二元工作压力与员工创新关系的元分析

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00761

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于141篇文献的149项独立研究, 研究样本总人数达46261人的数据, 对挑战性-阻碍性二元压力及其亚组与员工创新的关系进行了元分析, 并检验了文化差异(权力距离、长-短期导向、个人-集体主义)、数据来源以及数据收集时间点的调节作用。结果表明: (1)挑战性压力及其亚组工作复杂性、任务冲突对员工创新存在显著正向影响, 阻碍性压力对员工创新存在显著负向影响。(2)文化差异性(个人-集体主义)对挑战性压力与员工创新的关系有调节作用, 文化差异性(权力距离高低、长-短期导向、个人-集体主义)对阻碍性压力与员工创新的关系有调节作用。(3)数据来源对二元工作压力与员工创新的关系有调节作用, 当员工创新数据来自自我评价时, 挑战性压力、阻碍性压力与员工创新关系的强度更强。(4)数据收集时间点仅对挑战性压力与员工创新的关系有调节作用, 横截面研究设计下, 挑战性压力与员工创新的关系更强。

关键词: 挑战性压力, 阻碍性压力, 员工创新, 元分析

Abstract:

Employee innovation is the focus of current organizational behavior research, and the high demand for employee innovation and change in enterprises lead to the high pressure that employees face at work. Several studies have been conducted by researchers on the relationship between work stressors and employee innovation. Current empirical research findings on the relationship between challenge-hindrance stressors and employee innovation vary, for example, in terms of relationship strength and relationship direction. Employee innovation is found to have positive, negative, and nonlinear relationships with the challenge-hindrance stressors. Furthermore, the mechanism and boundary conditions for the challenge-hindrance stressors that affect employee innovation have not been fully revealed. Based on the current state of research on the relationship between the challenge-hindrance stressors and employee innovation, this study used the challenge-hindrance stressors model to investigate the relationship between different types of challenge-hindrance stressors and employee innovation through the meta-analysis method.

According to literature retrieval and screening, keywords such as challenging stressor(s) (workload, job complexity, task conflict, and time pressure), hindrance stressor(s) (role stress, interpersonal conflict, and job insecurity), and innovation (individual creativity, individual innovation behavior, and individual innovation performance) were included. Finally, 149 independent studies with 141 articles were included for the analysis, with a total sample size of 46,261. For the analysis, we used the psychmeta meta-analysis package in R, which included publication bias tests, main effect tests, heterogeneity tests, and moderating effect analyses.

The publication bias results showed that the p values of Egger’s regression coefficient and Begg rank correlation test for challenging stressor, hindrance stressor, and their subgroups were insignificant (p > 0.05). The heterogeneity test was significant, indicating that the random effect model was suitable for the study. The main effect results showed that the task complexity and task conflict in challenge stressor and subgroups had a positive effect on employee innovation. Hindrance stressor had a negative impact on employee innovation. Cultural differences, data sources, and data collection time had different moderating effects on the relationship between different stressors and innovation, which can be expressed as follows. (1) Compared with individualism orientation, under the background of high collectivism orientation, high power distance, and a long-term orientation, the hindrance stressor had a stronger and significantly negative correlation with employee innovation, while under the background of high collectivism orientation, the hindrance stressor had a significantly positive correlation with employee innovation. (2) Compared with other-rating, when the data comes from employee self-rating, challenge stressor had a stronger and significantly positive correlation with innovation, and hindrance stressor had a stronger and significantly negative correlation with innovation. (3) compared with longitudinal study, in the cross-sectional study, challenging stressor has a stronger positive effect on employee innovation, while data collection time has insignificant moderating effect on the relationship between hindrance stressor and employee innovation.

Consequently, we aimed to investigate the strength and direction of the relationship between binary work stressors and employee innovation in a large sample and consider the potential moderating effects of cultural differences, data sources, and data collection time points. The results of this study will provide a reference model for future enterprise management practices, such as maintaining a reasonable pressure level and category control, encouraging employee innovation within the organization, and improving the innovation performance and core competitiveness of individuals and organizations.

Key words: challenge stressor, hindrance stressor, innovation, meta-analysis

中图分类号:

B849: C93

王佳燕, 蓝媛美, 李超平. (2022). 二元工作压力与员工创新关系的元分析. 心理科学进展 , 30(4), 761-780.

WANG Jiayan, LAN Yuanmei, LI Chaoping. (2022). Challenge-hindrance stressors and innovation: A meta-analysis. Advances in Psychological Science, 30(4), 761-780.

图/表 5

参考文献 215

	*为纳入元分析的文献
[1]	* 安彦蓉, 杨东涛, 刘云. (2021). 化压力为创新: 上级发展性反馈与自我效能感的调节作用. 科技进步与对策, (6), 139-146.
[2]	* 步琼. (2017). 感知多样性的二维结构及其对员工创造力的影响研究 (博士学位论文). 哈尔滨工业大学.
[3]	* 蔡歆. (2017). 挑战性-阻碍性压力对员工创新行为的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 浙江大学, 杭州.
[4]	* 蔡亚华. (2011). 变革型领导与员工创造力的关系 (硕士学位论文). 浙江大学, 杭州.
[5]	* 陈晨, 时勘, 陆佳芳. (2015). 变革型领导与创新行为: 一个被调节的中介作用模型. 管理科学, (4), 11-22.
[6]	* 陈春花, 廖琳, 李语嫣, 王甜. (2020). 有压力才有动力:挑战性压力源对个体创新行为的影响. 科技进步与对策, 38(11), 135-142.
[7]	陈春花, 苏涛, 王杏珊. (2016). 中国情境下变革型领导与绩效关系的Meta分析. 管理学报, 13(8), 1174-1183.
[8]	陈彦君, 石伟, 应虎. (2013). 能力的自我评价偏差: 邓宁-克鲁格效应. 心理科学进展, 21(12), 2204-2213.
[9]	* 陈翼然, 雷星晖, 单志汶, 苏涛永. (2017). 谦卑型领导风格对创新的压力--员工创造力曲线关系的调节作用. 科技管理研究, 37(1), 139-143.
[10]	崔淼, 肖咪咪, 王淑娟. (2019). 组织创新氛围研究的元分析. 南开管理评论, 22(1), 98-110.
[11]	邓稳根, 黎小瑜, 陈勃, 罗坤, 曾小燕. (2018). 国内心理学文献中共同方法偏差检验的现状. 江西师范大学学报(自然科学版), 42(5), 447-453.
[12]	丁凤琴, 赵虎英. (2018). 感恩的个体主观幸福感更强?--一项元分析. 心理科学进展, 26(10), 1749-1763.
[13]	* 丁冠琪. (2019). 企业社交媒体、知识分享和员工创造力 (博士学位论文). 中国科学技术大学, 合肥.
[14]	丁琳. (2017). 国外个体创造力研究述评与展望. 技术与创新管理, 38(1), 8-14.
[15]	* 杜鹏程, 倪清, 贾玉立. (2014). 压力促进还是抑制了创新--基于组织支持感的双元压力与创新行为关系研究. 科技进步与对策, 31(16), 11-16.
[16]	* 段旭. (2017). 员工工作不安全感与创新行为的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 华侨大学, 厦门.
[17]	* 范兴苹. (2019). 挑战性压力对员工创新行为的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 重庆邮电大学.
[18]	* 付优. (2019). 挑战性压力源、阻碍性压力源对员工创造力、恢复的影响: 工作反刍的作用 (硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.
[19]	* 韩紫蕾, 孙友然. (2019). 挑战性-阻碍性压力对员工创新绩效的影响研究. 生产力研究, (5), 132-139.
[20]	贺广明. (2005). 中国企业压力管理现状和对策思考. 中国人力资源开发, (10), 4-9.
[21]	* 侯新颖. (2019). 挑战性压力源对员工创新行为的影响研究-错误管理文化感知和组织支持感的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 河南大学, 开封.
[22]	* 黄爱华, 黎子森. (2016). 工作不安全感与员工创造力: 知识隐藏的中介作用和任务互赖的调节作用. 中国人力资源开发, (9), 56-65.
[23]	黄斌, 朱缜, 林雪琴. (2015). 积极情绪视角下的工作压力源对工作投入的影响研究--基于金融服务业的数据. 中国劳动, (18), 97-102.
[24]	* 金月. (2018). 工作不安全感对员工创新行为的影响 (硕士学位论文). 华南理工大学, 广州.
[25]	李爱梅, 颜亮, 王笑天, 马学谦, 李方君. (2015). 时间压力的双刃效应及其作用机制. 心理科学进展, 23(9), 1627-1636.
[26]	* 李红. (2019). 挑战性-阻碍性压力对企业研发人员创造力的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 南京理工大学.
[27]	* 李敏. (2014). 差错取向、挑战性-阻碍性压力源对员工创新行为的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 安徽大学, 合肥.
[28]	* 李琦. (2018). 工作压力、组织社会化与创新行为的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 华东师范大学, 上海.
[29]	* 李新建, 李懿. (2017). 双元工作要求与员工创新行为:技能延展力的中介作用. 科学学与科学技术管理, 38(11), 155-167.
[30]	李旭培, 时雨, 王桢, 时勘. (2013). 抗逆力对工作投入的影响: 积极应对和积极情绪的中介作用. 管理评论, 25(1), 114-119.
[31]	* 李懿, 李新建, 刘翔宇. (2018). 技能延展力与员工创新行为的关系研究--工作复杂性与心理安全感的调节作用. 研究与发展管理, (5), 108-118.
[32]	* 李瑛. (2020). 心理集体主义、换位思考与员工创造力的关系: 挑战性压力的交互作用. 上海管理科学, 42(2), 79-85.
[33]	李悦, 王重鸣. (2012). 程序公正对创新行为的影响: 积极情绪的中介效应研究. 软科学, (2), 79-83.
[34]	* 李正卫, 陈力昊, 王飞绒. (2019). 工作不安全感对员工创造力的影响研究--组织信任的中介作用. 科技与经济, 32(5), 76-80.
[35]	* 林莉莉. (2018). 挑战性-阻断性压力源对创造力的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 深圳大学.
[36]	* 林新奇, 丁贺. (2019). 员工优势使用对创新行为的影响机制研究. 管理科学, 32(3), 54-67.
[37]	* 刘德文, 高维和, 闵凉宇. (2020). 挑战还是阻断?顾客参与对员工双元创新行为的影响. 外国经济与管理, 42(7), 3-20.
[38]	* 刘玎. (2014). 组织双元性压力对员工创造力的影响机制研究 (硕士学位论文). 湖北工业大学, 武汉.
[39]	* 刘淑桢, 叶龙, 郭名. (2019). 工作不安全感如何成为创新行为的助推力--基于压力认知评价理论的研究. 经济管理, 41(11), 126-140.
[40]	* 刘新梅, 张新星, 崔天恒. (2017). 时间压力与创造力的关系研究--时间领导的跨层调节作用. 研究与发展管理, 29(5), 13-21.
[41]	* 刘晔, 曲如杰, 时勘, 邓麦村. (2018). 基于自我期待和自我实现视角的创新工作要求对员工创新行为的影响机制. 管理评论, 30(7), 162-172.
[42]	刘影, 桑标, 龚少英, 丁雪辰, 潘婷婷. (2016). 情绪表达抑制功能的文化差异. 心理科学进展, 24(10), 1647-1654.
[43]	刘智强, 葛靓, 王凤娟. (2015). 组织任期与员工创新:基于地位属性和文化差异的元分析. 南开管理评论, 18(6), 4-15.
[44]	* 罗萍, 施俊琦, 朱燕妮, 房俨然. (2020). 个性化工作协议对员工主动性职业行为和创造力的影响. 心理学报, 52(1), 81-92.
[45]	* 马迎霜, 张昊民, 马君. (2018a). 创新性工作要求对创造力的影响: 工作卷入的中介作用及分配公平的调节作用. 商业经济与管理, 2, 37-45.
[46]	* 马迎霜, 张昊民, 马君. (2018b). 外生到内化: 创新性工作要求对员工创造力的影响机制研究. 华东经济管理, 32(5), 122-129.
[47]	* 倪清, 贾玉立, 王成城, 李敏. (2013, 11月). 挑战性-阻碍性压力对创新行为的影响: 组织支持感的调节作用. 见第八届(2013)中国管理学年会-技术与创新管理分会场论文集. 上海.
[48]	* 裴彩霞. (2017). 工作不安全感、领导变革管理行为对员工创新行为的影响研究 (博士学位论文). 厦门大学.
[49]	* 皮红. (2015). 工作压力对产品物流设计创新行为的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 天津理工大学.
[50]	* 尚玉钒, 李磊. (2015). 领导行为示范、工作复杂性、工作调节焦点与创造力. 科学学与科学技术管理, 36(6), 147-158.
[51]	沈超红, 郎晓新. (2009). 下属行为取向与上级评价之间关系的实证研究. 湖南社会科学, (5), 126-129.
[52]	* 沈国榕. (2019). 个人-组织匹配与员工创造力的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 北京外国语大学.
[53]	* 宋锟泰, 张正堂, 赵李晶. (2019). 时间压力对员工双元创新行为的影响机制. 经济管理, 41(5), 72-87.
[54]	* 宋锟泰, 张正堂, 赵李晶. (2020). 时间压力促进还是抑制员工创新行为?-一个被调节的双重路径模型. 科学学与科学技术管理, 41(1), 114-133.
[55]	苏中兴, 段佳利. (2015). 同源主观数据是否膨胀了变量间的相关性-以战略人力资源管理研究为例. 武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 68(6), 83-92.
[56]	* 孙健敏, 陈乐妮, 尹奎. (2018). 挑战性压力源与员工创新行为: 领导-成员交换与辱虐管理的作用. 心理学报, 50(4), 436-449.
[57]	* 孙昕. (2018). 工作不安全感对员工创造力的影响. 管理观察, 703(32), 11-14.
[58]	* 童兴. (2016). 时间压力、工作复杂性对员工创造力的影响-尽责心和信任的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 南京大学.
[59]	王海雯, 张淑华. (2018). 情绪劳动策略与工作满意度关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 26(4), 599-613.
[60]	* 王弘钰, 崔智淞, 李孟燃. (2018). 冲突视角下新生代员工越轨创新行为的影响因素研究--独立型自我建构和组织创新氛围的调节作用. 现代财经: 天津财经大学学报, 38(7), 60-71.
[61]	* 王弘钰, 邹纯龙. (2019). 变革型领导对员工越轨创新的影响--一个有调节的中介模型. 科技管理研究, 39(2), 165-171.
[62]	* 王辉, 常阳. (2019). 包容性领导与员工创造力: 一个被调节的中介模型. 湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 43(3), 112-116.
[63]	* 王进, 王珏. (2012). 团队创新动机、成员创造力与时间压力涉入关系实证研究. 科技进步与对策, 29(21), 141-145.
[64]	汪金爱, 王铁民. (2015). 中高层管理者自评-他评一致性成因及其组织影响研究. 经济科学, (3), 114-127.
[65]	* 王娟, 张喆, 杨妞. (2020). 调节焦点视角下工作压力对员工创造力的影响. 管理工程学报, (2), 161-171.
[66]	* 王甜, 陈春花, 宋一晓. (2019). 挑战性压力源对员工创新行为的"双刃"效应研究. 南开管理评论, 22(5), 90-100+141.
[67]	* 王仙雅. (2015). 科技人员情绪智力对创新绩效的影响--任务复杂性和情绪氛围的调节作用. 商业研究, (8), 113-119.
[68]	* 王玉婷. (2013). 挑战-阻碍性压力对科技人力资源创新行为的影响--基于组织支持感的中介效应 (硕士学位论文). 安徽大学, 合肥.
[69]	王智宁, 高放, 叶新凤. (2016). 创造力研究述评:概念, 测量方法和影响因素. 中国矿业大学学报(社会科学版), 18(1), 55-67.
[70]	魏江, 赵立龙, 冯军政. (2012). 管理学领域中元分析研究现状评述及实施过程. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 42(5), 144-156.
[71]	魏丽娟, 董惠娟. (2006). Meta分析中异质性的识别与处理. 第二军医大学学报, 27(4), 449-450.
[72]	* 魏秀妍. (2014). 韩国员工感知组织支持对员工创造力的影响 (硕士学位论文). 哈尔滨工业大学.
[73]	* 吴青青. (2019). 工作压力与员工创新行为的相关 (硕士学位论文). 天津师范大学.
[74]	* 吴婷. (2014). 挑战性-阻碍性压力对研发人员创新行为的作用机制研究--基于创新自我效能感的中介效应 (硕士学位论文). 安徽大学, 合肥.
[75]	胥彦, 李超平. (2019). 领导风格与敬业度关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 27(8), 1363-1383.
[76]	* 颜卉, 崔敏, 黄勇. (2019). 团队创新氛围对员工创新行为的跨层影响--双元压力的中介作用与人岗匹配度的调节作用. 兰州财经大学学报, 35(6), 1-13.
[77]	* 燕亚萍. (2015). 挑战-妨碍性压力源对员工创造力的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 广东财经大学, 广州.
[78]	杨宝琰, 万明钢. (2008). 跨文化心理学中的压力和应对研究. 心理科学, (4), 925-928.
[79]	* 杨皖苏, 杨善林. (2018). 主动性-被动性员工创新行为: 基于挑战性-阻断性压力源双路径分析. 科学学与科学技术管理, 39(8), 130-144.
[80]	* 杨皖苏, 杨希, 杨善林. (2019). 挑战性压力源对新生代员工主动性-被动性创新行为的影响. 科技进步与对策, 36(8), 139-145.
[81]	* 杨泽华, 俞欣, 陆玉梅. (2020). 工作压力对企业新生代员工主动创新行为的影响研究. 中小企业管理与科技(中旬刊), (1), 27-28.
