Counterproductive behaviors often start as small adaptations to pressure.

High-pressure environments can shift creativity from innovation to self-protection.

Leadership signals shape how creativity is used, more than formal rules do.

Co-authored by Sarah Rezaei and Hansika Kapoor, Ph.D.

Portrayed by Anne Hathaway, Andrea Sachs' struggle for success in The Devil Wears Prada isn't due to a lack of talent. Rather, success demands mastering an implicit set of rules: pre-empting every request, providing immediate results, and, most importantly, never denying Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep). As the pressure builds, Andy becomes quicker, sharper, and more resourceful. She also begins to make choices she once would have resisted. This kind of professional growth is, in reality, a harsh lesson in adapting under intense pressure—something we see play out in real workplaces more often than we might like to admit.

Popular culture often depicts workplaces where success hinges less on doing the job well and more on learning how to adapt to, and sometimes strategically outmaneuver, impossible expectations. In these stories, the employees aren’t just putting in hard work; they are constantly reading between the lines, managing erratic superiors, and devising creative ways to stay afloat in environments where the rules are unclear or unevenly enforced.

We see a common psychological experience in these portrayals: the intense pressure to “figure things out” and deliver results despite the hurdles. Under such conditions, creativity does not disappear. Instead, we see it get redirected—from generating ideas that help the organization to generating strategies that help individuals navigate these conditions. This is where creativity begins to overlap with what organizational psychologists refer to as counterproductive work behaviors.

When Everyday Adaptations Become Counterproductive

Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) are often perceived as dramatic acts, such as fraud, theft, or sabotage. In reality, they could often be very subtle. For example, gaming performance metrics, selectively disclosing information to coworkers, bending established procedures to achieve goals, or informally redefining expectations to get the job done. These behaviors often stem not from a desire to harm, but from an effort to manage pressures.

The Amoral model of dark creativity offers a useful lens for understanding how such behaviors take shape. Rather than appearing suddenly, dark creativity develops through interactions between motivations, individual capabilities, and environmental pressures that unfold over time. People may be driven by goals that are commonplace in organizational life (like seeking advancement, securing resources, maintaining status), and creativity helps them devise effective ways to pursue these goals, even when constraints are tight or expectations are in conflict.

Because these actions often begin in an ethically ambiguous territory, they may not initially feel wrong. The Amoral framework describes how creative acts can move along a continuum—from neutral or practical problem-solving toward increasingly self-interested or harmful outcomes. What starts as an effort to cope or keep up can, through repeated justification and reinforcement, evolve into behavior that undermines trust or distorts organizational processes.

How Pressure Redirects Creativity

High-pressure environments can accelerate this movement along the continuum. When workplaces, for instance, stress constant high performance or use unpredictable evaluation methods, employees are driven to meet targets, satisfy demands, and avoid failure at all costs. Thinking creatively, in such contexts, becomes less about exploration and more about strategic adaptation.

Research on malevolent creativity suggests that stressful or unfair supervisory dynamics can channel originality into defensive or self-protective strategies rather than constructive innovation. Employees may begin asking not “What is the best solution?” but “What will work under these conditions?”

The answers can be ingenious yet misaligned with the organization’s broader values. Over time, this redirection can normalize a form of ingenuity directed not at improving systems, but at navigating them. The same skills associated with innovation (flexibility, originality, problem-solving) become tools for achieving outcomes by any means that seem available.

Dark Leadership Can Drive Dark Creativity

This blog has covered dark leadership in an earlier post, illustrating both useful and harmful effects on subsequent team innovation. However, when those in leadership positions condone wrongdoings, creative or not, the effects trickle down throughout the organization. Abusive supervision and an unhealthy work setting can prompt employees to behave in darkly creative ways to retaliate against management by asserting their agency. It doesn’t stop there: leaders who fear losing power over their staff may opportunistically use dark, creative ideas and behaviors toward their team.

In turn, employees who perceive that their leaders are using power opportunistically are more likely to be darkly creative, especially when they think their managers are conspiring against them. The cycle fuels distrust and vengeance across all levels.

Creativity is one of the most valued qualities in organizations. Yet, as these examples show, it is not inherently virtuous. Under pressure, creativity can just as easily be used to justify shortcuts or protect oneself from unreasonable demands. The challenge for workplaces is not simply to encourage creativity, but to shape the conditions under which it is expressed. When expectations are clear, leadership is fair, and processes matter just as much as outcomes, creativity is more likely to build systems rather than quietly work around them.

© Psychology Today