Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： Employee innovation is the focus of current organizational behavior research, and the high demand for employee innovation and change in enterprises lead to the high pressure that employees face at work. Several studies have been conducted by researchers on the relationship between work stressors and employee innovation. Current empirical research findings on the relationship between challenge-hindrance stressors and employee innovation vary, for example, in terms of relationship strength and relationship direction. Employee innovation is found to have positive, negative, and nonlinear relationships with the challenge-hindrance stressors. Furthermore, the mechanism and boundary conditions for the challenge-hindrance stressors that affect employee innovation have not been fully revealed. Based on the current state of research on the relationship between the challenge-hindrance stressors and employee innovation, this study used the challenge-hindrance stressors model to investigate the relationship between different types of challenge-hindrance stressors and employee innovation through the meta-analysis method. According to literature retrieval and screening, keywords such as challenging stressor(s) (workload, job complexity, task conflict, and time pressure), hindrance stressor(s) (role stress, interpersonal conflict, and job insecurity), and innovation (individual creativity, individual innovation behavior, and individual innovation performance) were included. Finally, 149 independent studies with 141 articles were included for the analysis, with a total sample size of 46,261. For the analysis, we used the psychmeta meta-analysis package in R, which included publication bias tests, main effect tests, heterogeneity tests, and moderating effect analyses. The publication bias results showed that the p values of Egger’s regression coefficient and Begg rank correlation test for challenging stressor, hindrance stressor, and their subgroups were insignificant (p > 0.05). The heterogeneity test was significant, indicating that the random effect model was suitable for the study. The main effect results showed that the task complexity and task conflict in challenge stressor and subgroups had a positive effect on employee innovation. Hindrance stressor had a negative impact on employee innovation. Cultural differences, data sources, and data collection time had different moderating effects on the relationship between different stressors and innovation, which can be expressed as follows. (1) Compared with individualism orientation, under the background of high collectivism orientation, high power distance, and a long-term orientation, the hindrance stressor had a stronger and significantly negative correlation with employee innovation, while under the background of high collectivism orientation, the hindrance stressor had a significantly positive correlation with employee innovation. (2) Compared with other-rating, when the data comes from employee self-rating, challenge stressor had a stronger and significantly positive correlation with innovation, and hindrance stressor had a stronger and significantly negative correlation with innovation. (3) compared with longitudinal study, in the cross-sectional study, challenging stressor has a stronger positive effect on employee innovation, while data collection time has insignificant moderating effect on the relationship between hindrance stressor and employee innovation. Consequently, we aimed to investigate the strength and direction of the relationship between binary work stressors and employee innovation in a large sample and consider the potential moderating effects of cultural differences, data sources, and data collection time points. The results of this study will provide a reference model for future enterprise management practices, such as maintaining a reasonable pressure level and category control, encouraging employee innovation within the organization, and improving the innovation performance and core competitiveness of individuals and organizations.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Employee boundary-spanning behavior is critically important for organizations. Numerous studies have examined the relationships between employee boundary-spanning behavior and work-related outcomes. However, the findings are inconsistent among studies. This meta-analysis investigated the relationships between of employee boundary-spanning behavior and work attitude, performance, innovation, stress, and burnout, and also examined potential moderators and mediating mechanisms for those relationships based on social exchange theory. We meta-analyzed both Chinese and English primary studies on employee boundary- spanning behavior. Studies were identified with key words including “Boundary spanning”, “Boundary spanning activities/Boundary spanning activity”, “Boundary spanning behavior”, etc., in English databases including Web of Science, ProQuest (Dissertation), EBSCO, Wiley, Sage and Chinese databases of CNKI and CSSCI. Finally, 52 independent samples from 50 empirical studies (with a total sample N = 14366) were included. We chose a random-effect model to conduct the meta-analysis using the R package Psychmeta (Core team, 2020). The results showed considerable heterogeneity among the 52 independent samples, according to the heterogeneity test. The publication bias test was conducted using Egger's test, Begg test, and Failsafe number, which revealed that there was no substantial publication bias in the studies. With the Hunter-Schmidt’s meta-analytic method, employee boundary spanning behavior had significant relationships with job satisfaction and organizational commitment (ˉρρ¯\bar{\rho } between 0.34 to 0.41) and performance outcomes (ˉρρ¯\bar{\rho } between 0.19 to 0.31), as well as a small positive relationship with role stress (ˉρρ¯\bar{\rho } = 0.14). It had no significant relationship with emotional exhaustion (ˉρρ¯\bar{\rho }= -0.10, 95% CI = [-0.25, 0.05]). Employees' boundary-spanning behavior has both benefits and costs. Employee type (knowledge workers-non-knowledge workers), individualism-collectivism, and power distance moderated the relationships between employee's boundary-spanning behavior and its outcomes. The relationships between employee boundary-spanning behavior and performance and innovation were stronger for knowledge workers than for nonknowledge workers, but the relationships between employee boundary-spanning behavior and job satisfaction and role stress were stronger for nonknowledge workers than for knowledge workers. Collectivism positively moderated the relationship between employee boundary-spanning behavior and job satisfaction, performance, innovation. The relationships between employee boundary-spanning behavior and job satisfaction, performance, and role stress were stronger for high power distance regions than low power distance regions. Additionally, a meta mediation analysis was conducted to examine whether work attitudes partially mediated the relationship of employee boundary-spanning behavior with work outcomes. The results revealed that employee boundary-spanning behavior had indirect impacts on performance and innovation, while having suppressing effects on stress and exhaustion. We discuss the important implications for future research and organizational practices.
Subjects: Psychology >> History of Psychology submitted time 2021-11-05
Abstract： In this article, a meta-analysis method was used to examine the relationships between challenging-hindrance stressors and employee innovation with 149 independent samples (N=46261), findings showed that: (1) Challenging stressor and subgroup's - work complexity and task conflict have a significantly positive correlation with employee innovation. While hindrance stressor had a significantly negative correlation with employee innovation. (2) Compared with individualism orientation, under the background of high collectivism orientation, high power distance, and a long-term orientation, the hindrance stressor had a stronger and significantly negative correlation with employee innovation, while under the background of high collectivism orientation, the hindrance stressor had a significantly positive correlation with employee innovation. (3) Compared with other-rating, when the data comes from employee self-rating, challenge stressor had a stronger and significantly positive correlation with innovation, and hindrance stressor had a stronger and significantly negative correlation with innovation. (4) Compared with longitudinal study, in the cross-sectional study, challenging stressor has a stronger positive effect on employee innovation, while data collection time has insignificant moderating effect on the relationship between hindrance stressor and employee innovation. "
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment