Job stress, Job Performance, and Leadership support

Work Stressors, Role-Based Performance, and the Moderating Influence ofOrganizational Support J. Craig Wallace Oklahoma State University Bryan D. EdwardsAuburn University Todd Arnold Oklahoma State University M. Lance Frazier Oklahoma State University David M. Finch APT, Inc. As a test of the 2-dimensional model of work stressors, the present study proposed differential relationships between challenge stressors and hindrance stressors and role-based performance, which were expected to be moderated by organizational support. In a sample of 215 employees across 61 offices of a state agency, the authors obtained a positive relationship between challenge stressors and role-based performance and a negative relationship between hindrance stressors and role-based performance. In addition, organizational support moderated the relationship between challenge stressors and role-based performance but did not moderate the relationship between hindrance stressors and role-based perfor- mance. This suggests that organizations would benefit from increasing challenges in the workplace as long as they are supportive of employees and removing hindrances. Further implications for organiza- tional theory and practice are discussed.

Keywords:hindrance stressors, challenge stressors, role-based performance, organizational support As a result of increasing job demands, work-related stressors are increasingly important issues for employees and employers. The general assumption is that stressors are detrimental and that orga- nizations must find ways to prevent or reduce stressors and asso- ciated strains. The focus on the negative outcomes of stressors is not surprising given evidence of a negative relationship between stressors and productivity (e.g., Wilson, 1991) and job attitudes (e.g., Webb et al., 1994) as well as a positive relationship with workplace accidents (Steffy, Jones, Murphy, & Kunz, 1986) and counterproductive workplace behaviors (Kuhn, 1988). Further- more, the estimated costs attributed to workplace stress have sky-rocketed; tipping the scales at over $150 billion dollars in 1996 (Wright & Smye, 1996), which has now doubled to $300 billion a year (Cynkar, 2007). Included in these estimates are costs associated with employee absenteeism, turnover, reduced produc- tivity, and increases in medical and legal bills and insurance premiums. Given their historical trajectory, these costs are likely to grow even more in the coming years.

Although most prior research has focused on negative outcomes, the extant literature has suggested that stressors are not always deleterious and that research may benefit from investigating both the positive and negative aspects of stressors (e.g., Boswell, Olson- Buchanan, & LePine, 2004; Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). Given that the beneficial role of stressors is not well understood, we set out to empirically test the notion that certain stressors can be beneficial for performance and certain stressors can be deleterious for per- formance. Further extending the extant literature, we examine the moderating role of organizational support on the stressor–perfor- mance links because support provides additional resources for employees to more effectively deal with work stressors. As such, a primary contribution of this research is an understanding of how and under what conditions stressors affect job performance. We expect to find that organizational support positively influences the relationships between stressors and role-based performance (see Figure 1). Hindrance and Challenge Stressors and Performance Although the general perception among researchers and practi- tioners is that work stressors impact important work-related J. Craig Wallace, Todd Arnold, and M. Lance Frazier, Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University; Bryan D. Edwards, Department of Psychology, Auburn University; David M. Finch, APT, Inc., Jacksonville, FL. We would like to thank Karrie Sawin and Dana Hinson at the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles for providing help with recruitment and data collection. The views expressed herein are our own and do not necessarily reflect the official position or opinion of the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles. Drafts of the article were presented at the annual convention of the Southern Management Association in Nashville, Tennessee in Novem- ber 2007 and the annual meeting for the Society for Industrial/ Organizational Psychology in San Francisco, California in 2008. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to J. Craig Wallace, William S. Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, 700 North Greenwood, Tulsa, OK 74106. E-mail: [email protected] Journal of Applied Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association 2009, Vol. 94, No. 1, 254 –262 0021-9010/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013090 254 outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, performance, turnover), empirical ev- idence has revealed mixed results with some studies finding rela- tively weak or no relationships (e.g., Bogg & Cooper, 1995; Bretz, Boudreau, & Judge, 1994; Leong, Furnham, & Cooper, 1996) and other studies finding moderate to strong relationships (e.g., Frone, 2000; Spector & Jex, 1998). However, Cavanaugh et al. (2000) pointed out that the mixed findings, and particularly the weak or null relationships reported in the literature, might be because work stressors are typically conceptualized as one-dimensional, such that positive and negative stressors were collapsed into the same measure thereby cancelling out differential effects.Beehr and Newman (1978) differentiated job stressors (sources of stress) from strains (reactions to job stressors), and by building on appraisal theory (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus & Folk- man, 1984), Cavanaugh et al. (2000) posited that individuals typically perceive some work stressors to be manageable due to the perception that the stressor is under their control—thereby, the stressor might allow opportunity for individual growth if over- come. Alternatively, some stressors are perceived to be unman- ageable and controlling, which in turn might hinder the perceiver and his or her opportunity for growth. Before moving forward, it is important to point out that stressor responses can vary according to individual differences that influence the manner in which indi- viduals appraise and cope with stressors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). At the heart of appraisal theory is the notion that individuals make appraisals that influence their categorization of the type of stressor perceived, and therefore, the same stimulus may be stress- ful in one manner for one person and in another manner for another (or not at all stressful for some people). Nevertheless, as Brief and George (1995) argued and several researchers demonstrated (e.g., LePine et al., 2005), employees tend to appraise certain stressors in a consistent manner due to a common understanding of the work context and the stressors found within. As such, Cavanaugh et al. (2000) partitioned work-related stressors into two categories: (a) challenge stressors and (b) hindrance stressors. Challenge stressors are stimuli such as high workload, time pressures, and high levels of responsibility. They were labeled as such because they encom- pass potentially stressful demands perceived as effectively under the control of the employee (i.e., perceived as manageable) and because, if overcome, they might allow opportunity for personal growth. Hindrance stressors are stimuli such as organizational politics, red tape, and role ambiguity. They were labeled as such because they encompass potentially stressful demands typically perceived as beyond the control of the employee (i.e., perceived as unmanageable) so that they might thwart opportunity for personal growth. These conceptualizations are consistent with research that has distinguished and identified types of stressors by whether the stressor is generally appraised as hindering or challenging (Duha- check & Iacobucci, 2005; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004; Spector, 1998, 2002).

Theoretical (e.g., Karasek, 1979; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Spector, 1998) and empirical (e.g., Duhacheck & Iacobucci, 2005) work has suggested and supported that the initial appraisal process of stressors triggers specific emotional reactions and coping styles that in turn influence behavior. Challenge stressors typically evoke positive emotions such as feelings of eagerness and confidence that lead to an active problem-solving style of coping (e.g., effort expenditure, manage source of stressor). Hindrance stressors typ- ically lead to negative emotions characterized by feelings of threat, anxiety, and apprehension that in turn lead to more emotion- focused coping strategies (e.g., withdrawal, retaliation, distrac- tion). An active problem-solving coping style is more adaptive in that individuals are likely to increase effort and engage in other behaviors to obtain valued gains. Alternatively, a passive emo- tional coping style is more maladaptive in that either individuals decrease effort by withdrawing from the situation, because the goal Challenge Stressors Task Performance Customer Service Performance Citizenship Performance Organizational Support Grou p Level Individual Level + + Role-Based Performance Hindrance Stressors + – Figure 1. Expected theoretical relationships. 255 RESEARCH REPORTS is perceived to be beyond the person’s grasp, or they engage in destructive behaviors that serve only to make them feel better (e.g., Spector, 2002). Furthermore, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) suggests that situations perceived as providing for appropriate developmental needs and fostering growth tend to increase motivation that, in turn, facilitates higher engagement and performance. However, situations that are per- ceived to be controlling or hindering typically disrupt growth opportunities and ultimately reduce engagement and performance.

Based on these viewpoints, challenge stressors should promote greater motivation and resource allocation toward the stressor in order to obtain gains, whereas hindrance stressors should decrease motivation and resource allocation, which ultimately hurts perfor- mance. It follows then that challenge stressors typically lead to actions that improve performance, and hindrance stressors typi- cally lead to actions that often decrease performance.A recent meta-analysis by LePine et al. (2005) found that hindrance stressors negatively related to overall performance, whereas challenge stressors weakly and positively related to per- formance. Although an otherwise outstanding piece of research, the LePine et al. (2005) meta-analysis relied on research that did not explicitly measure hindrance and challenge stressors, and few of the primary studies measured both stressors in the same sample, such that the unique variance of each type of stressor could not be assessed in their analyses (cf. Boswell et al., 2004). Thus, there were limitations in the primary studies that limit the conclusions drawn from the meta-analysis. Also, a substantial amount of vari- ance in job performance was unexplained by the meta-analysis, suggesting that important moderator variables might have been overlooked. Lastly, recent research has urged researchers to go beyond typical task performance when evaluating performance.

One means of achieving this is by using role-based performance theory. As such, research is needed that explicitly assesses the relationships between challenge and hindrance stressors and role- based performance as well as possible boundary conditions. The reliance on most organizational performance measurement systems is limiting because “they ignore dimensions of work behavior that lie beyond what has been traditionally included in the scope of the job itself” (Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998, p.

540). Theories of role-based performance (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007; Welbourne et al., 1998) have been a means to address this problem as Murphy and Jackson (1999) defined work roles as “the total set of performance responsibilities associated with one’s employment” (p. 335). These researchers posited that roles con- sidered vital for organizational effectiveness should be measured through a comprehensive assessment of employee performance.

Thus, we followed role-based performance theory to uncover vital performance dimensions in the current organization. Specifically, through interviews with employees and managers at the present participating organization, we identified three primary roles: task, citizenship, and customer service performance. Task performance was defined as “doing things specifically related to one’s job description” (Welbourne et al., 1998, p. 554), citizenship perfor- mance as “going above the call of duty in one’s concern for the firm” (p. 554), and customer service as “working with clients or customers internal or external to the organization” (Chen & Kli- moski, 2003, p. 597). All three of these roles were weighted heavily in the assessment of performance for these employees. As we allude to above, challenge stressors should be positively associated with performance because employees perceive the stressor as a challenge to be overcome. Thus, individuals are confident that effort expended on coping with stressors perceived to be under their control will be effective. That is, employees will be motivated to engage the stressors and will believe that if such stressors are successfully addressed valued outcomes might ulti- mately be gained (LePine et al., 2005; Vroom, 1964). As an example, employees faced with tight deadlines that they perceive to be under their control are likely to cope via increasing effort and resources that should allow the employees to overcome the stres- sors and meet their deadlines, possibly resulting in positive per- formance and recognition. Hindrance stressors do not typically promote the same pattern of coping. Employees are unlikely to assume that there is a positive relationship between effort expen- diture and overcoming such a stressor because they believe that the stressor is not under their direct control. Thus, it is likely that employees will disengage from the stressor or engage in maladap- tive coping strategies because they do not believe any level of effort expended will allow them to overcome the stressor success- fully. For example, employees who continually face organizational role conflict are likely to believe that they cannot simultaneously satiate multiple roles regardless of effort and resources allocated.

Furthermore, if employees do devote resources toward this stres- sor, it might drain resources that could be better utilized for another situation. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Challenge stressors are positively related to role-based performance.

Hypothesis 2: Hindrance stressors are negatively related to role-based performance. Moderating Influence of Organizational Support Organizational support theory (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986) suggests that when an employee perceives that the organization values and supports employees, an implied obligation develops between the organization and its em- ployees. In order to take advantage of the problem-solving coping style associated with challenge stressors and reduce the negative effects of a maladaptive coping style associated with hindrance stressors, we posit that organizations need to support employees in an effort to bolster resources for high performance. Prior research has demonstrated the importance of support in moderating several organizational relationships. For example, organizational support has been shown to reduce the negative effects of work–family conflict (Witt & Carlson, 2006) and chronic pain (Byrne & Hochwarter, 2006) on performance, both of which could be viewed as stressors. Support has also been shown to strengthen the positive relationship between social skills and job performance (Hochwarter, Witt, Treadway, & Ferris, 2006) and trust and help- ing behavior (Choi, 2006). This research has suggested that orga- nizational support is beneficial in that it can positively impact the relationship among important organizational variables and out- comes. However, we do not fully know if organizational support positively influences both the relationship between hindrance stressors to performance and the relationship between challenge stressors and performance. 256 RESEARCH REPORTS Bliese and Castro (2000) investigated the shared effects of organizational support in work groups and argued that if research is examining groups, then researchers should use the aggregate of group member’s perceptions of organizational support because it is likely that such perceptions differ significantly among groups due to differing levels of support across groups. Due to the context of the current study and relying on Chan’s (1998) typology, organi- zational support was conceptualized as a direct consensus model of aggregation. Morgeson and Hofmann (1999) stated that “any given collective (e.g., a work team) can be viewed as a series of ongo- ings, events, and event cycles between the components’ parts (e.g., individuals)” (p. 252). For organizational support, the interaction between unit members gives rise to and serves to strengthen the collective of organizational support through repeated cycles of individual interactions and influence, thus codifying a group norm by acting on felt perceptions of organizational support (Degoey, 2000). These interactions are greatly limited by geographical boundaries of each unit in the current study and are therefore likely to fluctuate across units. If organizational support is perceived to be high, then it is possible that cyclical interactions occur such that employees dem- onstrate support for one another, just as they perceive the organi- zation (or agents of the organization such as managers) to be supportive; as a result, individuals engage in mutually benefiting actions within the group, giving rise to the collective of organiza- tional support. Thus, when organizational support is high and when employee interactions are positive, support could be a ben- eficial influence on the relationship between stressors and perfor- mance by providing additional socio-emotional resources. Further- more, Hochwarter et al. (2006) suggested that organizational support extends beyond the norm of reciprocity in that high orga- nizational support offers employees additional resources that better enable employees to accomplish work objectives. These authors claimed that beyond providing socio-emotional support, high or- ganizational support might also provide resources in the forms of physical assistance, additional funding, newer technology, or work equipment. Therefore, it might be the case that high organizational support further assists workers to meet challenges and reduce hindrances by providing additional resources and facilitating co- operation among group members (cf. Witt and Carlson, 2006).

Therefore, it is expected that the relationship between challenge stressors and performance will be stronger for higher levels of organizational support due to the increased availability of re- sources and to the bolster from socio-emotional support. Similarly, we expect organizational support to aid employees experiencing hindrance stressors because high levels of support should buffer the negative effects of hindrance stressors by providing socio- emotional support and additional resources that increase employee affect. Although support may not change this relationship to pos- itive, the expected negative relationship between hindrance stres- sors and performance should be less negative with high organiza- tional support.

Hypothesis 3: Organizational support moderates the chal- lenge stressor 3role-based performance relationship such that there is a stronger positive relationship between chal- lenge stressors and role-based performance when organiza- tional support is high. Hypothesis 4:

Organizational support moderates the hin- drance stressor 3role-based performance relationship such that there is a less negative relationship between hindrance stressors and role-based performance when organizational support is high. Method Participants and Procedure All participants worked for the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles (OMV; i.e., approximately 800 employees in 79 offices statewide). Of these, 301 returned completed questionnaires (38% response rate). We also asked the supervisor of each office to complete performance evaluations for the employees in that re- spective office. Of the 301 who returned surveys, we were able to match these data to supervisor ratings of performance for 215 employees, which constituted the final sample. These 215 employ- ees were from 61 geographically dispersed offices (84% of the offices) across the state (average of 3.58 respondents per office).

Of the participants (M age 36.42, Mdn 38, SD 12.11; 86% female, 14% male), 165 identified themselves as White, 47 as Black, 1 Hispanic, 1 Asian, and 1 employee did not report. Em- ployees occupied front line positions (i.e., vehicle compliance analysts) in which they conducted tasks such as issuance of driv- er’s licenses and vehicle registration. The job is structured to be standardized across all offices. Paper-and-pencil surveys were administered to all employees at the OMV, and employee performance data were collected from supervisors via a secure Web site. The employee surveys were distributed by the administrator of the Louisiana OMV to all employees via regular postal mail and were mailed directly back to the research team. Four weeks later, immediate supervisors were sent an e-mail containing a Web address for the online perfor- mance survey and were asked to complete a survey for each of their immediate subordinates in their offices.

Measures Challenge and hindrance stressors. Challenge and hindrance stressors were measured with Cavanaugh et al.’s (2000) 11-item scale (6 challenge items, 5 hindrance items). Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which the statements produced stress at work on a scale ranging from 1 (no stress)to5( a great deal of stress). Challenge items ( .93) included “The amount of responsibility I have,” “Time pressure I experience,” and “The number of projects and or assignments I have”; while hindrance items ( .73) included “The degree to which politics rather than performance affects organizational decisions” and “The amount of red tape I need to get through to get my job done.” Organizational support. We used 10 items from the Eisen- berger et al. (1986) measure that utilize a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree)to5( completely agree; .95).

Example items are “The OMV values my contribution to its success” and “Help is available from the OMV when I have a problem.” To determine if aggregation is viable, we assessed within- and between-group homogeneity within naturally occur- ring groups (Bliese, 2000). In the present study, the groups were the offices. To assess within-group homogeneity James, Demaree, 257 RESEARCH REPORTS and Wolf (1984) developed ther wg(j) statistic. Ifr wg(j) is equal to or greater than .70, then there is sufficient within-group agreement.

