Unit 2 Reflection paper Proff in Workplace
breal
Unit2stressmaterial.docxAuthors:
Baethge, Anja. Department of Work, Organizational and Business Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany, [email protected] Deci, Nicole. Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Hamburg, Germany Dettmers, Jan. Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Medical School Hamburg, Germany Rigotti, Thomas, ORCID 0000-0001-9189-0018 . Department of Work, Organizational and Business Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany
Address:
Baethge, Anja, Department of Work, Organizational and Business Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Wallstr. 3, 55122, Mainz, Germany, [email protected]
Source:
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol 24(3), Jun, 2019. pp. 322-332.
NLM Title Abbreviation:
J Occup Health Psychol
Publisher:
US : Educational Publishing Foundation
ISSN:
1076-8998 (Print) 1939-1307 (Electronic)
Language:
English
Keywords:
irritation, working faster and working longer, diary study, time pressure, work engagement
Abstract:
Within the workplace, time constraints that create deadline pressure may jeopardize employees’ goal attainment. In an attempt to overcome this stressful situation, employees may increase their efforts. We examine two strategies that are assumed to be stress reactions (coping) under conditions of high time pressure: working faster and working longer. We propose that these strategies moderate the relationship between time pressure and adverse health effects, as well as work engagement. In our daily diary study, 122 public service employees provided ratings over five consecutive working days. Multilevel analyses revealed that time pressure relates positively to irritation only in conditions of working faster and is unrelated to irritation in the absence of this strategy. It relates positively to engagement only when employees do not work longer, whereas it is unrelated to work engagement in conditions of working longer. We conclude that using the strategies of working faster or working longer is not recommended to overcome daily time pressure. This study contributes to the refinement of the challenge–hindrance framework by identifying boundary conditions of challenge and hindrance effects of time pressure. In addition, this study provides the first empirical evidence about the daily role of 'working faster' and 'working longer,' conceptualized as a maladaptive coping mechanism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
Document Type:
Journal Article
Subjects:
*Employee Characteristics; *Job Performance; *Employee Engagement; Test Construction; Time
PsycINFO Classification:
Personnel Attitudes & Job Satisfaction (3650)
Population:
Human Male Female
Location:
Germany
Age Group:
Adulthood (18 yrs & older) Young Adulthood (18-29 yrs) Thirties (30-39 yrs) Middle Age (40-64 yrs)
Tests & Measures:
Instrument for Stress-Oriented Analysis of Work Scale Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
Grant Sponsorship:
Sponsor: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Germany Grant Number: Ri 1515/5-1 Other Details: This research was based on the Project “Kumulation von Arbeitsunterbrechungen,” which was supported Recipients: No recipient indicated
Conference:
European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, May, 2017, Dublin, Ireland
Conference Notes:
A first version of this article has been presented at the aforementioned conference (Title: “Somedays won’t end ever”—Work intensification and work extension as maladaptive response to time pressure).
Methodology:
Empirical Study; Quantitative Study
Format Covered:
Electronic
Publication Type:
Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication History:
First Posted: May 28, 2018; Accepted: Mar 2, 2018; Revised: Feb 22, 2018; First Submitted: Oct 5, 2017
Release Date:
20180528
Correction Date:
20190530
Copyright:
American Psychological Association. 2018
Digital Object Identifier:
http://dx.doi.org.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/10.1037/ocp0000121
PMID:
29809023
PsycARTICLES Identifier:
ocp-24-3-322
Accession Number:
2018-25177-001
Ask-A-Librarian No Results Found
Translate Full Text:
Translation in Progress:
Translated by
“Some Days Won’t End Ever”: Working Faster and Longer as a Boundary Condition for Challenge Versus Hindrance Effects of Time Pressure
Contents
1. Challenge and Hindrance Demands
2. Working Faster and Working Longer as Coping Strategies
3. Working Faster and Working Longer as Moderators of the Effect on Strain
4. Working Faster and Working Longer as Moderators of the Effect on Motivation
5. Method
7. Measures
9. Results
10. Effect on Strain
13. Discussion
14. Implications for Practice and Research
15. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
16. Conclusion
17. References
Full Text
Listen Pause Stop Select: Volume Settings Download mp3 Close Player Speech-enabled by ReadSpeaker
By: Anja Baethge Department of Work, Organizational and Business Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz; Nicole Deci Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Hamburg Jan Dettmers Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Medical School Hamburg Thomas Rigotti Department of Work, Organizational and Business Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz
Acknowledgement: This research was based on the Project “Kumulation von Arbeitsunterbrechungen,” which was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Ri 1515/5-1). A first version of this article has been presented at the European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology (Dublin, May 17th–20th, 2017; Title: “Somedays won’t end ever”—Work intensification and work extension as maladaptive response to time pressure).
Time pressure is recognized as a demand that can lead to the deterioration of employees’ health and provoke the use of resource-depleting coping behaviors (Baeriswyl, Krause, & Kunz Heim, 2014; Prem, Kubicek, Diestel, & Korunka, 2016). However, in the challenge–hindrance framework, time pressure is considered a challenge demand that can also contribute to the promotion of personal growth and achievement (Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007). Indeed, a positive correlation of challenge demands, including time pressure, with work engagement could be confirmed across several studies (Baethge, Vahle-Hinz, Schulte-Braucks, & van Dick, 2017; Schmitt, Ohly, & Kleespies, 2015; Tadić, Bakker, & Oerlemans, 2015). These motivational effects are mainly explained by referring to the transactional stress model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987), according to which appraisal processes determine whether a presumed “challenge demand” like time pressure acts as a challenge or as a hindrance (Searle & Auton, 2015; Webster, Beehr, & Love, 2011). Although Lazarus’s model assumes two complementary appraisal steps and consecutive coping processes, previous studies concerning challenge–hindrance effects of time pressure focused mainly on the primary appraisal (appraisal of a demand as challenge, threat, or loss; Searle & Auton, 2015).
Actual coping behavior seems particularly interesting in that respect. Apart from proactive or support-oriented coping, these behaviors (Searle & Lee, 2014) may also include effort-intensive, self-exploitative behaviors. They initially appear to be suitable for the goal achievement, but additionally reinforce the potential negative effects of demands (Dettmers, Deci, Baeriswyl, Berset, & Krause, 2016; Krause et al., 2015). In this study, we want to focus on the moderating effect of working longer and faster as coping strategies on the relationship between time pressure and a motivational variable (work engagement) and a strain indicator (irritation).
