantly promotes employees’ innovative behavior (β = 0.27, p < 0.001, ΔR2 = 0.07), which yields support for Hypothesis 1. This addresses the research objective of whether leaders’ sense of calling influences employees’ innovative behavior, showing that leaders’ sense of calling has a positive effect on employees’ innovative behavior.
For the mediation effect test, we used Hayes’s [67] PROCESS macro program (Model 4, N = 1000). Relevant results show that leaders’ calling significantly and indirectly affects employees’ innovative behavior through their work meaning (B = 0.05, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.004, 0.12]). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported. This addresses the research objective of how leaders’ sense of calling influences employees’ innovative behavior, showing that leaders’ calling positively impacts innovative behavior by enhancing employees’ work meaning.
In the moderation effect test, models M3–M5 in Table 4 report correlation regression results. Specifically, regression model M3 reports the regression results of the control variables on employees’ work meaning. In regression model M4, the core explanatory variables (leaders’ calling) and the moderator variable (supervisors’ organizational embodiment) are added. The results show that the effect of leaders’ calling on employees’ work meaning is positive and significant (β = 0.23, p < 0.001). When entering the product term of leaders’ calling and supervisor’s organizational embodiment into model M5, its impact on employees’ work meaning is positive and significant (β = 0.20, p < 0.01, ΔR2 = 0.04). This shows that supervisors’ organizational embodiment has a moderating effect.
In order to further explore the moderating effect of supervisor’s organizational embodiment, we used a simple regression method [68] to examine the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ work meaning in high organizational embodiment (mean + 1 standard deviation) and low organizational embodiment (mean − 1 standard deviation), as shown in Figure 2. When the level of supervisors’ organizational embodiment was higher, leaders’ calling significantly promoted employees’ work meaning (β = 0.51, p < 0.01). When the level of supervisors’ organizational embodiment was low, the correlation between leadership’s sense of professional mission and employees’ work meaning was not significant (β = −0.07, s.n.). This procedure further illustrates that a supervisor’s organizational embodiment positively moderates the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ work meaning. By combining this information, we verify Hypothesis 3. This fulfills the research objective of exploring the boundary conditions, showing that supervisors’ organizational embodiment moderates the impact of leaders’ sense of calling on employees’ innovative behavior.
We used Hayes’ [67] PEOCESS macro program (Model 7, N = 1000) to test the moderated mediation model. The results showed that supervisors’ organizational embodiment significantly and positively moderated the mediating effect of employees’ work meaning (index = 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.003, 0.08]). Specifically, when supervisors’ organizational embodiment was higher, the mediating effect of employees’ work meaning was significant (B = 0.07, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.01, 15]). When supervisors’ organizational embodiment was low, the mediating effect of employees’ work meaning was not significant (B = 0.003, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.05]). By combining this information, we verify Hypothesis 4. This fulfills the research objective of exploring boundary conditions, demonstrating that supervisors’ organizational embodiment moderates the mediating effect of leaders’ sense of calling on employees’ innovative behavior.
To assess potential multicollinearity, we examined the variance inflation factors (VIFs) for all independent, moderating, and mediating variables. All VIF values were below the commonly accepted threshold of 5.0, indicating that multicollinearity was not a significant concern in our models.

5. Discussion

The objective of this study is to investigate whether and how leaders’ sense of calling influences employees’ innovative behavior, and to explore the conditions that may define the boundaries of this effect. In the present study, we used paired questionnaire data from leaders and employees to examine the mechanism of leaders’ calling on employees’ innovative behavior. Our findings indicate that leaders’ calling significantly promotes employees’ innovative behavior. In addition, employees’ work meaning plays a mediating role in the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ innovative behavior. Further, supervisors’ organizational embodiment not only moderates the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ work meaning but also moderates the mediating effect of employees’ work meaning on leaders’ calling and employees’ innovative behavior. Specifically, when the level of supervisors’ organizational embodiment is higher, the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ work meaning is stronger, and the mediating effect of employees’ work meaning is stronger. These findings have meaningful theoretical and practical implications.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Our study examines the direct relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ innovative behavior and extends the effect of individual characteristics on employees’ innovative behavior from the perspective of leadership and motivation. Although existing research on innovative behavior has focused on the role of leadership factors, most of it is from the perspective of leaders’ behavioral styles and the relationship between leaders and employees [2,31]. Scholars have paid less attention to the personal characteristics of leaders. As a personal characteristic from a motivational perspective, leadership calling was found to have a significant positive impact on employees’ innovative behavior. Our findings enrich the research on the factors influencing individual leader characteristics on employees’ innovative behavior in leader and employee situations. In addition, our study also found that leaders’ calling can provide employees with a model from which to learn, create an innovative climate, and significantly improve their innovative behavior. These results provide a more comprehensive understanding of the role of leaders’ calling.
We explored the mediating effect of employees’ work meaning on the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ innovative behavior. Studies have shown that there are multiple mechanisms for the relationship between leader characteristics or behaviors and employees’ innovative behavior, such as motivational [69,70,71], affective, and cognitive mechanisms [72]. Although motivation is an important mediating mechanism of extrinsic factors that influence employees’ innovative behavior [54], many of these mediating variables overlap conceptually and practically. Therefore, research on the motivational mechanisms of innovative behavior has not paid sufficient attention to other specific manifestations or types of motivation. Our study shows that work meaning as a motivational factor can mediate innovation. In addition, previous studies have shown that an individual’s work meaning has a positive impact on their work behavior [53]. Combined with the theory of interpersonal sensemaking, our study examines the mediating role of employees’ work meaning in the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ innovative behavior. This echoes the call to explore other potential mechanisms between situational factors and employees’ innovative outcomes [61].
Our findings extend the research on supervisors’ organizational embodiment in several ways and enrich the boundary conditions under which leaders’ calling affects employees’ innovative behaviors. From the perspective of the relevant research content of supervisors’ organizational embodiment, existing studies have mainly examined its moderating effect on leadership styles, including servant leadership [73], transformational leadership [74], abusive supervision [23], leader–member exchange [24,62], and so on. Our study introduces supervisors’ organizational embodiment into the field of leaders’ calling and finds that it positively moderates the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ work meaning. In addition, it positively moderates the mediating effect of work meaning on the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ innovative behavior. The results extend the boundary conditions for the role of leaders’ calling and provide new evidence for understanding the role of leaders’ calling. Furthermore, the results of our study respond to the call to explore the important role of supervisors’ organizational embodiment in multiple organizational scenarios [23,24,74].

5.2. Practical Implications

This study offers several practical implications for organizational management. First, this study found that leaders’ calling can promote employees’ innovative behavior. From a practical perspective, organizations must support leaders’ calling. Organizations can help leaders achieve their calling by providing work resources that enable them to perform more autonomous and meaningful tasks [75]. Therefore, to improve the innovation performance of employees and organizations, organizations should attach importance to leaders’ calling for selection, training, and assessment. When selecting or recruiting leaders, in addition to paying attention to the candidate’s ability and other indicators, special attention should be paid to the level of their calling, which can be investigated through professional experience backtracking, structured interviews of typical cases, and so on. Moreover, organizations should adopt a systematic way to train leaders so that they can maintain and continuously improve their calling. These methods include learning the history of organizational development, communicating with outstanding practitioners in the same industry, and analyzing case studies of career dilemmas. Finally, in the evaluation of leaders, a calling should be regarded as an evaluation indicator of leaders’ daily work and quantified and incorporated into the evaluation system of leaders through behavioral anchoring or key events.
Second, this study found that leaders’ calling promoted employees’ innovative behavior via employees’ work meaning, and employees’ work meaning had a mediating effect. Our findings show that, on the one hand, leaders should be aware of their role as role models and provide timely feedback on employee performance [76]; they can motivate employees’ work meaning through the influence of their own calling. On the other hand, enterprises can help employees develop work meaning and stimulate innovative behavior by implementing a variety of human resource management practices [77]. In addition, organizations need to select employees who are intrinsically motivated and have easy access to a sense of meaning in their work. Furthermore, organizations also need to continuously promote a positive view of work meaning to employees in multiple work situations so that they have a sense of meaning and value in the work they are engaged in, and then enhance their willingness to implement innovative behaviors.
Third, this study shows that a supervisor’s organizational embodiment plays a moderating role in the relationship between leaders’ calling and employees’ work meaning, as well as has a mediating effect. This result suggests that to promote employees’ innovative behavior, leaders should try to continuously improve the level of their organizational embodiment to better exert the influence of leaders’ calling. Specific strategies include fully integrating leaders into the organization, enhancing their sense of identity with the organization, and playing the role of the organization’s agent. In addition, leaders also need to continuously improve their core skills and performance and enhance their voice and organizational status, as well as their teams in the organization. Leaders must maintain close communication with employees, convey the voice of the top of the organization to employees, and strengthen employees’ understanding of organizational decision-making. All the practices mentioned above enhance employees’ perceptions of the extent to which the leader represents the organization.
Finally, when considering the practical implications of our findings, it is important to critically reflect on the effect sizes and the practical significance of the observed relationships. The direct effect of leaders’ calling on employees’ innovative behavior was β = 0.27 (p < 0.001), indicating a moderate effect size, while the indirect effect through employees’ work meaning was B = 0.05 (SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.004, 0.12]). Although the mediation effect is relatively small, it is statistically significant. It is also worth noting that in social and behavioral sciences, effect sizes are generally lower compared to physical sciences due to the complex and multifactorial nature of human behavior [78]. In this context, the observed effect sizes fall within an expected and meaningful range for organizational behavior research. Moreover, even modest effects, when accumulated over time and across multiple employees, can meaningfully influence organizational innovation climates. Therefore, fostering leaders’ sense of calling remains a valuable practical strategy for organizations aiming to cultivate sustained employee innovation.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

The present study has several limitations that should be acknowledged.
First, due to the cross-sectional design, all data were collected at a single point in time. As a result, our findings can only establish correlations among variables, not causal relationships. Future studies could adopt longitudinal designs or experimental methods to better test the causal links between leaders’ calling, employees’ work meaning, and innovative behavior.
Second, based on the theory of interpersonal sensemaking, this study selects work meaning as the mediating mechanism for leaders’ calling in promoting employees’ innovative behavior. While meaningful work is a critical motivational pathway, it represents only one of several possible mechanisms. Future research could examine alternative forms of motivation, such as self-expression or passion [79], to broaden understanding of the psychological processes underlying innovation. Moreover, this study focused on supervisors’ organizational embodiment as a key boundary condition. Additional moderators—such as other leader characteristics, employee traits, or organizational strategies—merit further exploration [80]. It is also important to note that our sample was drawn exclusively from Chinese organizations. Cultural differences may shape how leaders’ calling is perceived and how it influences employees across contexts. Future research is encouraged to test the generalizability of these findings in different cultural settings.
Third, although we conceptualized leaders’ calling as a unidimensional construct, prior research suggests that calling may manifest in multiple distinct forms, including transcendent, prosocial, and intrinsic callings [6,10]. The Brief Calling Scale (BCS) used in this study captures an overall sense of calling—integrating purpose, meaningfulness, and other-oriented values—but does not differentiate among these subtypes. Different forms of calling may activate distinct psychological mechanisms and lead to divergent employee outcomes. For instance, leaders with a transcendent calling may inspire broader societal engagement, those with a prosocial calling may encourage relational and collaborative innovation, and leaders with an intrinsic calling may foster self-directed creativity. Future research is encouraged to distinguish among these different types of leaders’ calling to explore their potentially distinct pathways and boundary conditions in influencing employee innovative behavior. In addition, while this study focused on leaders’ calling as the primary predictor, we did not control for other leadership styles (e.g., transformational leadership, empowering leadership) that may also influence employees’ work meaning. This omission may introduce potential bias. Future studies are encouraged to incorporate a broader range of leadership variables to more rigorously isolate the unique effects of leaders’ calling.
Fourth, employees’ innovative behavior was assessed using leaders’ subjective evaluations. Although such supervisor ratings are common in innovation research [31,66], they are susceptible to potential bias. Future research could incorporate more objective indicators of innovation, such as patent applications, granted patents, or the number of implemented improvement suggestions. Additionally, given that innovative behavior involves multiple stages (e.g., idea generation, idea promotion, and implementation), future research could examine whether leaders’ calling has differential effects across these stages [81].
Fifth, although our sample included participants from diverse genders and industries, formal subgroup analyses (e.g., industry-specific models) were not conducted due to data limitations. Therefore, while we believe the findings have a reasonable degree of generalizability, future research is encouraged to explicitly examine the robustness of these relationships across different subgroups to further validate and extend our conclusions.

