Purpose: Current organizations face a complex competitive landscape driven by globalization and technology that puts them in the course of a new economic age. This complexity stresses learning and innovation as fundamental mechanisms for organizational survival. This paper aims to propose that how learning and innovation emerge and affect organizational performance can be better understood through the complexity leadership theory.Design/methodology/approach: The authors review literature on complexity leadership theory, learning and innovation in complex bureaucratic environments and then present reflections regarding how learning and innovation can be achieved through the interaction of three complexity leadership functions: adaptive, administrative and enabling. This conceptual framework suggests that individuals are in constant interaction, exchange information, influence each other and collectively produce emergent properties that promote effective learning and innovation.Findings: We propose that learning and innovation can be better achieved in organizations if the complexity leadership theory is applied as an alternative to centralized forms of influence and control.Originality/value: This paper presents a reflection on the benefits of the complexity leadership theory as an alternative framework to understand organizational leadership. Furthermore, this paper proposes that the complexity leadership theory is more adequate to generate learning and innovation in complex, fast-changing work environments.

Although the effects of openness to experience (OTE) on individual creativity are well‐established, research on how such effects unfold in a team context is scarce. Drawing on theories of group norms and uncertainty reduction, we argue that team mean OTE leads to a climate of team psychological safety which, in turn, facilitates team creativity. We test our hypothesis over three independent studies, the first comprising 35 business student project teams, the second based on 28 professional teams from the automotive industry, both conducted in the United Kingdom, and the third comprising 24 healthcare teams in Portugal. As predicted, across all three studies, team mean OTE was positively associated with team creativity via the affective emergent state of team psychological safety. Furthermore, the mediating role of team psychological safety remained significant even when accounting for team OTE variance, alternative motivational and cognitive emergent states, namely team promotion focus (studies 1 and 2) and team exploration climate (study 3), as well as empowering leadership (study 3). Finally, in study 3, we examined the differential impact of the two major facets of OTE, intellect, and openness, and found that intellect, but not openness, was responsible for driving the indirect effects. Further analysis did not support alternative perspectives concerning team OTE variance or the interaction between mean and variance. Our findings not only contribute to theoretical understanding regarding the relationship between team personality composition, specifically OTE, and team creativity but also provide much‐needed insight into how such effects unfold. We delineate several practical implications for team design and development.

Theoretical conceptions on happiness have generally considered two broad perspectives: hedonic enjoyment and eudaemonia. However, most research on how to improve people’s happiness has focused primarily on the enhancement of hedonic happiness. In this longitudinal experimental study we test the differential impact of two positive exercises—Best Possible Selves and the Lottery Question—on hedonic and eudaemonic happiness. The hypothesis that the practice of the Best Possible Selves exercise would increase hedonic happiness was confirmed. This effect was immediate and maintained a week after the exercise. Furthermore, this exercise also increased eudaemonic happiness. However, its effect decreased after a week. Contrary to what was expected the Lottery Question exercise decreased both eudaemonic happiness and hedonic happiness over time. We discuss implications of this study for the literature on positive psychological and behavioral interventions to increase happiness.

Self-leadership is designed to influence positive outcomes like individuals’ innovative capacity in the workplace. Nevertheless, research on the relationship between self-leadership and individual innovation has failed to determine which self-leadership strategies contribute to innovation. Thus, this study aims to: explore the existence of different profiles of self-leadership strategies in hospital nurses and, test if these different profiles have different effects on individuals’ ability to be innovative. 288 nurses participated in this study. Firstly, data was analysed using Cluster analysis. Secondly, to verify the significance of the association between self-leadership clusters and individual innovation chi-square tests were conducted and the adjusted residuals were considered. Results revealed the existence of 3 different clusters of self-leadership, and that individual innovation is more frequent when all self-leadership strategies are used. The findings suggest that self-leadership strategies vary between individuals and that they all should be fostered in order to promote individual innovation.

Recent theoretical contributions have suggested a theory of leadership that is grounded in complexity theory, hence regarding leadership as a complex process (i.e., nonlinear; emergent). This article tests if complexity leadership theory promotes efficiency in work groups. 40 groups of five participants each had to complete four decision making tasks using the city simulation game SimCity4. Before engaging in the four decision making tasks, participants received information regarding what sort of leadership behaviors were more adequate to help them perform better. Results suggest that if complexity leadership theory is applied, groups can achieve higher efficiency over time, when compared with other groups where complexity leadership is not applied. This study goes beyond traditional views of leadership as a centralized form of control, and presents new evidence suggesting that leadership is a collective and emergent phenomenon, anchored in simple rules of behavior.