Until now, the prevailing assumption was that such behavior is mainly a (necessary) consequence of working conditions, or an external demand itself, and that people are somehow pushed to behave in this manner (Baeriswyl, 2016; Parkes, 2015; Watanabe & Yamauchi, 2016). Framing working faster and longer as individual strategies and thus as actively chosen by the individual has rarely been examined so far. Nevertheless, it has been argued that this perspective is reasonable (Baeriswyl, 2016). Thus, Baeriswyl (2016) suggested that to understand the “complex processes leading to health impairment [. . .] and motivation [. . .], it is crucial to differentiate between working conditions and the employees’ behavior—namely, the coping strategies they apply to deal with demands” (p. 27).
The study contributes to the literature in several ways: First, it helps refine the challenge–hindrance framework by considering coping strategies to be an important boundary condition for the unfolding of the challenge versus hindrance aspects of time pressure. Second, by focusing on the work strategies of working faster and working longer, we add to the coping literature in the employment context. Work-related coping research has so far mainly been shaped by the application of well-known coping questionnaires, such as COPE, which examine general coping strategies and are not reconfigured for a working context (Carver & Scheier, 1998).
Third, we offer a new perspective of working faster and working longer as individual strategies, instead of as external demands (cf. Baeriswyl, 2016). For that purpose, we examine both strategies as daily choices in a daily diary design. Examining the within-person relationship allows us to exclude any between-person differences of personality (e.g., demographic variables or personal motives) or working conditions and organizational climate or norms that promote maladaptive strategies. This design helps us to obtain in-depth insights into the daily process of raised time pressure and the effects of the daily choice to work longer or faster.
Challenge and Hindrance Demands
The challenge–hindrance framework (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004) differentiates between the concepts of hindrance demands that induce a health-impairment process without any motivational gains and challenge demands that act as motivational and thus show positive associations to job satisfaction, work engagement, or innovativeness (Chong, Van Eerde, Chai, & Rutte, 2011; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005), but at the same time keep their resource-depleting effect. Hindrance demands, according to Podsakoff et al. (2007, p. 438), are “stressors that people tend to appraise as potentially constraining their personal development and work-related accomplishment.” As such, these types of demands hinder goal achievement. Typical examples of hindrance demands are role ambiguity and interpersonal conflicts (LePine et al., 2005). In their meta-analysis, LePine et al. (2005) showed that hindrance demands are significantly related to higher levels of strain and lower levels of motivation. In contrast, challenge demands are “stressors that people tend to appraise as potentially promoting their personal growth and achievement” (Podsakoff et al., 2007, p. 438). These types of demands are positively correlated with motivation and learning (Prem, Ohly, Kubicek, & Korunka, 2017), as well as with strain. To summarize, hindrance and challenge demands have a similar impact on strain; however, their effects regarding motivation differ (Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010; LePine et al., 2005).
Most studies on challenge and hindrance demands distinguish between challenge and hindrance demands a priori (Widmer, Semmer, Kälin, Jacobshagen, & Meier, 2012). Time pressure, for example, is considered to be a challenge demand in most studies. However, scholars recognize that this a priori assignment of time pressure having a challenge effect may not be valid in every situation and for every person (Webster et al., 2011). Study findings concerning the effects of challenge demands were sometimes inconsistent (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Searle & Auton, 2015). In the analyses of Webster et al. (2011) and Searle and Auton (2015), time pressure—a potential challenge demand—was also appraised as a hindrance.
In their challenge–hindrance–appraisal idea, Searle and Auton (2015) referred to the primary appraisal proposed in the transactional stress model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). However, the model also emphasizes the influence of coping processes. Coping can be considered “constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of a person” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). It can be assumed that the challenge or hindrance effect of demands like time pressure may differ depending on the coping strategy employees apply (Pearsall, Ellis, & Stein, 2009; Searle & Lee, 2014). For example, Searle and Lee (2014) deployed a special form of coping, proactive coping, to the challenge–hindrance framework. They determined that participants using a proactive coping behavior to address challenge demands showed a lower degree of burnout as well as a higher degree of motivation. In line with that determination, Turgut, Michel, and Sonntag (2017) found that there was only an (increasing) effect of challenge stressors on negative affect when emotion-focused coping was high or problem-focused coping was low. Consequently, the costs of challenge demands seem to depend not solely on the primary appraisal process, but also on the choice of the coping behavior.
Working Faster and Working Longer as Coping Strategies
Typical behavior techniques adopted by employees when dealing with situations of high time pressure are working faster and working longer (Semmer, Grebner, & Elfering, 2010). These strategies “increase the likelihood of health problems and impede necessary recovery from work-related stress” (Dettmers, Deci, et al., 2016, p. 28). They are efforts that are used in an attempt to achieve work goals despite overtaxing work demands, but do not necessarily lead to goal attainment (Deci, Dettmers, Krause, & Berset, 2016; Dettmers, Deci, et al., 2016; Hockey, 1997; Semmer et al., 2010). Both strategies go along with an engagement in excessive additional effort (Astvik & Melin, 2012; Dettmers, Deci, et al., 2016; Hockey, 1997; Krause et al., 2015), comparable with the resource invested in reaction to stress described by the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989). Working faster includes simultaneous handling of more than one task and working at a faster pace than usual (Dettmers, Deci, et al., 2016; Korunka & Kubicek, 2013; Krause et al., 2015)—that is, energy is invested (cf. Hobfoll, 1989). Working longer is defined by working unscheduled overtime, lacking sufficient recovery time, being constantly available for work-related issues, and reducing the time spent on family and private activities (Dettmers, Deci, et al., 2016; Dettmers, Vahle-Hinz, Bamberg, Friedrich, & Keller, 2016; Krause et al., 2015)—that is, energy and time are invested (cf. Hobfoll, 1989).
Both strategies depict an employee’s understandable attempts to cope with the demands of time pressure (Hockey, 1997; Semmer et al., 2010). Time pressure means that the employee’s available time is insufficient to fulfil the assigned tasks. Working longer is an attempt by the employee to extend the time available (working overtime and skipping breaks), and working faster is an attempt by the employee to accomplish more tasks in the time available (and thus to use the time available in a more intense way). Even if these options appear logical, both strategies are also cost intensive (Hobfoll, 1989; Hockey, 1997; Semmer, Zapf, & Dunckel, 1999). Working faster or working longer implies enormous increased effort, which is associated with higher energetic cost that “occurs at the expense of other individual and biological goals such as well-being and rest” (Deci et al., 2016, p. 51; cf., Hockey, 1997).