6. Conclusions

Current research supports the widely held assumption that a leader’s calling promotes employees’ innovative behavior. The survey results indicate that employees’ work meaning serves as a mediator in this relationship. Furthermore, the supervisor’s organizational embodiment moderates this connection; specifically, the higher the level of organizational embodiment, the stronger the mediating effect. While academic studies on calling have made notable progress, there is still significant room for further exploration. This paper addresses the impact of an individual’s calling on others, which is a motivational perspective that has not been previously explored.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.C., P.W. and L.L.; methodology, Y.C.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.C.; writing—review and editing, Y.C., P.W. and L.L.; supervision, L.L.; funding acquisition, L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Philosophy and Social Science Research Project of Universities in Hubei Province (Grant No. 21G179).

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study were collected through questionnaires from Chinese companies and are available upon request from the authors. Due to privacy concerns, the raw data are not publicly available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

1 = Strongly disagree or never
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree or very frequently

Appendix A.1. Calling

  • I have a calling to a particular kind of work.
  • I have a good understanding of my calling as it applies to my career.
  • I am trying to figure out my calling in my career.
  • I am searching for my calling as it applies to my career.

Appendix A.2. Work Meaning

  • The work I do is very important to me.
  • My job activities are personally meaningful to me.
  • The work I do is meaningful to me.

Appendix A.3. Innovative Behavior

  • Searches out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas.
  • Generates creative ideas.
  • Promotes and champions ideas to others.
  • Investigates and secures funds needed to implement new ideas.
  • Develops adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas.
  • Is innovative.

Appendix A.4. Supervisors’ Organizational Embodiment

  • My supervisor embodies the characteristics of [name of organization].
  • My supervisor and [name of organization] have a lot in common.
  • My supervisor evaluates me in a manner similar to [name of organization].
  • My supervisor is representative of [name of organization].
  • My supervisor and [name of organization] are very similar.

References

  1. Zhou, J.; George, J.M. Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. Leadersh. Q. 2003, 14, 545–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hirst, G.; Van Dick, R.; Van Knippenberg, D. A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. J. Organ. Behav. 2009, 30, 963–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yang, Y.; Li, Z.; Liang, L.; Zhang, X. Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impacts employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 40, 1911–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bagheri, A.; Newman, A.; Eva, N. Entrepreneurial Leadership of CEOs and Employees’ Innovative Behavior in High-Technology New Ventures. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2022, 60, 805–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Huang, L.; Krasikova, D.V.; Liu, D. I can do it, so can you: The role of leader creative self-efficacy in facilitating follower creativity. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2016, 132, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dik, B.J.; Duffy, R.D. Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. Couns. Psychol. 2009, 37, 424–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schabram, K.; Nielsen, J.; Thompson, J. The dynamics of work orientations: An updated typology and agenda for the study of jobs, careers, and callings. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2023, 17, 405–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Scott, S.G.; Bruce, R.A. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 580–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Amabile, T.M.; Pratt, M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Res. Organ. Behav. 2016, 36, 157–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shimizu, A.B.; Dik, B.J.; Conner, B.T. Conceptualizing calling: Cluster and taxometric analyses. J. Vocat. Behav. 2019, 114, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Duffy, R.D.; Bott, E.M.; Allan, B.A.; Torrey, C.L.; Dik, B.J. Perceiving a calling, living a calling, and job satisfaction: Testing a moderated, multiple mediator model. J. Couns. Psychol. 2012, 59, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hirschi, A. Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. J. Couns. Psychol. 2012, 59, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shafi, M.; Lei, Z.; Song, X.; Sarker, M.N.I. The effects of transformational leadership on employee creativity: Moderating role of intrinsic motivation. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2020, 25, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Han, G.H.; Bai, Y. Leaders can facilitate creativity: The moderating roles of leader dialectical thinking and LMX on employee creative self-efficacy and creativity. J. Manag. Psychol. 2020, 35, 405–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mustafa, M.J.; Hughes, M.; Ramos, H.M. Middle-Managers’ Innovative Behavior: The Roles of Psychological Empowerment and Personal Initiative. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2023, 34, 3464–3490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kark, R.; Van Dijk, D.; Vashdi, D.R. Motivated or demotivated to be creative: The role of self-regulatory focus in transformational and transactional leadership processes. Appl. Psychol. 2018, 67, 186–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yang, J.; Liu, H.; Gu, J. A multi-level study of servant leadership on creativity: The roles of self-efficacy and power distance. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2017, 38, 610–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hughes, D.J.; Lee, A.; Tian, A.W.; Newman, A.; Legood, A. Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. Leadersh. Q. 2018, 29, 549–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Spreitzer, G.M. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 1442–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rosso, B.D.; Dekas, K.H.; Wrzesniewski, A. On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Res. Organ. Behav. 2010, 30, 91–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wrzesniewski, A.; Dutton, J.E.; Debebe, G. Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Res. Organ. Behav. 2003, 25, 93–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shoss, M.K.; Eisenberger, R.; Restubog, S.L.D.; Zagenczyk, T.J. Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 98, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Eisenberger, R.; Shoss, M.K.; Karagonlar, G.; Gonzalez-Morales, M.G.; Wickham, R.E.; Buffardi, L.C. The supervisor POS-LMX-subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation wariness and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, 635–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Huang, N.; Qiu, S.; Yang, S.; Deng, R. Ethical Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Mediation of Trust and Psychological Well-Being. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2021, 14, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pieterse, A.N.; 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, 609–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Le Blanc, P.M.; González-Romá, V.; Wang, H. Charismatic Leadership and Work Team Innovative Behavior: The Role of Team Task Interdependence and Team Potency. J. Bus. Psychol. 