Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the Effects of Job Autonomy on Engagement and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Performance Pressure and Learning Goal Orientation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The 21st century work environment calls for team members to be more engaged in their work and exhibit more creativity in completing their job tasks. The purpose of this study was to examine whether team performance pressure and individual goal orientation would moderate the relationships between individual autonomy in teams and individual engagement and creativity.

Design/Methodology/Approach

A sample consisting of 209 team members and 45 team managers from 45 work teams in 14 companies completed survey measures. To test our hypotheses, we used multilevel modeling with random intercepts and slopes because the individual-level data were nested within the team-level data.

Findings

Hierarchical linear modeling showed that team-level performance pressure attenuated the positive relations between job autonomy and three dimensions of engagement. There were also 3-way interactions between job autonomy, psychological performance pressure, and learning goal orientation in predicting three dimensions of engagement and creativity.

Implications

This study highlights the importance of exploring the moderating effect of team-level task characteristics and individual differences on the relationships between job autonomy and individual engagement and creativity. Organizations need to carefully consider both individual learning goals and performance pressure when empowering team members with job autonomy.

Originality/Value

This is one of the first studies to explore the association between individual job autonomy in teams and individual outcomes in a contingency model. We first introduced team performance pressure as a moderator of job autonomy and examined the 3-way interaction effects of performance pressure, individual job autonomy, and learning goal orientation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands sources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(50), 248–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Showers, C. J. (1986). A review of paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in sports and mental tests. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 16(4), 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. S., Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Blawath, S. (2012). Team learning: A theoretical integration and review. In S. W. J. Kozlowski  (Ed.), The oxford handbook of organizational psychology. New York: Oxford Library of Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, G. (2007). Job tenure as a moderator of stressor-strain relations: A comparison of experienced and new-start teachers. Work and Stress, 21(1), 48–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. (1992). Hierarchical liner models: Applications and data analysis methods. Reports on Progress in Physics, 16(97), 899–946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 26–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S. (2001). Affect and the functional bases of behavior: On the dimensional structure of affective experience. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 345–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordery, J. L., Morrison, D., Wright, B. M., & Wall, T. D. (2010). The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2), 240–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Devanna, M. A., & Tichy, N. (2006). Creating the competitive organization of the 21st century: the boundaryless corporation. Human Resource Management, 29(4), 455–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, N. G., Hanges, P. J., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 149–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., & Aselage, J. (2009). Incremental effects of reward on experienced performance pressure: Positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. K. (2012). Performance pressure as a double-edged sword: Enhancing team motivation but undermining the use of team knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(1), 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, Y., & Fan, J. (2006). Longitudinal examination of the role of goal orientation in cross-cultural adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 176–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Mulé, E., DeGeest, D. S., McCormick, B. W., Seong, J. Y., & Brown, K. G. (2014). Can we get some cooperation around here? The mediating role of group norms on the relationship between team personality and individual helping behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 988–999.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work—Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, G., Budhwar, P., Cooper, B. K., West, M., Long, C., Chongyuan, X., & Shipton, H. (2008). Cross-cultural variations in climate for autonomy, stress and organizational productivity relationships: A comparison of Chinese and UK manufacturing organizations. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(8), 1343–1358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, G., Knippenberg, D. V., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. J., & Maas, C. J. M. (2001). The accuracy of multilevel structural equation modeling with pseudobalanced groups and small samples. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(2), 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 396–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. L., Davis, W. D., & Thomas, C. H. (2015). Is competition engaging? Examining the interactive effects of goal orientation and competitive work environment on engagement. Human Resource Management. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.21773/epdf.

  • Kain, J., & Jex, S. M. (2010). Karasek’s (1979) demands-control model: A summary of current issues and future research. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), New developments in theoretical and conceptual approaches to job stress (research in occupational stress and well-being, volume 8). London: Emerald Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, T. Y., Gong, Y., Lee, D. R., & Jing, Z. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 150–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lan, L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). American and Chinese similarities and differences in defining and valuing creative products. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(4), 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31(4), 513–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. (2004). Effects of task autonomy on performance: An extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 934–945.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X. Y., Härtel, C. E. J., & Sun, J. M. (2014). The workgroup emotional climate scale: Theoretical development, empirical validation, and relationship with workgroup effectiveness. Group and Organization Management, 39(6), 626–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Man, D. C., & Lam, S. S. K. (2003). The effects of job complexity and autonomy on cohesiveness in collectivistic and individualistic work groups: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 979–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matud, M. P. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1401–1415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376–390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A multi-level perspective on creativity. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 4(05), 9–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2014). Subjective career success: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(2), 169–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niu, W. (2012). Confucian ideology and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(4), 274–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niu, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Creativity of Chinese and American cultures: A synthetic analysis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(1), 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paletz, S. B. F., Peng, K., & Li, S. (2011). In the world or in the head: External and internal implicit theories of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pang, W., & Plucker, J. A. (2012). Recent transformations in china’s economic, social, and education policies for promoting innovation and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(4), 247–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. L., Jimmieson, N. L., & Amiot, C. E. (2009). The stress-buffering effects of control on task satisfaction and perceived goal attainment: An experimental study of the moderating influence of desire for control. Applied Psychology, 58(4), 622–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, John, A, I. I., & Ravlin, E. C. (1987). The design and activation of self-regulating work groups. Human Relations, 40(11), 751–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podasakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., & du Toit, M. (2011). HLM 7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J., & West, M. (2010). Engaged work teams. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question: Burnout and work engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 20(2), 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, H. P., & Lafollette, W. (1975). An assessment of the litwin and stringer organization climate questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 28(1), 19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when demands are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 965–976.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 145–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71472082; 71102148).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, Nanjing University of Economics and Finance, Nanjing, 210023, China

    Wenqin Zhang & Dongdong Wang

  2. Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA

    Steve M. Jex & Yisheng Peng

Authors
  1. Wenqin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steve M. Jex
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yisheng Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dongdong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenqin Zhang.

Appendix (Team Performance Pressure Items in English and Chinese)

Appendix (Team Performance Pressure Items in English and Chinese)

  1. 1.

    My company has set lofty performance goals for our team.

    (公司为我们团队设定了非常高的业绩目标)

  2. 2.

    Our company paid close attention to which team has demonstrated high levels of work quality.

    (公司非常关注我们团队能否实现优秀的业绩)

  3. 3.

    Our team members were obligated to deliver a high-quality outcome to satisfy the company leaders.

    (我们团队负有责任实现高质量工作结果,以让公司领导满意)

  4. 4.

    Company leaders explicitly measured our team’s performance by comparing our work with other teams.

    (公司领导会通过与其他团队进行比较,明确评价我们团队的业绩)

  5. 5.

    In my company there was a great deal of competition between teams.

    (在我们公司,团队之间的竞争非常激烈)

  6. 6.

    In my company our team must compete with other teams on performance.

    (在公司内部,我们团队必须与其他团队在业绩上展开竞争)

  7. 7.

    Team member’s prospects for advancement in company depended on whether we demonstrate superior performance.

    (团队成员在公司中的发展前景取决于团队能否实现优秀业绩)

  8. 8.

    Our team can win recognition from the company only if we demonstrated superior performance.

    (只有取得优秀业绩,我们团队才能得到公司的认可)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, W., Jex, S.M., Peng, Y. et al. Exploring the Effects of Job Autonomy on Engagement and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Performance Pressure and Learning Goal Orientation. J Bus Psychol 32, 235–251 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9453-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9453-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation