Business Ethics Journal Article

r Academy of Management Journal 2020, Vol. 63, No. 6, 1923–1950. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0680

PLAYING IT SAFE FOR MY FAMILY: EXPLORING THE DUAL EFFECTS OF FAMILY MOTIVATION ON EMPLOYEE

PRODUCTIVITY AND CREATIVITY

XIN-AN ZHANG Shanghai Jiaotong University

HUIYAO LIAO University of Iowa

NING LI University of Iowa and Tongji University

AMY E. COLBERT University of Iowa

Research has shown that family motivation exerts an energizing effect on employee performance. Challenging this, we argue that family motivation is a double-edged sword with both an energizing and a debilitating effect on employee performance, depending on the performance criterion in question. Specifically, drawing upon self-determination theory and the “hard work versus smart work” framework, we hypothesize that family motivation is positively related to employee productivity via enhanced work effort (i.e., energizing effect). However, family motivation also stimulates employees to see their jobs as a means to gain financial support for their family, rather than an end in itself, which is associated with lower levels of creativity (i.e., debilitating effect). We further propose that employees’ family motivation is higher when they experience higher levels of family financial pressure, and that financial pressure ismore strongly related to family motivation for women than for men. We find support for our hypotheses in a sample of 187 low-wage, blue-collar workers and a sample of 439 relatively high-income, white- collar employees. We also conduct a qualitative study with 40 high-income employees; results provide a more nuanced understanding of the ways in which family motivation shapes perceptions of the job and subsequent behaviors and outcomes.

Human beings, along with other species on earth, are genetically motivated to benefit their families. The biologist J.B.S.Haldanereportedlyquipped,“Iwouldlay downmy life for twobrothers or eight cousins,”which is a fair deal in evolutionary terms because siblings are, on average,50%identicalbydescent,whereascousinsshare 12.5% of their genes. As manifested in the workplace, “family motivation” (i.e., the desire to expend effort to

benefit one’s family [Menges, Tussing, Wihler, & Grant, 2017]) maymotivate employees to work hard to support their families (George & Brief, 1990; Menges et al., 2017; Tariq & Ding, 2018; Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997) and is becoming an evenmore relevant motivator at a time when many families are walking a financial tightrope (AmericanPsychologicalAssociation, 2015; Lyons & Liu, 2016). Financial concerns are expe- rienced not only by low-wage workers (Leana &Meuris, 2015), but also by working adults in other income brackets. According to a study byMassachusettsMutual Life Insurance Company (2017), household financial stress is a widespread concern among working Ameri- cans with annual household incomes between $35,000 and $150,000, a group that includesboth low- wage workers and more affluent ones. Under such financial strain, employees might be even more motivated to work for their family’s welfare.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Ning Li ([email protected]) or Xin-an Zhang ([email protected]).

We would like to thank Associate Editor Markus Baer and our three anonymous reviewers for their construc- tive and helpful comments. This research was supported by a grant from National Science Foundation of China (#71472123) and a grant from Shanghai Municipal Edu- cation Commission (#2017-01-07-00-02-E00043).

1923

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

Recent researchhas shown that familymotivation represents a strong motivational force in the work setting, energizing employees to work harder and more persistently (Menges et al., 2017; Tariq &Ding, 2018). However, when work is primarily about ful- filling one’s family obligations rather than an end in and of itself, it may also have negative effects on employee performance (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001)—a possibility that has been suggested in re- lated streams, but largely overlooked in the family motivation literature. Drawing from self-determination theory, we extend theory on family motivation, pro- posing that family motivation may lead employees to see their jobs primarily as a source of financial rewards that can be used to support their families. Thismay reduce their willingness to engage in forms of performance that do not generate immediate and certain economic returns. For example, employees’ creative performance in the workplace is highly un- certain, partly because employees engaging in crea- tive efforts do not have a priori knowledge of the outcomes and the subsequent economic rewards that will be obtained (Dewett, 2006). The failure of crea- tive endeavors may lead to short-term performance decline and even job loss (Dewett, 2007; Haefele, 1962; Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, 2011). Even in a context in which creativity is considered a key in- dicator of performance (e.g., scientific research), creative endeavors still involve uncertainties. For example, Bromham, Dinnage, and Hua (2016) found that novel research proposals might have a lower probability of being funded. Similarly, Boudreau, Guinan, Lakhani, and Riedl (2016) reported that evalu- ators might give lower scores to highly novel research ideas.Foremployees tobecreative, theymustaccept the uncertainties inherent in the creative process (George & Zhou, 2007), and employees with strong family moti- vation may be less willing to accept such uncertainties (Menges et al., 2017) because these employees tend to view their jobs as a means to support their families fi- nanciallyandwill“playit safe” tokeeptheir jobssecure. Thus, the first purpose of our research is to develop and test theory that suggests family motivation may have dual effects on employee performance by shaping the ways in which employees view their jobs.

As evidence showing the impact of family moti- vation on important individual outcomes continues to accumulate, family motivation theory likewise needs to be expanded to include the antecedents of family motivation. This theoretical expansion is necessary to develop a key part of the nomological network surrounding family motivation and can help managers and organizations understand when

family motivation may be a dominant motive driv- ing employee behavior. Thus, the second purpose of our research is to develop and test theory about the antecedents of family motivation. In this paper, we draw from self-determination theory to propose that financial pressure likely activates family mo- tivation. Since one primary way to benefit one’s family through work involves obtaining financial resources from work to support the family, we ex- pect that the strength of family motivation will be driven by how much one’s family relies on the fi- nancial resources from the work. Finally, as gender has been shown to affect family roles and respon- sibilities (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991; Judge & Livingston, 2008), we also examine how gender in- fluences the relationship between family financial pressure and family motivation. Our full model is depicted in Figure 1.

Our research makes several theoretical contribu- tions. First, we contribute to family motivation theory by demonstrating that strong family motivation can produce unintended unfavorable consequences. In doing so, we answer calls to explore the downsides of family motivation, and, more importantly, we pro- vide a more nuanced and systematic view of the effects of family motivation on employee perfor- mance (Menges et al., 2017). From a theoretical perspective, motivation theories (Kanfer, 1990; Kanfer, Chen, & Pritchard, 2008) have asserted that motivation drives people in three ways: intensity (how hard a person works), persistence (how long a person works), and direction (what a person choo- ses to do). Whereas previous research has concen- trated onhow familymotivationdrives the intensity and persistence of one’s efforts (e.g., Menges et al., 2017), less attention has been devoted to how em- ployees with strong family motivation choose to allocate their effort toward achieving different as- pects of job performance. Drawing upon this framework, we extend family motivation theory by demonstrating that, while family motivation en- hances the intensity and persistence of employees’ actions, it also changes how people view their jobs, thereby affecting the direction of effort.

Second, drawing on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2010) and the “hardwork versus smart work” framework (Bracha & Fershtman, 2013), we explore themechanismsbywhich familymotivation exhibits its dual effects. Specifically, we examine “work effort” (i.e., the extent to which employees physically work hard and work long hours) and “job instrumentality” belief (i.e., the extent to which employees view their jobs a means to acquire

1924 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

financial resources, instead of as an end in and of itself) as two distinct mechanisms linking family motivation to productivity and creativity, respec- tively. Through qualitative analyses, we find that employees with strong family motivation experi- ence a “meaningfulness detachment” process, in which employees shift their priorities frompursuing a meaningful job to pursuing a job with high eco- nomic returns. Ultimately, they avoid uncertainty as they come to view the job as a means to support their family and, in turn, are less likely to engage in creative endeavors. In exploring this process, we challenge a key assumption of previous research— namely, that family motivation primarily energizes employees in theworkplace (Tariq &Ding, 2018)—and examine why and how family motivation can place a creativity “tax” on employees who are motivated to benefit their families through work.

Third, we examine both consequences and ante- cedents of family motivation to comprehensively understand the nomological network of family mo- tivation. Specifically, we focus on financial pressure and gender as two key factors that interactively in- fluence family motivation. By investigating family financial pressure as an antecedent of family moti- vation, we go beyond the extant literature, which has predominantly examined the consequences of family motivation (Menges et al., 2017; Tariq & Ding, 2018). Further, by exploring the moderating role of gender, we not only uncover a boundary condition for acti- vation of family motivation, but also integrate family motivation research with gender research, which has been found to play a critical role in a broader range of family-related research (e.g., Gutek et al., 1991; Joshi, Neely, Emrich, Griffiths, & George, 2015; Powell & Greenhaus, 2010).

FIGURE 1 Results of SEM Analysis in Sample 1

Family Financial Pressure

.30**

(.18**)

Gender

Family Motivation

.38** Job Instrumentality

Controls: Intrinsic Motivation: .12 Plant 1: .50 Plant 2: –.20**

Controls: Intrinsic Motivation: –.09

Creativity –.20**

Controls: Gender:a –.10 Age: .01 Educational level: .02 Tenure: –.16* Family size: .02 Family living area: –.03

.39**

.37** .18** Work Effort Productivity

Controls: Past Productivity: .55** Plant 1: .01 Plant 2: .22

Controls: Intrinsic Motivation: .29**

Notes:n5 187. The estimate in parentheseswas obtained from theSEMwith the interaction term. Fit formodelwithout the interaction term: x25 46.93,df5 42, CFI5 .98, TLI5 .96, RMSEA5 .03. Fit formodelwith the interaction term: x25 49.12,df5 46, CFI5 99, TLI5 .97, RMSEA 5 .02.

a Gender was added as a covariate in the main effect model but was added as moderator in the full model. * p, .05 ** p , .01

2020 1925Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

Family Motivation, Work Effort, and Productivity

“Family motivation”1 is defined as the desire to expend effort to benefit one’s family (Menges et al., 2017) and has been conceptualized as a subtype of prosocial motivation (i.e., the desire to expend effort to benefit others; Grant, 2007, 2008). Whereas most research on traditional types of prosocial motivation (e.g., customer orientation)has examinedcoworkers, customers, or even animals as beneficiaries of work (e.g., Donavan, Brown, & Mowen, 2004; Grant & Berry, 2011; Hu & Liden, 2015), the beneficiaries of family motivation are specifically identified as fam- ilymembers. “Family” consists of people “related by biological ties, marriage, social custom, or adoption” (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000: 179). Based on the def- inition, family motivation is relevant not only in parent–offspring relationships (e.g., breeding respon- sibility and filial responsibility [Matthews & Rosner, 1988]) or marriage relationships, but also in other ex- tended kin relationships with siblings, grandparents, or others (Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994).

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2010) helps explain the motivating potential and possible outcomes of family motivation. Self-determination theory proposes that types of motivation can be arranged on a continuum ranging from autonomous to controlled. Specifically, autonomous motivation involves “acting with a sense of volition and having the experience of choice,” whereas controlled moti- vation involves “acting with a sense of pressure, a sense of having to engage in the actions” (Gagné & Deci, 2005: 334). Motivation that stems from valuing the purpose of the task (identified regulation), syn- thesis of the task’s purpose with the self (integrated regulation), or enjoyment of the task (intrinsic mo- tivation) are relatively more autonomous as com- pared with motivation that stems from the desire to avoid guilt (introjected regulation) or from external

rewards and punishments (external regulation). These different forms of motivation exert different effects on employee behaviors, attitude, and outcomes (Koestner & Losier, 2002; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). Autonomous motivation allows employees to fully engage in work with a sense of volition and choice, which leads to higher levels of discretionary per- formance and more sustained motivation. Con- trolled motivation, by contrast, narrows the range of employee effort. As a result, controlled moti- vation may be effective for motivating specific behaviors and can have positive short-term effects on targeted outcomes, but is unlikely to result in adaptive or innovative performance (Deci, Olafsen, & Ryan, 2017).

Drawing on self-determination theory, family mo- tivation could be experienced as more or less con- trolled,dependingon the reasons someone isworking to benefit family members. For example, if family motivation is activated because of financial pres- sures or because of societal expectations, it will be experienced asmore controlling.However, if family motivation becomes activated because of one’s identity as a breadwinner or a role model for the family, it can be experienced as more autonomous. We argue that family motivation is most likely to be experienced as a controlled form of motivation for most working adults. First and foremost, the pri- mary way to benefit one’s family through work is to earn income to support one’s family financially. In other words, when people think about why they are working on behalf of their family, they are espe- cially likely to think about the affordances that come with the work as a way to benefit their family (Menges et al., 2017). Thus, they are more likely to feel controlled by extrinsic aspirations.

Second, family motivation is a more controlled form of prosocial motivation than are traditionally studied forms of prosocial motivation. Like other types of prosocial motivation, family motivation may increase the effort that employees put into their work because it allows them to attach a valued pur- pose to their work—namely, supporting their fam- ily. However, family motivation differs from other forms of prosocial motivation in two important ways. First, the relationships on which other forms of prosocial motivation are based (e.g., work rela- tionships, volunteer–beneficiary relationships) are chosen by individuals, are relatively easy to exit, and require only short-term personal involvement (Pahl&Spencer, 2004). In contrast, the relationships in which family motivation is most relevant are largely given through kinship ties, and, even when they are

1 While the original definition of “family motivation” (i.e., the desire to expend effort to benefit one’s family [Menges et al., 2017]) does not explicitly specify family motivation as work-specific motivation, we focus on fam- ily motivation in the work domain, such that family moti- vation in our study captures employees’ desire to work to benefit their family. Ourmeasurement in this study,which explicitly asked respondents about their familymotivation at work, is consistent with our focus. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that family motivation could be conceptu- alized more broadly, such that a father stealing bread from a store to feed his children might be viewed as someone driven by general family motivation.

1926 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

chosen (as one chooses a spouse), they tend to entail a lifelong commitment and are usually enforced by social expectations or even laws (Stein, 1992). For example, people have more discretion to choose the beneficiaries when they volunteer (Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991) than when they are driven by family motivation. Due to the different levels of perceived autonomy in family relationships versus nonfamily relationships (i.e., chosen versus given, or personal choice versus fate; Pahl & Spencer, 2004), family motivation might be experienced as less au- tonomously regulated than are traditional forms of prosocial motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2010). For ex- ample, individuals may expend effort to help co- workers or other beneficiaries because they “want to,” whereas they may seek to help their family pri- marilybecause they“should” (Janoff-Bulman&Leggatt, 2002).

Third, and relatedly, family motivation and other forms of prosocial motivation differ in the ways in which the beneficiaries are impacted by work effort. Beneficiaries of traditional forms of prosocial moti- vation are usually directly affected by employees’ task contributions, products, or services (Grant, 2007, 2008). For example, the work of a teacher benefits students, while the work of a zookeeper benefits the animals. In these cases, prosocial motivation drives employees to fully engage with their work because those efforts directly impact their beneficiaries. In contrast, beneficiaries of family motivation are exter- nal to the workplace and “are not affected directly by employees’ task contributions, products, or services, but rather by employment itself and its affordances” (Menges et al., 2017: 697). As a consequence, em- ployeeswith high levels of traditionally studied forms of prosocialmotivation aremore likely to see thework itself as motivating, whereas employees with high family motivation are more likely to be concerned about the resources they get from working to support their families.

Premised on these distinctions, we put forward a theoretical model that suggests family motivation is likely to be experienced as a form of controlled mo- tivation, thereby becoming a double-edged sword in driving individual performance. Consistent with self-determination theory, familymotivationmay be positively related to employee effort and perfor- mance quantity, but is unlikely to lead to creative performance, which is associated with more auton- omous forms of motivation. The “hard work versus smart work” framework (Bracha & Fershtman, 2013; Klehe & Anderson, 2007; Sujan, Weitz, & Kumar, 1994) suggests a similar dual effect. In this context,

“smart work” refers to “the manifestation of a ten- dency to select clever and ingenious approaches to deal with a given task, and to modify those ap- proaches, intelligently and resourcefully, where necessary” (i.e., creativity), whereas “hard work” comprises “the expenditure of effort in the perfor- mance of tasks” (Coad, 1996: 387). Creativity maps onto the “smart work” dimension because it is de- fined as the generation of ingenious and potentially valuable ideas concerning new products, services, and approaches to doing things (Amabile, 1988; Zhou & George, 2001); thus, it can be considered an outcomeof “smartwork.”Scholars argue that there is a potential trade-off between these two types of ef- forts when employees’ motivation is primarily di- rected toward one path or the other (Fang, Palmatier, & Evans, 2004).

We propose that family motivation is more likely to stimulate hard work than smart work. Motivation theories suggest that individualsputmore labor efforts into their assigned jobswhen they value the outcomes achieved through their efforts (i.e., valence; Vroom, 1964). When the desire to benefit one’s family is strong, employees will connect their work to the im- portant value of benefiting the people who matter to them, which strengthens the valence of the rewards provided by that work (Grant, 2007; Menges et al., 2017). The valence of the rewards of hard work may be especially high in the case of family motivation, as individuals are bound with their beneficiaries (i.e., family members) by ties of kinship and share substantive history with the beneficiaries (Menges et al., 2017). Additionally, the perceived impact of rewards gained fromhardworkon the beneficiaries is especially visible when those beneficiaries are family members.Due to the increasedvalenceof the rewards, we expect employees with higher levels of family motivation to exert more effort in their assignedwork (Deci & Ryan, 2010; Grant, 2007). Supporting our ar- gument, research shows that, when employees view their family roles as important to them, they invest more time in work (Rothbard & Edwards, 2003). Similarly, in their study of workers in a Mexican maquiladora,Menges et al. (2017) found that theneed to support one’s family served as a source of work motivation energizing employees’ efforts.

Hypothesis 1. Family motivation is positively associ- ated with employee work effort.

We further expect that work effort will increase employee productivity. “Productivity” describes an outcomeof performance—the quantity of output that results from performance behaviors as well as

2020 1927Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

external contextual and opportunity factors (e.g., Blumberg & Pringle, 1982; Schmidt & Hunter, 1983). External contextual and opportunity factors being equal, an individual’s productivity is determined by their goal-directed behaviors, such as work dedica- tion and work effort. Supporting our argument, past research has shown that employees’ work effort is positively associated with their productivity levels (e.g., Clark, Michel, Zhdanova, Pui, & Baltes, 2016; Johns, 2011). Taken together, we propose:

Hypothesis 2. Employee work effort is positively as- sociated with employee productivity.

Hypothesis 3. Employee work effort mediates the re- lationship between family motivation and employee productivity.

Family Motivation, Job Instrumentality, and Creativity

Although family motivation may lead employees to work harder and achieve higher levels of produc- tivity, it may also reduce the likelihood of creative performance. Because employees have less discre- tion to select their family members, they may feel obligated to work hard to support their family members. Additionally, because the benefits to one’s family are often obtained through financial rewards, employees with higher levels of family motivation may become more focused on the financial rewards that come from work rather than the purpose of the work itself, leading to a more controlled form of motivation.

More specifically, like people with a job orienta- tion (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997), employees with higher familymotivationmay seework not as an end in itself, but rather as a means by which they can acquire the resources needed to support their family. Based on Wrzesniewski et al.’s (1997) distinctions between job, career, and calling, people with strong familymotivation aremore likely to see theirwork as a job than a career or calling. Similar toWrzesniewski et al.’s (1997) typology, Cherrington (1980) differenti- ated two psychological values of work: work as an instrumental value and work as a terminal value. The former perspective views work primarily as a means to an end, or as “a positive activity because it con- tributes, at least indirectly, to otherworthwhile goals” (Cherrington, 1980: 26), whereas the latter perspec- tive views work as a positive activity in and of itself (Brown & Peterson, 1994). Within this framework, employees with higher levels of family motivation wouldbemore likely toperceiveworkasameans toan

end (i.e., support the family financially), resulting in higher levels of job instrumentality.

A focus on the job as an instrument for obtaining financial rewards is likely to be a self-reinforcing phenomenon. Research has shown that employees selectively notice, encode, and retain information that is consistent with their desires (Kunda, 1990; Nickerson, 1998). When individuals are driven by the desire to benefit their family, they will focus largely on monetarily relevant information, such as whether the job provides enough compensation to support their family, to the exclusion of other cues about the value of the work itself. After repeatedly noticing, encoding, and retaining information that focuseson the financial rewardsof the job, people are more likely to develop a job instrumentality per- spective, seeing the job as a means for obtaining ex- ternal rewards rather than as an opportunity for growth or a source of purpose. Thus:

Hypothesis 4. Family motivation is positively associ- ated with employee job instrumentality.

We further posit that family motivation has a det- rimental effect on employee creativity through its impact on job instrumentality. Self-determination theory originally proposed that financial consider- ations would undermine one’s motivation to engage in creative activities (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). However, recent development of this theory has suggested that caring about financial rewards might not necessarily impede creativity, but instead might actually enhance creativity (e.g., Gerhart & Fang, 2015; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). To reconcile these inconsistent findings, scholars have argued that financial considerations have both informa- tional effects (i.e., signaling one’s competence or contributions) and controlling effects (i.e., people feel pressured to think, feel, or behave in a particular way) (Deci et al., 2017), and that whether financial considerations undermine or enhance creativity depends on the relative “functional significance” of informational and controlling effects. That is, if the informational aspect were more salient, fi- nancial considerations would enhance creativity. Conversely, if the controlling aspect were more salient, those considerations would impede crea- tivity (Amabile, 1993).

In the present study, we argue that job instru- mentality due to family motivation exerts a control- ling effect, rather than an informational effect, on employees, which undermines employees’ creativ- ity. According to the literature, a situation is more controlling if it includes the following features: (a)

1928 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

instrumental values—that is, performance needed to achieve a specific outcome; (b) pressure to perform; (c) obligation or “should” motives; and (d) behavior needed for someone else’s purpose (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Pittman, Davey, Alafat, Wetherill, & Kramer, 1980; Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001). In a laboratory experiment, Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001) found that individual creativity was lowest in situations featuring these four characteristics. Job instrumen- tality satisfies all of these features: employees with higher levels of job instrumentality need to achieve a specific outcome (i.e., earn money to support their family), face pressure to perform well, believe that they are obligated to help their family (“should”), and believe that their employment is needed by their family. As a result, we expect job instrumentality to exercise a strong controlling effect on employees, directing their cognitions and behaviors (e.g., avoiding uncertainty) in ways that eventually hurt their creativity.

Employees who view their job merely as a means to earn money to support their family are likely to be more concerned about immediate and certain eco- nomic returns. Consequently, they are less willing to engage in activities that do not generate such im- mediate and certain rewards. Creativity is a highly uncertain phenomenon, and the action–outcome link is often tortuous and spread out over time (Sethia, 1989). In other words, when employees en- gage in creative efforts, they do not have a priori knowledge of the outcomes and the subsequent economic rewards that will be obtained (Dewett, 2006). As lamented by Dewett (2006: 28), an em- ployee “is most likely cognizant of the possibility that, ultimately, theworkmay ormay not be creative and successful.” And, if creative activities fail, em- ployees who initiate such activities may even face negative consequences (Zhou & George, 2001). Therefore, if employees fail to see a clear link be- tween creative endeavors and successful outcomes aswell as the subsequent economic returns, theywill tend to invest less in creativity.

In addition, employees with strong job instru- mentality will likely focus their cognitive resources almost exclusively on addressing their immediate concerns (e.g., monetary rewards and job security), and limit the cognitive resources devoted to long- term and future-oriented creative activities, such as skills acquisition (Shah, Mullainathan, & Shafir, 2012). According to Amabile’s (1996) componential model, creativity requires individuals to engage in a long-term, ego-demanding learning process to ac- quire domain-relevant and creativity-relevant skills

(Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009). However, when employees see their jobs primarily as a means to support their families, they inadvertently restrict their cognitive processing to focus on only those stimuli related to monetary aspects of their jobs (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013). As people have a finite capacity to heed and process information (Baddeley, 1992; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Norman & Bobrow, 1975), devoting increased attention to the monetary aspects of their jobs leaves fewer cognitive resources available for skill acquisition—the so- called “tunneling effect,” whereby people tend to neglect information unrelated to their immediate source of concern (Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir, & Zhao, 2013). This phenomenon impedes employee creativity.

Thus, while less autonomous forms of motivation still motivate employees to work hard, they are less likely to drive creativity and cognitive flexibility, due to a strong controlling effect of job instrumen- tality (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Creativity is hindered when employee instrumentality is high, due to de- clines in individuals’willingness to accept uncertain results aswell as their cognitive resources devoted to acquiring skills relevant for generating creativity.

Hypothesis 5. Employee job instrumentality is nega- tively associated with employee creativity.

Hypothesis 6. Employee job instrumentality mediates the negative relationship between family motivation and employee creativity.

