The “Double-Edged Sword” Effects of LMX Ambivalence———An Integrated Model of Two Approaches Based on Cognitive Flexibility and Job Anxiety

References

• Lin B, Mainemelis C, Kark R. Leaders’ responses to creative deviance: differential effects on subsequent creative deviance and creative performance. Leadersh Q. 2016;27(4):537–556. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augsdorfer P. Bootlegging and path dependency. Res Policy. 2005;34(1):1–11. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin CW, Sun LY. Constructive deviance as a planned behavior. Acad Manag Annu Meet Proce. 2015;36(1):13656–13663.
   Google Scholar
• Matej C, Miha S, Tomislav H. Actual-wanted task identity incongruence, creative bootlegging and innovative work behavior. Acad Manag Annu Meet Proce. 2017. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.12446
   Google Scholar
• Dietfried G. Taking or avoiding risk through secret innovation activities? —The relationships among employees’ risk propensity, bootlegging, and management support. Int J Innov Manag. 2019;23(3):1–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li SW, Jia RQ, Seufert JH, Tang HJ, Luo JL. As the tree is, so is the fruit? Examining the effects of ethical leadership on bootlegging from the perspective of leader–follower gender similarity. Gender Manag. 2021;36(7):785–800. doi:10.1108/GM-06-2020-0180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helene T, Philip Y. The impact of organizational support and individual achievement orientation on creative deviance. Int J Innov Manag. 2019;24(2):1–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masoudnia Y, Szwejczewski M. Bootlegging in the R&D departments of high-technology firms. Res Technol Manag. 2012;55(5):35–42. doi:10.5437/08956308X5505070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson N, Potocnik K, Zhou J. Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. J Manage. 2014;40(5):1297–1333. doi:10.1177/0149206314527128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sparrowe RT, Liden RC. Two routes to influence: integrating leader-member exchange and social network perspectives. Adm Sci Q. 2005;50(4):505–535. doi:10.2189/asqu.50.4.505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashforth BE, Rogers KM, Pratt MG, et al. Ambivalence in organizations: a multilevel approach. Organ Sci. 2014;25(5):1453–1478. doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0909
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloor LE, Uchino BN, Hicks A, Smith TW. Social relationships and physiological function: the effects of recalling social relationships on cardiovascular reactivity. Ann Behav Med. 2004;28(1):29–38. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm2801_5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Methot JR, Melwani S, Rothman NB. The space between us: A social-functional emotions view of ambivalent and indifferent workplace relationships. J Manage. 2017;43(6):1789–1819. doi:10.1177/0149206316685853
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uy MA, Lin KJ, Ilies R. Is it better to give or receive? The role of help in buffering the depleting effects of surface acting. Acad Manag J. 2017;60(4):1442–1461. doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee A, Thomas G, Martin R, et al. Leader-member exchange (LMX) ambivalence and task performance: The cross-domain buffering role of social support. J Manage. 2019;45(5):1927–1957. doi:10.1177/0149206317741190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothman NB, Melwanl S. Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: The social functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Acad Manag Rev. 2017;42(2):259–282. doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu YJ, Xu SY, Zhang H, et al. Love and hate together: The influence of LMX ambivalence on employee proactive behavior. Foreign Econ Manag. 2021;43(5):123–136.
   Google Scholar
• Shi F, Wang ZQ, Yuan SJ. Leader-member exchange ambivalence and knowledge hiding: An ambivalence-amplification theory perspective. Hum Resour Dev China. 2020;38(11):94–105.
   Google Scholar
• Fong CT. The effect of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Acad Manag J. 2006;49(5):1016–1030. doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22798182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mischel W, Shoda Y. A cognitive-affective theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol Rev. 1995;102(2):246–268. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koopman J, Lanaj K, Scott BA. Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: a daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Acad Manag J. 2016;59(2):414–435. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halbesleben JRB, Neveu JP, Paustian-Underdahl SC, Westman M. Getting to the “COR”: understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. J Manage. 2014;40(5):1334–1364. doi:10.1177/0149206314527130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt MG, Barnett CK. Emotions and unlearning in Amway recruiting techniques: promoting change through ‘safe’ ambivalence. Manag Learn. 1997;28(1):65–88. doi:10.1177/1350507697281005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothman NB, Wiesenfeld BM. The Social Consequences of Expressing Emotional Ambivalence in Groups and Teams. Affect and Groups; 2007:275–308.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly GA. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York, NY: W. W. Norton; 1955.
   Google Scholar
• Suedfeld P, Tetlock PE, Streufert S. Conceptual/Integrative Complexity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press; 1992:393–400.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Waldman DA, Han YL, Li XB. Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: antecedents and consequences. Acad Manag J. 2015;58(2):538–566. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0995
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Salter A, Terwal ALJ. Going underground: bootlegging and individual innovative performance. Organ Sci. 2014;25(5):1287–1305. doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0856
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geoger JM. Creativity in organizations. Acad Manag Ann. 2007;1(1):439–477. doi:10.5465/078559814
   Google Scholar
• Mainemelis C. Stealing fire: creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Acad Manag Rev. 2010;35(4):558–578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fingerman KL, Pitzer L, Lefkowitz ES, et al. Ambivalent relationship qualities between adults and their parents: implications for the well-being of both parties. J Gerontol. 2008;63(6):362–371. doi:10.1093/geronb/63.6.P362
   Google Scholar
• Huang DJ, Ye JF, Zhang GP. Is good relationship with supervisors conducive to middle managers’ prohibitive voice? A moderated mediation model. Sci Res Manag. 2019;4(11):276–284.
   Google Scholar
• Pratt MG. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among amway distributors. Adm Sci Q. 2000;45(3):456–493. doi:10.2307/2667106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreiner GE, Ashforth BE. Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. J Organ Behav. 2004;25(1):1–27. doi:10.1002/job.234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armitage CJ, Conner M. Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2000;26(11):1421–1432. doi:10.1177/0146167200263009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dormandy E, Hankins M, Marteau TM. Attitudes and uptake of a screening test: The moderating role of ambivalence. Psychol Health. 2006;21(4):499–511. doi:10.1080/14768320500380956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amabilet TM, Barsades SG, Mueller JS, Staw BM. Affect and creativity at work. Adm Sci Q. 2005;50(3):367–403. doi:10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proulx T, Heine SJ. Connections from Kafka: exposure to meaning threats improves implicit learning of an artificial grammar. Psychol Sci. 2009;20(9):1125–1131. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02414.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plambeck N, Weber K. CEO ambivalence and responses to strategic issues. Organ Sci. 2009;20(6):993–1010. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung AKY, Maddux WW, Galinsky AD, Chiu CY. Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. Am Psychol. 2008;63(3):169–181. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.169
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baas M, De Dreu CKW, Nijstad BA. A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychol Bull. 2008;134(6):779–806. doi:10.1037/a0012815
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canas J, Quesada J, Antolí A, Fajardo I. Cognitive flexibility and adaptability to environmental changes in dynamic complex problem solving tasks. Ergonomics. 2003;46(5):482–501. doi:10.1080/0014013031000061640
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennis JP, Wal JSV. The cognitive flexibility inventory: instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognit Ther Res. 2010;34(3):241–253. doi:10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas K, Diehl M, Brömer P. Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1997;33(2):190–210. doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.1317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham WA, Johnson MK, Gatenby JC, Gore JC, Banaji MR. Neural components of social evaluation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(4):639–649. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.639
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rees L, Rothman NB, Lehavy R, Sanchez-Burks J. The ambivalent mind can be a wise mind: Emotional ambivalence increases judgment accuracy. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013;49(3):360–367. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.12.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guarana CL, Hernandez M. Identified ambivalence: When cognitive conflicts can help individuals overcome cognitive traps. J Appl Psychol. 2016;101(7):1013–1029. doi:10.1037/apl0000105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapadia C, Melwani S. More tasks, more ideas: The positive spillover effects of multitasking on subsequent creativity. J Appl Psychol. 2020;106(4):542–559. doi:10.1037/apl0000506
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miron-Spektor E, Beenen G. Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2015;127:53–65. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin MM, Staggers SM, Anderson CM. The relationships between cognitive flexibility with dogmatism, intellectual flexibility, preference for consistency, and self-compassion. Commun Res Rep. 2011;28(3):275–280. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.587555
   Google Scholar
• Kim YJ, Zhong CB. Ideas rise from chaos: Information structure and creativity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2017;138:15–27. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dheer RJS, Lenartowicz T. Cognitive flexibility: Impact on entrepreneurial intentions. J Vocat Behav. 2019;115:378–397. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung SH, Su YF, Su SW. The impact of cognitive flexibility on resistance to organizational change. Soc Behav Pers. 2012;40(5):735–745. doi:10.2224/sbp.2012.40.5.735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han Y. Ambivalence in the Leader-Follower Relationship: Dispositional Antecedents and Effects on Work-Related Well-Being. Ottawa, Ontario: Carleton University; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Emmons RA, King LA. Conflict among personal strivings: immediate and long-term implications for psychological and physical well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54:1040–1048. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manner MJ, Wowak AJ, Bartkus VO, Gomez-Mejia LR. Heavy lies the crown? How job anxiety affect stop executive decision making in gain and loss contexts. Strateg Manag J. 2016;37(9):1968–1989. doi:10.1002/smj.2425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walumbwa FO, Schaubroeck J. Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(5):1275–1286. doi:10.1037/a0015848
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li JS, Wu LZ, Liu D, Kwan HK, Liu J. Insiders maintain voice: A psychological safety model of organizational politics. Asia Pacific J Manag. 2014;31(3):853–874. doi:10.1007/s10490-013-9371-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE, Peterson RS, Berry JM. Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;64:500–510. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shao Y, Nijstad BA, Täuber S. Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2019;155:7–19. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster JR, Beehr TA, Love K. Extending the challenge-hindrance model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal. J Vocat Behav. 2011;79(2):505–516. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drach-Zahavy A, Erez M. Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance relationship. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2002;88(2):667–682. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00004-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farhan K. Urdu translation and adaptation of fenigstein paranoia scale. Int J Bus Soc Sci. 2011;2(16):228–237.
   Google Scholar
• Martin MM, Rubin RB. A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychol Rep. 1995;76(2):623–626. doi:10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker DF, Decotiis TA. Organizational determinants of job stress. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1983;32:160–170. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(83)90145-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagozzi RP, Yi YJ, Phillips LW. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm Sci Q. 1991;36(3):421–458. doi:10.2307/2393203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell AM. Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). J Bus Res. 2010;63(3):324–327. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiong HX, Zhang J, Ye BJ, Sun PZ. Common method variance effects and the models of statistical approaches for controlling it. Prog Psychol Sci. 2012;20(5):757–769.
   Google Scholar
• Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publications; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Wu SJ, Du MZ, Zhang J. The influence of authentic leadership on employees′ deviant innovation: The chain mediating effect of organization-based self-esteem and felt obligation for constructive change and the moderating effect of error aversion culture. Sci Technol Prog Policy. 2020;37(13):141–150.
   Google Scholar
• Wu YM, Pan C, Zhou YZ. The effect of humble leadership on creative deviance: chain mediating effect of supervisor-subordinate guanxi and psychological entitlement. Soft Sci. 2020;34(4):140–144.
   Google Scholar
• Liu XQ. Unethical leadership and employees’ creative deviance: An analysis of the multiple mediating effects. Sci Res Manag. 2019;40(3):188–196.
   Google Scholar
• Hobfoll SE, Halbesleben J, Neveu JP, Westman M. Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2018;5(1):103–128. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
   Google Scholar