Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Innovating under stress: The role of commitment and

leader-member exchange
Francesco Montani a,⁎, François Courcy b, Christian Vandenberghe c
a
Montpellier Business School, Montpellier Research in Management, 2300 Avenue des Moulins, 34185 Montpellier Cedex 4, France
b
Department of Psychology, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 boulevard de l'Université, J1K 2R1 Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
c
HEC Montréal, 3000 chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, H3T2A7 Montréal, Québec, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study sheds light on the relationships between workplace stressors and employee innovation by jointly
Received 12 June 2016 considering mediating processes and boundary conditions. Using the challenge-hindrance model, we combine
Received in revised form 28 March 2017 social exchange and conservation of resources theory to propose that challenge (i.e., role overload) and hin-
Accepted 30 March 2017
drance (i.e., role ambiguity and role conflict) stressors exert positive and negative indirect effects, respectively,
Available online 6 April 2017
on employee innovation through affective organizational commitment. We further posit that the strength of
Keywords:
these relationships depends on the quality of leader-member exchange (LMX). In support of these predictions,
Workplace stressors a time-lagged study of 134 employees from various Canadian firms found affective commitment to mediate
Employee innovation the differential relationships of challenge and hindrance stressors to employee innovation. Moreover, when
Leader-member exchange LMX was high, the positive effects of role overload were enhanced while the negative effects of role ambiguity
Affective organizational commitment and role conflict were attenuated. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory and practice.
© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Employee innovation, defined as the intentional generation, promo-
tion and realization of novel and useful ideas (Chen, Li, & Leung, 2015;
Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994), is widely recognized as essential
to nurturing organizational success and competitiveness in today's un-
certain and complex economic environment (Anderson, Potočnik, &
Zhou, 2014; Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, & Venkataraman, 2008). Yet,
the instability of this environment increases the exposure of employees
to job stressors, which has been shown to impede effective work behav-
iors (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Dawson, O'Brien, & Beehr,
2016). Accordingly, it is important to understand how the potentially
harmful effects of stressors can be forestalled in order to protect and
promote employees' innovation in the workplace.
To clarify work stressors' effects on employee innovation, scholars
have adopted the challenge-hindrance model of stress, which suggests
that two dimensions of stressors – i.e., challenge and hindrance –
exert positive and negative effects, respectively, on employee behaviors
(Lepine, Podsakoff, & Lepine, 2005). Consistent with this framework,
⁎ Corresponding author at: Montpellier Business School, Montpellier Research in
Management, 2300 Avenue des Moulins, 34185 Montpellier Cedex 4, France.
E-mail addresses: f.montani@montpellier-bs.com (F. Montani),
francois.courcy@usherbrooke.ca (F. Courcy), christian.vandenberghe@hec.ca
(C. Vandenberghe).
research findings have shown that the presence of favorable environ-
mental conditions enhances the benefits of challenge stressors to em-
ployee innovation (e.g., Janssen, 2000; Sacramento, Fay, & West,
2013), whereas the absence of such conditions intensifies the impairing
effects of hindrance stressors (e.g., Leung, Huang, Su, & Lu, 2011; Zhang,
LePine, Buckman, & Wei, 2014).
However, the mechanisms that may account for the effects of
stressors on employee innovation remain largely unexplored, thereby
limiting our understanding of stressor-innovation relationships. Ad-
dressing these issues is crucial from both a theoretical and practical per-
spective. Indeed, recent statistics from the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development suggest that the proportion of workers
exposed to job-related stressors and reporting related mental health
problems has increased significantly in OECD countries (including Can-
ada, where the present study was conducted) (OECD, 2012, 2015). This
phenomenon is particularly problematic if considered in relation to in-
novation, as the latter requires a conspicuous investment of individual
resources, such as time, energy and attentional focus (Janssen, 2004;
Kiazad, Seibert, & Kraimer, 2014; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange,
2002). Such resources can be seriously compromised by the health-
impairing effects of workplace stressors (Gorgievski & Hobfoll, 2008;
Lepine et al., 2005). Accordingly, examining the mediating variables
that underlie stressor-innovation relations would provide an integrative
understanding of the specific mechanisms accounting for the resource-
depleting effects of stressful job conditions on employee innovation. A

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.024
0148-2963/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2 F. Montani et al. / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13
social exchange lens (Colquitt et al., 2013) might be particularly
relevant to such an understanding, since employees are consistently in-
volved in exchange relationships with their organizations. Importantly,
researchers have shown that the quality of these relationships is not
only vulnerable to the depleting effects of stressors (Zhang et al.,
2014) but also highly influential on employee innovation (Baer, 2012).
Although these research streams are meaningful, they have not been
combined into an integrated theoretical model that can explain how
social exchange relationships (e.g., organizational commitment) might
account for the effects of stressors on employee innovation.
Our theoretical understanding is further constrained by the limited
research attention devoted to the contextual conditions that influence
the intervening role of social exchange mechanisms, such as organiza-
tional commitment, in the stressor-innovation relationship. Uncovering
these mechanisms would help advance the management of innovation
by offering organizations and executives evidence-based information
regarding the managerial practices that help employees maintain
thriving exchange relationships and innovate and that protect them
from the resource-depleting effects of stressors. The conservation of re-
sources (COR) perspective (Hobfoll, 1989) suggests that in a stressful
environment, the quality of relationships with employees built by
leaders can help employees restore their resources. Thus, leaders may
influence the extent to which job demands impede employees' commit-
ment to their organization, thereby playing a key role in the manage-
ment of employee innovation. Taken together, these premises suggest
that in order to advance current theory and management of employee
innovation under stressful work conditions, it is important to investi-
gate the following research questions: How do work stressors influence
employee innovation? What social exchange mechanisms explain this
influence? How does the relationship with the supervisor alter these
effects?
In an attempt to address these questions, and building upon the as-
sumptions of the challenge-hindrance framework, the present study
uses social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Colquitt et al., 2013) and COR
theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001, 2011; Van Woerkom, Bakker, & Nishii,
2016) to propose that the relationships between role stressors and em-
ployee innovation are mediated by affective organizational commit-
ment (AOC) and that the quality of exchanges with the supervisor
(i.e., leader-member exchange; LMX) acts as a boundary condition. Spe-
cifically, social exchange theory suggests that employees with challeng-
ing job demands (i.e., role overload) are likely to perceive a balance
Fig. 1. Conceptual Model. AOC = affective organizational commitment; LMX = leader-member exchange.
between the coping efforts needed to meet such demands and the
expected rewards (González-Morales & Neves, 2015). As a conse-
quence, they respond to challenge stressors by showing stronger AOC
and, consequently, engagement in organization-supportive behaviors
(i.e., employee innovation). Conversely, hindrance stressors (i.e., role
ambiguity and role conflict) detract from quality exchange relationships
with the organization, as they threaten the accomplishment of valued
outcomes (Zhang et al., 2014). Thus, hindrance stressors may reduce
AOC and ultimately employee innovation. We further argue that COR
theory helps explain how high-quality LMX, by lessening the re-
source-depleting effect of stressors (Loi, Ngo, Zhang, & Lau, 2011),
preserves employees' AOC and acts as a boundary condition for the
relationships between stressors and AOC and innovation. Therefore,
we propose a moderated mediation model in which LMX acts as a
moderator that influences the intervening role of AOC in the relation-
ship between a work stressor and employee innovation (see Fig. 1).
Our study contributes to current research on stressors and employee
innovation in three important ways. First, it identifies AOC as a key me-
diating mechanism linking stressors to employee innovation. Thus, it of-
fers a new perspective through which to understand the consequences
of stressors on workplace behaviors and suggests that job demands can
be either beneficial or detrimental to employee innovation, depending
on how they affect the relationship to the organization (Zhang et al.,
2014). Second, the present study examines a neglected moderator,
LMX, which is expected to buffer the relationship between stressors
and AOC and indirectly employee innovation. In doing so, it expands
knowledge of the contextual resources that can simultaneously enhance
the benefits of challenging job demands and prevent the impairing con-
sequences of hindrance stressors (Leung et al., 2011). Third, research on
the relationship between stressors and employee innovation has mostly
focused on creativity, disregarding how the application-oriented com-
ponents involved in the innovation process are shaped by stressful
work conditions (e.g., Glaser, Seubert, Hornung, & Herbig, 2015;
Sacramento et al., 2013). Effective innovation depends on having
novel and useful ideas and on developing these ideas beyond their ini-
tial states via promotion and implementation-related activities
(Anderson et al., 2014; Choi & Chang, 2009; Somech & Drach-Zahavy,
2013). This study extends prior research by examining how and under
what conditions different workplace stressors affect the overall spec-
trum of employee innovation rather than solely its input stages (i.e., cre-
ativity) (e.g., Sacramento et al., 2013).
 F. Montani et al. / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
2.1. Employee innovation
In today's globalized market, organizations rely on their employees'
capacity to generate, spread, and introduce novel ideas within the work
environment (i.e., employee innovation) to attain high levels of organi-
zational innovation. Indeed, employees, through their behaviors, are the
ultimate source of new ideas and provide the foundation for organiza-
tional innovation (Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993). For example,
in a web design company, employee innovation may occur as a web de-
signer comes up with new ideas about how to extend and improve the
customization of e-services for clients, seeks to “sell” these ideas to key
organizational decision-makers in order to obtain their approval, and
determines the steps needed to introduce the approved ideas within
the current services provided by the company. By generating, promot-
ing and implementing new and useful ideas about products, practices
or procedures, employees act as models for the rest of the organization
(Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Moreover, new ideas developed by employees
can be transferred to other members and, thus, applied at the organiza-
tional level. Consequently, employee innovation is essential to the de-
velopment of organizational innovation. As Leiblein (2007, p. 142)
noted, in order to generate valuable innovation opportunities, organiza-
tions need to “employ creative individuals and use ongoing iterative
analyses”, thereby promoting continuous changes in objectives, strate-
gies and practices. Organizational research has largely supported this
position and documented the positive contributions of employee inno-
vation to firm-level innovation (e.g., Baron & Tang, 2011; Gumusluoglu
& Ilsev, 2009; Litchfield, Ford, & Gentry, 2015) and performance (Gilson,
2008; Gong, Zhou, & Chang, 2013).
The need for employee innovation is particularly critical among en-
terprises located in Canada where this study was conducted. Indeed, re-
cent national surveys on the innovation and business strategies of
Canadian firms revealed that a lack of employee skills in regard to inno-
vation is one of the most important obstacles to organizational innova-
tion reported by executives (Expert Panel on Business Innovation, 2009,
2014). To help executives address these innovation-related challenges
through appropriate evidence-based interventions, it is essential to em-
pirically investigate the complex set of individual and organizational
factors that foster or inhibit employee innovation. While research has
identified some positive determinants of employee innovation (for re-
cent reviews, see Anderson et al., 2014; Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall,
& Zhao, 2011), current knowledge of its inhibitors remains limited.
Such knowledge would help identify managerial practices that might
eliminate barriers to employee innovation.
The present study will address this key issue by exploring how and
under what conditions a set of potential inhibitors, namely, workplace
stressors, influence employee innovation. Hopefully, the results of our
investigation will be of interest to executives, as they provide important
insights into the managerial practices that, by preventing potentially
inhibiting impact of workplace stressors on employee innovation,
allow organizations to fully capitalize on their workforce to boost orga-
nizational innovation and performance. In the next section, we review
the literature on role stressors and employee innovation. Next, we dis-
cuss how social exchange and COR theories inform our understanding
of the role of AOC and LMX in the stressor-employee innovation
relationship.
2.2. Role stressors and employee innovation
Work stressors are defined as job conditions that require adaptive
responses of some kind from the individual (Sacramento et al., 2013).
Scholars have recently converged on the idea that it is necessary to con-
sider the nature of stressors in order to understand their effects on em-
ployee behaviors (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000).
Building on this assumption, a challenge-hindrance model has been
3
proposed to explain how two broad types of stressors differentially in-
fluence individual performance (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lepine et
al., 2005; Selye, 1976, 1982). Challenge stressors are demands that
have the potential to promote mastery, achievements, or personal
growth. Challenge stressors induce the feeling that efforts to cope
with them increase the likelihood of achieving desired outcomes and,
hence, generate higher motivation that consequently increases perfor-
mance. Hindrance stressors are demands that potentially obstruct
one's progress toward work-related accomplishments or personal de-
velopment. Exposure to such stressors is thus unlikely to lead to higher
performance because people do not recognize a positive relationship
between coping efforts and valued outcomes. Consistent with this
view, meta-analytic findings indicate that challenge and hindrance
stressors exert positive and negative direct effects, respectively, on em-
ployee performance (Eatough, Chang, Miloslavic, & Johnson, 2011;
Lepine et al., 2005).
Scholars have also relied on the challenge-hindrance framework to
unravel the differential effects of work stressors on employee innova-
tion. Research findings indicate that challenge stressors are likely to
foster employee innovation when favorable conditions are present.
For example, Sacramento et al. (2013) reported positive relationships
between challenge stressors and creativity (i.e., an important compo-
nent of employee innovation) for individuals or teams with high levels
of promotion focus. Similarly, Janssen (2000) found that employees
exposed to challenging job demands behaved innovatively when they
perceived high effort-reward fairness. In contrast, hindrance stressors
have been shown to reduce employee innovation when supportive con-
ditions were missing. For instance, Leung et al. (2011) found that role
ambiguity resulted in less innovation when employees did not receive
support for innovation from their supervisors. Similarly, Binnewies
and Wörnlein (2011) provided evidence of a negative relationship
between perceived situational constraints and daily creativity when
employees had low job control.
In the present study, we focus on a trilogy of workplace stressors
that has received extensive attention in the literature (Eatough et al.,
2011; Webster, Beehr, & Love, 2011): role ambiguity, role conflict
and role overload. Role ambiguity refers to a lack of clarity and pre-
dictability of an employee's job responsibilities (Katz & Kahn,
1978). For instance, an employee of a web design company might ex-
perience role ambiguity if his/her manager communicates that he/
she needs to improve the sales of website creations by 10% in the
next semester but does not clarify the specific tasks needed to
achieve this goal (e.g., increasing the pace of work, finding new cli-
ents in the market). Role conflict refers to the perception of incom-
patible requirements and expectations that make it difficult to
accomplish work tasks (Katz & Kahn, 1978). For example, a web de-
signer might face increased role conflict if a manager asks him/her to
conduct market research to identify current design trends in new
market niches but he/she does lacks expertise in marketing or has
not received training in market research. Finally, role overload is de-
fined as the subjective feeling of having too many role demands
given the time available to meet them (Byrne, 1994). For instance,
a web designer might feel overloaded if customers ask him/her to ac-
celerate the delivery date for a website, thereby compelling him/her
to work extra hours.
Previous research has typically considered role ambiguity and role
conflict as hindrance stressors and role overload as a challenge stressor
(Cavanaugh et al., 2000). In line with the challenge-hindrance frame-
work, we argue that role ambiguity and role conflict are negatively re-
lated to employee innovation, while role overload is positively related
to it. Additionally, consistent with the literature on stressors and em-
ployee innovation (e.g., Janssen, 2000; Leung et al., 2011), we expect
these effects to be context dependent such that the adverse influences
of role ambiguity and role conflict would be attenuated and the benefits
of role overload would be enhanced when favorable conditions are
present.
4 F. Montani et al. / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13
However, previous research on the stressor-innovation relationship
has considered neither the processes through which work stressors in-
fluence employee innovation nor how the intervening roles of such
mechanisms vary as a function of boundary conditions. As will be
discussed in the next sections, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964)
and COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) highlight the importance of ad-
dressing these issues, as they suggest that (a) exposure to stressors
can affect the quality of social exchange relations with the organization
(e.g., AOC), which may in turn shape employee innovation and that (b)
the relational context (i.e., LMX) may act as an important boundary con-
dition that affects the magnitude of the effects of stressors on employee
reactions.
2.3. Mediating role of AOC
Employee commitment has been recently reconceptualized “as a vo-
litional bond reflecting dedication and responsibility for a target” (Klein,
Molloy, & Brinsfield, 2012, p. 131). The current study focuses on com-
mitment to the organization, specifically AOC, which represents an
emotional attachment to the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991;
Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002) and thus closely fits
Klein et al.'s general definition. We focus on AOC rather than on the
other two commitment components (i.e., continuance and normative)
identified by Meyer and Allen (1991) because AOC has been shown to
be more strongly and consistently associated with work behaviors be-
yond formal role expectations (Meyer et al., 2002; Organ & Ryan,
1995). Generally, the relationships between AOC and such behaviors
have been explained through a social exchange process (e.g.,
Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). According to this framework, employees
who receive pleasurable and challenging job conditions from an organi-
zation tend to feel a sense of concern for the organization's well-being
through AOC (Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2005; Rhoades, Eisenberger, &
Armeli, 2001). This in turn enhances employees' willingness to engage
in behaviors that benefit the organization (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner,
2007). For example, a web design company might care about a
designer's need to balance work and family life by allowing
telecommuting. As a result of this favorable treatment, the web designer
might feel prouder to be part of the company and be willing to repay the
organization by assisting co-workers with web creation issues.
Like other extra-role behaviors, employee innovation is not formally
prescribed by the organization and is, hence, discretionary and self-
initiated (Basu & Green, 1997; Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). Accord-
ingly, from a social exchange perspective, employees with strong AOC
might be expected to invest in creating and applying novel solutions
that are intended to improve organizational effectiveness. Moreover,
AOC entails positive emotions (Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, &
De Chermont, 2003), which may feed individual innovation. Positive af-
fective states induce flexible thinking that is useful for producing novel
ideas and creative outcomes (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Madrid,
Patterson, Birdi, Leiva, & Kausel, 2014). Moreover, they promote positive
expectations regarding the outcomes of one's actions (Wegener & Petty,
1997), which help initiate actions that challenge the status quo (i.e., em-
ployee innovation) (Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, & Hagger-Johnson, 2012).
High AOC may thus enable employees to pursue innovative courses of
action that benefit the organization in return for favorable treatment
received. In line with this view, AOC has been found to be positively
related to employee innovation (e.g., Camelo-Ordaz, García-Cruz,
Sousa-Ginel, & Valle-Cabrera, 2011; Jafri, 2010; Vinarski-Peretz,
Binyamin, & Carmeli, 2011; Xerri & Brunetto, 2013).
While the above discussion portrays social exchange processes
under a positive lens, it is likely that unfavorable job conditions lead
to negative reciprocation. That is, when employees perceive that the
treatment they receive from an organization is unfavorable, they will
feel like the victims of an unbalanced social exchange (Robinson,
2008) and will likely try to restore the balance by showing less concern
for the organization's well-being (i.e., lower AOC) and will ultimately
engage in less innovative action. However, we contend that the emer-
gence of positive vs. negative reciprocation processes will depend on
the nature of the work stressors. Theory and evidence suggest that
when employees are exposed to challenging job demands (e.g., role
overload), they will be able to recognize opportunities for returns
(e.g., personal growth) from their efforts to cope with stressors
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007). Under
these conditions, the pressure to expend effort to address increased
(challenging) job demands may be offset by the expectation that such
efforts will be rewarded (González-Morales & Neves, 2015; Zhang et
al., 2014). Thus, challenge stressors are expected to trigger positive
social exchange with the organization through increased AOC
(Podsakoff et al., 2007), thus motivating employees to engage in inno-
vative activities. This leads to the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1. AOC will mediate a positive relationship between role
overload and employee innovation.
Conversely, when employees are exposed to hindrance stressors,
such as role ambiguity or role conflict, they will feel there is little poten-
tial to address these demands successfully and, consequently, to obtain
valuable returns in terms of personal growth (Harris, Artis, Walters, &
Licata, 2006; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lepine et al., 2005; Zhang et
al., 2014). Such a perception of being under-rewarded by the organiza-
tion will likely instill a negative social exchange process whereby
employees will not be encouraged to care about the organization
(Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003). Thus, to offset under-rewarded hin-
drance stressors or job demands, employees will likely reduce AOC and
innovative action. Indirectly supporting these arguments, previous
meta-analytic work has reported that hindrance stressors are negatively
related to AOC (Podsakoff et al., 2007). Thus, the following hypothesis is
proposed.
Hypothesis 2. AOC will mediate a negative relationship between role
ambiguity (Hypothesis 2a) and role conflict (Hypothesis 2b) and em-
ployee innovation.
2.4. Moderating role of LMX
COR theory suggests that stress arises when individuals perceive a
threat to their resources, lose valued resources, or fail to gain following
a significant investment of resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). Resources
fall into four categories: (a) conditions (e.g., job status), (b) energies
(e.g., effort, time, and money), (c) objects (e.g., tangible benefits),
and (d) personal characteristics (e.g., self-efficacy) (Grandey &
Cropanzano, 1999; Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993). This framework has been
extensively used to understand the health-impairing effects of stressful
job conditions (e.g., Dawson et al., 2016; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999;
Hobfoll, 1989, 2001; Ito & Brotheridge, 2003; Zhou, Martinez, Ferreira, &
Rodrigues, 2016). Yet, COR theory also suggests that stress reactions are
less likely to occur when employees are protected from the actual or
anticipated loss of valued resources, such as when resources from the
environment increase their ability to cope with stressful events
(Hobfoll, 1989). One such resource for employees is the quality of the
social exchange relationship with their supervisor or LMX, which has
been shown to serve a resource-protective function among employees
experiencing stressful conditions (Harris, Harris, & Harvey, 2008;
Harris & Kacmar, 2005; Long, Li, & Ning, 2015; Van Dyne, Jehn, &
Cummings, 2002).
Following the assumptions of LMX theory, leaders engage in
differentiated relationships with the members of their work units
(Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Liden,
Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993). Employees in high-quality LMX relationships
exhibit superior job performance (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975;
Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Martin, Guillaume,
Thomas, Lee, & Epitropaki, 2015) and, compared to their low-quality
 F. Montani et al. / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13
LMX counterparts, receive better job assignments, enjoy higher levels of
trust and support, and receive more rewards from the leader
(Dansereau et al., 1975; Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Scandura,
1987; Liden et al., 1997; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). For instance, in
a web design company, the web designer with the most expertise in
website creation will experience high levels of LMX if the supervisor
supports him/her in the development of a new website for a prestigious
client, recognizes the successful realization of this work, and reassures
the web designer that he/she will receive the support needed to address
any problems encountered by clients with the newly developed
website. High LMX should make workplace stressors less likely to
threaten employee resources and, consequently, reduce the negative
impact of stressors on AOC and employee innovation.
In stressful contexts, high-LMX relationships may protect em-
ployees' resources in several important ways. First, high LMX is condu-
cive to improved leader-follower interaction and communication.
Enhanced communication helps the supervisor raise his or her aware-
ness of the nature of the job and conditions of the employee (Harris et
al., 2008). This allows the supervisor to determine when to make exter-
nal coping resources available to the employee. Such responsiveness
also invites the supervisor to engage in supportive behaviors that are es-
sential to buffering employees from resource loss (Cohen & Wills, 1985;
Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). Similarly, the improved commu-
nication associated with high LMX enables subordinates to make sense
of a stressful situation, as well as to make it more predictable (Harris &
Kacmar, 2005). Increased understanding and predictability help em-
ployees overcome anxiety stemming from stressful conditions, produce
a more accurate evaluation of the situation, and identify a clearer path to
address it (Sutton & Kahn, 1986). Consequently, employees in high-
LMX situations are likely to view stressors as less threatening to their
personal resources. By contrast, employees in low-LMX relationships
cannot benefit from privileged communication with their supervisors
and are less likely to bring attention to the stressors they face. As a con-
sequence, they will be less likely to receive the support needed to avoid
resource loss. Moreover, poor-quality interactions associated with low
LMX increase employees' sense of uncertainty about those stressors,
which makes them able to understand and predict them. This would in-
crease the perception that the employee's resources are at risk.
Second, the resources, support and encouragement received in high-
LMX situations boost the degree of personal control over work stressors,
which is key to reducing the risk of resource loss. High personal control
is associated with increased coping resources (Glass & Singer, 1972;
Schmidt & Diestel, 2015), which build individuals' resilience (Folkman,
1984; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and prevent resource depletion
(Hobfoll, 1989). In sum, the instrumental resources and social support
allocated by leaders in high-LMX relationships enable employees to ad-
equately meet job demands (Erdogan & Enders, 2007; Erdogan & Liden,
2002) and to experience enhanced personal control over stressors
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). High-LMX situations also encourage leaders
to express confidence in followers' abilities to proactively face demand-
ing situations (Davis & Gardner, 2004; Dienesch & Liden, 1986;
Van Dyne et al., 2002). This can boost employees' sense of control
(Perrewé & Zellars, 1999). Conversely, in low-LMX relationships,
leaders are unwilling to offer help and resources and tend to distrust
their subordinates' coping abilities. As a result, employees might
develop a sense of helplessness that leads them to appraise stressful
situations as personally uncontrollable, which may increase their
perception that resources will be lost.
Finally, high-LMX relationships are characterized by high levels of
trust from the leader (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000), which helps
preserve resources (Harvey, Kelloway, & Duncan-Leiper, 2003). Dirks
and Ferrin (2001) argue that trust in others (by leaders) alters how em-
ployees experience, interpret and react to events (i.e., stressors). In
high-LMX situations, employees are confident that their supervisor gen-
uinely cares about them (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997) and make the neces-
sary resources available if needed, which also allows employees to
5
reappraise job demands as less stressful (Harvey et al., 2003) and to
feel that their current work conditions will improve (Harris et al.,
2008). Such optimism can help employees adjust to stressful situations
and protect them from resource loss (Gottlieb, 1997; Lazarus, Kanner, &
Folkman, 1980; Riolli & Savicki, 2003; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, &
Fischbach, 2013). Conversely, the supervisor distrust associated with
low LMX may result in an employee belief that the supervisor is guided
by selfish, rather than altruistic, motives. This would heighten feelings
of helplessness that may ultimately drain individual resources.
The above arguments suggest that high-LMX situations are condu-
cive to greater resource availability for employees facing stressful condi-
tions, which is consistent with the tenets of COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989,
2001). Employees facing challenge stressors (i.e., role overload) have
greater potential to obtain valued returns following their coping efforts
when they are involved in high-LMX relationships. As a result, the
positive relationship between role overload and AOC – and, indirectly,
employee innovation – would be enhanced. Conversely, high-LMX em-
ployees would perceive hindrance job demands (i.e., role ambiguity and
role conflict) as less threatening and, consequently, their commitment
to the organization would be less at risk. The above arguments lead to
the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 3. LMX will moderate the positive relationship between
role overload and AOC such that this relationship will be stronger
when LMX is higher.
Hypothesis 4. LMX will moderate the negative relationships of role
ambiguity (Hypothesis 4a) and role conflict (Hypothesis 4b) with AOC
such that these relationships will be weaker when LMX is higher.
Hypothesis 5. LMX will moderate the positive indirect relationship be-
tween role overload and employee innovation via AOC such that this in-
direct relationship will be stronger when LMX is higher.
Hypothesis 6. LMX will moderate the negative indirect relationships of
role ambiguity (Hypothesis 6a) and role conflict (Hypothesis 6b) with
employee innovation via AOC such that these indirect relationships
will be weaker when LMX is higher.
3. Method
3.1. Sample and procedure
We surveyed employees from different French-Canadian firms from
a variety of industries (i.e., architecture and design, communication and
marketing, leisure, and technology). The senior executives of firms that
agreed to participate in the study contacted employees via email and
asked them to complete an online survey at two points in time, with a
time lag of three months. This allowed us to separate the independent
variables (role stressors) and the moderator (LMX) from both the
mediator (AOC) and the dependent variable (employee innovation).
This time separation between measurements of variables is a procedur-
al remedy that reduces method biases (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
Podsakoff, 2012). The introductory message of the email described the
goals of the study, assured participants that their responses would re-
main confidential, and contained a link to the online questionnaire.
The questionnaires from each period were matched over time using
an anonymous code generated by the respondents at Time 1. Completed
questionnaires were stored in a common online database. This
prevented the matching of individual responses to the corresponding
names of the participants.
At Time 1, a total of 418 of 441 employees who were contacted for
participation provided useful responses (response rate = 94.78%). Of
these, 213 did not enter the requested anonymous code. This yielded a
sample of 205 participants who were later contacted to complete the
survey at Time 2. Of these, 71 provided incomplete responses and
6 F. Montani et al. / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13
were hence removed from the sample. This resulted in a final sample of
134 employees (response rate = 30.38%) with matched data across pe-
riods. In this sample, the average age was 33.52 years (SD = 8.50), the
average organizational tenure was 4.57 years (SD = 4.98), and the aver-
age tenure with the supervisor was 3.73 years (SD = 4.40). The majority
of participants was female (51.90%) and had an undergraduate degree
(59.20%).
To test whether respondent attrition from Time 1 to Time 2 led to
non-random sampling over time, we estimated multiple logistic regres-
sions to examine whether Time 1 variables significantly predicted the
probability of remaining in the sample at Time 2 (Goodman & Blum,
1996). The dependent variable was a dichotomous variable that distin-
guished participants who responded at both Time 1 and Time 2 (0) from
those who responded only at Time 1 (1), while the predictors were role
stressors, LMX and demographics. The results for the overall logistic re-
gression were non-significant (χ2 [14] = 17.58, ns), and none of the pre-
dictors was significant, suggesting that attrition was randomly
distributed.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Role stressors
Role overload was measured using a French version (Vézina et al.,
2011) of a 6-item scale from the Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek
et al., 1998). A sample item is “My work requires working very hard.”
The alpha reliability of this scale was 0.73 in this study. Role ambiguity
and role conflict were measured using the French versions (Lachance,
Tétreau, & Pépin, 1997) of Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman's (1970) 6-item
and 8-item scales, respectively. Sample items include “I feel certain
about how much authority I have” (role ambiguity; reverse coded),
and “I receive an assignment without the manpower to complete it”
(role conflict). All role stressors items were rated on a scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The reliability of these
scales in the present study was 0.80 and 0.74, respectively.
3.2.2. AOC
Affective commitment was measured using Meyer, Allen, and
Smith's (1993) 6-item scale. Items were rated on a scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item is “I really
feel as if this organization's problems are my own.” The alpha coefficient
for this scale was 0.92 in this study.
3.2.3. LMX
We measured LMX using Scandura and Graen's (1984) 7-item scale.
This scale has been widely used in LMX research. Participants were
asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item (e.g., “My
working relationship with my supervisor is effective”) on a scale rang-
ing from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The reliability of
this scale was 0.94 in this study.
3.2.4. Employee innovation
We measured employee innovation using Janssen's (2000) 9-item
scale, which assesses the frequency with which employees report
being involved in the generation (e.g., “Generating original solutions
for problems”), promotion (e.g., “Mobilizing support for innovative
ideas”) and realization (e.g., “Transforming innovative ideas into useful
applications”) of new ideas in the workplace. Responses were assessed
on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The unidimen-
sionality of this scale has been empirically demonstrated in a number of
studies (e.g., Leung et al., 2011). This scale had a reliability of 0.94 in the
present study.
3.2.5. Control variables
We controlled for gender, education level, and organizational ten-
ure, since they have been found to be associated with AOC (Meyer &
Allen, 1997; Meyer et al., 2002; Mottaz, 1986) and employee innovation
(Hammond et al., 2011; West & Farr, 1990). We also controlled for ten-
ure with the supervisor to account for possible temporal effects of LMX
(Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004).
3.3. Data analysis
We first conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using max-
imum likelihood estimation in Mplus, version 7.11 (Muthen & Muthen,
1998–2012), to examine the distinctiveness of our variables (i.e., role
stressors, AOC, LMX, and employee innovation). Model fit was assessed
via a χ2 test. We also used absolute and incremental fit indices. Absolute
fit indices evaluate how well a model reproduces the observed data.
Two absolute fit indices were used: the standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR) for which values of b 0.08 indicate good fit (Schreiber,
Nora, Stage, Barlow, & King, 2006) and the root mean square error of ap-
proximation (RMSEA), which should be lower than 0.08 (Browne &
Cudeck, 1993). Incremental fit indices assess the fit improvement
from comparing a target model to a more restricted, nested baseline
model (Hu & Bentler, 1998). We used the comparative fit index (CFI)
for which values of 0.90 or greater are recommended (Schreiber et al.,
2006). Finally, we compared a series of nested models using χ2 differ-
ence tests (Bentler & Bonett, 1980).
To test our hypotheses, we performed bootstrap analyses using the
PROCESS macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2012), which uses ordinary least
squares to estimate direct, indirect and moderated (i.e., conditional) in-
direct effects among variables. This approach allows the testing of
models that integrate mediation and moderation (Edwards & Lambert,
2007; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; Preacher, Rucker, &
Hayes, 2007). The bootstrapping procedure used to estimate indirect
and conditional indirect effects helps address the problems associated
with the Baron and Kenny (1986) causal steps and Sobel test ap-
proaches (e.g., low statistical power; Hayes, 2009; Preacher & Hayes,
2008). Bootstrapping implies resampling the data multiple times and
computing 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) for the
estimated indirect and conditional indirect effects (Efron & Tibshirani,
1993). As recommended by Hayes (2013), 5000 bootstrapped
resamples were used to compute bias-corrected CIs. Participant gender,
age, education level, organizational tenure and tenure with supervisor
were included as controls in these analyses.
4. Results
4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis
We first conducted CFAs on our data. Given the small sample size (N
= 134) and the large number of items (42 items) for this analysis, we
opted for the item parceling technique (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, &
Widaman, 2002). Specifically, following Little's (2013) recommenda-
tion, we first conducted a one-factor CFA for each construct and then
created three parallel parcels/indicators per latent variable by combin-
ing items with higher factor loadings with those with lower factor load-
ings (e.g., the item with the highest loading was combined with the
item with the lowest loading). As seen from Table 1, the hypothesized
six-factor model displayed a good fit to the data (χ2 [120] = 212.27,
CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.07) and outperformed alterna-
tive, more parsimonious models (p b 0.01). These analyses indicate
that our variables were distinguishable.
4.2. Correlations and descriptive statistics
Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics, correlations and reliability
estimates for the study variables. Role ambiguity and role conflict were
negatively related, while role overload was unrelated, to AOC (r =
−0.50, p b 0.01; r = −0.25, p b 0.01; and r = −0.03, ns, respectively).
Moreover, AOC (r = 0.39, p b 0.01) and LMX (r = 0.19, p b 0.05) were
positively related to employee innovation. Role overload (r = − 0.20,
 F. Montani et al. / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13 7

Table 1
Confirmatory factor analysis results: Fit indices.

Model χ2 df Δχ2 Δdf CFI RMSEA SRMR

Hypothesized six-factor model 212.27⁎ 120 – – 0.94 0.07 0.07

Five-factor models
Combining role overload and role ambiguity 425.41⁎ 125 213.14⁎ 5 0.82 0.13 0.19
Combining role overload and role conflict 293.87⁎ 125 81.60⁎ 5 0.90 0.10 0.09
Combining role ambiguity and role conflict 323.56⁎ 125 111.29⁎ 5 0.88 0.11 0.11
Combining AOC and employee innovation 483.32⁎ 125 271.05⁎ 5 0.79 0.15 0.12
Combining AOC and LMX 558.60⁎ 125 346.33⁎ 5 0.74 0.16 0.12
Four-factor model (combining role overload, role ambiguity, and role conflict) 438.87⁎ 129 226.60⁎ 9 0.82 0.13 0.14
One-factor model 1158.52⁎ 135 946.25⁎ 15 0.39 0.24 0.18

Note. N = 134. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; AOC = affective organizational com-
mitment; LMX = leader-member exchange.
