Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2000), 73, 287–302 Printed in Great Britain 287

Ó 2000 The British Psychological Society

Job demands, perceptions of eVort–reward

fairness and innovative work behaviour

Onne Janssen*
University of Groningen, The Netherland s

Building on person–environment Ž t theory and social exchange theory, the

relationship between job demands and innovative work behaviour was assumed
to be moderated by fairness perceptions of the ratio between eV ort spent and
reward received at work. This interaction of job demands with perceptions of
eV ort–reward fairness was tested among 170 non-management employees from
a Dutch industrial organization in the food sector. Results demonstrated a
positive relationship between job demands and innovative work behaviour when
employees perceived e V ort–reward fairness rather than under-reward unfairness.

Job demands are instigators of work actions. Self-evidently, workers are demanded
to undertake prescribed work behaviours in order to meet standards of perform-
ance mandated by organizational work roles. However, rarely are employees
demanded to perform innovative work behaviours (George & Brief, 1992; Katz,
1964). Generating, promoting and realizing innovative ideas for improvements are
not the typical job of most employees and therefore identiŽ ed as extrarole
behaviours (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Nonetheless, innovative work behaviour (IWB) is
widely claimed to be crucial for the eV ective functioning and long-term survival of
organizations (e.g. Amabile, 1988; Ancona & Caldwell, 1987; Kanter, 1988; Oldham
& Cummings, 1996; Shalley, 1995; Van de Ven, 1986; West & Farr, 1989, 1990;
Woodman, Sawyer, & GriYn, 1993). As Katz (1964, p. 132) three decades ago
already noted, ‘an organization which depends solely upon its blueprints of
prescribed behavior is a very fragile social system’.
The foundation of all innovative improvement is ideas (Scott & Bruce, 1994),
and it is individual employees who ‘develop, carry, react to, and modify ideas’ (Van
de Ven, 1986, p. 592). Not surprisingly, there is a growing interest among scientists
to investigate cognitive and motivational processes underlying IWB at the indi-
vidual level (e.g. Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Oldham &
Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; West & Farr, 1989; Woodman et al., 1993).
This study aims to explore the relationship between job demands and IWB using a
social exchange theory framework (Blau, 1964). That is, higher job demands are
*Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr Onne Janssen, University of Groningen, Department of Social
and Organizational Psychology, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands (e-mail:
O.Janssen@PPSW.RUG.NL).
288 Onne Janssen
assumed to precipitate employees to respond with higher levels of innovative
activities in order to cope with the intensiŽ ed job requirements (Bunce & West,
1994; West, 1989). However, the extent to which employees actually perform more
innovatively in response to higher job demands is argued here to be contingent
upon fairness perceptions of the ratio between eV ort spent and reward received at
work. In what follows, we Ž rst deŽ ne the IWB construct and relate it to job
demands. Based on social exchange theory, we then discuss how perceptions of
eV ort–reward fairness moderate the relationship between job demands and IWB.

DeŽ nition of innovative work behaviour

Based on West and Farr (1989) and West (1989), IWB is deŽ ned here as the
intentional creation, introduction and application of new ideas within a work role,
group or organization, in order to beneŽ t role performance, the group, or the
organization. This deŽ nition restricts innovative behaviour to intentional eV orts to
provide beneŽ cially novel outcomes. ProŽ ts from innovation could include both
better functioning of the organization and social-psychological beneŽ ts for
individual workers or groups of individuals, such as a more appropriate Ž t between
perceived job demands and a worker’s resources, increased job satisfaction, and
better interpersonal communication.
Following Scott and Bruce (1994), we conceive IWB in the workplace as complex
behaviour consisting of a set of three diV erent behavioural tasks: idea generation,
idea promotion, and idea realization. Individual innovation begins with idea
generation, that is, the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain
(Amabile et al., 1996; Kanter, 1988; Woodman et al., 1993). Perceived work-related
problems, incongruities, discontinuities, and emerging trends are often instigators
of the generation of novel ideas (Drucker, 1985). The next task of the innovation
process consists of idea promotion to potential allies. That is, once a worker has
generated an idea, he or she has to engage in social activities to Ž nd friends,
backers, and sponsors surrounding an idea, or to build a coalition of supporters
who provide the necessary power behind it (Galbraith, 1982; Kanter, 1983, 1988).
The Ž nal task of the innovation process concerns idea realization by producing a
prototype or model of the innovation that can be experienced and ultimately
applied within a work role, a group or the total organization (Kanter, 1988). Simple
innovations are often completed by individual workers involved, while the
accomplishment of more complex innovations usually requires teamwork based on
a variety of speciŽ c knowledge, competence, and work roles (Kanter, 1988).
Taken together, IWB consists of idea generation, idea promotion, and idea
realization. Since innovation processes are often characterized by discontinuous
activities (Kanter, 1988; Schroeder, Van de Ven, Scudder, & Polley, 1989),
‘individuals can be expected to be involved in any combination of these behaviors
at any time’ (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Moreover, these extrarole behaviours refer to
discretionary employee actions which go beyond prescribed role expectations, and
are not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system (Katz, 1964;
Katz & Kahn, 1978; Organ, 1988).
 Job d emand s and innovative work behaviour 289
Job demands and innovative work behaviour
Job demands can be captured as psychological stressors, such as requirements of
working fast and hard, having much work to do within little time, or a heavy
workload (Fox, Dwyer, & Ganster, 1993; Karasek, 1979). Higher job demands are
suggested to provide an elevated state of arousal in a worker (Bunce & West, 1994;
Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Theorell & Karasek, 1996). According to
person-environment Ž t theory (Caplan, 1983; Edwards & Cooper, 1990; French,
Caplan, & Van Harrison, 1982), this elevated state of arousal activates a worker to
cope by adapting oneself to intensiŽ ed demands or by modifying his or her work
context. Adapting oneself may involve upgrading one’s skills and abilities in order
to match the heavy job demands, while adapting the workplace refers to modifying
task objectives, working methods, job approaches, job design, allocation and
coordination of tasks, interpersonal communication, etc.
Bunce and West (1994) and West (1989) suggest and empirically demonstrate
that workers consider innovative activities as an eV ective way of dealing with a
heavy workload. That is, higher levels of job demands were found to trigger
innovative responses suggesting that IWB serves as a problem-focused coping
strategy used by workers to cope with intensiŽ ed task requirements (Burke &
Belcourt, 1974; Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Parasuraman & Hansen,
1987). In other words, responding innovatively to higher job demands can be
conceived as a particular form of problem-focused coping in occupational settings.
As such, innovative work behaviour may help the individual to improve his or her
Ž t with higher job demands by generating, promoting, and realizing ideas for
modifying oneself or the work environment.

Perceptions of eVort–reward fairness as a moderator

The extent to which employees actually exert innovative activities in response to
job demands might be contingent upon other work contextual perceptions. Recent
theory and research have suggested workplace fairness to be a contextual condition
that could inhibit or facilitate employee extrarole work behaviours (e.g. Fahr,
PodsakoV , & Organ, 1990; Konovsky & Organ, 1996; Moorman, 1991; Nieho V &
Moorman, 1993; Organ, 1990; Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Organ & Moorman,
1993; Organ & Ryan, 1995). This study explores how perceptions of eV ort–reward
fairness shape the relationship between job demands and IWB using a social
exchange theory framework.
According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), employee behaviour can be
captured in terms of two types of exchange: economic and social exchange.
Economic exchange refers to a formal transactional contract (Rousseau & Parks,
1993) designed to specify the conditions of employment and the exact nature of
what is exchanged on a quid pro quo or calculated basis. Unlike economic exchange,
social exchange refers to relationships that entail unspeciŽ ed future obligations, did
not specify the exact nature of future return for contributions, is based on
individuals’ trusting that the exchange parties will fairly discharge their obligations
in the long run, and allows exchange parties to reciprocate through discretionary,
290 Onne Janssen
extrarole acts (cf. Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Moorman, 1991; Nieho V & Moorman,
1993). Organ (1990) suggests that employees prefer deŽ ning their relationship with
employers as social rather than economic exchanges. When eV orts are fairly
rewarded in such a social exchange relationship, employees are willing to
reciprocate by discretionary behaviours like innovative activities that go beyond
contractually determined job achievements. Thus, literature on workplace justice
suggests that perceptions of eV ort–reward fairness in uence the exhibition of
extrarole work behaviours by prompting employees to deŽ ne the relationship with
the organization in terms of social exchange (e.g. Fahr et al., 1990; Konovsky &
Pugh, 1994; Moorman, 1991; Nieho V & Moorman, 1993; Organ, 1990; Organ &
Moorman, 1993; Organ & Ryan, 1995).
Based on the social exchange perspective, the job demand–IWB relationship can
be argued to be regulated by fairness perceptions of the ratio between eV ort spent
and reward received at work. The employment of IWB evidently implies extrarole
investments related to idea generation, promotion, and realization (Kanter, 1988;
Katz & Kahn, 1978; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Van de
Ven, 1986). Perceptions that eV orts are fairly rewarded by the organization free and
motivate employees to transform higher job demands into IWB in order to cope
with the heavy workload. However, when employees perceive that eV orts are
under-rewarded by the organization, they tend to restrict their IWB. That is, the
drive to respond innovatively to higher levels of job demands is likely to be blocked
by the countervailing tension to restrict innovative eV orts in order to prevent or
reduce under-reward unfairness (cf. Adams, 1963, 1965). Employees have the
choice to restrict IWB since innovative activities are extrarole acts not mandated by
the organization and thus more or less under personal control.
In sum, the decision of employees to behave innovatively in response to job
demands is expected to be a function of perceptions of eV ort–reward fairness. That
is, employees who perceive a fair balance of work eV orts relative to work rewards
will be motivated to respond to higher job demands with IWB in order to cope with
the heavy workload. However, in case of perceived under-reward unfairness,
employees are likely to restrict IWB as they believe that innovative eV orts are
inappropriate and subject to exploitation. Hence, this study’s hypothesis reads:

Job demands are positively related to IWB when employees perceive eV ort–reward fairness
rather than under-reward unfairness.

In literature on the impact of job demands on job-related outcomes, Karasek’s

(1979) job demands-control (JD-C) model has provided the underlying theoretical
basis for most studies in the last two decades (cf. Fletcher & Jones, 1993; Ganster
& Fusilier, 1989; Theorell & Karasek, 1996; Wall, Jackson, Mullarkey, & Parker,
1996). This model rests on the central notion that job control moderates the
relationship between job demands and job-related outcomes. As such, the
interactive JD-C model assumes that increasing job demands in interaction with
decreasing job control produce psychological and physiological strain, but that
increasing levels of both job demands and job control provide active learning which
enables individuals to develop new and innovative patterns of behaviour (Karasek
 Job d emand s and innovative work behaviour 291
& Theorell, 1990). Unfortunately, empirical support for the intuitively appealing
demand-control interaction is inconclusive (Fletcher & Jones, 1993; Wall et al.,
1996). That is, most studies show that job demands and job control do separately
predict job-related outcomes without evidence of interactive eV ects which are
central to the model. As a consequence, scientists are challenged to shift emphasis
to psychological factors other than control that might shape the relationship
between job demands and job-related outcomes (cf. Fletcher & Jones, 1993). Based
on social exchange theory, the present study proposes perceptions of eV ort–reward
fairness to serve as a cognitive driving mechanism determining the extent to which
employees perform innovative work behaviours in response to job demands.
However, fairness perceptions might be related to job control perceptions, since
employees might consider decision latitude and autonomy as desirable work
outcomes in uencing perceptions of eV ort–reward fairness. As a consequence,
testing the interaction between job demands and fairness perceptions as proposed
in this study needs to be controlled for possible confounding eV ects of job control.

Method
Proced ure and respondents
The interactive e V ect of job demands and perceptions of eV ort–reward fairness on IWB was examined
in a sample of non-management employees from a Dutch industrial organization in the food sector.
To ensure some degree of generalizability, employees were randomly selected from all sorts of
departments such as purchase, logistics, order processing, production, maintenance, quality control,
research, marketing, engineering, administration. A representative sample of 392 respondents received
a questionnaire through regular mail. Participation was voluntary for all employees, and conŽ dentiality
was assured. Of the sample, 170 completed questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 43%.
Participants were predominantly male (85%), with an average age of 43.35 years (SD = 8.08), and a
mean company tenure of 12.55 years (SD = 9.33). Sixteen per cent of the respondents had at most
primary education, 57% initial vocational education, 19% higher vocational education, and 8% had
post-graduate degrees.
The 170 non-management respondents provided self-reports for job demands, perceptions of the
e V ort–reward fairness, and IWB. In addition, respondents were rated by their direct supervisors on
the outcome variable of IWB. Supervisor ratings on IWB were received from 110 of the 170 employee
respondents.

