Le rôle des stresseurs sur le comportement d’innovation : Quand le leadership habilitant du supérieur protège le potentiel d’innovation des travailleurs

This study focuses on the relationship between workplace stressors and innovative work behavior. The joint analysis of the mediation process supporting this relationship as well as the influence of certain external conditions such as the moderating role of the supervisor has made it possible to highlight the dynamic that underlie the relationship between stressors and innovation behavior. Using the challenge-hindrance model, this theory proposes that challenge (i.e., role overload) and hindrance (i.e., role ambiguity and role conflict) stressors exert positive and negative indirect effects, respectively, on innovative work behavior through psychological empowerment (PE). Furthermore, empowering leadership (EL) has the potential to optimize the benefits of challenge stressors and reduce the effects of hindrance stressors on PE and indirectly on innovation work behavior. In support of these predictions, a time-lagged study of 146 employees from various Canadian firms reveals that hindrance stressors, particularly role ambiguity, are negatively related to innovative work behavior through PE. Moreover, when EL was high, the positive effects of role overload were enhanced through PE while the negative effects of role ambiguity and role conflict were attenuated. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.     

How Well Do We Know Our Inner Daredevil? Probing the Relationship Between Self‐Report and Behavioral Measures of Risk Taking

To measure a person's risk‐taking tendency, research has relied interchangeably on self‐report scales (e.g., “Indicate your likelihood of engaging in the risky behavior”) and more direct measures, such as behavioral tasks (e.g., “Do you accept or reject the risky option?”). It is currently unclear, however, how the two approaches map upon each other. We examined the relationship between self‐report likelihood ratings for risky choice in a monetary gamble task and actual choice, and tested how the relationship is affected by task ambiguity (i.e., when part of the information about risks and benefits is missing) and age. Five hundred participants (aged 19–85 years) were presented with 27 gambles, either in an unambiguous or an ambiguous condition. In a likelihood rating task, participants rated for each gamble the likelihood that they would accept it. In a separate choice task, they were asked to either accept or reject each gamble. Analyses using a signal‐detection approach showed that people's likelihood ratings discriminated between accept and reject cases in their choices rather well. However, task ambiguity weakened the association between likelihood ratings and choice. Further, older adults' likelihood ratings anticipated their choices more poorly than younger adults'. We discuss implications of these findings for existing approaches to the study of risk‐taking propensity, which have often relied on self‐reported risk tendency for ambiguous activities. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.