Our organizational support data were normally distributed, and we assessed r wg(j) with a normal distribution: r wg(j) .72. To further assess homogeneity, we computed an analysis of variance and associated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The ICC(1) value can be interpreted as the proportion of variance explained by group membership, and ICC(2) is an estimate of the reliability of the means (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). If ICC(2) is greater than or equal to .70, we can assume group means are reliably different (Bliese, 2000). With the formulas reported in Bliese (2000), ICCs for organizational support were ICC(1) .12, ICC(2) .61; F(56, 155) 1.98, p .05. Although ICC(2) was below .70, we continued with the aggregation of organizational support because, theoretically, organizational support was conceptualized and op- erationalized at the group (i.e., office) level, because all other indices supported aggregation, and because the smaller ICC(2) value could be attributed to small group sizes. Role-based performance. In interviews with managers and employees of the Louisiana OMV, it was determined that employ- ees had three primary performance roles: task, citizenship, and customer service performance. In fact, it was only after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina that citizenship performance became paramount as employees were continually faced with new obstacles that affected work life (e.g., rebuilding personal houses, relocating within the organization, taking on more work assignments and responsibilities). Thus, going above and beyond in this dynamic work environment is an added value for the organization. Manag- ers reported that these behaviors have been rewarded and thus fit into Welbourne et al.’s (1998) notion of role-based performance.

Task performance was measured with nine items taken from the annual performance evaluation that is administered by the OMV on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 ( poor)to5(outstanding; .67). An example item is “The quality and quantity of the work produced by the employee.” Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) were measured with four items from Welbourne et al.

(1998) on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (needs some improve- ment)to5( excellent; .91). An example item is “Doing things that help others when it’s not part of his/her job.” Customer service was measured with four items ( .92) from Chen and Klimoski (2003) by using the same scoring format as the OCB scale. An example item is “Provides high-quality service to customers.” To help check for potential supervisor bias in ratings, we examined ICC(1) and found a non-significant value: ICC(1) .07; F(56, 155) 1.44, p .05.

Control variables. Due to the possible effects of age, sex, and race/ethnicity on performance, we elected to control for these variables. Results Our measure of role-based performance was created by taking the mean of the items for task, citizenship, and customer service performance. To empirically assess that role-based performance comprises the three facets of performance that were revealed during interviews with OMV employees, we conducted a confir- matory factor analysis. The confirmatory factor analysis revealed that a single-factor model produced a reasonable fit to the data with all item factor loadings significant and greater than .5: 2(170) 1,232.37, p .05 (comparative fit index [CFI] .93, root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] .14, stan- dardized root mean square residual [SRMR] .07). We then tested the fit of a three-factor model in which we partitioned role-based performance into task, OCB, and service performance.

This model fit the data significantly better, 2(3) 450.78, than did a single-factor model of role-based performance. However, the latent factors were all highly correlated (latent variable correla- tions all were greater than .78), and therefore, we proceeded to test our four hypotheses by using the composite. To test our hypotheses, we conducted random coefficient modeling with Version 3.0 of the Non-Linear and Linear Mixed Effects program for S-PLUS and R (Pinheiro & Bates, 2000).

Random coefficient modeling is better suited to test multilevel relationships than is traditional ordinary least squares (OLS) regression in nested group settings, where the independent error assumption is often violated (see Gavin & Hofmann, 2002).

Although OLS regression generates biased parameter estimates and standard errors when analyzing multilevel data, it does provide an adequate approximation of effect-size estimates (i.e., R 2) for the overall variance in individual-level outcomes that is explained by individual-level and group-level predictors (see Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003, p. 174; Wallace & Chen, 2006). Thus, we reported R 2results from OLS regression anal - yses as a way of conveying effect sizes. Bivariate relationships presented in Table 1 tentatively sup- ported Hypotheses 1 and 2, but no controls were included in these analyses. Furthermore, and more importantly, Boswell et al.