Measures
Job d emand s. These were assessed by eight items from a Dutch scale developed and validated by Van
Veldhoven and Meijman (1994) measuring demanding aspects of the job (cf. Ganster & Fusilier,
1989). The items included are: (1) Do you have to work fast? (2) Do you have too much work to do?
(3) Do you have to work extra hard to Ž nish a task? (4) Do you work under time pressure? (5) Can
you do your work in comfort? (6) Do you have to deal with a backlog at work? (7) Do you have
problems with the pace of work? (8) Do you have problems with the workload? Item (5) is reversed.
Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ (1) to ‘always’ (4). Cronbach’s a of the
summative scale was .87.
Perceptions of eVort–reward fairness. These were measured by a Dutch scale (Van Yperen, 1996, 1998)
consisting of six statements, each of which followed by a 7-point response scale ranging from ‘totally
disagree’ (1) to ‘totally agree’ (7). Items are: (1) I work myself too hard considering my outcomes;
(2) I give a great deal of time and attention to the organization, but get very little appreciation;
292 Onne Janssen
(3) I invest more in my job than I receive in return; (4) The rewards I receive are not proportional to
my investments; (5) I put more energy into my job than it is worth; (6) I feel unfairly treated in my
job. All responses were reverse-coded, so that higher scores indicated more eV ort–reward fairness.
Cronbach’s a of the summative scale was .90.
Innovative work behaviour. This was assessed by nine items based on Scott and Bruce’s (1994) scale for
individual innovative behaviour in the workplace. Drawing on Kanter’s (1988) work on the stages of
innovation, three items refer to idea generation, three items to idea promotion, and three items to idea
realization. The 9-item IWB scale was completed by both the respondents (self-reports) and their
supervisors (leader-reports). We chose for self-reports besides observer-scores for three reasons.
First, a worker’s cognitive representation and reports of his or her own IWB may be more subtle than
those of his or her supervisor, since a worker has much more information about the historical,
contextual, intentional and other backgrounds of his or her own work activities (cf. Jones & Nisbett,
1971). Second, the assessment of IWB as discretionary work behaviour is much like many forms of
subjective performance appraisal, highly susceptible to idiosyncratic interpretations and thus likely to
vary across diV erent raters (Organ & Konovsky, 1989). Finally, the supervisor measure may miss
much genuine employee innovative activities, and may capture only those gestures intended to
impress the supervisor (Organ & Konovsky, 1989). However, while self-reports might be more subtle
than leader-scores, the latter measure provides an assessment of IWB that is procedurally independent
of the participants’ self-reports of job demands and perceived e V ort–reward fairness. Therefore,
respondents provided self-reports and were rated by their direct supervisors (leader-reports) on the
following nine innovative work behaviour items: (1) Creating new ideas for diYcult issues (idea
generation); (2) Searching out new working methods, techniques, or instruments (idea generation); (3)
Generating original solutions for problems (idea generation); (4) Mobilizing support for innovative
ideas (idea promotion); (5) Acquiring approval for innovative ideas (idea promotion); (6) Making
important organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas (idea promotion); (7) Transform-
ing innovative ideas into useful applications (idea realization); (8) Introducing innovative ideas into
the work environment in a systematic way (idea realization); (9) Evaluating the utility of innovative
ideas (idea realization). It was indicated how often employees performed those innovative work
behaviours in the workplace. The response format was a 7-point scale ranging from ‘never’ (1) to
‘always’ (7). Intercorrelations between the three aspects of innovative work behaviour ranged from .84
(between idea generation and idea realization) to .87 (between idea generation and idea promotion) for
the leader-reports, and from .76 (between idea generation and idea realization) to .85 (between idea
promotion and idea realization) for the self-reports. Given these high intercorrelations and following
Scott and Bruce (1994), idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization were conceived to
combine additively to create an overall scale of innovative work behaviour. Cronbach’s a was .95 for
the self-rated and .96 for the leader-rated scores of IWB.
Covariates. To control for the possibility that socio-demographic diV erences in the predictor and
outcome variables might lead to spurious relationships, gender (1 = male, 2 = female), age (in years),
organization tenure (in years), and education (1 = primary education, 2 = initial vocational education,
3 = higher vocational education, and 4 = post-graduate degree) were entered as covariates in the
analysis.
Moreover, for theoretical reasons elaborated in the theoretical section of this paper, job control also
served as a covariate in order to control for a possible confound with fairness perceptions. Job control
was measured by a Dutch 11-item scale developed and validated by Van Veldhoven and Meijman
(1994). The measure consists of items focusing on timing control and method control developed by
Jackson, Wall, Martin, and Davids (1993; cf. Wall et al., 1996). The items included are: (1) Can you
choose the methods to use carrying out your work? (2) Do you plan your own work? (3) Do you set
your own pace? (4) Can you vary how you do your work? (5) On your job, do you have the freedom
to take a break whenever you wish to? (6) Do you decide on the order in which you do things? (7)
Do you decide when to Ž nish a piece of work? (8) Do you have full authority in determining how
much time you spend on particular tasks? (9) Can you decide how to go about getting your job done?
(10) Does your job allow you to organize your work by yourself? (11) Do you have full authority in
determining the content of your work? The items were followed by a 4-point response scale (never,
sometimes, often, always). Cronbach’s a was .90.
 Job d emand s and innovative work behaviour 293
Data analysis
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to detect main and interaction eV ects of job
demands and fairness perceptions on the dependent variable of IWB (cf. Cleary & Kessler, 1982;
Cohen & Cohen, 1983). To facilitate testing interaction eV ects, cross-product terms of standardized
predictors were used (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Kleinbaum, Kupper, & Muller, 1988).
The hierarchical regression constituted three successive steps. The Ž rst step entered the
socio-demographic variables and job control as covariates to control for relationships with the
predictor and outcome variables. Since the primary interest was the demand–fairness interaction,
the second step necessarily controlled for the independent eV ects of job demands and perceptions of
e V ort–reward fairness. The Ž nal third step entered the cross-product term of the two predictors in
order to test the hypothesized interaction eV ect.

Results
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson correlations
for the variables investigated in this study. Job demands were negatively correlated
with perceptions of eV ort–reward fairness (r = 2 .41, p < .001). This moderate
relationship ruled out problems of multicollinearity, since multicollinearity is not
considered problematic until correlations reach about .75 (Ashford & Tsui, 1992).
Furthermore, job demands related positively to self-reports of IWB (r = .15,
p < .05), whereas the relationship with leader-reports of IWB was not found to be
signiŽ cant (r = .06, n.s.). The moderate correlation between leader-rated and
self-rated IWB (r = .35, p < .001) is in line with earlier research Ž ndings concerning
self-reports and supervisor judgments of employee work behaviour (Harris &
Schaubroeck, 1988). Job control was positively related to education (r = .36,
p < .001), and to both the leader-rated (r = .20, p < .05) and self-rated scores of IWB
(r = .28, p < .001). Thus, higher educated employees reported higher levels of
control in their jobs and exerted more innovative activities. Job control had
no signiŽ cant zero-order correlations with job demands and perceptions of
eV ort–reward fairness.

Test of hypothesis
Leader-reports of IWB. Entering the control variables of gender, age, tenure,
education, and job control into the regression of leader-rated IWB yielded a
signiŽ cant equation (F = 4.92, p < .001, R2 = .19) (see Table 2). This eV ect was due
to gender (b = 2 .22, p < .05) and degree of education (b = .32, p < .01), in the sense
that male rather than female, and higher educated workers were judged to perform
higher levels of innovative work behaviour. In the second regression step, job
demands and perceptions of eV ort–reward fairness yielded no signiŽ cant main
eV ects on leader-rated IWB (Fchange = .09, n.s., R 2change = .00). However, the interac-
tion between job demands and fairness perceptions was found to be signiŽ cant
(Fchange = 6.28, p < .05, R 2change = .05).
To further analyse this interaction eV ect, the total regression equation was
rearranged in simple regressions of leader-rated IWB on job demands given
conditional values of perceptions of eV ort–reward fairness (M + 1 SD; M 2 1 SD)
(cf. Aiken & West, 1991). In case of eV ort–reward fairness, higher job demands
 294

Table 1. Univariate statistics and Pearson correlations among the variablesa

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Control variables
1. Gender 1.15 .36
2. Age 43.35 8.08 2 .24**
3. Tenure 12.55 9.33 2 .18* .51***
4. Education 2.21 .80 .07 2 .37*** 2 .32***
5. Job control 2.78 .60 .15* 2 .18** 2 .15* .36***
Predictor variables
Onne Janssen

6. Job demands 2.21 .52 2 .02 .02 .09 .04 .03

7. EV ort–reward fairness 4.83 1.33 .29*** 2 .05 2 .21 .09 .09 2 .41***
Dependent variables
8. Leader-rated IWB 3.19 1.21 2 .14 2 .22* 2 .19* .39*** .20* .06 .00
9. Self-rated IWB 3.02 1.20 2 .04 2 .22** 2 .27*** .44*** .28*** .15* .04 .35***

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.0001.

a
N =170, except for leader-rated IWB (N =110).
 Job d emand s and innovative work behaviour 295
Table 2. Hierarchical regression of IWB on job demands and perceptions of
eV ort–reward fairnessa

Leader-rated IWB Self-rated IWB

b c 2
Entry b Final b D R Entry bb Final bc D R2

Step 1: Control variables .19*** .24***

Gender 2 .22* 2 .29* 2 .11 2 .16*
Age 2 .06 2 .14 2 .01 2 .04
Tenure 2 .07 2 .02 2 .15 2 .15
Education .32** .29* .35*** .32***
Job control .06 .09 .15* .17*
Step 2: Predictor variables .00 .03†
Job demands (JD) .04 .13 .18* .21*
EV ort–reward fairness (ERF) .03 .03 .08 .05
Step 3: Interaction term .05* .03*
JD 3 ERF .18* .18* .13* .13*
Totals
R2 .24 .30
F(8,101) 3.99***
F(8,161) 8.44***

†p<.10; *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001.

a
N =110 for leader-rated IWB, and 170 for self-rated IWB.
b
Unstandardized regression coeYcients shown are from the equation at the step indicated.
c
Unstandardized regression coeYcients shown are from the equation at the Ž nal step.

appeared to go hand in hand with higher levels of leader-rated IWB (b = .31,

t = 2.12, p < .05), whereas job demands did not signiŽ cantly relate to IWB in case of
perceived under-reward unfairness (b = 2 .04, t = 2 .40, n.s.). To advance further
interpretations, this interaction is illustrated in the left picture of Fig. 1 in which the
solid regression line has a signiŽ cant and the broken regresson line a non-
signiŽ cant simple slope. As the picture shows, employees performed higher levels
of innovative work behaviours in response to higher job demands only when they
perceived a fair balance between eV ort spent and reward received at work.

Self-reports of IWB. Predicting self-reports of IWB yielded a signiŽ cant regression

equation for the control variables (F = 10.62, p < .001, R 2 = .24), which could be
attributed to job control (b = .15, p < .05) and again education (b = .35, p < .001).
Adding the main eV ects of job demands and perceived eV ort–reward fairness into
the regression equation provided a marginally signiŽ cant eV ect (Fchange = 2.90,
p < .06, R2change = .03), due to a positive relationship between job demands and IWB
(b = .18, p < .05). This main eV ect appeared to be qualiŽ ed by an interaction eV ect
between job demands and perceptions of eV ort–reward fairness (Fchange = 5.67,
p < .05, R 2change = .03). As the right picture in Fig. 1 illustrates, job demands were
296 Onne Janssen

Figure 1. Regression of innovative work behaviour (IWB) on job demands for e V ort–reward fairness
and under-reward unfairness.

positively associated with self-reports of IWB in case of perceived eV ort–reward

fairness (b = .33, t = 3.19, p < .01) rather than under-reward unfairness (b = .10,
t = 1.18, n.s.).
Since the measure of innovative work behaviour constituted three subscales
relating to idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization, additional analyses
were conducted to Ž nd out whether the pattern of results reported above was
consistent for those separate subscales. The hypothesized two-way interaction
between job demands and perceptions of eV ort–reward fairness was found for the
leader-rated scores of idea generation (Fchange = 5.28, p < .05, R 2change = .04), idea
promotion (Fchange = 6.13, p < .05, R2change = .05), and idea realization (Fchange = 5.26,
p < .05, R2change = .04), and for the self-reports of idea generation (Fchange = 5.83,
p < .05, R 2change = .02), idea promotion (Fchange = 4.49, p < .05, R2change = .02), and idea
realization (Fchange = 4.08, p < .05, R2change = .02). This consistent pattern of results is
not surprising given the high intercorrelations between the three subscales of
innovative work behaviour.

Job control. In the regression analyses reported above, the test of the demand–
fairness interaction was controlled for the possible covariate of job control.
However, viewed from the perspective of Karasek’s job demands-control (JD-C)
model, job control could also moderate the interaction between job demands and
perceived eV ort–reward fairness. That is, employees who perceive a fair eV ort–
reward ratio might respond innovatively to increasing job demands, especially when
they experienced high rather than low levels of job control. To test this option, an
exploratory hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to detect a possible
three-way interaction including job demands, fairness perceptions, and job control.
After controlling for the socio-demographic variables, the main eV ects of the
predictors, and their two-way interactions, this particular three-way interaction did
not appear to be predictive for either leader-rated IWB (Fchange = .09, n.s.,
R 2change = .00) or self-rated IWB (Fchange = .50, n.s., R2change = .00).
 Job d emand s and innovative work behaviour 297
Finally, according to the JD-C model, higher job demands in interaction with
higher job control can be expected to provide higher levels of innovative work
behaviour (Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). An exploratory hierarchical
regression analysis revealed that—after controlling for the socio-demographic
variables and the main eV ects of the predictors—the two-way interaction did not
appear to be signiŽ cant for either leader-rated IWB (F change = 1.09, n.s.,
R 2change = .01) or self-rated IWB (Fchange = .50, n.s., R 2change = .00).

Discussion
The primary aim of this study was to investigate how fairness perceptions of the
ratio between eV ort spent and reward received at work regulate the relationship
between job demands and innovative work behaviour (IWB). Based on person-
environment Ž t theory (Caplan, 1983; Edwards & Cooper, 1990; French et al.,
1982), IWB was suggested to serve as a problem-focused coping strategy used by
employees to cope with higher levels of job demands (cf. Bunce & West, 1994).
That is, workers may innovate their habitats, abilities, job characteristics, and
working methods in order to deal with a heavy workload. Building on social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964), it was hypothesized that the extent to which workers
actually respond innovatively to job demands is regulated by perceptions of
eV ort–reward fairness. The present results of a survey among non-management
employees support this hypothesis. That is, employees were found to respond more
innovatively to higher levels of job demands when they perceived that their eV orts
were fairly rewarded by the organization. However, when employees perceived
under-reward unfairness, higher levels of job demands were not transformed into
more IWB. This demand–fairness interaction appeared to emerge for both
self-rated and leader-rated scores of employee innovation in the workplace.
Before discussing theoretical and practical implications of these Ž ndings, we
wish to mention some limitations of the current study. A Ž rst limitation is that the
correlational evidence found does not necessarily re ect the causality as proposed
in the model. The direction of the relationship between job demands and IWB is
unclear and may well be bi-directional. Employees may perform innovative work
activities in order to cope with higher levels of job demands, but innovation
self-evidently creates new workloads. According to Bunce and West (1994),
innovative activities confront the status quo and therefore provide intra- or
interpersonal con ict leading to increased levels of stress which may well be
experienced as intensiŽ ed job demands. Possibly, employees may expect that this
extra workload will occur in the short term, while in the long term problems will be
reduced by their innovative coping. Nonetheless, longitudinal or laboratory studies
are needed to provide irrefutable evidence of causation. A second limitation
concerns the generalizability of the results found in this study. The sample
consisted of predominantly male participants (85%) from an industrial organization
in the food sector. Gender and particular organizational factors might vary with
perceptions of job demands and eV ort–reward fairness and thus explain their
eV ects. In addition, the control variable of education appeared to be positively
298 Onne Janssen
related to IWB. A straightforward reason for this relationship might be that levels
of education are critical for enhancing the generation, promotion, and realization of
novel ideas (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). A more complicated reason holds that
higher educated employees perform more complex and non-routine jobs which
provide better opportunities for individual innovation in the workplace (Scott &
Bruce, 1994). This study’s results tend to support the Ž rst straightforward reason,
since the highly signiŽ cant education–IWB relationship found was controlled for
common variance with job control re ecting decision latitude, task autonomy, and
thus job complexity. A possible explanation for the positive education–IWB
relationship might be that higher educated employees are more skilled in problem
solving which is a central feature of innovation. To Ž gure out those questions,
generalization of the present results to women, to other types of organization, and
to diV erent job types awaits further empirical examination. Finally, the theoretical
framework should be expanded to examine dispositional factors that might
moderate the demand-fairness interactive eV ect on IWB.
Since employees may consider IWB as a appropriate way to deal with higher
levels of job demands, it is necessary to gain understanding of factors in uencing
the adoption of this particular problem-focused coping strategy (cf. Bunce & West,
1994). The present study suggests that the extent to which workers respond
innovatively to higher levels of job demands is contingent upon the quality of the
social exchange relationship with the organization. That is, employees are driven to
transform their workload-elicited arousal into IWB when they expect that such
extrarole actions are fairly rewarded. However, when employees feel that their
extrarole investments do not pay the eV orts, the drive to respond innovatively to
higher job demands will be blocked by the countervailing tension to restrict
innovative eV orts in order to reduce under-reward unfairness. So, this study
suggests that perceptions of eV ort–reward fairness regulate a worker’s drive to
respond innovatively to job demands. More generally, social exchange theory
advances person–environment Ž t theory by providing a cognitive driving mech-
anism that shapes the way an individual is seeking to improve his or her Ž t with the
work environment.
Furthermore, the present study also contributes to the literature on job demands
and job-related outcomes. In the last two decades, Karasek’s (1979) job demands-
control (JD-C) model has served as the theoretical basis for most studies on job
demands (Fletcher & Jones, 1993; Ganster & Fusilier, 1989; Theorell & Karasek,
1996; Wall et al., 1996). This model’s basic assumption is that job control moderates
the relationship between job demands and job-relted outcomes. That is, higher
levels of job demands in interaction with lower levels of job control are asserted to
produce psychological and physiological strain, whereas higher levels of both job
demands and job control provide active learning enabling individuals to develop
new patterns of behaviour (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Unfortunately, in most
studies job demands and job control do separately predict job-related outcomes
without evidence of interactive eV ects which are central to the model (Fletcher &
Jones, 1993; Wall et al., 1996). Some recent studies suggest that this lack of support
might be attributed in part to inadequate speciŽ cation and operationalization of job
demands and control (Wall et al., 1996), and to the neglect of worker’s individual
 Job d emand s and innovative work behaviour 299
characteristics that moderate the demand–control interactive eV ect (De Rijk,
Le Blanc, Schaufeli & de Jonge, 1998; Parkes, 1991; Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997).
Nevertheless, the inconclusively empirical support for the interaction assumption
of the JD-C model challenges scientists to explore psychological factors other than
control that might shape the eV ects of job demands on job-related outcomes
(cf. Fletcher & Jones, 1993). Based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Fahr
et al., 1990; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Moorman, 1991; Nieho V & Moorman, 1993;
Organ, 1990; Organ & Moorman, 1993; Organ & Ryan, 1995), the present study
provides evidence that perceptions of eV ort–reward fairness determine the extent
to which employees respond innovatively to job demands. However, viewed from
the perspective of the JD-C model, the demand–fairness interaction found in this
study might be moderated by job control. That is, employees who perceive
eV ort–reward fairness might respond more innovatively to higher job demands
especially when they have higher levels of job control. Although the present study
did not Ž nd evidence for this three-way interaction, this intriguing question needs
further research using diV erent operationalizations of job demands and control
(cf. Wall et al., 1996), and taking into account relevant individual characteristics
(cf. De Rijk et al., 1998; Parkes, 1991; Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997).
The results also have implications on an applied level. An important advantage
of the model proposed in this study is that perceptions of eV ort–reward fairness are
at least partly within the control of the organization. In particular, organizations
have more or less control over the way they reward employees for their eV orts.
When eV orts are fairly rewarded by the organization, employees are willing to cope
innovatively with higher levels of demands in the work environment. This
individual innovation in the workplace is widely claimed to contribute substantially
to the eV ective functioning of organizations (Amabile, 1988; Ancona & Caldwell,
1987; Kanter, 1988; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley,
1995; Van de Ven, 1986; West & Farr, 1989, 1990; Woodman et al., 1993).
However, when employees feel unfairly treated in the social exchange relation-
ship with the organization, they tend to reduce discretionary innovative work
behaviours, because such acts are believed to be inappropriate and subject to
exploitation.

References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67,
422–436.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Ad vances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organization behavior (pp. 187–209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Acad emy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1987). Management issues facing new product teams in high technology
companies. In D. Lewin, D. Lipsky, & D. Sokel (Eds.), Ad vances in ind ustrial and labor relations
(Vol. 4, pp. 191–221). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
300 Onne Janssen
Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1992). Self-regulation for managerial eV ectiveness: The role of active
feedback seeking. Acad emy of Management Journal, 34, 251–280.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship
between aV ect and employee ‘citizenship’. Acad emy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bunce, D., & West, M. (1994). Changing work environments: Innovating coping responses to
occupation stress. Work and Stress, 8, 319–331.
Burke, R. J., & Belcourt, M. L. (1974). Managerial role stress and coping responses. Journal of Business
Administration, 5, 55–68.
Caplan, R. D. (1983). Person–environment Ž t: Past, present and future. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Stress
research (pp. 35–78). London: Wiley.
Cleary, P. D., & Kessler, R. C. (1982). The estimation and interpretation of modiŽ er eV ects. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 23, 159–169.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
De Rijk, A. E., Le Blanc, P. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & de Jonge, J. (1998). Active coping and need for
control as moderators of the job demand-control model: E V ects on burnout. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 71, 1–18.
Dittrich, J. E., & Carrell, M. R. (1979). Organizational equity perceptions, employee satisfaction, and
departmental absence and turnover rates. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 29–40.
Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. London: Heinemann.
Edwards, J. R., & Cooper, C. L. (1990). The person–environment Ž t approach to stress: Recurring
problems and some suggested solutions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 293–307.
Fahr, J., PodsakoV , P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior:
Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16, 705–722.
Fletcher, B. C., & Jones, F. (1993). A refutation of Karasek’s demand-discretion model of
occupational stress with a range of dependent measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14,
319–330.
Fox, M. L., Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. (1993). EV ects of stressful job demands and control on
physiological and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting. Acad emy of Management Journal, 36,
289–318.
French, J. R. P., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain.
New York: Wiley.
Galbraith, J. R. (1982). Designing the innovating organization. Organizational Dynamics, 10, 5–25.
Ganster, D. C., & Fusilier, M. R. (1989). Control in the workplace. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson
(Eds.), International review of ind ustrial and organizational psychology (pp. 235–280). Chichester: Wiley.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good–doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at
work–organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329.
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and
peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.
Jackson, P. R., Wall, T. D., Martin, R., & Davids, K. (1993). New measures of job control, cognitive
demand, and production responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 753–762.
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior.
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kanter, R. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand  owers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for
innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 169–211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job control and mental strain: Implications for job redesign.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.
Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life.
New York: Basic Books.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131–133.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
 Job d emand s and innovative work behaviour 301
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., & Muller, K. E. (1988). Applied regression analysis and other multivariate
methods (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 235–266.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Acad emy of
Management Journal, 37, 656–669.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions in uence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 6,
845–855.
Mumford, M., & Gustafson, S. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43.
NiehoV , B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods
of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad emy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work.
Acad emy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good sold ier synd rome. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational base of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 12, 43–72.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus aV ective determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157–164.
Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior: What are
the connections? Social Justice Research, 1, 5–18.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors
of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.
Parasuraman, S., & Hansen, D. (1987). Coping with work stressors in nursing: E V orts of adaptive
versus maladaptive strategies. Work and Occupation, 14, 88–105.
Parkes, K. R. (1991). Locus of control as a moderator: An explanation for additive versus interactive
Ž ndings in the demand-discretion model of work stress? British Journal of Psychology, 82, 291–312.
Rousseau, D. M., & Parks, J. M. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. In B. M. Staw
& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 1–43). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, D. E. (1997). Divergent eV ect of job control on coping with work
stressors: The key role of self-eYcacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 738–754.
Schroeder, R., Van de Ven, A., Scudder, G., & Polley, D. (1989). The development of innovation ides.
In A. van de Ven, H. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation: The
Minnesota stud ies (pp. 107–134). New York: Harper & Row.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual
innovation in the workplace. Acad emy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). EV ects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and
productivity. Acad emy of Management Journal, 38, 483–503.
Theorell, T., & Karasek, R. A. (1996). Current issues relating to psychosocial job strain and
cardiovascular disease research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 9–26.
Van de Ven, A. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32,
590–607.
VanYperen, N. W. (1996). Communal orientation and the burnout syndrome among nurses:
A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 338–354.
VanYperen, N. W. (1998). Informational support, equity and burnout: The moderating eV ect of
self-eYcacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 29–33.
Van Veldhoven, M., & Meijman, T. (1994). Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting [The mesasurement
of psychosocial job demands]. Amsterdam: NIA.
Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., Mullarkey, S., & Parker, S. K. (1996). The demands-control model of job
strain: A more speciŽ c test. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 153–166.
302 Onne Janssen
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the central
role of negative aV ectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234–250.
West, M. A. (1989). Innovation amongst health care professionals. Social Behaviour, 4, 173–184.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social Behavior, 4,
15–30.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and
creativity at work (pp. 1–13). Chichester: Wiley.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & GriYn, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity.
Acad emy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.

Received 24 November 1998; revised version received 10 November 1999