2021, 36, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gong, Y.; Huang, J.C.; Farh, J.L. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Acad. Manag. J. 2009, 52, 765–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sameer, Y.M. Innovative behavior and psychological capital: Does positivity make any difference? J. Econ. Manag. 2018, 32, 75–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ma, X.; Jiang, W. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and employee creativity in entrepreneurial firms. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2018, 54, 302–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kong, Y.; Li, M. Proactive personality and innovative behavior: The mediating roles of job-related affect and work engagement. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2018, 46, 431–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jaiswal, N.K.; Dhar, R.L. Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity: A multilevel study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 51, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yidong, T.; Xinxin, L. How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 116, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Guo, Y.; Peng, Y.; Zhu, Y. How does empowering leadership motivate employee innovative behavior: A job characteristics perspective. Curr. Psychol. 2023, 42, 18280–18290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Park, J.; Lee, K.; Lim, J.I.; Sohn, Y.W. Leading with callings: Effects of leader’s calling on followers’ team commitment, voice behavior, and job performance. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Park, J.; Sohn, Y.W. Is it happy to work with leaders viewing their work as a calling? Investigating mediators and a moderator on the relationship between leader calling and follower job satisfaction. Korean J. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2018, 31, 353–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Buis, B.C.; Kluemper, D.H.; Weisman, H.; Tao, S. Your employees are calling: How organizations help or hinder living a calling at work. J. Vocat. Behav. 2024, 149, 103958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oldham, G.R.; Cummings, A. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 607–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shin, S.J.; Zhou, J. Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Acad. Manag. J. 2003, 46, 703–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Avey, J.B.; Luthans, F.; Youssef, C.M. The additive value of positive psychological capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 430–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cai, W.; Lysova, E.I.; Bossink, B.A.; Khapova, S.N.; Wang, W. Psychological capital and self-reported employee creativity: The moderating role of supervisor support and job characteristics. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2019, 28, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Qiao, G.; Li, Y.; Hong, A. The strategic role of digital transformation: Leveraging digital leadership to enhance employee performance and organizational commitment in the digital era. Systems 2024, 12, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Duan, W.; Tang, X.; Li, Y.; Cheng, X.; Zhang, H. Perceived organizational support and employee creativity: The mediation role of calling. Creat. Res. J. 2020, 32, 403–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shalley, C.E.; Gilson, L.L. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadersh. Q. 2004, 15, 33–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Steger, M.F.; Dik, B.J.; Duffy, R.D. Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). J. Career Assess. 2012, 20, 322–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Christian, M.S.; Garza, A.S.; Slaughter, J.E. Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers. Psychol. 2011, 64, 89–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Maharaj, I.; Schlechter, A.F. Meaning in life and meaning of work: Relationships with organizational citizenship behaviour, commitment and job satisfaction. Manag. Dyn. 2007, 16, 24–41. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC69726 (accessed on 1 January 2007).
  49. Gu, J.; Jiang, X.; Ding, S.; Xie, L.; Huang, B. Calling leveraged work engagement: Above and beyond the effects of job and personal resources. Nankai Bus. Rev. 2018, 21, 107–120. Available online: https://nbr.nankai.edu.cn/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=160725054&flag=1 (accessed on 16 May 2018).