⁎ p b 0.01.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Gender – – –
2. Education level – – −0.16 –
3. Organizational tenure 4.57 4.98 −0.10 −0.11 –
4. Tenure with supervisor 3.73 4.40 0.02 −0.07 0.63⁎⁎ –
5. Role overload 2.80 0.72 −0.01 0.18⁎ 0.09 0.00 (0.73)
6. Role ambiguity 2.71 0.70 0.04 0.15 0.03 −0.10 0.17⁎ (0.80)
7. Role conflict 1.97 0.61 0.14 0.16 0.04 −0.00 0.66⁎⁎ 0.41⁎⁎ (0.74)
8. AOC 3.78 0.93 0.15 −0.13 0.14 0.23⁎⁎ −0.03 −0.50⁎⁎ −0.25⁎⁎ (0.92)
9. LMX 3.89 0.81 −0.01 −0.03 −0.08 −0.01 −0.19⁎ −0.63⁎⁎ −0.40⁎⁎ 0.46⁎⁎ (0.94)
10. Employee innovation 3.30 0.78 0.24⁎⁎ 0.14 −0.05 −0.05 −0.20⁎ −0.23⁎ 0.12 0.39⁎⁎ 0.19⁎ (0.94)

Note. N = 134. AOC = affective organizational commitment; LMX = leader-member exchange. Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach's alphas) are reported in parentheses along the
diagonal. For Gender: 1 = female, 2 = male. For education level: 1 = primary school, 2 = secondary school, 3 = college, 4 = undergraduate, 5 = postgraduate, 6 = Ph.D.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.

p b 0.05) and role ambiguity (r = −0.23, p b 0.05) were negatively re-
lated and role conflict (r = 0.12, ns) was unrelated to employee
innovation.
4.3. Hypothesis testing
Table 3 presents the results of (moderated) multiple regression
analyses predicting AOC and employee innovation, and provides
the basic information that is necessary to test Hypotheses 1–6.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 stated that AOC would mediate a positive
relationship between role overload and employee innovation and
negative relationships between role ambiguity and role conflict and
employee innovation, respectively. As shown in Table 3 (Model 1),
role overload was positively related (B = 0.26, p b 0.05), and role ambi-
guity (B = −0.58, p b 0.01) and role conflict (B = −0.35, p b 0.05) neg-
atively related, to AOC. Moreover, Table 3 (Model 6) shows that AOC
was positively related to employee innovation (B = 0.31, p b 0.01).
Using Hayes's (2012) PROCESS macro to examine the indirect effects
of role stressors on employee innovation, we found that the indirect
positive effect of role overload (0.08, CI = 0.01, 0.21) and the indirect
negative effects of role ambiguity (− 0.18, CI = − 0.35, − 0.07) and
role conflict (− 0.11, CI = − 0.26, − 0.02) on employee innovation
through AOC were all significant, lending support to Hypotheses 1
and 2.

Table 3
Multiple regression results for AOC and employee innovation.

AOC Employee innovation

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

Gender 0.39⁎ 0.37⁎⁎ 0.31⁎ 0.20⁎ 0.29⁎ 0.31⁎ 0.34⁎ 0.35⁎ 0.35⁎
Education level −0.01 −0.03 −0.04 −0.05 −0.05 0.16⁎ 0.17⁎ 0.18⁎ 0.18⁎
Organizational tenure 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 −0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tenure with supervisor 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 −0.03 −0.02 −0.03 −0.03
Role overload 0.26⁎ 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.26⁎ 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.10
Role ambiguity −0.58⁎⁎ −0.40⁎⁎ −0.43⁎⁎ −0.41⁎⁎ −0.39⁎⁎ −0.18 −0.15 −0.16 −0.18
Role conflict −0.35⁎ −0.28 −0.24 −0.23 −0.26 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.18
AOC 0.31⁎⁎ 0.34⁎ 0.34⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎
LMX 0.28⁎ 0.25⁎ 0.24⁎ 0.26⁎ 0.01 0.03 0.00
Role overload × LMX 0.21⁎ −0.15
Role ambiguity × LMX 0.22⁎ −0.19
Role conflict × LMX 0.27⁎ −0.17
Total R2 0.34⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎ 0.40⁎ 0.40⁎ 0.41⁎ 0.30⁎⁎ 0.31 0.32 0.31
ΔR2 0.04⁎⁎ 0.02⁎ 0.02⁎ 0.03⁎ 0.01 0.02 0.01

Note. N = 134. Except for Total R2 and Δ R2 rows, entries are unstandardized regression coefficients. AOC = affective organizational commitment; LMX = leader-member exchange. For
Gender: 1 = female, 2 = male. For Education level: 1 = primary school, 2 = secondary school, 3 = college, 4 = undergraduate, 5 = postgraduate, 6 = Ph.D.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
8 F. Montani et al. / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13
Fig. 2. AOC as a Function of Role Overload at ±1 Standard Deviation (SD) of LMX. At low
LMX (1 SD below the mean), B = 0.43, p b 0.01; at high LMX (1 SD above the mean), B =
0.09, ns. AOC = affective organizational commitment; LMX = leader-member exchange.
Fig. 3. AOC as a Function of Role Ambiguity at ±1 Standard Deviation (SD) of LMX. At low
LMX (1 SD below the mean), B = −0.57, p b 0.01; at high LMX (1 SD above the mean), B =
− 0.21, ns. AOC = affective organizational commitment; LMX = leader-member
exchange.
Fig. 4. AOC as a Function of Role Conflict at ±1 Standard Deviation (SD) of LMX. At low LMX (1 SD below the mean), B = −0.45, p b 0.05; at high LMX (1 SD above the mean), B = −0.01,
ns. AOC = affective organizational commitment; LMX = leader-member exchange.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that LMX would moderate the positive rela-
tionship between role overload and AOC such that this relationship
would be stronger at high levels of LMX. In contrast, Hypothesis 4 pre-
dicted that LMX would moderate the negative relationships of role am-
biguity and role conflict with AOC such that these relationships would
be weaker at high levels of LMX. Following Cohen and Cohen's (1983)
recommendations, controls and main predictors (i.e., role stressors)
were centered and then entered at Step 1. LMX was entered at Step 2,
while the interaction terms between the three role stressors and LMX
were separately introduced at Step 3. Note that each interaction was
tested separately because of the well-known power problems and
inflation of Type II error associated with simultaneously testing multiple
interactions in moderated multiple regressions (see Aguinis, 1995;
Spitzmüller & Stanton, 2006). As seen from Table 3, role overload
(B = 0.21, p b 0.05, Model 3), role ambiguity (B = 0.22, p b 0.05,
Model 4), and role conflict (B = 0.27, p b 0.05, Model 5) all significantly
interacted with LMX in predicting AOC. These interactions are graphical-
ly depicted in Figs. 2–4. Simple slopes tests (Aiken & West, 1991)
indicated that role overload was positively related to AOC when LMX
was high (i.e., 1 SD above the mean) (B = 0.43, p b 0.01), but the rela-
tionship was non-significant when LMX was low (i.e., 1 SD below the
mean) (B = 0.09, ns). Moreover, role ambiguity (B = −0.57, p b 0.01)
and role conflict (B = −0.45, p b 0.05) were negatively and significantly
related to AOC when LMX was low, but they were unrelated to AOC
when LMX was high (B = −0.21, ns; and B = −0.01, ns, respectively).
Hypotheses 3 and 4 are thus supported.
Finally, we used Hayes's (2012) PROCESS macro to test Hypotheses
5–6, which predicted that LMX would moderate the indirect effects of
role stressors on employee innovation via AOC. As predicted, the
index of moderated mediation was significant for role overload (0.07,
CI = 0.01, 0.15), role ambiguity (0.07, CI = 0.02, 0.14), and role conflict
(0.08, CI = 0.02, 0.19). Moreover, the conditional indirect effect of role
overload on employee innovation was significantly positive when
LMX was high (0.13, CI = 0.04, 0.30) but non-significant when LMX
was low (0.03, CI = −0.04, 0.15). In addition, the conditional indirect
effects of role ambiguity and role conflict on employee innovation
were significantly negative when LMX was low (− 0.18, CI = − 0.37,
 F. Montani et al. / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13
−0.06, and −0.14, CI = −0.31, −0.04, respectively) but non-signifi-
cant when LMX was high (−0.06, CI = −0.25, 0.04; and −0.00, CI =
− 0.15, 0.17, respectively). Therefore, Hypotheses 5 and 6 are
supported.
5. Discussion
The present study examined the relationships between role
stressors and employee innovation by jointly considering AOC as an in-
tervening factor and LMX as a boundary condition. Building on the chal-
lenge-hindrance framework (e.g., Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Lepine et al.,
2005) and consistent with a social exchange perspective (e.g., Blau,
1964; Colquitt et al., 2013), we predicted that challenge stressors (i.e.,
role overload) would lead to positive reciprocation, while hindrance
stressors (i.e., role ambiguity and role conflict) would lead to negative
reciprocation, resulting in opposite effects on AOC and employee inno-
vation. Additionally, based on the tenets of COR theory (Hobfoll,
1989), we positioned LMX as a boundary condition that influences the
extent to which employees can preserve valued resources and thus en-
hances the positive effect of role overload or buffers the negative effects
of role ambiguity and role conflict. The results of a two-wave survey
study of Canadian workers support these predictions. These results
yield implications for theory and practice that we outline below.
5.1. Theoretical implications
First, our results show that the relationships between role stressors
and employee innovation are channeled through AOC, suggesting that
social exchange processes (Blau, 1964) play important roles in this rela-
tionship. This finding has implications for how challenge and hindrance
stressors operate in the workplace. Role stressors lead to enhanced (i.e.,
in the case of role overload) or reduced (i.e., in the case of role ambiguity
and role conflict) employee innovation because they instill positive or
negative reciprocation perceptions through AOC. Hence, an individual's
motivation to engage in innovative actions can be understood as
resulting from a felt obligation (Gouldner, 1960) to meet the needs of
the organization (for role overload) or unwillingness to do so (for role
ambiguity and role conflict) (e.g., Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage, &
Rohdieck, 2004). These results echo and extend those reported by
Zhang et al. (2014), who explored the mediating role of overall organi-
zational justice in the relationship between role stressors and creativity,
a component of employee innovation. These authors showed that
stressors' effects on creative performance were channeled through
organizational justice and were moderated by transformational and
transactional leadership. However, unlike hindrance stressors, chal-
lenge stressors were unrelated to organizational justice. The present
study thus moves research forward by revealing that challenge
stressors' (e.g., role overload) effect may go through another social ex-
change mechanism, AOC, and is influenced by the relational context
(i.e., LMX) of work.
The different patterns of findings in Zhang et al. (2014) and our
study suggest that the influence of challenging job demands on employ-
ee innovation varies as a function of the type of social exchange that po-
tentially drives the stressors' effects. It seems that the opportunity to
accomplish valued outcomes offered by challenge stressors is sufficient
to promote an emotional bound to the organization (i.e., AOC) but not
sufficient to promote justice perceptions, which presumably involve a
more cognitive type of appraisal. Although this warrants additional re-
search, we suggest that justice dimensions that focus on the distribution
of outcomes (i.e., distributive justice) might be more relevant – because
challenge stressors promote the pursuit of valued outcomes (Boswell,
Olson-Buchanan, & LePine, 2004) – than those that focus on processes
(i.e., procedural and interactional justice) to explaining the positive ef-
fects of challenge stressors. Future work should therefore examine cog-
nitive and attitudinal social exchange mechanisms in tandem in order to
9
capture their specific roles in transmitting stressors' effects on employ-
ee innovation.
Second, this study has implications for our understandings of the
stressor-commitment relationship and commitment-innovation rela-
tionships. Prior research has reported significant associations between
workplace stressors and AOC (e.g., Bowling, Alarcon, Bragg, &
Hartman, 2015; Podsakoff et al., 2007), yet it has not identified potential
boundary conditions associated with the effects of stressors. Our study
indicates that one important boundary condition relates to the relation-
al context of the supervisory relationship, i.e., LMX, and illustrates that
positive exchanges with the supervisor foster the benefits of role over-
load on AOC and simultaneously mitigate the negative effects of hin-
drance stressors. Moreover, consistent with prior research findings
(e.g., Jafri, 2010; Vinarski-Peretz et al., 2011), the present results
highlight the relevance of AOC as a proximal predictor of employee
innovation. This study also reveals that high-LMX relationships act as
protective factors that fuel flourishing AOC–employee innovation rela-
tionships in the context of exposure to role stress. As we theorized, a
combination of tenets from social exchange theory (Blau, 1964;
Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) and COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002)
provides an integrated theoretical background that helps develop the
idea that high LMX prevents employees from resource loss and builds
their resilience to stressful situations. Conversely, low LMX would result
in stressful experiences being appraised as unfair treatment by the orga-
nization (in the case of role ambiguity and role conflict) or as less re-
warding (in the case of role overload) and consequently as inducing
lower AOC in return and little engagement in innovative actions.
The moderating effects of LMX observed in this study extend a
burgeoning literature on leadership and workplace stressors. Indeed,
prior research has documented the role of leadership-related variables
in buffering the negative effects of stressors on employee outcomes.
These moderating variables include transformational leadership (e.g.,
Syrek, Apostel, & Antoni, 2013), authentic leadership (e.g.,
Warszewska-Makuch, Bedyńska, & Żołnierczyk-Zreda, 2015), and sup-
portive leadership (e.g., Karasek, Russell, & Theorell, 1982). The LMX
construct has also been investigated as a moderator in some studies,
with a few showing that high-quality relationships between leaders
and subordinates buffer the detrimental effects of stressful experiences
on job strain (Harris & Kacmar, 2005), safety conditions (Probst, Jiang, &
Graso, 2016), and employee voice (Long et al., 2015). However, a com-
prehensive explanation of how such a relational leadership influence is
transmitted and which mechanisms are activated remain to be investi-
gated. Our study offers a preliminary answer to these critical issues by
demonstrating that AOC channels the differential effects of stressors
and that LMX specifically moderates the first path of the indirect link
between stressors and employee innovation through AOC. In doing so,
this study extends prior research on LMX, which has mainly focused
on its role as an antecedent of AOC (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden,
Brouer, & Ferris, 2012) and employee innovation (Hammond et al.,
2011) but has barely considered its role as a boundary condition.
5.2. Limitations and directions for future research
This study has some limitations that warrant discussion. First, we re-
lied exclusively on self-report questionnaires to measure our study vari-
ables, raising the possibility that the results are affected by common
method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). However, we sought to alleviate
this problem by temporally separating measurement of the predictors
and the criterion, which is thought to be an important procedural reme-
dy (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Additionally, it is worth noting that in the case
of employee innovation, the use of other ratings may not be recommend-
ed because employees have more information than their supervisors/
peers regarding the background of their work activities (Janssen, 2000)
and the extent to which they have created or promoted their ideas to
others in the organization (Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009). Research has
also indicated that self-ratings of employee innovation are consistent
10 F. Montani et al. / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13
with other ratings (e.g., Janssen, 2000; Moneta, Amabile, Schatzel, &
Kramer, 2010). Accordingly, it is reasonable to assert that the use of a
self-report measure of employee innovation is justifiable. Second, the
present study relied on a relatively small sample, thus making the gener-
alizability of the results uncertain. Future replications of the present
study using larger and diversified samples are thus recommended.
A third limitation is that we relied on a stress-based perspective (i.e.,
COR theory) that accounts for the role of LMX as enhancing or mitigat-
ing challenge and hindrance stressors' effects but did not incorporate
variables representing the process through which such effects are trans-
mitted (e.g., actual/anticipated resource depletion [Hobfoll, 1989], at-
tainment of valued outcomes [Boswell et al., 2004]). A more inclusive
test of our theoretical framework would benefit from incorporating di-
rect measures of employees' stressful experiences within an extended
mediational sequence. This would result in more complex models of
work stressors than are usually tested in stress research. For example,
most research based on the challenge-hindrance model has not
assessed employees' evaluations of the ratio of coping efforts to the
achievement of valued outcomes, although such appraisals are assumed
to underlie the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on employee
outcomes (Lepine et al., 2005) and to explain how these effects vary
across boundary conditions (Zhang et al., 2014). Identifying finer-
grained mediators that capture the appraisals and attributions made
by employees during stress experiences would be a fruitful avenue to
pursue.
5.3. Practical implications
Understanding how and when workplace stressors affect employee
innovation has the potential to enable managers and executives to
more effectively manage employee innovation – i.e., a resource key to
organizational innovation and performance – in stressful environments.
Our results reveal that challenge (i.e., role overload) and hindrance (i.e.,
role ambiguity and role conflict) stressors had positive and negative ef-
fects, respectively, on AOC and, ultimately, on innovative behavior. This
has implications for the management of innovation. First, managers
could be trained to recognize and understand different types of job de-
mands experienced by employees when implementing stress-manage-
ment interventions. Specifically, because role ambiguity and role
conflict (i.e., hindrance stressors) had detrimental effects on employee
innovation via AOC, managers should seek to reduce the occurrence of
such job demands in the workplace. Role ambiguity and conflict can
be mitigated by communicating the specific expectations associated
with the employee's role in the organization, clarifying the chain of
command, providing a clear definition of job-related tasks and priori-
ties, and ensuring that all employees understand their job responsibili-
ties and have the resources to meet them. Relatedly, the positive
consequences associated with role overload (i.e., a challenge stressor)
suggest that instead of trying to reduce it, managers should actually
make sure employees are able to manage effectively their task load
and have opportunities to grow without depleting their resources.
Second, this study indicates that AOC plays an important role in
linking stressors to employee innovation. This finding deserves mana-
gerial attention. While stress management practices traditionally focus
on providing employees with social support that facilitates coping
with stressors, our findings bring to the attention of executives that
what employees' level of organizational commitment resulting from
stress exposure should be acted upon. This perspective is radically dif-
ferent from that of the traditional approach to stress management
used in organizations. For instance, executives and managers could
aim to leverage employee perceptions of fair organizational treatment
in the face of stressful job conditions (Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland,
2007). Thus, under these circumstances, organizations can demonstrate
their willingness to be fair, emphasize the transparence of procedures
(e.g., in regard to performance appraisal systems, promotion policies),
and foster employee participation.
Similarly, our results suggest that organizations should work to im-
prove supervisors' leadership competencies, as this would help protect
employees' innovative potential under stressful conditions. We believe
that this avenue is promising because most top managers are unaware
of the critical impact of immediate supervisors on work stressors and
employee innovation. For instance, organizations should encourage
supervisors and employees to share resources and provide help and
support in their daily activities so that high-quality interpersonal rela-
tionships (i.e., LMX) emerge over time. This can be done by informing
supervisors that successful relationships with subordinates evolve
through a series of role episodes, such as role-taking, role-making, and
role-routinization phases (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Sparrowe & Liden,
1997), and that the protective function of LMX in regard to stress expo-
sure reaches its full potential at the role-routinization stage at which
point mutual respect, trust, and loyalty are commonplace. In this mature
stage of the relationship, supervisors can focus on providing relevant
information regarding the occurrence and/or intensification of work
demands, as well as on offering assistance to help employees cope
with these demands. In doing so, supervisors would prevent employees
from developing reciprocation wariness (Karagonlar, Eisenberger, &
Aselage, 2016).
Finally, our findings could help improve innovation management
practices, which have commonly focused on providing methods of con-
ceiving innovative solutions and planning for their implementation
(Ferris et al., 2007; Hunter, Cassidy, & Ligon, 2012; Mumford et al.,
2002) without adequately taking into account the barriers to employee
innovation. In this respect, our study suggests that these innovation
management programs can be integrated with a stress management ap-
proach focusing on the recognition and understanding of workplace
stressors and on the development of positive social exchanges between
employees and their supervisors. Such a combined strategy would add
value to innovation management practices, as it would allow employees
to successfully face key innovation-related obstacles (i.e., workplace
stressors) that would otherwise constrain their ability to innovate
and, consequently, to contribute to organizational innovation and
competitiveness.
6. Summary and conclusion
This study helps unravel the mechanisms and boundary conditions
associated with the effects of workplace stressors on employee innova-
tion. In line with the social exchange perspective, our findings indicate
that the effects of stressful work conditions on employee innovation
are driven by the quality of employees' relationships with the organiza-
tion or AOC. More precisely, challenge (i.e., role overload) and hin-
drance (i.e., role ambiguity and role conflict) stressors were found to
exert positive and negative effects, respectively, on AOC and, ultimately,
on employee innovation. Moreover, consistent with COR theory, our re-
sults suggest that LMX, by making employees more or less vulnerable to
the loss of resources induced by stress exposure, moderates the sequen-
tial stressor-AOC-innovation relationships. When LMX was high, the
positive effect of role overload was enhanced, and the negative effects
of role ambiguity and role conflict were reduced. Taken together, our
findings clarify how and when workplace stressors affect employee in-
novation, which significantly increases what we know about the link
between stress and employee innovation. Moreover, these results help
organizations and executives envision how they can combine innova-
tion management with insights from stress management to remove
the obstacles to innovation in contexts of stressful work demands. We
hope that the present findings will encourage future attempts at eluci-
dating the various pathways through which stressors affect employee
innovation.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
 F. Montani et al. / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13
Funding
This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council [grant number 430-2015-00476].
References
Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regression in
management research. Journal of Management, 21, 1141–1158.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A
state-of-the-science review and prospective commentary. Journal of Management, 40,
1297–1333.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-
creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological
Bulletin, 134, 779–806.
Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in orga-
nizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1102–1119.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources
model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43,
83–104.
Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint ef-
fects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business
Venturing, 26, 49–60.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leader-
ship: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477–499.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis
of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-start-
er: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,
134–150.
Binnewies, C., & Wörnlein, S. C. (2011). What makes a creative day? A diary study on the
interplay between affect, job stressors, and job control. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32, 589–607.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & LePine, M. A. (2004). Relations between stress and
work outcomes: The role of felt challenge, job control, and psychological strain.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 165–181.
Bowling, N. A., Alarcon, G. M., Bragg, C. B., & Hartman, M. J. (2015). A meta-analytic exam-
ination of the potential correlates and consequences of workload. Work & Stress, 29,
95–113.
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The
integration of trust and leader-member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 11,
227–250.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury
Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Burnout: Testing for the validity, replication, and invariance of causal
structure across elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 31, 645–673.
Camelo-Ordaz, C., García-Cruz, J., Sousa-Ginel, E., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2011). The influence
of human resource management on knowledge sharing and innovation in Spain: The
mediating role of affective commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22, 1442–1463.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical
examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 65–74.
Chen, T., Li, F., & Leung, K. (2015). When does supervisor support encourage innovative
behavior? Opposite moderating effects of general self-efficacy and internal locus of
control. Personnel Psychology, 69, 123–158.
Choi, J. N., & Chang, J. Y. (2009). Innovation implementation in the public sector: An integra-
tion of institutional and collective dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 245–253.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behav-
ioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M.
J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social ex-
change and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Conway, N. (2005). Exchange relationships: Examining psycho-
logical contracts and perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 774–781.
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational
justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 34–48.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary re-
view. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaus-
tion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 160–169.
11
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leader-
ship within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
13, 46–78.
Davis, W. D., & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Perceptions of politics and organizational cynicism:
An attributional and leader-member exchange perspective. The Leadership Quarterly,
15, 439–465.
Dawson, K. M., O'Brien, K. E., & Beehr, T. A. (2016). The role of hindrance stressors in the
job demand-control-support model of occupational stress: A proposed theory revi-
sion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 397–415.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A
critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization
Science, 12, 450–467.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-
analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange. Journal of
Management, 38, 1715–1759.
Eatough, E. M., Chang, C. -H., Miloslavic, S. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2011). Relationships of role
stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 619–632.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and media-
tion: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological
Methods, 12, 1–22.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL:
Chapman & Hall.
Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who takes the most revenge?
Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 787–799.
Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors' perceived organiza-
tional support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and perfor-
mance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 321–330.
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent
developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In
L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 65–114). Greenwich, CT: Infor-
mation Age.
Expert Panel on Business Innovation in Canada (2009). Innovation and business strategy:
Why Canada falls short. June: Council of Canadian Academies.
Expert Panel on Business Innovation in Canada (2014). Survey of innovation and business
strategy. February: Council of Canadian Academies.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Po-
litical skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33, 290–320.
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical anal-
ysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839–852.
Gilson, L. L. (2008). Why be creative: A review of the practical outcomes associated with
creativity at the individual, group, and organizational levels. In J. Zhou, & C. E. Shalley
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 303–322). New York, NY: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Glaser, J., Seubert, C., Hornung, S., & Herbig, B. (2015). The impact of learning demands,
work-related resources, and job stressors on creative performance and health.
Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14, 37–48.
Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. (1972). Urban stress: Experiments on noise and social stressors.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Gong, Y., Zhou, J., & Chang, S. (2013). Core knowledge employee creativity and firm per-
formance: The moderating role of riskiness orientation, firm size, and realized ab-
sorptive capacity. Personnel Psychology, 66, 443–482.
González-Morales, M. G., & Neves, P. (2015). When stressors make you work: Mecha-
nisms linking challenge stressors to performance. Work & Stress, 29, 213–229.
Goodman, J. S., & Blum, T. C. (1996). Assessing the non-random sampling effects of subject
attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of Management, 22, 627–652.
Gorgievski, M. J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2008). Work can burn us out and fire us up. In J. R. B.
Halbesleben (Ed.), Handbook of stress and burnout in health care (pp. 7–22).
Hauppage, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Gottlieb, B. H. (1997). Coping with chronic stress. New York, NY: Plenum.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw,
& L. L. Cumming (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 175–208). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Develop-
ment of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Apply-
ing a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to
work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organiza-
tional innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461–473.
Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of in-
dividual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 90–105.
Harris, E. G., Artis, A. B., Walters, J. H., & Licata, J. W. (2006). Role stressors, service worker
job resourcefulness, and job outcomes: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business
Research, 59, 407–415.
Harris, K., & Kacmar, K. M. (2005). Easing the strain: The buffer role of supervisors in the
perceptions of politics-strain relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 78, 337–354.
Harris, R. B., Harris, K. J., & Harvey, P. (2008). An examination of the impact of supervisor
on the relationship between job strains and turnover intention for computer workers.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2108–2131.
12 F. Montani et al. / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13
Harvey, S., Kelloway, E. K., & Duncan-Leiper, L. (2003). Trust in management as a buffer of
the relationships between overload and strain. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 8, 306–315.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond baron and kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable modera-
tion, mediation, and conditional process modeling. Macro and manuscript from http://
www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.htm (Accessed 13.10.15)
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress
process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50,
337–421.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General
Psychology, 6, 307–324.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 116–122.
