Interactive effects of perceived time pressure, satisfaction with work-family balance (SWFB), and leader-member exchange (LMX) on creativity

Abstract

Purpose Drawing on role theory, the purpose of this paper is to investigate a curvilinear relationship between employee’s perceived overall time pressure and creativity. Apart from this, it explores a three-way interaction of perceived time pressure, satisfaction with work-family balance (SWFB), and leader-member exchange (LMX) on creativity. Design/methodology/approach The paper reports a quantitative study of 251 employees from a European company. An online survey was used to collect data. The proposed hypotheses were tested using moderated hierarchical regression analysis. Findings Results demonstrate a U-shaped curvilinear relationship between perceived time pressure and creativity. Results further confirm the proposed three-way interaction of perceived time pressure, SWFB, and LMX as joint predictors of creativity. Research limitations/implications The cross-sectional research design limits the ability to demonstrate causality. Moreover, the data were collected from a single source causing concern for common method bias. Nonetheless, recent research suggests that common method bias cannot create an artificial interaction effect. Originality/value This study is one of the rare attempts to examine a curvilinear relationship between perceived time pressure and creativity. Moreover, it contributes to the work-family literature by providing the first empirical examination of the linkage between SWFB and creativity. Furthermore, the authors find a three-way interaction between time pressure, SWFB and LMX, and creativity. These findings broaden our understanding of how personal and contextual factors interact to foster creativity.

Reducing the harmful effect of work overload on creative behaviour: Buffering roles of energy‐enhancing resources

“…The core contribution of this study lies in its elaboration of how three energy‐enhancing resources – passion for work, emotion sharing and organizational commitment – buffer the negative effect of employees' perceptions of work overload on their creative behaviours. The lack of previous attention to this influence is somewhat surprising, in light of the recognition that the energy‐depleting effects of demanding work conditions that make employees turn away from positive work behaviours can be countered by access to relevant resources (e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, ; Hakanen, Bakker, & Demerouti, ; Pooja et al, ), as well as calls for continued considerations of contingency factors that might influence the extent to which workload pressures inform creativity (e.g., Aleksić et al, ).…”

“…The lack of previous attention to this influence is somewhat surprising, in light of the recognition that the energy-depleting effects of demanding work conditions that make employees turn away from positive work behaviours can be countered by access to relevant resources (e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005;Hakanen, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2005;Pooja et al, 2016), as well as calls for continued considerations of contingency factors that might influence the extent to which workload pressures inform creativity (e.g., Aleksić et al, 2017).…”

“…Some research suggests that work pressure can be motivational for employees' creative endeavourssuch that it reveals an inverted U-shaped (Baer & Oldham, 2006;Binnewies & Wörnlein, 2011) or even positive (Ohly & Fritz, 2010) relationshipbut other studies indicate that employees' exposure to workplace adversity, in the form of excessive workloads, tends to steer them away from creative behaviours (Andrews & Smith, 1996;Chen, Chang, & Chang, 2015;Ocker, 2005;Soriano de Alencar & Bruno-Faria, 1997;Vredenburgh & He, 2003;Zhang, Zhang, & Song, 2015). This ambiguity indicates the continued need to investigate contingencies that might inform the harmful effect of work overload on creative behaviour, as well as how this effect might be contained (Aleksić, Mihelič, Černe, & Škerlavaj, 2017;Altaf & Awan, 2011;Baer & Oldham, 2006). Accordingly, we seek a better understanding of how employees' negative responses to work overload, in the form of reduced creative behaviours, might be mitigated by relevant contingent factors.…”

Servant leadership: A meta‐analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation

“…Servant leadership meta-analysis 41 Bambale, Shamsudin, and Subramaniam (2015) Jaramillo et al (2009) Siddiqi (2013) Bavik, Bavik, and Tang (2017) Johnson (2016) Trivers (2009) Bobbio, van Dierendonck, and Manganelli (2012) Liden et al (2015) Tuan (2017) Bouzari and Karatepe (2017) Liden et al (2008) van Dierendonck andNuijten (2011) Brubaker, Bocarnea, Patterson, and Malingumu, Stouten, Euwema, and Babyegeya (2016) Vondey (2010) Chen et al Gilmore, Hu, Wei, Tetrick, and Zaccaro (2013) Li, Yu, Yang, Qi, andFu (2014) Gong, Huang, andFarh (2009) LMX -Creativity Aleksi c, Miheli c, Cerne, and Skerlavaj (2017) Liao, Liu, and Loi (2010) Pan, Wu, Zhou, and Lou (2015) Chughtai (2016) Martinaityte and Sacramento (2013) Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999) Huang, Krasikova, and Liu (2016) Meng, Tan, and Li (2017) van Dyne, Jehn, and Cummings (2002) Jiang and Yang (2015) Muñoz-Doyague and Nieto (2012) Volmer, Spurk, and Niessen (2012) Joo ( …”

Psychological capital and self‐reported employee creativity: The moderating role of supervisor support and job characteristics

“…Thus, we expect that job characteristics can strengthen the likelihood that employees utilize their PsyCap to generate greater creativity. Finally, and importantly, although previous research has painted a comprehensive picture of employee (creative) performance, including all the characteristics of the workers, the working environment and the job (Steers & Porter, 1991), fewer empirical studies have simultaneously considered the various contextual factors (e.g., Aleksić, Mihelić, Ćerne, & Škerlavaj, 2017). Specifically, research based on leaders' situational influence (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) has shown that leader behaviours may influence subordinates' appraisal of their jobs (Smircich & Morgan, 1982).…”