Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the effects of performance pressure on fluctuations in pro-environmental behavior: a threat rigidity perspective

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 25 April 2024

This article has been updated

Abstract

Research on pro-environmental behavior (PEB) in the workplace is increasing. However, the prevailing research is typically based on the assumption that PEB are relatively stable, suggesting that employees consistently engage in PEB over time. In contrast to viewing employees as being consistently green or not, we focus on investigating within-person fluctuations in PEB over short periods. Given that PEB can be influenced by dynamic contextual factors such as daily work experiences, we investigate a key work-related experience—performance pressure—and its underlying mechanisms. Drawing on threat rigidity theory, we propose a dual pathway model in which daily performance pressure exerts parallel negative effects on PEB through two distinct cognitive information processing tendencies. Using an experience sampling method involving 114 employees across 10 consecutive workdays, we reveal that daily performance pressure diminishes PEB by fostering an increase in self-focused information processing and a reduction in other-focused information processing. Additionally, this negative indirect effect is more pronounced among employees with high psychological entitlement. We also discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  • Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 630–640. https://doi.org/10.2307/256984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 610–620. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.46.3.610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bissing-Olson, M. J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K. S., & Zacher, H. (2013). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bissing-Olson, M. J., Fielding, K. S., & Iyer, A. (2015). Diary methods and workplace pro-environmental behaviors. In J. L. Robertson, & J. Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp. 95–116). Oxford University Press.

  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.

  • Bobocel, D. R. (2013). Coping with unfair events constructively or destructively: The effects of overall justice and self–other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 720–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O., & Paillé, P. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1138-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brummel, B. J., & Parker, K. N. (2015). Obligation and entitlement in society and the workplace. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The trouble with friendly faces: Skilled performance with a supportive audience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1213–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camac, C. (1992). Information preferences in a two-person social dilemma. In W. B. G. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, & H. A. M. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 147–161). Pergamon.

  • Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. (2014). A meta-analytic comparison of self‐reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), 547–574. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (2001). Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 937–955. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1980). Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 82–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.1.82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Combs, A. W., & Taylor, C. (1952). The effect of the perception of mild degrees of threat on performance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(Suppl. 2), 420–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business & Society, 48(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650308315439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalal, R. S., Bhave, D. P., & Fiset, J. (2014). Within-person variability in job performance: A theoretical review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1396–1436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314532691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). Rational self-interest and other orientation in organizational behavior: A critical appraisal and extension of Meglino and Korsgaard (2004). Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1245–1252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1245.

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & Carnevale, P. J. (2003). Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 235–291). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01004-9.

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior: Implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 913–926. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 889–905. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.5.889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., Beersma, B., Stroebe, K., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 927–943. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307304092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Young, R. (1996). Some psychological aspects of reduced consumption behavior: The role of intrinsic satisfaction and competence motivation. Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 358–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916596283005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. (1999). Does stress lead to a loss of team perspective? Group Dynamics: Theory Research and Practice, 3(4), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.3.4.291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66(3), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., & Aselage, J. (2009). Incremental effects of reward on experienced performance pressure: Positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.12.2.121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisk, G. M. (2010). I want it all and I want it now! An examination of the etiology, expression, and escalation of excessive employee entitlement. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, A. S., Koopman, J., Rosen, C. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Helping others or helping oneself? An episodic examination of the behavioral consequences of helping at work. Personnel Psychology, 71(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J. P., & Butts, M. M. (2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118802626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladstein, D. L., & Reilly, N. P. (1985). Group decision making under threat: The tycoon game. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.2307/256117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, P., & Harris, K. J. (2010). Frustration-based outcomes of entitlement and the influence of supervisor communication. Human Relations, 63(11), 1639–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710362923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2009). An empirical examination of the role of attributions in psychological entitlement and its outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2015). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf.

  • Kamphuis, W., Gaillard, A. W., & Vogelaar, A. L. (2011). The effects of physical threat on team processes during complex task performance. Small Group Research, 42(6), 700–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411407522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. E. (2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335–1358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314547386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, H. (1954). The effects of variations of intensity of experimentally induced stress situations upon certain aspects of perception and performance. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 85(2), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1954.10532884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 414–435. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J., & Williams, E. G. (2013). Read this article, but don’t print it: Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Group & Organization Management, 38(2), 163–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112475210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanaj, K., Kim, P. H., Koopman, J., & Matta, F. K. (2018). Daily mistrust: A resource perspective and its implications for work and home. Personnel Psychology, 71(4), 545–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill.

  • Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

  • Lülfs, R., & Hahn, R. (2013). Corporate greening beyond formal programs, initiatives, and systems: A conceptual model for voluntary pro-environmental behavior of employees. European Management Review, 10(2), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, K. E., & Canon, L. K. (1975). Environmental noise level as a determinant of helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(4), 571–577. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.4.571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. S., Baer, M. D., Ambrose, M. L., Folger, R., & Palmer, N. F. (2018). Cheating under pressure: A self-protection model of workplace cheating behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(1), 54–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. S., Greenbaum, R. L., Vogel, R. M., Mawritz, M. B., & Keating, D. J. (2019). Can you handle the pressure? The effect of performance pressure on stress appraisals, self-regulation, and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 531–552. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

  • Niesen, W., De Witte, H., & Battistelli, A. (2014). An explanatory model of job insecurity and innovative work behaviour: Insights from social exchange and threat rigidity theory. In S. Leka, & R. Sinclair (Eds.), Contemporary occupational health psychology: Global perspectives on research & practice (pp. 18–34). Wiley Blackwell.

  • Norton, T. A., Parker, S. L., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Employee green behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., Parker, S. L., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2017). Bridging the gap between green behavioral intentions and employee green behavior: The role of green psychological climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 996–1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary-Kelly, A., Rosen, C. C., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2017). Who is deserving and who decides: Entitlement as a work-situated phenomenon. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 417–436. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26395006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012a). Employee green behaviors. In S. E. Jackson, D. S. Ones, & S. Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability (pp. 85–116). Jossey-Bass/.

  • Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012b). Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 444–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01478.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2013). Measuring, understanding, and influencing employee green behaviors. In A. H. Huffman, & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with I-O psychology (pp. 115–148). Routledge.

  • Pitesa, M., & Thau, S. (2013). Masters of the universe: How power and accountability influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priesemuth, M., & Taylor, R. M. (2016). The more I want, the less I have left to give: The moderating role of psychological entitlement on the relationship between psychological contract violation, depressive mood states, and citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(7), 967–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramus, C. A., & Killmer, A. B. (2007). Corporate greening through prosocial extrarole behaviours–a conceptual framework for employee motivation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(8), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee ecoinitiatives at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605–626. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Barnard, P., & Moomaw, W. R. (2019). World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. BioScience, 70(1), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2017). Toward a new measure of organizational environmental citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 75, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, K. C., & Anastasio, P. A. (2014). Entitlement is about ‘others’, narcissism is not: Relations to sociotropic and autonomous interpersonal styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 50–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2013.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J. E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., & Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. A., Garza, A. S., Conlon, D. E., & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Why do managers act fairly in the first place? A daily investigation of hot and cold motives and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1571–1591. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P. N., & Pearsall, M. J. (2016). Leading under adversity: Interactive effects of acute stressors and upper-level supportive leadership climate on lower-level supportive leadership climate. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(6), 856–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, W., Connelly, B. L., & Cirik, K. (2018). Short seller influence on firm growth: A threat rigidity perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1892–1919. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spoelma, T. M. (2022). Counteracting the effects of performance pressure on cheating: A self-affirmation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(10), 1804–1823. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 501–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, C. E., Harvey, J., Courtright, S., & Bradley, B. (2019). What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger: How teams rebound from early-stage relationship conflict. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1623–1659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317729026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hootegem, A., De Witte, H., De Cuyper, N., & Elst, T. V. (2019). Job insecurity and the willingness to undertake training: The moderating role of perceived employability. Journal of Career Development, 46(4), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845318763893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. (2011). Extending the challenge-hindrance model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). JAI Press.

  • Yam, K. C., Klotz, A. C., He, W., & Reynolds, S. J. (2017). From good soldiers to psychologically entitled: Examining when and why citizenship behavior leads to deviance. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 373–396. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, D., Law, K. S., & Tang, G. (2023). Not all pro-environmental initiatives can increase pro-environmental behavior: An empirical examination of employees’ pro-environmental attributions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 92, 102177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacher, H., & Bissing-Olson, M. J. (2018). Between-and within-person variability in employee pro-environmental behaviour. In H. Zacher, & M. J. Bissing-Olson (Eds.), Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour (pp. 128–147). Edward Elgar.

  • Zacher, H., Rudolph, C. W., & Katz, I. M. (2023). Employee green behavior as the core of environmentally sustainable organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-050421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This article was supported by the Research Development Fund of Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (RDF-22-02-001) and the research grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72372092).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Business School Suzhou, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China

    Dan Yang

  2. CUHK Business School, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Kenneth S. Law

  3. School of Management, Shandong University, Jinan, China

    Guiyao Tang

Authors
  1. Dan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth S. Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guiyao Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guiyao Tang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

We declare that no conflict of interest exits in the submission of this paper.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised to update the National Natural Science Foundation of China grant number from 72072101 to 72372092.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, D., Law, K.S. & Tang, G. Understanding the effects of performance pressure on fluctuations in pro-environmental behavior: a threat rigidity perspective. Asia Pac J Manag (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-024-09948-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-024-09948-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation