The Role of Leaders’ Regulatory Focus Towards Creativity and Safety Ambidextrous Behavior. A Conceptual View

Most research has explored ambidexterity at the organisational level and very limited research is available on individual ambidextrous behaviours. This research paper reviews the role of leaders’ regulatory focus in promoting individual ambidexterity in the form of creativity and safety. The main aim is to contribute to ambidexterity and self-regulatory literature by examining the role of leaders’ regulatory focus in managing ambidextrous behaviours. Ambidexterity is the ability to manage conflicting task demands, which poses a fundamental self-regulatory and motivational challenge in the process of pursuing different goals.


Introduction
This section discusses the main concepts of the study, the value of creativity and safety and how they have been investigated by scholars. These study streams have evolved separately and it is proposed that a better understanding of how to simultaneously promote both is possible by drawing on ambidexterity research (March, 1991), a construct which also refers to the perusal of contradictory goals and on self-regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997). Finally, it presents the rationale behind the study and its value and expected contributions Nowadays, creativity and safety are valued in a wide range of tasks, jobs, and industries. Today, almost all organisations face a dynamic work environment characterised by rapid environmental and technological change. Leaders realise that to stay competitive they need their employees to be effectively engaged in their work, trying to produce new and suitable products and procedures (Amabile, 1996;Ford, 1996;Shalley, 1991;Zhou, 1998;Zohar, 2000). Organisations, especially industrially driven ones, need to be more creative and safer to compete, develop, and lead (Jung et al., 2003;Tierney et al., 1999). One important question is how leaders may strike a balance between safety and creativity. Unfortunately, there is no research so far has investigated creativity and safety simultaneously.
Much of the experimental research has viewed creativity as producing a new and useful idea relating to products, services, processes, and procedures (Amabile, 1996;Ford, 1996;Shalley, 1991;Zhou, 1998). Creativity plays an important role in technological change, in social science, in the arts and human behaviours. Creativity has become the key concern of business and organisations because it is a source of flexibility and enables them to effectively cope with changes and challenges. (Runco, 2004) As Sacramento, Fay and West (2013) and However et al. (2012) suggest, creativity is a key skill for solving organisational problems which have major impact on many organisations.
There are several antecedents of creativity that have examined by many studies. These include such aspects as social factors, individual differences, reward systems, work climate, autonomy, leadership and encouragement to take risks (Amabile, 1996;Ford, 1996;Shalley, 1991;Zhou, 1998).
Safety research has focused on understanding the antecedents of safety, such as the values of the organisation regarding safety, the role of organisational norms and social influences on safety behaviour and safety outcomes (Mearns & Flin, 1999;Mullen, 2004), psychological safety climate (i.e., employees' perceptions of work environment traits (Seo, Torabi, Blair, & Ellis, 2004) and the role of the leader. Recently, the critical role that leadership can play with regard to enhancing the safety climate, safety behaviour and preventing accidents has been of great concern (Hofmann, Jacobs & Landy, 1995;Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999;Neal, Griffin & Hart, 2000;Zohar, 2000) Zohar (2003) defined safety climate as employees' perceptions of safety policies, practices and procedures all have a significant role to play with regard to workplace safety. Past meta-analytic studies has confirmed that supporting safety climates in the workplace leads to fewer occupational injuries and accidents than safety climates that are not supported. Therefore, many organisations recently have been concerned with improving safety in the work environment (Christian, Bradley, Wallace & Burke, 2009;Clarke, 2006a;Beus et al., 2010).
Based on the previous review, creativity can be defined as the extent to which employees generate new and useful knowledge (Amabile, 1983), and safety as the extent to which employees perform accurately with safety-related rules and regulations (Zohar, 2000). Although both are desirable behaviours in organisations, these two elements might be thought of as being at odds, as employees who follow work rules and procedures accurately are more likely to perform safely (Zohar, 2000) but will arguably also be less likely to be creative, as creativity often requires to go off the beaten track (Hirst, van Knippenberg, Chen, & Sacramento, 2011).
Safety and creativity have both become important goals because of the human and financial costs related to unsafe behaviour, injuries and solving problems creatively, especially in oil organisations. As a practical example, we can think of the BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 when there were 11 workers killed, 17 injured and the costs of these injuries included $7.8 billion in settlements with workers and costs to the businesses affected. As reported by safety board managing director Daniel Horowitz, this disaster happened because of insufficient safety systems and material that was poorly designed and not properly tested. On the other hand, in order to solve the problem BP had to rely upon the creativity of its workforce to develop a unique and tailored solution that would stop the leakage. The British Petroleum case, for example, shows the safety practices and creative solution that would be used to avoid or deal with the problems.
Safety literature proposes that leaders often focus on producing more and new products and services, and only subsequently focus on safety (Janssens, Brett & Smith, 1995;Wallace, Chen & Kanfer, 2005;Zohar, 2000). Even though several organisations promote safety in formal policies and strategies, it is often creation rather than safety that is emphasised in daily work activities (Zohar, 2003). As Pate-Cornell (1990) argues, job estimation procedures emphasise creation over safety, and leaders stress creation over performance safety, which is the fundamental element responsible for poor safety records. Likewise, Kaminski (2001) states that although performance systems help to increase productivity, they also lead to high injury rates in organisations. For this reason, as work safety becomes conditional on creativity, workers may notice that less attention is paid to safety. So, there is a possible tradeoff between creativity and safety in the workplace (Wallace & Chen, 2006). Thus, the literature recognises the importance of leadership in enhancing positive safety outputs while increasing creative performance.
Recently, many organisations have faced a critical problem in managing these different aspects. Without exploring new knowledge, and generating climate for safety, in the face of change an organisation is more likely to fail (Cleveland, 2010). Based on the idea that different structures are required for creativity and safety, organisations needed to manage both for long-term survival and for change over decades. Thus, I argue that creativity and safety are both necessary in the workplace because of having to cope with today's dynamic work environment by avoiding injuries and faults and developing innovative technologies. Therefore, it is important for leaders to know how to manage and embrace these distinct aspects.
Management studies (e.g., Benner & Tushman, 2003;Gupta, Smith & Shalley, 2006;He & Wong, 2004; started to use the term 'ambidexterity' to describe the ability of organisations to manage and balance both exploration activities such as searching for new ideas (March, 1991) and exploitation activities such as implementation (March, 1991). The term ambidexterity actually means the ability to use both hands equally (Zacher& Rosing, in press). In management studies, ambidexterity is the term used to refer to the dynamic management of exploration and exploitation. Exploration includes such things as search, pursuit, risk taking, investigation, flexibility, finding or innovation, whereas exploitation includes things such as improvement, production, efficiency, execution and implementation. (March, 1991) It is possible to draw a parallelism between exploration/exploitation and creativity/safety. Creativity refers to the exploration and generation of new ideas and knowledge, and therefore shares elements in common with the notion of exploration, also related with the development of new opportunities. Safety, on the other hand, refers to employees' capacity to effectively perform their work while following an existent process and code of procedures in order to avoid errors, which can be linked to the idea of focusing on the existent resources associated with exploitation (Raisch & Birkinshaw 2008;Jasmend, Blazevic & Ruyter, 2012).Recent research proposes leadership behaviours, contextual factors and organisational structures that might create important antecedents to ambidexterity (Beckman, 2006;Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997;Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004;Smith & Tushman, 2005;. Various studies have been conducted on the role of leadership traits, such as paradoxical capacity (Smith & Tushman, 2005), and behaviours (Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006). Birkinshaw and Gibson's (2004) study, describes ambidextrous individuals are allocating time for exploration and exploitation activities when they are thriving under leaders who motivate them to deal for the good quality in the organisation, promoting adaptive behaviour and providing effective strategy. A study by Nemanich and Vera (2009) shows that there is a positive impact of the role of transformational leadership on ambidexterity, although how this effect unfolds is not fully known.
Most ambidexterity research has so far focused on the organisational level, and is therefore not able to provide a solution to the problem outlined earlier, which pertains the promotion of ambidextrous behaviours at the individual level. I will extent this literature by examining the role of leadership in promoting individual ambidexterity in the form of creativity and safety. Research is needed to link the role of leadership and ambidexterity for three logical reasons. First, the complicated demands of dynamic work environments signify the need to emphasise the combining of exploration and exploitation (Crossan, Vera, & Nanjad, 2008). Second, there is a little research on ambidexterity at individual level; most of studies have focused on the organisational level. The little research that exists on individual ambidexterity, such as Raisch, Birkinshaw, Tushman (2009) andO'Reilly andTushman (2013), calls for more research on boundary conditions, individual and team levels of analysis to help further to understanding contextual ambidexterity in shaping individuals and team level behaviours. Third, the role of leadership behaviours remains unclear in attending to the conflicting demands of exploration and exploitation. Previous research provides only scattered evidence of the combining between leadership and ambidexterity in dynamic contexts, especially at lower organizational levels (Berson, Nemanich, Waldman, Galvin, & Keller, 2006). For example, there is only one study examining this issue, and indicates the existence of a positive relationship between transformational leadership and ambidexterity (Nemanich & Vera, 2009). So, we know very little about the relation between role of leadership and exploration and exploitation and about how leaders can simultaneously enable the two behaviours.
There is no study has examined the role of leadership in enhancing creativity and safety simultaneously. This is surprising given that providing a creative and safe work environment through effective leadership is key goal of most modern organisations. Where they can be affected by management practices and the role of leadership, they have a great potential to motivate employees. Therefore, I will examine the role of leaders' Self-Regulatory Focus on fostering ambidextrous behaviours creative and safety. Because Self-Regulatory Focus has distinct aspects, such as promotion and prevention and it is more likely to be effective in a dynamic work environment.
I argue that a self-regulatory focus theory offers a useful framework to the understanding of ambidextrous behaviours, in terms of creativity and safety. First, this type of theory has different aspects (promotion focus) and (prevention focus) and these concepts are consistent with ambidexterity theory to manage exploration and exploitation (Raisch & Birkinshaw 2008;Jasmend, Blazevic & Ruyter, 2012). So, self-regulated individuals are focused on achieving different goals (Higgins, Kruglanski & Pierro 2003) and ambidextrous individuals focus on performing conflicting activities towards different goals (Crossan, Vera & Nanjad, 2008). Second, as suggested by Sacramento et al. (2013) ''that regulatory focus is key to the way leadership skills are applied, but do not fully explain what these leadership skills are'' Thus, we need to examine these skills of SRF which are more likely to be effective in dynamic work environments in order to promote both team ambidexterity behaviours, in the form of creativity and safety. Third, regulatory focus theory has the potential to enhance our understanding of the mechanisms through which individual difference and situational factors influence safety and creativity (Higgins, 1997). Certainly, Wallace et al.'s (2005) initial studies on regulatory focus at work has revealed that employees' regulatory focus can clarify the relations of motivational traits (general self-efficacy and trait anxiety) and work goal orientations with creativity and safety.

Literature Review
In this section, first I will provide a comprehensive review of ambidexterity in organisations. Second, creativity and climate for creativity will be reviewed, and then I will discuss the impact of leadership on creativity. Third, safety in terms of the climate for safety and leadership for safety will be discussed. Finally, self-regulatory theory will be presented.

Ambidexterity in Organisations
The ambidexterity notion has attracted attention of scholars from various fields, as organisational learning, strategic management and innovation. Ambidexterity is the term used to refer to the dynamic management of exploration and exploitation, which are both needed for organisational effectiveness.  define ambidexterity as the "ability to simultaneously pursue both incremental and discontinuous innovation" (p.8). Exploration refers to learning and innovation (i.e. the search and attainment of new knowledge), whereas, exploitation refers to the use of existing knowledge. Baum, Li, and Usher (2000) argue that "… exploitation refers to learning gained via local search, experiential refinement, and selection and reuse of existing routines.
Exploration refers to learning gained through processes of concerted variation, planned experimentation, and play" (p. 768). Vermeulen and Barkema (2001) define exploration as the "search for new knowledge" and exploitation as the "ongoing use of a firm's knowledge base" (p. 459).
The main idea of ambidextrous leadership is that the complexity of exploration and exploitation activities needs to be managed by an equally complex leadership approach. The ambidexterity theory of leadership therefore suggests that the interaction between two opposite leadership behaviours-Combining both types of leadership behaviours, ambidextrous leadership was defined by Rosing et al. (2011) as "the ability to foster both explorative and exploitative behaviours in followers by increasing or reducing variance in their behaviour and flexibly switching between those behaviours" (p. 957). Creativity and safety behaviours can also be seen, in the light of ambidexterity theory, as ambidextrous behaviours. Ambidextrous behaviours refer to the engagement in both safety behaviour and creativity behaviours; these behavioural demands must simultaneously perform safety and creativity activities and/or quickly switch between them to show ambidextrous behaviours.
In a seminal article, March (1991) states that the basic challenge confronting organisations is the need to exploit available resources and abilities, in order to obtain adequate exploration and to avoid disconnection between environmental and technological changes and organisational change. In his opinion, exploitation was about control, assessment and certainty, while exploration was about pursuit, exploring, autonomy and creativity. In March's opinion, "The fundamental problem confronting an organisation is to engage in sufficient exploitation to ensure its current viability and, at the same time, devote enough energy to exploration to ensure its future viability" (p. 105). The challenges in balancing exploration and exploitation are that exploitation has a great certainty of shortterm achievement, while exploration, by its nature, is associated with an uncertain increase in the number of new ideas. Based on this logic, excessively exploring ideas at the expense of safety can be costly and can lead to , as the tangible outcomes of exploration will only be recognized in the long term, and then only with significant uncertainty. On the other hand, a concentration on assessing safety without exploration discourages the organisation from pursuing development and creativity. This can direct firms to focus only on the short term and miss out on long term advantages (Levinthal and March, 1993). Therefore, the recommendation of a balanced combination of the two should come as no surprise (Auh & Menguc, 2005) Related studies of organisational ambidexterity suggest that rather than emphasising one at the expense of the other, a balance between the two strategies is needed. This is because organizational ambidexterity can be defined as a range of behaviour from exploration on the one hand to exploitation on the other. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between the ambidexterity as a result of which exploration and exploitation are achieved respectively, and the ambidexterity by which exploration and exploitation are achieved simultaneously (Gupta et al., 2006). Long-ago, organisations used to cope with internal change and shifting from one change to another, but after rapid change in technologies and the development of the dynamic workplace, the challenge is switched to managing exploration and exploitation approaches simultaneously. The best method for successfully managing these approaches simultaneously is by leaders who are adopting effective strategies for achieving ambidextrous organisations (Gupta et al., 2006).
Research has shown that to manage these aspects leaders are needed who can balance the challenging stress of different organisational strategies. For example, Jansen, Vera and Crossan (2009) explore the ways that transformational leaders are more likely to be related to exploration, and that transactional leadership is closer to exploitation. Other studies relating leadership and ambidexterity confirm that the balanced achievement of exploration and exploitation can be influenced by leadership behaviours (e.g., Alexiev, Jansen, Van

Creativity
As discussed earlier, creativity refers to the generation of novel and useful ideas, products, processes, or services (e.g., Amabile, 1988;Shalley, 1991Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993). Recently, there have been two important models developed for focusing on identifying the antecedents of creativity (Amabile, 1983(Amabile, , 1988(Amabile, , 1996Woodman,el al,1993). These models can be divided into two groups: first, componential theories that test human behaviours and abilities to perform creatively. Second, interactionist approach to organisational creativity, which states creativity as individual level that can be influenced by conditional variables. These models provide a logical framework for the field of employee creativity, while similarities and differences between these models also occur. Remarkably, both models address the impact of the work climate or organisational context while also describing a wide range of elements that may enhance or restrict creativity in employees' work. Amabile's (1988) componential model of creativity climates identifies critical contextual factors, such as support of creativity, autonomy, freedom, resources, stress, and environmental obstacles to creativity (Yun Lin & Chuan Liu, 2012). According to Woodman, et al (1993)  occurs at individual, team and organisational levels and is influenced by factors pertaining to all these three levels.
What is more, individual and contextual features interact to predict creativity .

Climate for Creativity
An important antecedent of creativity acknowledged by most creativity researchers is organisational climate, in particular the existence of a climate that supports creativity and innovation (Amabile, 1983, Ekvall, 1996Anderson & West, 1998). Ekvall and Ryhammar (1999) argue that a creative climate combines challenges, freedom, support, and promotes openness and uncertainty. Many studies show a relation between climate and creativity related outcomes (Baer & Frese, 2003;Ekvall & Ryhammar, 1999). In particular, some studies suggest that the creativity climate is an important predictor of high performance (Amabile et al., 1996;Ekvall, 1996). Ismail (2005) argues that creative climates impact on organisations' innovation. Thus, climate for creativity could facilitate interventions to promote innovation within organisations. Woodman et al. (1993) identified personal and organisational or environmental factors that influence creativity climate at cross different levels; organisational, team and individuals. These factors can interact to affect cross level analysis to enhance or inhibit creative behaviour in complex social systems.
The role of leaders is important to make sure that the construction of the work environment and the human resource practices (e.g., goal setting, incomes, rewards and evaluations) promote creativity (e.g., Drazin, Glynn & Kazanjian, 1999;Mumford, 2000;Mumford et al., 2002;Shalley et al., 2000). Effective leaders are aware of the different creative problem solving style at cross levels in terms of individuals, teams, and organisations. The most successful leaders will support creative employees and teams when it comes to managing and dealing with challenges through applying creativity process. Managing creative problem solving will enable leaders to have a significant influence on performance (Shalley et al., 2000). Volmer, Spurk& Niessen (2012) found a positive relationship between LMX and creative performance was stronger when employees have greater work autonomy. Their findings show to the significance of considering the interplay of both, the leadermember relationship and work environment issues for increasing employees' creative work.

Safety
Safety is defined by Zohar (2000) as employees' perceptions of safety policies, practices, and procedures and all have significant roles in workplace safety. Christiania et al. (2009) stated that safety antecedents focused on either personal factors or situational factors but rarely both; each of these factors includes more direct antecedents to safety, such as safety knowledge, and safety motivation as proximal antecedents to safety behaviours and safety performance .

Climate for safety
Kines et al. (2011) defines safety climate as group members' shared perceptions of manager safety policies, procedures and practices. Safety climate reflects employees' perception of the true value of safety in the workplace, as a causal element in reducing accidental injuries. Wiegman et al. (2002) also defines safety climate as the temporary state to evaluate safety culture and issue commonalities among peoples' perceptions of the work society. Neal et al. (2000) define safety climate as a particular shape of organisational climate that describes peoples' perceptions of the safety value in the work setting. This shared perception shows that safety perceptions in a particular work environment are shared among employees (Neal & Griffin, 2004). Safety climate directly affects employees' safety motivation and safety knowledge, which, in turn, affects safety performance behaviours associated directly with safety results, such as low accidents and injuries (Neal & Griffin, 2004). Taylor (2005) indicates that having an appropriate safety climate in an organisation can bring many benefits, such as avoiding injury that decreases downtime and ultimately leads to cost savings. The organisation also can build a good reputation for itself, in addition to creating job satisfaction for their employees, poor safety climate. As Probst and Estrada (2010) argue, leads to increased accidents, some of which are under-reported. When employees view the safety climate in an organisation as poor or weak, it leads to lower levels of safety. (Probst, Brubaker & Barsotti, 2008). With regard to safety outcomes, all of the antecedents operate indirectly through safety performance behaviours.

Leadership for Safety
Andriessen (1978) notes that while leaders are a crucial factor in the safety behaviour of workers, it is management that sets the leader's goals, objectives and concerns. Therefore higher-level management have a greater level of influence on workers' safety behaviour than leaders Zohar & Luria, 2004). However, leadership has both direct and indirect influences on safety climate. The direct influence connects to managers' patterns of safe and unsafe behaviours, and to their support of followers' behaviour through monitoring and control. The indirect influence of leadership styles connects to the establishing norms related to policies, practices and procedures that make a particular safety environment or climate. Both directly and indirectly, these leader actions influence workers' expectations and motivation, thus influencing the likelihood of particular behaviours (Flin & Yule, 2004).
Prior studies investigating antecedents of safety-related behaviour and injuries focus on the role of leadership and safety climates. For example, (Zohar 2002) highlight the role of leadership and other management practices in improving safety. Occupational safety researchers also pay attention to the role of safety climates in supporting safety behaviours Mearns et al., 2003;Zohar & Luria, 2004). Safety literature also shows that leadership quality is directly related to work safety and safety outcomes (Hofmann & Morgeson, 2003;Zohar, 2002a;Zohar & Luria, 2003). Further, Hofmann and Morgeson (2003) state that high quality LMX relationships are related to increased safety communication, improved subordinate safety commitment, and lower accidents and injuries.

