A Dynamic View of the Challenge-Hindrance Stressor Framework: a Meta-Analysis of Daily Diary Studies

IF 3.7 2区心理学 Q2 BUSINESS

Journal of Business and Psychology Pub Date : 2024-02-03 DOI:10.1007/s10869-024-09933-y

{"title":"A Dynamic View of the Challenge-Hindrance Stressor Framework: a Meta-Analysis of Daily Diary Studies","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s10869-024-09933-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>Are some daily job stressors good for employees? The challenge-hindrance stressor framework (CHSF) attempts to shed light on this question by categorizing stressors according to their ability to facilitate (challenge stressors) or inhibit (hindrance stressors) growth and achievement. According to the CHSF, challenge stressors should be associated with increased performance, but also with increased strain which subsequently hurts performance. Conversely, hindrance stressors should be associated with reduced performance both directly and indirectly via strain. Prior meta-analytic investigations have focused on more stable job stressors (using cross-sectional or longitudinal primary studies), and found contradicting resulted in support of the CHSF predictions. In the current meta-analysis, we tested the validity of the CHSF using a more dynamic view of stressors, by applying it to short-term, daily experiences of stressors, strains, and performance outcomes. Results from 78 unique samples indicated that at the within-person level, hindrance stressors have both a direct and an indirect (via strain) short-term effect on performance. Challenge stressors have a positive direct effect on performance but a negative indirect effect via strain. Furthermore, we examined two performance indicators separately: task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). The results revealed that challenge stressors have a stronger positive association with OCB than with task performance. Hindrance stressors exhibited the opposite pattern, a stronger negative association with task performance than with OCB. The results of this study suggest that all daily stressors result in strain, which negatively relates to performance, though challenge stressors also have some positive effects on daily performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":48254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business and Psychology","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business and Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09933-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Are some daily job stressors good for employees? The challenge-hindrance stressor framework (CHSF) attempts to shed light on this question by categorizing stressors according to their ability to facilitate (challenge stressors) or inhibit (hindrance stressors) growth and achievement. According to the CHSF, challenge stressors should be associated with increased performance, but also with increased strain which subsequently hurts performance. Conversely, hindrance stressors should be associated with reduced performance both directly and indirectly via strain. Prior meta-analytic investigations have focused on more stable job stressors (using cross-sectional or longitudinal primary studies), and found contradicting resulted in support of the CHSF predictions. In the current meta-analysis, we tested the validity of the CHSF using a more dynamic view of stressors, by applying it to short-term, daily experiences of stressors, strains, and performance outcomes. Results from 78 unique samples indicated that at the within-person level, hindrance stressors have both a direct and an indirect (via strain) short-term effect on performance. Challenge stressors have a positive direct effect on performance but a negative indirect effect via strain. Furthermore, we examined two performance indicators separately: task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). The results revealed that challenge stressors have a stronger positive association with OCB than with task performance. Hindrance stressors exhibited the opposite pattern, a stronger negative association with task performance than with OCB. The results of this study suggest that all daily stressors result in strain, which negatively relates to performance, though challenge stressors also have some positive effects on daily performance.

查看原文本刊更多论文

挑战-阻碍-压力框架的动态视角：每日日记研究的元分析

摘要日常工作压力是否对员工有益？挑战-阻碍压力源框架（CHSF）试图通过将压力源按照其促进（挑战压力源）或抑制（阻碍压力源）成长和成就的能力进行分类，来阐明这一问题。根据 CHSF，挑战性压力源应与成绩的提高有关，但也与压力的增加有关，压力的增加会损害成绩。相反，阻碍性压力源则会直接或通过压力间接地导致成绩下降。之前的荟萃分析调查主要针对较为稳定的工作压力源（使用横截面或纵向的主要研究），结果发现支持 CHSF 预测的结果相互矛盾。在当前的荟萃分析中，我们采用了更加动态的压力源观点，将 CHSF 应用于压力源、压力和绩效结果的短期、日常体验，从而检验了 CHSF 的有效性。来自 78 个独特样本的研究结果表明，在个人层面上，阻碍性压力源对短期绩效既有直接影响，也有间接影响（通过压力）。挑战压力源对绩效有积极的直接影响，但通过应变则有消极的间接影响。此外，我们还分别考察了两个绩效指标：任务绩效和组织公民行为（OCB）。结果显示，挑战压力源与 OCB 的正相关比与任务绩效的正相关更强。阻碍性压力则表现出相反的模式，即与任务绩效的负相关强于与 OCB 的负相关。本研究的结果表明，所有日常压力都会导致紧张，而紧张与绩效呈负相关，尽管挑战性压力也会对日常绩效产生一些积极影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Business and Psychology Multiple-

CiteScore

8.80

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Business and Psychology (JBP) is an international outlet publishing high quality research designed to advance organizational science and practice. Since its inception in 1986, the journal has published impactful scholarship in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Organizational Behavior, Human Resources Management, Work Psychology, Occupational Psychology, and Vocational Psychology. Typical subject matters include Team processes and effectiveness Customer service and satisfaction Employee recruitment, selection, and promotion Employee engagement and withdrawal Organizational culture and climate Training, development and coaching Mentoring and socialization Performance management, appraisal and feedback Workplace diversity Leadership Workplace health, stress, and safety Employee attitudes and satisfaction Careers and retirement Organizational communication Technology and work Employee motivation and job design Organizational change and development Employee citizenship and deviance Organizational effectiveness Work-nonwork/work-family Rigorous quantitative, qualitative, field-based, and lab-based empirical studies are welcome. Interdisciplinary scholarship is valued and encouraged. Submitted manuscripts should be well-grounded conceptually and make meaningful contributions to scientific understandingsand/or the advancement of science-based practice. The Journal of Business and Psychology is - A high quality/impactful outlet for organizational science research - A journal dedicated to bridging the science/practice divide - A journal striving to create interdisciplinary connections For details on submitting manuscripts, please read the author guidelines found in the far right menu.