Article

Organizational Psychology Review

Creative performance under pressure: An integrative conceptual framework

Darja Gutnick
University of Groningen

Organizational Psychology Review 2(3) 189207 The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2041386612447626 opr.sagepub.com

Frank Walter
University of Groningen

Bernard A. Nijstad
University of Groningen

Carsten K. W. De Dreu
University of Amsterdam

Abstract Creativity is the cornerstone of organizational success in todays economy. At the same time, employees face considerable work pressure, which might undermine their creativity. This article integrates theoretical perspectives from the stress and creativity literatures to develop a new model that conceptualizes the effects of work pressure on creative performance. Our model proposes a double-mediated process by which pressure triggers challenge and threat appraisals, which, in turn, influence creativity by shaping employees cognitive flexibility and/or persistence. Further, we theorize that available resources and employee commitment are important moderators. We illustrate our model with the potential effects of leadership on the association between pressure and creativity. Implications for further empirical and theoretical research are discussed. Keywords challenge, creativity, leadership, threat, work pressure
Paper received 16 November 2011; revised version accepted 15 April 2012.

Corresponding author: Darja Gutnick, Department of HRM/OB, University of Groningen, 9747AE Groningen, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

190 Employee creativity, defined as the production of novel and useful ideas, products, services, or organizational processes, is the basis of organizational innovation (Amabile, 1996; Da Silva & Davis, 2011; Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Also, research has revealed strong links between employee creativity and organizational performance (Van Nordenflycht, 2007; Weinzimmer, Michel, & Franczak, 2011). Employees creativity is therefore a key competitive advantage that can drive the rise-and-fall of organizations (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004). Hence, organizational research has devoted great attention to uncovering variables that influence employee creativity. Whereas earlier research focused on personality correlates of creative performance (MacKinnon, 1992) and cognitive skills related to creativity (Mednick, 1962), later scholars determined organizational factors that are associated with higher levels of creativity (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Andriopoulos, 2001; Shalley & Gilson, 2004). For example, this literature has demonstrated the relevance of autonomy at work, supervisor and co-worker relations, time deadlines, and goals (e.g., Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford, 2007; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Other recent research shows that employees often face considerable pressure at work including quality pressure, time pressure, and other cognitive or emotional pressure sources (Byron, Khazanchi, & Nazarian, 2010; European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2009), and that pressure can impact on employee creativity (e.g., Baer & Oldham, 2006; Ohly & Fritz, 2010). We define work pressure as the subjective experience of substantial job demands that can be induced by internal or external forces, entail positive or negative consequences, and push an employee to behave in a specific way (cf. Russell, OConnell, & McGinnity, 2009). A typical situation where an employee experiences pressure is characterized by the experience of high demands and high stakes (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Oftentimes

Organizational Psychology Review 2(3) the term work pressure is used interchangeably with the terms stress and stressors, although it refers to related but different phenomena. Stress refers to the . . . relationship with the environment that the person appraises as significant for his or her well-being and in which the demands tax or exceed available coping resources, (Lazarus & Folkman 1986, p. 63) and the term stressor describes a stimulus that triggers a stress reaction (Selye, 1936). Work pressure, then, can potentially act as a stressor and result in a stress reaction, but it does not necessarily have to do so. Despite an increasing amount of empirical research on the role of pressure for employee creativity, this relationship has remained ambiguous and contested to date (e.g., Baer & Oldham, 2006; Ohly & Fritz, 2010). A current meta-analysis has shown, for example, that the effects of work pressure on creativity are far from consistent (Byron et al., 2010). Whereas some studies demonstrated pressure to diminish employee creativity (Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brackfleld, 1990; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001), other work has revealed positive or curvilinear relationships (Baer & Oldham, 2006; Ohly & Fritz, 2010; Yuan & Zhou, 2008; Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009). Also, a number of studies have distinguished different types of pressure that may differentially impact creativity (e.g., challenge vs. hindrance; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005; Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007). One explanation for this unfortunate state of affairs is that our fundamental theoretical understanding of the generative mechanisms underlying the role of pressure for creativity is relatively poor (Byron et al., 2010). Despite evidence for the presence of this linkage, little remains known as to why and how work pressure can impact employees creative performance. Similarly, there is little systematic theory on potential moderators of the pressurecreativity relationship and, consequently, our knowledge of the boundary conditions of this linkage remains limited. All in all, the

Gutnick et al.

191

Figure 1. The PressureCreativity Model. This figure shows the central constructs and their relationships in an overview.

pressurecreativity relation resembles a proverbial black box hampering our understanding of this crucial association and our ability to consistently interpret previous findings. This article addresses the issue by conceptually clarifying the link between work pressure and employee creativity, outlining key mechanisms and boundary conditions. Drawing on cognitive appraisal theories of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model (DPCM; De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008), we propose a double mediation model (see Figure 1). Our model is applicable in situations that are relevant for an employees goals and thus require specific instrumental responses (i.e., motivated performance situations; Blascovich & Elliot, 2008, p. 210), occur in an organizational context, and allow for varying levels of creativity (e.g., when tasks have heuristic components rather than being completely algorithmic; Amabile, 1983). Specifically, we suggest that confrontation with a pressure source triggers appraisal mechanisms (challenge vs. threat; Lazarus, 1991) in an employee that can result in

varying degrees of two psychological states. Experienced challenge results in approachoriented motivation, and positive affect, whereas experienced threat results in avoidance-oriented motivation, and negative affect. We further suggest that, although these psychological states may theoretically co-occur, they result in distinct consequences for employees thinking and, eventually, creativity. Challenge appraisals can lead to higher cognitive flexibility (Compton, Wirtz, Pajoumand, Claus, & Heller, 2004) and behavioral adaptability (Simonton, 1999), triggering increased creative performance through what has been labeled as the flexibility pathway (Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel, & Baas, 2010). The implications of threat appraisal are more complex and ambiguous. On the one hand, appraisal of a pressure situation as threatening may undermine employee creativity by triggering rigid and confined patterns of thinking (i.e., reduced flexibility; Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981; DAunno & Sutton, 1992). On the other hand, threat appraisal may result in higher creativity through what has been labeled the persistence pathway, motivating employees

