Is workload good or bad for employee innovation? Workload and innovative work behavior are widely studied research topics. However, the relationship between them is not well understood. As a result, there is a lack of evidence-based knowledge that could inform managers and organizations on how to boost workplace innovation in demanding work contexts. Building on the job demands–resources model, the present study posits that workload relates to innovative behavior through work engagement. Specifically, we argue that this indirect relationship exhibits an inverted U-shaped pattern in which workload is most likely to benefit innovative behavior when it is moderate. We further identify mindfulness as an important moderator that influences individuals’ ability to manage stress. In support of these predictions, three studies – a two-wave time-lagged study of 160 employees from various Canadian firms, a three-wave time-lagged study of 153 employees from US firms, and a two-wave panel study of 208 employees from US firms – found work engagement mediated the inverted U-shaped relationship between workload and innovative behavior. Moreover, when mindfulness was high, intermediate levels of workload were associated with increased innovative behavior through enhanced work engagement (Studies 1 and 2). We discuss the implications of these findings for theory and practice.
AgarwalUADattaSBlake-BeardSBhargavaS (2012) Linking LMX, innovative work behaviour and turnover intentions. Career Development International17(3): 208–230.
2.
AikenLSWestSG (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
3.
AkkermansJSchaufeliWBBrenninkmeijerVBlonkRWB (2013) The role of career competencies in the job demands-resources model. Journal of Vocational Behavior83(3): 356–366.
4.
AubéCBrunelleERousseauV (2014) Flow experience and team performance: The role of team goal commitment and information exchange. Motivation and Emotion38(1): 120–130.
5.
BaerRA (2003) Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice10(2): 125–143.
6.
BakkerAB (2008) The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation of the WOLF. Journal of Vocational Behavior72(3): 400–414.
7.
BakkerABBalMP (2010) Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology83(1): 189–206.
8.
BakkerABDemeroutiE (2017) Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology22(3): 273–285.
9.
BakkerABDemeroutiETarisTSchaufeliWBSchreursP (2003) A multi-group analysis of the job demands-resources model in four home care organizations. International Journal of Stress Management10(1): 16–38.
10.
BakkerABDemeroutiEVerbekeW (2004) Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management43(1): 83–104.
11.
BarsadeSG (2002) The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly47(4): 644–675.
12.
BledowRFreseMAndersonNErezMFarrJ (2009) A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology2(3): 305–337.
13.
BledowRSchmittAFreseMKühnelJ (2011) The affective shift model of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology96(6): 1246–1257.
14.
BowlingNAAlarconGMBraggCBHartmanMJ (2015) A meta-analytic examination of the potential correlates and consequences of workload. Work & Stress29(2): 95–113.
15.
BrenninkmeijerVDemeroutiELe BlancPMHetty van EmmerikIJH (2010) Regulatory focus at work. Career Development International15(7): 708–728.
16.
BrownKWRyanRM (2003) The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology84(4): 822–848.
17.
BunceDWestM (1994) Changing work environments: Innovative coping responses to occupational stress. Work & Stress8(4): 319–331.
18.
BundersonJSThompsonJA (2009) The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly54(1): 32–57.
19.
ByrneBM (1994) Burnout: Testing for the validity, replication, and invariance of causal structure across elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. American Educational Research Journal31(3): 645–673.
20.
CarverCS (1996) Cognitive interference and the structure of behavior. In: SarasonIGPierceGRSarasonBR (eds) Cognitive Interference: Theories, Methods and Findings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 25–45.
21.
CavanaughMABoswellWRRoehlingMVBoudreauJW (2000) An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology85(1): 65–74.
22.
ChangH-THsuH-MLiouJ-WTsaiC-T (2013) Psychological contracts and innovative behavior: A moderated path analysis of work engagement and job resources. Journal of Applied Social Psychology43(10): 2120–2135.
23.
ChenTLiFLeungK (2016) When does supervisor support encourage innovative behavior? Opposite moderating effects of general self-efficacy and internal locus of control. Personnel Psychology69(1): 123–158.
24.
CheungJHBurnsDKSinclairRRSliterM (2017) Amazon mechanical Turk in organizational psychology: An evaluation and practical recommendations. Journal of Business and Psychology32(4): 347–361.
25.
ChristianMSGarzaASSlaughterJE (2011) Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology64(1): 89–136.
26.
CohenJCohenPWestSGAikenLS (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
CortinaJMAguinisHDeShonRP (2017) Twilight of dawn or of evening? A century of research methods in theJournal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology102(3): 274–290.
28.
CrawfordERLepineJARichBL (2010) Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology95(5): 834–848.
29.
DaneEBrummelBJ (2014) Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job performance and turnover intention. Human Relations67(1): 105–128.
30.
DawsonJ (2014) Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology29(1): 1–19.
31.
De DreuCKWBaasMNijstadBA (2008) Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology94(5): 739–756.
32.
DemeroutiEBakkerABLeiterM (2014) Burnout and job performance: The moderating role of selection, optimization, and compensation strategies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology19(1): 96–107.
33.
EatoughEMChangCHMiloslavicSAJohnsonRE (2011) Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology96(3): 619–632.
34.
FisherCD (1993) Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations46(3): 395–417.
35.
FisherCDToML (2012) Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior33(7): 865–877.
36.
GardnerDG (1986) Activation theory and task design: An empirical test of several new predictions. Journal of Applied Psychology71(3): 411–418.
37.
GardnerDGCummingsLL (1988) Activation theory and job design: Review and reconceptualization. In: StawBLCummingsLL (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 81–122.
38.
GarlandELFarbNAGoldinPRFredricksonBL (2015) The mindfulness-to-meaning theory: Extensions, applications, and challenges at the attention–appraisal–emotion interface. Psychological Inquiry26(4): 377–387.
39.
GilboaSShiromAFriedYCooperC (2008) A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology61(2): 227–271.
40.
GilsonLLShalleyCE (2004) A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management30(4): 453–470.
41.
GlombTMDuffyMKBonoJEYangT (2011) Mindfulness at work. In: MartocchioJLiaoHJoshiA (eds) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, 115–157.
42.
GoodDJLyddyCJGlombTM, et al. (2016) Contemplating mindfulness at work. Journal of Management42(1): 114–142.
43.
GorgievskiMJHobfollSE (2008) Work can burn us out and fire us up. In: HalbeslebenJRB (ed.) Handbook of Stress and Burnout in Health Care. Hauppage, NY: Nova Publishers, 7–22.
44.
GrégoireSLachanceL (2015) Evaluation of a brief mindfulness-based intervention to reduce psychological distress in the workplace. Mindfulness6(4): 836–847.
45.
HalbeslebenJRB (2010) A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In: BakkerABLeiterMP (eds) Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. New York, NY: Psychology Press, 102–117.
46.
HammondMMNeffNLFarrJLSchwallARZhaoX (2011) Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts5(1): 90–105.
47.
HayesAFPreacherKJ (2010) Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral Research45(4): 627–660.
48.
HobfollSEHalbeslebenJRBNeveuJPWestmanM (2018) Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior5(1): 103–128.
49.
HouseJS (1981) Work Stress and Social Support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
50.
HuhtalaHParzefallM (2007) A review of employee well-being and innovativeness: An opportunity for a mutual benefit. Creativity and Innovation Management16(3): 299–306.
51.
HunterSTCassidySELigonGS (2012) Planning for innovation: A process-oriented perspective. In: MumfordMD (ed.) Handbook of Organizational Creativity. San Diego, CA: Elsevier, 515–545.
52.
JanssenO (2000) Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology73(3): 287–302.
53.
JanssenO (2001) Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal44(5): 1039–1050.
54.
JanssenO (2004) How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior25(2): 201–215.
55.
KarasekRBrissonCKawakamiNHoutmanIBongersPAmickB (1998) The job content questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology3(4): 322–355.
56.
KhedhaouriaAMontaniFThurikR (2017) Time pressure and team member creativity within R&D projects: The role of learning orientation and knowledge sourcing. International Journal of Project Management35(6): 942–954.
57.
KikenLGShookNJ (2011) Looking up. Social Psychological and Personality Science2(4): 425–431.
58.
KirkUDownarJMontaguePR (2011) Interoception drives increased rational decision-making in meditators playing the ultimatum game. Frontiers in Neuroscience5: 49.
59.
LePineJAPodsakoffNPLePineMA (2005) A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor—hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal48(5): 764–775.
60.
LeroyHAnseelFDimitrovaNGSelsL (2013) Mindfulness, authentic functioning, and work engagement: A growth modeling approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior82(3): 238–247.
61.
LeungKHuangK-LSuC-HLuL (2011) Curvilinear relationships between role stress and innovative performance: Moderating effects of perceived support for innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology84(4): 741–758.