Working Faster and Working Longer as Moderators of the Effect on Strain
Work demands are already inherently resource consuming (LePine et al., 2005; Semmer et al., 2010). To recharge these resources, recovery, in the form of breaks and leisure time/activities, is required (Sonnentag, 2003; Sonnentag & Kruel, 2006). Geurts and Sonnentag (2006) showed that a refrain from recovery can “prolong physiological activation and may result in ‘allostatic load’, which is a crucial pathway between acute reactions to stressful work characteristics and chronic health impairment” (p. 488). Working longer shortens the time that can be used for recovery and thus for the revitalization of resources. At the same time, it prolongs the time in which resources are consumed (and thus the amount of lost resources). In contrast, working faster involves increased effort, and hence, a higher consumption of resources, which will lead to increased recovery need. Therefore, we assume that using these resource-consuming strategies to cope with time pressure will eventually elevate the negative effects of time pressure.
Indeed, studies have supported that negative effects are associated with these coping strategies. In a cross-sectional study by Deci et al. (2016), strategies as working faster or cancelling leisure/family activities had a positive correlation with emotional exhaustion and psychosomatic complaints. Astvik and Melin (2012) reported positive correlations between these strategies and stress-related symptoms, as well as lack of recuperation, in their study. Consequently, working faster and working longer can be considered maladaptive coping strategies (Deci et al., 2016).
The studies mentioned so far used a cross-sectional design. However, if the strategies working faster and working longer increase the negative effects of demands on employees’ health, then it is likely that using these strategies could impact the strain felt by employees on a daily basis. Diary studies have previously shown that time pressure as well as coping behavior fluctuate on a daily basis (Baethge & Rigotti, 2013; Daniels & Harris, 2004; Ohly & Fritz, 2010). We expect the results of our study will confirm that working faster and working longer will increase the positive relationship between daily time pressure and daily perceived strain. Both strategies are resource depleting on a daily level because they reduce the chances for recovery (working longer) or they increase the need for recovery (working faster and longer).
In our study, we will use irritation as a daily measure of strain. We chose irritation because it includes cognitive aspects (rumination), as well as emotional reactions (Mohr, Müller, Rigotti, Aycan, & Tschan, 2006), and it has been shown to be sensitive to daily fluctuations (Baethge & Rigotti, 2013). A further advantage of the irritation concept is that it is work related but captures effects after work and thus can optimally depict the effects of accumulated stress during the work day (cf. Baethge, Rigotti, & Roe, 2015; Hockey, 1997). Hypothesis 1: The relationship between time pressure and irritation is moderated by (a) working faster and (b) working longer during that day, such that this relationship is (more) positive on days with high values of the moderator compared with days with low values of the moderator.
Working Faster and Working Longer as Moderators of the Effect on Motivation
According to the motivation hypothesis (Widmer et al., 2012), the challenge (respectively motivational) effect of demands appears because they can be tied to attractive outcomes and related goals that are rated to be achievable. Consequently, they increase motivation (LePine et al., 2005). Thus, the use of strategies that promise the achievement of daily goals should promote motivational gains triggered by demands. However, the critical point is that the goals must be attainable with reasonable effort (LePine et al., 2004, 2005). The vague term reasonable effort could be qualified with the costs (exhaustion, ability to perform well) should not outweigh the gains (better performance, reaching the goal).
If time pressure provokes working at a faster pace than a person knows is good for him or her and working longer than usual, the threshold of what is considered a reasonable effort might be passed. According to Hockey (1997), in high workload situations, people make an effort to keep their performance high by recruiting further resources. They use strategies that are resource depleting (e.g., extending their work time or intensifying performance) and impede recovery processes (Krause et al., 2015; Semmer et al., 2010).
Even so, it has been argued that an effective recovery is pivotal for assuring the energy levels necessary to experience vigor at work (Sianoja, Kinnunen, de Bloom, Korpela, & Geurts, 2016), which is one facet of work engagement (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Sianoja et al. (2016) used the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002) to argue that “if recovery is repeatedly insufficient during lunch breaks, it may lead to loss of energy and over time reduce vigor” (p. 3). Actually, in their long-term study across one year, successful “lunchtime recovery” (recovery during breaks) was positively associated with vigor. Moreover, Sonnentag (2003) claimed that external recovery is relevant for the emergence and maintenance of work engagement. However, working faster as well as working longer do not only reduce recovery opportunities within a workday (and thus, opportunities to regain resources; cf. Hobfoll, 1989), but they also expend resources.
Because work engagement is a state of high energy (being vigorous, feeling dedication, and experiencing absorption: Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), we expect that using such resource-consuming strategies will hamper work engagement. In line with this reasoning, Reis, Hoppe, Arndt, and Lischetzke (2017) found a curvilinear effect of time pressure on vigor within one day (with a maximum at a medium level of time pressure) and a positive linear effect on absorption. Although increased time pressure still leads to higher absorption (employees try to attend to the tasks and try to achieve them), the energetic level (vigor) seems to decrease earlier (Reis et al., 2017), probably due to exhaustion. In the case of the additional use of strategies that are energy and resource consuming, we assume that the challenging effect of time pressure on all aspects of work engagement will be eliminated and a hindering effect will be promoted. Because the idea of curvilinear (either accelerating or u-shaped) effects of time pressure on different individual outcomes has produced mixed evidence so far (Fay & Sonnentag, 2002; Teuchmann, Totterdell, & Parker, 1999), we formulated our hypotheses for linear effects, but administered additional analyses to test for potential curvilinear effects. Consequently, we conclude that challenge demands such as time pressure should only affect motivation positively if the strategies working faster and working longer are rarely used. Hypothesis 2: The relationship between time pressure and work engagement is moderated by (a) working faster and (b) working longer during that day, such that this relationship is negative on days with high values of the moderator and positive on days with low values of the moderator.
Sample and Procedure
We recruited study participants by approaching 13 German public offices via phone and requesting participation. Five organizations agreed to take part in the study. After the contact person expressed the authorities’ intention to participate, the participants were recruited (e.g., we organized a participant information event, or employees were directly addressed by our contact person). Before the diary study, which covered five workdays (a usual time frame of diary studies: Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010), participants were asked to complete a general survey that assessed demographic data. Thereafter, participants were introduced to the operational use of the study’s Smartphones (Samsung S3; software: web-based questionnaire). Twice a day, participants were asked to respond to items: (a) first, directly after they finished work on that day and (b) second, before going to bed. The data acquisition from all participants took place between June and December 2015. The study received a research ethics committee approval of the institutional review board (protocol number: 2015-JGU-psychEK-004).
There were 136 employees who agreed to take part in the study; of that number, 129 completed the general survey and the diary survey. Ultimately, missing values (for irritation as dependent variable) reduced the sample to 122 employees. To ensure that the measure of work engagement was assessed after the measurement of “working faster” and “working longer” strategies, we asked respondents whether they reengaged in work (and if they said yes, then for how long) after they completed the after-work questionnaire before going to bed. For testing Hypotheses 2a and 2b, we excluded those cases in which participants indicated that they reengaged in work for longer than 15 min after completion of the after-work questionnaire, which reduced the sample by 48 Level 1 cases, but only two persons (Level 2).
The final sample for the analyses using irritation/work engagement as the outcome variable consisted of 122/106 employees (71%/71% females) from five public offices. The mean age was 38.31/38.27 years (SD = 12.12/12.24; range = 19–62 years), and the mean occupational tenure was 14.43/14.55 years (SD = 10.93/10.98; range = 0.50–45 years). Most of the participants (82.8%/82.1%) were employed full time with 39.6/36.5 hr/week on average (SD = 4.8/5.1) and in a permanent position (96.7%/96.2%). They worked in the following offices: municipality (23.0%/20.8%), finance offices (46.7%/47.1%), a regional finance office (18.9%/20.8%), and a federal office (11.5%/11.3%). Most of the participants did not hold a leadership position (57.9%/59.0%), followed by some who held a lower level management position (32.2%/31.4%), middle management position (9.1%/8.6%), and management positions (0.8%/1.0%).
Measures
Daily measurements should be constructed to be as short as possible to avoid decreasing participation and to minimize intrusive effects (Reis & Gable, 2000). To this end, we used short scales for both the after-work questionnaire and the evening questionnaire.
After-work measures
The participants were instructed to fill out the after-work questionnaire upon completion of their work for that day. In addition, we asked (before they went to bed) if and how long respondents worked after filling out the after-work evening questionnaire (see sample description).
Time pressure
Time pressure was measured with an adapted version (cf., Binnewies, Sonnentag, & Mojza, 2009) of the Instrument for Stress-Oriented Analysis of Work scale (Semmer et al., 1999). Three items were applied. An example item was, “Today, I was pressed for time.” The items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale with response categories ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α values for the present study ranged from .83 to .90 during the 5 days.
Work engagement
Work engagement was assessed with an adapted (nine-item) version (Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, & Hetland, 2012) of the nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Example items were, “Today at work, I felt bursting with energy” (vigor), “Today, I was enthusiastic about my job” (dedication), and “Today, I was immersed in my work” (absorption). Answers were given on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The α reliability ranged from .88 to .93 during the 5 days.
Evening measures
The participants were asked to complete this questionnaire directly before going to bed. They had to answer questions regarding their irritation and the scale working faster and working longer.
Irritation
Irritation is defined as a state of psychological impairment and includes rumination on problems at work (cognitive irritation) and irritability (emotional irritation; cf. Mohr et al., 2006; Mohr, Rigotti, & Müller, 2005). We used an adapted version that measured Irritation with eight items in the evening but referred to the extent of Irritation felt during the day. Example items were, “If other people talked to me, I reacted grumpily” or “When I came home tired after work, I felt irritable” for emotional irritation; and “Even at home, I thought of my problems at work” for cognitive irritation. Answers were given on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The α reliability ranged from .85 to .87 during the 5 days.
Working faster and working longer
The two constructs were measured with an adapted version of the Self-Endangering Work Behavior scale developed by Krause et al. (2015). An English version of the Self-Endangering Work Behavior scale can be found in Deci et al.’s (2016) study. Confirmatory factor analyses also revealed that Working Faster and Working Longer were two independent factors (Deci et al., 2016). We chose two items within each of these scales that best fit the diary context and had the highest factor loadings (see Krause et al., 2015). The items were, “Have you worked at a pace today that you cannot keep up in the long run?” and “Have you worked at a pace today that you know is not good for you?” (Working Faster) and “Did you work extra hours today?” and “Have you forgone breaks (short breaks or lunchtime breaks) during your working time?” (Working Longer). Answers were 0 = no and 1 = yes. The intercorrelations of the two items of Working Faster ranged from .70 to .76, and the intercorrelations of the two items of Working Longer ranged from .01 to .28 (it is an index scale; see limitations).
Confirmatory factor analyses
To test conceptual distinctiveness between our study variables, and especially working faster, working longer, and time pressure, we ran a set of multilevel confirmatory factor analyses. We started with a one-factor model (Model 1), which provided very low fit to the data. In a first four-factor model, we combined Working Faster and Working Longer separated from Time Pressure, Work Engagement, and Irritation and allowed the factors to covary (Model 2). In a second four-factor model, Time Pressure and Working Faster were combined in one factor and separated from Working Longer and the other constructs (Model 3). Finally, we tested a five-factor model (Model 4), where all variables built a single factor. For the evaluation of the models, we used the Comparative Fit Index, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual. Comparative Fit Index and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation provide information on the overall fit, whereas Standardized Root Mean Square Residual distinguishes between day level (Level 1) and person level (Level 2). To compare the models, we referred to the Akaike Information Criterion and the Bayesian Information Criterion, with lower Akaike Information Criterion and Bayesian Information Criterion values indicating better model fit. Both four-factor models clearly showed a superior fit over the one-factor model. Model 2 and Model 4 showed very similar fit indices (Table 1). Overall, this supports the conceptual distinction of the constructs under study, despite for working longer and working faster. However, the intercorrelation of the four items to measure the coping strategies supports the separation of working faster from working longer. The two working faster items team up well with a within-level correlation of r = .72, whereas the range of correlation coefficients for all other combinations is only between .07 to .26. Due to the low correlation of the two items intended to measure working longer, we opted to run additional analyses on the single items: We tested Hypotheses 1 and 2 again for each working longer item separately (cf. Results—Additional Analyses). Model Fit Indices for the Measurement Models
Statistical Analyses
We conducted multilevel analyses because the daily assessments were not independent from each other, but rather, they were nested within persons (Ohly et al., 2010). In the present study, all variables were at the day level, and predictor and moderator variables were centered on the respective person mean to strictly reflect intraindividual processes. Centering day-level variables at the person mean allowed for removal of between-person inconsistency from these variables (Enders & Tofighi, 2007).
We calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient on the basis of the intercept-only models. The intraclass correlation coefficient explains how much of the variance can be attributed to the different levels of analyses. The within-person variance was 39.7% for irritation and 33.5% for work engagement, and the between-person variance was 60.3% for irritation and 66.5% for work engagement. As an estimate of effect size, we calculated pseudo-R2 by comparing the total variance of a model with the total variance of the intercept-only model (cf. Snijders & Bosker, 1999).
Table 2 shows means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the study variables. All hypotheses were tested by means of multilevel path models using MPlus 7.11. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables (N = 106–122 Employees, n = 329–490 Occasions)
Effect on Strain
Hypothesis 1 proposed that the relationship between time pressure and irritation is moderated by (a) working faster, and (b) working longer during that day, such that this relationship is stronger on days when the moderator is high. As Table 3 shows, only the interaction of time pressure with working faster had a significant effect on irritation (working faster: γ = .12, p = .032). Figure 1 shows the hypothesized pattern. According to the simple slope tests, there is only a positive relationship between time pressure and irritation if respondents worked faster than usual (+1 SD, γ = .21, p = .002), but not if they made less use of this strategy than usual (−1 SD γ = −.04, p = .585). Thus, Hypothesis 1a is supported, whereas Hypothesis 1b needs to be rejected. Multilevel Estimates for Predicting Irritation and Work Engagement Figure 1. The two-way interaction graph of the time pressure–working faster relationship (outcome: irritation).
Effect on Motivation
Hypothesis 2 proposed that the positive relationship between time pressure and work engagement is moderated by (a) working faster, and (b) working longer during that day, such that this relationship is weaker on days when these strategies are used at a higher level. As Table 3 shows, the interaction of time pressure and working longer had a significant effect on work engagement (γ = −0.20, p = .004), but not the interaction of time pressure and working faster (γ = .03, p = .672); thus, Hypothesis 2a was not supported. Figure 2 shows the hypothesized pattern. According to the simple slope tests, there is only a positive relationship between time pressure and work engagement if respondents made less use of the strategy working longer than usual on that day (−1 SD, γ = .34, p = .001). On days when respondents worked longer (+1 SD, γ = −.14, p = .131), time pressure was shown to be uncorrelated to work engagement. Thus, Hypothesis 2b was partly supported. Figure 2. The two-way interaction graph of the time pressure–working longer relationship (outcome: work engagement).
Additional Analyses
The two items of working longer had low intercorrelations of .01 to .28. Thus, it is possible that skipping breaks and working extra hours could possibly have different moderating effects on the examined relationship. It is possible that one item shows stronger effects than the other. It is even possible that they have interaction effects in different directions. Consequently, we ran another set of analyses using both items of working longer separately. We ran models including the two single items of working longer and the scale working faster and the interaction of all these variables with time pressure for irritation, as well as for work engagement as the dependent variable. The interaction of time pressure and working faster stayed significant for irritation (γ = .14, p = .014), but it was not significant for work engagement (γ = −.02, p = .817). Only one of the interactions of the single working longer items and time pressure reached significance (“Have you forgone breaks (short breaks or lunchtime breaks) during your working time?”: irritation—γ = .04, p = .524; work engagement—γ = −.11, p = .180; “Did you work extra hours today?”: irritation—γ = −.02, p = .822; work engagement—γ = −.17, p = .046), indicating that working longer beyond the usual schedule is especially relevant for the reported effect on work engagement. Nevertheless, the combined measure provided stronger effects.
To test for potential curvilinear effects of time pressure, we ran additional analyses including the squared term of time pressure, as well as its interaction with working faster and working longer. Neither significant main effects nor interaction effects could be found.
Our results indicate that the challenge effect of time pressure (in other words, the positive association between time pressure and work engagement) only exists when the employees do not work longer than usual. On days with high levels of working longer, the challenge effect is not apparent (time pressure and work engagement are not significantly related). In addition, our findings show that working faster moderates the relationship between time pressure and irritation. The relationship is strengthened when employees work faster than usual. The positive effect of time pressure on irritation is significant only on days when the strategy working faster is increasingly used.
The pattern noted in the results is thought provoking. Working longer only moderates the relationship between time pressure and work engagement, and working faster only moderates the relationship between time pressure and irritation. To understand this disparity, it is necessary to look more closely at both strategies.
In our diary study, we measured working longer by asking about the prolonging of work time and skipping breaks, and working faster was measured by questions aimed at an unattainable work speed. To place this distinction in our theoretical framework, working faster stands for the consumption of resources and working longer, rather than (or additionally) describing the reduction of recovery opportunities (cf. Hobfoll, 1989), because the absence of demands is a premise for recovery (effort-recovery model: Meijman & Mulder, 1998).
Sonnentag (2003) highlighted the importance of recovery for work engagement. There is much empirical evidence that day-to-day recovery after work and during lunch breaks is positively related to work engagement (Binnewies et al., 2009; Sianoja et al., 2016; Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010). In accordance with that evidence, our results may indicate that time pressure cannot enhance work engagement if workers cope with this demand by extending their work hours (and thus, by refraining from recovery opportunities). Therefore, a positive (and thus, challenging) effect of time pressure can only be observed in the case that the strategy working longer is not used extensively. Time pressure seems only to lead to a higher energetic state of work engagement if there are sufficient possibilities to recover. However, time pressure did not significantly decrease work engagement when employees worked longer. One reason for that result could be that the work engagement was assessed after regular work hours and not at the end of day. Testing the two items separately revealed that actually working longer is the most important aspect for the moderation effect, whereas skipping breaks in isolation showed no significant moderation effect. However, the effect size of the index scale was higher compared with the results on the single items, which lends support to the idea that both aspects of working longer (skipping breaks and working longer) must be considered.
The moderating role of working longer with regard to the effect of time pressure on work engagement is not observed for the strategy of working faster. Perhaps working at an excessive pace can be compensated for by the positive effects of goal attainment, and therefore, it does not reduce work engagement. In terms of the transactional stress model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987), it can be assumed that appraisal of time pressure as a challenge stressor will be influenced by the secondary appraisal regarding the possible coping possibilities. If working faster (i.e., the mobilization of resources) is expected to enable goal attainment, then a challenge appraisal is still possible. However, if working longer is the only option, then this implies that even with the thorough mobilization of resources, it is impossible to attain the goal within the given time (i.e., work day). In that case, the quantitative overload will result in the attribution of time pressure as a hindrance stressor (in terms of being without any motivational function), and the challenge appraisal is less likely to occur.
However, working faster acts as a moderator in the time pressure–irritation relationship. If time pressure is accompanied by the resource-consuming strategy of working faster, then the experience of strain increases. Another possible explanation for this result is that working faster is not only a strategy one can actively choose, but it is also a symptom of being overtaxed. According to Hockey (1997), people tend to cope with overload by increasing effort, which leads to compensatory costs (experience of strain). As a consequence, it is possible that working faster increases the relationship between time pressure and strain, because (a) it is resource-demanding itself, and (b) choosing that strategy is a symptom that time pressure is overtaxing in that situation for that person, to the point that the person cannot cope with this demand in a more effective way.
Working faster does not seem to reduce work engagement, as it can be seen as an attempt to still attain the goal. Nevertheless, it causes strain because it is also an investment of resources to reach a goal (Hobfoll, 1989). This could possibly explain why working faster does not lead to an increase of work engagement (as it could be assumed, because it may enable goal attainment). Possibly the key point is the employee’s existing resource level (cf. Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014; Hobfoll, 1989) before he or she decides to work faster to attain the goal. If the resource level is high enough, such an investment of resources could lead to goal attainment followed by a likely gain of resources, and hence, the perceived work engagement should be high. Employees will interpret their efforts as successful. However, if the initial resource level is low, working faster might be a fruitless effort to achieve the goal. Thus, failing is likely, and employees will experience low work engagement. Perhaps future studies on the effect of resource-intensive strategies such as working faster on (the relationship of time pressure and) work engagement could consider the initial resource level of the employees.
We could not find a moderator effect for working longer for the relationship of time pressure with irritation in our sample. One basic tenet of Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources theory is that resource loss is more salient than resource gain. Therefore, we may conclude that overtime and skipping breaks, and thus, the skipping of possibilities to regain resources, is not as straining as the active resource loss itself.
Our results show that time pressure can also act as a hindrance demand. The recent studies of Searle and Auton (2015) and Webster et al. (2011) have already demonstrated that a specific demand cannot be considered a challenge or hindrance per se without consideration of the primary appraisal process (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). However, we found that coping behavior is also important. Our results are in line with the recent study of Searle and Lee (2014), which showed that coping behaviors—in their case, proactive coping—moderates the association between challenge demands and health as well as motivational indicators. In our study, we could identify the moderating effect of working faster and working longer that can be considered cost-intensive types of coping (Dettmers, Deci, et al., 2016). In addition to the undesired effect of these coping behaviors for the challenge or hindrance effect of time pressure, the results of previous studies also emphasize the direct detrimental effects of working faster or working longer (Astvik & Melin, 2012; Deci et al., 2016). Our findings add the moderating role of working faster or working longer to these results and emphasize implications for practice as well as future research.
Implications for Practice and Research
On the practical side, despite potential challenge effects, we advise against any increase of time pressure because strain effects cannot be excluded. Furthermore, employees and executives should ensure that coping behaviors such as working faster or working longer are only used to a minor degree (see also Dettmers, Deci, et al., 2016). These coping strategies are likely increased by (a) the general level of time pressure and (b) the working culture within an organization. Hence, a first approach should be analyzing the circumstances and conditions under which employees experience time pressure and taking measures to reduce the likelihood of too great workloads. This can best be achieved by participative measures, like occupational health circles (cf. Aust & Ducki, 2004). Based on in-depth analyses of the stressors, in a next step, person- and condition-based interventions can be developed. On the one hand, working conditions must be developed in such a way that employees do not have to rely on harmful coping strategies to deal with increased time pressure. This would also involve the provision of suitable resources, such as control and the removal of barriers (Astvik & Melin, 2012). Interventions may also include the shaping of organizational culture and norms. This might lead to formal company agreements, or guidelines, that may also influence leadership development programs. Employees and executives can be sensitized to their specific coping behavior and their potential self-endangerment effects (Dettmers, Deci, et al., 2016). According to Deci et al. (2016), interventions could focus on reflecting upon the underlying psychological mechanisms and, building on that, to train employees in alternative, more health-promoting coping strategies such as prioritizing or seeking social support when confronted with time pressure (see also Krause et al., 2015).
Our results also provide theoretical implications: When considering work demands of employees, not only the demands per se but also their psychological effects—that is, appraisal of them and the coping processes triggered by them—should be taken into account (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). As such, an a priori categorization into challenge and hindrance demands should be viewed with reservation. Thus, future challenge–hindrance research should be further expanded to include the integration of appraisal and coping processes, and may, of course, look for further moderating mechanisms such as personal preferences/characteristics, available coping resources, and success expectations (cf. Carver & Scheier, 1998; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Newness, 2011). To achieve this result, in formulating or selecting items for measuring challenge–hindrance demands, attention should be paid to a clear linguistic separation between demands, appraisals, and coping. In our study, we investigated the empirical distinction and independence of time pressure, working faster, and working longer by means of multilevel confirmatory factor analyses. It is important that researchers integrate those appraisals and coping strategies that gain particular importance in the modern, more flexible (unregulated) work environment (Krause et al., 2015). Furthermore, working faster and working longer may not only affect the individual, but also other people (colleagues, clients) as well as the organization in terms of reduced quality of work and higher risks for errors and accidents. Hence, the extension of outcomes could be a research avenue worth pursuing. In this context, it is also especially interesting to further investigate which aspects of this working world foster the use of maladaptive strategies like working faster or working longer (e.g., new information and communication technologies that enable us to work from home, flexible working times, management by unrealistically high work goals and the corresponding group norms: the expectation to be on call 24 hr a day; Berkowsky, 2013).
Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
Our study has strengths, such as the diary study design. To our knowledge, it is the first to demonstrate the effects of the coping strategies “working faster” and “working longer” on a daily level. Moreover, working faster and working longer were connected to the challenge–hindrance framework. However, there are also certain limitations in our study, upon which further studies can improve.
First, the data were assessed daily, but only at two points in time—directly after work and before going to bed. Consequently, the strategies working faster and working longer and strain were assessed at the same time. However, it is obvious that the facet working longer, which includes overtime, can only be adequately determined at the end of the day. Furthermore, work engagement was assessed directly after work (to avoid memory effects), but a consequence is that it was assessed before the moderator. In the case of overtime work caused by tasks that arrived unexpectedly after fulfilling the after-work questionnaire, we lost relevant information about the later state of work engagement. To compensate for this limitation in the study setup, we excluded all cases from the analyses in which participants indicated having worked more than 15 min after the completion of the after-work questionnaire. Future studies may opt to assess work engagement at a later point in time.
Second, in the development of our hypotheses, we proposed that the resource loss and the energetic (recovery) level is a central point, which explains why time pressure acts as a challenge or as a hindrance when using the resource-intensive strategies working faster and working longer. However, we have not tested these mechanisms directly. Future studies could assess exhaustion or another marker of resource level as a mediator between the interaction and work engagement/irritation. Also, the study of other less exhausting strategies like delegation or restructuring of work or reducing performance quality (Hockey, 1997; Krause et al., 2015; Semmer et al., 2010) would be interesting aspects to pursue in greater detail.
Third, our study only takes the factors of working faster and longer into account. Future research should also address other maladaptive coping strategies such as the self-endangering facets of using stimulating substances, faking (Krause et al., 2015), or even more adaptive coping strategies such as, for example, “self-supporting” strategies (Melin, Astvik, & Bernhard-Oettel, 2014). In this way, we can obtain a more detailed picture of coping behaviors and their interaction with specific demands, such as time pressure.
Fourth, on the one hand, the correlation between the two items measuring working longer was very small, showing that they are not strongly related. On the other hand, working overtime and skipping breaks are the two central possibilities to prolong work time (on a daily basis). Furthermore, it might not be surprising that both facets of working longer are not strongly related. Employees might decide to skip breaks or work longer to accomplish their tasks. However, if one decides to do both, it is a stronger version of working longer. In line with this, we argue working longer is possibly an index scale. Nevertheless, the operationalization of working longer and faster might be improved. Working longer (and in some occupations also working faster) could be assessed with objective indicators. This could be complemented by (at least) a three-item diary version (with good reliability) of the subjective evaluation of the need of working longer and faster.
The findings of our study and previous studies showed that an a priori classification of job demands into challenge versus hindrance demands must be viewed with reservation when appraisal and coping processes were not taken into account. We could show that time pressure is not a challenge demand per se because its positive effect on work engagement was shown to be contingent upon the use of maladaptive coping strategies. Working faster as well as working longer are often described as external demands. With our diary study, we could provide evidence that even in situations of high time pressure, there is variation in daily levels of how employees cope with this demand. Accordingly, employees do have certain degrees of freedom in responding to high workloads. This not only adds to the challenge–hindrance framework on a theoretical level but also provides good advice for employers and employees alike.
Astvik, W., & Melin, M. (2012). Coping with the imbalance between job demands and resources: A study of different coping patterns and implications for health and quality in human service work. Journal of Social Work, 13, 337–360. 10.1177/1468017311434682
Aust, B., & Ducki, A. (2004). Comprehensive health promotion interventions at the workplace: Experiences with health circles in Germany. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 258–270. 10.1037/1076-8998.9.3.258
Baeriswyl, S. (2016). Processes leading to emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction—Self-endangering work behavior and work-family conflict as intervening variables in the job demand-resources model (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Baeriswyl, S., Krause, A., & Kunz Heim, D. (2014). Arbeitsbelastungen, Selbstgefährdung und Gesundheit bei Lehrpersonen—Eine Erweiterung des Job Demands-Resources Modells [Work stress, self-endangering behavior and health in teachers—An expansion of the job demands resources model]. Empirische Pädagogik, 28, 128–146.
Baethge, A., & Rigotti, T. (2013). Interruptions to workflow: Their relationship with irritation and satisfaction with performance, and the mediating roles of time pressure and mental demands. Work and Stress, 27, 43–63. 10.1080/02678373.2013.761783
Baethge, A., Rigotti, T., & Roe, R. (2015). Just more of the same, or different? An integrative theoretical framework for the study of cumulative interruptions at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 308–323. 10.1080/1359432X.2014.897943
Baethge, A., Vahle-Hinz, T., Schulte-Braucks, J., & van Dick, R. (2017). A matter of time? Challenging and hindering effects of time pressure on work engagement. Work and Stress, 37, 1–20. 10.1080/02678373.2017.1415998
Berkowsky, R. W. (2013). When you just cannot get away. Information Communication and Society, 16, 519–541. 10.1080/1369118X.2013.772650
Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. V. A. J. (2009). Daily performance at work: Feeling recovered in the morning as a predictor of day-level job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 67–93. 10.1002/job.541
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Hetland, J. (2012). The measurement of state work engagement. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 305–312. 10.1027/1015-5759/a000111
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174794
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–74. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65
Chong, D. S., Van Eerde, W., Chai, K. H., & Rutte, C. G. (2011). A double-edged sword: The effects of challenge and hindrance time pressure on new product development teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58, 71–86. 10.1109/TEM.2010.2048914
Crawford, E. R., Lepine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834–848. 10.1037/a0019364
Daniels, K., & Harris, C. (2004). A daily diary study of coping in the context of the job demands–control–support model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 219–237. 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.10.004
Deci, N., Dettmers, J., Krause, A., & Berset, M. (2016). Coping in flexible working conditions—Engagement, disengagement and self-endangering strategies. Psychology of Everyday Activity, 9, 49–65.
Dettmers, J., Deci, N., Baeriswyl, S., Berset, M., & Krause, A. (2016). Self-endangering work behavior. In M.Wiencke, S.Fischer, & M.Cacace (Eds.), Healthy at work—Interdisciplinary perspectives. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Dettmers, J., Vahle-Hinz, T., Bamberg, E., Friedrich, N., & Keller, M. (2016). Extended work availability and its relation with start-of-day mood and cortisol. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21, 105–118. 10.1037/a0039602
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2002). Rethinking the effects of stressors: A longitudinal study on personal initiative. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 221–234. 10.1037/1076-8998.7.3.221
Geurts, S. A., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation between acute stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 32, 482–492. 10.5271/sjweh.1053
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40, 1334–1364. 10.1177/0149206314527130
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324. 10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307
Hockey, G. R. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload; a cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45, 73–93. 10.1016/S0301-0511(96)05223-4
Korunka, C., & Kubicek, B. (2013). Beschleunigung im Arbeitsleben—Neue Anforderungen und deren Folgen [Intensification at work – New demands and their consequences]. In Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (Ed.), Immer schneller, immer mehr [Always more, always faster] (pp. 17–39). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Fachmedien.
Krause, A., Baeriswyl, S., Berset, M., Deci, N., Dettmers, J., Dorsemagen, C., & Straub, L. (2015). Selbstgefährdung als Indikator für Mängel bei der Gestaltung mobil-flexibler Arbeit: Zur Entwicklung eines Erhebungsinstruments [Self-endangering as an indicator of problems in the design of flexible work: The development of a questionnaire]. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 17, 49–59.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 141–169. 10.1002/per.2410010304
LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 883–891. 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764–775. 10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803921
Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D.Drenth & H.Thierry (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Work psychology (pp. 5–33). Hove, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
Melin, M., Astvik, W., & Bernhard-Oettel, C. (2014). New work demands in higher education. A study of the relationship between excessive workload, coping strategies and subsequent health among academic staff. Quality in Higher Education, 20, 290–308. 10.1080/13538322.2014.979547
Mohr, G., Müller, A., Rigotti, T., Aycan, Z., & Tschan, F. (2006). The assessment of psychological strain in work contexts: Concerning the structural equivalency of nine language adaptations of the irritation scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 198–206. 10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.198
Mohr, G., Rigotti, T., & Müller, A. (2005). Irritation - ein Instrument zur Erfassung psychischer Beanspruchung im Arbeitskontext. Skalen- und Itemparameter aus 15 Studien [Irritation—An instrument assessing mental strain in working contexts. Scale and item parameters from 15 studies]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 49, 44–48. 10.1026/0932-4089.49.1.44
Newness, K. A. (2011). Stress and coping style: An extension to the transactional cognitive-appraisal model (FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1423&context=etd
Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543–565. 10.1002/job.633
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research - An introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 79–93. 10.1027/1866-5888/a000009
Parkes, K. R. (2015). Sleep patterns of offshore day-workers in relation to overtime work and age. Applied Ergonomics, 48, 232–239. 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.12.004
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 18–28. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.02.002
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438–454. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438
Prem, R., Kubicek, B., Diestel, S., & Korunka, C. (2016). Regulatory job stressors and their within-person relationships with ego depletion: The roles of state anxiety, self-control effort, and job autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 22–32. 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.004
Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubicek, B., & Korunka, C. (2017). Thriving on challenge stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 108–123. 10.1002/job.2115
Reis, D., Hoppe, A., Arndt, C., & Lischetzke, T. (2017). Time pressure with state vigour and state absorption: Are they nonlinearly related?European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 94–106. 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1224232
Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In H. T.Reis & C. M.Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 190–222). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. 10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. 10.1023/A:1015630930326
Schmitt, A., Ohly, S., & Kleespies, N. (2015). Time pressure promotes work engagement. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14, 28–36. 10.1027/1866-5888/a000119
Searle, B. J., & Auton, J. C. (2015). The merits of measuring challenge and hindrance appraisals. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 28, 121–143. 10.1080/10615806.2014.931378
Searle, B. J., & Lee, L. (2014). Proactive coping as a personal resource in the expanded job demands–resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 22, 46–69.
Semmer, N. K., Grebner, S., & Elfering, A. (2010). “Psychische Kosten” von Arbeit: Beanspruchung und Gesundheit [Psychological costs of work]. In U.Kleinbeck & K.-H.Schmidt (Eds.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie: Themenbereich D Praxisgebiete, Serie III Wirtschafts-, Organisations- und Arbeitspsychologie, Band 1 Arbeitspsychologie [Encyclopedia of Psychology: Subject area D praxis, series III Business-, Organizational-, and Workpsychology, Volume 1 Workpsychology] (pp. 325–370). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Semmer, N., Zapf, D., & Dunckel, H. (1999). Instrument zur Stressbezogenen Tätigkeitsanalyse (ISTA) [Instrument for stress-related task analysis (ISTA)]. In H.Dunckel (Ed.), Handbuch psychologischer Arbeitsanalyseverfahren [Handbook of psychological work assessment scales] (pp. 179–204). Zürich, Switzerland: vdf-Hochschulverlag.
Sianoja, M., Kinnunen, U., de Bloom, J., Korpela, K., & Geurts, S. (2016). Recovery during lunch breaks: Testing long-term relations with energy levels at work. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1, 7–12. 10.16993/sjwop.13
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518–528. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when demands are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 965–976. 10.1037/a0020032
Sonnentag, S., & Kruel, U. (2006). Psychological detachment from work during off-job time: The role of job stressors, job involvement, and recovery-related self-efficacy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 197–217. 10.1080/13594320500513939
Tadić, M., Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. M. (2015). Challenge versus hindrance job demands and well-being: A diary study on the moderating role of job resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 702–725. 10.1111/joop.12094
Teuchmann, K., Totterdell, P., & Parker, S. K. (1999). Rushed, unhappy, and drained: An experience sampling study of relations between time pressure, perceived control, mood, and emotional exhaustion in a group of accountants. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 37–54. 10.1037/1076-8998.4.1.37
Turgut, S., Michel, A., & Sonntag, K. (2017). Coping with daily hindrance and challenge stressors in the workplace. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 61, 123–136. 10.1026/0932-4089/a000244
Watanabe, M., & Yamauchi, K. (2016). Psychosocial factors of overtime work in relation to work–nonwork balance: A multilevel structural equation modeling analysis of nurses working in hospitals. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 23, 492–500. 10.1007/s12529-016-9563-x
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, 505–516. 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.02.001
Widmer, P. S., Semmer, N. K., Kälin, W., Jacobshagen, N., & Meier, L. L. (2012). The ambivalence of challenge stressors: Time pressure associated with both negative and positive well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 422–433. 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.09.006
Submitted: October 5, 2017 Revised: February 22, 2018 Accepted: March 2, 2018
This publication is protected by US and international copyright laws and its content may not be copied without the copyright holders express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user. Source: Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Vol. 24. (3), Jun, 2019 pp. 322-332) Accession Number: 2018-25177-001 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1037/ocp0000121
0
Choose Language
American Accent