192 sense of urgency and inducing them to arduously seek for new, creative ideas to solve the problem at hand (Dutton, 1986; Nijstad et al., 2010). In line with inconsistent and sometimes contradictory findings in the literature, the present model suggests that work pressure has the potential to either promote or diminish employees creativity in complex ways. Hence, we strive to complement our model by identifying crucial factors that may moderate the indirect pressurecreativity relation. Drawing on theory that emphasizes the joint role of both job demands and job resources for employees stress reactions and on the employee commitment literature (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Meurs & Perrewe, 2011; Karasek, 1979; Meyer & Herscowitch, 2001; Seijts & Latham, 2000), we discuss key functional variables that may tilt the balance between challenge and threat appraisals of work pressure and determine whether the flexibility or persistence pathway to creativity will prevail. In explicating these relationships, we develop testable propositions that highlight the mechanisms and boundary conditions underlying the effects of pressure on employee creativity.

Organizational Psychology Review 2(3) of potential harm, employees experience a specific degree of pressure. Subsequently, in a secondary appraisal, they cognitively assess their ability to successfully cope with the respective situation (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This process can result in high challenge appraisal if employees come to a positive evaluation of their coping ability.1 Hence, such challenge appraisal is associated with the anticipation of successful mastery of the situation at hand. It reflects a psychological state focused on realizing potential gains or opportunities (Tomaka, Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993), is associated with positive affect (e.g., excitement, enthusiasm; Frijda, 1988; Folkman, & Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus, 1991), and motivationally veers towards an approach orientation (Schneider, Rivers, & Lyons, 2009). On the other hand, the secondary appraisal process can result in threat appraisal if employees come to negatively assess their ability to cope with a high pressure situation. Hence, threat appraisal is tied to anticipation of imminent harm. It reflects a psychological state focused on avoiding unfavorable outcomes, is associated with negative affect (e.g., fear; Maier, Waldstein, & Synowski, 2003), and triggers motivational escape-avoidance tendencies (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986). We view challenge and threat appraisals as two independent concepts (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Thus, as noted before, experiencing challenge and threat appraisals at the same time is possible, in principle. For example, working on an important task with a tight deadline might lead to high experienced pressure and be perceived as challenging (assuming one feels competent to meet task requirement) but might also trigger threat reactions (because ultimate success remains uncertain). Nevertheless, studies point out that due to counteracting physiological responses, the simultaneous experience of the two different appraisals is uncommon (Tomaka, Blascovich, Kibler, & Ernst, 1997; Tomaka et al., 1993). Therefore, we generally expect

Pressure and creativity: A double mediation model Challenge/threat appraisals as immediate reactions to work pressure
According to Lazarus transactional model of stress (e.g., Lazarus, 1963; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), an individuals perception of a stressor (e.g., work pressure) can take fundamentally different forms, depending on how the individual appraises the situation at hand. Cognitive appraisal is defined as the process of evaluating a stimulus regarding its relevance and implications. In a primary appraisal, individuals answer the question of subjective relevance (e.g., How harmful can this situation be to my well-being?). Depending on this evaluation

Gutnick et al. either challenge or threat appraisal to be dominant in a given situation. In a similar vein, it is important to note that challenge and threat appraisals are not direct opposites (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Both types of appraisal represent distinct psychological reactions toward a stressful stimulus, activate action potentials, and prepare the individual to deal with the situation at hand.2 Intuitively, it may be appealing to view challenge appraisal as superior in this regard. In fact, research has linked such appraisal with daily creativity and proactive behavior (Ohly & Fritz, 2010). Threat appraisal, however, can also trigger effective coping mechanisms. Although some studies have linked threat appraisal with negative thinking (Cadinu, Maass, Rosabianca, & Kiesner, 2005), reduced task performance, and low adaptability (Drach-Zahavy, & Erez, 2002), other research has associated threat appraisal with positive aspects such as helping behavior (Davis & Macdonald, 2004) and perseverance (Carr & Steele, 2009). Dutton (1986) has, accordingly, described threat perceptions as catalysts for action, (p. 503) motivating individuals to address issues and problems in their environment. It does not appear justified, therefore, to assume a dominating challenge rather than threat appraisal of work pressure to generally be more beneficial for creative performance. Rather, it seems necessary to examine the cognitive/behavioral tendencies triggered by both appraisals in more detail and to outline the role of such tendencies for employee creativity.

193 numerous, broad, and inclusive cognitive categories in problem-solving, out-of-the-box thinking, and the generation of many, diverse ideas. Theory and research have often linked cognitive flexibility with creative performance (e.g., Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999; Eysenck, 1993). For example, Nijstad et al. (2010) found strong evidence that the use of many different conceptual categories during a brainstorming task (i.e., high flexibility) is associated with greater idea originality (also see De Dreu, Nijstad, & Baas, 2011). We propose that this flexibility pathway to creativity is particularly likely in situations when increasing pressure leads to higher challenge experiences. As argued before, challenge appraisals are characterized by a focus on gains (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Tomaka, et al., 1993), positive affect (Skinner & Brewer, 2002), and general approach orientation (Seery, 2011). Importantly, previous research has frequently linked these psychological states with higher cognitive flexibility and creative performance. Specifically, a focus on positive outcomes has been associated with riskier responses and greater creativity (Friedman & Forster, 2001). Fur thermore, a large body of research has pointed to the role of positive affect in this regard, arguing that positive affect facilitates an assimilative, flexible, and generative style of thinking, motivates exploratory thoughts and behaviors, and encourages individuals to venture into novel directions (e.g., Fiedler, 2001; Fredrickson, 2001). Meta-analytic evidence has shown, accordingly, that activating positive affect (e.g., enjoyment) is positively related to creativity (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008). And, finally, scholars have linked approachrelated motivation with cognitive flexibility (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2011), fostering individuals explorative behaviors (e.g., Friedman & Forster, 2000; 2002) and enhancing their creative outcomes (De Dreu et al., 2011). Taken together, the DPCM suggests that higher challenge appraisals lead to higher cognitive flexibility, which, in turn, should

Flexibility and persistence pathways to creativity

To better understand the role of challenge and threat appraisals in the pressurecreativity relationship, we invoke the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model (DPCM; De Dreu et al., 2008; Nijstad et al., 2010). This model suggests that one primary way to achieve creativity is through cognitive flexibility, denoting individuals use of

194 facilitate creative performance. Therefore, we suggest a double mediation process underlying the overall linkage between pressure and creativity. Increasing pressure at work may promote employees challenge appraisals, which, in turn, can enhance employee creativity by activating the flexibility pathway.
Proposition 1: Higher work pressure can enhance employees creativity by strengthening their challenge appraisals and, in turn, promoting employees cognitive flexibility.

Organizational Psychology Review 2(3) habitual, well-learned actions (Carr & Steele, 2009; Luchins, 1942). Employees are unlikely, then, to employ a large variety of different conceptual categories when solving creative problems and to develop many, diverse ideas by consequence diminishing their creativity. Overall, we again suggest a double mediation process linking pressure and creativity. Increasing work pressure may strengthen employees threat appraisals, thus diminishing employees creativity by reducing their cognitive flexibility.
Proposition 2a: Higher work pressure can diminish employees creativity by strengthening their threat appraisals and, in turn, reducing employees cognitive flexibility.

The role of threat appraisals for employee creativity is less straightforward. In fact, opposing predictions (through distinct mechanisms) seem viable in this regard. On the one hand, classic theories suggest that threat appraisals may hamper originality and creative fluency, thus diminishing creativity. Staw et al.s (1981) threat-rigidity framework, for example, argues that threat perceptions go along with severe restrictions in information processing, as individuals become preoccupied with avoiding the threats ramifications. Hence, threat appraisals are suggested to trigger tendencies toward welllearned responses and reduce performance in tasks that require innovative approaches (e.g., creative tasks; Amabile, 1982; 1996). A considerable body of research supports this reasoning. This work has shown, for example, that individuals who perceive a situation as threatening tend to suffer from interfering thoughts and reduced working memory capacity, hold low performance expectancies (Cadinu et al., 2005), and disengage from the task at hand (Taylor, Kemeny, Aspinwall, Schneider, Rodrigues, & Herbert, 1992). Furthermore, scholars have shown threat appraisals to narrow individuals focus of attention toward the perceived source of the threat, at the cost of other potentially relevant information (Notebaert, Crombez, Van Damme, De Houwer, & Theeuwes, 2011). This perspective suggests that cognitive flexibility will suffer as threat appraisal evokes rigid patterns of thinking and reliance on

On the other hand, the DPCM (De Dreu et al., 2008) suggests that threat appraisal may also benefit employee creativity. This model emphasizes that cognitive flexibility is not the only way to attain creative performance: it is also possible to achieve creative fluency and originality through hard work, perseverance, and . . . in-depth exploration of a few cognitive categories or perspectives. (De Dreu et al., 2008, p. 740) Specifically, as employees generate many ideas even in only a few cognitive categories (low flexibility), the overall number of ideas (creative fluency) necessarily increases as well. Additionally, given that there is only a limited number of unoriginal ideas possible within a specific category, perseverance at creating ideas will eventually also result in more original ideas (Nijstad et al., 2010; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2007). Interestingly, threat appraisals may enhance such persistence and perseverance. As argued before, individuals holding such perceptions tend to focus their full attention on the threat at hand, and they are highly motivated to avoid associated losses (Beardslee, 1986; Dutton, 1986). Accordingly, individuals are likely to invest significant efforts toward a relatively confined, clearly defined goal (i.e., overcoming the threat) and to not be distracted by other

Gutnick et al. tasks or stimuli (Davis & Whalen, 2001; Ohman & Mineka, 2001). In other words, threat appraisal can function as a frame breaker, (Tushman, Newman, & Romanelli, 1986) leading individuals to allocate resources to alleviate the threat and eventually aiding them in developing many and original ideas, albeit with a relatively narrow focus (i.e., a limited number of cognitive categories). Supporting this logic, scholars have demonstrated that threatening situations (e.g., competitive conflicts) can indeed promote creativity (De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008). Furthermore, negative emotions such as fear and anxiety (which characterize threat appraisals; Maier et al., 2003) have been shown to stimulate creative performance through increased persistence (De Dreu et al., 2008), and evidence indicates that avoidance-related motivational states can enhance creativity by activating goal-directed behavior (Baas et al., 2011; see also George & Zhou, 2007). This reasoning suggests that threat perceptions can promote a persistence response. This response, in turn, is suggested to enhance individuals creative fluency and originality (De Dreu et al., 2008; Rietzschel, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2007, Rietzschel, Nijstad et al., 2007). Overall, we therefore suggest a final double mediation process in the pressurecreativity relation. It seems possible that higher pressure at work may activate the persistence pathway by strengthening employees threat appraisals, thus contributing to increases in employee creativity.
Proposition 2b: Higher work pressure can enhance employees creativity by strengthening their threat appraisals and, in turn, promoting employees cognitive persistence.

