Contributions, limitations and implications
The present research has significant implications in terms of three aspects:
Theoretically, the findings help to enhance the validity and reliability of the JDCS model,
which has been a key anchoring point for research on the impact of work characteristics
with respect to employee health and wellbeing for the past three decades (van Veldhoven,
Taris, de Jonge, and Broersen, 2005). The central argument of JDCS model is the buffer
hypothesis, which posits that job demand, job control and social support interact with
each other to enhance wellbeing. Despite the popularity and prevalence of the JDCS
model, empirical evidence supporting the seminal buffer hypothesis of this model has
been marginal at best. Meta-analyses consistently fail to show adequate support for the
buffer hypothesis of the JDCS (e.g., Häusser, Mojzisch, Niesel, and Schulz-Hardt, 2010;
van der Doef and Maes, 1999), even when controlling for methodological rigour (de
Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, and Bongers, 2003). The presented results provide
new empirical evidence, especially for the Solo self-employed group, as this study
found a significant moderating impact of social support. This adds weight to the
JDCS buffering hypotheses and verifies the validity of the JDCS theory.
Methodologically, since the self-employed are a very heterogeneous group, previous
research has experienced various methodological difficulties (e.g. sample and
measurement biases etc.) in accurately measuring differences of work-related stress
between the self-employed and employees. To account for these methodological
difficulties, this study used a matching approach to show very different results of
comparative studies on work-related stress between self-employed and employees,
compared to prior studies (Patzelt and Shepherd, 2011; Baron, Franklin and
Hmieleski, 2013; Hessels, Rietveld and Zwan, 2016). In fact, by controlling the
sample selection bias, the solo SE experience lower work-related stress. In contrast,
the SEE, they were found to have higher work-related stress than employees.
The dataset this study used is large, effectively representing the British population.
Moreover, it classified the self-employed into solo self-employed and self-employed
with hiring employees. Such a distinction was absent in prior studies of self-
employment and stress. The distinction between these two groups proved to be
important. And given the high-stress levels of SEE, the results indicate that the self-
employed with employees may be an important target group for stress reduction
programs, A relevant route to alleviate stress among the self-employed with
employees is the reduction of job demand and seeking more social support, as these
factors partially explain the stress difference. Therefore, another relevant implication
for further research is the investigation of work-related stress in terms of owner-
managers who can share job demands of the business. Future studies may delve into
the heterogeneity of self-employment jobs (Hundley, 2001), such as distinctions
between opportunity and necessity self-employment and innovative and imitative self-
employment (Cliff et al., 2006), to obtain an even more detailed picture of the
relationship between self-employment and work-related stress.
This paper has some limitations. Firstly, due to the dataset’s designed questionnaire, there
was only one variable to measure job demand. As working hours is the most significant
variable, and is highly objective, and easily and precisely measured in terms of
quantitative measurement of job demand, it is believed that working hours can measure
job demands efficiently. However, it would be better if future studies involved other
items in measuring qualitative aspects of job demands. Also, the measurement of social
support lacks considerations of support occurring in the workplace and from the
government. In particular, there has been widespread argument about how to measure
social support (Beehr et al., 1990) A considerable amount of research has indicated that
both work- and non-work related social support reduces, or buffers, the adverse impact of
exposure to work-related job stress (Dollard et al., 2000), which need to be taken in the
future studies.
In terms of further implications, theoretically, the self-employed are highly dynamic
individuals, and this paper captured the different findings by distinguishing between
the self-employed with hiring employees and the solo self-employed. This implies the
necessity to consider the characteristics of various categories of the self-employed in
research. Methodologically, the matching approach can play a vital role in multi-
group analyses. For policymakers, a future focus may emphasise how to develop
stress coping mechanisms for those self-employed who hire employees, as they appear
to experience the highest work-related stress; moreover, they have high relevance in
terms of economic growth and contributions to the labour market. In addition, as a
matter of the fact, the SEE is a small percentage of the self-employed population but
significantly contributes to economic development. It reduces the unemployment rate
not only by giving employees a job but also by providing more jobs for others.
Moreover, SEE has a much greater possibility to develop into a large size company,
which may have a greater economic impact (Casson, 1982). However, this population
group has been largely ignored by current entrepreneurship field and policymakers
largely, thus call future study making great endeavor to explore this issue.
References
Anderson, M. H. (2008). Social networks and the cognitive motivation to realise
network opportunities: A study of managers’ information gathering behaviours.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 51–78.
Baron, R. A., Franklin, R. J., and Hmieleski, K. M. (2016). Why entrepreneurs often
experience low, not high, levels of stress: The joint effects of selection and
psychological capital. Journal of Management, 42(3), 742-768.
Beehr, T. A., King, L. A., and King, D. W. (1990). Social support and occupational
stress: Talking to supervisors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36(1), 61-81.
Benz, M., and Frey, B. S. (2008). The value of doing what you like: Evidence from
the self-employed in 23 countries. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,
68(3), 445-455.
Binder, M., and Coad, A. (2013). Life satisfaction and self-employment: A matching
approach. Small Business Economics, 40(4), 1009-1033.
Blanchflower, D. G. (2004). Self-employment: More may not be better (No.
w10286).Boston, USA, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Boyd, D. P., and Gumpert, D. E. (1983). Coping with Entrepreneurial Stress, Harvard
Business Review, March/April, 58-63.
.
139
Buttner, E. H. (1992). Entrepreneurial stress: is it hazardous to your health?. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 223-240.
Cardon, M. S., and Patel, P. C. (2015). Is Stress Worth it? Stress‐Related Health and
Wealth Trade‐Offs for Entrepreneurs. Applied Psychology, 64(2), 379-420.
Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory. London, UK, Rowman and
Littlefield.
Cohen, S., and Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310.
Cowling, M., Taylor, M., and Mitchell, P. (2004). Job creators. The Manchester School,
72(5), 601-617.
De Wit, G., and De Kok, J. (2014). Do small businesses create more jobs? New evidence
for Europe. Small Business Economics, 42(2), 283-295.
