A Tough Day or a Tough Life? A Meta-Analysis of Job Demands Within and Between Persons

Abstract

The challenge-hindrance framework of job demands offers an explanation for how the nature of experienced job demands have different patterns of effects on individuals’ strain and engagement. At present, however, research utilizing the framework does not address the conceptual distinction between within-person demands (i.e., how an individual’s job demands vary) versus between-person demands (i.e., how some individuals encounter more or fewer challenge and hindrance demands than do others). A number of job demands studies have now been conducted using experience sampling methodology (ESM), and this class of studies enables empirical testing that can improve theory-method alignment and identify areas in which new theory is needed. Drawing from these studies, we conduct a meta-analytic path analysis of the existing ESM research on challenge and hindrance demands. Results show that although the effects of challenge and hindrance demands are consistent with the framework in both the within- and between-person perspectives, two effects are significantly stronger between- rather than within- individuals. Specifically, people with typically higher challenge demands display higher engagement than those with lower challenge demands, and people with typically higher hindrance demands display higher strain than those with lower hindrance demands. Given that these between-person effects are larger than their within-person counterparts, we suggest a need for more nuanced theory that explains how momentary challenges and hindrances accumulate over employees’ work experiences. We discuss directions for future research in this line of reasoning.