The double-edged sword effect of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior from cognitive appraisal theory of stress perspective

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4781933/v1

Download PDF

Article

The double-edged sword effect of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior from cognitive appraisal theory of stress perspective

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4781933/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Although research on workaholic leaders is accumulating, there is no consensus in the literature regarding its effectiveness and our understanding of how it affects employee innovative behavior remains limited. Therefore, based on cognitive appraisal theory of stress, we investigate how and when workaholic leaders either facilitate or hinder teachers' innovative behavior. A multi-wave survey with 566 leader-teacher dyads from primary and junior schools in China found that workaholic leaders initially raise awareness of performance stress among teachers. Overall, workaholic leaders have a dual impact on teachers' innovation: they promote it through challenging appraisal of performance stress but inhibit it through hindrance appraisal. Role breadth self-efficacy significantly moderates this influence mechanism. For teachers with high role breadth self-efficacy, workaholic leaders positively affect their innovative behavior mainly through challenging appraisal of performance stress; for those with low role breadth self-efficacy, workaholic leaders negatively impact their innovative behavior primarily through hindrance appraisal of stress. In conclusion, this study provides an initial exploration into the ambivalent effects of workaholic leadership on employee innovative behavior and offers practical insights for harnessing the positive effects while mitigating the negative effects associated with such leadership behaviors.

Biological sciences/Psychology

Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour

workaholic leadership

teachers' innovative behavior

cognitive appraisal

role breadth self-efficacy

primary and junior school

Teacher innovative behavior refers to the capacity to introduce and implement novel teaching approaches to adapt to evolving educational landscapes (Messmann & Mulder, 2012). Its paramount significance lies in fostering education's resilience and agility when confronting technological transformations and globalized educational demands, which are essential for achieving sustainable growth within the educational domain (Cloete, 2017; Kristoffersen, 2018). Leadership, a pivotal determinant influencing teachers' innovative behavior, has garnered considerable attention. Research indicates that transformational leadership (Kılınç et al., 2022), distributed leadership (Buyukgoze et al., 2022), and empowering leadership (Amin et al., 2021; Gkorezis, 2016) significantly impact teachers' innovative behavior. However, scholars still know little about the influence of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior.

In today's fast-paced and high-intensity workplace, workaholic leaders have become common, sacrificing family life and social activities by working overtime during the week and handling tasks on their days off. Extensive attention has been given to workaholic leaders from both theoretical and practical circles (Dong & Li, 2024; Jin, 2024; She et al., 2024). Therefore, it is crucial to ascertain whether workaholic leadership facilitates or impedes teachers' innovative behavior and explore the underlying mechanisms driving this phenomenon. Furthermore, it is imperative to investigate potential variations in responses among different teacher personalities. Despite garnering significant attention in practical circles, limited scholarly discourse has been devoted to examining this topic.

The workaholic leaders' fast-paced, high-load, high-standard, and high-expectation working style can cause performance stress on employees pursuing leadership objectives (Hackman, 1986). According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984)'s cognitive appraisal theory of stress, individuals' evaluation of stressors leads to different coping processes. Additionally, Mitchell et al. (2019)'s study suggests that performance stress can trigger both positive and negative work behaviors depending on how individuals perceive it as a challenge or threat. Therefore, this study aims to examine the potential "double-edged sword" effect of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior using the cognitive appraisal theory of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Specifically, workaholic leadership sets rigorous standards and expectations for teachers, inducing job performance stress. Some teachers may view these pressures as stimulating challenges that foster educational and instructional innovation; while others may see them as daunting demands that hinder their creative pedagogical approaches.

The cognitive appraisal theory of stress suggests that individual appraisal and coping styles towards stressors are influenced by the external environment and individual characteristics (Chang et al., 2019; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Therefore, the impact of workaholic leadership demands on teachers' evaluations as a stressor also depends on teachers' individual traits. In practical terms, teachers with different characteristics may adopt diverse coping strategies even when faced with identical performance requirements. Considering this, our study proposes that teacher role breadth self-efficacy moderates the influence of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior. When teachers have high role breadth self-efficacy, they exhibit greater confidence and motivation in implementing ideas(Sharon. K. Parker, 1998). Thus, when confronted with demanding performance expectations, these teachers are more likely to perceive job opportunities positively and evaluate them favorably, thereby fostering increased innovative work behaviors. On the other hand, teachers with low role breadth self-efficacy lack confidence in undertaking broader tasks (Sharon. K. Parker, 1998; Shu-zhen et al., 2019) and struggle to enhance their task performance control (Xu et al., 2018). Consequently, when faced with high performance requirements, these teachers experience heightened psychological concerns due to the need for completing complex tasks and perceive them as uncertain risks that impede their innovative behaviors.

In summary, drawing on cognitive appraisal theory, this study aims to investigate the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions of the impact of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior. Specifically, it considers performance stress as a component of stressors within the cognitive appraisal theory of stress and examines how challenging cognitive appraisal serves as a positive coping style while hindrance appraisal functions as a negative coping style. This approach helps elucidate the "double-edged sword" effect of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior. Additionally, this study explores the moderating role of teacher role breadth self-efficacy in this relationship. The objective of this study is to enhance the theoretical comprehension of workaholic leadership effectiveness and offer valuable insights for enhancing teachers' innovative behavior.

Workaholic leadership

Since the seminal work of Oates (1971), scholars have presented diverse definitions for the concept of "workaholism". Recently, Malissa. A. Clark (2020)precisely characterized workaholism as "the inclination to excessively drive oneself in occupational pursuits". In terms of motivation, workaholics' fixation on their work stems from an irresistible internal drive. Cognitively, individuals prone to workaholism are deeply engrossed in their professional pursuits and struggle to unwind even outside regular working hours. Emotionally, when they stop their laborious efforts, workaholics experience negative emotions like guilt, depression, and sadness. Behaviorally, they exceed formal organizational expectations by dedicating more time and effort compared to others.

Workaholic leaders typically exhibit three distinct characteristics: a strong emphasis on work and continuous contemplation of work-related matters, an excessive commitment of time and energy beyond organizational requirements, and the imposition of high standards and expectations on both themselves and their subordinates (M. A. Clark et al., 2016; Li. Quan et al., 2021; Zhuolin et al., 2020).

Scholars have conducted theoretical and empirical research on the effectiveness of workaholic leadership. In theory, Friedman and Lobel (2003) suggest that workaholic leaders can serve as role models and motivate employees to complete tasks. Q. Li and She (2020) propose a multi-path mediation model, suggesting that workaholic leaders may hinder subordinates' informal learning through increased workload, triggering negative emotions, and reducing cross-border motivation. M. A. Clark et al. (2016) argue that the low happiness of workaholic leaders can be transmitted to subordinates, resulting in decreased subordinate happiness. In terms of empirical research, Pan (2018)confirmed that workaholic leaders can promote subordinates' organizational citizenship behaviors and inhibit withdrawal behaviors by providing support for work-life balance. Zhuolin et al. (2020) found that workaholic leaders can stimulate leadership identity and improve performance for subordinates with high job centrality. N. Kim et al. (2020)’s research shows that workaholic leaders lead to subordinates' turnover intention by causing work overload and emotional exhaustion. M. A. Clark et al. (2016) developed a theoretical model suggesting that workaholic leaders diminish their own happiness and subsequently transmit it to subordinates through various channels like emotions, thoughts, and actions, thereby reducing the happiness of subordinates. Based on the theory of resource conservation, Q. Li and She (2020) proposed that workaholic leaders hinder subordinates' informal learning by causing work overload. At the team level, She et al.(2021) found that workaholic leaders enhance work engagement and improve team performance, but also trigger negative emotions and harm team performance. Li. Quan et al. (2021) study revealed that workaholic leaders impede boundary-crossing behaviors and hinder psychological detachment within teams, thereby negatively impacting team creativity. At the organizational level, Li Quan et al.(2018) research found that workaholic CEOs positively impact enterprise performance by increasing collective input from senior management teams. Gorgievski et al.(2014) research indicated a significant negative relationship between workaholic CEOs and entrepreneurial performance.

Despite the growing body of theoretical and empirical research on workaholic leadership, there are still several gaps that necessitate further investigation. Firstly, existing empirical studies predominantly focus on industrial and commercial enterprises, with limited attention given to the basic education sector as a public service. Therefore, it is imperative to expand the contextual understanding of the impact of workaholic leadership (She et al., 2021). Secondly, while previous research has primarily focused on task performance and work behavior when assessing the effectiveness of workaholic leadership, there has been limited exploration of its impact on innovation-related outcomes, particularly in terms of innovative behavior. AlthoughLi. Quan et al.(2021) andShe et al.(2024) have examined the effects of workaholic leadership on creativity, given the importance of teachers’ innovative behavior in promoting quality development within schools (Kristoffersen, 2018), as well as recognizing the essential distinction between innovative behavior and creativity, there is an urgent need for scholars to investigate how workaholic leaders influence teachers' innovative behavior. Thirdly, previous research has shown both positive and negative consequences of workaholic leaders, but no clear explanation for the inconsistent findings exists (Li Quan et al., 2023). In fact, scholars may have overlooked the individual cognitive assessment models and personality traits of leaders' subordinates, which could be the reason behind these inconsistencies. In summary, it is urgent for researchers to deepen their understanding of the effectiveness of workaholic leadership from the perspective of teachers' innovative behavior, and conduct an in-depth analysis of the positive and negative effects of teachers’ cognitive appraisal mechanisms and personality traits on workaholic leadership, thereby achieving a more systematic and dialectical understanding of the impacts of workaholic leadership.

Cognitive appraisal theory of stress

The cognitive appraisal theory of stress, proposed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), serves as a fundamental framework for stress research. It posits that an individual response to stressors is contingent upon their dynamic interaction with the environment and their perception of the stressor as either conducive to personal growth or not. This elucidates the differential ability of individuals in effectively managing stressful situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The theory divides the cognitive appraisal of stressors into two processes: Primary appraisal and secondary appraisal (Smith & Lazarus, 1993). Primary appraisal involves individuals determining whether a stressor affects their well-being within a given context and personal circumstances. In secondary appraisal, they evaluate their available resources and develop coping strategies for dealing with the stressful threat (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). An individual's perception of a stress threat is contingent upon two determinants. If they perceive a stressful event as detrimental to their interests but are unable to take action, they are more inclined to respond negatively. Conversely, if an individual perceives a stressful event as a personal challenge and possesses the ability to transform it into an opportunity through their own efforts or external support, they are more likely to adopt a positive approach(Fubin & Zhen, 2022). Existing literature has demonstrated that the same stressor can elicit both challenging appraisals and hindrance appraisals among individuals (Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2019; Kraimer et al., 2022). Based on the above analysis, this study adopts the cognitive appraisal theory of stress as its unique theoretical perspective in explaining why, how, and when workaholic leadership will have either positive or negative impacts on teachers' innovative behavior.

Workaholic leadership and teachers' performance stress

Leaders who demonstrate workaholic tendencies, characterized by their unwavering commitment to work and high-performance expectations, establish a stringent work standard for the team (M. A. Clark et al., 2016; Pan, 2018). These leaders not only demand extended working hours but also frequently assign tasks outside of regular working hours (Q. Li & She, 2020). Consequently, such persistent high job demands impose significant performance stress on subordinates.

The behavioral patterns exhibited by workaholic leaders, such as working overtime and displaying unwavering commitment to their work, have a significant impact on subordinates (Friedman & Lobel, 2003).Subordinates often perceive these leaders as role models and subsequently adjust their own work habits and attitudes, placing greater emphasis on work-related tasks and even sacrificing personal time to meet job demands (Li. Quan et al., 2021). This emulation of the leadership's working style and pursuit of high-performance goals can lead employees to experience heightened psychological and physical stress, ultimately increasing performance expectations (She et al., 2021).

Under the leadership of individuals with a strong work orientation, subordinates may respond to high work demands by engaging in problem-solving rumination, which can enhance work efficiency but also impose psychological burdens (She et al., 2021). Simultaneously, emotional rumination involving excessive contemplation and negative emotions regarding work-related issues directly contributes to the accumulation of negative emotions among subordinates, thereby exacerbating the perception of work-life imbalance and intensifying performance stress (Caiping, 2022).

Similarly, the workaholic leadership can positively influence the stress of teachers’ educational performance through continual enhancement of educational work requirements, exemplification of their own workaholic leadership behavior, and fostering teachers' reflection on work and emotional rumination. Consequently, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

Workaholic leadership has a significant positive impact on teachers' educational performance stress

Double-edged sword effect based on cognitive appraisal process of stress

The perception of educational performance pressure means that teachers think it is challenging for them to complete the work based on current resources, and this challenge can prompt teachers to have challenging evaluations in some cases. From a psychological perspective, perceiving high performance goals as opportunities for educational growth and personal development motivates teachers to evaluate leadership demands constructively. This transformation of stress into motivation fosters self-transcendence and positive outcomes when facing challenges (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Additionally, from the perspective of behavioral strategies, participating in and successfully coping with high performance goals not only enhances personal strength but also enables teachers to gain valuable information and resources (such as increased compensation and benefits, recognition, and expanded authority) (Mitchell et al., 2019). This fosters a strong sense of autonomy, self-confidence, and competence among teachers while facilitating more positive evaluations of performance pressure.

Challenging appraisal, as a positive cognitive orientation, helps teachers prioritize personal growth and achievement in the face of stress from workaholic leadership, leading to positive emotions and motivations that enhance innovative thinking and behavior. Firstly, it fosters enthusiasm and energy among teachers during the appraisal process, which in turn increases their initiative, input, and satisfaction with innovation. This encourages them to engage in more innovative behaviors. Secondly, challenging appraisal empowers teachers to embrace new working methods under performance pressure, enabling them to adapt more effectively to work demands (Mitchell et al., 2019). Additionally, it stimulates their willingness to seek information and resources while facilitating smooth integration of information for enhanced creativity generation and implementation. Lastly, according to the cognitive appraisal theory of stress, challenging appraisal cultivates an optimistic attitude towards achieving performance goals that promotes a sense of concern for potential benefits and opportunities. This ultimately leads individuals to exhibit positive functional behaviors such as workplace innovation (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Combined with hypothesis 1, it can be argued that workaholic leaders increase teachers' performance pressure, and then stimulate teachers' challenging appraisals from the psychological and behavioral levels, thus generating positive emotions and motivation to promote teachers' innovative behavior. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed.

Hypothesis

a: Workaholic leadership can positively influence teachers' innovative behavior through challenging appraisal of teachers' performance stress.

In fact, performance stress is a double-edged sword; while it can positively stimulate teachers and assist them in making challenging appraisals, it can also lead to hindrance appraisals. The excessive stress on education and teaching performance caused by workaholic leadership may make teachers perceive that achieving performance goals falls short of expectations, thereby perceiving this stress as a threat and generating negative coping emotions and strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Moreover, failure to meet the leader minimum standards for education and teaching could result in punishment and various adverse consequences for individual teachers, leading to psychological burden and stress. Consequently, teachers may adopt a conservative or even skeptical attitude towards their self-management abilities and ability to coordinate under stressful conditions. Ultimately, to avoid potential harm or loss, teachers instinctively protect themselves and tend to withdraw and be conservative in evaluating performance pressure, resulting in hindrance appraisal.

Hindrance appraisal prompts teachers to pay more attention to the potential harm and loss resulting from performance goals, eliciting negative emotions like tension and anxiety among them. This diminishes their flexibility in handling work, restricting their creative input and impeding the likelihood of innovative behaviors(Mitchell et al., 2019). Furthermore, hindrance appraisal heightens teachers' sensitivity towards external limitations, constraints, and work-related stress. Research indicates that perceiving excessive external constraints leads individuals to rely on established behavior patterns to avoid risks and reduces their inclination to explore novel solutions (Alencar, 2012). Simultaneously, hindrance appraisal intensifies performance stress experienced by teachers, amplifying their perception of future uncertainty at work which hampers cognitive abilities and risk-taking tendencies under stress thus limiting the emergence of innovative behaviors (Mitchell et al., 2019). Additionally, hindrance appraisal results in negative outcomes such as emotional exhaustion and job dissatisfaction which increases employees' inclination towards work sabotage thereby inhibiting innovative behaviors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Furthermore, when combined with hypothesis 1, it can be argued that workaholic leadership intensifies the performance stress on teachers, which is perceived as a threat and psychological burden by them, leading to hindrance appraisal. Consequently, these negative cognitions and emotions inhibit their innovative tendencies. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis

b: Workaholic leadership of positively influence teachers' innovative behavior through hindrance appraisal of performance stress.

The moderating effect of role breadth self-efficacy

The cognitive appraisal theory of stress suggests that individuals with different psychological characteristics evaluate stressors differently and respond accordingly (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Building on this theory, this study focuses on how teachers' individual characteristics influence their appraisal of workaholic leadership. Role breadth self-efficacy, an individual trait reflecting employees' willingness to take on various tasks and confidence in their abilities (Sharon. K. Parker, 1998), is believed to moderate the impact of performance stress caused by workaholic leadership on challenging and hindrance appraisals. It determines whether such stress encourages or hinders teachers' innovative work behavior.

Self-efficacy refers to an individual perception of their ability to perform a specific task (Bandura, 1986). Role breadth self-efficacy, proposed by S. K. Parker (1998), extends and develops the theory of self-efficacy in active behavior research. It pertains to employees' confidence in taking initiative for additional tasks beyond organizational mandates. High role breadth self-efficacy leads to increased confidence and motivation for broader and more active participation (Sharon. K. Parker, 1998). Compared to self-efficacy, role breadth self-efficacy emphasizes employee initiative and task diversity. Numerous studies have demonstrated that role breadth self-efficacy directly incentivizes positive behaviors such as work performance, problem-solving, and responsibility-taking (S. Li et al., 2015).

Teachers with high role breadth self-efficacy, who possess a strong belief in their multitasking abilities and potential for success (Sharon K. Parker et al., 2006), perceive the demanding expectations imposed by workaholic leaders as an opportunity for personal growth and demonstration of competence. This positive mindset not only reinforces their interpretation of performance stress but also serves as a driving force to view it as a challenge, motivating them to enhance their self-efficacy and actively seek innovative solutions, thereby exhibiting more innovative behaviors. Conversely, teachers with low role breadth self-efficacy, constrained by their lack of confidence, tend to exhibit a conservative and skeptical attitude when confronted with tasks beyond their regular responsibilities. They harbor concerns about their ability to effectively handle the additional challenges posed by workaholic leaders (Miaomiao & Jie, 2019). This mindset not only impedes their assessment of performance stress but also diminishes their inclination towards proactive and innovative actions. Consequently, the high-performance expectations set by workaholic leaders fail to adequately foster innovation while potentially exacerbating psychological burden and reducing engagement in innovative endeavors. Combined with hypothesis 1and 2a, the following hypothesis is formed in this study:

Hypothesis

a: Compared with teachers with low role-width self-efficacy, teachers with high role-width self-efficacy are more likely to make challenging appraisal of performance pressure generated by workaholic leaders, thus promoting their innovative behavior.

The self-efficacy of role breadth negatively affects the relationship between performance stress caused by workaholic leadership and hindrance appraisal, which in turn impacts teachers' innovative behavior. Low role breadth self-efficacy undermines teachers' confidence in dealing with leaders' workaholic tendencies, particularly when it comes to comprehensive tasks like conflict resolution and process optimization (Sharon. K. Parker, 1998). When these teachers experience high levels of performance stress from workaholic leaders, they often question their ability to meet the leader's demanding standards and tend to adopt a defensive cognitive strategy known as hindrance appraisal to alleviate psychological discomfort, which also impedes their potential for innovation. In contrast, teachers with higher role breadth self-efficacy demonstrate greater resilience towards the performance stress induced by workaholic leadership because they believe they can effectively cope with diverse task challenges. Not only do they assess performance stress more rationally as an opportunity for growth and improvement rather than a threat but they also exhibit less cognitive hindrance, reflecting their ability to interpret the high expectations of workaholic leaders more positively as motivation for self-improvement rather than a source of stress. Combined with hypothesis 1and 2b, the following hypothesis is formed in this study:

Hypothesis

b: Compared with teachers with high role breadth self-efficacy, teachers with low role breadth self-efficacy are more likely to have hindrance appraisal of the performance stress caused by workaholic leadership, thus inhibiting their innovative behavior.

In summary, the theoretical model of this study is shown in Fig. 1.

Samples and procedures

The study participants comprised middle-level team leaders (teaching directors, grade leaders, lesson preparation group leaders) and team member teachers from 38 primary and secondary schools in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China. Prior to commencing the survey, the researchers collaborated with school administrators to randomly select mid-level leaders and their respective member teachers at each surveyed school, with the principal consent. Each middle-level team leader was then paired with a corresponding team member teacher and provided with a comprehensive explanation of the questionnaire purpose and process. Additionally, they were assured that survey responses would remain confidential by using pseudonyms instead of real names.

To minimize errors in the homology method (Podsakoff et al., 2003), data were collected on three occasions with a two-month interval, spanning from March to July 2023. At Time 1, a total of 632 teachers completed the questionnaire, providing their demographic information and data on perceived workaholism of team leaders as well as their own role breadth self-efficacy, in response to the researchers' request made to 685 participating teachers (response rate = 92.26%). At time 2, performance stress and assessment of performance stress (including challenging assessment and hindrance assessment) were rated by 603 participating teachers upon researchers' request, with a total of 632 teachers completing the questionnaire (response rate = 95.41%). At time 3, innovative behavior was reported by 580 out of the requested 603 participating teachers (response rate = 96.28%). Financial incentives were introduced to ensure careful completion of the three surveys, with only participants who completed all three surveys being eligible for cash withdrawal. Excluding questionnaires with short filling time or excessive missing data resulted in 566 remaining sets and an overall effective recovery rate of 82.63%. The sample's basic characteristics include males accounting for approximately half (50.56%), an average organizational tenure of about 5.08 years (SD = 4.07). Educational qualifications within this group show that 10.17% held a college degree while the majority possessed a bachelor's degree at 75.96%. Additionally, 13.87% had achieved a master's degree or above.

Measures

The scales utilized in this research are primarily based on internationally recognized instruments and employ a 7-point Likert scaling system, wherein scores range from 1 to 7 to denote responses spanning from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree".

Workaholic leadership. The measurement of this variable was derived from a scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (2009), consisting of ten items evaluated by middle-level team teachers. An example item states, “Diligence holds significant importance for my superiors.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.91.

Performance Stress. This variable was assessed using a four-item scale adapted from Mitchell et al. (2019), including items such as "I experienced immense pressure to meet the performance expectations set by the leader." The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this scale was found to be 0.897.

Challenge appraisal. The teachers evaluated the four-item scale, which was adapted from Searle and Auton (2015). An illustrative item included in the scale is "Collaborating with my leader significantly enhances my learning experience." The Cronbach's alpha coefficient yielded a robust value of 0.92.

Hindrance appraisal. The teachers evaluated the four-item scale, which was adapted from Searle and Auton (2015). An exemplar item included in the scale is "Collaborating with my leader hinders any achievements I may accomplish." The Cronbach's alpha coefficient yielded a value of 0.96.

Role Breadth Self-Efficacy. This construct was measured using a scale developed by Sharon. K. Parker (1998), and following the approach of Jinlian et al. (2016), the five items with the highest factor loadings were selected, including statements like "I am confident in my ability to analyze and solve long-term problems." The scale showed high internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.877.

Teachers’ innovative behavior. This construct is measured using a 6-item scale proposed by Scott and Bruce (1994). Examples of the items include: “I search out new processes, techniques, and/or new ideas for my classes”. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of this scale in this study was 0.882.

Control variables. The previous research indicated that teachers' demographic characteristics, such as gender (Nguyen et al., 2021), education (Yang & Huang, 2008), and tenure (Klaeijsen et al., 2018; Thurlings et al., 2015), can impact their innovative behavior. To ensure a comprehensive analysis, this study incorporated gender, tenure, and educational level as control variables. The gender variable was treated as binary, while the education level was considered nominal. To account for this, dummy variables were created for both categories, with "female" and "undergraduate" designated as reference groups.

Ethics statement

The study follows the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Longgang Institute of Education Sciences, Shenzhen. Participants provided voluntary informed consent and could withdraw at any time. Additionally, our data was anonymized to protect participant privacy.

Aggregation Analysis

Given that workaholic leadership is a team-level variable, it necessitates aggregation from the individual level to the team level. The mean and median values of the within-group agreement index (R_wg) for workaholic leadership were found to be 0.82 and 0.95, respectively. Additionally, intra-class correlation coefficients ICC (1) and ICC (2) were calculated as 0.58 and 0.88, respectively. These findings indicate that there is sufficient consistency within teams and significant differentiation across teams, supporting the aggregation of data on workaholic leadership to the team level.

Reliability and validity assessment

Initially, this study conducted reliability and validity tests on the collected data, which revealed satisfactory values for Cronbach's alpha, factor loadings, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). Next, to rigorously assess common method bias, the study employed the Harman single-factor test by conducting a factor analysis on all items across six factors. The principal component analysis extracted six factors explaining a total variance of 72.818%, with the first unrotated component accounting for 23.915% of the variance, falling below the critical threshold of 40%. Therefore, common method bias was effectively controlled in this study.

Additionally, to examine discriminant validity among the variables, the study conducted multi-level confirmatory factor analysis, following Heck and Thomas (2015)suggestion, due to the nested data containing both team leaders and members. The hypothesized six-factor model in Table 1 demonstrates a good goodness of model fit (χ²/df = 1.940; CFI = 0.995; TLI = 0.992; RMSEA = 0.017; Within SRMR = 0.041; Between SRMR = 0.081). Additionally, the goodness of fit for the six-factor model significantly outperforms that of the five-factor models: Model 1 (Δχ² = 852, p < 0.001), Model 2 (Δχ² = 1320, p < 0.001), Model 3(Δχ² = 1770, p < 0.001),and Model4 (Δχ² = 1993, p < 0 .001). Furthermore, all between SRMR statistics are below the recommended threshold of 0.10 (E. S. Kim et al., 2016), indicating excellent discriminative validity among the variables examined in this study.

Table 1

multi-level confirmatory factor analysis results
Model	χ²	df	X²/df	Δχ²(Δdf)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	Within SRMR	Between SRMR
Reference model (A, B, C, D, E, F)	551	284	1.940		0.995	0.992	0.017	0.041	0.081
Five-factor model 1 (A, B, C, D, E + F)	1403	289	4.854	852(5)^***	0.901	0.889	0.072	0.053	0.081
Five-factor model 2 (A, B, C, D + E, F)	1871	289	6.474	1320(5)^***	0.866	0.851	0.087	0.089	0.081
Five-factor model 3 (A, B + C, D, E, F)	2321	289	8.031	1770(5)^***	0.733	0.702	0.121	0.112	0.081
Five-factor model 4 (A + B, C, D, E, F)	2544	289	8.803	1993(5)^***	0.715	0.701	0.125	0.112	0.081
Note: N _(leader) = 133; N _(teacher) = 566; A stands for workaholic leadership, B stands for role breadth self-efficacy, C stands for performance stress, D stands for challenging appraisal, E stands for hindrance appraisal, and F stands for teachers’ innovative behavior. * * * p < 0.001.

Correlational analysis

In this study, means, standard deviations, and correlational analyses of the variables are presented in Table 2. The results from Table 2 indicate a positive correlation between performance stress and both types of stress appraisals - challenging appraisal (r = 0.541, p < 0.001) and hindering appraisal (r = 0.217, p < 0.01). Additionally, there is a significant positive association between challenging appraisal and teachers' innovative behavior (r = 0.517, p < 0.001), while hindering appraisal shows an inverse relationship with teachers' innovative behavior (r = -0.419, p < 0.001). These correlations among variables provide preliminary evidence for the hypotheses being examined and establish the foundation for subsequent analyses.

Table 2

Mean and standard deviation of variables and their correlation analysis
Variable	M	SD	WL	PS	CA	HA	RBS	TIB
WL	4.985	1.273	0.891
PS	4.719	1.493	0.552^***	0.808
CA	5.194	0.812	0.433^***	0.541^***	0.711
HA	4.725	1.131	0.408^**	0.217^**	-0.041	0.808
RBS	5.057	1.693	0.278^**	0.352^**	0.461^**	-0.342^**	0.925
TIB	5.114	0.899	0.112^*	0.128^*	0.517^***	-0.419^***	0.463^**	0.748
Note: , , * * means p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001 respectively (double-tail test), the same below; the diagonal bold value is the square root of the AVE value.

Direct Effect Testing

In the present study, Hypothesis 1 proposes a positive relationship between workaholic leadership and performance stress. The results from the structural equation modeling, depicted in Fig. 2, support this hypothesis. As shown in Fig. 2, there is a statistically significant positive effect of workaholic leadership on performance stress (β = 0.519, p < 0.001), thus confirming Hypothesis 1. Furthermore, Fig. 2 illustrates that performance stress significantly influences both challenge appraisal (β = 0.517, p < 0.001) and hindrance appraisal (β = 0.159, p < 0.05). Additionally, challenge appraisal positively affects teachers' innovative behavior (β = 0.464, p < 0.001), while hindrance appraisal negatively impacts teachers' innovative behavior (β= -0.451, p < 0.001). These findings provide a basis for further examination of mediating effects.

Mediation Effect Analysis

Initially, this study used cross-level SEM to examine and estimate the mediation effects (shown in Fig. 2). As depicted in Fig. 2, workaholic leadership had a positive indirect effect on teachers' innovative behavior through challenge appraisal of performance stress (effect = 0.128, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 2a. Additionally, there was a negative mediation effect (effect = -0.035, p < 0.05) through hindrance appraisal of performance stress, confirming Hypothesis 2b.

To more precisely estimate the mediation effects, this research adopted a Monte Carlo resampling method (with 20,000 iterations) to validate the specific mediation effects, as shown in Table 3. The direct effect of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior was found to be insignificant, whereas the indirect effect through challenge appraisal of performance stress was 0.119 (SE = 0.009, 95% CI = [0.105, 0.137]), and through hindrance appraisal was − 0.021 (SE = 0.038, 95% CI = [-0.031, -0.010]). Consequently, Hypotheses 2a and 2b are further substantiated by these findings.

Table 3

Intermediate effect test based on Monte Carlo method
Effect type	Path	Effect	SE	CI
Direct effect	PS → TIB	0.018	0.027	[-0.021, 0.058]
Indirect effect 1	PS → PS → CA → TTIB	0.119	0.009	[0.105, 0.137]
Indirect effect 2	PS → PS → HA → TTIB	-0.021	0.038	[-0.031, -0.010]

Moderation effect analysis

To investigate the moderating role of role breadth self-efficacy in the relationship between performance stress and both challenge and hindrance appraisals, hierarchical regression analysis was employed. To mitigate potential multicollinearity issues among the variables, centering was applied to both role breadth self-efficacy and performance stress measures. The product terms derived from these centered variables were then incorporated into the regression models. The hierarchical regression results, illustrating the moderation effects, are presented in Table 4.

The results presented in Table 4 demonstrate a significant moderation effect of role breadth self-efficacy on the relationship between performance stress and challenge appraisal (β = 0.119, p < 0.01). To examine this moderation effect, we employed a parametric bootstrap program recommended by Preacher et al. (2010) with a sample size of 1,000. The analysis revealed a strong moderation effect as the 95% confidence interval [0.049, 0.118] did not include zero. We conducted a simple slope analysis to gain further insights into this moderation effect in our study. Figure 3a illustrates that role breadth self-efficacy enhances the positive association between performance stress and challenge appraisal among teachers. Specifically, for teachers with high levels of role breadth self-efficacy, performance stress significantly influenced their challenge appraisal (β = 0.209, t = 2.741, p < 0 .01). Conversely, for teachers with low levels of role breadth self-efficacy, performance stress had no significant impact on their primary challenge appraisal (β = 0 .041, t = 0.478, ns).

As can be seen from Table 4, role breadth self-efficacy has a significant moderating effect between performance stress and obstruction appraisal (β=-0.131, p < 0.01). Parametric bootstrap program (sample size = 1 000) was also used to test this tuning effect and showed a 95% confidence interval [-0.219, -0.058] excluding 0. A simple slope analysis of this moderating effect is shown in Fig. 3b. Role breadth self-efficacy moderates the relationship between performance stress and hindrance appraisal. The simple slope test showed that for teachers with low role breadth self-efficacy, performance stress positively predicted their hindrance appraisal (β = 0.181, t = 2.301, p < 0.05). For teachers with high role breadth self-efficacy, performance stress negatively predicted their hindrance appraisal (β= -0.112, t = -1.401, ns).

Table 4

Results of regression analysis of moderation effect
variable	Challenge appraisal (CA)			Hindrance appraisal (HA)
variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
gender	-0.101	0.079	0.039	-0.077	0.065	0.106
education	0.053	0.034	0.038	0.051	0.039	0.042
tenure	0.101	0.048	0.052	0.116	0.069	0.061
PS		0.534^***	0.528^***		0.201^**	0.168^**
RBS		0.427^**	0.381^**		-0.267^**	-0.284^**
PS*RBS			0.119^**			-0.131^**
R²	0.007	0.321	0.352	0.009	0.299	0.308
ΔR²	0.007	0.313^**	0.026^**	0.009^**	0.287^**	0.009^*
F	0.799	27.264	25.821	0.829	23.976	21.608

Figure 3a the moderating effect of role breadth self-efficacy on performance stress and challenge appraisal

Figure 3b the moderating effect of role breadth self-efficacy on performance stress and hindrance appraisal

Finally, this study employed parametric bootstrap program (sampling number = 1000 times) to examine the moderated mediation effects (refer to Table 5). The indirect effect of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior through the challenge appraisal of performance pressure was statistically significant for teachers with high role breadth self-efficacy, with a mediation effect size estimate of 0.103 (95% CI: 0.069–0.147), excluding zero. However, there was no statistically significant indirect effect for those with low role breadth self-efficacy, as indicated by a mediation effect size estimate of -0.011 (95% CI: -0.031 to 0.003), which included zero. Therefore, hypothesis 3a is supported. The indirect effect of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior through hindrance appraisal of performance pressure was significant for teachers with low role breadth self-efficacy (mediation effect size estimate: -0.022, 95% CI: -0.0069 to -0.003). However, for those with high role breadth self-efficacy, there was no significant indirect effect of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior through hindrance appraisal of performance pressure (mediation effect size estimate: 0.013, confidence interval including zero [-0.001, 0.033]). Therefore, hypothesis 3b is supported.

Table 5

Results of moderated mediation effect tests
Path	Grouping	Estimated value	SE	Bootstrap (95%CI)
WL→ PS → CA → TIB	High role breadth self-efficacy	0.103	0.018	[0.069, 0.147]
WL→ PS → CA → TIB	Low role breadth self-efficacy	-0.011	0.108	[-0.031, 0.003]
WL→ PS → HA → TIB	High role breadth self-efficacy	0.013	0.007	[-0.001, 0.033]
WL→ PS → HA → TIB	Low role breadth self-efficacy	-0.022	0.043	[-0.069, -0.003]

Theoretical contributions

The findings of our study have several significant theoretical implications. Firstly, we contribute to the existing research on workaholic leader by establishing a connection with an important yet underexplored outcome: teachers’ innovative behavior. Previous studies have mainly focused on the consequences of workaholic leader in terms of employee behaviors and attitudes, such as turnover intention (N. Kim et al., 2020), organizational citizenship behavior and withdrawal behavior (Pan, 2018), and ingratiation behavior (Zeng & Liu, 2022). However, there has been relatively less attention given to teachers’ innovative behavior. The impact of leaders on teachers’ innovative behavior is substantial since it is a crucial driver for organizational success and competitive advantage (Kristoffersen, 2018; Messmann & Mulder, 2012). Additionally, in line with Hughes et al. (2018) call for further investigation into the relationship between leader characteristics/styles and nuanced aspects of the creative and innovative process, our study examines how workaholic leaders influence employees from a distinct perspective. By shedding light on the mechanisms and conditions under which workaholic leader relates to employee innovation, we not only offer a more comprehensive understanding of the nomological network surrounding workaholic leader but also advance existing research on the relationship between leader characteristics/styles and employee innovation.

Second, our study enhances understanding of the paradoxical nature of workaholic leader and clarifies the underlying mechanisms that drive both positive and negative effects of workaholic leadership on teachers’ innovative behavior. Previous research has mainly focused on examining the separate positive and negative impacts of workaholic leadership (N. Kim et al., 2020; Pan, 2018; She et al., 2021; Zeng & Liu, 2022). In contrast to prior assumptions about a uniform impact, our proposition draws upon stress appraisal theory to explain the ambiguous nature of these effects. Our findings demonstrate that workaholic leaders can elicit both challenging and hindering perceptions from teachers, subsequently resulting in competing effects on teachers’ innovative behavior (promotion or inhibition). This empirical evidence complements existing research on workaholic leader by revealing the nuanced nature of its effects and emphasizing the significance of cognitive appraisals in linking workaholic leader with employee outcomes. In this regard, we not only elucidate the psychological mechanisms through which workaholic leaders influence employee innovation but also propose a potentially promising avenue for future research to comprehensively integrate both positive and negative impacts of workaholic leader.

Thirdly, this study elucidates the moderating mechanism underlying the impact of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior, specifically highlighting the moderating role of role breadth self-efficacy. Given the dual impact of workaholic leadership on teacher innovation, it is crucial to understand the specific circumstances in which these effects occur. Furthermore, previous research has shown negative outcomes associated with workaholic leadership, such as increased emotional exhaustion (N. Kim et al., 2020) and job anxiety (Zeng & Liu, 2022). Therefore, scholars recommend a more comprehensive exploration of contextual factors that can mitigate these adverse consequences (Atroszko et al.; M. A. Clark et al., 2016). Drawing upon stress cognitive appraisal theory, this study posits that teachers' role breadth self-efficacy acts as a moderator between workaholic leadership and challenging or hindrance appraisals of teachers. Specifically, high levels of role breadth self-efficacy enhance the stimulating effect of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior, while low levels suppress it. These findings support previous research suggesting that role breadth self-efficacy strengthens leaders’ positive influence on employees’ proactive behaviors (Griffin et al., 2010). Therefore, role breadth self-efficacy, as a crucial moderating factor, can effectively elucidate the "paradoxical" impact of workaholic leadership exhibited, thereby addressing the inquiry regarding the circumstances under which such leadership style stimulates or suppresses teachers' innovative behavior.

Practical implications

Our findings also have important practical implications. Firstly, considering the ambivalent nature of workaholic leadership, education administrators should adopt a dialectical approach towards this phenomenon. Therefore, it is imperative for leaders to possess a comprehensive understanding of both the potential positive and negative effects associated with workaholic tendencies and effectively manage their intensity. In this regard, leaders can serve as role models by wholeheartedly dedicating themselves to their work and exhibiting enthusiasm towards it, thereby inspiring teachers' passion for innovation through their own exemplary conduct. Additionally, when assigning tasks and communicating expectations to teachers, leaders should also consider the receptiveness of teachers and ensure that workload allocation and working hours are reasonably organized to prevent teacher burnout.

Secondly, this study shows that teachers' appraisal of the performance stress caused by workaholic leadership plays a crucial role in determining whether such leadership promotes teachers' innovative behavior. Challenging appraisal can effectively stimulate innovation, while hindrance appraisal may hinder it. Therefore, leaders can mitigate the negative impact of hindrance performance stress appraisals on teachers through alternative buffering strategies. Additionally, leaders can counteract teachers' desire for quick success by increasing interaction with them and providing care and encouragement. Furthermore, school administrators can promote innovation by motivating teachers to achieve performance goals set by workaholic leaders through downward empowerment, promotion opportunities, and flexible working arrangements.

Lastly, this study found that teachers with high levels of role breadth self-efficacy showed improved abilities in managing performance stress and maintaining innovative behavior. This has important implications for teachers adapting to workaholic leadership. In schools, most teachers cannot choose their preferred leaders, so when faced with a workaholic leader, teachers could quickly adjust themselves and establish rapport by enhancing self-confidence and stress tolerance while responding positively to the leaders’ expectations. At the same time, teachers could strive to improve teaching abilities, adapt to the leader working pace, and enhance work efficiency within designated hours.

Limitations and future directions

This study has several limitations that future research could address to enhance and expand upon its findings. Firstly, this study employs a cross-sectional questionnaire design, which inherently limits the ability to completely control for confounding factors and establish causality. Therefore, future research could consider incorporating experimental or quasi-experimental designs to enhance the robustness of research findings. Secondly, the investigation solely focused on general forms of teachers’ innovative behavior without distinguishing between radical and incremental innovative behaviors (Jansen et al., 2006). Therefore, future studies could prioritize examining the distinct impacts of workaholic leadership on both radical and incremental innovative behaviors among teachers, thereby enriching and deepening current research conclusions. Thirdly, besides examining the moderating role of role breadth self-efficacy in the relationship between workaholic leadership and teachers' innovative behavior, there could be other moderating factors involved. Take proactive personality-oriented teachers as an example; they strive for higher performance goals and perceive workaholic leadership positively when faced with high-performance expectations, leading to enhanced innovative behaviors. Conversely, teachers with avoidant personality traits are highly responsive to potential threats and may view workaholic leadership as intensifying concerns about future losses. As a result, they adopt avoidance strategies that hinder their ability to innovate. Future studies could explore these dynamics along with additional personality-based factors to better understand how different leadership styles interact with teachers' innovation.

Conflict of interest

The author reports there are no competing interests to declare.

Author Contribution

Yuangen Bao conceived and designed the study, performed the surveys, analyzed the data, wrote the original draft, and approved the submitted version. As the sole author, Yuangen Bao takes full responsibility for all aspects of the work, including the integrity and accuracy of the data and the fidelity of the reported research.

Data Availability

For inquiries pertaining to the data and materials presented in this paper, please direct correspondence to the corresponding authors via [email protected].

de Alencar, E. M. S. Creativity in organizations: Facilitators and inhibitors (In Handbook of organizational creativity) (Academic, 2012).
Amin, S., Mukminin, A., Setiawati, R. & Fitriaty, F. Empowering leadership and human resources through stimulating innovative behaviors in higher education. Zb Rad Ekon. Fak Rij. 39 (2), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.18045/zbefri.2021.2.381 (2021).
Atroszko, A. & Bartosz P., The costs of work-addicted managers in organizations: Towards integrating clinical and organizational frameworks.
Bandura, A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social-cognitive view (Prentice Hall, 1986).
Buyukgoze, H., Caliskan, O., Gümüş, S. & [Sedat]. Linking distributed leadership with collective teacher innovativeness: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and professional collaboration. Educational Manage. Adm. Leadersh. 174114322211308. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221130879 (2022).
Caiping, W. The relationship between perceived workaholic leadership and job performance from the perspective of work rumination: The moderating effect of team emotional support (South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China, 2022).
Chang, C., Zhe, Z. & Ming, J. An empirical study of the influencing mechanism of stretch goals over emotional exhaustion: Based on transactional theory of stress. J. Industrial Engineering/Engineering Manage. 33 (3). https://doi.org/10.13587/j.cnki.jieem.2019.03.001 (2019).
Clark, M. A. M. A., Stevens, G. W., Michel, J. S. & Zimmerman, L. Workaholism among leaders: Implications for their own and their followers’ well-being In W. A. Gentry & C. Clerkin. (Eds.), The Role of Leadership in Occupational Stress (pp. 1 – 31). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. (2016).
Clark, M. A., Malissa, A.]. & [. The Multidimensional Workaholism Scale: Linking the conceptualization and measurement of workaholism. J. Appl. Psychol. 105 (11), 1281–1307. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000484 (2020).
Cloete, A. L. Technology and education: Challenges and opportunities. HTS Teologiese Stud. / Theological Stud. 73 (4). https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v73i4.4589 (2017).
Dong, Y. & Li, Y. Leader workaholism and subordinates' psychological distress: The moderating role of justice climate. Acta. Psychol. 246, 104288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104288 (2024).
Friedman, S. D. & Lobel, S. The Happy Workaholic: A Role Model for Employees. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 17 (3), 87–98 (2003).
Fubin, J. & Zhen, W. Applications of cognitive appraisal theory of stress in managerial psychology research: Scenes, methods, and myths. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 30 (12), 2825. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.02825 (2022).
Gkorezis, P. Principal empowering leadership and teacher innovative behavior: a moderated mediation model. Int. J. Educational Manage. 30 (6), 1030–1044. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2015-0113 (2016).
Gorgievski, M. J., Moriano, J. A. & Bakker, A. B. Relating work engagement and workaholism to entrepreneurial performance. J. Managerial Psychol. 29 (2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2012-0169 (2014).
Greitemeyer, T. & Sagioglou, C. The impact of personal relative deprivation on aggression over time. J. Soc. Psychol. 159 (6), 664–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1549013 (2019).
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., [Sharon, K. & Mason, C. M. Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. J. Appl. Psychol. 95 (1), 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017263 (2010).
Hackman, J. R. The psychology of self-management in organizations (American Psychological Association, 1986).
Heck, R. H. & Thomas, S. L. An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques: MLM and SEM approaches using Mplus (Routledge, 2015).
Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A. & Legood, A. Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. Leadersh. Q. 29 (5), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001 (2018).
Jansen, J. J. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J. & Volberda, H. W. Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators. Manage. Sci. 52 (11), 1661–1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576 (2006).
Jin, D. When leader’s workaholism meets the dark triad: understanding employee zero-sum mindset and resilience in relation to retention. J. Hospitality Mark. Manage. 33 (5), 649–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2023.2288966 (2024).
Jinlian, L., Wen'an, H. & Jing, Z. The Dual Path Influence Mechanism of Ambidextrous Leadership on Newcomer Socialization and Innovative Behavior. Sci. Sci. Manage. S T. 37 (12), 161–173 (2016).
Kılınç, A. Ç., Polatcan, M., Savaş, G. & Er, E. How transformational leadership influences teachers’ commitment and innovative practices: Understanding the moderating role of trust in principal. Educational Manage. Adm. Leadersh. 52 (2), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221082803 (2022).
Kim, E. S., Dedrick, R. F., Cao, C. & Ferron, J. M. Multilevel Factor Analysis: Reporting Guidelines and a Review of Reporting Practices. Multivar. Behav. Res. 51 (6), 881–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1228042 (2016).
Kim, N., Kang, Y. J., Choi, J. & Sohn, Y. W. The Crossover Effects of Supervisors' Workaholism on Subordinates' Turnover Intention: The Mediating Role of Two Types of Job Demands and Emotional Exhaustion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 17 (21). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217742 (2020).
Klaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M. & Martens, R. Teachers’ Innovative Behaviour: The Importance of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction, Intrinsic Motivation, and Occupational Self-Efficacy. Scandinavian J. Educational Res. 62 (5), 769–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1306803 (2018).
Kraimer, M. L., Shaffer, M. A., Bolino, M. C., Charlier, S. D. & Wurtz, O. A transactional stress theory of global work demands: A challenge, hindrance, or both? J. Appl. Psychol. 107 (12), 2197–2219. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001009 (2022).
Kristoffersen, I. Great expectations: Education and subjective wellbeing. J. Econ. Psychol. 66, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.04.005 (2018).
Lazarus, R. & Folkman, S. S [R. S.], [S.]. Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company. (1984).
Lazarus, R., Folkman, S. & [Susan]. S [R. S.], Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141–169. (1987).
Li, Q. Q. & She, Z. L. The impact of workaholic leaders on followers’ continuous learning (The Oxford Handbook of Lifelong Learning, Second Edition). Oxford University Press. (2020).
Li, S., He, W., Yam, K. C. & Long, L. When and why empowering leadership increases followers’ taking charge: A multilevel examination in China. Asia Pac. J. Manage. 32 (3), 645–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9424-1 (2015).
Messmann, G. & Mulder, R. H. Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Hum. Resource Dev. Int. 15 (1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.646894 (2012).
Miaomiao, W. & Jie, Z. The Impact of Authentic Leadership on New Generation Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of Perceived Insider Status. SCIENCE of SCIENCE and MANAGEMENT of S.&.T, 40(3). (2019).
Mitchell, M. S., Greenbaum, R. L., Vogel, R. M., Mawritz, M. B. & Keating, D. J. Can You Handle the Pressure? The Effect of Performance Pressure on Stress Appraisals, Self-Regulation, and Behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 62 (2), 531–552 (2019).
Nguyen, D., Pietsch, M., Gümüş, S [S.]. & Collective teacher innovativeness in 48 countries: Effects of teacher autonomy, collaborative culture, and professional learning. Teach. Teacher Educ. 106, 1–43 (2021).
Oates, W. E. Confessions of a Workaholic: The Facts about Work Addiction (World, 1971).
Pan, S. Y. Do workaholic hotel supervisors provide family supportive supervision? A role identity perspective. Int. J. Hospitality Manage. 68, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.013 (2018).
Parker, S. & K [S. K.]. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. J. Appl. Psychol. 83 (6), 835–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835 (1998).
Parker, S. K., [Sharon, K., Williams, H. M. & Turner, N. Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 (3), 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636 (2006).
Parker, S. K., Sharon, K.]. & [. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (3), 835–852 (1998).
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 (2003).
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J. & Zhang, Z. A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychol. Methods. 15 (3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141 (2010).
Quan, L., [Li], Zhuolin, S., [She], Baiyin, Y. & Bin, Y. Push or Pull? An Examination of the Curvilinear Effect of Leader Workaholism on Follower Creativity. Manage. Rev. 35 (4), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.14120/j.cnki.cn11-5057/f.2023.04.010 (2023).
Quan, L., [Li], Zhuolin, S., [She], Baiyin, Y. & Mingzheng, Q. The mechanism of how workaholic CEO influences organizational performance. Chinese Journal of Management, 1510. (2018). https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-884x.2018.10.007
Quan, L., Li.], Zhuolin, S. & Baiyin, Y. [ [She.], The Impact of Leader Workaholism on Team Creativity. SCIENCE of SCIENCE and MANAGEMENT of S.&.T, 42(2). (2021).
Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A. & Taris, T. W. Being Driven to Work Excessively Hard. Cross-Cultural Res. 43 (4), 320–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397109337239 (2009).
Scott, S. G. & Bruce, R. A. Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. AMJ (Academy Manage. Journal). 37 (3), 580–607 (1994).
Searle, B. J. & Auton, J. C. The merits of measuring challenge and hindrance appraisals. Anxiety Stress Coping. 28 (2), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.931378 (2015).
She, Z. et al. The double-edged sword effects of leader workaholism on team performance. Acta Physiol. Sinica. 53 (9), 1018–1031. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01018 (2021).
She, Z., Ma, L., Li, Q., [Quan] & Jiang, P. Help or hindrance? The effects of leader workaholism on employee creativity. J. Bus. Res. 182, 114767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114767 (2024).
Shu-zhen, L., Long, Y. & Min, G. How does Job Insecurity Become the Driving Force of Innovative Behavior? Based on the Transactional Theory of Stress. Economic Manage. 11, 126–140. https://doi.org/10.19616/j.cnki.bmj.2019.11.008 (2019).
Smith, C. A., Lazarus, R. S. & [Richard, S. Appraisal components, core relational themes, and the emotions. Cognition Emot. 7 (3–4), 233–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939308409189 (1993).
Thurlings, M., Evers, A. T. & Vermeulen, M. Toward a Model of Explaining Teachers’ Innovative Behavior. Rev. Educ. Res. 85 (3), 430–471. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314557949 (2015).
Xu, Q., Zhao, Y., Xi, M. & Zhao, S. Impact of benevolent leadership on follower taking charge. Chin. Manage. Stud. 12 (4), 741–755. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-03-2018-0448 (2018).
Yang, S. C. & Huang, Y. F. A study of high school English teachers’ behavior, concerns and beliefs in integrating information technology into English instruction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24 (3), 1085–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.03.009 (2008).
Zeng, Q. & Liu, X. How Workaholic Leadership Affects Employee Self-Presentation: The Role of Workplace Anxiety and Segmentation Supplies. Front. Psychol. 13, 889270. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.889270 (2022).
Zhuolin, S., [She], Quan, L., [Li], Yicun, K. & Baiyin, Y. Can Workaholic Leader Promote Follower Job Performance? The Moderating Role of Follower Work Centrality. Hum. Resour. Dev. China. 37 (6). https://doi.org/10.16471/j.cnki.11-2822/c.2020.6.004 (2020).

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The double-edged sword effect of workaholic leadership on teachers' innovative behavior from cognitive appraisal theory of stress perspective

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Theoretical framework and research hypothesis

Workaholic leadership

Cognitive appraisal theory of stress

Workaholic leadership and teachers' performance stress

Double-edged sword effect based on cognitive appraisal process of stress

The moderating effect of role breadth self-efficacy

Method

Samples and procedures

Measures

Ethics statement

Results

Aggregation Analysis

Reliability and validity assessment

Correlational analysis

Direct Effect Testing

Mediation Effect Analysis

Moderation effect analysis

Conclusion and discussion

Theoretical contributions

Practical implications

Limitations and future directions

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Author Contribution

Data Availability

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1