doi:

DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00719

Advances in Psychological Science (心理科学进展) 2018/26:4 PP.719-730

The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing effect and its mechanisms


Abstract:
Most previous studies have oversimplified the relationships among constructs. Researchers usually propose and test linear relations based on the assumption that "more is better". Recently, along with the deepening of research, the perspective of too-much-of-a-good-thing effect (TMGT effect), i.e. the inverse U relation, has aroused more attention. By reviewing 44 research in organizational behavior field in recent five years, we identify four types of research topics, including positive feelings and thoughts at work, stable individual characteristics, characteristics of work and task, and group composition. We then identify two types of explanation mechanisms, which are summarized as "additive benefit and cost" and "interactive motivation and ability/opportunity". In addition, we put forward that the moderation effect can be based on the change of single or dual mechanisms. We then discuss several suggestions for future research:(1) Diversify research topics and expand research levels; (2) Clarify the influencing mechanism behind TMGT effect; (3) Explore the threshold points based on the contextual factors; (4) Explicate the theoretical underpinnings of TMGT effect; (5) Improve sampling process and research design.

Key words:Too-much-of-a-good-thing effect,inverted U-shaped relationship,mechanisms,moderation effect

ReleaseDate:2018-05-04 05:07:50



邓今朝, 黄中梅, 余绍忠. (2015). 员工建言行为与团队绩效的关系——成员目标取向的作用. 软科学, 29(6), 81-85.

董维维, 庄贵军, 王鹏. (2012). 调节变量在中国管理学研究中的应用. 管理学报, 9(12), 1735-1743.

冯一丹, 李爱梅, 颜亮, 王笑天. (2017). 工作时间压力对主观幸福感的倒U型影响——基本心理需求满足的中介作用. 中国人力资源开发, (8), 25-35.

郭秀艳. (2004). 实验心理学. 北京:人民教育出版社.

黎坚, 庞博, 张博, 杜涵. (2011). 自我调节:从基本理论到应用研究. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), (6), 5-13.

梁明, 梁雅明. (2008). 管理学视角下"中庸之道"的现代价值. 湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版), 9(4), 69-72.

罗胜强, 姜嬿. (2012). 调节变量和中介变量. 见:陈晓萍, 徐淑英, 樊景立 (编), 组织与管理研究的实证方法(第二版). 北京:北京大学出版社.

宋靖, 张勇. (2017). 团队冲突视角下的团队规模与管理绩效:来自数值仿真与问卷调查的两项证据. 中国人力资源开发, (8), 49-58.

孙健敏, 王宏蕾. (2016). 高绩效工作系统负面影响的潜在机制. 心理科学进展, 24(7), 1091-1106.

王三银, 刘洪, 林彦梅. (2016). 工作边界强度对员工组织认同的影响研究——工作边界弹性能力和组织自尊的作用. 科学学与科学技术管理, 37(5), 119-128.

王颂. (2017). 横向交往还是纵向交往?——工具性交往对社会资本的影响. 心理学报, 49(1), 116-127.

卫旭华, 刘咏梅, 陈思璇. (2015). 团队人口统计特征多元化与绩效关系的元分析. 心理学报, 47(9), 1172-1187.

严瑜, 张倩. (2014). "过犹不及"——组织公民行为消极面的解读与探析. 心理科学进展, 22(5), 834-844.

余仕麟. (2003). 孔子"中庸"思想与亚里士多德"中道"思想之比较. 北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版), (S1), 16-22.

张军伟, 龙立荣. (2016). 领导宽恕与员工工作绩效的曲线关系:员工尽责性与程序公平的调节作用. 管理评论, 28(4), 134-144.

Ali, M., Ng, Y. L., & Kulik, C. T. (2014). Board age and gender diversity:A test of competing linear and curvilinear predictions. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(3), 497-512.

Arent, S. M., & Landers, D. M. (2003). Arousal, anxiety, and performance:A reexamination of the inverted-U hypothesis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74(4), 436-444.

Astakhova, M. N. (2015). The curvilinear relationship between work passion and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2), 361-374.

Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. D. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research:Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 560-569.

Bozionelos, G. (2017). The relationship of the big-five with workplace network resources:More quadratic than linear. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 374-378.

Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Polychroniou, P., & Kostopoulos, K. (2014). Mentoring receipt and personality:Evidence for non-linear relationships. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 171-181.

Burnett, M. F., Chiaburu, D. S., Shapiro, D. L., & Li, N. (2015). Revisiting how and when perceived organizational support enhances taking charge:An inverted U-shaped perspective. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1805-1826.

Carette, B., Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2013). Does career timing of challenging job assignments influence the relationship with in-role job performance? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 61-67.

Chang, M. L. (2017). On the relationship between intragroup conflict and social capital in teams:A longitudinal investigation in Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(1), 3-27.

Chen, S., Wang, D., Zhou, Y., Chen, Z., & Wu, D. (2017). When too little or too much hurts:Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between team faultlines and performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(4), 931-950.

Chen, L., Zhang, L., & Zhao, N. (2015). Exploring the nonlinear relationship between challenge stressors and employee voice:The effects of leader-member exchange and organisation-based self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 24-30.

Christoforou, P. S., & Ashforth, B. E. (2015). Revisiting the debate on the relationship between display rules and performance:Considering the explicitness of display rules. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 249-261.

Chung, Y., & Jackson, S. E. (2013). The internal and external networks of knowledge-intensive teams:The role of task routineness. Journal of Management, 39(2), 442-468.

Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition:Basic processes; Applications (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 323-419). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coombs, C. H., & Avrunin, G. S. (1977). Single-peaked functions and the theory of preference. Psychological Review, 84(2), 216-230.

Crawford, E. R., & Lepine, J. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes:Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 32-48.

Dayan, M., Ozer, M., & Almazrouei, H. (2017). The role of functional and demographic diversity on new product creativity and the moderating impact of project uncertainty. Industrial Marketing Management, 61, 144-154.

Doyle, S. P., Lount, R. B., Wilk, S. L., & Pettit, N. C. (2016). Helping others most when they are not too close:Status distance as a determinant of interpersonal helping in organizations. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2(2), 155-174.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300-319.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology:The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.

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. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing the challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 61-76.

Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. (2016). Thinking about U:Theorizing and testing U-and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1177-1195.

Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199-1228.

Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes:A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987-1015.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities:An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 657-690.

Lam, C. F., Spreitzer, G., & Fritz, C. (2014). Too much of a good thing:Curvilinear effect of positive affect on proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), 530-546.

Lee, S., Cheong, M., Kim, M., & Yun, S. (2017). Never too much? The curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and task performance. Group & Organization Management, 42(1), 11-38.

Lee, S., Yun, S., & Srivastava, A. (2013). Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between abusive supervision and creativity in South Korea. Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 724-731.

Li, Y., Fu, F., Sun, J. M., & Yang, B. (2016). Leader-member exchange differentiation and team creativity:An investigation of nonlinearity. Human Relations, 69(5), 1121-1138.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

Martens, R., & Landers, D. M. (1970). Motor performance under stress:A test of the inverted-U hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 29-37.

McGuire, W. J. (1997). Creative hypothesis generating in psychology:Some useful heuristics. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 1-30.

Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., Nicholas, S., Maitland, E., & Zhao, S. (2016). Boundary conditions of a curvilinear relationship between decision comprehensiveness and performance:The role of functional and national diversity. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2801-2811.

Mo, S., Ling, C. D., & Xie, X. Y. (2017). The curvilinear relationship between ethical leadership and team creativity:The moderating role of team faultlines. Journal of Business Ethics, doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3430-1.

Nieß, C., & Biemann, T. (2014). The role of risk propensity in predicting self-employment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 1000-1009.

Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313-338.

Poole, M. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578.

Rapp, T. L., Bachrach, D. G., Rapp, A. A., & Mullins, R. (2014). The role of team goal monitoring in the curvilinear relationship between team efficacy and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 976-987.

Reis, D., Arndt, C., Lischetzke, T., & Hoppe, A. (2016). State work engagement and state affect:Similar yet distinct concepts. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 1-10.

Reis, D., Hoppe, A., Arndt, C., & Lischetzke, T. (2017). Time pressure with state vigour and state absorption:are they non-linearly related? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(1), 94-106.

Ren, S., & Chadee, D. (2017). Is guanxi always good for employee self-development in China? Examining non-linear and moderated relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 108-117.

Reutskaja, E., & Hogarth, R. M. (2009). Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives:When "goods satiate". Psychology & Marketing, 26(3), 197-203.

Rotolo, D., & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2013). When does centrality matter? Scientific productivity and the moderating role of research specialization and cross-community ties. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(5), 648-670.

Spector, P. E., & Meier, L. L. (2014). Methodologies for the study of organizational behavior processes:How to find your keys in the dark. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(8), 1109-1119.

Stouten, J., van Dijke, M., Mayer, D. M., De Cremer, D., & Euwema, M. C. (2013). Can a leader be seen as too ethical? The curvilinear effects of ethical leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 680-695.

Sui, Y., Wang, H., Kirkman, B. L., & Li, N. (2016). Understanding the curvilinear relationships between LMX differentiation and team coordination and performance. Personnel Psychology, 69(3), 559-597.

van Ruysseveldt, J., & van Dijke, M. (2011). When are workload and workplace learning opportunities related in a curvilinear manner? The moderating role of autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 470-483.

Vergauwe, J., Wille, B., Hofmans, J., Kaiser, R. B., & De Fruyt, F. (2017). The double-edged sword of leader charisma:Understanding the curvilinear relationship between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, doi:10.1037/pspp0000147.

Vicentini, F., & Boccardelli, P. (2016). Career diversity and project performance in the Italian television industry. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2380-2387.

von den Driesch, T., da Costa, M. E. S., Flatten, T. C., & Brettel, M. (2015). How CEO experience, personality, and network affect firms' dynamic capabilities. European Management Journal, 33(4), 245-256.

Warr, P. B. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Wihler, A., Meurs, J. A., Momm, T. D., John, J., & Blickle, G. (2017). Conscientiousness, extraversion, and field sales performance:Combining narrow personality, social skill, emotional stability, and nonlinearity. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 291-296.

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490-495.

Zettler, I., & Lang, J. W. B. (2015). Employees' political skill and job performance:An inverted U-shaped relation? Applied Psychology, 64(3), 541-577.

Zhang, L., Chen, L., & Zhao, N. (2016). Effects of work stressors on desire for organizational construction:The moderating role of leader-member exchange. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(3), 367-387.