Hobfoll, S. E., & Freedy, J. (1993). Conservation of resources: A general stress theory ap-
plied to burnout. In W. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout:
Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 115–129). Washington, DC: Taylor &
Francis.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity
to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
Hunter, S. T., Cassidy, S. E., & Ligon, G. S. (2012). Planning for innovation: A process-ori-
ented perspective. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity
(pp. 515–545). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science.
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). Resources, coping strategies, and emotional exhaus-
tion: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63,
490–509.
Jafri, M. H. (2010). Organizational commitment and employee's innovative behavior: A
study in retail sector. Journal of Management Research, 10, 62–68.
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative
work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302.
Janssen, O. (2004). How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less
stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 201–215.
Karagonlar, G., Eisenberger, R., & Aselage, J. (2016). Reciprocation wary employees dis-
count psychological contract fulfillment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 23–40.
Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The job
content questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assess-
ments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
3, 322–355.
Karasek, R. A., Russell, R. S., & Theorell, T. (1982). Physiology of stress and regeneration in
job related cardiovascular illness. Journal of Human Stress, 8, 29–42.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Wiley.
Kiazad, K., Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (2014). Psychological contract breach and em-
ployee innovation: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 87, 535–556.
Klein, H. J., Molloy, J. C., & Brinsfield, C. T. (2012). Reconceptualizing workplace commit-
ment to redress a stretched construct: Revisiting assumptions and removing con-
founds. Academy of Management Review, 37, 130–151.
Lachance, L., Tétreau, B., & Pépin, D. (1997). Validation canadienne-française de la mesure
de conflit et d'ambiguïté de rôle de Rizzo et al. (1970). Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 29, 283–287.
Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of
justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal
of Management, 33, 841–866.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., Kanner, A. D., & Folkman, S. (1980). Emotions: A cognitive-phenomenolog-
ical analysis. In R. Plutchik, & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Theories of emotion (pp. 189–217).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Leiblein, M. J. (2007). Environment, organization, and innovation: How entrepreneurial
decisions affect innovative success. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 141–144.
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.
Leung, K., Huang, K. -L., Su, C. -H., & Lu, L. (2011). Curvilinear relationships between role
stress and innovative performance: Moderating effects of perceived support for inno-
vation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 741–758.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The
past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resources management. Vol. 16. (pp. 47–119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early develop-
ment of leader member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662–674.
Litchfield, R. C., Ford, C. M., & Gentry, R. J. (2015). Linking individual creativity to organi-
zational innovation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 49, 279–294.
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to
parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 151–173.
Loi, R., Ngo, H. -Y., Zhang, L., & Lau, V. P. (2011). The interaction between leader-member
exchange and perceived job security in predicting employee altruism and work per-
formance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 669–685.
Long, C., Li, Z., & Ning, Z. (2015). Exploring the nonlinear relationship between challenge
stressors and employee voice: The effects of leader-member exchange and organisa-
tion-based self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 24–30.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect
effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 39, 99–128.
Madrid, H. P., Patterson, M. G., Birdi, K. S., Leiva, P. I., & Kausel, E. E. (2014). The role of
weekly high-activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative work
behavior: A multilevel and interactional model. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
35, 234–256.
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2015). Leader-member ex-
change (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69,
67–121.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and appli-
cation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupa-
tions: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 538–551.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, cor-
relates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
Moneta, G. B., Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., & Kramer, S. J. (2010). Multirater assessment
of creative contributions to team projects in organizations. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 19, 150–176.
Mottaz, C. J. (1986). An analysis of the relationship between education and organizational
commitment in a variety of occupational groups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28,
214–228.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user's guide: Version 7 (7th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
OECD (2012). Sick on the job? Myths and realities about mental health and work, mental
health and work. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2015). Fit mind, fit job: From evidence to practice in mental health and work. Paris:
OECD Publishing.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856.
Perrewé, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of attributions and emotions in the
transactional approach to the organizational stress process. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 739–752.
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hin-
drance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and
withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438–454.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in so-
cial science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40, 879–891.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hy-
potheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42,
185–227.
Probst, T. M., Jiang, L., & Graso, M. (2016). Leader-member exchange: Moderating the
health and safety outcomes of job insecurity. Journal of Safety Research, 56, 47–56.
Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of
leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 55, 120–151.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organiza-
tion: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 825–836.
Riolli, L., & Savicki, V. (2003). Optimism and coping as moderators of the relation between
work resources and burnout in information service workers. International Journal of
Stress Management, 10, 235–252.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex or-
ganizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.
Robinson, S. (2008). Dysfunctional workplace behavior. In J. Barling, & C. Cooper (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of organizational behavior. Vol. 1. (pp. 141–159). Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Sacramento, C. A., Fay, D., & West, M. A. (2013). Workplace duties or opportunities? Chal-
lenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 121, 141–157.
Scandura, T., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange
status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,
428–436.
Schmidt, K. -H., & Diestel, S. (2015). Self-control demands: From basic research to job-re-
lated applications. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14, 49–60.
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural
equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of
Educational Research, 99, 323–338.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
1442–1465.
 F. Montani et al. / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 1–13
Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life (rev ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Selye, H. (1982). History and present status of the stress concept. In L. Goldberger, & S.
Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 7–17). New
York, NY: Free Press.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and con-
textual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength,
work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 489–505.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation imple-
mentation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of
Management, 39, 684–708.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 522–552.
Spitzmüller, C., & Stanton, J. M. (2006). Examining employee compliance with organiza-
tional surveillance and monitoring. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 79, 245–272.
Sutton, R., & Kahn, R. L. (1986). Prediction, understanding, and control as antidotes to or-
ganizational stress. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior
(pp. 272–285). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Syrek, C. J., Apostel, E., & Antoni, C. H. (2013). Stress in highly demanding IT jobs: Trans-
formational leadership moderates the impact of time pressure on exhaustion and
work-life balance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 252–261.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & De Chermont, K. (2003). The af-
fective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and
integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945.
Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (2008). The innovation jour-
ney. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Van Dyne, L., Jehn, K. A., & Cummings, A. (2002). Differential effects of strain on two forms
of work performance: Individual employee sales and creativity. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 57–74.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership,
self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825–856.
Van Woerkom, M., Bakker, A. B., & Nishii, L. H. (2016). Accumulative job demands and
support for strength use: Fine-tuning the job demands-resources model using con-
servation of resources theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 141–150.
Vézina, M., Cloutier, E., Stock, S., Lippel, K., Fortin, E., Delisle, A., ... Prud'Homme, P. (2011).
Enquête québécoise sur des conditions de travail, d'emploi et de santé et de sécurité du tra-
vail [Quebec survey on work and employment conditions, and health and security at work].
Montréal, QC: Institut de Recherche Robert Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail.
Vinarski-Peretz, H., Binyamin, G., & Carmeli, A. (2011). Subjective relational experiences
and employee innovative behaviors in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
78, 290–304.
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process
of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314–334.
13
Warszewska-Makuch, M., Bedyńska, S., & Żołnierczyk-Zreda, D. (2015). Authentic leader-
ship, social support and their role in workplace bullying and its mental health conse-
quences. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 21, 128–140.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and lead-
er-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 82–111.
Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. (2011). Extending the challenge-hindrance model of
occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 505–516.
Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naïve the-
ories of bias in bias correction. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology. Vol. 29. (pp. 141–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West, & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Inno-
vation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 1–37).
Chichester: Wiley.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., & Fischbach, A. (2013). Work engagement among
employees facing emotional demands. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 74–84.
Xerri, M. J., & Brunetto, Y. (2013). Fostering innovative behaviour: The importance of em-
ployee commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 3163–3177.
Zhang, Y., LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., & Wei, F. (2014). It's not fair… or is it? The role of
justice and leadership in explaining work stressor-job performance relationships.
Academy of Management Journal, 57, 675–697.
Zhou, Q., Martinez, L. F., Ferreira, A. I., & Rodrigues, P. (2016). Supervisor support, role am-
biguity and productivity associated with presenteeism: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Business Research, 69, 3380–3387.
Francesco Montani is professor of human research management and organizational be-
havior at Montpellier Business School. He earned his Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology
at the University of Verona, Italy. His current research interests embrace employee inno-
vation, mindfulness and compassion in organizational contexts, and psychological health
at work.
François Courcy is professor of organizational psychology at the Department of Psychol-
ogy of Université de Sherbrooke. He is interested in the prediction of work-related coun-
terproductive behaviors, the promotion of psychological health at work, the assessment
and diagnostic of organizations, as well as staff training and work performance.
Christian Vandenberghe is a professor of organizational behavior at HEC Montreal and
holder of the Canada Research Chair in management of employee commitment and per-
formance. His work has been published or is in press in a variety of journals, including
Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Group & Organization Management, Human Relations, Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-
tice, and Human Resource Management.