View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

From Creative Performance Pressure to Deviance: Understanding the Role of Moral Disengagement and Supervisor Bottom Line Mentality

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: From Creative Performance Pressure to Deviance: Understanding the Role of Moral Disengagement and Supervisor Bottom Line Mentality
Language: English
Authors: Imran Hame (ORCID 0000-0001-5431-9162), Faisal Qadeer (ORCID 0000-0002-7513-1924), Kanwal Zahoor (ORCID 0009-0005-3512-5860), Irfan Hame (ORCID 0000-0002-1484-6133), Mumtaz Ali Memon (ORCID 0000-0003-4623-9693)
Source: Journal of Creative Behavior. 2025 59(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Creativity, Performance, Moral Values, Supervision, Supervisors, Employees, Work Environment, Norms, Well Being, Employee Attitudes, Ethics, Incentives
DOI: 10.1002/jocb.1538
ISSN: 0022-0175
2162-6057
Abstract: This study argues that many renowned organizations depend on their employees' creativity for top industry performance and meeting customer expectations in the current business era of hyper-competition. This study aims to understand the dark side of creative performance pressure (CPP) in the workplace through the lens of moral disengagement theory (MDT). We specifically argue that CPP results in organizational deviance (discretionary behavior that violates organizational norms and threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both). Further, we have identified employee moral disengagement (the ability to separate oneself morally from a wrong behavior by cognitively altering the perception of the situation and, therefore, not feeling negative about it) as an underlying mechanism of CPP-organizational deviance relationship and supervisor bottom-line mentality as the boundary condition of this mediated relationship. The data for the study were collected using a self-administered questionnaire through a time-lagged design from full-time employees working in the IT industry in Pakistan. A total of 254 completed responses were used to test the model through confirmatory factor analysis (in AMOS 23) and SPSS Process Macro. The results of the analysis supported the theoretical arguments of MDT and the existing evidence. The results highlighted that CPP leads employees toward organizational deviance through the underlying psychological mechanism of moral disengagement, and this impact is further enhanced in the presence of supervisors who are high in bottom-line mentality. The study makes significant theoretical contributions and suggests policy implications for organizations related to the code of ethics, incentivizing ethical behavior, and open communication.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1462016
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFIcCgK8uepgxb90C2HAq40AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAPuZLUPSWbTzE-wCwIBEICBm47VyPcArTucjd4moFQNon2fG0LYaDkyQk9W_9K2qupIzTI3aMmojAT13du2WRBNTXIDRxYn-555Ahp9YyjH2aKhxiuMcj46hgt3WTQ2sgIxsKTzztKgeMwTGoE20XmEdDqvD5msBExDUHeAmxh94v5e067qhqIcZdsjucrNros73x54f8Okgq8cUeSkw8ghi-Uz88RJ1soIM-UM
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186883830;3u701mar.25;2025Jul28.03:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186883830-1">From Creative Performance Pressure to Deviance: Understanding the Role of Moral Disengagement and Supervisor Bottom Line Mentality </title> <p>This study argues that many renowned organizations depend on their employees' creativity for top industry performance and meeting customer expectations in the current business era of hyper‐competition. This study aims to understand the dark side of creative performance pressure (CPP) in the workplace through the lens of moral disengagement theory (MDT). We specifically argue that CPP results in organizational deviance (discretionary behavior that violates organizational norms and threatens the well‐being of an organization, its members, or both). Further, we have identified employee moral disengagement (the ability to separate oneself morally from a wrong behavior by cognitively altering the perception of the situation and, therefore, not feeling negative about it) as an underlying mechanism of CPP—organizational deviance relationship and supervisor bottom‐line mentality as the boundary condition of this mediated relationship. The data for the study were collected using a self‐administered questionnaire through a time‐lagged design from full‐time employees working in the IT industry in Pakistan. A total of 254 completed responses were used to test the model through confirmatory factor analysis (in AMOS 23) and SPSS Process Macro. The results of the analysis supported the theoretical arguments of MDT and the existing evidence. The results highlighted that CPP leads employees toward organizational deviance through the underlying psychological mechanism of moral disengagement, and this impact is further enhanced in the presence of supervisors who are high in bottom‐line mentality. The study makes significant theoretical contributions and suggests policy implications for organizations related to the code of ethics, incentivizing ethical behavior, and open communication.</p> <p>Keywords: creative performance pressure; moral disengagement theory; organizational deviance; social cognitive theory; supervisor bottom line mentality</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In the present business era of hyper‐competition, organizations are promoting performance‐enhancing practices coupled with employee creativity programs (Chen and Chen [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref1">19</reflink>]), as creativity is linked with positive business outcomes. Many renowned organizations, such as Apple Inc., Gucci Group, Procter & Gamble, etc., depend on their employees' creativity for top industry performance and meeting customer expectations (Dodgson, Gann, and Salter [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref2">25</reflink>]; Rigby, Gruver, and Allen [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref3">58</reflink>]). In such creativity programs, employees are encouraged and pressured to be flexible in interpreting and applying knowledge and information and developing unconventional thinking to generate new and valuable ideas to meet the bottom‐line goals and fulfill customers' demands (Gong, Zhou, and Chang [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref4">30</reflink>]). Understanding the importance of creativity and innovation, many companies are connecting employee creative performance to their performance appraisal system, rewards, and incentives (Victor and Cullen [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref5">69</reflink>]), creating a high‐pressure work environment. Working in high‐pressure situations increases employees' pragmatic worries about performance targets (Chen and Chen [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]); it also generates strain that impacts employees' psychological well‐being (Kanfer and Chen [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref7">37</reflink>]). The existing evidence shows that performance pressure has caused some of the most shocking corporate scandals, such as sham credit cards produced by Wells Fargo employees (Corkery [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref8">21</reflink>]) and Wall Street financial fraud (Commission [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref9">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Considering the above arguments, if the organizational efforts to promote creativity can unintentionally produce adverse outcomes, then the assumed gains of promoting creativity for organizational functioning may become questionable (Ng and Yam [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref10">52</reflink>]). Therefore, the current study aims to unearth the dark side of creative performance pressure (CPP), a substantial source of work stress. However, the literature about how employees tackle and react to this type of pressure is unclear. One of the main reasons for this gap in existing research is partly due to the lack of any construct of CPP, which was recently introduced by Liu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]) and is referred to employees "subjective experience of the need to achieve high levels of creative performance because being creative (or not) has substantial consequences for the employees and the organization they work for" (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref12">40</reflink>]; p. 663). Therefore, this is one of the pioneering studies exploring CPP's impact on employees' negative work behaviors.</p> <p>CPP conceptually differs from other work stressors, such as creative requirements and performance pressure. Creative requirements only emphasize the job requirements focusing on creative action sans mention of urgency or the related high stakes, whereas CPP focuses on inherent substantial consequences and urgency of raising creative performance (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref13">40</reflink>]; Unsworth and Clegg [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref14">68</reflink>]). On the other hand, although both CPP and performance pressure create pressure and urgency, performance pressure focuses on work quantity or performance activities' effectiveness (Madjar, Greenberg, and Chen [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref15">44</reflink>]), and CPP emphasizes the creation of novel and unique ideas (Amabile [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>]). The combination of expected higher creative performance and related outcomes develops a tension or urgency for employees to exhibit creative performance, activating or deactivating different self‐regulatory mechanisms with a desire to avoid negative consequences or achieve positive ones. This sense of urgency or tension pushes employees toward making unethical choices and exhibiting deviant work behaviors (i.e., organizational deviance).