When examining job performance behaviors that contribute positively to the organization fall into?

Abstract

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to discretionary, nonrequired contributions by members to the organizations that employ them. Evidence indicates that job satisfaction is more closely related to such contributions than to productivity in core job tasks. Other data suggest that personality also is more likely to predict such discretionary behaviors rather than task productivity. Various typologies and dimensions of OCB have been posited, but the most parsimonious structure consists of two major dimensions, roughly analogous to discretionary help and support to particular persons and discretionary levels of conformity to organizational rules. Compelling findings support the hypothesis that unit level OCB indeed predicts various criteria of organizational effectiveness. Cross-cultural research in OCB has begun and is proceeding at an accelerating pace, with indications that the structure of what is perceived as OCB varies somewhat across cultures. Moreover, some forms or levels of intended OCB might prove dysfunctional for either the organization or the individual or both.

Behavioral Outcomes

CSE also influences the types of actions that employees engage in. In employment settings, three types of behaviors receive the most research attention: task performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). Task performance refers to work behaviors that contribute to the technical core of the organization, such as the production of a product or delivery of a service (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997). OCB includes actions that contribute positively to the general social and psychological environment at work, such as helping coworkers, participating in voluntary committees, and defending the company's reputation to outsiders (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997). CWB refers to actions that harm the organization or its members, such as sabotage, theft, and interpersonal mistreatment (Spector, 1997).

Task performance and OCB are approach-oriented behaviors that contribute positively to the organization and its members. As such, high-CSE employees are expected to exhibit higher task performance and OCB. On the contrary, CWB is often the result of experiencing negative emotions and perceiving stressors, which are associated with an avoidance orientation. Thus, high-CSE employees should be less likely to engage in counterproductive behaviors. Meta-analytic results are consistent with this line of reasoning (Chang et al., 2012). Specifically, CSE has positive relations with task performance (ρ = +0.19), and with OCB directed at coworkers (ρ = +0.20) and the organization (ρ = +0.30). In contrast, CSE has negative relations with CWB directed at coworkers (ρ = −0.16) and the organization (ρ = −0.28). Taken together, high-CSE employees contribute positively to their organizations by fulfilling their job responsibilities and improving the social and psychological environment, and by refraining from harmful and counterproductive acts.

Citizenship Performance

In addition to task performance, employees engage in activities that support the broader work environment. These activities constitute the contextual or citizenship performance domain (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). Since the introduction of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the early 1980s (e.g., Smith et al., 1983), researchers proposed several taxonomies and Podsakoff et al. (2000) identified more than 30 unique dimensions for OCB or contextual performance. Coleman and Borman (2000) integrated the various dimensions into a three-dimensional interpretation consisting of personal support, organizational support, and conscientious initiative. A general and commonly used distinction is made between citizenship performance activities targeted at individuals and performance activities targeted at the organization. Citizenship performance can be measured using supervisor ratings; however, peer and self-ratings are also commonly used, with some authors (e.g., Allen et al., 2000) suggesting that peers are the best source for the ratings.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior/Counterproductive Work Behavior

The positive stereotype also exists that older workers are more dependable, honest, and trustworthy than younger workers (Posthuma and Campion, 2009). One reasonable manifestation of this positive stereotype is the proposition that older workers have higher levels of organizational citizenship behaviors and lower levels of counterproductive work behaviors relative to younger workers. Organizational citizenship behaviors are extra, unexpected behaviors that better one's immediate work group or environment (e.g., helping a coworker), whereas counterproductive work behaviors are behaviors that intentionally harm business (e.g., stealing, using inappropriate language; Ng and Feldman, 2008). Meta-analytic evidence partially supports this positive stereotype. Older workers and those with higher levels of organizational tenure do tend to engage in slightly higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior and lower levels of counterproductive work behavior relative to their younger counterparts, and those with lower levels of organizational tenure, respectively, although the effect is relatively small (Ng and Feldman, 2008, 2010a). It is important to note that a stronger relationship was found between chronological age and organizational citizenship behavior directed at tasks (e.g., displaying extra effort on the job), with chronological age accounting for over 4% of the variance (Ng and Feldman, 2008). Thus, older workers are more willing to persist to try hard to improve personal or group performance relative to younger workers. In addition, meta-analytic results suggest a positive relationship exists between job tenure and organizational citizenship behaviors, and that no relationship exists between job tenure and counterproductive work behaviors (Ng and Feldman, 2013a).

Moderators of the chronological age- counterproductive work behavior and organizational tenure–organizational citizenship behavior relationship exist. Specifically, recent research found the negative relationship between chronological age and counterproductive work behaviors is strongest for those over age 40 and lowest for those under age 25 (Ng and Feldman, 2008). In addition, meta-analytic results suggest the organizational tenure-organizational citizenship behavior relationship is stronger for younger workers (those under age 37) compared to older workers (those over age 37; Ng and Feldman, 2010a). Meta-analytic evidence also suggests that the organizational tenure–organizational citizenship behavior relationship may be curvilinear in nature. Specifically, meta-analytic evidence suggests the organizational tenure – organizational citizenship behavior relationship is significantly higher at 0–3 years of organizational tenure relative to 3–6 years, 7–10 years, 11–14 years, and greater than 14 years (Ng and Feldman, 2010a).

In summary, there seems to be a small positive relationship between three conceptualizations of age (chronological age, job tenure, and organizational tenure) and organizational citizenship behaviors. Given the organizational tenure–organizational citizenship behavior relationship is stronger at both younger ages and lower levels of job tenure, it is difficult to tell whether it is the organizational tenure or age that is specifically driving the moderation. However, to the extent to which organizational citizenship behaviors may increase one's chances of being promoted or receiving other positive workplace outcomes, it is more likely that years of tenure moderates the relationship between organizational tenure and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Cultural Values and Work-Related Behaviors

The effects of national culture on work-related behaviors are well documented. A meta-analysis by Taras et al. (2010) found Hofstede's cultural dimensions to predict a variety of organizational outcomes including job performance, absenteeism, turnover, organizational commitment, citizenship behaviors, organizational identification, and team attitudes. While cultural values accounted for relatively low amounts of variance in specific behavioral outcomes, their predictive power concerning emotions, attitudes, and perceptions rivaled – and in some cases surpassed – those of personality and general mental ability.

In their review of empirical studies using Hofstede's framework, Kirkman et al. (2006) summarized findings regarding culture's influence on individual styles of change management, conflict management, human resource management, negotiation, reward allocation, decision making, and leadership. In addition, culture was examined as an antecedent of organizational justice, work-related attitudes, and employee motivation.

Of the four dimensions, not only was individualism–collectivism the most frequently investigated, but comparatively, it tended to be the most powerful predictor of workplace outcomes. Collectivist values are associated with increased cooperation and positive attitudes regarding teams. Additionally, individuals from collectivist cultures tend to prefer nondirective leadership that emphasizes participation and teamwork. On the other hand, individualism is associated with increased conflict, and those from individualist cultures tend to use personal experience rather than formal rules to manage conflict. Individualism is positively associated with avoiding unethical behavior and preferring paternalistic leadership, and negatively associated with concern for others' interests in conflict management (Kirkman et al., 2006; Taras et al., 2010).

Individuals from high power-distance cultures tend to have higher organizational commitment, person–organization fit, and a preference for directive leadership; however, they are less likely to avoid unethical behavior and seek feedback (Kirkman et al., 2006; Taras et al., 2010). The value of uncertainty avoidance is strongly associated with an individual's team commitment and a preference for directive leadership, and negatively associated with innovation and a preference for participative leadership (Taras et al., 2010). Finally, masculinity is positively associated with a preference for a compromising conflict management style and social avoidance, and negatively correlated with a preference for an avoidance conflict management style and the value of individual equality (Taras et al., 2010).

Cultural values can also shape individual personality. In their literature review, Heine and Buchtel (2009) discussed the differences in personality across cultures, especially between Eastern and Western cultures. In Eastern societies, perceptions of the self tend to be more fluid, context-specific, and dependent on others. Easterners are more likely to have contradictory views of themselves, and they may change the way they act based on the situation. Because of the collectivist nature of many Eastern cultures, Easterners tend to act in ways that promote harmony with others. They are less likely than Westerners to engage in self-enhancing activities, perhaps because collectivist cultures may punish such actions more than individualist cultures. Western, individualist cultures, on the other hand, may provide benefits of self-enhancement that outweigh the costs, leading to its greater prevalence as a personality trait in such countries. Additionally, Westerners tend to view their personalities as stable and believe they act somewhat consistently across different situational contexts.

Despite extensive research, there remains much to do to better understand the influence of values at work. While a considerable amount of research has accumulated regarding some cultural values (e.g., individualism), others have been less explored. Moreover, paralleling the personality literature, researchers have begun to call for an exploration of more narrowly defined value facets than the broad dimensions conceptualized in the dominant typologies. In addition, process models accounting for how values develop, change over time, and impact attitudes and behaviors are needed to clarify our existing empirical findings.

Relational Theories

Relational theories as frameworks that describe how employees respond to abusive supervision based on inferences they draw from the abuse about their relationship with the supervisor and/or the organization. One such framework is fairness theory, in which judgments of fairness are driven by individuals' assignments of responsibility (Folger and Cropanzano, 2001). Uncertainty management theory highlights how being mistreated is especially important for employees who are uncertain about themselves or their relationship with the organization (Lind and Van den Bos, 2002). Social exchange theory describes the costs and benefits to employees of maintaining different forms of reciprocity-based relationships with their supervisor and the organization (Blau, 1964). Each of these theories has been invoked in studies highlighting fairness of some kind, such as supervisor interpersonal or procedural fairness, or in studying the influence of abusive supervision on the victim's level of trust in the supervisor. For example, an exchange perspective may highlight how abusive supervision elicits negative reciprocity, such that subordinates respond to negative supervisor treatment with negative behaviors (e.g., Peng et al., forthcoming). An uncertainty management or a fairness theory perspective may emphasize how being abused activates unfairness cognitions that confirm or disconfirm an existing schema about the organization, and this in turn influences the employee's motivation (e.g., Mayer et al., 2012; Thau et al., 2009). Below we highlight studies of abusive supervision that examined mediators that were consistent with one or more of these relational theories of abusive supervision.

Outcomes

The majority of empirical work on authentic leadership has sought to explicate its outcomes, rather than its antecedents (Gardner et al., 2011). Many theoretical propositions regarding these outcomes have been supported. Indeed, this may be part of the reason why authentic leadership has sustained the attention of the scientific community. In this section, we briefly review some of the predicted outcomes and relevant empirical findings. Some outcomes are posited explicitly in models of authentic leadership, whereas others have been derived from those models.

Overall, the Gardner et al. (2011) review suggests that authentic leadership is associated with positive leader (psychological well-being), follower (empowerment, job performance, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational commitment, trust in leadership, work engagement, and work happiness), and organizational outcomes (openness of organizational climate and firm financial performance). Authentic leadership was also shown to be negatively associated with undesirable outcomes (e.g., follower burnout and contingent leader self-esteem). Together, these results provide evidence of predictive validity of the authentic leadership construct. Subsequent research provides additional empirical evidence of predictive validity, as authentic leadership has been shown to be positively related to behavioral integrity (Leroy et al., 2012b), perceived leader effectiveness (Moriano et al., 2011), follower extra effort (Moriano et al., 2011), satisfaction with the leader (Moriano et al., 2011; Neider and Schriesheim, 2011), follower basic need satisfaction (Leroy et al., 2012a), follower general satisfaction (Neider and Schriesheim, 2011), follower organizational commitment (Neider and Schriesheim, 2011), follower affective commitment (Leroy et al., 2012b), follower social exchange (Chiaburu et al., 2011), follower creativity (Chiaburu et al., 2011), follower work role performance (Leroy et al., 2012a,b), positive (Woolley et al., 2011) and collective psychological capital (Woolley et al., 2011), organizational citizenship behavior (Walumbwa et al., 2011), positive work environments (Walumbwa et al., 2011), group level performance (Woolley et al., 2011), firm level performance (mediated through top management team positive affective tone; Hmieleski et al., 2012), team trust (Walumbwa et al., 2011), team authenticity (Hannah et al., 2011), and teamwork behavior (Hannah et al., 2011).

Gardner et al. (2011) note that while the research to date is informative, much work remains to advance our understanding of authentic leadership. To do so, they recommend a five-pronged agenda for future research: (1) stronger theory building, (2) expansion of the nomological network, (3) more rigorous and diverse methods, (4) attention to authentic followership, and (5) attention to authentic leadership development. In a separate review of the leadership literature, Avolio et al. (2009) came to a similar conclusion that the measurement of constructs relating to authentic leadership is at an early stage of development. They identify several relevant constructs that have not yet been examined, such as moral perspective, self-concept clarity, psychological well-being, spirituality, and judgment. They also suggest that additional research is needed to examine authentic leadership across different cultural and situational contexts.

One way that the theory building can be enhanced is by more clearly articulating the boundary conditions. Though the intent of research behind authentic leadership is to understand a wide range of phenomena, it is likely that some contexts are not fully supportive of authenticity and authentic leadership (e.g., toxic organizational cultures). While some work on boundary conditions of authentic leadership has been done (Eagly, 2005), more theory and empirical research is needed to explicate these boundaries.

Another area that requires greater research is the interplay between authentic leadership and authentic followership. In their initial conceptualization of authentic leadership, Gardner and associates (Gardner et al., 2005a) posited a parallel process to authentic leadership whereby followers come to function authentically, in part by modeling the authenticity of the leader. In their review of the literature, Gardner et al. (2011) pointed out that the role of authentic followership within authentic leader–follower relationships had not been examined, despite it being a crucial component of authentic leadership theory. In an initial step toward filling this void, Leroy et al. (2012a) demonstrated that work units that were characterized by relatively high levels of authentic leadership provided a supportive context for followers' satisfaction of their basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and thereby fostered authentic followership and elevated levels of follower work role performance. Moving forward, additional research is required to explore the role that authentic leadership plays in facilitating follower authenticity at work, as well as the extent to which authentic followership in turn enables leaders to achieve authenticity.

Consequences of Differing Levels of Job Satisfaction

An overriding impetus for the study of job satisfaction has been a belief that it is an important influence on job performance. Consequently, the nature of that relationship continues to be an important direction for the application of empirical and conceptual efforts. As employees can contribute to organizational effectiveness in many ways, through their task performance, commitment to the organization, reliability of attendance, provision of support and mentoring, and so on, no single statement can be made about satisfaction and performance. Instead, the importance of work attitudes to performance appears to be a function of what aspect of performance one is referring to.

Initial interest focused on what might be called immediate task performance and by 1955 enough empirical studies of that relationship had been done to justify a review by Brayfield and Crockett. Their conclusion was rather surprising for the time. “It appears that there is little evidence in the available literature that employee attitudes of the type usually measured in morale surveys bear any simple – or for that matter, appreciable – relationship to performance on the job.” (1955: p. 408). Later Vroom (1964) reviewing essentially the same literature came to the same conclusion as did an early meta-analysis by Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985). More recently, a meta-analysis by Judge et al. (2001) reported a more moderate satisfaction–performance relationship (r = 0.30, corrected). They suggest that the difference is due primarily to methodological differences (Judge et al., 2001). A meta-analysis by Harter et al. (2002) found a moderate relationship between employee satisfaction and unit-level performance (r = 0.22). Regardless, it is important to note that even the most optimistic results find satisfaction explaining less than 10% of the variance in task performance. Further, most of the data points in these meta-analyses are from correlational studies, leaving causal direction ambiguous. Finally, Bowling (2007) suggests that the satisfaction–performance relationship is largely spurious. He found that the relationship between satisfaction and performance dropped to 0.09 after controlling for domain-specific personality traits (i.e., organization-based self-esteem), suggesting that satisfaction may not be causally related to performance. Overall, and contrary to intuition, these results suggest modest to negligible relationships between job satisfaction and task performance.

Employee contributions to organizational effectiveness go beyond the contributions made by immediate task performance and therefore research has also looked at the ability of satisfaction to predict other criteria like job withdrawal (turnover, absenteeism, etc.) and extra-role behaviors (organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and counterproductive work behavior (CWB)). Meta-analyses of studies examining satisfaction–turnover relationships generally produce findings similar to those for task performance, moderate but not substantial. For example, Carsten and Spector (1987) found that turnover was related to satisfaction (r = −0.26, corrected) and Tett and Meyer (1993) found that turnover intentions and withdrawal intentions were highly correlated with job satisfaction (r = −0.58, corrected), but observed turnover less so (r = −0.24). A number of other meta-analytic studies found relationships of a similar magnitude (Cotton and Tuttle, 1986; Fried et al., 2008; Griffeth et al., 2000; Hom et al., 1992; Podsakoff et al., 2009). Overall, satisfaction is most strongly related to turnover intention, not actual turnover. The attenuated relationship between intentions and behavior may be due to a myriad of other factors that are outside of the individual's control (i.e., ability to get another job).

Similar to the satisfaction–turnover relationship, satisfaction has been weakly related to absence duration (r = 0.09) and absence frequency (r = −0.18; Scott and Taylor, 1985). The restricted relationship between absenteeism and satisfaction may be due to the employee's ability to express such behaviors (i.e., strict absence policies).

In the 1980s, interest shifted to behaviors that were outside of the formal job requirements, such as OCB (see Bateman and Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983). OCBs, broadly defined as organizationally useful behaviors that are not formally prescribed by formal job requirements, appear to be moderately correlated with satisfaction (r > 0.16; Dalal, 2005; LePine et al., 2002; Organ and Ryan, 1995). CWBs, or behaviors intended to harm coworkers or the organization as a whole, can be considered the opposite of OCBs. Mount et al. (2006) found significant path coefficients between satisfaction and organizational CWBs (r = 0.41) and interpersonal CWBs (r = 0.40), and Dalal (2005) found a moderate relationship between satisfaction and overall CWBs (r = −0.37, corrected). In comparison to in-role behaviors, more substantive effect sizes for OCBs and CWBs may be due to the greater level of control that the employees have over these behaviors. OCBs and CWBs are not strongly regulated behaviors, and thus allow employees more latitude in expression.

Harrison et al. (2006) have argued that this behavior-by-behavior approach to satisfaction consequences is inconsistent with basic attitude theory. Working from the compatibility principle of attitude theory, they argue that overall job satisfaction, as a general attitude, should be a better predictor of an aggregated index of employee contributions than of any single behavior. In a very creative meta-analysis, where they combine results for both withdrawal and extra-role behaviors, they conclude that the expected relationship of overall satisfaction with an integrated index of contribution approached 0.60. Their work is important because it shows a utility for job satisfaction that has been heretofore hard to find and because it demonstrates the usefulness of incorporating attitude theory into the study of job satisfaction.

Finally, interest in satisfaction is not driven entirely by organizational considerations as there is reason to believe that job dissatisfaction has negative effects on mental health. For example, a meta-analysis by Lee and Ashforth (1996) found significant relationship with satisfaction and Maslach's (1982) three dimensions of burnout: emotional exhaustion (r = −0.31, corrected), depersonalization (r = −0.44, corrected), and personal accomplishment (r = 0.29, corrected). Further, a meta-analysis by Faragher et al. (2005) found that satisfaction is related to anxiety (r = 0.42), depression (r = 0.42), and self-esteem (r = 0.43), suggesting that satisfaction at work can be meaningfully related to employee's mental health.

Job Performance

The (positive) relationship of EI with job performance is likely to be a complex function of the indirect benefits of social capital and the direct benefits of successfully incorporating emotions in (or excluding them from) decision-making processes. EI should help employees to establish a high level of social capital that, in turn, will provide greater access to valuable information and other resources that facilitate job performance (Sparrowe et al., 2001). EI might also facilitate job performance more directly, by enabling employees to create or up-regulate the emotions that facilitate a particular task and down-regulate the emotions that interfere with it. A person with a high level of EI is aware of the associations between emotion and cognition, and capable of changing the former to facilitate the latter. This, in short, will help the person to make the best possible decisions and help other people to do the same, which is likely to be reflected in their level of job performance (see Côté and Miners, 2006).

There are a number of individual studies and, now, meta-analyses that confirm EI can facilitate job performance. For example, with respect to the former, Kluemper et al. (2013) found that the ability to manage emotions can facilitate task performance and organizational citizenship behavior directed at the individual, and reduce the likelihood of workplace deviance. The pattern of results held even when a proxy for cognitive intelligence and a measure of the Big Five personality traits were entered into the analyses. The most recent meta-analysis was conducted by O'Boyle Jr. et al. (2011), who used dominance analyses to estimate the relative contributions of EI, cognitive intelligence, and the Big Five personality traits to job performance. They found that EI demonstrated substantial, relative importance even in the presence of these other, robust predictors.

Studies conducted by other researchers have shown that it may be helpful to consider the roles of other individual differences to understand the relationship between EI and job performance. Côté and Miners (2006) found that the relationship between EI and job performance becomes increasingly positive as cognitive intelligence decreases. EI, in other words, compensated for lower levels of cognitive intelligence in helping to achieve a high level of job performance. EI also interacts with other individual differences in a similar fashion, such that its role becomes more prominent if other means of achieving a high level of job performance are absent, or present but in an insufficient quantity. For example, Doucet and Oldham (2006) found that EI had a stronger relationship with job performance for employees at a telephone service center who possessed low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness, both of which should facilitate a high level of job performance when present to a greater extent.

The results of recent research also suggest that the role of situational characteristics and job characteristics, in particular, should be considered to better understand the relationship between EI and job performance. For example, Farh et al. (2012) found that EI predicted job performance for employees whose work entailed a high level of managerial demands (i.e., the extent to which a particular job involves the management of diverse individuals, functions, and lines of business), but not for employees whose work entailed a low level of such demands. A meta-analysis by Joseph and Newman (2010) provides further impetus for considering situational characteristics. Their results showed that EI had a much stronger, positive correlation with job performance among jobs with a high level of emotional demands, at least when EI was conceptualized and measured as a set of abilities.

Time Pressure

In several key studies where the measures of stress were time pressure and the measures of group performance included creativity, the findings demonstrated the inverted U-shaped relationship (e.g., Karau & Kelly, 1992; Ohly, Sonnentag, Pluntke, 2006). Using self-report surveys, time pressure has been shown to have an inverted U-shaped relationship with creativity and innovation, but not with submitting suggestions, a type of organizational citizenship behavior (Ohly, Sonnentag, Pluntke, 2006).

Along with a proliferation of moderators, this U-shaped relationship may explain how the results of time pressure and innovation research are genuinely mixed. There are studies suggesting time pressure has a positive effect on creativity, where creativity was measured by self-reported idea generation at work (Noefer, Stegmaier, Molter, & Sonntag, 2009) or observer ratings of innovative performance (Anderson & Farris, 1972). On the other hand, other experimental research suggests that externally imposed deadlines hinder intrinsic motivation (Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976). Intrinsic motivation is considered key to creativity (Amabile, 1983, 1996; Amabile et al., 2002). In addition, an externally imposed deadline (time pressure) versus working at one’s own pace has been negatively related to problem definition, concept selection, conceptual combination, idea generation, and idea evaluation, but not final originality (Antes & Mumford, 2009).

These studies are silent when it comes to internally imposed deadlines, which would assumedly also involve time pressure. Project management deadlines are often a mix of those which are imposed, accepted, and discussed by the team members. Given that autonomy is also usually associated with creativity (see below and Amabile et al., 1996; Ohly et al., 2006), it is possible the negative effects of external deadlines are being driven by the lack of autonomy rather than the deadlines themselves. In fact, when externally-imposed deadlines were co-opted, sub-deadlines were self-imposed, or more stringent deadlines were self-imposed, intrinsic motivation was not harmed as measured by free-choice time spent on tasks (Burgess, Enzle, & Schmaltz, 2004). Perceptions of partial or complete self-determination of time limits served to cancel out the negative effects of the external deadline on intrinsic motivation.

Much of the research on time pressure and team performance has involved ad hoc experimental groups and/or retrospective, single-point surveys. Single-time surveys in organizations have been criticized as possibly tapping into lay, causal theories of performance rather than genuine causal connections (Staw, 1975). Experiments are vital for testing causality, but may not represent the conditions under which project management teams actually function (e.g., people who know each other, deadlines that are both self- and externally-imposed, complex tasks). Two studies have examined time pressure and creativity over time in field data. Amabile and her colleagues (2002) set out to unpack the relationship between creativity, time pressure, and motivation in a field study. They were able to obtain a remarkable dataset of longitudinal process data, including measures of daily creativity and time pressure from 177 workers within 22 project teams working toward creative outcomes. Although the data were self-report, the methodology employed daily questionnaire items and event sampling, providing rich information about activities on the same day they occurred. Amabile and her colleagues did not find an inverted U-shape relationship; instead, using multiple measures of time pressure, they found that time pressure on a given day negatively predicted creative cognitive processing on the same day, the next day, and two days later. This finding was not due to the participants lacking the time to report creative activities. Intrinsic motivation did not mediate the relationship. In fact, intrinsic motivation was positively related to time pressure and unrelated to creativity.

The Amabile longitudinal study contrasts with an early study by Andrews and Farris (1972), which twice surveyed NASA scientists, their managers, and others who could evaluate them. This study found that perceived time pressure at Time One was positively correlated with innovation, usefulness, and productivity as rated by supervisors and senior colleagues at Time Two, five years later. Usefulness and productivity at Time One were not related to time pressure at Time Two, and there was a small, negative relationship between innovation at Time One and time pressure at Time Two. Interestingly, while all the performance measures and time pressure were positively related at Time One, at Time Two only usefulness was related to time pressure.

How do we make sense of the mixed literature on time pressure (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004)? Something particular to the datasets may explain the positive relationship between time pressure and creativity. The Andrews and Farris (1972) sample were scientists in a government laboratory. Perceptions of time pressure were positively related to numbers of close colleagues and administrative duties, and negatively related to working alone, suggesting that collaboration and time pressure could be confounded. In addition, there was a negative relationship between freedom given by supervisors at Time One and experienced time pressure at Time Two, suggesting that the scientists in this sample ranged from having too little time pressure to a moderate amount. This and other studies could have been examining differences between objectively low and moderate levels of time pressure.

Similarly, the negative relationships between time pressure and creativity must also be explained. The obvious explanation, the flip side of the one above, is that the time pressure varied from moderate to high, tracing the downward relationship on the inverted U. Another possibility is that the U-shaped relationship itself is moderated, as suggested by a field study of manufacturing employees where creativity was measured by multiple supervisor ratings (Bear & Oldham, 2006). Although there was a general negative main effect for time pressure on creativity, there was a significant three-way interaction such that, for employees with strong supervisor support and high openness to experience, they experienced the inverse-U relationship between time pressure and creativity.

Findings from the time pressure literature would suggest that when coming up with schedule estimates, project managers should attempt to ensure that their team members are not overly burdened with unrealistic time constraints. They should provide a moderate amount of time pressure, especially in ways that help make their team members feel empowered to set or co-opt deadlines themselves. Too much time is rarely a problem in the working world, although undefined deadlines can make it difficult to keep on task (for a model regarding project completion in drug discovery, see Zhao & Chen, 2009; also implied by Andrews & Farris, 1972).

A second suggestion from the psychology literature comes from research on social entrainment (Kelly & Karau, 1993; Kelly & McGrath, 1985). Kelly and colleagues’ (1993) study on time pressure found that if a creative task starts with a relatively longer time period, people will work more slowly but be more creative. This creativity will be maintained even if subsequent sessions of the task have subsequently shorter and shorter durations. This finding suggests that if a project team has an initial, low-time pressure time to master a creative task, subsequently increasing time pressure should not result in less creativity. A project manager could start a project slowly but thoroughly and then pick up the pace as the schedule continued.

A third suggestion comes from the literature on task switching. Task switching is widely known to hinder performance on later tasks. However, when a first task was completed, perceived time pressure on that first task led to better performance on a second task, by triggering confidence in having met the goals of the first task (Leroy, 2009). This research is in contrast to other work where the effects of time pressure are examined only on a concurrent task. Thus, a little time pressure tied to a completed task is helpful for creating a clean transition between tasks. Of course, all of these suggestions are tentative, as befits psychological research, but they provide useful directions in the absence of other guidance.