195 with situations of higher pressure at work (see Figure 1). Beyond describing these pathways, however, a complete theory of the role of pressure for creativity requires a thorough understanding of key factors that may render the different pathways more or less likely. In the following section, we therefore discuss critical moderators believed to shape employees appraisal of a pressure situation and to subsequently activate the flexibility or persistence pathway to creativity. The moderating effect of available resources. As outlined before, high pressure situations are, by definition, characterized by relatively high demands. The transactional model of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) asserts, however, that cognitive appraisal and associated consequences depend not only on such demands but also hinge on available resources and, hence, on the interaction of demands and resources in a given situation (see also Bakker, Demerouti & Euwema, 2005; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Resources are defined as physical, personal, social, and organizational aspects that are functional for achieving ones goals, aid in coping with job demands, or stimulate personal development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Consistent with previous research that has shown job resources to buffer the detrimental effects of stressors on experienced strain (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, Xanthopoulou, 2007), we expect the availability of resources to influence the role of job pressure for creativity by moderating the effects of pressure on employees challenge and threat appraisals. As noted before, the degree to which an employee sees a given pressure situation as challenging or threatening depends on how manageable he or she expects the situation to be (secondary appraisal; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). To the extent sufficient resources are available to help employees deal with the demands of a pressure situation, such perceptions of manageability should be enhanced (Roberts, Dunkle, & Haug, 1994). Consequently, greater availability of

Moderating factors in the pressure creativity model

The first part of this article introduced different pathways to (enhanced or reduced) creativity that can result when an individual is confronted

196 resources should strengthen the positive association between pressure perceptions and challenge appraisal and weaken the positive association between pressure perceptions and threat appraisal. This moderating role of resources is relatively straightforward when considering physical resources, in particular. Physical resources entail, for example, the availability of physical strength and time (Roberts et al., 1994). Clearly, to the extent employees have sufficient time or monetary resources to resolve possible difficulties, even a high pressure situation is less likely to be perceived as threatening and more likely to be perceived as challenging. Similarly, personal or psychological resources may moderate the role of work pressure. Employees self-efficacy (i.e., the belief that one is able to achieve pursued goals; Bandura, 1977) is a key example for this type of resource (Friedman, 1999). Research has shown that high self-efficacy leads individuals to approach tasks with a more optimistic attitude (Caprara, Alessandri, & Barbaranelli, 2010). Hence, it appears likely that employees with higher self-efficacy will appraise even high pressure situations as challenges rather than threats. The most prominent example of social resources is social support (i.e., assistance provided by close members of an employees social network, such as family members, friends, and supervisors; Thoits, 1995). This support function can be supplied in different ways, including emotional support (empathy and understanding for the difficulty of the pressure situation), appraisal support (help in evaluating the self and the situation), and instrumental support (actual help; Peeters & Le Blanc, 2001). It can be valuable, for example, to receive emotional support during the process of cognitively appraising a pressure situation, because experiences of compassion may reduce the likelihood of a threat reaction (Fogarty, Curbow, Wingard, McDonnell, & Somerfield, 1999). Furthermore, appraisal support may directly stimulate challenge appraisal when

Organizational Psychology Review 2(3) others (e.g., supervisors) express their confidence in employees capabilities. Similarly, instrumental support may prove beneficial because it may help employees to more effectively address the demands of a high pressure situation. Consistent with these arguments, research has shown social support to buffer the effects of stressors on strain (Schreurs, van Emmerik, Guenter, & Germeys, 2012). Hence, we expect social support to moderate the effect of pressure by increasing challenge appraisals (e.g., appraisal support) and decreasing threat appraisals (e.g., emotional support) at the same time. Finally, organizational factors form a fourth class of resources (Bakker et al., 2005). For example, scholars have identified job autonomy as a key moderator of the relationship between stressors and performance outcomes, with autonomy enhancing employees control over a given situation and, thus, enabling them to more productively deal with stressful circumstances (e.g., Kausto, Elo, Lipponen, & Elovainio, 2005; Karasek, 1979; van der Doef & Maes, 1999). Consequently, we predict organizational level resources, such as organizational factors that enhance employee autonomy (e.g., organizational autonomy support; Liu, Chen, Yao, 2011) to strengthen the positive relationship between pressure and challenge appraisal and reduce the role of pressure for threat appraisal. All in all, we propose that higher pressure will be more strongly related with challenge appraisal and less strongly related with threat appraisal if employees have sufficient resources to successfully deal with the respective pressure situation. Hence, the indirect relationship between pressure and creativity is more likely to be positive (through the flexibility pathway) the greater the amount of resources available to an employee. This notion is in line with Karaseks (1979) classic assertion that in situations of simultaneously high demands and control (i.e., a resource), development of new behavior patterns (p. 288) becomes likely. Furthermore, the goal setting literature has

Gutnick et al. demonstrated difficult, yet attainable goals to be particularly motivating (Latham, Locke, & Fassina, 2002). Interestingly, recent theorizing on strategic management has similarly suggested that even extremely difficult, novel goals (i.e., stretch goals) can be motivating and facilitate organizational learning, provided that there are available resources to make effective goal pursuit appear realistic (Sitkin, See, Miller, Lawless, & Carton, 2011).
Proposition 3a: The positive relationship between experienced pressure and challenge appraisal is stronger when employees perceive more physical, psychological, social, or organizational resources. Proposition 3b: The positive relationship between experienced pressure and threat appraisal is weaker when employees perceive more physical, psychological, social, or organizational resources.

197 creativity through flexible processing. In several studies they demonstrated that working analytically and persistently towards creativity taxes working memory and leads people to feel depleted after being creative. According to conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001), people are motivated to preserve resources and prevent resource loss. Thus, employees will only engage in persistently seeking creative solutions to a task when continued effort may produce valued outcomes (e.g., the minimization of imminent losses). Indeed, Roskes et al. (2012) found that people were only willing to work persistently at a creativity task when performing creatively was functional in achieving their goals, and by being persistent were able to be creative. We propose that the willingness to invest effort and persistently work at a task, even when threatened, is primarily shaped by employees level of (goal) commitment. Commitment is defined as the force that binds the individual to a relevant course of action that leads to worthwhile individual outcomes (Meyer & Herscowitch, 2001; Seijts & Latham, 2000). Research has shown that commitment clarifies and motivates behavior (Brickman, 1987; Brown, 1996; Latham & Locke, 2006). Also, committed employees are more persistent (Latham & Locke, 2006) and focused on the task, which results in not only better overall performance (Parish, Cadweller, & Busch, 2008), but also in higher creativity (De Dreu et al., 2008). Importantly, besides these direct effects on creativity, commitment has also been shown to moderate the effects of task difficulties and troublesome environments on employee creativity (Drach-Zahavy & Freund, 2007). As Latham and Lockes (1979) goal-setting theory convincingly illustrates, goals that are difficult and specific (cf. high pressure situations) increase employee performance, especially when goal commitment is high. With low goal commitment, in contrast, difficult tasks may be abandoned rather than persistently pursued (Donovan & Radosevich, 1998; Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988).