62.
LewisJA (1996) Flow. The Family Journal4(4): 337–338.
63.
LittleTDCunninghamWAShaharGWidamanKF (2002) To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal9(2): 151–173.
64.
LiuYSongYKoopmannJWangMChangC-H (D)ShiJ (2017) Eating your feelings? Testing a model of employees’ work-related stressors, sleep quality, and unhealthy eating. Journal of Applied Psychology102(8): 1237–1258.
65.
MadridHPPattersonMGBirdiKSLeivaPIKauselEE (2014) The role of weekly high-activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: A multilevel and interactional model. Journal of Organizational Behavior35(2): 234–256.
66.
MarchandCVandenbergheC (2016) Perceived organizational support, emotional exhaustion, and turnover: The moderating role of negative affectivity. International Journal of Stress Management23(4): 350–375.
67.
MontaniFDagenais-DesmaraisVGiorgiGGrégoireS (2018) A conservation of resources perspective on negative affect and innovative work behaviour: The role of affect activation and mindfulness. Journal of Business and Psychology33(1): 123–139.
68.
MumfordMDScottGMGaddisBStrangeJM (2002) Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly13(6): 705–750.
69.
MuseLAHarrisSGFeildHS (2003) Has the inverted-u theory of stress and job performance had a fair test?Human Performance16(4): 349–364.
ParkerSLJimmiesonNLAmiotCE (2010) Self-determination as a moderator of demands and control: Implications for employee strain and engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior76(1): 52–67.
72.
PeerEBrandimarteLSamatSAcquistiA (2017) Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology70: 153–163.
73.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBPodsakoffNP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology63(1): 539–569.
74.
RichBLLePineJACrawfordER (2010) Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal53(3): 617–635.
75.
SchaufeliWBBakkerAB (2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior25(3): 293–315.
76.
SchaufeliWBTarisTW (2014) A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In: BauerGHämmigO (eds) Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health. Dordrecht: Springer, 43–68.
77.
SchaufeliWBSalanovaMGonzález-romáVBakkerAB (2002) The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies3(1): 71–92.
78.
SchaufeliWBBakkerABSalanovaM (2006) The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement66(4): 701–716.
79.
SchmittAOhlySKleespiesN (2015) Time pressure promotes work engagement. Journal of Personnel Psychology14(1): 28–36.
80.
ShapiroSLCarlsonLEAstinJAFreedmanB (2006) Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology62(3): 373–386.
81.
ShinSJYuanFZhouJ (2017) When perceived innovation job requirement increases employee innovative behavior: A sensemaking perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior38(1): 68–86.
82.
SuiYWangHKirkmanBLLiN (2015) Understanding the curvilinear relationships between LMX differentiation and team coordination and performance. Personnel Psychology69(3): 559–597.
83.
van WoerkomMBakkerABNishiiLH (2016) Accumulative job demands and support for strength use: Fine-tuning the Job Demands-Resources Model using conservation of resources theory. Journal of Applied Psychology101(1): 141–150.
84.
VandenbergheCPanaccioABenteinK (2011) Assessing longitudinal change of and dynamic relationships among role stressors, job attitudes, turnover intention, and well-being in neophyte newcomers. Journal of Organizational Behavior32(4): 652–671.
85.
VecinaMLChacónFSueiroMBarrónA (2012) Volunteer engagement: Does engagement predict the degree of satisfaction among new volunteers and the commitment of those who have been active longer?Applied Psychology61(1): 130–148.
86.
WebsterJRBeehrTAChristiansenND (2010) Toward a better understanding of the effects of hindrance and challenge stressors on work behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior76(1): 68–77.
87.
WegenerDTPettyRE (1997) The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. In: ZannaMP (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 29. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 141–208.
88.
WeisbergS (2005) Applied Linear Regression. New York, NY: Wiley.
89.
WilliamsLJCoteJABuckleyMR (1989) Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact?Journal of Applied Psychology74(3): 462–468.
90.
XanthopoulouDBakkerABDemeroutiESchaufeliWB (2007) The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management14(2): 121–141.
91.
YuLZellmer-BruhnM (2017) Introducing team mindfulness and considering its safeguard role against conflict transformation and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal61(1): 324–347.
92.
ZhangXBartolKM (2010) Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal53(1): 107–128.
93.
ZhouJHoeverIJ (2014) Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior1(1): 333–359.