[82]	* 叶晓倩, 王泽群, 杨琳. (2020). 参与式管理如何提高员工创新行为: 基于诱因-贡献理论的视角. 中国人力资源开发, (2), 53-64.
[83]	易凌峰, 刘思婷, 宋婕, 李腾. (2021). 员工文化价值取向、跨文化互动能力与创新绩效--基于上海跨国研发企业的实证. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), (1), 155-168+174.
[84]	* 余盼盼. (2015). 工作自主性对员工创新行为的影响研究--基于挑战性-阻碍性压力的调节效应 (硕士学位论文). 安徽大学, 合肥.
[85]	* 袁凌, 卓晓倩. (2016). 挑战-阻碍性压力与员工创造力关系研究: 工作卷入的中介作用. 科技进步与对策, 33(2), 130-136.
[86]	张惠琴, 侯艳君. (2017). 基于知识图谱的国内员工创新行为研究综述. 科技进步与对策, 34(11), 153-160.
[87]	* 张敏. (2013). 时间压力下项目创新行为实验研究--基于面子的调节作用. 科学学研究, 31(3), 456-462.
[88]	张平, 刘伟民. (2020). 公共服务动机如何影响工作绩效:促进还是干扰?--来自元分析的证据. 东北大学学报(社会科学版), 22(4), 47-56.
[89]	* 张小林, 吴艳, 周盛琳. (2014). 工作不安全感对员工创造力的影响--有中介的调节效应分析. 浙江学刊, (1), 186-191.
[90]	* 张星. (2018). 挑战性-阻碍性压力、创新自我效能感与教师创新工作行为的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 山西师范大学, 临汾.
[91]	* 张宇. (2019). 工作压力对科研人员创新行为的影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 中国科学技术大学, 合肥.
[92]	* 张远见. (2016). 组织双元性压力对科技型企业研发人员创造力影响研究 (硕士学位论文). 电子科技大学, 成都.
[93]	* 张亚军, 肖小虹. (2016). 挑战性-阻碍性压力对员工创造力的影响研究. 科研管理, 37(6), 10-18.
[94]	* 张永军. (2015). 挑战性-阻断性压力对员工创造力的影响: 主管支持感的调节效应. 科技管理研究, (10), 192-197.
[95]	* 张勇, 龙立荣. (2013). 人-工作匹配、工作不安全感对雇员创造力的影响--一个有中介的调节效应模型检验. 南开管理评论, 16(5), 16-25+50.
[96]	* 张勇, 刘海全, 马艳茹, 王明旋. (2017). 适应性-创造性认知风格与员工创造力: 一个特质激活视角. 人力资源管理评论, (1), 64-75.
[97]	* 张勇, 刘海全, 王明旋, 青平. (2018). 挑战性压力和阻断性压力对员工创造力的影响: 自我效能的中介效应与组织公平的调节效应. 心理学报, 50(4), 450-461.
[98]	* 赵斌, 杨雯帆. (2020). 基于印象管理动机视角的工作压力对员工创新行为影响研究. 管理工程学报, 34(4), 1-10.
[99]	* 赵新宇, 尚玉钒, 李瑜佳. (2016). 基于高校科研团队的领导语言框架、工作复杂性、认知评价与创造力关系研究. 管理学报, 13(5), 671-679.
[100]	* 郑成佳. (2017). 个体跨边界活动对员工创造力的影响机制 (硕士学位论文). 华中科技大学, 武汉.
[101]	郑辉烈, 王忠旭, 王增珍. (2009). Meta分析中发表偏倚的Begg’s检验、Egger’s检验及Macaskill’s检验的SAS程序实现. 中国循证医学杂志, 9(8), 910-916.
[102]	仲理峰, 孟杰, 高蕾. (2019). 道德领导对员工创新绩效的影响: 社会交换的中介作用和权力距离取向的调节作用. 管理世界, 35(5), 149-160.
[103]	* 周浩, 龙立荣. (2011). 工作不安全感、创造力自我效能对员工创造力的影响. 心理学报, 43(8), 929-940.
[104]	朱海腾, 李川云. (2019). 共同方法变异是“致命瘟疫”吗? --论争、新知与应对. 心理科学进展, 27(4), 587-599.
[105]	* 朱朴义, 胡蓓. (2014). 科技人才工作不安全感对创新行为影响研究. 科学学研究, 32(9), 1360-1368.
[106]	Adiguzel, Z., & Kucukoglu, I. (2019). Examining of the effects of employees on work stress, Role Conflict and Job Insecurity on Organizational Culture. International Journal of Economics and Management, 1(4), 37-48.
[107]	* Adler, M., & Koch, A. K. (2017). Expanding the job demands-resources model to classify innovation-predicting working conditions. Management Review, 28(2), 175-203.
[108]	Afsar, B., & Umrani, W. A. (2019). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of motivation to learn, Task Complexity and Innovation Climate. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3), 402-428. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-12-2018-0257 URL
[109]	Akanji, B., Mordi, C., & Ajonbadi, H. A. (2020). The experiences of work-life balance, stress, and coping lifestyles of female professionals: Insights from a developing country. Employee Relations: International Journal, 42(4), 999-1015. doi: 10.1108/ER-01-2019-0089 URL
[110]	Albort-Morant, G., Ariza-Montes, A., Leal-Rodríguez, A., & Giorgi, G. (2020). How does positive work-related stress affect the degree of innovation development? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), 1-15. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010001 URL
[111]	* Aleksic, D., Mihelič, K. K., Černe, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2017). Interactive effects of perceived time pressure, Satisfaction with Work-Family Balance (SWFB), and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) on creativity. Personnel Review, 46(3), 662-679. doi: 10.1108/PR-04-2015-0085 URL
[112]	Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfleld, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, Coaction, and Surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3(1), 6-21. doi: 10.1080/10400419009534330 URL
[113]	* Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. F. (1972). Time pressure and performance of scientists and engineers: A five-year panel study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8(2), 185-200. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(72)90045-1 URL
[114]	Baer, J. (1998). Gender differences in the effects of extrinsic motivation on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(1), 18-37. doi: 10.1002/jocb.1998.32.issue-1 URL
[115]	* 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(4), 963-970. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.963 URL
[116]	Begg, C. B., & Berlin, J. A. (1988). Publication bias:A problem in interpreting medical data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 151(3), 419-445
[117]	* 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(4), 589-607. doi: 10.1002/job.v32.4 URL
[118]	* Bjornberg, N. H. (2017). Creativity and innovation through the job demands-resources model. Dissertations.174.
[119]	* Bormann, K. C. (2018). Turning daily time pressure into a creative day: The interactionist roles of employee neuroticism and time pressure dispersion. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 589-615. doi: 10.1111/apps.v69.3 URL
[120]	Borys, B., & Jemison, D. B. (1989). Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in organizational combinations. Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 234-249. doi: 10.2307/258418 URL
[121]	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(1), 201-212. doi: 10.1037/a0017868 URL
[122]	Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. (2014). A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), 547-574. doi: 10.1002/job.1909 URL
[123]	Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self- reported work stress among u.s. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65-74. pmid: 10740957
[124]	* Chae, H., & Choi, JN. (2018). Contextualizing the effects of job complexity on creativity and task performance: Extending job design theory with social and contextual contingencies. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(2), 316-339. doi: 10.1111/joop.12204 URL
[125]	* Chae, S., Seo, Y., & Lee, K. C. (2015). Effects of task complexity on individual creativity through knowledge interaction: A comparison of temporary and permanent teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 138-148. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.015 URL
[126]	Chen, M. (2019). The impact of expatriates' cross-cultural adjustment on work stress and job involvement in the high-tech industry. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00001 URL