Self-Regulatory Theory
Before presenting the conceptual model proposed, it is important to provide an overview of the key underlying theoretical framework, self-regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997). People are motivated to achieve a variety of basic needs that are essential to their survival through both their physical and social environment. By considering these needs, many studies often distinguish between those concerned with innovation, such as nourishment, growth, and advancement, and those concerned with safety, such as security, shelter, and protection (Bowlby, 1969;Maslow, 1955). Previous studies on these goals and motivational orientations point out that in combination, they direct to greater self-regulation in difficult and hard activities, for instance, they demand ambidextrous behaviours (Kruglanski et al. 2000;Pierro, Kruglanski &Higgins 2006).
Self-regulation is a socio-cognitive notion depends on the principle that an individual seeks pleasure and avoids pain (Crowe & Higgins, 1997;Sacramento et al, 2013). One of the most important self-regulation theories is regulatory focus theory (RFT) . This theory suggests that individuals regulate their own behaviour in two different ways. According to Higgins (1997), the two self-regulatory systems are promotion focus and prevention focus, both of which affect individuals' behavioural preferences. These two systems describe two different socio-cognitive styles that are distinguished in many dimensions Higgins & Silverman, 1998;Sacramento et al 2013). For Higgins et al. (2001), "both promotion and prevention involve motivation to approach or attain a new task goal, but they differ in their orientations towards how to successfully attain the goal" (p. 21). Therefore, promotion-focused individuals are motivated via needs of development and progression, while prevention-focused individuals are motivated via the needs of ensuring security and safety. These motivational differences are based on individuals' objectives and principles. Consequently, individuals employ orientation of promotion focus into their ideals, for example, wishes or hopes, and goals to achieve these. Regulatory focus is measured by the behavioural manifestations of these motivations and how and why individuals involve in absolute goal desiring behaviours. (Forster et al., 2003;Wallace et al., 2005). Therefore, the emphasis for promotionfocused individuals is on striving for their ideals by enhancing the existence of positive outcomes. In comparison, individuals who adopt prevention focus are more likely to view their goals or objectives as duties or obligations to be achieved. Thus, the emphasis is on ensuring the presence of positive outcomes . Individuals achieve such dissimilar standards and goals through implementing different kinds of activities or resources to achieve a specific goal Individuals. In other words, activities that are intended to ensure successes. In comparison, prevention-focused individuals implement vigilance incomes, in other words they ensure right rejections and avoid task mistakes. Explicitly, they try to make sure that they do not have any errors of task (i.e. making a mistake) by increasing the salience of possible barriers to shun negative outputs, such as performing safely to avoid injury or mistakes. Consequently prevention focus increases when employees work in the most hazardous environments (Crowe & Higgins, 1997;Wallace & Chen, 2006). In most jobs, workers' situational challenges change over time, so it is important to accurately adopt promotion and prevention focus interchangeably to sustain organisational effectiveness. As a result, some individuals are able to use either principle, or switch between the two principles over time, in consonance with an individual's exposure to particular changes in leadership, work environment and job demands. For example, when leaders emphasise creativity, employees' promotion-focus may increase and prevention-focus decrease. Consequently, employees are more likely to shift between these focuses over time (Forster et al., 2003;Higgins, 1997Wallace & Chen, 2006). Therefore, a given employee's level of promotion and prevention focus may be more likely to change as situational stimuli change, such as changes in leadership style, workplace environment, or job task demands.
Several studies indicate the significant role of leadership in shaping the regulatory focus that employees experience in the work environment through role modeling, despite the employees' chronic regulatory focus (Simonton, 1984;Zuckerman, 1977;Bloom and Sosniak, 1981;Wu, McMullen, Neubert & Yi.,2007). While researchers have so far examined the role of the leader's regulatory focus in influencing employee's regulatory focus, there is evidence that confirms that individual's motivation can be affected positively by leaders' promotion-focus, or affected negatively by leaders' prevention-focused over time. (Lockwood et al., 2002;Higgins and Silberman, 1998).

Conclusion
To sum up, this research focuses on reviewing the effect of leader's regulatory focus on promoting ambidexterity in the workplace. As suggested by many scholars, there is a need to understand the role of the self-regulatory focused leader. Thus, the main contribution of this research is built on self-regulatory theory to develop a conceptual model accounting for how leaders' regulatory theory can be used to simultaneously foster creativity and safety at the individual and team levels. Moreover, it will provide managers with practical recommendations on how to create a climate that fosters both creativity and safety behaviours within individuals .
individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (3)