Financial Pressure, Gender, and FamilyMotivation

At this point, we shift our focus from the outcomes of family motivation to its antecedents. Family mo- tivation theory has not yet considered these ante- cedents, and our theorizing about the outcomes of family motivation provides insights that allow us to propose an initial theory of the antecedents of family motivation. As noted previously, family motivation captures employees’ desire to benefit their families through work. We propose that the primary way to benefit one’s family through work is by earning in- come to support one’s family financially (Menges et al., 2017), leading employees to experience family motivation as a less autonomous, more controlled type of motivation. According to self-determination theory, the type of motivation experienced by an employee is shaped, at least partially, by that indi- vidual’s aspirations. When employees strive to achieve intrinsic aspirations, such as personal de- velopment or meaningful contributions, they are

2020 1929Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

more likely to experience autonomous forms of mo- tivation. In contrast, controlled forms of motivation becomemore salientwhen employees have extrinsic aspirations, such as external rewards or recognition (Deci et al., 2017).

We propose that extrinsic aspirations are triggered when extrinsic needs are unmet. Thus, family fi- nancial pressure,which captures the extent towhich a family is in need of financial support, may make extrinsic aspirations more salient. When faced with intense financial pressures (e.g., the pressure to pay a mortgage), an individual’s primary goal is to reduce those pressures. The more urgent the need is, the higher the salience of this goal will be. Therefore, when employees are confrontedwith an urgent need to support their family (i.e., in case of great family financial difficulties), they are more likely to focus on obtaining extrinsic rewards. The emphasis on extrinsic aspirations will tend to trigger controlled forms of motivation. The link between family fi- nancial pressure and familymotivation is likely to be especially strong because family financial pressure is an indicator that theneed to support one’s family is unmet.

Hypothesis 7. Family financial pressure is positively associated with family motivation.

However, financial pressure is not the only factor that triggers extrinsic aspirations. Extrinsic aspira- tionsmay be salient to the degree that employees see providing for the family as a part of their responsi- bility. According to gender role theory (Baugh, 1990; Gutek et al., 1991), men andwomen are socialized to view their primary roles within the family differ- ently. Men are expected towork to benefit the family regardless of the family’s financial condition. Re- search suggests that traditional gender roles dictate that men work outside the home to financially sup- port their families (Judge & Livingston, 2008) and women work inside the home as caretakers (Moen & Roehling, 2005). Although somemight argue that the era of “husband as breadwinner” is dead (Salam, 2009), recent research has found that the dominant familial image inmanyparts of theworld remains the one in which married women are viewed as care- takers of the home and family, and married men are responsible for securing the family’s financial well- being (Tinsley, Howell, & Amanatullah, 2015).

Thus, based on gender role theory, we expect men andwomen to react differently to financial pressures in developing their family motivation. Gender role theory suggests that extrinsic aspirations that result from the motive to provide for the family’s financial

well-being are likely to be salient for men no matter the level of financial pressure they face. Men are expected to work outside the home to support the family regardless of external pressure; consequently, they develop higher levels of family motivation in- dependent of the family’s specific financial condi- tion. In contrast,women tendnot to view their jobs as an importantmeans to support their family, but rather as ways to enrich their professional careers, ensure self-development, and create a social life (Scandura & Lankau, 1997), thereby allowing them to experience more autonomous motivation. Only when they feel strong financial pressure do extrinsic aspirations be- come salient for women. At this point, women start to focus on the job as a means to support their family.

Hypothesis 8. Gender moderates the relationship be- tween family financial pressure and employee family motivation such that the relationship between family financial pressure and family motivation is stronger for women than for men.

QUANTITATIVE STUDY

Samples and Procedures

We tested our hypotheses in two independent settings to determine if our findings could be gener- alized to employees in different jobs and at different income levels. Specifically, we tested our full model (Figure 1) in a sample of low-wage, blue-collar workers (Sample 1) and replicated the most novel part of our model (Figure 2) in a sample of higher- income, white-collar employees (Sample 2).

Blue-collar workers. We collected data from a textile manufacturing company in China with three factories in different regions. These three factories manufactured the same range of products, and all workers were paid using the same piece-rate system. An earlier interview with managers identified that worker creativitywas important for shop floorworkers in the company. For example, even though the company has designed routine work procedures for each position and trained workers to operate ma- chines based on those procedures, the company also encourages workers to adjust the procedures on their own to improve efficiency once they became familiar with the standardized procedures. Workers were also encouraged to come up with new and practical ideas to improve their performance. For instance, several workers in the company came up with new sewing techniques to improve the quality of a product.

Datawere collected at two different time points. In 2015, at Time 1, workers responded to questions

1930 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

regarding family financial pressure, family motiva- tion, job instrumentality,work effort, and our control variables. At Time 2, three months later, the direct supervisors of the surveyed workers rated the workers’ creativity, and the human resources department provided workers’ productivity data between Time 1 and Time 2. Our original sample consisted of 300 workers randomly selected from a pool of 9,161 workers in three factories. After ac- counting for missing data and excluding workers who quit the organization between the presentations of the two surveys, we obtained complete matched data from 187 workers and 163 supervisors (61.3% response rate). Of the employees in the final sample, 86 (46.0%) were men; 129 (69.0%) had graduated from middle school or below, 57 (30.5%) from high school or vocational school, and 1 (0.5%) from a three-year college. The average age was 29.99 years (SD 5 6.93), and average tenure in the organization was 11.41 months (SD 5 9.70). Their average monthly income during the study period was 4798.03 RMB (SD 5 568.22; 1,000 RMB 5 approxi- mately $150). The average family size was 4.55 people (SD 5 1.50), and 173 (92.5%) of the em- ployees had family living in rural villages.

White-collar employees. Our second sample consisted of white-collar employees from a variety of industries, including finance, information tech- nology, and nonprofit organizations, in Shanghai, China. These participants were more affluent than

those in Sample 1, and creativity was a key part of their jobs. For example, participants from the fi- nance industry (e.g., financial analysts) were ex- pected to come up with new ways to attract clients and to improve profitability.

In 2017, we distributed surveys to 492 employees in 86 teams. Team size ranged from three to 12 (mean5 6.12, SD5 1.98). Employees reported their financial pressure, family motivation, job instru- mentality, and control variables. Employee creativity was rated by all team members with whom the em- ployee had daily face-to-face interactions. The final sample consisted of 439 employees in 84 teams, for a response rate of 89.23%. Of the respondents, 276 were men (62.9%). Their ages ranged from 22 to 60 years, with an average age of 32.24 years (SD 5 6.20). The average job tenure was 4.45 years (SD 5 4.25). In terms of educational level, 32 (7.3%) had graduated from high school or below, 20 (4.6%) had graduated from technical school, 85 (19.4%) had an associate’s degree, 219 (49.9%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 83 (19%) had a graduate degree. In terms of family annual income, 84 were below 100,000 RMB (19.1%), 127 were between 100,000 and 200,000 RMB (28.9%), 107 were between 200,000 and 300,000 RMB (24.4%), 64 were be- tween 300,000 and 400,000 RMB (14.6%), 29 were between 400,000 and 500,000 RMB (6.6%), 14 were between 500,000 and 600,000 RMB (3.2%), and 14 earned more than 600,000 RMB (3.2%).

FIGURE 2 Interactive Effect of Family Financial Pressure and Gender on Family Motivation (Sample 1)

Controls:

Gender:a –66** Age: –.01 Educational level: –.12 Tenure: –.02 Family annual income: –10

Controls: Intrinsic Motivation: –.58**

Family Financial Pressure

Family Motivation

Job Instrumentality Creativity

Controls: Intrinsic Motivation: .15*

Gender

.15**

(.23**)

.24** –.14**

2020 1931Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

Measures

Except for the job instrumentality scale,whichwas designed specifically for this study, all scales were translated into Chinese following the back-translation procedure recommended by Brislin (1986). Unless otherwise noted, subjects responded to all items on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Family motivation. We measured family motiva- tion using the scale developed byMenges et al. (2017), whichassesses theextent towhichanemployeeworks for the sake of benefiting their family. Sample items were “I care about supporting my family” and “My family benefits from my job.” Workers were asked to reflect on the reasons they took the current job, and then to rate the extent to which they agreed with each item (Sample 1, a 5 .72; Sample 2, a 5 .92).

Job instrumentality. We assessed the extent to whichaworkerviewedtheir jobprimarilyasameans to earnmoneywithsix itemsdesigned for this study.After interviewing 15 full-time employees and sixmanagers, we initially generated nine items to measure job in- strumentality. To assess content validity, we invited five management scholars to assess whether each item was consistent with the definition of the construct. We retained six items that received consistent ratings from all five scholars: “I do this job to make money,” “This job is ameans forme to earnmoney,” “I took this job in order to earn money,” “If I can earn more money by doinghardwork, Iwilldo it,”“Moneyis theonlyreason why I do this job,” and “To me, to work is to make money.” A pilot survey with 226 part-time MBA stu- dents revealed the items had sufficient reliability (a 5 .92), and all items loaded on one dimension in an exploratory factor analysis, which accounted for 64.56%of the total variance.The scale reliabilitywas .86 and .89 in the two samples, respectively.

Work effort. Work effort was measured only in Sample 1 with three items adopted from the work effort scale developed by Brockner, Grover, Reed, and Dewitt (1992) along with one item designed for this study.2 We slightly modified the work effort scale items to accommodate the peculiarities of our sample of piece-rate workers. The four items were “I try towork as hard as possible,” “I amwilling towork overtime whenever there is a chance,” “I am partic- ularly hard-working at work,” and “I don’t want to take any days off work”; the last item was added

because workers were allowed to take leave on scheduledworkdays andwere allowed towork extra days at their discretion. The scale had sufficient re- liability (a 5 .73), and all four items loaded on a single dimension, accounting for 57.31% of the total variance in exploratory factor analysis.

Productivity.Weassessedproductivity in Sample 1 in terms of the total work value of the products that a workermadeduring the studyperiod (i.e., productivity accumulated between Time 1 and Time 2), which was determined by the number of products a worker made multiplied by thework value of each product.Workers in this company manufactured a variety of products that differed in the complexity of the tasks and the time required to complete the product. Therefore, when measuringproductivity,weneededto take intoaccount not only the number of products produced, but also the complexity of the production process, both of which were indicated by the work value of a product. This productivitymeasurewas also used by the company to calculate employees’ piece-rate pay. We obtained the productivity data from the company.

Creativity. In the blue-collar worker sample, we collected supervisors’ ratings of worker creativity with the 13-item scale (a 5 .97) developed by Zhou and George (2001). A sample item was “This em- ployee comes up with new and practical ideas to improve performance.”

In the white-collar employee sample, we collected workers’ creativity data from their peers. Since a team member needed to provide ratings for all other mem- bers, we chose the four-item scale developed by Farmer, Tierney, andKung-Mcintyre (2003), to reduce the cognitive burden of rating multiple peers. A sam- ple item was “This coworker seeks new ideas and ways to solveproblems.”Wereceived2,198 ratings for the 439 employees included in our sample (M5 5.55, SD5 1.91), and aggregated ratings for eachparticipant to indicate theparticipant’s creativity. Scale reliability was .95at the individual level and .98at theaggregated level. The average rWG was .93, ICC(1) was .14, and ICC(2) was .48, F(456, 1741)5 2.49, p, .01.

Family financial pressure. Family financial pres- sure can be measured both subjectively and objec- tively. In the blue-collarworker sample,wemeasured family financial pressure subjectively. Participants in this sample were from rural areas and faced different types of family financial pressures (e.g., education fees, insurance, groceries, mortgage); thus, it would have placed a heavy cognitive burden on survey takers if we had set out to collect objective data on all of these family expenditures. Instead, we measured family financial pressure using seven items (a5 .80)

2 We conducted sensitivity analyses by removing the added item from the work effort scale. The results were consistent with the reported results.

1932 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

adapted from the scales used by Vinokur, Price, and Caplan (1996) and Song, Uy, Zhang, and Shi (2009). These items assessed the extent to which an individ- ualworker perceived that their family had difficulties making ends meet. Sample items included “I feel pressured by all of the family expenditures” and “My family can hardly make ends meet.” Results of ex- ploratory factor analysis indicated all items loaded significantly on the first extracted factor, which accounted for 51.19% of the total variance.

In the white-collar worker sample, we used both a subjective measure and an objective measure of family financial pressure. Specifically, we used un- paid mortgage as a proxy for family financial pres- sure, because this sample’s data was collected in Shanghai, which has a reputation for unsustainably high housing prices. Unlike the participants in Sample 1, who faced different types of family fi- nancial pressures, buying an apartment is the pri- mary expense when people enter the workforce in Shanghai. A mortgage is considered the most im- portant financial burden, with other financial obli- gations being negligible compared to the housing expense. In the past two decades, the price of real estate has skyrocketed in China, especially in large cities like Shanghai. The typical price for an apart- ment of 100 square meters was approximately 10 million RMB ($1.5 million) in downtown Shanghai in 2016. Despite the high price, though, most people still choose to buy an apartment in Shanghai, for three reasons: (1) it provides a strong sense of secu- rity; (2) most people believe that the price of real estate will keep climbing in the next decade, due to the high demand, and it will be more difficult to buy later; and (3) Chinese society places a strong em- phasis on owning a house instead of renting one, so people have great social pressure to buy their own apartment (e.g., they are reluctant to get married if they have only a rental property).

Most families in Shanghai choose to buy an apartment using a mortgage and pay monthly mort- gage bills. In turn, this mortgage has a significant influence on the families’ financial situation and represents a specific form of family financial pres- sure. Of the 439 survey participants, 224 (51%) were paying on an apartment mortgage. We asked these participants to indicate the amount of their unpaid mortgage on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 (15 less than 0.5 million RMB, 2 5 0.5–1 million RMB, 3 5 1–1.5 million RMB, 4 5 1.5–2 million RMB, and 5 5 more than 2 million RMB). Participants who did not have an unpaid apartment loan, which is a strong indicator of financial well-being in China (wealthy

individuals tend to pay off their mortgage or do not take out loans if theyhave sufficient cash to purchase a home), were coded as 0. The distribution of the amount of unpaid mortgage among participants was as follows: 88 5 less than 0.5 million RMB (20%), 685 0.5–1million RMB (15.5%), 315 1–1.5million RMB (7.1%), 19 5 1.5–2 million RMB (4.3%), and 18 5 more than 2 million RMB (4.1%).3

We acknowledge that there might be better indi- cators of family financial pressure than unpaid mortgage. However, many of the alternative options were either too sensitive (e.g., asking respondents to report about their bank loans or credit card debt) or would place too much cognitive burden on survey takers to recall the information (e.g., asking respon- dents to report their annual income and annual ex- penditures on all areas including education fees, insurance, groceries, mortgage, etc.). Due to the rea- sons we discussed above, we believe that unpaid mortgage was a satisfactory indicator in our research context. In addition, we included a subjective mea- sure of family financial pressure; the results are re- ported inour supplementary analysis to demonstrate the robustness of the findings we obtained using unpaid mortgage as the indicator. Therefore, in the main analyses, we used unpaid mortgage as a proxy for family financial pressure because of the impor- tance of objective pressure and its potential practical implications.

Gender. Participants indicated their gender in the questionnaire. Men were coded as 0, and women were coded as 1 in both samples.

Covariates.4 In the blue-collar worker sample, we included age, educational level, and tenure as con- trols when testing the effect of family financial pressure on family motivation, because previous research has found that these factors influence fam- ily obligations (Allen & Finkelstein, 2014; Joo & Grable, 2004; Lobel & Clair, 1992; Weller, 2012). In China, it is very common that children, their parents, and their grandparents (usually paternal grandpar- ents) live together under the same roof. Also, due to China’s historical one child policy, most families have only one child. Therefore, in our sample, family size was largely affected by the number of grand- parents in a family, and, to a lesser extent, by the

3 Themeasure of unpaidmortgagewas correlatedwith a subjective self-assessment of financial pressure (r 5 .62, p , .01).

4 We conducted sensitivity analysis by removing all the control variables. The results were consistent with or without controls.

2020 1933Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

number of children in a family. To this end, we ex- pected that family size would have little bearing on the family financial pressure. Although a bigger family has higher expenditures, it also has more breadwinners, which offsets the financial pressure a big family might experience. On the other hand, members of abigger familymight be expected tohave stronger family motivation. Hence, we wanted to separate out this effect and examine whether family financial pressure has incremental predictive power beyond family size. Relatedly, we controlled for workers’ residence areas, because individuals from rural areas are traditionally more family oriented than those from urban areas. For Hypotheses 4–6, to understand the incremental effect of family motiva- tion on job outcomes, we controlled for the effect of intrinsic motivation to account for its motivational effect on job instrumentality, work effort, and crea- tivity. Intrinsic motivation was measured using four items (a 5 .90) adopted from Ryan and Connell (1989) andused byGrant (2008).Workers rated these four items immediately after they rated items related to family motivation. A sample item was “Because I enjoy the work itself.” We also controlled for the plant location, when testing Hypotheses 2 and 5, because workers in different plants may have dif- ferent levels of productivity and creativity. Finally, we controlled for the effect of productivity in the last threemonths (i.e., productivity accumulated in three months prior to Time 1) when testing Hypothesis 2.

Similarly, in the white-collar worker sample, we controlled for age, educational level, and organiza- tional tenure toaccount for theirpotential confounding effects. Moreover, because wealthier families with higher annual incomearemore likely to financeamore expensive house (i.e., have a higher unpaidmortgage), we controlled for family annual income to remove the confounding effect. Annual income was coded as fol- lows: 15 less than100,000RMB, 25 100,000–200,000 RMB, 3 5 200,000–300,000 RMB, 4 5 300,000– 400,000 RMB, 5 5 400,000–500,000 RMB, 6 5 500,000–600,000 RMB, 7 5 more than 600,000 RMB. We also controlled for intrinsic motivation using the same scale as in Sample 1 to account for its effect on job instrumentality and employee creativity (a 5 .95). Nevertheless, we report results with and without con- trols to demonstrate the robustness of our findings.

Analytic Strategy

We tested our model using structural equation modeling (SEM) (Kline, 2015). Due to the relatively low sample size to number of items ratio in the blue-

collar sample (n 5 187), we used single-indicator SEM with reliability correction (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). A simulation study has indicated that single-indicator SEM generates es- sentially the same results as those produced by SEM models with unparceled items (Sass & Smith, 2006). To correct for measurement unreliability, we set the path from a latent construct to its composite indi- cator as the square root of scale reliability. For single-item measures such as productivity, we as- sumed that they were measured without error and treated them as manifest variables, which provided a conservative model test. We further employed a bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval (CI) to examine the significance of an indirect effect in path analysis, using 2,000 bootstrap samples to construct a 95% bias-corrected CI. Because workers in the white-collar sample were nested under teams, we used the sandwich estimator to account for addi- tional nonindependence associated with multiple cluster sampling and to correct for potential esti- mation bias5 (Liu, Wang, Chang, Shi, Zhou, & Shao, 2015; Muthén & Muthén, 2012). We tested the sig- nificance of the indirect effects in the white-collar sample using the Monte Carlo method (Selig & Preacher, 2008) to construct a 95% CI, since this approach applies to nested data and shows compa- rable performance to bootstrapping (Bauer, Preacher, & Gil, 2006).

Results

Confirmatory factory analysis. We conducted confirmatory factory analysis to test the hypothe- sizedmeasurement model of the self-rated variables in both samples. (Multilevel confirmatory factory analysiswas conducted in Sample 2.) For Sample 1, the hypothesized five-factor model (family finan- cial pressure, family motivation, intrinsic motiva- tion, job instrumentality, and work effort) fit the

5 In the blue-collar sample, the 187 workers were from 163 teams and were rated by 163 supervisors. Therefore, data nonindependence is less of a concern in this sample. To test whether the nonindependence was significant, we didawithin-and-betweenanalysis (Dansereau&Yammarino, 2000). The corrected F from thewithin-and-between analysis was not significant for either creativity, F(162, 24)5 .86, p5 .72, or productivity, F(162, 24) 5 1.36, p 5 .19, suggesting it was appropriate to treat each employee in the sample as in- dependent. In addition, when we conducted analyses using the sandwich estimator (Muthén &Muthén, 2012) in Mplus, our conclusions did not change.

1934 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

T A B L E 1

M ea

n s, S ta n d ar d D ev

ia ti on

s, an

d C or re la ti on

s am

on g V ar ia bl es

in S am

p le

1

V ar ia bl e

M ea

n S D

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12

13 14

15

1 C re at iv it y

3. 14

0. 98

2 P ro d u ct iv it y

5, 28

1. 80

61 9. 38

.3 3*

* 3

F am

il y fi n an

ci al

p re ss u re

4. 60

1. 06

2 .0 8

2 .0 1

4 F am

il y m ot iv at io n

5. 90

0. 69

2 .1 5*

.0 4

.2 8*

* 5

Jo b in st ru m en

ta li ty

5. 16

1. 09

2 .1 8*

.0 5

.2 3*

* .3 4*

* 6

W or k ef fo rt

5. 45

0. 85

2 .0 1

.1 4

.2 5*

* .4 3*

* .3 7*

* 7

G en

d er

a 0. 54

0. 50

.0 5

2 .0 1

2 .0 9

2 .1 4

2 .1 0

2 .0 2

8 A ge

29 .9 9

6. 93

.1 1

2 .0 2

.0 8

2 .0 1

2 .0 7

.0 9

.0 5

9 E d u ca

ti on

le ve

lb 1. 32

0. 48

.0 3

.1 2

2 .0 1

.0 2

.0 1

2 .0 5

2 .1 6*

2 .2 9*

* 10

T en

u re

(m on

th s)

11 .4 1

9. 70

.1 7*

.1 9*

* 2 .0 4

2 .1 8*

2 .0 4

2 .1 1

.0 7

.2 3*

* 2 .0 2

11 F am

il y si ze

4. 55

1. 50

2 .1 4

2 .0 9

2 .1 1

2 .0 5

2 .0 7

.0 3

.1 5*

2 .1 2

2 .1 9*

* .0 7

12 R es id en

ce ar ea

c 0. 07

0. 26

.1 3

2 .0 1

2 .1 3

2 .0 7

2 .0 9

2 .1 6*

.0 2

.0 2

.1 1

2 .0 1

2 .0 1

13 F ac

to ry

1 0. 36

0. 48

.1 1

2 .0 2

2 .0 7

.0 2

.0 4

2 .1 0

.0 7

2 .1 3

.0 4

.0 2

2 .0 6

.1 7*

14 F ac

to ry

2 0. 24

0. 43

2 .1 6*

2 .1 2

.0 1

2 .0 5

2 .0 1

.0 1

2 .0 6

.1 4

.1 3

.0 1

2 .0 2

2 .0 2

2 .4 3*

* 15

P ri or

p ro d u ct iv it y

4, 88

6. 27

1, 01

3. 63

.3 1*

* .4 3*

* 2 .0 8

2 .0 7

2 .0 4

2 .0 3

.0 6

.1 3

.0 4

.3 3*

* 2 .1 5*

.0 4

.0 1

2 .1 1

16 In tr in si c

m ot iv at io n

4. 30

1. 45

.0 6

.0 5

.2 3*

* .1 2

.0 1

.2 8*

* 2 .0 6

.1 1

2 .0 4

2 .0 4

2 .0 6

.1 1

2 .0 1

.0 9

.0 1

N ot e:

n 5

18 7.

a G en

d er :0

5 m an

,1 5

w om

an .

b E d u ca ti on

le ve

l: 1 5

m id d le

sc h oo

lo r be

lo w ,2

5 h ig h sc h oo

l, 3 5

te ch

n ic al

sc h oo

l, 4 5

u n d er gr ad

u at e or

ab ov

e. c R es id en

ce ar ea

:0 5

ru ra l, 1 5

u rb an

. * p ,

.0 5

** p ,

.0 1

2020 1935Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

data well, x2(242) 5 430.59; TLI 5 .93, CFI 5 .94, RMSEA 5 .07, and was a significantly better fit than all other competing models in which the cor- relation coefficient between any two of the five variables was set to 1 (Dx2 ranged between 146.50 and 492.20, p , .01), indicating that the five vari- ables were distinct from one another. For Sample 2, the hypothesized three-factor model (family motivation, intrinsic motivation, and job instru- mentality) fit the data well, x2(87)5 317.34, p, .01; TLI 5 .94, CFI 5 .92, RMSEAwithin 5 .08, having a better fit than all competing models in which the correlation coefficient of any pair of variables was set to 1 (Dx2 ranged between 1,084.62 and 3,209.73, p , .01).

SEM. Tables 1 and 2 depict the descriptive statis- tics and correlation coefficients among study vari- ables for the two samples. We then ran a SEM model for the hypothesized model in Sample 1 and obtained a reasonable fit, x2(43) 5 62.43, p 5 .03; CFI 5 .94, TLI 5 .83, RMSEA 5 .05. We further compared a series of competing models that included paths that were not directly hypothesized (e.g., adding direct paths from family motivation to creativity and productivity, adding direct paths from family financial pressure to creativity and productivity). Most of the alternative models did not have a significantly better fit than the hypothesized model. However, we found that one model, in which we included a path from job in- strumentality to effort, fit the data significantly better than the hypothesized model, x2(42) 5 46.93, p 5 .28; CFI5 .98, TLI5 .96, RMSEA5 .03;Dx25 15.50, p, .01. Therefore, thismodelwas chosen as the final

model and was used to test our hypotheses. Simi- larly, we compared the hypothesized model with several alternativemodels in Sample 2 (e.g., adding a direct path from family motivation to creativity; adding adirect path from family financial pressure to creativity). However, none of the alternative models had a significant better fit than the hypothesized model, x2(274) 5 789.15, p , .01; CFI 5 .92, TLI 5 .91, RMSEAwithin 5 .07.

We first tested the main effects model without speci- fying gender as the moderator (Figures 1 and 2). The paths from familymotivation toworkeffort,b5 .37,p, .01, and from work effort to productivity, b 5 .18, p , .01, were both positive and significant in Sample 1, supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2. To test Hypothesis 3, which posited that work effort wouldmediate the effect of family motivation on productivity, we estimated the size of the indirect effect in Sample 1 bymultiplying the two componential path coefficients, and found it to be significant (u 5 .08, z 5 2.00, p , .05). Using 2,000 bootstrap samples resulted in a 95% CI [0.01, 0.27], ex- cluding zero. These results supported Hypothesis 3. In both samples, the path from family motivation to job instrumentality was positive and significant (Sample 1: b5 .38,p, .01; Sample 2:b5 .24,p, .01), supporting Hypothesis 4; and the path from job instrumentality to employee creativity was negative and significant (Sam- ple 1: b 5 2.20, p, .01; Sample 2: b 5 2.14, p, .01), supporting Hypothesis 5. The estimated coefficient for the indirect effect of family motivation on creativity via job instrumentality was significant in both samples (Sample 1: u 5 2.09, z 5 –2.35, p , .05; Sample 2: u52.03, z5 –2.65,p, .01); 95%CI [20.25,20.01] for Sample1and95%CI [20.07,20.003] forSample2,both

TABLE 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables in Sample 2

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Creativity 5.03 0.85 2 Unpaid mortgage 1.10 1.40 .04 3 Family motivation 5.81 1.03 .14** .11* 4 Job instrumentality 3.48 1.31 2.26** 2.04 .12* 5 Gendera 0.37 0.48 2.10* .01 2.32** 2.02 6 Age 32.23 6.20 .01 .13** .05 .17** 2.07 7 Education levelb 3.69 1.07 .10* .27** 2.15** 2.30** .18** 2.22** 8 Tenure 4.45 4.25 .05 .14** .06 .16** .11* .42** 2.09 9 Family annual income 2.83 1.50 .03 .39** 2.17** 2.15** .25** .13** .43** .07

10 Intrinsic motivation 5.22 1.12 .24** 2.01 .25** 2.33** 2.11* .01 .03 2.12** 2.03

Note: n 5 439. a Gender: 0 5man, 1 5woman. b Education level: 15middle school or below, 25 high school, 35 technical school, 45 undergraduate degree, 55master’s degree, 65

doctoral degree. *p , .05

**p , .01

1936 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

of which excluded zero. These results supported Hy- pothesis 6, which posited that family motivation would have a negative effect on creativity via job instrumen- tality. Although not hypothesized, we found that job instrumentalitywaspositively related toworkeffort,b5 .39, p, .01, in Sample 1.

Regarding the antecedents of family motivation, we first tested Hypothesis 7, which postulated that family financial pressure would predict family motivation, and found a positive and significant re- lationship between the two constructs (Sample 1: b5 .30, p, .01; Sample 2: b5 .15, p, .01).6 Finally, we tested Hypothesis 8, which suggested that em- ployee gender would moderate the relationship between family financial pressure and family

motivation. The structural model fit the data well when the interaction term was included as another exogenous predictor—Sample 1: x2(46) 5 49.12, p5 .35, CFI5 .99, TLI5 .97, RMSEA5 .02; Sample 2: x2(274) 5 789.15, p , .01; TLI 5 .92, CFI 5 .91, RMSEAwithin 5 .07—and the interaction term was significant (Sample 1: g 5 .18, p , .01; Sample 2: g 5 .23, p , .01). As Figure 3 shows, in the blue- collar worker sample, family financial pressure was more strongly and positively related to family motivation for women, g 5 .38, p , .01, than for men, g5 .18, p, .05. Similarly, for thewhite-collar worker sample (Figure 4), unpaid apartment mort- gage had a significant and positive relationship with familymotivation for women, g5 .25, p, .01, but not formen, g5 .02, n.s. Thus,Hypothesis 8was supported.

Supplementary Analyses

We further examined whether different oper- ationalization of family financial pressure in Sample 2 would generate different results. Em- ployees in Sample 2 reported their perceived fi- nancial pressure caused by housing expenses via two items (“Are housing expenses causing you fi- nancial pressure?” and “Are housing expenses affecting the quality of your life?”; 1 5 not at all, 5 5 very much; a 5 .94). We tested whether our

FIGURE 3 Results of Multilevel SEM Analysis in Sample 2

6.40

6.20

6.00

5.80

5.60

5.40

5.20

5.00 Low High

Men employees

Women employees

Family Financial Pressure

F am

il y

M ot

iv at

io n

Notes:n5 439. The estimate in parentheseswas obtained from theSEMwith the interaction term. Fit formodelwithout the interaction term: x25 775.76, df5 256, CFI5 .92, TLI5 .91, RMSEAwithin5 .07. Fit for model with the interaction term: x

25 789.15, df5 274, CFI5 .92, TLI5 .91, RMSEAwithin 5 .07.

a Gender was added as a covariate in the main effect model but added as moderator in the full model. * p, .05 ** p , .01

6 Although not hypothesized, we further tested whether family financial pressure had an indirect effect on em- ployee productivity via family motivation andwork effort, and had an indirect effect on employee creativity via family motivation and job instrumentality. The estimated coefficient for the indirect effect of family financial pres- sure on productivity was marginally significant in Sample 1 (u5 .02, z5 1.75, p 5 .08), with a 95% CI [20.01, 0.10]. The estimated coefficient for the indirect effect of family financial pressure on creativity was significant (Sample 1: u52.02, z5–1.99,p, .05; Sample2: u52.005, z5–2.17, p, .05). A 95%CI [20.0001,20.07] was found for Sample 1 and a 95%CI [20.0012,20.0001] for Sample 2.However, the magnitudes of these indirect effects were small.

2020 1937Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

results held when using this measurement. Re- sults of multilevel SEM, x2(256)5 794.99, p, .01; TLI 5 .92, CFI 5 .91, RMSEAwithin 5 .07, showed perceived financial pressure had a significant and positive relationship with family motivation, g 5 .12, p , .05, and employee gender moderated this relationship, g 5 .39, p , .05. Perceived financial pressure had a significant and positive relation- ship with family motivation for women, g 5 .30, p , .01, but not for men, g 5 .04, n.s.

Discussion

We found that family motivation exerts a dual ef- fect on employee performance, such that employees with stronger familymotivation exhibit higher levels of work effort, leading to higher productivity, while, at the same time, they view their jobs as a means to earn financial resources to support their family, which is associated with lower creativity. Further, we found that family financial pressure is related to family motivation, and that this association is stronger for women than for men.

A potential limitation of our quantitative study is that we argued job instrumentality reduces crea- tivity because it restrains employees’ tendency to accept uncertainty and directs employees’ focus to immediate returns, yet our model did not cap- ture either of these mechanisms. Second, we con- tended that family is most likely to be experienced as controlling because, when people think about “benefiting the family through work,” they most likely think about gaining financial rewards from the job to support their family. Nevertheless,wedid

not obtain direct evidence regarding this premise in our quantitative studies.

To further understand the psychological mecha- nisms linking familymotivation to job outcomes and the range of potential behaviors that might follow, and to validate our assumption about the controlling nature of family motivation, we conducted an addi- tional, qualitative study. In this study, we asked 40 employees to reflect on how their family motivation had shaped their perceptions, behaviors, and out- comes at work, and how their family motivation was driven by their family’s financial needs.

QUALITATIVE STUDY

Sample and Procedure

In 2018, we recruited and interviewed 40 em- ployees from a wide variety of organizations using a snowball sampling technique: initial participants were recruited from a professional MBA program in China, with the remaining participants then being recommended by theMBA students. Interviews were transcribed, and the average length of an interview was about 47 minutes. Table 3 presents detailed background information on the interviewees. Their average age was 33.92 years (SD 5 3.98); most were married (90%). To gain a better understanding of our research context, we asked interviewees about their family financial situation (i.e., levelof income, level of family financial pressure). Interviewees were mostly high-income employees, with 87.5% having an an- nual family income higher than 400,000 RMB (as compared to 13% in Sample 2). Despite their high

FIGURE 4 Interactive Effect of Unpaid Family Mortgage and Gender on Family Motivation (Sample 2)

6.40

6.20

6.00

5.80

5.60

5.40

5.20

5.00 Low High

Men employees

Women employees

Unpaid Family Apartment Mortgage

F am

il y

M ot

iv at

io n

1938 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

income, though, when asked to indicate the level of family financial pressure they were currently experi- encingona5-point scale (15not at all, 25 a little, 35 to a considerable degree, 4 5 pretty high, 5 5 very high), most (33 out of 40) expressed that they were experiencing family financial stress at least to some degree (18 interviewees chose a rating of “2,” four chose “3,” eight chose “4,” and three chose “5”).

We created an interview protocol aimed at eliciting discussion about and examples of family motivation as well as its consequences. First, to understand whether family motivation plays a criti- cal role in driving interviewees’ work effort, we asked interviewees two questions relevant to their workmotives. First, we asked them to list theirmajor work motives (“Why do you work?”). A variety of answers were provided, such as “to support my family,” “to help other people,” “to enjoy the work,” “to achieve self-accomplishment,” and “to keep myself occupied.”Of the 40 interviewees, 37 expressed

that a desire to support their family was a major motive for working. As a validation, we asked in- terviewees to answer a secondquestion (“Howoften do you feel like you work mostly for your family?”) through reference to a Likert-type 5-point ratings scale (1 5 never, 2 5 sometimes, 3 5 to a consider- able degree, 4 5 pretty often, 5 5 almost always). Consistent with the responses to the first question, three interviewees answered “1,” 14 answered “2,” seven answered “3,” 14 answered “4,” and two an- swered “5.”

Next, to understand the consequences of family motivation on job perception, we asked the 37 in- terviewees who cited family as their major source of motivation the following questions: “Does the thought of ‘I work for my family’ influence the way you view your job? If so, how?” and “If supporting family was not a concern, what would you change at work?” We conducted a thematic analysis (Lee, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1994) of these responses. Following Boyatzis (1998) and Owens and Hekman’s (2012) practice, the themes identified fell under four broad umbrella constructs that captured family mo- tivation, job perceptions, behavioral tendencies, and performance outcomes. We generated 12 specific categories under these four umbrella constructs that captured the themes emerging from our responses. Figure 5 summarizes the themes that emerged from our data.

Major Findings

Family motivation as a primary work motive. When asked “Why do you work?,” 37 participants reported that they worked to earn money to support their family (i.e., “My goal is to work hard so that my wife, my child, and my parents can have a better life and that they don’t need to worry about daily spend- ing”; Interviewee 8). Additionally, they pointed out that this desire was stronger when their family was experiencing financial hardships andweaker in the absence of hardships. Interviewee 25 described his experience as follows: “At first, when we had huge pressure to pay our mortgage, I worked mostly to earn money. Now, things are better because our mortgage pressure is lighter.” These quotes suggest that family financial condition is a relevant factor in understanding the impact of family motivation among the research subjects.

Family motivation is most likely to be experi- enced as controlled. To validate our assumption that when people perceive that “I want to benefit my family through my job,” they think mostly about

TABLE 3 Background Information about the Interviewees

Frequency Percentage

Family annual income (RMB) # 400,000 5 12.5 400,000–500,000 9 22.5 500,000–600,000 4 10 $ 600,000 22 55

Family financial pressure No pressure at all 7 17.5 A little 18 45 A considerable degree 4 10 Pretty high 8 20 High 3 7.5

Gender Woman 18 45 Man 22 55

Industry Financial 6 15 Manufacturing 13 32.5 IT 4 10 Medical 4 10 Other 13 32.5

Job Level Nonmanagerial 12 32.5 First-line manager 11 27.5 Middle manager 15 37.5 CEO 2 5

Occupation Administration 16 40 Salesperson 6 15 R&D 5 12.5 Other 13 32.5

Note: n 5 40.

2020 1939Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

obtaining financial rewards from the job, we asked participants the following question: “In what major ways can you benefit your family through your work?” Ultimately, 39 of the 40 interviewees pro- vided answers to this question, with one interviewee answering that family does not benefit from thework. All 39 interviewees listed “to get income to support family” as a primary way to benefit their family through work. Only two interviewees mentioned “setting a role model for the children,” and one inter- viewee mentioned “maintaining a sense of gender equality in the family.” These results suggest that, al- though “financial consideration” is not explicitly stated in the definition or measurement of family mo- tivation, it ishowmostpeopleperceiveandexperience family motivation; thus, most people tend to experi- ence familymotivation as a controlled form of motive.

Family motivation changes employees’ job perceptions. Next, we sought to uncover the psycho- logical mechanisms of how family motivation affects employees’ job perceptions. Specifically, we asked, “Does the thought of ‘I work formy family’ influence the way you view your job? If so, how?” Of the 37 interviewees motivated by family motivation, 35 discussed how a focus on providing for their fami- lies influenced theways they viewed their jobs,with two primary themes emerging from their responses. First, participants described turning their focus away from autonomous types of motivation. Their priorities shifted away from finding interesting work, satisfying the need for personal development and achievement, and finding self-actualization.We labeled this theme “meaningfulness detachment.” Altogether, 10 out of the 37 interviewees

FIGURE 5 Results of Thematic Analyses (Qualitative Study)

Family Motivation Change in Job Perceptions Behavioral Tendencies Work Outcomes Umbrella constructs

Emergent themes

Sample quotes

Sample interview questions

1. I always feel pressure to make enough money for my family. We tend to spend more as our income increases.

2. My goal is to work hard so that my wife, child, and our parents can live a better life and so that they don’t need to worry about daily spending.

3. I wish that I could do a job I like, but with the mortgage I need to ensure that I have a stable income that I can rely on.

4. I work with the hope that my child can go to a better school in the future.

5. Supporting family is a key factor that affects how I choose jobs. I need to ensure the income is stable that I may need to sacrifice my own preference.

1. What is your family situation in terms of income, major spending, family members, etc.? 2. Why do you work? 3. How important is your job for the family’s well-being?

1. I cannot just consider my interests when I choose a job. Instead, my priorities have shifted away from personal achievement, interest, and work environment to income.

2. A job cannot only satisfy my need for personal development and self- identity. Salary becomes the most important factor.

3. When I consider a job, I give more weight to income over other factors, such as personal achievement.

4. I work to make more money. It is hypocritical if you cannot make enough money from a job. 5. My job is an important means to support my family. It is far too early to talk about self-actualization at my stage.

6. I cannot follow my heart when looking for jobs. Salary carries so much weight.

1. How does the thought “I work for my family” influence the way you view your job? 2. If supporting family is not a major concern, what would you change at work?

1. I will put more effort into the work. 2. Supporting family makes me feel pressured, so I try my best to be careful at work and avoid errors.

3. To make money and support family, you have to do more work, avoid mistakes, and be alert. I am less interested in tasks unrelated to money. I also try to not upset others by being creative.

4. Even if I notice a flaw in the design of a project that needs improvement, I often just side with my leader and say nothing for the sake of my job security.

5. Creativity requires long-term investment and efforts; it may adversely affect my immediate income.

6. Creativity is uncertain; it may be a success, but it may be a total failure. When I have a family to support, I am less willing to take risks. 7. When I need to support my family, I am less concerned with others so long as I can benefit myself with a pay raise and promotion.

1. How does the thought “I work for my family” affect your behaviors at work? 2. How does the thought affect your job performance, including the quantity and quality of your work? 3. How does it affect your creativity at work? 4. How does if affect your personal and career development?

1. Creativity involves great uncertainty. I tend to give up new ideas just to ensure my job security.

2. In general, I avoid creative activities. However, if creativity is encouraged by my leader, I will do it mainly to impress my boss.

3. My income barely covers my family spending… so I need to work extra time to make more in case of unexpected expenses.

4. I work extra carefully to ensure that I get good performance ratings to earn more.

5. When I choose potential job opportunities, I am more concerned with income, particularly salary. I am less attracted to stock options.

6. I would not put organizational interests first. Instead, I often do some independent contracting at work so I can make extra money.

Family motivation

Job meaningfulness detachment

Job perceived as instrumental and

controlling

Work effort and

dedication

Uncertainty avoidance and short-

sighted

Conformity

Self-interest seeking

Reduced creativity and

initiative

Conservative career choice

Enhanced routine

performance

Unethical behavior

1940 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

experienced meaningfulness detachment in re- sponse to strong familymotivation. Participants also discussed turning their focus toward controlled types of motivation. They tended to view the job only as a means through which to gain financial re- sources to benefit their family. Specifically, nearly all of them (32) mentioned that, with strong family motivation, they tended to view the job as an im- portantmeans bywhich to support their family and that they cared primarily about its monetary as- pects. For example, Interviewee 25 said, “I cannot just consider my interests when I choose a job. In- stead, my priority has shifted away from personal achievement, interest, [and] work environment to income.” Similarly, Interviewee 9 indicated, “A job cannot only satisfy my need for personal de- velopment and self-identity. Salary becomes the most important factor.” These two accounts show how a focus on familymotivation predicates a shift from autonomous forms of motivation to more controlled forms of motivation. Associated with this shift, many interviewees reported that they viewed their jobs merely as a means to support their family rather than anything else. For exam- ple, Interviewee 18 said, “My job is an important means to supportmy family. It is far too early to talk about self-actualization at my stage.” Interviewee 13 was more direct, saying, “Don’t talk to me about passion when you can’t pay me well.” Many in- terviewees specifically described how focusing on financial rewards had restricted their actions and emotions at work: “Work is just a tool to support my family. There is no sentiment in it. Any of my actions at work are passive and restricted” (Inter- viewee 4).

Job instrumentality triggers employees’ behav- ioral tendencies.When asked “Does the thought of ‘I work for family’ affect your behaviors at work? If so, how?,” six out of the 37 intervieweesmentioned that such a thought had no or little effect on their work behaviors; the other 31 interviewees answered “yes” and further articulated how their work behaviors had been influenced. Their answers reflected four themes.

First, eight mentioned that viewing the job as instrumental to financial rewards motivated them to exert more work effort and dedication (“I will put more effort into the work,” “I become more alert and conscious; and, if possible, I am willing to work overtime to earn more money”; Inter- viewee 34). This is in line with our findings for the quantitative Sample 1, in which we found a posi- tive and significant relationship between job

instrumentality and effort (although this rela- tionship was not hypothesized).

The second category of behavioral outcomes in- volved employees’ tendency to avoid uncertainty (six mentions) and short-term orientation (three mentions). Interviewees sought to avoid uncertainty that might lead to potential job loss, and to narrow their focus to those tasks with immediate returns rather than tasks that required long-term investment (“Creativity is uncertain; it may be a success, but it may be a total failure. When I have a family to sup- port, I am less willing to take risks”; Interviewee 7), suggesting that job instrumentality triggered em- ployees’ tendency to avoid activities that do not generate certain returns. Job instrumentality also made employees shortsighted. Interviewee 5 expressed his reluctance to engage in creative activities be- cause “creativity requires long-term investment and efforts; it may adversely affect my immediate income.”

Related to the tendency to avoid uncertainty, the third theme included the notion that job instru- mentality could increase employees’ tendency to conform (i.e., unwilling to speak up, defer to leaders; mentioned six times). For example, Interviewee 1 said, “Even if I notice a flaw in the design of a project, I often just side with my leader and say nothing for the sake of my job security.” Similarly, Interviewee 19 said, “I care more about howmy leader viewsme, rather than sticking with my own opinion.”

Finally, the last theme captured how job instrumen- tality activated employees’ self-interest-seeking ten- dency (i.e., maximizing personal gains even at the expense of others; mentioned twice). As Interviewee 4 put it, “I am less concerned with others so long as I can benefit myself with a pay raise and promotion.” Inter- viewee 1 said, “When work is all about money, I don’t care much about the team; I only care for myself.”

Behavioral tendencies result in outcomes.When asked about the ways in which working for their families had affected their work outcomes (e.g., “Does the thought of ‘I work for my family’ affect your job performance at work? If so, how?”), partic- ipants provided statements that can be coded into four themes. First, family motivation was associated with reduced creativity and initiative (20 mentions). This is in part due to the reasonsdiscussed earlier: (a) employees are likely to avoid uncertainties inherent in creative endeavors; (b) creativity requires long- term investment, which might impede employees’ immediate benefits; and (c) employees tend to con- form to authorities andwithhold their novel ideas or suggestions. As an illustration, Interviewee 33 said,

2020 1941Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

“Creativity might end up nowhere. For example, there was a chance to start a new venture but the probability of failurewas high, and I did not consider it at all.” Interviewee 21 said:

My time is limited. I prefer to use my time improving my performance in standard and routine tasks. Crea- tivity is too risky andneeds a lot of time. The risk is just too high for someonewho needs to support his family.

Interestingly, our interviews revealed that, even though family motivation in general had a detri- mental effect on creativity, it could benefit creativity under certain circumstances—for example, when intervieweeswere certain that therewas a direct link between creativity and financial resources (e.g., creativity is explicitly encouraged by leader, hav- ing instrumental values; mentioned 11 times). For example, Interviewee 30 said:

Tobenefitmy family, I have to standout inmy job; one of theways to standout inmy job is to impressmyboss with innovative ideas; if my boss is impressed, I can get recognitions and promotions, then I can earn more and contribute more to reduce the financial pressure in my family.

Second, we found that family motivation can en- hance routine performance such as productivity be- cause employees with stronger family motivation work harder and commit fewer errors (15 mentions). For example, “I produced more outputs because I need higher performance before I can ask for a pro- motion and pay raise” (Interviewee 19); also, “My productivity increases because, themore I make, the more money I get” (Interviewee 24).

Third, family motivation can influence employees’ career choices (mentioned five times). Specifically, employees working to support their family tend to make more conservative career choices. For example, Interviewee 28 said, “When I choose potential job op- portunities, I am more concerned with income, par- ticularly salary. I am less attracted to stock options because they are not reliable.”

Finally, participants reported that family motiva- tion might lead them to act unethically (three men- tions). As Interviewee 21 explained, “I would not put the organizational interests first. Instead, I often do some independent contracting at work so I canmake some extra money.”

Discussion

Substantiating and extending the findings from our quantitative study, our qualitative analyses provide

empirical evidence that two main mechanisms are responsible for the relationships between family mo- tivation and job outcomes. As we theorized, our in- terviewees noted that family motivation influenced job perceptions such that the focus was on work as a source of financial resources rather than on intrinsic factors such as interest, self-development, or mean- ing. Our interviewees suggested that this instru- mental focus was experienced as controlling. Our qualitative data also suggested additional behavioral tendencies and work outcomes that may stem from family motivation, providing guidance for future re- search. We discuss these findings in detail in the following session.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Drawing on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2010), we posited family motivation as a double-edged sword for employee job perfor- mance. Specifically, family motivation was posi- tively associated with employee productivity via enhanced work effort, whereas it was negatively associated with employee creativity due to heightened job instrumentality. Moreover, family financial pressure served as a key antecedent of family motivation, and family financial pressure was more strongly related to family motivation for women than for men. Finally, a qualitative study with 40 high-income employees provided addi- tional empirical evidence of theoretical mecha- nisms linking family motivation with performance outcomes and suggested a more complete model of family motivation.

Theoretical Implications

Our study contributes to the family motivation literature and related research streams in several ways. First, challenging the traditional notion that family motivation primarily energizes employees in the workplace (Menges et al., 2017; Tariq & Ding, 2018), we discovered that family motivation exerts distinct effects on different aspects of performance. In addition to its energizing effect on employees’ ef- fort and productivity, familymotivationmay change how employees view their jobs and consequently, place a creativity “tax” on employees. In other words, family motivation has both “energizing” and “debilitating” effects. This distinction suggests that family motivation may shape the direction of em- ployee motivation. Specifically, our qualitative data

1942 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

show that family motivation directs employees’ work effort and dedication toward more standard and routine tasks with immediate returns, as cap- tured by our “productivity” measures, and away fromuncertain creative taskswhose action–outcome link is often weak and spread out over time (Sethia, 1989). This may partly explain why we did not ob- serve a positive correlation between employees’ ef- fort and creativity in Sample 1. Although traditional wisdom asserts that creativity is partly driven by ef- fort and persistence (e.g., Sauermann & Cohen, 2010), our findings suggest that, when employees’ work effort and persistence are activated by a more controlled form of motivation (i.e., family motiva- tion), they do not necessarily engender higher creativity.

Our quantitative data further suggest that the de- bilitating effect of family motivation might partially counter the energizing effect on productivity. Spe- cifically, we observed a positive zero-order correla- tion between creativity andproductivity in Sample 1 (r 5 .33, p , .01). This is not surprising considering that creativity involves generating novel and useful ideas, approaches, and procedures of doing things, which is conducive to productivity. Therefore, the debilitating effect of family motivation on creativity may result in lower levels of employee productivity, which partially diminishes the energizing effect of familymotivation on productivity. Thismay explain why we observed a nonsignificant correlation be- tween familymotivation and productivity in Sample 1 (r 5 .044, n.s.). This finding again challenges the primarily energizing effect of family motivation in the workplace and reiterates the importance of con- sidering the dark side of family motivation.

Our findings also inform research on the “hard work versus smart work” framework. Scholars argue that there is a potential trade-off between these two types of efforts when employees’ motivation is di- rected toward only one path (Bracha & Fershtman, 2013; Fang et al., 2004).Our findings suggest that this trade-off does not necessarily imply a negative correlation between creativity (smart work) and productivity (hard work), but rather signals that creativity and routine performance require differ- ent, often opposite mindsets. Specifically, em- ployees need to avoid uncertainty and focus more on immediate returns when they attempt to achieve higher productivity, whereas they need to tolerate high levels of uncertainties and focusmore on long-term returns when they attempt to achieve higher creativity. Family motivation may push employees to choose between these mindsets,

resulting in increased productivity and decreased creativity.

It is notable thatwe found the dual effects of family motivation even in jobs in which creativity is con- sidered a key driver of performance (e.g., scientific fields). For instance, our qualitative data show that even university professors (e.g., Interviewee 35) chose to put more effort into tasks with immediate and certain outcomes and less effort into creative tasks with uncertain rewards, when they viewed supporting family as their primaryworkmotive. Our findings thus suggest that the dual effects of family motivation affect various types of jobs.

Second, and relatedly, our study indicates that family motivation could fundamentally change em- ployees’ perceptions of work. Specifically, our qualitative data show that employees who work to benefit their families will experience two related processes that may change how they view their jobs. First, they tend to experience “meaningfulness detachment”—that is, they psychologically depre- ciate the value of meaningfulness of the job (e.g., intrinsic value, personal growth, sense of achieve- ment) and emphasize themonetary aspect of the job. This finding provides a different angle to understand how family motivation shapes the meaning of work. Specifically, past research indicates that, in jobs that do not provide meaningfulness for incumbents, family motivation gives meaning to work such that employees see work as a way of supporting and sustaining those who are most important to them (Menges et al., 2017; Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). However, our findings suggest that family motivation may narrow employees’ focus solely to the instrumental meaning of work, detaching them from the more intrinsically meaningful aspects of their jobs. These seemingly contrasting findings also make evident that family motivation is a doubled-edged sword, beneficial in certain contexts but detrimental in others. Furthermore, our study reveals that, after the meaning of work changes, employees’ behaviors will change accordingly. Specifically, we found that employees are less mo- tivated to engage in creative activities, and more likely to devote effort to routine tasks, as indicated by both our quantitative Sample 1 and the qualita- tive study.

Third, our findings establish key distinctions be- tween family motivation and traditionally studied forms of prosocial motivation, thereby contributing to the growing body of knowledge about prosocial motivation. Research on other types of prosocial motivation has found a synergistic interaction

2020 1943Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

between prosocial motivation and intrinsic motiva- tion, such that individual performance is highest when both motivations are strong (Grant, 2008). However, Menges and colleagues (2017) found a compensatory interaction between family motiva- tion and intrinsic motivation, suggesting that family motivation can compensate for the lack of intrinsic motivation and still drive performance. Adding to the distinction, Grant and Berry (2011) found a pos- itive association between prosocial motivation (geared toward benefiting clients) and employee creativity. They argued that prosocial motivation encourages individuals’ perspective taking, which helps individuals develop ideas that are both novel and useful. Our research, however, revealed an in- direct negative relationship between family motiva- tion and individual creativity, suggesting that family motivation and other forms of prosocial motivation differ in their effects on creativity. These contrasting findings are consistent with the premise that differ- ent forms of prosocial motivation vary in their level of autonomy, with family motivation being more on the “controlled” end of the spectrum, whereas tra- ditional forms of prosocial motivation are located more on the “autonomous” end.

Finally, we tested our theoretical model in two quantitative samples and drew additional insights about our core findings in a supplementary qualitative study. These three samples varied in their characteristics (quantitative Sample 1: low- wage, blue-collar workers; quantitative Sample 2: relatively high-income, white-collar employees in various jobs; qualitative sample: high-income, white- collar employees in various jobs), but our findings were consistent across all of the samples, which pro- vides evidence of the generalizability of our model. Essentially, it suggests that the dual effect of family motivation affects people in different income groups and occupations, which broadens the theoretical scope and practical relevance of our research.

Practical Implications

In this study,we found that employeeswith strong family motivation have lower levels of creative per- formance. Further analyses revealed that the nega- tive association between family motivation and creativity could be attributed to employees’ ten- dency to avoid uncertainty and shortsightedness. Accordingly, we suggest that creativity can be en- couraged if organizations canminimize employees’ perceptions about the uncertainty in creativity. In other words, organizations should try to establish a

psychologically safe climate in the organization that facilitates employees’ participation in creative activities (Edmondson, 1999). Specifically, our qualitative data show that creativity still takes place if it is explicitly encouraged by employees’ direct managers. Thus, managers should actively ask em- ployees for their suggestions and ideas, and practice providing positive feedback and even rewards or recognition for employees’ engagement in creative activities even if the activities fail. In this way, or- ganizations can form a positive link between crea- tivity and rewards, reducing employees’ concern about the uncertainties in creative efforts.

Related to the “shortsightedness”mechanism, our qualitative study suggests that employees may hesi- tate to engage in creativity because the effort–reward link is uncertain and spread out over time.Moreover, creativity-oriented endeavors might hurt their short- term financial rewards, thereby constraining their ability to help their family. Therefore, we suggest that organizations should safeguard employees’ short-term financial rewards if they want to encour- age employees to engage in long-term projects that require employee creativity. For example, instead of rewarding employees based on outcomes, organiza- tions should design their compensation systems to encourage both outcomes and certain processes or behaviors (e.g., taking on creative initiatives, ex- ploring alternatives [Gerhart & Rynes, 2003]).

Limitations and Future Directions

First, all of our sampleswere collected fromChina, which might limit the generalizability of our find- ings. Researchers have long realized that traditional Confucian China and its cultural offshores, includ- ing Japan and Korea, have evolved unique family systemsandgender relations (e.g., Greenhalgh, 1985; Thornton & Lin, 1994). Therefore, our conclusions regarding the effects of family motivation, as well as the moderating effect of gender, might not be gener- alizable to other samples. For example, Chinese so- ciety places strong emphasis on family obligations (Thornton & Lin, 1994), as filial piety has served as a guiding principle governing Chinese patterns of socialization for thousands of years (Ho, 1994); this might explain why family motivation was experienced as a relatively more controlled form of motivation among our study participants. It is pos- sible that, in other societies, family motivation may function as a more autonomous form of motivation. However, family life and gender roles in contempo- rary China have undergone major social changes in

1944 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

the last decades, due to changes in education and economic structures (Xie, 2013), so they are not as distinctive from those in Western societies as they were in the past.

Second, although we used a time-lagged study design in our quantitative study, that study was still cross-sectional, which limits our ability to draw causal conclusions. To further strengthen the causal inference of our conclusions, future research could use a longitudinal research design or experiments to facilitate stronger causal inferences.

Third, although many of our arguments are pre- mised on the notion that family motivation is likely to be experienced as a controlled form of motiva- tion, we acknowledge that family motivation could potentially vary on a continuum from more auton- omous to more controlled, depending on the sour- ces of family motivation. In other words, under certain circumstances, family motivation could be experienced as more autonomous. For example, in our qualitative study, a few intervieweesmentioned that family motivation could also be activated be- cause they wanted to be a role model for their chil- dren, or because some women wanted to maintain their identity as an equally important breadwinner as their husbands. We expect that, when family motivation is underpinned by such internalized (rather than extrinsic) factors, it will be experienced asmore autonomous and lead to different outcomes than those discovered in our study. In particular,we expect that the more autonomous form of family motivation may facilitate creativity and reduce unethical behavior (given the goal of being a good role model for family members). Future research could explore this path and offer a more systematic understanding of the ways in which family moti- vation is experienced.

Last, future research should continue to extend the nomological network of family motivation. For example, although we found a negative indirect relationship between family motivation and crea- tivity mediated by job instrumentality in both quantitative samples, the zero-order correlation between familymotivation and creativity in Sample 2 was positive. Responses from our qualitative study revealed that, under certain circumstances, family motivation could increase creativity (e.g., explicitly solicited by the leader, linked with in- strumental values). Building on our qualitative data, future research could explore other mecha- nisms through which family motivation influences creativity. For example, in our qualitative study, we found that family motivation might activate one’s

tendency to conform to authority. Research has shown that individuals with a tendency to conform are likely to restrict their cognitive attention to the ideas that do not comply with (or even violate) their existing expectations and norms. They will also have greater difficulty in combining and synthe- sizing diverse and dissimilar information to form novel responses and produce creative ideas, resulting in lower creativity (Zhou, Shin, Brass, Choi, & Zhang, 2009). Although our qualitative data did not speak directly to this connection, future research could build on our qualitative data to explore such a possibility.

Future research should continue to explore such contingencies to enhance the theoretical and managerial implications of family motivation re- search. For another example, our qualitative data showed that family motivation has detrimental effects not only on employee creativity, but also on other work-related outcomes and employee ca- reer outcomes. Our interviews suggested that strong familymotivationmight compel employees to make conservative career choices. We suspect uncertainty avoidance and shortsightedness partly explain this effect—a possibility that could be ex- plored in future research. Additionally, although family motivation in general thwarts employees’ tendency to avoid uncertainty, our interviewees nevertheless engaged in certain types of risk-taking behaviors, such as unethical behavior (probably through family motivation’s effect on the self- interest-seeking tendency). It would be intriguing to examine the relationships between family moti- vation and employees’ unethical behavior, as such a relationship is not intuitive. On the one hand, family motivation could reduce employees’ un- ethical behavior due to employees’ job security concerns. On the other hand, it could increase their unethical behavior due to employees’ self-interest- seeking tendency. Exploring the contingencies of this relationship might prove a fruitful research endeavor.

Conclusion

Previous research has found that family moti- vation primarily exerts an energizing effect on employee performance. We challenged this no- tion and found family motivation to have both an energizing effect and a debilitating effect on em- ployee performance, depending on the perfor- mance criterion in question. We also found that family financial pressure is likely to trigger family

2020 1945Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

motivation, especially for women. By capturing qualitative data, we learned more about the psy- chological processes that accompany family mo- tivation. Employees with higher levels of family motivation often feel as though they have to leave intrinsic concerns behind and come to see work as a means by which to earn financial rewards to support their families. Our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of family motiva- tion in the workplace and suggest new directions for future research.

REFERENCES

Allen, T. D., & Finkelstein, L. M. 2014. Work–family conflict among members of full-time dual-earner couples: An examination of family life stage, gender, and age. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19: 376–384.

Amabile, T. M. 1988. Amodel of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Be- havior, 10: 123–167.

Amabile, T. M. 1993. Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motiva- tion in the workplace. Human Resource Manage- ment Review, 3: 185–201.

Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: West- view Press.

American Psychological Association. 2015, February 4. Stress inAmerica: Payingwith our health. Retrieved fromhttp://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/ 2014/stress-report.pdf

Baddeley, A. 1992. Working memory and conscious awareness. InA. F. Collins (Ed.),Theories ofmemory: 11–20. Hove, U.K.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. 1974. Working memory. Psy- chology of Learning and Motivation, 8: 47–89.

Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. 2006. Concep- tualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11: 142–163.

Baugh, S. G. 1990. Gender influences on organizational com- mitment. InD. F. Ray (Ed.),Proceedings of theSouthern Management Association: 204–206. Mississippi State, MS: SouthernManagement Association.

Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. D. 1982. The missing oppor- tunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Man- agement Review, 7: 560–569.

Boudreau, K. J., Guinan, E. C., Lakhani, K. R., & Riedl, C. 2016. Looking across and looking beyond the

knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science.Management Science, 62: 2765–2783.

Boyatzis, R. 1998.Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Bracha, A., & Fershtman, C. 2013. Competitive incentives: Working harder or working smarter? Management Science, 59: 771–781.

Brislin, R. W. 1986. The wording and translation of re- search instruments. In W. Berry (Ed.), Field methods in cross-cultural research: 137‒164. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T. F., & Dewitt, R. L. 1992. Layoffs, job insecurity, and survivors’ work effort: Evidence of an inverted-U relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 413–425.

Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. 2016. Interdisciplin- ary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534: 684–687.

Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. 1994. The effect of effort on sales performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 58: 70–80.

Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., &Kitayama, S. 1994. Some neo- Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 773–789.

Cherrington, D. J. 1980. The work ethic: Working values and values that work. New York, NY: Amacom.

Clark,M.A.,Michel, J. S., Zhdanova, L., Pui, S.Y., &Baltes, B. B. 2016. All work and no play? A meta-analytic examination of the correlates and outcomes of workaholism. Journal of Management, 42: 1836– 1873.

Cnaan, R. A., & Goldberg-Glen, R. S. 1991. Measuring motivation to volunteer in human services. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27: 269–284.

Coad, A. 1996. Smart work and hard work: Explicating a learning orientation in strategic management ac- counting. Management Accounting Research, 7: 387–408.

Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. 2000. Within and be- tween analysis: The variant paradigm as an underly- ing approach to theory building and testing. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, andmethods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 425–466. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. 1999. A meta- analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 125: 627–668.

1946 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. 2017. Self- determination theory inwork organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psy- chology and Organizational Behavior, 4: 19–43.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2010. Self-determination. In I. B. Weiner & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), The Corsini ency- clopedia of psychology, vol. 4: 1530–1532. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Dewett, T. 2006. Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40: 27–45.

Dewett, T. 2007. Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment. R & DManagement, 37: 197–208.

Donavan, D. T., Brown, T. J., & Mowen, J. C. 2004. Internal benefits of service-worker customer orientation: Job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational citizen- ship behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 68: 128–146.

Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350–383.

Edwards, J. R., &Rothbard,N. P. 2000.Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 25: 178–199.

Fang, E., Palmatier, R.W., & Evans, K. R. 2004. Goal-setting paradoxes? Trade-offs between working hard and working smart: The United States versus China. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32: 188–202.

Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. 2003. Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 618–630.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Be- havior, 26: 331–362.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. 1990. The economic instru- mentality of work: An examination of the moderating effects of financial requirements and sex on the pay– life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37: 357–368.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2007. Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativ- ity.Academy of Management Journal, 50: 605–622.

Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. 2015. Pay, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, performance, and creativity in the workplace: Revisiting long-held beliefs. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organi- zational Behavior, 2: 489–521.

Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. 2003. Compensation: Theory, evi- dence, and strategic implications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Grant,A.M. 2007.Relational jobdesign and themotivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Man- agement Review, 32: 393–417.

Grant, A. M. 2008. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the pro- social fire? Motivational synergy in predicting per- sistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 48–58.

Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. 2011. The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 73–96.

Greenhalgh, S. 1985. Sexual stratification: The other side of “growth with equity” in east Asia. Population and Development Review, 11: 265–314.

Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. 1991. Rational versus gender role explanations for work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 560–568.

Haefele, J. W. 1962.Creativity and innovation. NewYork, NY: Chapman & Hall.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. 2010. Creativity. An- nual Review of Psychology, 61: 569–598.

Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. 2009. A cross- level perspective on employee creativity: Goal ori- entation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 280–293.

Ho, D. Y. 1994. Filial piety, authoritarian moralism, and cognitive conservatism in Chinese societies. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 120: 349–365.

Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. 2015. Making a difference in the teamwork: Linking team prosocial motivation to team processes and effectiveness. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 58: 1102–1127.

Janoff-Bulman, R., & Leggatt, H.K. 2002. Culture and social obligation:When “shoulds” are perceived as “wants.” Journal of Research in Personality, 36: 260–270.

Johns, G. 2011. Attendance dynamics at work: The ante- cedents and correlates of presenteeism, absenteeism, and productivity loss. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16: 483–500.

Joo, S. H., &Grable, J. E. 2004.An exploratory framework of the determinants of financial satisfaction. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25: 25–50.

Joshi, A., Neely, B., Emrich, C., Griffiths, D., & George, G. 2015. Gender research in AMJ: An overview of five decades of empirical research and calls to action. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1459–1475.

2020 1947Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

Judge, T. A., & Livingston, B. A. 2008. Is the gap more than gender? A longitudinal analysis of gender, gender role orientation, and earnings. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 93: 994–1012.

Kanfer, R. 1990. Motivation theory and industrial and or- ganizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organi- zational psychology (2nd ed., vol. 1): 75–130. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. 2008. The three C’s of work motivation: Content, context, and change. In C.-C.Wang (Ed.),Workmotivation: Past, present and future: 30–45. New York, NY: Routledge.

Klehe, U. C., & Anderson, N. 2007. Working hard and working smart: Motivation and ability during typical and maximum performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 978–992.

Kline, R. B. 2015. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.

Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. 2002. Distinguishing three ways of being highly motivated: A closer look at in- trojection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self- determination research: 101–121. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psy- chological Bulletin, 108: 480–498.

Leana, C. R., &Meuris, J. 2015. Living towork andworking to live: Income as a driver of organizational behavior. Academy of Management Annals, 9: 55–95.

Lee, T. W. 1999. Using qualitative methods in organiza- tional research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. 2002. To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9: 151–173.

Liu, Y., Wang,M., Chang, C. H., Shi, J., Zhou, L., & Shao, R. 2015. Work–family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and displaced aggression toward others: The moder- ating roles of workplace interpersonal conflict and perceived managerial family support. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 100: 793–808.

Lobel, S. A., & Clair, L. S. 1992. Effects of family responsi- bilities, gender, and career identity salience on perfor- mance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 1057–1069.

Lyons, L., & Liu, D. 2016. Worry and stress rises in China. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/poll/189077/ worry-stress-rise-china.aspx

Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. 2011. Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 96: 730–743.

Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. 2013. Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science, 341: 976–980.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company. 2017, February 27. Financial security begins at work: MassMutual study finds nearly six in 10 workers feel more secure because of workplace benefits [Press re- lease]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.massmutual.com/ about-us/news-and-press-releases/press-releases/ 2018/02/27/17/06/financial-security-begins-at-work- massmutual-study-finds-nearly-six-in-10-workers-feel- more-secure

Matthews, S. H., & Rosner, T. T. 1988. Shared filial re- sponsibility: The family as the primary caregiver. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50: 185–195.

Menges, J. I., Tussing, D. V., Wihler, A., & Grant, A. M. 2017. When job performance is all relative: How family motivation energizes effort and compensates for intrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 695–719.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis:Anexpanded sourcebook. ThousandOaks, CA: SAGE.

Moen, P., & Roehling, P. 2005. The career mystique: Cracks in the American dream. Lanham, MD: Row- man & Littlefield.

Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. 2013. Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. New York, NY: Times Books.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. 2012. Mplus version 7 user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nickerson, R. S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2: 175–220.

Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. 1975. On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7: 44–64.

Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. 2012. Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes.Academy of Management Journal, 55: 787–818.

Pahl, R., & Spencer, L. 2004. Personal communities: Not simply families of “fate” or “choice.” Current Soci- ology, 52: 199–221.

Pittman,T.S., Davey,M.E.,Alafat, K.A.,Wetherill, K.V., & Kramer, N. A. 1980. Informational versus controlling verbal rewards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6: 228–233.

Powell, G. N., &Greenhaus, J. H. 2010. Sex, gender, and the work-to-family interface: Exploring negative and positive interdependencies. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 513–534.

1948 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. 2010. On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30: 91–127.

Rothbard, N. P., & Edwards, J. R. 2003. Investment in work and family roles: A test of identity and utilitarian motives. Personnel Psychology, 56: 699–729.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. 1989. Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 749–761.

Salam, R. 2009. The death of macho. Foreign Policy, 173: 65–70.

Sass, D. A., & Smith, P. L. 2006. The effects of parceling unidimensional scales on structural parameter esti- mates in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 13: 566–586.

Sauermann, H., & Cohen, W. M. 2010. What makes them tick? Employee motives and firm innovation. Man- agement Science, 56: 2134–2153.

Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. 1997. Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satis- faction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 377–391.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. 1983. Individual differences in productivity: An empirical test of estimates derived from studies of selection procedure utility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 407–414.

Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. 2008.Monte Carlomethod for assessingmediation:An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org

Sethia, N. K. 1989. The shaping of creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1: 224–228.

Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. 2012. Some consequences of having too little. Science, 338: 682–685.

Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. 2001. Effects of social- psychological factors on creative performance: The role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and modeling experience. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84: 1–22.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. 1998. Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 546–557.

Song, Z., Uy, M. A., Zhang, S., & Shi, K. 2009. Daily job search and psychological distress: Evidence from China. Human Relations, 62: 1171–1197.

Stein, C.H. 1992.Ties that bind:Three studies of obligation in adult relationships with family. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9: 525–547.

Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. 1994. Learning ori- entation, working smart, and effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58: 39–52.

Tariq,H., &Ding,D. 2018.WhyamI still doing this job?The examination of familymotivation on employees’work behaviors under abusive supervision. Personnel Re- view, 47: 378–402.

Thornton, A., & Lin, H. S. 1994.Social change and the family in Taiwan. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tinsley, C. H., Howell, T. M., & Amanatullah, E. T. 2015. Whoshouldbringhome thebacon?Howdeterministic views of gender constrain spousal wage preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126: 37–48.

Vinokur, A. D., Price, R. H., & Caplan, R. D. 1996. Hard times and hurtful partners: How financial strain af- fects depression and relationship satisfaction of un- employed persons and their spouses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 166–179.

Vroom, V. 1964. Motivation and work. New York, NY: Wiley.

Weller, S. A. 2012. Financial stress and the long-term outcomes of job loss. Work, Employment and Soci- ety, 26: 10–25.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2001. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26: 179– 201.

Wrzesniewski,A.,McCauley,C.,Rozin,P.,&Schwartz,B.1997. Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to theirwork. Journal of Research in Personality, 31: 21–33.

Xie, Y. 2013, October. Gender and family in contemporary China (PSC Research Report No. 13-808). Ann Arbor, MI: Population Studies Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Retrieved from https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/abs/8507

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. 2001.When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 682–696.

Zhou, J., Shin, S. J., Brass, D. J., Choi, J., &Zhang, Z.X. 2009. Social networks, personal values, and creativity: Evi- dence for curvilinear and interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1544–1552.

Xin-an Zhang ([email protected]) is a professor of management in Antai College of Economics & Man- agement, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He received his

2020 1949Zhang, Liao, Li, and Colbert

PhD from Shanghai Jiaotong University. His research topics include leadership, teamwork, and Chinese contexts of management.

Huiyao Liao ([email protected]) is a doctoral candi- date in the Department of Management & Entrepreneurship at the University of Iowa. He received his MS in organiza- tional behavior from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. His research focuses on prosocial motivation, family motiva- tion, and workplace interpersonal relationships.

Ning Li ([email protected]) is an associate professor and Pioneer Research Fellow in the Department of Man- agement & Entrepreneurship at the University of Iowa. He received his PhD in organizational behavior and human

resource management from the Texas A&M University. His current research focuses on team collaboration, social network, leadership, and big data in management.

Amy E. Colbert ([email protected]) is a professor and the Leonard A. Hadley Chair in Leadership in the Department of Management & Entrepreneurship at the University of Iowa. She received her PhD in organiza- tional behavior and human resource management from the University of Iowa. Her research interests include leadership, motivation, interpersonal relationships, and person–environment fit.

1950 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.