[127]	Choi, J. N., Sung, S. Y., Lee, K., & Cho, D. S. (2011). Balancing cognition and emotion: Innovation implementation as a function of cognitive appraisal and emotional reactions toward innovation. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 32(1), 107-124. doi: 10.1002/job.684 URL
[128]	* Clarke, N., & Higgs, M. (2019). Political skill and role overload as antecedents of innovative work behavior in the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 49(3), 444-469. doi: 10.1177/0091026019863450 URL
[129]	* Coelho, F., Augusto, M., & Lages, L. F. (2011). Contextual factors and the creativity of frontline employees: The mediating effects of role stress and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Retailing, 87(1), 31-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2010.11.004 URL
[130]	Dahlke, J. A., & Wiernik, B. M. (2019). Psychmeta: An R package for psychometric meta-analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43(5), 415-416. doi: 10.1177/0146621618795933 URL
[131]	* de Clercq, D. (2019). Getting creative with resources: How Resilience, Task Interdependence, and Emotion Sharing mitigate the damage of employee role ambiguity. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 55(3), 369-391. doi: 10.1177/0021886319853803
[132]	* de Clercq, D., & Belausteguigoitia, I. (2019). Reducing the harmful effect of work overload on creative behaviour: Buffering roles of energy-enhancing resources. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(1), 5-18. doi: 10.1111/caim.12278
[133]	* de Clercq, D., Rahman, Z. M., & Belausteguigoitia, I. (2015). Task conflict and employee creativity: The critical roles of learning orientation and goal congruence. Human Resource Management, 56(1), 93-109. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21761 URL
[134]	Dechurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: The role of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1), 4-22. doi: 10.1108/eb022847 URL
[135]	* de Spiegelaere, S., van Gyes, G., de Witte, H., Niesen, W., & van Hootegem, G. (2014). On the relation of job insecurity, Job Autonomy, Innovative Work Behaviour and the mediating effect of work engagement. Creativity and innovation management, 23(3), 318-330. doi: 10.1111/caim.2014.23.issue-3 URL
[136]	Dickersin, K. (1997). How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Education and Prevention, 9(1), 15-21.
[137]	* Ding, G., Liu, H., Huang, Q., & Gu, J. (2019). Enterprise social networking usage as a moderator of the relationship between work stressors and employee creativity: A multilevel study. Information & Management, 56(8), 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2018.05.014 URL
[138]	Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning-Kruger effect:On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 247-296). Academic Press.
[139]	Elidemir, S. N., Ozturen, A., & Bayighomog, S. W. (2020). Innovative behaviors, Employee Creativity, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A moderated mediation. Sustainability, 12(8), 1-18. doi: 10.3390/su12010001 URL
[140]	* Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618-630.
[141]	Game, A. M. (2007). Workplace boredom coping: Health, safety, and HR implications. Personnel Review, 36(5), 701-721. doi: 10.1108/00483480710774007 URL
[142]	* Giebels, E., de Reuver, R. S. M., Rispens, S., & Ufkes, E. G. (2016). The critical roles of task conflict and job autonomy in the relationship between proactive personalities and innovative employee behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(3), 320-341. doi: 10.1177/0021886316648774 URL
[143]	Grant, A. M., & Rothbard, N. P. (2013). When in doubt, seize the day? Security values, Prosocial values, and Proactivity under ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 810-819. doi: 10.1037/a0032873 pmid: 23627604
[144]	* He, P.-X., Wu, T.-J., Zhao, H.-D., & Yang, Y. (2019). How to motivate employees for sustained innovation behavior in job stressors? A cross-level analysis of organizational innovation climate. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 16(23), 4608.
[145]	* Hernaus, T., Maric, M., & Černe, M. (2019). Age-sensitive job design antecedents of innovative work behavior: The role of cognitive job demands. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(5), 368-382. doi: 10.1108/JMP-10-2018-0478 URL
[146]	Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
[147]	* Hon, A. H. Y., Chan, W. W. H., & Lu, L. (2013). Overcoming work-related stress and promoting employee creativity in hotel industry: The role of task feedback from supervisor. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33(1), 416-424. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.11.001 URL
[148]	* Hsu, M. L. A., & Fan, H.-L. (2008, December). Challenging work as a mediator of the relationship between time pressure and employee creativity in R&D organizations. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.
[149]	* Hsu, M. L. A., & Fan, H.-L. (2010). Organizational innovation climate and creative outcomes: Exploring the moderating effect of time pressure. Creativity Research Journal, 22(4), 378-386. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2010.523400 URL
[150]	Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta- analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[151]	Isen, A. M. (2009). A role for neuropsychology in understanding the facilitating influence of positive affect on social behavior and cognitive processes. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology, Vol. 2, (pp.503-518). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
[152]	* Jam, F. A., Donia, M. B. L., Raja, U., & Ling, C. H. (2017). A time-lagged study on the moderating role of overall satisfaction in perceived politics: Job outcomes relationships. Journal of Management & Organization, 23(3), 321-336.
[153]	* Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287-302. doi: 10.1348/096317900167038 URL
[154]	* Janssen, O., & Giebels, E. (2013). When and why creativity- related conflict with coworkers can hamper creative employees" individual job performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(5), 574-587. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.669524 URL
[155]	* Jiang, L. (2018). Job insecurity and creativity: The buffering effect of self-affirmation and work-affirmation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(7), 388-397. doi: 10.1111/jasp.v48.7 URL
[156]	Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, Emotion, and Well-Being: Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition & Emotion, 14(1), 93-124.
[157]	Landon, P. B., & Suedfeld, P. (1972). Complex cognitive performance and sensory deprivation: Completing the U- curve. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34(2), 601-602. pmid: 5021812
[158]	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(5), 764-775. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.18803921 URL
[159]	* Li, F., Deng, H., Leung, K., & Zhao, Y. (2017). Is perceived creativity-reward contingency good for creativity? The role of challenge and threat appraisals. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 693-709. doi: 10.1002/hrm.2017.56.issue-4 URL
[160]	* Li, L., Li, G., Shang, Y., & Xi, Y. (2015). When does perceived leader regulatory-focused modeling lead to subordinate creativity? The moderating role of job complexity. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(22), 1-16.
[161]	* Li, X., & Li, C. (2016). Not all job demands are equal:Differentiating the effects of challenge and hindrance job demands on employee creativity. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Economy, Management and Education Technology (pp. 550-555). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icemet-16.2016.115
[162]	* Li, Y., Yang, B., & Ma, L. (2018). When is task conflict translated into employee creativity? The moderating role of growth need strength. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 17(1), 22-32. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000192 URL
[163]	* Liu, W. (2016). Effects of positive mood and job complexity on employee creativity and performance. Social Behavior & Personality an International Journal, 44(5), 865-880.
[164]	* Long, J. (2013). Workplace pressure moderates perception of threat or opportunity and employee creativity after downsizing. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 41(6), 957-969. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2013.41.6.957 URL
[165]	* Malik, O. F., Shahzad, A., Raziq, M. M., Khan, M. M., Yusaf, S., & Khan, A. (2018). Perceptions of organizational politics, Knowledge Hiding, and Employee Creativity: The moderating role of professional commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 232-237. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.005 URL
[166]	* Martín, P., Salanova, M., & Peiró, J. M. (2007). Job demands, Job Resources and Individual Innovation at work: Going beyond Karasek's model?. Psicothema, 19(4), 621-626. pmid: 17959117
[167]	Mazzola, J. J., & Disselhorst, R. (2019). Should we be "challenging" employees?: A critical review and meta- analysis of the challenge-hindrance model of stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(8), 949-961. doi: 10.1002/job.2412
[168]	Min, H., Kim, H. J., & Lee, S.-B. (2015). Extending the challenge-hindrance stressor framework: The role of psychological capital. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50, 105-114. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.006 URL
[169]	* Mishra, R., & Shukla, A. (2012). Impact of creativity on role stressors, Job satisfaction and Organisational Commitment. Journal of Organisation and Human Behaviour, 1(3), 18-26.
[170]	Mitchell, M. S., Greenbaum, R. L., Vogel, R. M., Mawritz, M. B., & Keating, D. J. (2019). Can you handle the pressure? The effect of performance pressure on stress appraisals, self-regulation, and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 531-552. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0646
[171]	Miyamoto, Y., & Ma, X. (2011). Dampening or savoring positive emotions: A dialectical cultural script guides emotion regulation. Emotion, 11(6), 1346-1357. doi: 10.1037/a0025135 pmid: 21910543
[172]	* Montani, F., Courcy, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2017). Innovating under stress: The role of commitment and leader-member exchange. Journal of Business Research, 77, 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.024 URL
[173]	* Montani, F., Vandenberghe, C., Khedhaouria, A., & Courcy, F. (2019). Examining the inverted u-shaped relationship between workload and innovative work behavior: The role of work engagement and mindfulness. Human Relations, 73(1), 59-93. doi: 10.1177/0018726718819055 URL
[174]	Moos, R. H. (2002). 2001 invited address: The mystery of human context and coping: An unraveling of clues. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 67-88. doi: 10.1023/A:1014372101550 URL
[175]	* Naseer, S., Donia, M. B. L., Syed, F., & Bashir, F. (2019). Too much of a good thing: The interactive effects of cultural values and core job characteristics on hindrance stressors and employee performance outcomes. Human Resource Management, 59(3), 271-289. doi: 10.1002/hrm.v59.3 URL
[176]	* Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, Challenge appraisal, Creativity, and Proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 543-565. doi: 10.1002/job.633 URL
[177]	* Olugbade, O. A., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). Stressors, Work engagement and their effects on hotel employee outcomes. Service Industries Journal, 39(3-4), 279-298.
[178]	* Park, H. H., Zhou, Y., & Choi, M. (2018). When are individuals innovative? Three-way interaction among openness to experience, Innovative climate, and job complexity. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 17(1), 1-11. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000190 URL
[179]	Paulhus, D. L., & Reynolds, S. (1995). Enhancing target variance in personality impressions: Highlighting the person in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1233-1242 pmid: 8531058
[180]	* Peng, Y., Zhang, W., Xu, X., Matthews, R., & Jex, S. (2019). When do work stressors lead to innovative performance? An examination of the moderating effects of learning goal orientation and job autonomy. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(3), 250-260. doi: 10.1037/str0000109 URL
[181]	Peterson, M., & Wilson, J. F. (2002). The culture-work-health model and work stress. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26(1), 16-24. pmid: 11795601
[182]	* Petrou, P., Bakker, A. B., & Bezemer, K. (2018). Creativity under task conflict: The role of proactively increasing job resources. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 92(2), 305-329.
[183]	Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Welsh, D. T., & Mai, K. M. (2013). Surveying for "artifacts": The susceptibility of the OCB-performance evaluation relationship to common rater, item, and measurement context effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 863-874. doi: 10.1037/a0032588 pmid: 23565897
[184]	* Probst, T., Chizh, A., Hu, S., Jiang, L., & Austin, C. (2020). Explaining the relationship between job insecurity and creativity: A test of cognitive and affective mediators. Career Development International, 25(3), 247-270. doi: 10.1108/CDI-04-2018-0118 URL
