doi:

DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00436

Acta Psychologica Sinica (心理学报) 2018/50:4 PP.436-449

When challenge stressors increase employee innovative behaviors? The role of leader member exchange and abusive supervision


Abstract:
Innovation is often sparked by pressures. Researchers have made a great effort to investigate the relationship between workplace stressors and employee innovative behaviors. Yet, extant literature has not drawn consistent conclusions.
Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling and Boudreau (2000) introduced the challenge-hindrance stressor framework. In this framework, challenge stressors are good demands that provide opportunities to learn and achieve, while hindrance stressors are bad demands that unnecessarily thwart personal achievements. Empirical evidence has consistently found that hindrance stressors are negatively related to employee innovative behaviors. However, the findings about the relationship between challenge stressors and innovative behaviors are mixed. Our study enlarges the previous findings and incorporates job resources from the leader, into the relationship between challenge stressors and innovative behaviors.
Job demand-resources model indicates that when job resources can help employees meet the job demands, employees will embrace more positive work-related outcomes. High job resources can decrease employees' resource depletion when they face job demands, increase the motivational functions of job demands, and thus enable employees to successfully accomplish job demands. As a type of job resources, leader-member exchange can alleviate resources depletion. When leader-member exchange is high, employees are able to allocate more resources to cope with challenging demands. Due to the increase of successful coping, challenge stressors can lead to more positive woke-related outcomes, especially employee innovative behaviors. Thus when LMX is high, the relationship between challenge stressors and employee innovative behaviors is more positive than when LMX is low.
Moreover, the style of leadership behaviors may influence the suitability of the resources provided by leaders to employees. Our study further argues that abusive supervision, as a type of negative style of leadership behaviors, is more likely to influence the moderating effects of LMX. When abusive supervision is high, leaders convey "mixed information" to employees with high LMX. Thus LMX cannot be used as resources to cope with job demands, or challenge stressors. In contrast, when abusive supervision is low, leaders convey "consistent information" to employees with high LMX.
We collected two samples to test our hypotheses. For the first sample, the survey was administered in an energy drinks corporation located in China's Beijing municipal. We collected the data at two time spots with a temporal interval of 2 weeks and the final sample was composed of 195 matched leader-employee dyads. For the second sample, the survey was administered in four companies. We collected the data at one time spot and the final sample was composed of 251 matched leader-employee dyads. The results consistently revealed that the interaction of LMX and abusive supervision significantly moderated the challenge stressors-employee innovative behaviors link. Especially, only when LMX is high and abusive supervision is low, the relationship between challenge stressors and innovative behaviors is significantly positive.
Theoretically, our study contributes to the relationship between challenge stressors and employee innovative behaviors using job demands-resources model. Further, our study also contributes to the leadership literature that the positive role of LMX can be influenced by the leadership behaviors, especially in our study, abusive supervision. Last, our study enlarges the innovation studies that the interplay of work stressors and work resources is essential for employee innovation. Practically, our study contributes to employee innovation improvements. Finally, the limitations and future research directions were discussed.

Key words:challenge stressors,employee innovative behaviors,LMX,abusive supervision,three-way interaction

ReleaseDate:2018-04-27 06:46:02



Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 10, pp. 123-167). Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 52-61, 147.

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations:A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.

Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity:Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963-970.

Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 274-284.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model:State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.

Berscheid, E. S., & Regan, P. C. (2005). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Prentice Hall.

Beehr, T. A., Farmer, S. J., Glazer, S., Gudanowski, D. M., & Nair, V. N. (2003). The enigma of social support and occupational stress:Source congruence and gender role effects. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(3), 220-231.

Bowers, T. (2007). The top workplace stressors and irritations. Retrieved from http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/career/the-top-workplace-stressors-andirritations/210.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In:H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry, (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology (vol. 2, pp. 349-444). Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity:a meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201-212.

Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65-74.

Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout:A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834-848.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory:An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.

Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression:Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917-926.

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759.

Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value congruence and intrinsic career success:The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57(2), 305-332.

Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace:A review of recent developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In L. L. Neida & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 65-114). Greenwich, CT:Information Age Publishing

Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius:The natural history of creativity (Vol. 12). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Fincham, F. D., & Linfield, K. J. (1997). A new look at marital quality:Can spouses feel positive and negative about their marriage?. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(4), 489-502.

Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance:examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 227-271.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance:The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 93-106.

Jiang, J. Y., Law, K. S., & Sun, J. J. M. (2014). Leader-member relationship and burnout:The moderating role of leader integrity. Management and Organization Review, 10(2), 223-247.

Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power:The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors' Machiavellianism and subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 512-519.

LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework:An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764-775.

LePine, M., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. L. (2016). Turning their pain to gain:Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1036-1059.

Leung, K., Huang, K. L., Su, C. H., & Lu, L. (2011). Curvilinear relationships between role stress and innovative performance:Moderating effects of perceived support for innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(4), 741-758.

Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive supervision andleader-member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 41-52.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662-674.

Lin, W., Ma, J., Wang, L., & Wang, M. (2015). A double-edged sword:The moderating role of conscientiousness in the relationship between work stressors, psychological strain, and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 94-111.

Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn't beone. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285-300.

Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership:A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1187-1212.

Lu, X. X., & Sun, J. Q. (2016). When leader-member exchange increases emotional exhaustion? The role of belief in reciprocity and power distance orientation. Acta Psychologia Sinica, 48(5), 566-577.

[陆欣欣, 孙嘉卿. (2016). 领导-成员交换与情绪枯竭:互惠信念和权力距离导向的作用. 心理学报, 48(5), 566-577.]

Major, B., Zubek, J. M., Cooper, M. L., Cozzarelli, C., & Richards, C. (1997). Mixed messages:Implications of social conflict and social support within close relationships for adjustment to a stressful life event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1349-1363.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus. Statistical analysis with latent variables. Version, 3.

Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior:A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 543-565.

Sacramento, C. A., Fay, D., & West, M. A. (2013). Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 141-157.

Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1588-1602.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior:A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.

Sonnentag, S., & Spychala, A. (2012). Job control and job stressors as predictors of proactive work behavior:Is role breadth self-efficacy the link?. Human Performance, 25(5), 412-431.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.

Tepper, B. J., & Henle, C. A. (2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 487-498.

van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. (2008). In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1195-1207.

Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnold, T., Frazier, M. L., & Finch, D. M. (2009). Work stressors, role-based performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 254-262.

Wu, Z. L., Liu, J., & Liu, G. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee performance:Mechanisms of traditionality and trust. Acta Psychologia Sinica, 41(6), 510-518.

[吴隆增, 刘军, 刘刚. (2009). 辱虐管理与员工表现:传统性与信任的作用. 心理学报, 41(6), 510-518.]

Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work behaviors:The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4), 531-543.

Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all:How abusive supervision and leader-member exchange interact to influence employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763-774.

Zhang, Y., LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., & Wei, F. (2014). It's not fair… or is it? The role of justice and leadership in explaining work stressor-job performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 675-697.