The moderating effect of employee commitment. According to our model, when employees face a pressure situation and expect that available resources are potentially insufficient, their threat appraisal of the situation increases (see also Dutton & Jackson, 1987). This appraisal may lead to higher distractibility (Notebaert et al., 2011), low performance expectancies (Cadinu et al., 2005), task disengagement (Taylor et al., 1992), and ultimately, lower cognitive flexibility (Staw et al., 1981) and creativity. Alternatively, we have argued that threat may lead to increased persistence, and creativity can also be achieved through higher efforts focused on a smaller range of ideas and semantic categories that are explored in more depth (De Dreu, et al., 2008; De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008; Nijstad, et al., 2010). Higher levels of experienced threat do not necessarily, however, increase persistence. Recently, Roskes, De Dreu, and Nijstad (in press) have shown that achieving creativity through persistence requires more effort and energy than achieving the same level of

198 We thus propose that higher levels of experienced threat will only lead to persistence when commitment is high, but may lead employees to abandon the activity when commitment is low.
Proposition 4: The positive relationship between experienced threat and persistence is stronger when employee (goal) commitment is high rather than low.

Organizational Psychology Review 2(3) creativity (e.g., Zhang & Bartol, 2010; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Moreover, scholars have emphasized the relevance of leadership in times of pressure and crisis, during which followers look up to their leaders as a source of certainty and may thus be more attentive to their guidance and actions. (Oreg & Berson, 2011, p. 632; see also House, 1977). Following previous work (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009), we take a functional approach toward explaining the role of leadership in the pressurecreativity link. Specifically, we propose that leadership can play a critical role in our overall model by affecting employees perceived resources and goal commitment, thereby shaping employees appraisal of pressure situations as well as their reactions toward such appraisals. First, we suggest that leaders can build important resources by providing social support for their employees (Kirmeyer & Dougherty, 1988), thereby facilitating employees challenge appraisal of pressure situations. In particular, leaders can be key sources of both informational and emotional support. As noted before, informational support consists of providing help in defining and understanding a pressure situation (Cohen & Wills, 1985). As such, it closely corresponds with the initiating structure dimension discussed in classic, behavioral perspectives to leadership (Fleishman, 1973; Judge, Piccolo & Ilies, 2004). By outlining new, effective approaches toward meeting the demands of a pressure situation, for example, leaders may be able to widen employees behavioral horizons and thus increase their challenge appraisals. Further, by structuring difficult, demanding tasks into smaller, more manageable bytes a leader may prevent feelings of work overload and, thus, ameliorate employees threat perceptions. As a result, we expect a leader who provides informational support (e.g., through initiating structure behavior) to strengthen the positive effects of pressure on employees challenge appraisals and weaken the role of work pressure for employees threat

In summary, our model clarifies how pressure can affect employee creativity in different ways through distinct mechanisms. Experienced pressure in combination with high resources is proposed to positively relate to experienced challenge, which subsequently leads to higher levels of flexibility and creativity. When resources are low, experienced pressure will positively relate to experienced threat. This reduces cognitive flexibility, and undermines creativity, unless employees have high goal commitment. In that case, increased persistence may compensate the negative effects of reduced flexibility on creativity.

Pressure and creativity in context: A leadership perspective

To demonstrate the practical value of our model and illustrate its applicability in an organizational context, we consider the role of leadership as a key organizational factor that may influence the role of work pressure for employees creative performance. Leadership is an interpersonal phenomenon in an organizational context that draws on hierarchically based legitimacy of influence and thus offers a wide range of possibilities to shape employees thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Suganuma & Ura, 2001). Although it is but one of many potentially relevant factors, leadership has been a major focus in the organizational psychology literature for decades (e.g., Gardner, Lowes, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010; Yukl, 2008), and past research has established solid linkages between leadership and employee

Gutnick et al. appraisals. Hence, such leadership may facilitate the beneficial consequences of work pressure for employee creativity by enabling the challengeflexibility pathway. Emotional support is based on behaviors that make the individual feel valued and accepted (Cobb, 1976; Cohen & Wills, 1985). As such, it corresponds closely to the consideration dimension in the behavioral leadership paradigm (Fleishman, 1953; Fleishman, 1973), which describes the degree to which leaders show concern and respect for employees and take their feelings into account when making decisions. Research has shown such behavior to increase employees self-efficacy (Choi, Price, & Vinokur, 2003; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004) and to promote their positive affect. Also, scholars have noted that such emotional leader support potentially puts demands in another perspective (Bakker et al., 2005, p. 172). Hence, it appears likely that emotionally supportive, considerate leadership may function as an important resource that promotes the role of pressure experiences for challenge appraisal and diminishes the role of such experiences for threat appraisal. Similar to initiating structure, consideration may therefore render the challengeflexibility pathway more likely, enabling employee creativity to benefit from experiences of work pressure. Second, we propose that leadership can be a critical factor in promoting employee commitment. The feedback leaders provide toward their employees about their performance on a creative task may be particularly relevant in this regard. Hinsz, Tindale, and Vollrath (1997), for example, argued that feedback is a key motivator that directs employee behaviors toward a specific goal by enhancing the behaviorreward instrumentality associated with that goal. Accordingly, empirical research has linked feedback from supervisors (and, in particular, positive feedback that provides favorable information about employees goal progress) not only with higher employee creativity but

199 also with increased persistence in accomplishing a task (e.g., greater effort and task involvement; Zander & Wolfe, 1964; Berkowitz, Levy, & Harvey, 1975). Similarly, Sivunen (2006) found that positive feedback relates to higher commitment to the team and its goals. We therefore expect that a leader who provides frequent (and largely favorable) feedback regarding employees performance on a creative task will increase employees involvement with the task at hand and build their respective commitment. Hence, even if employees appraise a specific pressure situation as threatening and, therefore, view successful task achievement as hampered, we suggest a positive linkage between pressure perceptions and creativity (through the persistence pathway) remains possible if leaders provide appropriate feedback to their employees.

Conclusions
Although a broad body of research has emerged around the pressurecreativity linkage, this line of inquiry remains plagued by conflicting conceptual views and inconsistent empirical findings. The present article strives to promote a better understanding of this linkage by developing a novel theoretical model that integrates contradictory perspectives and results. This model contributes to the literature in important ways. First, it demonstrates that the relationship between work pressure and employee creativity may be more complex than previously believed. With important cognitive, affective, and motivational mechanisms mediating the role of work pressure, it appears that pressure experiences have the potential to either enhance or diminish creativity through differing pathways. Moreover, our model specifies crucial boundary conditions under which the respective pressurecreativity pathways become more or less likely. Available resources and employee commitment appear as key factors that jointly enable either the positive or the negative consequences of pressure to unfold. All in all, the present article promotes a better understanding

200 of the causal mechanisms linking work pressure with employee creativity and relevant contingency factors that shape the functioning of these mechanisms. The model developed here raises several important questions for future theory and research. First, we encourage scholars to empirically examine the present model. Rather than focusing on isolated linkages, it may be particularly interesting to take a comprehensive perspective in such work and investigate both mediating mechanisms and their associated boundary conditions. Recent methodological developments enable the straightforward examination of combined mediation and moderation hypotheses (e.g., Edwards & Lambert, 2007), and knowledge about the role of work pressure for employee creativity could benefit greatly from applying such methods. Also, in order to more thoroughly and extensively test critical boundary conditions for the validity of the model, we think it is worthwhile to examine interaction effects between different kinds of resources and sources of pressure. Accordingly, Rousseau and Aube (2010) emphasized the idea of resource adequacy in a job demandsresources context, arguing that certain demands can only be faced with certain resources. Beyond this, we also point out that there might be interaction effects between different kinds of resources. For instance, giving appropriate feedback in a pressure situation may increase commitment, but at the same time decrease employee self-efficacy and can thus be not useful or even detrimental to employee creativity. An investigation of interaction effects would certainly reveal further details about the pressurecreativity link. Furthermore, future research is called for to extend and specify the present considerations. We believe it is a key strength of the current model that, beyond providing an abstract theoretical explanation of the pressurecreativity linkage, scholars can flexibly apply and expand the model to derive specific predictions regarding other variables central to organizational

Organizational Psychology Review 2(3) psychology, as illustrated by our discussion of the role of leadership. To cite one additional example, researchers have noted that an organizational climate emphasizing openness and exploration can prime employees focus on gains, thus potentially strengthening the pressurechallenge appraisal linkage (Brockner & Higgins, 2001) and, thus, triggering the flexibility pathway toward greater creativity. An organizational climate endorsing safety and security, on the other hand, can promote a focus on potential losses, potentially strengthening the pressurethreat appraisal linkage (Leikas, Lonnqvist, Verkasalo, & Lindeman, 2009; Wallace, & Chen, 2006). As such, organizational climate may play an important role in shaping employees responses in situations of work pressure, triggering specific pathways toward either enhanced or diminished creativity (Hunter et al., 2007). Furthermore, we encourage future scholars to focus not only on short term effects of pressure on employee creativity, but to critically examine the long term effects of pressure. Given the fact that resource losses are especially important for individual well-being and may predict severe dysfunctional outcomes (e.g., burnout; Wells, Hobfoll, & Lavin, 1999), the long term consequences of pressure on employee capacity should not be underestimated. Based on the COR logic (Hobfoll, 2011), we assume that it is important that those resources that are used in a pressure situation are constantly refilled again, otherwise dysfunctional patterns might completely disable the mechanics of performing creatively under pressure. We truly hope these concerns can and will be answered in following theoretical and empirical investigations. To summarize, both work pressure and demands for creativity are ubiquitous in todays complex and dynamic work environment. A solid, theoretically well-founded understanding is needed to proficiently manage this linkage and enable employees to attain superior creative performance despite or because of the

Gutnick et al. pressure they experience. We hope the model developed in this article represents a step in this direction, providing a conceptual fundament for future research and enabling practitioners to overcome work pressures detrimental consequences and harness its beneficial effects for employee creativity. Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or notfor-profit sectors.

201
Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 621. Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-ofthe-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147173. Andriopoulos, C. (2001). Determinants of organizational creativity: A literature review. Management Decision, 39, 834841. Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychology Review, 106, 529550. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421449. 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, 779806. Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2011). When prevention promotes creativity: The role of mood, regulatory focus and regulatory closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 794809. Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 963970. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demandsresources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309328. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 170180. Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of educational psychology, 99, 274. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191215.

Notes
1. The transactional model of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) differentiates a third appraisal state: harm/loss, that refers to the already occured psychological or physical damage. We did not consider it in our further elaboration of the PCM due to the limited relevance in this context. 2. Note that some scholars have distinguished different types of stressors (e.g., challenge vs. hindrance; Podsakoff et al., 2007). We do not focus on the nature of a stressor in the present manuscript, but on how a stressor is appraised. Hence, we assume that the same sources of pressure can have different effects on different people, in different situations.

References
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 9971013. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357376. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 11541184. Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfleld, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity:

202
Beardslee, W. R. (1986). The need for the study of adaptation in the children of parents with affective disorders. In M. Rutter, C. E. Izard, & P. B. Read (Eds.), Depression in young people: Developmental and clinical perspectives (pp. 189204). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Berkowitz, L., Levy, B., & Harvey, A. (1975). Effects of Performance Evaluations on Group Integration and Motivation. Human Relations, 10, 195208. Blascovich, J., & Elliot, A. J. (2008). Challenge and threat. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 431445). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Brickman, P. (1987). Commitment. In B. Wortman & R. Sorrentino (Ed.), Commitment, conflict, and caring (pp. 118). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 3566. Brown, R. P. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the concept and simplifying the existing typology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230251. Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 201212. Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosabianca, A., & Kiesner, J. (2005). Why do women underperform under stereotype threat? Evidence for the role of negative thinking. Psychological Science, 16, 572578. Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., & Barbaranelli, C. (2010). Optimal functioning: contribution of self-efficacy beliefs to positive orientation. Psychotherapy and psychosomatics, 79, 328330. Carr, P. B., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Stereotype threat and inflexible perseverance in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 853885. Choi, J. N., Price, R. H., & Vinokur, A. D. (2003). Self-efficacy changes in groups: Effects of

Organizational Psychology Review 2(3)

diversity, leadership, and group climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 357372. Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychomatic Medicine, 38, 300314. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological bulletin, 98, 310357. Compton, R. J., Wirtz, D., Pajoumand, G., Claus, E., & Heller, W. (2004). Association between positive affect and attentional shifting. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 28, 733744. DAunno, T., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). The responses of drug abuse treatment organizations to financial adversity: A partial test of the threat-rigidity thesis. Journal of Management, 18, 117131. Da Silva, N., & Davis, A. R. (2011). Absorptive capacity at the individual level: Linking creativity to innovation in academia. The Review of Higher Education, 34, 355379. Davis, C. G., & Macdonald, S. L. (2004). Threat appraisals, distress and the development of positive life changes after September 11th in a Canadian sample. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 33, 6878. Davis, M., & Whalen, P. J. (2001). The amygdala: Vigilance and emotion. Molecular Psychiatry, 6, 1334. De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the moodcreativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739756. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Mental set and creative thought in social conflict: Threat rigidity versus motivated focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 648661. De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Baas, M. (2011). Behavioral activation links to creativity because of increased cognitive flexibility. Personality and Social Psychology Science, 2, 7280. Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1998). The moderating role of goal commitment on the goal difficultyperformance relationship: A metaanalytic review and critical reanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 308315.

Gutnick et al.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goalperformance relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 667682. Drach-Zahavy, A., & Freund, A. (2007). Team effectiveness under stress: A structural contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 423450. Dutton, J. E. (1986). The processing of crisis and non-crisis strategic issues. Journal of Management Studies, 23, 501516. Dutton, J., & Jackson, S. (1987). Categorizing Strategic Issues: Links to Organizational Action. Academy of Management Review, 12, 7690. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 122. Eisenberger, R., & Aselage, J. (2009). Incremental effects of reward on experienced performance pressure: Positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 95117. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. (2009). Working conditions in the European Union: Working time and work intensity. Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2009/27/en/1/EF0927 EN.pdf Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 147178. Fiedler, K. (2001). Affective states trigger processes of assimilation and accommodation. In L. L. Martin & G. L. Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: A users guidebook (pp. 8698). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 16. Fleishman, E. A. (1973). Twenty years of consideration and structure. In E. A. Fleishman & J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current developments in the study of leadership (pp. 140). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Fogarty, L. A, Curbow, B. A, Wingard, J. R., McDonnell, K., & Somerfield, M. R. (1999). Can

203
40 seconds of compassion reduce patient anxiety? Journal of clinical oncology, 17, 371379. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: A study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150170. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 571579. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broadenand-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218226. Friedman, I. A. (1999). Turning our schools into a healthier workplace: Bridging between professional self-efficacy and professional demands. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 166175). New York: Cambridge University Press. Friedman, R., & Forster, J. (2000). The effects of approach and avoidance motor actions on the elements of creative insight. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 477492. Friedman, R., & Forster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 10011013. Friedman, R., & Forster, J. (2002). The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on creative cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 4155. Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43, 349358. Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Moss, T. W., Mahoney, K. T., & Cogliser, C. C. (2010). Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: A review of the leadership quarterlys second decade, 20002009. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 922958. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors

204
to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605. Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 4364. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513524. Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 116122. Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 5781). New York: Dekker. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 6990. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755768. Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 3651. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285308. Kausto, J, Elo, A-L, Lipponen, J., & Elovainio, M. (2005). Moderating effects of job insecurity in the relationships between procedural justice and employee well-being: Gender differences. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 431452. Kirmeyer, S. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1988). Work load, tension, and coping: Moderating effects of supervisor support. Personnel Psychology, 41, 125139.

Organizational Psychology Review 2(3)

Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1979). Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works. Organizational Dynamics, 8, 6880. Latham, G., & Locke, E. (2006). Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics, 35, 332340. Latham, G. P., Locke, E. A., & Fassina, N. E. (2002). The high performance cycle: Standing the test of time. In S. Sonnentag (Ed.), The psychological management of individual performance. A handbook in the psychology of management in organizations (pp. 201228). Chichester, England: Wiley. Lazarus, R. S. (1963). A laboratory approach to the dynamics of psychological stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 192213. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1986). Cognitive theories of stress and the issue of circularity. In M. H. Appley & R. Trumbull (Eds.), Dynamics of Stress. Physiological, Psychologcal, and Social Perspectives (pp. 6380). New York: Plenum. Leikas, S., Lonnqvist, J. E., Verkasalo, M., & Lindeman, M. (2009). Regulatory focus systems and personal values. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 415429. LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stress-hindrance stress framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships between stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764775. Liu, D., Chen, X. P., & Yao, X. (2011). From Autonomy to Creativity: A Multilevel Investigation of the Mediating Role of Harmonious Passion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 294309. Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of Management Review, 1, 2339. Luchins, A.S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 54, 195. MacKinnon, D. W. (1992). The highly effective individual. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence

Gutnick et al.
(2nd ed.) (pp. 179193). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Maier, K. J., Waldstein, S. R., & Synowski, S. J. (2003). Relation of cognitive appraisal to cardiovascular reactivity, affect, and task engagement. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 26, 3241. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220232. Meurs, J. A., & Perrewe, P. L. (2011). Cognitive acti vation theory of stress: An integrative theoretical approach to work stress. Journal of Management, 37, 10431068. Meyer, J., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299326. Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 3477. Notebaert, L., Crombez, G., Van Damme, S., De Houwer, J., & Theeuwes, J. (2011). Signals of threat do not capture, but prioritize, attention: A conditioning approach. Emotion, 11, 8189. Ohman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483522. Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543565. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607634. Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and employees reactions to change: The role of leaders personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64, 627659. Parish, J. T., Cadweller, S., & Busch, P. (2008). Want to, need to, ought to: Employee commitment to organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21, 3252.

205
Peeters, M. C. W., & Le Blanc, P. M. (2001). Towards a match between job demands and sources of social support: A study amongst oncology care providers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 5372. Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438454. Rietzschel, E. F., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2007). Personal need for structure and creative performance: The moderating role of fear of invalidity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 855866. Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 933946. Roberts, B. L., Dunkle, R., & Haug, M. (1994). Physical, psychological, and social resources as moderators of the relationship of stress to mental health of the very old. Journal of gerontology, 49, 3543. Roskes, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (in press). Necessity is the the mother of invention: Avoidance motivation stimulates creativity through cognitive effort Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Rousseau, V., & Aube, C. (2010). Social support at work and affective commitment to the organization: the moderating effect of job resource adequacy and ambient conditions. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 321340. Russell, H., OConnell, P., & McGinnity, F. (2009). The Impact of Flexible Working Arrangements on Worklife Conflict and Work Pressure in Ireland. Gender, Work & Organization, 16, 7397. Schneider, T. R., Rivers, S. E., & Lyons, J. B. (2009). The biobehavioral model of persuasion: Generating challenge appraisals to promote health. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 19281952.

206
Schreurs, B. H. J., van Emmerik, IJ. H., Guenter, H., & Germeys, F. (2012). A weekly diary study on the buffering role of social support in the relationship between job insecurity and employee performance. Human Resource Management, 51, 259280. Seery, M. D. (2011). Challenge or threat? Cardiovascular indexes of resilience and vulnerability to potential stress in humans. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 16031610. Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2000). The effects of goal setting and group size on performance in a social dilemma. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 32, 104116. Selye, H. (1936). A Syndrome Produced by Diverse Nocuous Agents. Nature, 138, 32. Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 151, 3353. Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2001). Effects of social-psychological factors on creative performance: The role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and modeling experience. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 122. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933958. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press. Sitkin, S. B., See, K. E., Miller, C. C., Lawless, M. W., & Carton, A. M. (2011). The paradox of stretch goals: Organizations in pursuit of the seemingly impossible. Academy of Management Review, 36, 544566. Sivunen, A. (2006). Strengthening Identification with the Team in Virtual Teams: The Leaders Perspective. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 345. Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (2002). The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior to stressful achievement events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 678692.

Organizational Psychology Review 2(3)

Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects on organizational behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501524. Suganuma, T., & Ura, M. (2001). An integrative approach to leadership and social support. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 147161. Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Aspinwall, L. G., Schneider, S. G., Rodrigues, R., & Herbert, M. (1992). Optimism, coping, psychological distress, and high-risk sexual behavior among men at risk for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 460473. Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 5379. Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591620. Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R. M., & Leitten, C. L. (1993). Subjective, physiological, and behavioral effects of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 248260. Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kibler, J., & Ernst, J. (1997). Cognitive and physiological antecedents of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 6372. Tushman, M. L., Newman, W. H., & Romanelli, E. (1986). Convergence and upheaval: Managing the unsteady pace of organizational evolution. California Management Review, 29, 2944. van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The Job DemandControl (Support) model and psychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work and Stress, 13, 87114. 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, 825856. Von Nordenflycht, A. (2007). Is Public Ownership Bad for Professional Service Firms? Ad Agency Ownership, Performance and Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 429445.

Gutnick et al.
Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 529557. Weinzimmer, L. G., Michel, E. J., & Franczak, J. L. (2011). Creativity and Firm-Level Performance: The Mediating Effects of Action Orientation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 23, 6282. Wells, J. D., Hobfoll, S. E., & Lavin, J. (1999). When it Rains, it Pours: The Greater Impact of Resource Loss Compared to Gain on Psychological Distress. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 11721182. Yuan, F., & Zhou, J. (2008). Differential effects of expected external evaluation on different parts of the creative idea production process and on final product creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 391403. Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 708722. Zander, A., & Wolfe, D. (1964). Administrative Rewards and Coordination Among Committee Members. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 5069. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107128.

207 Author biographies Darja Gutnick is a PhD candidate of the Faculty of Economics and Business at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Her research interests are in the areas of creativity, new media, and innovation. She received her Diploma in Psychology with focus on Organizational Psychology from the University of Wuerzburg, Germany. Frank Walter is an associate professor at the University of Groningens Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior. He received his doctoral degree from the University of St. Gallen. His research focuses on leadership, emotions in organizations, and team processes. Bernard A. Nijstad is a full professor of decision making and organizational behavior at the University of Groningen. His research interests include creativity and innovation, decision making, and team processes and performance. Carsten K.W. De Dreu is a full professor of Work and Organizational Psychology at the University of Amsterdam. His research interests include creativity and innovation, decision making, conflict and negotiation.