[185]	* Probst, T. M., Stewart, S. M., Gruys, M. L., & Tierney, B. W. (2011). Productivity, Counterproductivity and creativity: The ups and downs of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 80(3), 479-497.
[186]	R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. from https://www.R-project.org/
[187]	Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can "good" stressors spark "bad" behaviors? the mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1438-1451. doi: 10.1037/a0016752 URL
[188]	Roth, P. L., Le, H., Oh, I.-S., van Iddekinge, C. H., & Bobko, P. (2018). Using beta coefficients to impute missing correlations in meta-analysis research: Reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(6), 644-658. doi: 10.1037/apl0000293 URL
[189]	* Sacramento, C. A., Fay, D., & West, M. A. (2013). Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, Regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 141-157. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.008 URL
[190]	Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
[191]	* Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., & Täuber, S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 155, 7-19.
[192]	Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (1997). Strategic Management of the Family Business: Past Research and Future Challenges. Family Business Review, 10(1), 1-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1997.00001.x URL
[193]	Siegrist, J., Shackelton, R., Link, C., Marceau, L., von dem Knesebeck, O., & Mckinlay, J. (2010). Work stress of primary care physicians in the US, UK and German health care systems. Social Science& Medicine, 71(2), 298-304.
[194]	* Sijbom, R. B. L., Anseel, F., Crommelinck, M., de Beuckelaer, A., & de Stobbeleir, K. E. M. (2018). Why seeking feedback from diverse sources may not be sufficient for stimulating creativity: The role of performance dynamism and creative time pressure. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 355-368. doi: 10.1002/job.v39.3 URL
[195]	* Song, J., Wu, J., & Gu, J. (2017). Voice behavior and creative performance moderated by stressors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(2), 177-192. doi: 10.1108/JMP-03-2016-0078 URL
[196]	Soto, J. A., Perez, C. R., Kim, Y.-H., Lee, E. A., & Minnick, M. R. (2011). Is expressive suppression always associated with poorer psychological functioning? A cross-cultural comparison between European Americans and Hong Kong Chinese. Emotion, 11(6), 1450-1455. doi: 10.1037/a0023340 URL
[197]	* Soyemi, O. (2018). A multi-level study of perceived multiple team membership variety and its effects on the outcomes of productivity and innovation (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Aston University.
[198]	* Sun, Y., Hu, X., & Ding, Y. (2019). Learning or relaxing: How do challenge stressors stimulate employee creativity?. Sustainability, 11(6), 1-20. doi: 10.3390/su11010001 URL
[199]	* Sung, S. Y., Antefelt, A., & Choi, J. N. (2015). Dual effects of job complexity on proactive and responsive creativity: Moderating role of employee ambiguity tolerance. Group & Organization Management, 42(3), 388-418.
[200]	* Tang, Y.-T., & Chang, C.-H. (2010). Impact of role ambiguity and role conflict on employee creativity. African Journal of Business Management, 4(6), 869-881.
[201]	* Teng, E., Zhang, L., & Qiu, Y. (2018). Always bad for creativity? An affect-based model of job insecurity and the moderating effects of giving support and receiving support. Economic & Industrial Democracy, 40(3), 803-829.
[202]	Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psychology Public Policy & Law, 6(4), 1138-1163.
[203]	* Usman, M., & Xiao, S. (2017). How role ambiguity and role conflict effect creativity of employees in local domestic manufacturing industry: Evidence from Pakistan. Paper present at 2017 4th International Conference on Industrial Economics System and Industrial Security Engineering (IEIS), 1-5.
[204]	* Vila-Vázquez G, Castro-Casal, C., & Álvarez-Pérez, D. (2020). From LMX to individual creativity: Interactive effect of engagement and job complexity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(8), 1-18. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010001 URL
[205]	* Wang, S., Zhang, X., & Martocchio, J. (2011). Thinking outside of the box when the box is missing: Role ambiguity and its linkage to creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23(3), 211-221. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2011.595661 URL
[206]	Wang, W., Sakata, K., Komiya, A., & Li, Y. (2020). What makes employees' work so stressful? Effects of vertical leadership and horizontal management on employees' stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00001 URL
[207]	* Wang, Y., Huang, Q., Davison, R. M., & Yang, F. (2020). Role Stressors, Job Satisfaction, and Employee Creativity: The cross-level moderating role of social media use within teams. Information & Management, 58(3), 1-13.
[208]	Wei, M., Su, J. C., Carrera, S., Lin, S.-P., & Yi, F. (2013). Suppression and interpersonal harmony: A cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and European Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 625-633. doi: 10.1037/a0033413 URL
[209]	Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory:A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1-74). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
[210]	* Zhang, K., Jia, X., & Chen, J. (2019). Talent management under a big data induced revolution: The double-edged sword effects of challenge stressors on creativity. Management Decision, 57(8), 2010-2031. doi: 10.1108/MD-06-2018-0711 URL
[211]	* Zhang, L., Bu, Q., & Wee, S. (2016). Effect of perceived organizational support on employee creativity: Moderating role of job stressors. International Journal of Stress Management, 23(4), 400-417. doi: 10.1037/str0000025 URL
[212]	* Zhang, X., Zhou, J., & Kwan, H. K. (2017). Configuring challenge and hindrance contexts for introversion and creativity: Joint effects of task complexity and guanxi management. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 143, 54-68.
[213]	* Zhang, X., & Zhou, K. (2019). Close relationship with the supervisor may impede employee creativity by suppressing vertical task conflict. R&D Management, 49(5), 789-802.
[214]	* 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(3), 675-697. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.1110 URL
[215]	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.