(2004) stated that both challenge and hindrance stressors should be simultaneously included in predictive models to better understand their unique influence on important outcomes. Before formally testing the hypotheses, the data for challenge and hindrance stres- sors and organizational support were grand-mean centered 1before creating the interaction terms to help control for any spurious effects due to possible multicollinearity between the predictors and the interaction term (see Aiken & West, 1991). Additionally, we assessed the variability of the challenge stressor to performance and hindrance stressor to performance link among groups, respec- tively, by comparing a model that constrained the slopes to be equal with a model in which slopes were allowed to vary ran- domly. We found that there was significant variability in slopes from challenge to performance (L-Ratio 4.31, p .05) and from hindrance to performance (L-Ratio 3.89, p .05). Thus, we proceeded to test the multilevel interactions. Support was obtained for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, but not for Hypothesis 4 (see Table 2 for results). When examining the specific results for role-based performance, it was found that challenge stressors and hindrance stressors uniquely predicted role-based performance, as did organizational support, and all three variables explained 24% of the variance in role-based performance. Adding the interaction terms to the model ex- plained another 3% of the variance in role-based performance.

We tested the simple slopes and found that the only statistically significant relationship ( p .05) between challenge stressors and role-based performance was when organizational support 1Results were replicated by using group-mean centering (see Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). 258 RESEARCH REPORTS was high (see Figure 2). In follow-up analyses, the same pattern of results was observed for task, citizenship, and service per- formance as independent criteria. Discussion The majority of job stress research has focused on the negative consequences of work stressors (Cynkar, 2007), but slowly re- search is beginning to illuminate our understanding of the positive aspects of some stressors. The objectives of the current research were to examine the relationships between challenge and hin- drance stressors with role-based performance and the influence of organizational support on these relationships. Results suggested that challenge stressors positively related to performance and that hindrance stressors negatively related to performance. The hypoth- eses regarding the moderating effects of organizational support were partially supported in that the relationship between challenge stressors and performance was stronger with higher organizational support. Unexpectedly, organizational support did not moderate the relationship between hindrance stressors and performance. Theoretical and Practical Implications The findings presented in the present study fill several important gaps in the literature. Although the two-dimensional model of work stressors has received support (e.g., Boswell et al., 2004; Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007), the present study is the first to directly compare the relationship between challenge and hin- drance stressors and role-based performance. Furthermore, the present research suggested that organizational support can posi- tively impact the challenge stressor–performance relationship. Al- though we can only speculate, the weak or null relationships between stressors and job performance reported in prior research may have been due to the lack of distinctions between challenge and hindrance stressors. Cavanaugh et al. (2000) might have been the theoretical catalyst that was needed to allow more concentrated primary empirical research on work stressors and performance. Two recent meta-analyses have shown that challenge and hin- drance stressors are differentially related to important organiza- tional variables, including performance (i.e., LePine et al. 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2007). However, the predominance of the primary studies in these meta-analyses was based on the unidimensional conceptualization of stressors such that challenge and hindrance stressors were rarely examined in the same study. Given the stated importance of modeling the stressor–performance relationship while controlling for both stressors (i.e., Boswell et al., 2004; Cavanaugh et al., 2000), the present study fills an important gap in the literature by modeling both types of stressors simultaneously.

In addition, because the majority of primary studies in the meta- analyses were published prior to Cavanaugh et al.’s (2000) con- ceptualization, these studies may not have explicitly measured both stressors. Therefore, LePine et al. (2005) and Podsakoff et al.

(2007) coded the content of measures in previous research as either challenge or hindrance stressors. Although there is nothing inher- ently wrong with this procedure and the studies were well done and informative, the results are limiting because there is no em- pirical evidence for construct validity of the measures used in the Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for All Variables Variable MSD12345678910 1. Challenge stressor 2.81 1.05.93 2. Hindrance stressor 2.50 0.91 .30 .73 3. Organizational support 3.17 0.92 \b.05\b.58 .95 4. Role-based performance 3.67 0.63 .13 \b.38 .42 .88 5. Task performance 3.61 0.60 .16 \b.26 .32 .87 .67 6. Citizenship performance 3.64 0.77 .07 \b.41 .42 .92 .69 .91 7. Customer service performance 3.75 0.71 .14 \b.35 .39 .93 .74 .71 .92 8. Age 36.42 12.41 .19 .05 \b.07 \b.03\b.02\b.03\b.02 — 9. Race \b.01\b.12 .14 .01\b.05 \b.02 .08 \b.02 — 10. Gender \b.16 .08\b.13 \b.10\b.12\b.13\b.02\b.05 .09 — Note. Internal consistency estimates (i.e., coefficient alpha) are in italics on the diagonal. p .05.