  50. Sánchez-Cardona, I.; Vera, M.; Marrero-Centeno, J. Job resources and employees’ intention to stay: The mediating role of meaningful work and work engagement. J. Manag. Organ. 2023, 29, 930–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bloom, M.; Colbert, A.E.; Nielsen, J.D. Stories of calling: How called professionals construct narrative identities. Adm. Sci. Q. 2021, 66, 298–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Duffy, R.D.; Dik, B.J.; Douglass, R.P.; England, J.W.; Velez, B.L. Work as a calling: A theoretical model. J. Couns. Psychol. 2018, 65, 423–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Martela, F.; Pessi, A.B. Significant work is about self-realization and broader purpose: Defining the key dimensions of meaningful work. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fishbach, A.; Woolley, K. The structure of intrinsic motivation. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2022, 9, 339–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Xie, B.; Zhang, X.; Miao, J.; Zhang, X.; Xu, J. The conceptualization, antecedents and interventions of occupational calling in Chinese context. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2023, 31, 2219–2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Afsar, B.; Umrani, W.A. Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of motivation to learn, task complexity and innovation climate. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2020, 23, 402–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kashdan, T.B.; Rose, P.; Fincham, F.D. Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. J. Pers. Assess. 2004, 82, 291–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Koo, M.; Fishbach, A. The small-area hypothesis: Effects of progress monitoring on goal adherence. J. Consum. Res. 2012, 39, 493–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Eisenberger, R.; Karagonlar, G.; Stinglhamber, F.; Neves, P.; Becker, T.E.; Gonzalez-Morales, M.G.; Steiger-Mueller, M. Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 1085–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Dai, Y.D.; Hou, Y.H.; Chen, K.Y.; Zhuang, W.L. To help or not to help: Antecedents of hotel employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1293–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Su, W.; Lin, X.; Ding, H. The influence of supervisor developmental feedback on employee innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Eisenberger, R.; Shanock, L. Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: A case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creat. Res. J. 2003, 15, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mackey, J.D.; McAllister, C.P.; Brees, J.R.; Huang, L.; Carson, J.E. Perceived organizational obstruction: A mediator that addresses source-target misalignment between abusive supervision and OCBs. J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 39, 1283–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mayer, D.M.; Kuenzi, M.; Greenbaum, R.; Bardes, M.; Salvador, R.B. How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2009, 108, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dik, B.J.; Eldridge, B.M.; Steger, M.F.; Duffy, R.D. Development and validation of the calling and vocation questionnaire (CVQ) and brief calling scale (BCS). J. Career Assess. 2012, 20, 242–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tu, Y.; Lu, X.; Choi, J.N.; Guo, W. Ethical leadership and team-level creativity: Mediation of psychological safety climate and moderation of supervisor support for creativity. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 159, 551–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  68. Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G.; Reno, R.R. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  69. Li, S.; Yu, W.; Lei, Y.; Hu, M. How does spiritual leadership inspire employees’ innovative behavior? The role of psychological capital and intrinsic motivation. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2023, 73, 100905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Shalley, C.E.; Gilson, L.L.; Blum, T.C. Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2009, 52, 489–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Schuckert, M.; Kim, T.T.; Paek, S.; Lee, G. Motivate to innovate: How authentic and transformational leaders influence employees’ psychological capital and service innovation behavior. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 776–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, J.; Gong, Z.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, Y. Impact of the supervisor feedback environment on creative performance: A moderated mediation model. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wang, Z.; Xu, H.; Liu, Y. Servant leadership as a driver of employee service performance: Test of a trickle-down model and its boundary conditions. Hum. Relat. 2018, 71, 1179–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Stinglhamber, F.; Marique, G.; Caesens, G.; Hanin, D.; De Zanet, F. The influence of transformational leadership on followers’ affective commitment: The role of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Career Dev. Int. 2015, 20, 583–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hirschi, A.; Keller, A.C.; Spurk, D.M. Living one’s calling: Job resources as a link between having and living a calling. J. Vocat. Behav. 2018, 106, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Robbins, T.L.; Crino, M.D.; Fredendall, L.D. An integrative model of the empowerment process. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2002, 12, 419–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Grant, A.M. Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 458–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Auger, P.; Woodman, R.W. Creativity and intrinsic motivation: Exploring a complex relationship. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2016, 52, 342–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Schaubroeck, J.; Peng, A.C.; Hannah, S.T.; Ma, J.; Cianci, A.M. Struggling to meet the bar: Occupational progress failure and informal leadership behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 2021, 64, 1740–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Birdi, K.; Leach, D.; Magadley, W. The relationship of individual capabilities and environmental support with different facets of designers’ innovative behavior. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2016, 33, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Systems 13 00718 g001