检验	挑战性压力	阻碍性压力	工作负荷	时间压力	任务冲突	角色压力	工作不安全感	工作复杂性	人际关系冲突
Egger’s回归系数检验
Intercept	0.51	-1.08	-1.27	-0.31	0.06	-1.40	-1.60	0.04	0.14
p	0.611	0.285	0.262	0.757	0.953	0.190	0.131	0.967	0.894
Begg秩相关检验
Z	-0.83	-0.46	-0.75	0.04	0.19	-1.10	-1.53	0.03	0.38
p	0.409	0.649	0.453	0.970	0.851	0.272	0.127	0.976	0.702

检验	挑战性压力	阻碍性压力	工作负荷	时间压力	任务冲突	角色压力	工作不安全感	工作复杂性	人际关系冲突
Egger’s回归系数检验
Intercept	0.51	-1.08	-1.27	-0.31	0.06	-1.40	-1.60	0.04	0.14
p	0.611	0.285	0.262	0.757	0.953	0.190	0.131	0.967	0.894
Begg秩相关检验
Z	-0.83	-0.46	-0.75	0.04	0.19	-1.10	-1.53	0.03	0.38
p	0.409	0.649	0.453	0.970	0.851	0.272	0.127	0.976	0.702

自变量	类别	k	N	r	ρ	SD	95% CI		80%CV		Q	I²
自变量	类别	k	N	r	ρ	SD	LL	UL	LL	UL	Q	I²
挑战性压力	总体	122	38273	0.19	0.21	0.22	0.17	0.25	-0.06	0.49	2023.19***	94.02
任务冲突	挑战性压力源	6	2267	0.17	0.20	0.16	0.03	0.37	-0.02	0.42	52.12 ***	90.41
工作负荷	挑战性压力源	7	1488	0.00	-0.01	0.20	-0.19	0.18	-0.28	0.27	51.71 ***	88.40
工作复杂性	挑战性压力源	21	6031	0.26	0.30	0.16	0.22	0.37	0.09	0.50	186.75***	89.29
时间压力	挑战性压力源	18	6397	0.01	0.01	0.18	-0.08	0.10	-0.22	0.24	192.12 ***	91.15
阻碍性压力	总体	84	26395	-0.11	-0.12	0.24	-0.18	-0.07	-0.43	0.18	1548.33***	94.64
角色压力	阻碍性压力源	12	2691	-0.08	-0.09	0.16	-0.19	0.02	-0.28	0.11	64.09 ***	85.82
人际关系冲突	阻碍性压力源	6	1879	0.00	0.00	0.09	-0.10	0.09	-0.11	0.10	12.77 *	60.83
工作不安全感	阻碍性压力源	17	5979	-0.08	-0.09	0.26	-0.23	0.04	-0.43	0.25	382.60 ***	95.82

