The cross-level double-edged-sword effect of boundary-spanning behavior on creativity

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01340

Abstract

Abstract:

Boundary-spanning behavior has attracted considerable interest in recent years. Studies on this type of behavior have focused on its positive outcomes from the perspective of social networks. For decades, research has consistently demonstrated that the boundary-spanning behavior produces a wide array of positive results for teams and organizations. However, scholars have found that such behavior has negative outcomes for individuals. Using the conservation of resources theory (COR), we examined the double-edged-sword effect of boundary- spanning behavior on creativity at different levels, as well as its mediating mechanism and boundary conditions.
To test the proposed theoretical model, we applied multi-wave and multi-source research design. The data were collected from dyads of employees and supervisors in a company. At time 1, the boundary-spanning behavior, role stress, and role breadth self-efficacy were measured. These variables were rated by the employees. Approximately a month later, we asked the supervisors to rate the employees’ creativity. These variables were assessed by mature scales. A total of 536 employees (90.32%) and 111 leaders (82.22%) responded to our survey. Confirmatory factor analyses and average variance extracted were conducted to assess the discriminant validity and convergence validity of the key variables. Multilevel structural equation modeling was used to validate the hypothesis, and Monte Carlo simulation procedures using open-source software R were conducted to test mediation effects.
Results showed that at the team level, boundary-spanning behavior had a significantly positive effect on team creativity (β = 0.18, p < 0.05). However, at the individual level, boundary-spanning behavior had a significantly negative effect on employees’ creativity (β = -0.02, p < 0.05). At the individual level, boundary-spanning behavior had a significantly positive effect on role stress (β = 0.05, p < 0.01) and role stress had a significantly negative effect on creativity (β = -0.34, p < 0.001). The mediation effect of role stress was significant (β = -0.02, p < 0.05, Monte Carlo = 20000, 95% CI = -0.03, -0.006). This evidence would indicate that the boundary-spanning behavior had a negative effect on individual creativity via role stress. Results also showed that the product term between the boundary-spanning behavior and role-breadth self-efficacy was significant (β = -0.08, p < 0.01). The role-breadth self-efficacy moderated the relationship so that the mediating effect of role stress was stronger for employees with low role-breadth self-efficacy.
The study illustrated the double-edged-sword effect of boundary-spanning behavior on creativity at different levels as well as the mediating mechanism and boundary conditions regarding the negative effect of boundary- spanning behavior on individual creativity, thereby enriching the literature on boundary-spanning behavior. Furthermore, this study identified the boundary conditions of COR, which broadens the scope of research on this theory.

Key words: boundary spanning behavior, creativity, role stress, role-breadth self-efficacy

ZHU Jinqiang, XU Shiyong, ZHOU Jinyi, ZHANG Bainan, XU Fangfang, ZONG Boqiang. (2020). The cross-level double-edged-sword effect of boundary-spanning behavior on creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(11), 1340-1351.

Figures/Tables 5

References 59

[1]	Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.
[2]	Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123-167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
[3]	Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634-665.
[4]	Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
[5]	Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377-391.
[6]	Çekmecelioglu, H. G., & Günsel, A. (2011). Promoting creativity among employees of mature industries: The effects of autonomy and role stress on creative behaviors and job performance. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 889-895.
[7]	Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234-246.
[8]	Chen, X. T., Chen, H., & Luo, W. C. (2020). An inverted U-shaped relationship between helping behavior and career growth: The mediating role of role stressor and the moderating of job autonomy. Human Resources Development of China, 37(04), 51-63.
[9]	Choi, J. N. (2002). External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development. Small Group Research, 33(2), 181-208.
[10]	de Jonge, J., Spoor, E., Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & van Den Tooren, M. (2012). “Take a break?!” Off-job recovery, job demands, and job resources as predictors of health, active learning, and creativity. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 21(3), 321-348.
[11]	Deng, C. P., Liu, X. J., & Mao, J. Y. (2018). The impacts of challenge and hindrance stressors on the outcome of boundary spanning: The moderated mediation effect of IT personnel’s learning under stressors. Business Review, 30(07), 150-163.
[12]	Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Henderson, D. J., & Wayne, S. J. (2008). Not all responses to breach are the same: The interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract processes in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1079-1098.
[13]	Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22. URL pmid: 17402809
[14]	Eschleman, K. J., Madsen, J., Alarcon, G., & Barelka, A. (2014). Benefiting from creative activity: The positive relationships between creative activity, recovery experiences, and performance-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 87(3), 579-598.
[15]	Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 604-617. URL pmid: 19450002
[16]	Fornel, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing, 18(1), 39-50.
[17]	Galperin, B. L. (2012). Exploring the nomological network of workplace deviance: Developing and validating a measure of constructive deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 2988-3025.
[18]	Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
[19]	Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J. P., & Paustian-underdahl, S. C. (2014). Getting to the "COR": Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364.
[20]	Hartog, D. N. D., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 194-202. doi: 10.1037/a0024903 URL pmid: 21842977
[21]	Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513 URL pmid: 2648906
[22]	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(3), 337-421.
[23]	Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J., Lane, C., & Geller, P. (1990). Conservation of social resources: Social support resource theory. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 7(4), 465-478.
[24]	Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103-128.
[25]	Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[26]	House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 7(3), 467-505.
[27]	Hwang, P. C., Han, M. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2015). Role breadth self-efficacy and foci of proactive behavior: Moderating role of collective, relational, and individual self-concept. The Journal of Psychology, 149(8), 846-865. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2014.985284 URL pmid: 25565604
[28]	James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219-229.
[29]	Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. American Journal of Sociology, 10(1), 125-129.
[30]	Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. (1983). A longitudinal study of the effects of boundary spanning supervision on turnover and promotion in research and development. Academy of Management Journal, 26(3), 437-456.
[31]	Kim, B. C. P., Murrmann, S. K., & Lee, G. (2009). Moderating effects of gender and organizational level between role stress and job satisfaction among hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 612-619.
[32]	Lebreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2007). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852.
[33]	Li, C. P., & Zhang, Y. (2019). The effects of role stressors on physical health and mental health among Chinese teachers. Psychological Development and Education, 25(1), 114-119.
[34]	Liao, H. Y., & Liang, Y. (2015). Self-sacrificial leadership and employee proactivity: An integrated model. Human Resources Development of China,(23), 28-37.
[35]	Liu, S. B., & Li, Y. H. (2014). A longitudinal study on the impact mechanism of employees’ boundary spanning behavior: Roles of centrality and collectivism. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(6), 852-863. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00852 URL
[36]	Liu, S., Jiang, K., Chen, J., Pan, J., & Lin, X. (2018). Linking employee boundary spanning behavior to task performance: The influence of informal leader emergence and group power distance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(12), 1879-1899. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1216872 URL
[37]	Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1423-1439. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.28225967 URL
[38]	Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26-45.
[39]	Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835-852. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835 URL pmid: 9885197
[40]	Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Nick, T. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636-652. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636 URL pmid: 16737360
[41]	Paul, G., Scott, S., & Sarah, R. (2011). Boundary-spanning work demands and their consequences for guilt and psychological distress. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 52(1), 43-57. doi: 10.1177/0022146510395023 URL pmid: 21362611
[42]	Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 URL pmid: 14516251
[43]	Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209-233. URL pmid: 20822249
[44]	Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of monte carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 62(2), 77-98.
[45]	Ramarajan, L., Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., & Euwema, M. (2011). From the outside in: The negative spillover effects of boundary spanners' relations with members of other organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 886-905.
[46]	Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), N/A.
[47]	Singh, J. (1998). Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: An Investigation of some unconventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 69-86.
[48]	Song, M., Wang, Z., & Zhang, H. L. (2017). Understanding the relationship between leader boundary spanning behavior and team innovation: A knowledge management perspective. Management Review, 29(3), 126-135.
[49]	Wang, G. F., Han, P., & Yang, X. H. (2014). Effects of role stress and negative mood regulation expectancies on work engagement in prison police: Mediating effect of proactive coping. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22(06), 1095-1098.
[50]	Wang, H. L., & Zhang, Q. J. (2016). The cost of feeling trusted: The study on the effects of feeling trusted from supervisor, role overload, job stress and emotional exhaustion. Management World,(8), 110-125.
[51]	Wang, S. Y., Liu, H., & Liu, R. Q. (2017). Effects of workload boundary on employees’ emotional exhaustion: The mediating role of role stress. Journal of Zhejiang Gongshang University,(2), 79-89.
[52]	Wang, Y. Y., Meng, R., Li, J., Wang, J. Y., Hu, T., Zhao, X. Q., & Gan, Y. Q.(2011). The Mediation effect of emotion focused coping between occupational stress and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Research, 04(5), 60-66.
[53]	Wu, Y., & Wen, Z. L. (2011). Item parceling strategies in structural equation modeling. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(12), 1859-1867.
[54]	Xu, J. Z., & Qu, X. Y. (2014). The relationship among team's boundary spanning behavior, knowledge trading and team creativity: An empirical study based on equipment manufacturing enterprise. Science of Science and Management of S. & T.,(7), 151-161.
[55]	Xu, L. (2019). Boundary spanning behavior, team trust and team innovation performance: Mediation effect of resource depletion. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 36(6), 11-18.
[56]	Yu, H. B., Fang, L. L., & Ling, W. Q. (2004). Issues on multilevel research of organizations. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(02), 462-471.
[57]	Zhang, D. L., & Ge, Y. H. (2016). Relationship between top management team boundary-spanning behavior and the innovation performance of enterprises: A perspective of team learning. Journal of Systems & Management, 25(2), 235-245.
[58]	Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682-696.
[59]	Zhu, J. Q., Xu, S. Y., & Zhang, L. H. (2018). “Being lenient and being strict helping each other” promotes subordinates’ innovation: Based on the view of Yin-Yang. Nankai Business Review, 21(5), 202-214.

Model	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	Δχ²	Δdf
Seven-factor model	369.05	122	3.03	0.06	0.96	0.95
Six-factor model 1	1310.83	126	10.40	0.13	0.80	0.76	941.78***	4
Six-factor model 2	905.27	126	7.18	0.11	0.87	0.84	536.22***	4
Six-factor model 3	897.31	126	7.12	0.11	0.87	0.84	528.26***	4
Six-factor model 4	1651.73	126	13.11	0.15	0.75	0.69	1282.68***	4
Six-factor model 5	661.23	123	5.38	0.09	0.91	0.89	292.18***	1
Five-factor model 1	1835.17	129	14.23	0.16	0.72	0.67	1466.12***	7
Five-factor model 2	1602.10	127	12.61	0.15	0.76	0.70	1233.05***	5
Four-factor model 1	3078.33	131	23.50	0.21	0.51	0.41	2709.28***	9
Four-factor model 2	2487.72	131	18.99	0.18	0.61	0.53	2118.67***	9
Three-factor model	3721.34	132	28.19	0.23	0.41	0.29	3352.29***	10
Two-factor model	4013.51	133	30.18	0.23	0.36	0.24	3644.46***	11

Model	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	Δχ²	Δdf
Seven-factor model	369.05	122	3.03	0.06	0.96	0.95
Six-factor model 1	1310.83	126	10.40	0.13	0.80	0.76	941.78***	4
Six-factor model 2	905.27	126	7.18	0.11	0.87	0.84	536.22***	4
Six-factor model 3	897.31	126	7.12	0.11	0.87	0.84	528.26***	4
Six-factor model 4	1651.73	126	13.11	0.15	0.75	0.69	1282.68***	4
Six-factor model 5	661.23	123	5.38	0.09	0.91	0.89	292.18***	1
Five-factor model 1	1835.17	129	14.23	0.16	0.72	0.67	1466.12***	7
Five-factor model 2	1602.10	127	12.61	0.15	0.76	0.70	1233.05***	5
Four-factor model 1	3078.33	131	23.50	0.21	0.51	0.41	2709.28***	9
Four-factor model 2	2487.72	131	18.99	0.18	0.61	0.53	2118.67***	9
Three-factor model	3721.34	132	28.19	0.23	0.41	0.29	3352.29***	10
Two-factor model	4013.51	133	30.18	0.23	0.36	0.24	3644.46***	11

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
At the individual level
1. gender - employee	1.48	0.50
2. age-employee	29.97	4.49	0.02
3. education level- employee	3.68	0.76	0.07	0.01
4. marriage - employees	1.53	0.50	-0.01	0.58***	-0.07
5. tenure- employee	3.66	3.84	0.02	0.56***	-0.20***	0.37***
6. paradoxical mindset	3.57	0.61	-0.01	0.02	0.04	0.04	0.18***	(0.64)
7. boundary-spanning behavior of employees	4.78	1.15	-0.10	0.10*	0.05	0.06	0.13**	0.20***	(0.59)
8. role stress	2.60	0.43	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.11**	0.08	0.15***	(0.64)
9. role-breadth self efficacy	3.81	0.52	-0.06	0.11*	0.12**	0.11**	0.19***	0.56***	0.19***	-0.01	(0.47)
10. individual creativity	3.54	0.71	0.02	0.05	0.00	0.04	0.16***	0.27***	-0.02	-0.15***	0.33***	(0.87)
Team level
1. gender-leadership	1.55	0.50
2. age-leadership	34.05	4.68	0.08
3. education-leadership	3.97	0.63	0.09	0.12
4. marriage-leadership	1.81	0.39	0.44***	0.34***	0.05
5. tenure -leadership	5.81	3.97	0.07	0.30**	-0.07	0.31**
6. team size	32.57	92.33	-0.07	0.08	-0.28**	0.12	0.28*
7. team boundary-spanning behavior	4.63	0.68	0.05	-0.02	0.16	0.13	0.20*	-0.04	(0.62)
8. team creativity	3.54	0.72	0.04	-0.15	0.03	-0.08	0.21*	0.07	0.33**	(0.93)

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
At the individual level
1. gender - employee	1.48	0.50
2. age-employee	29.97	4.49	0.02
3. education level- employee	3.68	0.76	0.07	0.01
4. marriage - employees	1.53	0.50	-0.01	0.58***	-0.07
5. tenure- employee	3.66	3.84	0.02	0.56***	-0.20***	0.37***
6. paradoxical mindset	3.57	0.61	-0.01	0.02	0.04	0.04	0.18***	(0.64)
7. boundary-spanning behavior of employees	4.78	1.15	-0.10	0.10*	0.05	0.06	0.13**	0.20***	(0.59)
8. role stress	2.60	0.43	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.11**	0.08	0.15***	(0.64)
9. role-breadth self efficacy	3.81	0.52	-0.06	0.11*	0.12**	0.11**	0.19***	0.56***	0.19***	-0.01	(0.47)
10. individual creativity	3.54	0.71	0.02	0.05	0.00	0.04	0.16***	0.27***	-0.02	-0.15***	0.33***	(0.87)
Team level
1. gender-leadership	1.55	0.50
2. age-leadership	34.05	4.68	0.08
3. education-leadership	3.97	0.63	0.09	0.12
4. marriage-leadership	1.81	0.39	0.44***	0.34***	0.05
5. tenure -leadership	5.81	3.97	0.07	0.30**	-0.07	0.31**
6. team size	32.57	92.33	-0.07	0.08	-0.28**	0.12	0.28*
7. team boundary-spanning behavior	4.63	0.68	0.05	-0.02	0.16	0.13	0.20*	-0.04	(0.62)
8. team creativity	3.54	0.72	0.04	-0.15	0.03	-0.08	0.21*	0.07	0.33**	(0.93)

Group	Employee boundary-spanning behavior (X) → role stress (M) → individual creativity (Y)
Group	Phase I (P_MX)	Phase II (P_YM)	Indirect effect (P_MX×P_YM)	95% CI for indirect effect
High role breadth self-efficacy	0.02	-0.35**	-0.01	[-0.02, 0.01]
Low role breadth self-efficacy	0.10***	-0.35**	-0.03**	[-0.06, -0.01]
Intergroup difference	-0.08**	0	0.02*	[0.01, 0.05]