Table 2 Random Coefficient Modeling Results for Hypotheses Testing Variable CoefficienttR Step 1 Age a \b.01 \b0.29 Race a \b.21 \b1.44 Gender a \b.16 \b1.08 .01 Step 2 Age b \b.01 \b0.61 Race b \b.19 \b1.71 Gender b \b.09 \b0.70 Hindrance stressor b \b.25 \b3.64 Challenge stressor b .21 4.21 Organizational support c .36 3.42 .24 Step 3 Age d \b.01 \b0.67 Race d \b.11 \b1.02 Gender d .01 0.05 Hindrance stressor d \b.21 \b2.97 Challenge stressor d .13 2.43 Organizational support c .22 2.08 Support Hindrance d \b.12 \b1.66 Support Challenge d .20 3.09 .27 Note. R 2is from OLS regression estimates. Unstandardized coefficients and tvalues are from random coefficient modeling. Coefficient unstand- ardized coefficient. adf 151. bdf 149. cdf 57. ddf 147. p .05. 259 RESEARCH REPORTS primary studies. Thus, it is impossible to know if the measures were indeed tapping challenge or hindrance stressors. Therefore, the present study directly compared the relationships between challenge and hindrance stressors and role-based job performance in the same study.Another contribution is that the present study examined the influence of organizational support on these stressor–performance relationships. We expected that additional resources provided by organizational support would help employees better meet the de- mands of challenge stressors, and to some extent hindrance stres- sors, which would in turn lead to better performance. We found support for this notion with challenge stressors, but not for hin- drance stressors. Such additional resources stemming from orga- nizational support might not help employees cope with hindrance stressors because level of effort may not be directly related to meeting the demands of hindrance stressors that are out of the control of the individual employee. Thus, the inability of an employee to deal directly with hindrance stressors is likely to result in an appraisal that any attempt to minimize or cope with the stressor will be meaningless (i.e., they do not see an association between effort and meeting the demand). The present study suggests that employers should increase chal- lenges related to one’s work and remove hindrances from the workplace. When examining the simple slopes of the significant interactions, we found that challenge stressors were positively related to performance when organizational support was high but not when organizational support was low. This suggests that or- ganizations must be supportive for employees to benefit from challenge stressors as this might help employees better allocate limited resources toward performance goals. Thus, this study pro- vided further evidence of the advantages that can be accrued by organizations that support their employees. Rhoades and Eisen- berger (2002) suggested that because supervisors act as tangible agents of the organization, favorable treatment by the supervisor should contribute to an employee’s perception of support. This idea was confirmed in the current investigation and further sug- gests that organizations can increase support perceptions by train- ing supervisors on the importance of being supportive of employ- ees. These are actionable items over which organizations have direct influence. The results of this study suggest that these ac- tions, combined with challenges, would result in greater role-based performance by organizational employees (i.e., better task, citizen- ship, and service performance). Future Research and Limitations Although we collected supervisor performance ratings several weeks after employees completed stressor and support measures, the study was in essence cross-sectional, which prohibited causal inferences. Future research using longitudinal designs would strengthen the inferences found herein. Another limitation of this study is the reliance on a single government organization, which limits generalizabilty. Further replication of this study should be conducted in a variety of other organizational settings. Lastly, future research should investigate whether the observed effects are still meaningful when considering perceived job characteristics.

We believe they will be meaningful, as Boswell et al. (2004) demonstrated that challenge and hindrance stressors capture unique variance in job search behaviors and turnover intentions while controlling for felt job control and felt challenges. Future studies could also focus on examining the influence of specific managerial behaviors and characteristics on challenge and hindrance stressors (e.g., leadership styles) and their impact on important work variables. For example, given the links between stressors, strains, and health, it would be beneficial to examine health outcomes as they relate to the challenge and hindrance stressor framework. LePine et al. (2005) suggested that challenge stressors, because they have the potential for personal gain, might trigger positive emotions and more effective methods of emotion regulation. Thus, research should examine possible mediating reg- ulatory mechanisms that link stressors and performance. Overall, the present study provides important and unique find- ings and insight in that work stressors have both positive and negative effects on multiple dimensions of performance. Further- more, high organizational support and high levels of challenge stressors combined to improve employee role-based performance. Figure 2. Interaction between challenge stressors and organizational support on role-based performance. High support and challenge stressors are 1SD, and low support and challenge stressors are –1 SD. While not displayed, the pattern presented by this graph is representative for task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and customer service performance, separately. 260 RESEARCH REPORTS For organizational researchers, the results provide a starting point from which to further expand the present theoretical model and include other contextual variables and their influence on the rela- tionship between challenge and hindrance stressors and perfor- mance. Organizations can make use of these findings by providing support for coping with challenge stressors and by removing hindrances from the workplace. The combination of these charac- teristics leads to greater individual employee performance, which will presumably lead to better organizational performance. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991).Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665– 699.