Figure 1. Research hypothetical model.
Figure 1. Research hypothetical model.
Systems 13 00718 g001
Systems 13 00718 g002
Figure 2. The interactive effect of leaders’ calling and supervisor’s organizational embodiment on employees’ work meaning.
Figure 2. The interactive effect of leaders’ calling and supervisor’s organizational embodiment on employees’ work meaning.
Systems 13 00718 g002
Table 1. Description of basic characteristics of samples (N = 186).
Table 1. Description of basic characteristics of samples (N = 186).
VariableItemNumber (Person)Proportion
GenderMale6233.3%
Female12466.7%
AgeUnder 25 years old3016.1%
25 (inclusive)–35 years old11159.7%
35 (inclusive)–45 years old3217.2%
45 (inclusive)–55 years old137.0%
EducationBelow junior college179.1%
Junior college4624.7%
Undergraduate10254.8%
Masters’ degree1910.2%
Doctoral degree or post-doctorate21.1%
Organizational tenureLess than 1 year5228.0%
1 (inclusive) to 5 years9048.4%
5 (inclusive) to 10 years2614.0%
More than 10 (inclusive) years189.7%
Leader–follower dyad tenureLess than 1 year7238.7%
1 (inclusive) to 5 years10254.8%
5 (inclusive) to 10 years105.4%
More than 10 (inclusive) years21.1%
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Modelχ2dfΔχ2RMSEACFINFI
Four-factor model (L; E; M; B)296.35129 0.080.950.92
Three-factor model (L + E; M; B)886.72132590.370.180.800.77
Three-factor model (M + B; L; E)531.51132235.160.130.880.84
Two-factor model (L + E; M + B)1115.09134818.740.200.720.69
One-factor model (L + E + M + B1597.161351300.810.240.610.58
Notes: L = Leaders’ calling. E = supervisor’s organizational embodiment. M = Employees’ work meaning. B = employees’ innovative behavior. Source: derived from the analysis of questionnaire survey data.
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the study variables.
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the study variables.
VariableMeanSD12345678
1. Leaders’ calling3.920.73
2. Employees’ work meaning3.750.870.18 *
3. Employees’ innovative behavior 3.470.900.24 **0.25 **
4. Supervisor’s organizational embodiment2.190.82−0.20 **−0.09−0.13
5. Gender1.670.470.21 **−0.17 *−0.06−0.09
6. Age2.150.77−0.090.010.090.19 *−0.31 ***
7. Education2.690.820.21 **0.070.07−0.17 *0.41 ***−0.37 ***
8. Org. tenure2.050.90−0.19 *0.17 *0.17 *0.08−0.28 ***0.46 ***−0.26 ***
9. Dyad. tenure1.690.62−0.060.100.21 **−0.01−0.060.20 **0.020.60 ***
Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; Source: derived from the analysis of questionnaire survey data.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression results.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression results.
VariablesOutcome: Employees’ Innovative BehaviorOutcome: Employees’ Work Meaning
M1M2M3M4M5
Gender−0.06−0.10−0.22 **−0.24 **−0.22 **
Age0.060.04−0.09−0.10−0.09
Education0.130.100.18 *0.150.13
Org. tenure0.070.110.22 *0.26 *0.26 *
Dyad. tenure0.150.14−0.04−0.04−0.02
Leaders’ calling 0.27 *** 0.23 **0.24 **
Supervisor’s organizational embodiment −0.04−0.02
Leaders’ calling × supervisor’s organizational embodiment 0.20 **
ΔR2 0.07 0.050.04
F2.34 *4.44 ***3.27 **4.00 ***4.60 ***
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; Source: Derived from the analysis of questionnaire survey data.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cao, Y.; Wen, P.; Luo, L. Leaders’ Calling and Employees’ Innovative Behavior: The Mediating Role of Work Meaning and the Moderating Effect of Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment. Systems 2025, 13, 718. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13080718

AMA Style

Cao Y, Wen P, Luo L. Leaders’ Calling and Employees’ Innovative Behavior: The Mediating Role of Work Meaning and the Moderating Effect of Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment. Systems. 2025; 13(8):718. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13080718

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cao, Yuyang, Peng Wen, and Liqiong Luo. 2025. "Leaders’ Calling and Employees’ Innovative Behavior: The Mediating Role of Work Meaning and the Moderating Effect of Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment" Systems 13, no. 8: 718. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13080718

APA Style

Cao, Y., Wen, P., & Luo, L. (2025). Leaders’ Calling and Employees’ Innovative Behavior: The Mediating Role of Work Meaning and the Moderating Effect of Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment. Systems, 13(8), 718. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13080718

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop