每日绩效压力影响员工创新行为的内在机制与边界条件研究

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2023.0847

Abstract

Abstract:

Previous studies have failed to reach a consensus regarding the impact of performance pressure on employee innovative behavior. While some argue that performance pressure can facilitate employee innovative behavior， others contend that it may decrease such behaviors. The current study employed experience sampling methodology to investigate the impact of daily performance pressure on innovative behavior. Drawing on the cognitive appraisal theory of stress， we proposed that for employees with high levels of general challenge appraisal of performance pressure， daily performance pressure might facilitate next-day innovative behavior through problem-solving pondering at night. However， for employees with high levels of general hindrance appraisal of performance pressure， daily performance pressure might decrease next-day innovative behavior via affective rumination at night.To test our hypotheses， we conducted two experience sampling studies. In Study 1， participants were asked to report their general challenge and hindrance appraisal of performance pressure and demographic information in the baseline survey. One week later， participants were invited to complete two daily surveys every workday over a two-week period. In the afternoon survey， they assessed daily performance pressure and daily innovative behavior. In the evening survey， they reported problem-solving pondering and affective rumination at night. We obtained 834 day-level observations from 133 participants. In Study 2， data collection also occurred in two phases： a baseline survey and daily surveys over a three-week period. We obtained 802 day-level observations from 71 supervisor-subordinate dyads in this study.The results of two-level pathanalyses and Monte Carlo simulation showed that： general challenge appraisal of performance pressure moderated the indirect effect of daily performance pressure on next-day innovative behavior through problem-solving pondering at night. Additionally， general hindrance appraisal of performance pressure moderated the indirect effect of daily performance pressure on next-day innovative behavior via affective rumination at night. The present study reconciled the discrepant findings in previous research by demonstrating both positive and negative mediating mechanisms in the relationship between daily performance pressure and innovative behavior， offering valuable implications for innovation management.

Key words: performance pressure, cognitive appraisal theory of stress, problem-solving pondering, affective rumination, innovative behavior

CLC Number:

C936

Niannian Dong,Kui Yin,Wei Gu. The Underlying Mechanisms and Boundary Conditions of the Relationship between Daily Performance Pressure and Innovative Behavior[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2024, 32(3): 278-286.

Figures/Tables 7

References 26

1	Yuan F R， Woodman R W. Innovative behavior in the workplace： the role of performance and image outcome expectations［J］. Academy of Management Journal， 2010， 53（2）： 323-342.
2	刘丽丽，杜荣，艾时钟. IT服务企业中文化对知识共享与创新行为关系的影响［J］. 中国管理科学， 2016， 24（4）： 159-166.
	Liu L L， Du R， Ai S Z. Impact of culture on the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovative behavior in IT services industry［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2016， 24（4）： 159-166.
3	Mitchell M S， Greenbaum R L， Vogel R M， et al. Can you handle the pressure？ The effect of performance pressure on stress appraisals， self-regulation， and behavior［J］. Academy of Management Journal， 2019， 62（2）： 531-552.
4	尤丽娇. 绩效压力对工作活力及员工创新行为的影响——家长式领导的调节作用［D］. 南京：南京财经大学博士学位论文， 2020.
	You L J. The impact of performance pressure on vigor and employee innovative behavior： the moderating role of paternalistic leadership［D］. Nanjing： Nanjing University of Finance and Economics， 2020.
5	Gardner H K. Performance pressure as a double-edged sword： enhancing team motivation but undermining the use of team knowledge［J］. Administrative Science Quarterly， 2012， 57（1）： 1-46.
6	Li P K， Taris T W， Peeters M C. Challenge and hindrance appraisals of job demands： one man’s meat， another man’s poison［J］. Anxiety， Stress， & Coping， 2020， 33（1）： 31-46.
7	Li F L， Deng H， Leung K， et al. Is perceived creativity‐reward contingency good for creativity？ The role of challenge and threat appraisals［J］. Human Resource Management， 2017， 56（4）： 693-709.
8	Lazarus R S， Folkman S. Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping［J］. European Journal of Personality， 1987， 1（3）： 141-169.
9	Skinner N， Brewer N. The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior to stressful achievement events［J］. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology， 2002， 83（3）： 678-692.
10	O'Brien K E， Beehr T A. So far， so good： up to now， the challenge-hindrance framework describes a practical and accurate distinction［J］. Journal of Organizational Behavior， 2019， 40（8）： 962-972.
11	Folkman S， Lazarus R S. If it changes it must be a process： study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination［J］. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology， 1985， 48（1）： 150-170.
12	Lazarus R S， Stress Folkman S.， appraisal， and coping ［M］. New York： Springer， 1984.
13	Cropley M， Michalianou G， Pravettoni G， et al. The relation of post-work ruminative thinking with eating behaviour［J］. Stress and Health， 2012， 28（1）： 23-30.
14	Burch K A， Barnes-Farrell J L. When work is your passenger： understanding the relationship between work and commuting safety behaviors［J］. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology， 2020， 25（4）： 259-274.
15	Janssen O. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands， and job performance and job satisfaction［J］. Academy of Management Journal， 2001， 44（5）： 1039-1050.
16	Orth M， Volmer J. Daily within-person effects of job autonomy and work engagement on innovative behavior： the cross-level moderating role of creative self-efficacy［J］. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology， 2017， 26（4）： 601-612.
17	Searle B J， Auton J C. The merits of measuring challenge and hindrance appraisals［J］. Anxiety， Stress， & Coping， 2015， 28（2）： 121-143.
18	Mitchell M S， Baer M D， Ambrose M L， et al. Cheating under pressure： a self-protection model of workplace cheating behavior［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 2018， 103（1）： 54-73.
19	Junker N M， Baumeister R F， Straub K， et al. When forgetting what happened at work matters： the role of affective rumination， problem-solving pondering， and self-control in work-family conflict and enrichment［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 2021， 106（11）： 1750-1766.
20	Gabriel A S， Podsakoff N P， Beal D J， et al. Experience sampling methods： a discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement［J］. Organizational Research Methods， 2019， 22（4）： 969-1006.
21	Williams L J， Vandenberg R J， Edwards J R. 12 structural equation modeling in management research： a guide for improved analysis［J］. The Academy of Management Annals， 2009， 3（1）： 543-604.
22	Kim T Y， David E M， Liu Z Q. Perceived cognitive diversity and creativity： a multilevel study of motivational mechanisms and boundary conditions［J］. The Journal of Creative Behavior， 2021， 55（1）： 168-182.
23	张正堂，赵燕梅，麦晓冬，等. 组织管理研究中多重研究的设计与选择［J］. 管理科学学报， 2022， 25（11）： 1-24.
	Zhang Z T， Zhao Y M， Mai X D， et al. The design and selection of the multiple studies pattern in organizational management research［J］. Journal of Management Sciences in China， 2022， 25（11）： 1-24.
24	邓玉林，吴洁，达庆利. 基于制度逻辑的不同上下级关系对员工创新行为的差异化影响机制研究［J］. 中国管理科学， 2021， 29（9）： 236-248.
	Deng Y L， Wu J， Da Q L. The influencing mechanisms of different forms of superior-subordinate relationship on employees’ innovation behaviors： a perspective of multiple institutional logics［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2021， 29（9）： 236-248.
25	杨皖苏，杨善林，杨希. 主动性—被动性员工创新行为：基于分布式领导的作用机制研究［J］. 中国管理科学， 2020， 28（6）： 182-192.
	Yang W S， Yang S L， Yang X. Proactive-reactive innovation behavior of the employee： based on the mechanism of distributed leadership［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2020， 28（6）： 182-192.
26	陆玉梅，梅强，高鹏.基于创新激励框架的员工创新行为决策分析［J］.管理工程学报，2022，36（2）： 11-19.
	Lu Y M， Mei Q， Gao P. Decision-making anaylsis of employee’ innovation behaviors based on innovation incentive framework［J］. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management， 2022， 36（2）： 11-19.

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
个体内变量
1.每日绩效压力	3.08	0.91
2.每天创新行为	3.37	0.80	0.12^**
3.每晚问题解决反思	3.21	0.90	0.03	0.31^**
4.每晚情感反刍	2.65	0.99	0.08^*	-0.01	0.13^**
5.第二天创新行为	3.40	0.80	-0.01	0.30^**	0.31^**	-0.08^*
个体间变量
6.一般挑战性评估	3.90	0.71	0.11	0.31^**	0.30^**	0.03	0.31^**
7.一般阻碍性评估	2.19	0.87	0.05	-0.17	-0.10	0.16	-0.16	-0.49^**

变量	每晚问题解决反思	每晚情感反刍	第二天创新行为
个体内变量
每日绩效压力	0.05(0.07)	0.12(0.10)	-0.03(0.03)
每晚问题解决反思			0.20^***(0.04)
每晚情感反刍			-0.09^*(0.04)
每天创新行为			0.17^**(0.06)
个体间变量
性别	0.29^*(0.12)	0.14(0.14)	0.15(0.12)
年龄	0.01(0.01)	-0.01(0.01)	0.001(0.01)
技术岗	-0.06(0.25)	0.05(0.19)	0.24(0.24)
设计岗	-0.30(0.25)	0.54^**(0.21)	-0.06(0.24)
运营岗	-0.08(0.25)	0.13(0.23)	0.09(0.25)
一般挑战性评估	0.36^**(0.12)	0.19(0.11)	0.31^**(0.11)
一般阻碍性评估	0.06(0.08)	0.21^*(0.09)	0.01(0.08)
跨层次交互项
每日绩效压力×一般挑战性评估	0.21^*(0.09)	0.05(0.10)
每日绩效压力×一般阻碍性评估	0.10(0.09)	0.19^*(0.09)

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
个体内变量
1.每日绩效压力	3.00	0.98
2.每天创新行为	3.55	0.97	-0.06
3.每晚问题解决反思	3.98	0.70	0.03	0.09^*
4.每晚情感反刍	2.15	0.88	0.10^**	-0.04	0.01
5.第二天创新行为	3.55	0.98	-0.05	0.35^**	0.09^*	-0.08^*
个体间变量
6.一般挑战性评估	3.92	0.75	0.08	0.15	0.05	-0.11	0.14
7.一般阻碍性评估	2.24	0.92	0.21	-0.26^*	-0.08	0.55^**	-0.28^*	-0.24^*

变量	每晚问题解决反思	每晚情感反刍	第二天创新行为
个体内变量
每日绩效压力	0.05(0.04)	0.10^*(0.04)	-0.03(0.03)
每晚问题解决反思			0.08^*(0.04)
每晚情感反刍			-0.07^*(0.04)
每天创新行为			0.29^***(0.04)
个体间变量
性别	-0.17(0.12)	-0.15(0.16)	0.13(0.29)
年龄	0.13(0.07)	-0.16(0.09)	0.33^*(0.13)
运营岗	-0.26^*(0.12)	-0.12(0.23)	0.01(0.32)
技术岗	-0.13(0.09)	-0.07(0.11)	-0.06(0.19)
一般挑战性评估	-0.01(0.09)	0.01(0.09)	0.10(0.12)
一般阻碍性评估	-0.03(0.09)	0.45^***(0.12)	-0.22(0.12)
跨层次交互项
每日绩效压力×一般挑战性评估	0.07^*(0.03)	0.04(0.08)
每日绩效压力×一般阻碍性评估	-0.02(0.03)	0.09^**(0.03)

[1]	DENG Yu-lin, WU Jie, DA Qing-li. The Influencing Mechanisms of Different Forms of Superior-Subordinate Relationship on Employees' Innovation Behaviors: A Perspective of Multiple Institutional Logics [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2021, 29(9): 236-248.
[2]	LIU Li-li, DU Rong, AI Shi-zhong. Impact of Culture on the Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Behavior in IT Services Industry [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2016, 24(4): 159-166.

The Underlying Mechanisms and Boundary Conditions of the Relationship between Daily Performance Pressure and Innovative Behavior

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 7

References 26

Related Articles 2

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 10