</p> <p>Organizational deviance is referred to as discretionary behavior that violates organizational norms and, as a consequence, threatens the well‐being of an organization, its members, or both (Robinson and Bennett [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref17">59</reflink>]). This has been a point of concern for researchers, business leaders, and managers for the past three decades. The fact is evident through the enormous number of research publications, resulting in two influential meta‐analyses, that is, (Berry, Ones, and Sackett [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref18">15</reflink>]; Mackey et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref19">43</reflink>]), and billions of dollars of business losses reported by organizations per year (Bennett, Marasi, and Locklear [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref20">12</reflink>]). Considering its importance, the present study suggests that CPP can force employees toward organizational deviance. The review of existing literature showed that varying theoretical lenses, such as self‐enhancement theory (e.g., Hameed et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref21">32</reflink>]), role identity theory (e.g., Koseoglu, Liu, and Shalley [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref22">38</reflink>]), job demand resource model (e.g., Chen [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref23">18</reflink>]), social cognitive theory (e.g., Breidenthal et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref24">16</reflink>]), etc., have been applied to explain the impact of creativity‐related antecedents (e.g., creative personality, creativity, creative behavior, etc.) on employee outcomes. Similarly, a variety of underlying mechanisms are identified, including psychological entitlement (Hameed et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref25">32</reflink>]), competitive motivation and pro‐social motivation (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>]), unethical justification (Mai, Ellis, and Welsh [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref27">46</reflink>]), moral disengagement (Shi et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref28">64</reflink>]), external scanning (Jaussi and Randel [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]), etc.</p> <p>Using moral disengagement theory (MDT), we propose moral disengagement as the underlying mechanism through which CPP impacts employees' organizational deviance. In addition, we identified the supervisor bottom‐line mentality (SBLM) as a critical leader behavior that acts as a boundary condition in this proposed relationship. Employees usually look toward their supervisors for validation of their actions. Therefore, supervisors have a significant influence on employee behaviors in the workplace. We contend that SBLM referred to supervisors' one‐dimensional thinking revolving around achieving the bottom‐line outcomes and neglecting the other competing goals (Greenbaum, Mawritz, and Eissa [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref30">31</reflink>]), moderates the moral disengagement—organizational deviance relationship.</p> <p>This study aims to make multiple contributions. First, while existing research has mainly explored the dysfunctional aspects of performance pressure for ethical decision‐making and employee well‐being (e.g., Cropanzano and Mitchell [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref31">22</reflink>]), the current study focuses on CPP, an under‐researched area in the field of management (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref32">40</reflink>]). It investigates how the pressure to produce original and innovative work can lead employees to engage in organizational deviance. In doing so, this study also supports the innovation maximization fallacy presented by Anderson, Potočnik, and Zhou ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]) that "all creativity and innovation is good; and the more, the better" (p. 1320). Second, this study proposes moral disengagement (i.e., a psychological process where individuals detach themselves from moral standards) by using MDT as an underlying mechanism between CPP and organizational deviance. This study aims to provide valuable insights and recommendations for preventing such negative employee behaviors by understanding how CPP results in moral disengagement and, ultimately, organizational deviance. Third, this research introduces SBLM (i.e., focusing on achieving short‐term results at any cost) as a moderator in this relationship, highlighting the important role of organizational leaders in influencing employees' behavioral choices (Farasat and Azam [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]). This direction of study aims to direct the organizational decision‐makers toward supervisors' and leaders' selection criteria and capacity building in terms of prioritizing work outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-3">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186883830-4">Moral Disengagement Theory</hd> <p>MDT (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref36">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref37">9</reflink>]) has become very popular among researchers because of its ability to explain why employees exhibit negative behaviors (Ogunfowora et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref38">53</reflink>]). Early research highlighted that people and groups usually use 'rationalization,' 'neutralizations,' 'flexible rules,' and 'justifications' to satisfy themselves against their acts, which are clearly against societal and personal moral standards (Scott and Lyman [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref39">62</reflink>]; Sykes and Matza [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref40">65</reflink>]). These ideas were then integrated and further enhanced by Bandura ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>]) by introducing the social cognitive theory (SCT) of morality. The SCT proposes that individuals usually engage in immoral acts by utilizing any of the eight cognitive maneuvers known as moral disengagement. Specifically, these tactics are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>) moral justification: the unethical behavior is right in service of a greater moral purpose, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>) euphemistic labeling: using such a language that tones down the negativity of the act, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>) advantageous comparison: trying to reduce the severity of the act by comparing it with more severe wrongdoings, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref46">4</reflink>) distortion of consequences: an effort to portray that the act has no harmful effects (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref47">5</reflink>) displacement of responsibility: reducing personal accountability by saying that it was performed on orders of supervisors, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>) diffusion of responsibility: hiding behind the group decision, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>) attribution of blame: distancing oneself from the victim by blaming them for inviting it on themselves, and (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref50">8</reflink>) dehumanization: stripping the victims of the human attributes.</p> <p>The two vital self‐regulatory mechanisms are disrupted by moral disengagement for encouraging wrongdoings (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref52">7</reflink>]). The first disruption is bypassing the normal moral cognitive process related to understanding and awareness of moral issues, the capacity for reasoning and clear moral decision‐making, and motivation for ethical behavior. The second disruption is the ability to feel self‐condemning emotions when thinking about immoral acts. When people disengage from their personal moral standards, they will foresee no or little guilt/shame (these emotions stop individuals from opting for an immoral act) (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref54">7</reflink>]). Moral disengagement impacts an individual's capacity to act morally through these eight maneuvers and disrupts two self‐regulatory mechanisms (Ogunfowora et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref55">53</reflink>]). In the current research, by using the tenets of MDT, we propose that CPP can encourage organizational deviance, which is mediated by employee moral disengagement. Furthermore, we propose the SBLM as the boundary condition of this relationship.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-5">CPP and Organizational Deviance</hd> <p>Performance pressure refers to the subjective experience of substantial job demands that internal or external forces can induce. It also has favorable and unfavorable outcomes, forcing individuals to behave in specific ways (Russell, O'Connell, and McGinnity [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref56">61</reflink>]). These pressures can include quality, emotional, cognitive, and time pressures (Byron, Khazanchi, and Nazarian [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref57">17</reflink>]). These pressures impact employees as their work‐related outcomes, such as promotions, raises, and perks, are linked with their accomplishments (Trivedi and Pattusamy [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref58">67</reflink>]). In today's competitive business world, an organization's competitive advantage and effective functioning depend upon employee creativity. Therefore, most organizations link the employees' rewards to creative performance outcomes. This linking of performance expectations to creative performance creates a unique type of pressure, termed CPP. The CPP refers to the employees' subjective experience of the requirement to exhibit significant levels of creative performance as it is linked with important employee and organizational consequences (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref59">40</reflink>]). Liu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>]) further argue that CPP is a double‐edged sword and can harm performance. The <emph>'inherent significant outcomes'</emph> push employees toward enhancing creative performance, minimizing failures, and developing a sense of urgency (Baumeister [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref61">11</reflink>]). Additionally, Liu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref62">40</reflink>]) argue that CPP is closely linked to employees' personal growth and well‐being and is a crucial source of work‐related stress with the potential to impact performance behaviors.</p> <p>Building on the theoretical arguments of Liu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref63">40</reflink>]), this study sets out to explore the negative side of CPP by using MDT and argues that CPP can lead employees toward organizational deviance, referring to employees discretionary acts that threaten the organization's or its members' well‐being (Bennett and Robinson [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref64">13</reflink>]). The existing creativity research has argued that to exhibit high creative performance, employees usually have to think out of the box and violate workplace norms, for example, entering into another's territory to follow an exciting idea (Andersen and Kragh [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>]) or rule‐breaking for pursuing the organizational interests (Lin, Mainemelis, and Kark [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref66">39</reflink>]). Ng and Yam ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref67">52</reflink>]), using psychological licensing literature and self‐enhancement theory, argue that employee deviant behaviors are inevitable when creativity is high. Similarly, Hameed et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref68">32</reflink>]) argued that employee creativity could result in unethical pro‐organizational behavior, as creative employees may be highly psychologically entitled. In a recent literature review of creativity, Lua, Liu, and Shalley ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref69">42</reflink>]) have highlighted that employee creative behaviors can result in a desire to implement malevolent ideas. Considering the above‐stated theoretical arguments and research evidence, we contend that under CPP, employees engage in organizational deviance (such as rule‐breaking, immoral choices, etc.) because employee outcomes are linked with their creative accomplishments in such environments. Keeping their self and organizational interests in mind, when employees feel that the organization puts them under high pressure for creative performance, they can easily justify their deviant behaviors by either displacement of responsibility, moral justification, or attribution of blame toward the organization. Therefore, we hypothesize that (see Figure 1):</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-6">1 Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>CPP and organizational deviance are positively related, such that the increase in CPP causes an increase in organizational deviance</emph>.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01mar25/jocb1538-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb1538-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Hypothesized Model." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186883830-8">The Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement</hd> <p>Individuals generally have a moral self‐image and try to stay moral in front of others as well (Batson et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref70">10</reflink>]). Therefore, logic entails that when faced with an ethical dilemma, individuals try to behave ethically to exhibit a consistent self‐image. Ethical recognition is essential for exhibiting ethical behaviors but is insufficient to ensure ethical conduct in every situation (Nair and Kamalanabhan [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref71">51</reflink>]). Individuals use some other supplementary ethical judgment processes to judge whether their acts are appropriate or not, and they intend to behave in those ways. When faced with an ethical dilemma, the self‐regulatory mechanism activates emotions like shame and guilt, preventing individuals from engaging in unethical acts (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref72">41</reflink>]). The MDT states individuals can opt for wrongdoing through selectively deactivating self‐regulatory mechanisms (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref73">8</reflink>]). Here, we argue that CPP creates such an environment that puts individuals in a state of moral disengagement, referred to as a group of cognitive maneuvers that support people to put aside the moral self‐regulatory processes that usually stop wrongdoings (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref74">6</reflink>]). The evidence provided by Lua, Liu, and Shalley ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref75">42</reflink>]), Liu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref76">41</reflink>]), Shi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref77">64</reflink>]), and Zheng et al. ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref78">73</reflink>]) supports the argument that creativity can result in moral disengagement.</p> <p>Once individuals are in the state of moral disengagement, it helps them in cognitive minimization of their roles. It amplifies others' roles while engaging in wrongdoings (i.e., the tactic of attribution of blame), which increases their unethical behavioral choices and minimizes the related feeling of guilt and shame. The existing research evidence supports that moral disengagement promotes unethical behaviors (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref79">41</reflink>]), counterproductive work behavior (Paciello et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref80">54</reflink>]), knowledge hiding (Arain et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref81">4</reflink>]), and workplace deviance (Manix [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref82">47</reflink>]). In line with the above arguments and empirical evidence, we propose that CPP increases employees' moral disengagement, subsequently increasing their organizational deviance.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-9">2 Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Moral disengagement partially mediates the relationship between CPP and organizational deviance</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-10">The Moderating Role of SBLM</hd> <p>Supervisors have a significant influence on employee behaviors in the workplace. Employees understand the organizational priorities through supervisors' behaviors and actions and then try to act accordingly. One such supervisor behavior is SBLM, which refers to supervisors' one‐dimensional thinking revolving around achieving the bottom‐line outcomes and neglecting the other competing goals (Greenbaum, Mawritz, and Eissa [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref83">31</reflink>]). The existing literature shows the positive impact of SBLM on employees' cheating behavior (Farasat, Azam, and Hassan [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref84">27</reflink>]), interpersonal mistreatment (Di Fabio and Duradoni [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref85">24</reflink>]), unethical behavior (Ge [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref86">29</reflink>]), knowledge hiding (Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref87">71</reflink>]), unethical pro‐organizational behavior (Babalola et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref88">5</reflink>]), etc. Here, we argue that employees in a state of moral disengagement are likely to indulge more in deviance when they observe this one‐dimensional mindset of their supervisors'.</p> <p>MDT states that employees can use any of the eight tactics to deactivate the self‐regulatory mechanisms while facing an ethical dilemma (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref89">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref90">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref91">9</reflink>]). SBLM further makes unethical choices easy for morally disengaged employees by providing an additional contextual confirmation to their belief that their wrongdoing is justified because supervisors are also pursuing bottom‐line goals at the cost of competing outcomes (such as employee well‐being, employee development, etc.). Therefore, we propose that the relationship between moral disengagement and organizational deviance will be strengthened when SBLM is high. Furthermore, we propose that SBLM will also moderate the mediation effect of moral disengagement between CPP and organizational deviance.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-11">3 Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>SBLM moderates the relationship between moral disengagement and organizational deviance such that the relationship will be stronger in the case of high SBLM and vice versa</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-12">4 Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>SBLM moderates the mediation effect of moral disengagement between CPP and organizational deviance</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-13">Method</hd> <p>The current study used a self‐administered questionnaire through a time‐lag design for data collection. The time‐lag design was used considering its advantages over simple cross‐sectional design in catering to common method bias issues (Podsakoff et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref92">57</reflink>]). The respondents were employees of private sector organizations working in the IT industry in Pakistan. The IT industry was selected as the population for the study, considering the creative nature of work and project‐based time‐constrained activities (Development [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref93">23</reflink>]). Respondents were contacted directly by the research team after permission from the HR department. The questionnaire was accompanied by a cover letter that stated the purpose of the study and ensured the respondents the anonymity of their responses. Time 1 survey contained demographic information, CPP, and SBLM related questions, whereas Time 2 contained questions related to moral disengagement (MD) and deviance by using a time lag of 4 weeks. In Time 1, we distributed 450 questionnaires, out of which 305 filled questionnaires were received. In Time 2, we contacted these 305 respondents and received 265 filled questionnaires. After discarding cases with missing values and mismatching Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires, the final dataset comprised 254 respondents. Of 254 respondents, 78% were males, and the majority (56%) held a bachelor's degree. Further, the average age of the respondents was 33 years, and the average experience was 7 years.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-14">Measures</hd> <p>All measures used in the study were based on a five‐point Likert scale (ranging from 1‐strongly disagree to 5‐strongly agree) except demographic/control variables.</p> <p>1 TABLE Measurement Model Fit Indices.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Model</th><th align="center">CMIN/DF</th><th align="center">CFI</th><th align="center">TLI</th><th align="center">RMSEA</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Four Factor Model</td><td align="center">1.65</td><td align="center">0.95</td><td align="center">0.94</td><td align="center">0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Two Factor Model</td><td align="center">5.10</td><td align="center">0.67</td><td align="center">0.63</td><td align="center">0.13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">One Factor Model</td><td align="center">6.1</td><td align="center">0.58</td><td align="center">0.54</td><td align="center">0.14</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>CPP</emph> was measured using a 4‐item scale developed by Liu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref94">40</reflink>]), which was in part adapted from Mitchell et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref95">48</reflink>]). A sample item of the scale is "If I do not produce new ideas at high levels, my job will be at risk". <emph>Moral disengagement</emph> was measured through 8‐item scale of Moore et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref96">49</reflink>]). A sample item is, "People shouldn't be held accountable for doing questionable things when they were just doing what an authority figure told/taught them to do." <emph>Organizational deviance</emph> was measured through 8‐item scale used by Mulki, Jaramillo, and Locander ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref97">50</reflink>]) adopted from 16‐item original scale of Bennett and Robinson ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref98">13</reflink>]). A sample item of the scale is "I intentionally worked slower than I could have worked". <emph>Supervisor bottom line mentality</emph> was measured using 4‐item scale of Greenbaum, Mawritz, and Eissa ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref99">31</reflink>]). Sample items include, for example, "My supervisor/manager cares more about profits than employee well‐being". <emph>Control variables</emph> were gender (1 = male, 2 = female), age (measured in number of years), experience (measured in number of years), and qualification (1 = Intermediate, 2 = Bachelor, 3 = Master, 4 = Doctorate).</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-15">Measurement Model</hd> <p>Before proceeding toward hypotheses testing, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted through AMOS version 23. First, a four‐factor model (CPP, deviance, MD, and SBLM) was tested. The hypothesized four factor model showed good fit to the data (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> /df = 1.65; CFI = 0.95; TLI =0.94; RMSEA = 0.05). We then proceeded to test two alternative models (Table 1), as proposed by Bentler and Bonett ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref100">14</reflink>]). The first alternative model was a two‐factor model, created by combining predictor and mediator as one factor, and mediator and outcome as second‐factor. The results showed a poor data fit for the first alternative model (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>/df = 5.10; CFI = 0.67; TLI =0.63; RMSEA = 0.13). The second alternative model was one‐factor model, which also showed poor fit to data (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>/df = 6.10; CFI = 0.58; TLI =0.54; RMSEA = 0.14), providing support for the hypothesized four‐factor model.</p> <p>2 TABLE Reliability and Validity.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">CR</th><th align="center">AVE</th><th align="center">MSV</th><th align="center">MaxR(H)</th><th align="center">SBLM</th><th align="center">CPP</th><th align="center">Deviance</th><th align="center">MD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">SBLM</td><td align="center">0.84</td><td align="center">0.58</td><td align="center">0.29</td><td align="center">0.85</td><td align="center">0.76</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">CPP</td><td align="center">0.83</td><td align="center">0.54</td><td align="center">0.28</td><td align="center">0.83</td><td align="center">0.49</td><td align="center">0.74</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Deviance</td><td align="center">0.91</td><td align="center">0.56</td><td align="center">0.29</td><td align="center">0.92</td><td align="center">0.55</td><td align="center">0.53</td><td align="center">0.75</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">MD</td><td align="center">0.89</td><td align="center">0.51</td><td align="center">0.16</td><td align="center">0.90</td><td align="center">0.21</td><td align="center">0.28</td><td align="center">0.39</td><td align="center">0.71</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: CPP, creative performance pressure; MD, moral disengagement; SBLM, supervisor bottom‐line mentality.</p> <p>Table 2 shows the results of the reliability and validity analysis. All the variables had average variance extracted (AVE) values above the threshold of 0.50, highlighting that convergent validity is established. Furthermore, the AVE for all variables is greater than their maximum shared variance (MSV), suggesting that discriminant validity is established for all study variables. The composite reliability (CR) values ranged from 0.83 to 0.91, well above the threshold value of 0.70.</p> <p>3 TABLE Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Mean</th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th><th align="center">7</th><th align="center">8</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1—Age (Time‐1)</td><td align="center">32.96</td><td align="center">6.94</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2—Experience (Time‐1)</td><td align="center">6.95</td><td align="center">5.08</td><td align="center">0.85<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3—Gender (Time‐1)</td><td align="center">1.22</td><td align="center">0.42</td><td align="center">−0.07</td><td align="center">−0.08</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4—Qualification (Time‐1)</td><td align="center">2.34</td><td align="center">0.62</td><td align="center">−0.08</td><td align="center">−0.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5—MD (Time‐2)</td><td align="center">3.58</td><td align="center">0.60</td><td align="center">−0.07</td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">−0.05</td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">(0.89)</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6—Deviance (Time‐2)</td><td align="center">3.89</td><td align="center">0.82</td><td align="center">−0.10</td><td align="center">−0.09</td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">−0.09</td><td align="center">0.34<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">(0.91)</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7—SBLM (Time‐1)</td><td align="center">3.65</td><td align="center">0.72</td><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">0.04</td><td align="center">0.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">0.48<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">(0.84)</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8—CPP (Time‐1)</td><td align="center">3.69</td><td align="center">0.64</td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">0.05</td><td align="center">0.05</td><td align="center">0.04</td><td align="center">0.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">0.46<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">0.41<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">(0.83)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Abbreviations: CPP, creative performance pressure; MD, moral disengagement; <emph>N</emph>, 254; SBLM, supervisor bottom‐line mentality.</item> <item>3 a Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed).</item> <item>4 b Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2‐tailed).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186883830-16">Results</hd> <p>Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations for all study variables. The results show a significant correlation in the hypothesized direction among all study variables, suggesting proceeding toward the hypotheses testing.</p> <p>We used SPSS (version 23) and Process Macro's model 14 (Hayes [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref101">35</reflink>]) to test direct hypotheses and the moderated mediation model. We used age, experience, gender, and education as control variables. The results showed that employee education significantly affected the dependent variable (i.e., organizational deviance), and employee age and experience significantly affected the mediator (i.e., moral disengagement). Hypothesis 1 was related to the direct positive effect of CPP on organizational deviance. The results of the analysis supported this hypothesis as the p‐value was less than 0.001 (Effect = 0.37, <emph>p</emph> < 0.000). Hypothesis 2 proposed the mediating role of moral disengagement between CPP and organizational deviance. For testing this hypothesis, we first report path a (i.e., CPP to moral disengagement) and path b (i.e., moral disengagement to organizational deviance), as these are the necessary conditions for testing indirect effect (Hayes [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref102">34</reflink>]; Zhao, Lynch Jr, and Chen [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref103">72</reflink>]). The results highlighted that both path a (Effect = 0.23, p < 0.000) and path b (Effect = 0.27, p < 0.000) were significant as p‐value was less than 0.001. Therefore, we moved on to testing the indirect effects. The indirect effect results showed that moral disengagement significantly mediates the CPP—organizational deviance relationship as the upper and lower bounds of confidence interval did not contain zero between them (Effect = 0.08, 95% Confidence Interval = 0.03, 0.15), supporting hypothesis 2.</p> <p>Hypothesis 3 was related to the moderating role of SBLM on moral disengagement and organizational deviance relationship. The independent variable (i.e., moral disengagement) and moderator (i.e., SBLM) were mean‐centered before creating the interaction term. The result produced by Process Macro for the interaction effect provided support for this hypothesis as the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval did not contain zero (Effect = 0.29, 95% Confidence Interval = 0.09, 0.50). The results of this hypothesis were further probed through a moderation graph (please see Figure 2), which showed that the impact of moral disengagement was stronger on organizational deviance when SBLM was high rather than low. Hypothesis 4 stated that the mediation effect of moral disengagement between CPP and organizational deviance is conditional to SBLM (i.e., moderated mediation). The results of this hypothesis showed that the index of moderated mediation was significant (Effect = 0.07, 95% Confidence Interval = 0.01, 0.13), suggesting the conditional indirect effect of moral disengagement. This effect is further probed at the moderator's low, mean, and high values, as presented in Table 4.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01mar25/jocb1538-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb1538-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Moderation Graph." /> </p> <p></p> <p>4 TABLE Hypotheses Testing Results.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variables</th><th align="center">Moral disengagement</th><th align="center">Organizational deviance</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Estimate (SE)</th><th align="center">Sign (CI)</th><th align="center">Estimate (SE)</th><th align="center">Sign (CI)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Control variables</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="center">0.02 (0.01)</td><td align="center">0.018 (0.00. 0.04)</td><td align="center">−0.01 (0.01)</td><td align="center">0.453 (−0.03, 0.01)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Experience</td><td align="center">−0.03 (0.01)</td><td align="center">0.031 (−0.06, −0.00)</td><td align="center">−0.01 (0.01)</td><td align="center">0.482 (−0.04. 0.02)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td align="center">−0.09 (0.09)</td><td align="center">0.319 (−0.26, 0.09)</td><td align="center">−0.09 (0.09)</td><td align="center">0.357 (−0.28, 0.10)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Education</td><td align="center">−0.03 (0.06)</td><td align="center">0.679 (−0.14, 0.09)</td><td align="center">−0.17 (0.07)</td><td align="center">0.010 (−0.30, −0.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Main Effects</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CPP</td><td align="center">0.23 (0.06)</td><td align="center">0.000 (0.12, 0.35)</td><td align="center">0.37 (0.07)</td><td align="center">0.000 (0.23, 0.51)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">MD</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.27 (0.07)</td><td align="center">0.000 (0.13, 0.41)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SBLM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.38 (0.06)</td><td align="center">0.000 (0.26, 0.50)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Indirect effect</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CPP➔MD➔Deviance</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.08 (0.03)</td><td align="center">(0.03, 0.15)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Interaction effect</td></tr><tr><td align="left">MD × SBLM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.29 (0.10)</td><td align="center">0.005 (0.09, 0.50)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conditional indirect effect</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Low SBLM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.00 (0.04)</td><td align="center">(−0.07, 0.10)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mean SBLM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.07 (0.03)</td><td align="center">(0.03, 0.14)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">High SBLM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.12 (0.04)</td><td align="center">(0.06, 0.19)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Index of moderated mediation</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.07 (0.03)</td><td align="center">(0.01, 0.13)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 Abbreviations: CPP, creative performance pressure; MD, moral disengagement; <emph>N</emph>, 254; SBLM, supervisor bottom‐line mentality.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-18">Discussion</hd> <p>The current study highlights the dark side of the organizational strategy of putting CPP on employees (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref104">40</reflink>]). Using the theoretical arguments from MDT (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref105">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref106">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref107">9</reflink>]), the study maintained that CPP leads employees toward deviance because, in such cases, employees can easily justify their unethical choices. Through the underlying mechanism of moral disengagement, this study further realized the indirect effect of CPP on organizational deviance. Finally, the study identified SBLM as a boundary condition of this relationship and hypothesized that the impact of moral disengagement on organizational deviance increases in the presence of high SBLM. Additionally, the moderated mediation hypothesis recognized that the indirect effect of CPP on deviance through MD is conditional upon SBLM.</p> <p>The results of our study supported hypothesis 1, which stated the positive impact of CPP on organizational deviance. This result aligns with the arguments presented by Liu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref108">40</reflink>]) that CPP can have adverse consequences because of the inherent urgency and its relationship with individuals and organizational outcomes. Similarly, Mai et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref109">45</reflink>]) reported that a combination of creative requirements and performance pressure can lead to unethical behavioral choices by employees. In addition, our findings are fully aligned with the studies in the field of creativity that have shown that creativity can result in negative workplace behaviors, for example, unethical pro‐organizational behavior (Hameed et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref110">32</reflink>]), deviance (Ng and Yam [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref111">52</reflink>]), and malevolent behaviors (Lua, Liu, and Shalley [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref112">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our study is unique as it uses the novel conceptualization of CPP and, using MDT highlights the psychological mechanism through which CPP leads toward deviance. Moral disengagement as a psychological process is central to our findings and acts as a mediator between CPP and employee deviance. Employees under high CPP may morally disengage to justify their unethical behavior (Scheiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref113">63</reflink>]), using it to suppress their self‐condemning emotions. This finding also aligns with the literature arguing that creativity triggers specific psychological mechanisms, for example, moral disengagement (Shi et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref114">64</reflink>]; Zheng et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref115">73</reflink>]) and psychological entitlement (Hameed et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref116">32</reflink>]). In addition, the finding that moral disengagement leads to organizational deviance is also in accordance with the existing evidence showing that moral disengagement promotes unethical behaviors (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref117">41</reflink>]), knowledge hiding (Arain et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref118">4</reflink>]), and workplace deviance (Manix [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref119">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, this study hypothesized the moderating role of SBLM on moral disengagement and organizational deviance relationship and the conditional indirect effect of SBLM on the mediating hypothesis (i.e., hypothesis 2). We argued that supervisors play an important role in influencing employee behavioral choices. The significant positive interaction effect of SBLM on organizational deviance suggests that supervisors who prioritize the bottom line over ethical conduct set the tone for the workplace. This bottom‐line mentality focus sends signals to the employees that ethical considerations are secondary, increasing the impact of moral disengagement on deviant behaviors (Farasat et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref120">28</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref121">70</reflink>]). These results are also consistent with the existing SBLM literature, which shows that SBLM has a vital role in shaping employees' attitudes and behaviors (Tan, Yuan, and Wan [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref122">66</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref123">70</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-19">Theoretical Contributions</hd> <p>Our study substantially contributes to the developing body of literature on creative performance. First, this study offers novel insight into the detrimental effects of employee creativity. Despite Anderson, Potočnik, and Zhou ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref124">3</reflink>]) highlighting the innovation maximization fallacy that has redefined creativity research, few research studies have extended the study paradigm to incorporate the negative repercussions of creativity (e.g., Harrison, and Wagner [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref125">33</reflink>]). Since the negative viewpoint is more prevalent, our study provides empirical evidence that CPP leads employees toward deviant behavior. A study by Liu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref126">40</reflink>]) exhibits that urgency or tension is not always advantageous to perform creativity at a high level. Our study also extends this line of research and exhibits that high CPP results in employee deviance.</p> <p>Second, this study employed MDT (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref127">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref128">9</reflink>]) to explain the psychological process of moral disengagement in the context of creative performance. CPP creates such an environment that puts individuals in a state of moral disengagement, so examining this psychological mechanism is pivotal. When employees are morally disengaged, it facilitates the cognitive minimization of their roles and magnifies the roles of others while they commit wrongdoings (i.e., the tactic of attribution of blame). This leads to an increase in their unethical behavioral choices and a decrease in the associated feelings of shame and guilt. Therefore, moral disengagement is the psychological mechanism that mediates the relationship between CPP and organizational deviance. Our findings show that our study has the capacity to explain the relationship between creativity and deviance.</p> <p>Third, our research highlights the moderating role of the SBLM on the relationship between moral disengagement and organizational deviance. As a second‐stage moderator, SBLM has been shown to intensify the positive impact of CPP and moral disengagement on deviance. Specifically, we found that employees in a state of moral disengagement are more likely to indulge in deviance when they observe the one‐dimensional mindset of their supervisors'. SBLM encourages unethical actions by validating employees' belief that prioritizing bottom‐line goals justifies wrongdoing, mirroring supervisors' choices over crucial aspects like employee well‐being and development. Therefore, our study shows that the relationship between moral disengagement and organizational deviance will be strengthened when SBLM is high. Furthermore, our study contributes to the literature and gives empirical evidence that SBLM moderates the mediation effect of moral disengagement between CPP and organizational deviance.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-20">Managerial Implications</hd> <p>As businesses work to lessen organizational deviance, our findings have several important implications for management processes and systems, including performance management, training, communication, and reward systems. First, a significant implication is directly related to the process of moral disengagement among employees. It was discovered that the relationship between CPP, moral disengagement, and deviance in the workplace is moderated by moral disengagement. Consequently, morally sound policies and initiatives that can prevent moral disengagement ought to be selected to reduce workplace deviance, and one way of achieving this is by establishing a clear code of ethics (Roy et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref129">60</reflink>]). In other words, companies can stop CPP from transforming into deviant behavior at work by impeding employees' moral disengagement process. For example, fostering an environment where morality and ethics are valued may limit the space for self‐serving excuses from staff members. This may lessen the likelihood of creative employees engaging in deviance at work.</p> <p>Second, since moral disengagement predicts deviance due to CPP, organizations should also consider starting training programs that help employees develop self‐regulatory mechanisms that are disrupted by moral disengagement and discourage them from doing so. More importantly, organizations should foster an open communication environment (Parboteeah et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref130">55</reflink>]), where employees feel comfortable discussing the CPP without fear of negative repercussions and can renegotiate their creative outcomes and deadlines. Third, our study findings suggest that organizations should develop a performance management and reward system that includes metrics valuing ethical behavior and creativity equally rather than using metrics that solely focus on end results. In the similar direction, Park, Park, and Barry ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref131">56</reflink>]) have recommended that reward systems should recognize ethical behaviors for positive reinforcement.</p> <p>Finally, our research suggested that, in particular situations, creative employees may be more inclined to engage in workplace deviant conduct due to the SBLM. Thus, when encouraging creativity, top managers should be aware of the possible expenses associated with a supervisor's high bottom‐line mentality. Therefore, training and awareness programs for supervisors and managers should be designed to inform them of the consequences of one‐dimensional thinking and discuss strategies for overcoming it.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-21">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>This study has multiple limitations and proposes important future research directions. First, the data for the study were collected using a time lag design and self‐reported questionnaire. Although time lag design is a relatively better choice than simple cross‐sectional design, using the self‐report and measurement of mediator and outcome variable at the same point in time can be problematic in eliminating common method bias and supporting temporal precedence, respectively. Therefore, we suggest that future studies should use multisource and longitudinal methods and designs to overcome these issues. Second, this study used data from a specific industry (i.e., the IT industry) and context (i.e., Pakistan). Therefore, the generalizability of findings to other industries and contexts may be problematic. We suggest future studies use different work settings and contexts to provide more robust findings and evidence supporting this study's results.</p> <p>Third, this study used SBLM as a boundary condition for the proposed model. However, none of the individual dispositional factors, such as moral identity, competitive worldview, etc., have been taken care of, which can also potentially affect this relationship. Employees with high moral identities may not indulge in high levels of moral disengagement (in high CPP work settings) compared to those with a low moral identity. Similarly, employees with a highly competitive worldview may have higher levels of moral disengagement than those with a low competitive worldview. The use of these individual dispositional factors can offer critical managerial implications.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-22">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-23">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186883830-24">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.</p> <ref id="AN0186883830-25"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref16" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186883830-26"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, Colorado : Westview Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref44" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Andersen, P. H., and H. Kragh. 2015. " Exploring Boundary‐Spanning Practices Among Creativity Managers." Management Decision 53, no. 4 : 786 – 808.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref33" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, N., K. Potočnik, and J. Zhou. 2014. " Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State‐Of‐The‐Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework." Journal of Management 40, no. 5 : 1297 – 1333.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref46" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arain, G. A., I. Hameed, A. K. Khan, A. D. Strologo, and A. Dhir. 2022. " How and When Do Employees Hide Knowledge From Co‐Workers? " Journal of Knowledge Management 26, no. 7 : 1789 – 1806.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref47" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Babalola, M. T., M. B. Mawritz, R. L. Greenbaum, S. Ren, and O. A. Garba. 2021. " Whatever It Takes: How and When Supervisor Bottom‐Line Mentality Motivates Employee Contributions in the Workplace." Journal of Management 47, no. 5 : 1134 – 1154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref35" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice‐Hall, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref36" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1990. " Selective Activation and Disengagement of Moral Control." Journal of Social Issues 46, no. 1 : 27 – 46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref50" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1999. " Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities." Personality and Social Psychology Review 3, no. 3 : 193 – 209.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref37" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 2002. " Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency." Journal of Moral Education 31, no. 2 : 101 – 119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Batson, C. D., E. R. Thompson, G. Seuferling, H. Whitney, and J. A. Strongman. 1999. " Moral Hypocrisy: Appearing Moral to Oneself Without Being So." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, no. 3 : 525 – 537.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baumeister, R. F. 1984. " Choking Under Pressure: Self‐Consciousness and Paradoxical Effects of Incentives on Skillful Performance." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46, no. 3 : 610 – 620.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bennett, R. J., S. Marasi, and L. Locklear. 2019. " Workplace Deviance." In, edited by Oxford research encyclopedia of business and management, 1 – 25. London : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bennett, R. J., and S. L. Robinson. 2000. " Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance." Journal of Applied Psychology 85, no. 3 : 349 – 360.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bentler, P. M., and D. G. Bonett. 1980. " Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures." Psychological Bulletin 88, no. 3 : 588 – 606.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berry, C. M., D. S. Ones, and P. R. Sackett. 2007. " Interpersonal Deviance, Organizational Deviance, and Their Common Correlates: A Review and Meta‐Analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 2 : 410 – 424.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breidenthal, A. P., D. Liu, Y. Bai, and Y. Mao. 2020. " The Dark Side of Creativity: Coworker Envy and Ostracism as a Response to Employee Creativity." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 161 : 242 – 254.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byron, K., S. Khazanchi, and D. Nazarian. 2010. " The Relationship Between Stressors and Creativity: A Meta‐Analysis Examining Competing Theoretical Models." Journal of Applied Psychology 95, no. 1 : 201 – 212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, I.‐S. 2016. " Examining the Linkage Between Creative Self‐Efficacy and Work Engagement: The Moderating Role of Openness to Experience." Baltic Journal of Management 11, no. 4 : 516 – 534.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, M., and C. C. Chen. 2023. " The Moral Dark Side of Performance Pressure: How and When It Affects Unethical Pro‐Organizational Behavior." International Journal of Human Resource Management 34, no. 7 : 1359 – 1389.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Commission, F. C. I. 2011. " The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States." Government Printing Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corkery, M. 2016. "Wells Fargo Fined $185 Million for Fraudulently Opening Accounts." The New York Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/business/dealbook/wells‐fargo‐fined‐for‐years‐of‐harm‐to‐customers.html#:~:text=They%20set%20up%20sham%20accounts,penalty%20the%20agency%20has%20issued">www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/business/dealbook/wells‐fargo‐fined‐for‐years‐of‐harm‐to‐customers.html#:~:text=They%20set%20up%20sham%20accounts,penalty%20the%20agency%20has%20issued</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cropanzano, R., and M. S. Mitchell. 2005. " Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review." Journal of Management 31, no. 6 : 874 – 900.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Development. 2023. "Handling Deadlines in Software Development: Most Effective Tips." https://theappsolutions.com/blog/development/how‐to‐handle‐deadlines/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Di Fabio, A., and M. Duradoni. 2019. " Fighting Incivility in the Workplace for Women and for all Workers: The Challenge of Primary Prevention." Frontiers in Psychology 10 : 1805.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dodgson, M., D. Gann, and A. Salter. 2006. " The Role of Technology in the Shift Towards Open Innovation: The Case of Procter & Gamble." R&D Management 36, no. 3 : 333 – 346.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farasat, M., and A. Azam. 2020. " Supervisor bottom‐line mentality and subordinates' unethical pro‐organizational behavior." Personnel Review 51, no. 1 : 353 – 376. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr‐03‐2020‐0129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farasat, M., A. Azam, and H. Hassan. 2021. " Supervisor Bottom‐Line Mentality, Workaholism, and Workplace Cheating Behavior: The Moderating Effect of Employee Entitlement." Ethics & Behavior 31, no. 8 : 589 – 603.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farasat, M., A. Azam, H. Imam, and H. Hassan. 2022. "Linking Supervisors' Bottom‐Line Mentality to Workplace Cheating Behavior: Examining the Mediating and Moderating Role of Organizational Cynicism and Moral Identity." Baltic Journal of Management (ahead‐of‐print).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ge, Y. 2018. "Supervisor Bottom‐Line Mentality, Instrumentalism Ethical Climate and Employee's Unethical Behavior: The Moderate Effect of Moral Identity. 2018 2nd International Conference on Education, Economics and Management Research (ICEEMR 2018)."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gong, Y., J. Zhou, and S. Chang. 2013. " Core Knowledge Employee Creativity and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Riskiness Orientation, Firm Size, and Realized Absorptive Capacity." Personnel Psychology 66, no. 2 : 443 – 482.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenbaum, R. L., M. B. Mawritz, and G. Eissa. 2012. " Bottom‐Line Mentality as an Antecedent of Social Undermining and the Moderating Roles of Core Self‐Evaluations and Conscientiousness." Journal of Applied Psychology 97, no. 2 : 343 – 359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hameed, I., G. A. Arain, I. Hameed, A. Gamage, and M. K. Muchiri. 2024. " How and When Does Employee Creativity Relate to Unethical pro‐Organizational Behavior? Unmasking the Negative Side of Organizational Creativity." Journal of Business Ethics 1 : 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison, S. H., and D. T. Wagner. 2016. " Spilling Outside the Box: The Effects of Individuals' Creative Behaviors at Work on Time Spent with their Spouses at Home." Academy of Management Journal 59, no. 3 : 841 – 859. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0560.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A. F. 2009. " Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium." Communication Monographs 76, no. 4 : 408 – 420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A. F. 2018. "PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling. In (Version 3) Processmacro.org."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaussi, K. S., and A. E. Randel. 2014. " Where to Look? Creative Self‐Efficacy, Knowledge Retrieval, and Incremental and Radical Creativity." Creativity Research Journal 26, no. 4 : 400 – 410.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kanfer, R., and G. Chen. 2016. " Motivation in Organizational Behavior: History, Advances and Prospects." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 : 6 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koseoglu, G., Y. Liu, and C. E. Shalley. 2017. " Working With Creative Leaders: Exploring the Relationship Between Supervisors' and Subordinates' Creativity." Leadership Quarterly 28, no. 6 : 798 – 811.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, B., C. Mainemelis, and R. Kark. 2016. " Leaders' Responses to Creative Deviance: Differential Effects on Subsequent Creative Deviance and Creative Performance." Leadership Quarterly 27, no. 4 : 537 – 556.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, F., P. Li, T. W. Taris, and M. C. Peeters. 2022. " Creative Performance Pressure as a Double‐Edged Sword for Creativity: The Role of Appraisals and Resources." Human Resource Management 61, no. 6 : 663 – 679.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, X., B. Y. Lee, T.‐Y. Kim, Y. Gong, and X. Zheng. 2023. " Double‐Edged Effects of Creative Personality on Moral Disengagement and Unethical Behaviors: Dual Motivational Mechanisms and a Situational Contingency." Journal of Business Ethics 185, no. 2 : 449 – 466.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lua, E., D. Liu, and C. E. Shalley. 2024. " Multilevel Outcomes of Creativity in Organizations: An Integrative Review and Agenda for Future Research." Journal of Organizational Behavior 45, no. 2 : 209 – 233.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mackey, J. D., C. P. McAllister, B. P. Ellen, and J. E. Carson. 2019. " A Meta‐Analysis of Interpersonal and Organizational Workplace Deviance Research." Journal of Management 47 : 0149206319862612.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madjar, N., E. Greenberg, and Z. Chen. 2011. " Factors for Radical Creativity, Incremental Creativity, and Routine, Noncreative Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology 96, no. 4 : 730 – 743.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mai, K. M., D. T., Welsh, F., Wang, J. Bush, and K. Jiang. 2021. " Supporting Creativity or Creative Unethicality? Empowering Leadership and the Role of Performance Pressure." Journal of Business Ethics 179, no. 1 : 111 – 131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐021‐04784‐6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mai, K. M., A. P. Ellis, and D. T. Welsh. 2015. " The Gray Side of Creativity: Exploring the Role of Activation in the Link Between Creative Personality and Unethical Behavior." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 60 : 76 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manix, K. G. 2022. "Is Humility Enough?: The Impact of Leader Humility on Follower Moral Disengagement and Unethical Behavior."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, M. S., R. L. Greenbaum, R. M. Vogel, M. B. Mawritz, and D. J. Keating. 2019. " Can You Handle the Pressure? The Effect of Performance Pressure on Stress Appraisals, Self‐Regulation, and Behavior." Academy of Management Journal 62, no. 2 : 531 – 552.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, C., J. R. Detert, L. Klebe Treviño, V. L. Baker, and D. M. Mayer. 2012. " Why Employees Do Bad Things: Moral Disengagement and Unethical Organizational Behavior." Personnel Psychology 65, no. 1 : 1 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulki, J. P., F. Jaramillo, and W. B. Locander. 2006. " Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational Deviance: Can the Right Job and a Leader's Style Make a Difference? " Journal of Business Research 59, no. 12 : 1222 – 1230.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nair, P., and T. Kamalanabhan. 2010. " Performance Pressure and Peer Reporting of Infractions: A Moderated Mediation Model." Journal of Indian Business Research 2, no. 4 : 216 – 229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng, T. W., and K. C. Yam. 2019. " When and Why Does Employee Creativity Fuel Deviance? Key Psychological Mechanisms." Journal of Applied Psychology 104, no. 9 : 1144.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ogunfowora, B. T., V. Q. Nguyen, P. Steel, and C. C. Hwang. 2022. " A Meta‐Analytic Investigation of the Antecedents, Theoretical Correlates, and Consequences of Moral Disengagement at Work." Journal of Applied Psychology 107, no. 5 : 746.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paciello, M., R. Fida, I. Skovgaard‐Smith, C. Barbaranelli, and G. V. Caprara. 2023. " Withstanding Moral Disengagement: Moral Self‐Efficacy as Moderator in Counterproductive Behavior Routinization." Group & Organization Management 48, no. 4 : 1096 – 1134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parboteeah, K. P., H. C. Chen, Y.‐T. Lin, I.‐H. Chen, A. Y. Lee, and A. Chung. 2010. " Establishing Organizational Ethical Climates: How Do Managerial Practices Work? " Journal of Business Ethics 97 : 599 – 611.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, T.‐Y., S. Park, and B. Barry. 2022. " Incentive Effects on Ethics." Academy of Management Annals 16, no. 1 : 297 – 333.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. " Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies." Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 5 : 879 – 903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.88.5.879.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rigby, D. K., K. Gruver, and J. Allen. 2009. " Innovation in Turbulent Times." Harvard Business Review 87, no. 6 : 79 – 86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, S. L., and R. J. Bennett. 1995. " A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study." Academy of Management Journal 38, no. 2 : 555 – 572.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roy, A., A. Newman, H. Round, and S. Bhattacharya. 2024. " Ethical Culture in Organizations: A Review and Agenda for Future Research." Business Ethics Quarterly 34, no. 1 : 97 – 138.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, H., P. J. O'Connell, and F. McGinnity. 2009. " The Impact of Flexible Working Arrangements on Work–Life Conflict and Work Pressure in Ireland." Gender, Work and Organization 16, no. 1 : 73 – 97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, M. B., and S. M. Lyman. 1968. " Accounts." American Sociological Review 33, no. 1 : 46 – 62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092239.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheiner, C. W., C. V., Baccarella, J., Bessant, and K.‐I. Voigt. 2018. " Participation Motives, Moral Disengagement, and Unethical Behaviour in Idea Competitions." International Journal of Innovation Management 22, no. 6 : 1850043. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1363919618500433.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shi, Z., Z. Zhou, L. Tian, Y. Zhu, C. Liu, and L. Xu. 2023. " What Causes Malevolent Creative People to Engage in Malevolent Behaviors? Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement and Moderating Effects of Conscience." Thinking Skills and Creativity 49 : 101329.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sykes, G. M., and D. Matza. 1957. " Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency." American Sociological Review 22 : 664 – 670.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan, Z., L. Yuan, and Q. Wan. 2024. " The Influence of Supervisor Bottom‐Line Mentality on Knowledge Territorial Behavior and Knowledge Sabotage Behavior." Journal of Knowledge Management 28 : 1609 – 1631.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trivedi, R., and M. Pattusamy. 2022. " Performance Pressure and Innovative Work Behaviour: The Role of Problem‐Orientated Daydreams." IIMB Management Review 34, no. 4 : 333 – 345.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unsworth, K. L., and C. W. Clegg. 2010. " Why Do Employees Undertake Creative Action? " Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83, no. 1 : 77 – 99.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Victor, B., and J. B. Cullen. 1988. " The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates." Administrative Science Quarterly 33, no. 1 : 101 – 125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392857.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, Y., B. He, Q. Huang, and J. Xie. 2020. " Effects of Supervisor Bottom‐Line Mentality on Subordinate Unethical Pro‐Organizational Behavior." Journal of Managerial Psychology 35 : 419 – 434.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, Y., Q. Huang, H. Chen, and J. Xie. 2021. " The Mixed Blessing of Supervisor Bottom‐Line Mentality: Examining the Moderating Role of Gender." Leadership and Organization Development Journal 42 : 1153 – 1167.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao, X., J. G. Lynch Jr, and Q. Chen. 2010. " Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths About Mediation Analysis." Journal of Consumer Research 37, no. 2 : 197 – 206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zheng, X., X. Qin, X. Liu, and H. Liao. 2019. " Will Creative Employees Always Make Trouble? Investigating the Roles of Moral Identity and Moral Disengagement." Journal of Business Ethics 157 : 653 – 672.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Imran Hameed; Faisal Qadeer; Kanwal Zahoor; Irfan Hameed and Mumtaz Ali Memon</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref131"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1462016
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: From Creative Performance Pressure to Deviance: Understanding the Role of Moral Disengagement and Supervisor Bottom Line Mentality
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Imran+Hame%22">Imran Hame</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5431-9162">0000-0001-5431-9162</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Faisal+Qadeer%22">Faisal Qadeer</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7513-1924">0000-0002-7513-1924</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kanwal+Zahoor%22">Kanwal Zahoor</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3512-5860">0009-0005-3512-5860</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Irfan+Hame%22">Irfan Hame</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1484-6133">0000-0002-1484-6133</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mumtaz+Ali+Memon%22">Mumtaz Ali Memon</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4623-9693">0000-0003-4623-9693</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Creative+Behavior%22"><i>Journal of Creative Behavior</i></searchLink>. 2025 59(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance%22">Performance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+Values%22">Moral Values</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Supervision%22">Supervision</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Supervisors%22">Supervisors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employees%22">Employees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work+Environment%22">Work Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Norms%22">Norms</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employee+Attitudes%22">Employee Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethics%22">Ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Incentives%22">Incentives</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jocb.1538
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0175<br />2162-6057
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study argues that many renowned organizations depend on their employees' creativity for top industry performance and meeting customer expectations in the current business era of hyper-competition. This study aims to understand the dark side of creative performance pressure (CPP) in the workplace through the lens of moral disengagement theory (MDT). We specifically argue that CPP results in organizational deviance (discretionary behavior that violates organizational norms and threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both). Further, we have identified employee moral disengagement (the ability to separate oneself morally from a wrong behavior by cognitively altering the perception of the situation and, therefore, not feeling negative about it) as an underlying mechanism of CPP-organizational deviance relationship and supervisor bottom-line mentality as the boundary condition of this mediated relationship. The data for the study were collected using a self-administered questionnaire through a time-lagged design from full-time employees working in the IT industry in Pakistan. A total of 254 completed responses were used to test the model through confirmatory factor analysis (in AMOS 23) and SPSS Process Macro. The results of the analysis supported the theoretical arguments of MDT and the existing evidence. The results highlighted that CPP leads employees toward organizational deviance through the underlying psychological mechanism of moral disengagement, and this impact is further enhanced in the presence of supervisors who are high in bottom-line mentality. The study makes significant theoretical contributions and suggests policy implications for organizations related to the code of ethics, incentivizing ethical behavior, and open communication.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1462016
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1462016
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jocb.1538
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Moral Values
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Supervision
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Supervisors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Norms
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employee Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Incentives
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: From Creative Performance Pressure to Deviance: Understanding the Role of Moral Disengagement and Supervisor Bottom Line Mentality
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Imran Hame
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Faisal Qadeer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kanwal Zahoor
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Irfan Hame
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mumtaz Ali Memon
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0175
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-6057
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Creative Behavior
              Type: main
ResultId 1