How transformational leadership drives academic innovation through creative process engagement: conditional effects of psychological factors

Transformational leadership has been extensively studied in corporate contexts, yet its mechanisms in knowledge-intensive professional environments remain underexplored. This study examines the mediating role of creative process engagement in the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior among university faculty in Ecuador (N = 543). Structural equation modeling revealed complete mediation through creative process engagement (standardized indirect effect β = 0.11, 95% CI [0.07, 0.15]), with no significant residual direct effect (β = 0.04, p = 0.457). Intrinsic motivation positively moderated the transformational leadership → creative process engagement relationship (β = 0.08, p = 0.032), while psychological empowerment exhibited unexpected negative moderation (β = −0.09, p = 0.019), revealing an ‘academic autonomy paradox’ wherein highly empowered faculty demonstrate reduced responsiveness to external facilitation. These findings challenge universal applicability of transformational leadership theory developed in hierarchical organizational contexts, necessitating theory reconceptualization for autonomous professional populations. Academic leaders should calibrate empowerment strategies carefully, recognizing threshold effects where additional autonomy provision may diminish leadership effectiveness, while emphasizing process facilitation competencies that enable creative thinking without imposing predetermined solutions. This study reveals an “academic autonomy paradox” in higher education: highly empowered faculty respond less to leadership facilitation, challenging traditional empowerment theory. Analyzing 543 Ecuadorian professors, we show transformational leadership operates exclusively through creative engagement—fundamentally different from corporate settings. University leaders must recalibrate empowerment strategies, recognizing that additional autonomy can paradoxically diminish leadership effectiveness among already-autonomous professionals.