自变量	类别	k	N	r	ρ	SD	95% CI		80%CV		Q	I²
自变量	类别	k	N	r	ρ	SD	LL	UL	LL	UL	Q	I²
挑战性压力	总体	122	38273	0.19	0.21	0.22	0.17	0.25	-0.06	0.49	2023.19***	94.02
任务冲突	挑战性压力源	6	2267	0.17	0.20	0.16	0.03	0.37	-0.02	0.42	52.12 ***	90.41
工作负荷	挑战性压力源	7	1488	0.00	-0.01	0.20	-0.19	0.18	-0.28	0.27	51.71 ***	88.40
工作复杂性	挑战性压力源	21	6031	0.26	0.30	0.16	0.22	0.37	0.09	0.50	186.75***	89.29
时间压力	挑战性压力源	18	6397	0.01	0.01	0.18	-0.08	0.10	-0.22	0.24	192.12 ***	91.15
阻碍性压力	总体	84	26395	-0.11	-0.12	0.24	-0.18	-0.07	-0.43	0.18	1548.33***	94.64
角色压力	阻碍性压力源	12	2691	-0.08	-0.09	0.16	-0.19	0.02	-0.28	0.11	64.09 ***	85.82
人际关系冲突	阻碍性压力源	6	1879	0.00	0.00	0.09	-0.10	0.09	-0.11	0.10	12.77 *	60.83
工作不安全感	阻碍性压力源	17	5979	-0.08	-0.09	0.26	-0.23	0.04	-0.43	0.25	382.60 ***	95.82

调节变量	压力	类别	k	N	ρ	SD	95% CI		Q_w	p	Q_b	p
调节变量	压力	类别	k	N	ρ	SD	LL	UL	Q_w	p	Q_b	p
文化差异	挑战性压力	高权力距离	104	33838	0.19	0.20	0.15	0.23	1388.08	0.000	0.56	0.455
		低权力距离	16	5311	0.18	0.16	0.09	0.27	143.12	0.000	0.56	0.455
		个人主义	20	6216	0.16	0.18	0.08	0.25	194.60	0.000	5.54	0.019
		集体主义	101	33093	0.19	0.19	0.16	0.23	1334.72	0.000	5.54	0.019
		长期取向	95	31071	0.20	0.19	0.16	0.23	1223.36	0.000	1.09	0.296
		短期取向	22	6799	0.18	0.19	0.10	0.27	246.10	0.000	1.09	0.296
	阻碍性压力	高权力距离	70	23118	-0.12	0.21	-0.17	-0.07	1071.28	0.000	37.63	0.000
		低权力距离	11	3449	-0.01	0.11	-0.08	0.07	39.42	0.000	37.63	0.000
		个人主义	13	4510	-0.02	0.10	-0.08	0.04	42.26	0.000	38.29	0.000
		集体主义	69	22191	-0.12	0.22	-0.17	-0.07	1069.01	0.000	38.29	0.000
		长期取向	63	20504	-0.11	0.21	-0.17	-0.06	907.87	0.000	4.11	0.043
		短期取向	18	5910	-0.08	0.20	-0.18	0.02	227.98	0.000	4.11	0.043