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

Bliese, P. D., & Castro, C. A. (2000). Role clarity, work overload and organizational support: Multilevel evidence of the importance of sup- port. Work & Stress, 14, 65–73.

Bogg, J., & Cooper, C. (1995). Job satisfaction, mental health, and occu- pational stress among senior civil servants. Human Relations, 48,327– 341.

Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & LePine, M. A. (2004). Relations between stress and work outcomes: The role of felt challenge, job control, and psychological strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 165–181.

Bretz, R. D., Boudreau, J. W., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Job search behavior of employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 47, 275–301.

Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. (1995). Psychological stress and the work- place: A brief comment on Lazarus’ outlook. In R. Crandall & P. L.

Perrewe (Eds.), Occupational stress: A handbook (pp. 15–20). Wash- ington, DC: CRC Press.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models:

Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Byrne, Z. S., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2006). I get by with a little help from my friends: The interaction of chronic pain and organizational support on performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 215– 227.

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.

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition mod- els. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 –246.

Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 591– 607.

Choi, J. N. (2006). Multilevel and cross-level effects of workplace attitudes and group member relations on interpersonal helping behavior. Human Performance, 19, 383– 402.

Cynkar, A. (2007). Whole workplace health. Monitor on Psychology, 38, 28 –31.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self- determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Degoey, P. (2000). Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 51– 102.

Duhacheck, A., & Iacobucci, D. (2005). Consumer personality and coping: Testing rival theories and process.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 52– 63.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500 –507.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examina- tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150 –170.

Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young workers. Journal of Occupa- tional Health Psychology, 5, 246 –255.

Gavin, M. B., & Hofmann, D. A. (2002). Using hierarchical linear mod- eling to investigate the moderating influence of leadership climate.

Leadership Quarterly, 13, 15–33.

Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent con- texts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347.

Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). The interaction of social skill and organizational support on job perfor- mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 482– 489.

Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader–member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170 –178.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.

Kuhn, R. (1988). Psychological tests reduce counterproductive acts by employees. Assets Protection, 9, 9–12.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.New York: Springer.

Leong, C. S., Furnham, A., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). The moderating effect of organizational commitment on the occupational stress outcome rela- tionship. Human Relations, 49, 1345–1363.

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.

LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor– hindrance stressor framework: An expla- nation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance.

Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764 –775.

Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249 –265.

Murphy, P. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Managing work role performance: Challenges for twenty-first century organizations and their employees.

In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of perfor- mance: Implications for staffing motivation and development (pp. 325– 365). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Spring Verlag.

Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor– hindrance stress relationships with job attitudes, turn- over intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438 – 454.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698 –714.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.

American Psychologist, 55, 68 –78.

Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. L. 261 RESEARCH REPORTS Cooper (Ed.),Theories of occupational stress (pp. 153–169). London:

Oxford University Press.

Spector, P. E. (2002). Employee control and occupational stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 133–136.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inven- tory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356 –367.

Steffy, B. D., Jones, J. W., Murphy, L. R., & Kunz, L. (1986). A demon- stration of the impact of stress abatement programs on reducing em- ployee’s accidents and their costs. American Journal of Health Promo- tion, 1, 25–32.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation.New York: Wiley.

Wallace, J. C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multi-level integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 529 –557.

Webb, G. R., Redman, S., Hennrikus, D. J., Kelman, G. R., Gibberd, R. W., & Sanson-Fisher, R. W. (1994). The relationships between high-risk and problem drinking and the occurrence of work injuries and related ab- sences.

Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 434 – 446.

Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 41, 540 –555.

Wilson, B. (1991, July). U.S. businesses suffer from workplace trauma. Personnel Journal, 47–50.

Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). The work–family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 343–357.

Wright, L., & Smye, M. D. (1996). Corporate abuse: How ‘lean and mean’ robs people and profits. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: MacMillan. Received June 18, 2007 Revision received May 27, 2008 Accepted June 2, 2008 262 RESEARCH REPORTS All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.