Differential Effects of Hindrance and Challenge Stressors on Innovative Performance Usman Raja, PhD and Muhammad Abbas Abstract The paper investigated the differential effects of challenge related stressors and hindrance related stressors on supervisory rated innovative performance. Data was collected from 255 employees of various organizations in Pakistan. It was hypothesized that hindrance stressors will have a negative whereas challenge stressors will have a positive effect on innovative performance. Consistent with the hypotheses it was found that individuals, who reported high hindrance stressors, exhibited lower levels of innovative behaviors at their jobs. However individuals, who reported high challenge stressors, exhibited higher levels of innovative behaviors. We also discussed implications and directions for future research. Key Words: Hindrance, Challenge, Stressors, Innovative Performance Individuals are hired to accomplish not only the assigned roles and responsibilities but also to give noble ideas and adopt innovative approaches to their work. However, at times, the organizational environment itself creates hurdles and obstacles for its members in achieving the assigned goals. Today s workforce experiences a higher level of stress as a result of increased job demands such as broadened job scopes, heavy workloads, situational constraints, and time pressure (Jex, 1998). Extant research suggests that these workplace stressors have the potential to detrimentally affect the desirable outcomes. However, a growing body acknowledges that not all stressors have the same effects. These workplace hurdles and obstacles in the organizational environment can take many forms. Recently, they have been categorized as hindrance-related and challenge-related stressors (Cavanaugh et al. 2000). Although it is said that it depends upon individuals difference variables as how they perceive these stressors. However, a growing body of knowledge concludes that these two types of stressors may be differentiated across all personalities. During last few years, the research on hindrance-challenge stressors has gained high momentum. Research has linked these two types of stressors with Usman Raja, PhD, Faculty of Business (OBHREE), Brock University, 500 Glenridge Ave. St. Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1 Canada, Ph: +1 905 688 5550 ext. 3899; Fax: +1 905 641 8068, Email: uraja@brocku.ca; usmanraja@gmail.com Muhammad Abbas, Faculty of Management Sciences,, Riphah Int l University Islamabad Pakistan, Email: muhammad.abbas@riu.edu.pk
various individual level outcomes. However, the differential effect of these stressors on innovative behaviors has not been investigated. Despite the growing body of research on hindrance-challenge stressors, we lack an understanding of how hindrance-challenge stressors affect innovative performance. Similarly, most of the previous researches did not measure both types of stressors in a single study, thus were unable to assess the unique variance explained by each stressors. Moreover, our knowledge in this area is very limited as most of the research conducted in the domains of hindrance-challenge stressors is from Western settings. In other words, we have little efficacy of how these Western theories, mostly developed in North America, apply to Eastern contexts (Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). Responding to the call of Wallace, Edwards, Arnold, Frazier, and Finch (2009), the current study attempts to address these issues by exploring the differential effects of hindrance and challenge stressors on innovative performance. In addition, the study attempts to provide external validity to the domains of hindrance-challenge stressors and innovative performance by testing these theories in an Eastern setting such as Pakistan, which is somewhat rare in OB literature. Theory and Hypotheses Hindrance-Challenge Stressors and Innovative Performance The research on stressors and outcomes has long been investigated in industrial psychology and organizational behavior research. It is argued that all of these stressors are not detrimental for employee outcomes instead their impact on outcomes depends upon the type of stressor being discussion (Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007). A considerable amount of research is dedicated to explore the negative as well as the positive effects of workplace stressor to draw their boundary conditions (Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, & LePine, 2004; Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). Recently, the stressors have been separated into two major categories; hindrance stressors and challenge stressors LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). Hindrance stressors include job demands such as role ambiguity, role conflict, situational constraints, organizational politics, and resource inadequacy, whereas challenge stressor include job demands such as workload, time pressures, job scope, and responsibility. Studies have shown that these two types of stressors have differential effects on various job outcomes including organizational commitment (Podsakoff et al., 2007), job satisfaction (Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, & LePine, 2004; Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000, turnover intentions (Boswell et al., 2004; Podsakoff et al., 2007, and performance (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2005). Different theoretical frameworks have been developed to explain the differential effects of stressors and outcomes. LePine et al. (2005) incorporated expectancy valence theory to explain the differential effects of hindrance-challenge stressors on outcomes. Similarly, other studies have drawn upon self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) to explain the differential roles of these stressors in affecting work outcomes. 2
Dwyer and Ganster (1991) found that quantitative workload was positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to voluntary absence. Cavanaugh et al. (2000) found that challenge-related work stressors were positively related to their job satisfaction. Challenge stressors, although stressful, are appraised as potentially supportive for promotion of personal growth and achievement, thus they trigger creativity and innovative performance (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2005). However, hindrance stressors are appraised as potentially threatening to personal growth and work related accomplishments and thus reduce innovative performance (LePine et al., 2004; Podsakoff et al., 2007). Other studies have also shown that challenge related stressors have the potential to trigger creativity (Baer, & Oldham, 2006; Ohly, & Fritz, 2010; Ohly, Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2006). In their meta-analysis, Byron, Khazanchi, and Nazarian (2010) found that low stress including situations caused an increase in creative performance whereas high stress including situations caused a decrease in creative performance. Building upon the above literature, we argue that hindrance-related stressors will be appraised as threatening and thus will dampen innovative behaviors, whereas challenge-related stressors will be assessed as being useful for personal growth and accomplishment thus will increase innovative performance. Consequently, we develop the following hypotheses H1- Hindrance Stressors will be negatively related to Innovative Performance H2- Challenge Stressors will be positively related to Innovative Performance METHODS Sample and Data Collection Procedures A cross sectional field study was conducted to gather the data from various organizations in Islamabad and Rawalpindi, which are the two major cities of Pakistan. The surveys were distributed among full time employees of two Private Banks and two government organizations, and administrative staff of a large public sector university. Of 300 questionnaires distributed among the employees, we received 255 usable pairs of responses. The surveys were distributed among full time employees. Personal and professional contacts were used to access the sites and to distribute the surveys. A covering letter was attached to each survey highlighting the purpose and objectives of the research. The respondents were ensured complete confidentiality on their responses and their participation was voluntary. The age, gender, and experience were measured categorically. Ages of 14 percent ranged between 15-25 years, ages of 56 % ranged between 26-35 years, ages of 8 percent ranged between 36-45 years. Rest of the employees did not report their ages. Among all, 65 % of the respondents were male, 16% were female, whereas 19% did not report their ages. 11 percent had experience ranged between less than 3 year, 5 percent had experience ranged between 3-6 years, 11 percent had experience ranged between 7-10 years, 24 percent had experience ranged between 11-15 years, 36 percent had experience ranged between 16 years and above whereas 13 percent did not report their experience. Regarding 3
qualification, 4 percent attended colleges, 27 percent were undergraduates, 46 percent were graduates, 10 percent had post graduate qualifications, and 13 percent did not report their education. Measures All the study variables, except for innovative performance, were measured using self-reported responses. However, to avoid self-reporting bias issues, innovative performance was measured using supervisory rated responses. The responses for hindrance stressors, challenges stressors, and innovative performance were taken on 5-point likert-scale with anchors ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Higher responses obtained against a variable represent higher level of that construct. In addition, respondents were asked to provide the information about their gender, age, occupational levels, and tenure on the survey. Following questionnaires were used for the collection of data. Challenge and Hindrance stressors: Challenge and hindrance stressors were measured using Cavanaugh et al. (2000) 10-tem scale (5 challenge items, 5 hindrance items). The original scale has 6-items for challenge stressors. We had to delete 1 item of challenge stressors due to low reliabilities. Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which the statements produced stress at work on a scale ranging from 1 = no stress to 5 = a great deal of stress. Challenge items (α =.71) include The amount of responsibility I have, and Time pressure I experience. Hindrance items (α =.71)include The degree to which politics rather than performance affects organizational decisions and The amount of red tape I need to get through to get my job done. Innovative Performance: Innovative performance was measured using 5-items from the Jansessn s (2000, 2001) scale for innovative behavior in the workplace. The innovative performance of each employee was rated by his/her respective supervisor. Sample items include This person creates new ideas for improvements and The person generates original solutions to problems. The reliability of innovative performance scale was α =.72. Control Variables: we also controlled respondent s age, gender, and tenure because of their possible effect on innovative performance. RESULTS Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, bivariate correlations, and reliabilities (coefficient alpha) of all study variables. Hindrance Stressor was negatively related to innovative performance (r = -.48, p <.01) whereas challenge stressor was not significantly related to innovative performance (r = -.11, ns). ------------------------------ Insert Table 1 about here ------------------------------ Multiple linear regression analysis was used to test all main effect hypotheses. Age, Gender, and Tenure were entered in the first step followed by the independent variables. Table 2 presents the regression results for the main effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on innovative performance. 4
Because hindrance and challenge stressors were highly correlated with each other, we also obtained the variance inflation factor (VIF) scores (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998) and the tolerance statistics (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), which measure the extent to which collinearity among predictors affect the precision of a regression model. VIF scores of less than 5 (Chatterjee & Price, 1991) and tolerance scores above.10 (Hair et al., 1998.) are typically considered acceptable. The VIF scores were below 2 (Tolerance >.6) in all analyses indicating that multicollinearity was not a problem. Results reveal that challenge stressors was positively related to innovative performance (β =.22, p <.01) whereas hindrance stressor was negatively related to innovative performance (β = -.56, p <.001). These results render support to hypotheses 1 and 2. Similarly, challenge-hindrance stressors explained 23% variance in innovative performance. ------------------------------ Insert Table 2 about here ------------------------------- DISCUSSION Differential Effect of Hindrance-Challenge Stressors Despite its relevance, the impact of hindrance-challenge stressors on innovative performance has not been investigated. The current study tested the differential effects of hindrance and challenge related stressors on supervisory ratings of innovative performance. We found that hindrance related stressors had detrimental effects on individual s innovative performance whereas challenge related stressors had a positive impact on innovative performance. These results render support to the notion that both types of stressors have differential effects on important criterion variables. Hindrance stressors, being threatening to one s wellbeing, are detrimental to individual s creativity and innovative behaviors. Challenge stressors, being supportive to one s growth and development, trigger positive innovative behaviors among employees. This study has also some implications for managerial practice. Managers can expose their employees with challenge related stressors to trigger their innovative capacities. Also, the managers should be aware of the hindrance related stressors as these stressors are detrimental for individual creativity. Strengths and Limitations This study has several strengths. The study investigated the differential effects of hindrance-challenge stressors on an important criterion outcome. The study was conducted in an Asian setting, thus providing external validity to the constructs developed in Western settings. In addition, we used supervisory reports to measure innovative performance. A limitation of the study is that, like most of the research, it was a cross sectional field survey that limits the causality related inferences tested in the study. Future Research Directions Future research should test the differential effects of hindrance-challenge stressors on other important criterion variables in Eastern settings to provide external validity to the theories predominantly developed in Western settings. Future 5
research can also help by investigating the buffering capacities of individual difference variables such as core-self evaluations in the relationship between stressors and outcomes. CONCLUSION Most of the theories in main stream organizational behavior have been developed and validated in the Western work settings particularly in U.S. Yet we know little about the external validity and applicability of these theories in non U.S settings. Similarly, the differential effect of hindrance and challenges stressors on innovative performance is also unexplored. The current study found differential effects of hindrance and challenge stressors on supervisory-rated innovative performance. Hindrance stressors had a negative effect whereas challenge stressors had a positive effect on innovative performance. REFERENCES Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007).The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 963 970. Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & LePine, M. A. (2004). The relationship between work-related stress and work outcomes: The role of felt-challenge and psychological strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 165 181. Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The Relationship Between Stressors and Creativity: A Meta-Analysis Examining Competing Theoretical Models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 201-212. Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65 74. Chatterjee, S., & Price, B. 1991. Regression diagnostics. New York: John Wiley. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). The effects of job demands and control on employee attendance and satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 595 608. Hair, J., Jr., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. 1998. Multivariate data analysis, Fifth ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Janssen, 0. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287-302. Janssen, 0. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1039-1050. 6
Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 883 891. LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764 775. Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543 565. Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257 279. Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor hindrance stress relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438 454. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. 2001. Using multivariate statistics, 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, Y. A. 2007. Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33: 426 478. Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyperm, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the Job Demands Resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 735 759. Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnold, T., Frazier, M. L., & Finch, D. M. (2009).Work Stressors, Role-Based Performance, and the Moderating Influence of Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (1), 254 262. 7
TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities 1. Age 1.9.52 2. Gender 1.2.40 3. Tenure 3.8 1.36 4. Hindrance Stressors 4.06.57 5. Challenge Stressors 2.33.56 6. Innovative Performance 3.87.57 Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 -- -.10 -- -.48**.19** -- -.01.03.08 (.71).10 -.05.02.51** (.71).06.02 -.10 -.48** -.11 (.72) Note. N = 255; Alpha reliabilities presented in parenthesis; For Gender 1 = Male, 2 = Female. ** p <.01 Table 2: Regression Results for Hindrance and Challenge Stressors on Innovative Performance Innovative Performance Step 1: Age.08 Gender.03 Tenure.02.01 Step2: Hindrance Stressors -.56***. Challenge Stressors.22**.23*** Note. N = 237; For Gender 1 = Male, 2 = Female. * p <.05 ** p <.001 β R² 8