EFFECTS OF ORGANISATIONAL JUSTICE AND JOB STRESSORS ONEMPLOYEE HEALTH: A MULTILEVEL MEDIATION APPROACH

In stress research area,although some scholars(e.g.,Selye,1974)suggested that stress could be appraised as "bad"(distress)or "good"(eustress),most of the studies paid more attention to the negative outcomes of stress.Recently,Cavanaugh and his colleagues(2000)found that some stressors might result in positive outcomes,and perceived stressors could be differentiated into two types:challenge stressors and hindrance stressors.Based their definitions,challenge stressors refers to "work-related demands or circumstances that,although potentially stressful,have associated potential gains for individuals,including high workload,time pressure,job scope,and high responsibility",whereas hindrance stressors refers to "work-related demands or circumstances that tend to constrain or interfere with an individual's work achievement,and do not tend to be associated with potential gains for the individual,including organizational politics,red tape,role ambiguity,job insecurity"(Cavanaugh et al.,2000).It has consistently been found that challenge stressors associated positively with desirable outcomes,such as job satisfaction and performance,while hindrance stressors associated negatively with these same outcomes.However,both types of stressors were founded harmful to well-being.The purpose of this study is to extend the previous studies to investigate the moderating effects of general self-efficacy(GSE)among the challenge-hindrance stress process.A self-administered questionnaire survey method was used to collect data from 309 air dispatchers.A series of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted for data analyses.The results consistently showed that ⑴hindrance stressors were negatively related to job satisfaction,and positively related to turnover intention,while challenge stressors were negatively related to turnover intention.However,the positive relation between challenge stressors and job satisfaction was not significant;⑵both challenge and hindrance stressors were positively related to strains;⑶GSE buffered the relations between hindrance stressors and strains,and job satisfaction.However,GSE did not have any moderating effect on the relation between hindrance stressors and turnover intention.That is,individuals with higher GSE would react less negatively to hindrance stressors than those with lower GSE;⑷GSE strengthened the relations between challenge stressors and job satisfaction,and turnover intention.Nevertheless,GSE did not have any moderating effect on the relation between challenge stressors and strains.Specifically,when dealing with increasing challenge stressors,individuals with higher GSE had higher job satisfaction,and lower turnover intention,whereas for those with lower GSE,there were adverse trends.The present study contributes to challenge-hindrance stressors literature by elaborating the different moderating effects of general self-efficacy.GSE tends to strengthen the relations between challenge stressors and outcomes but buffer the relations between hindrance stressors and outcomes.In terms of practical implications,work stress should be discriminated when stress managements and coping strategies are proposed.Hindrance stressors should be eliminated.Regarding to challenge stressors,instead of reducing or moving them,organizations or managers might be open to encourage employees to meet such challenges as long as they can endure the levels of stressors.

Abstrak Job demands merupakan salah satu faktor penyebab munculnya stres di tempat kerja yang selalu dihubungkan dengan outcome yang negatif, namun challenges hindrances stressor framework (CHSF) membedakan job demands menjadi dua kategori (challenges stressors dan hindrances stressors) yang memungkinkan job demands dapat menjadi sebuah motivasi dan mendorong hasil yang lebih positif. Oleh karena itu penelitian ini bertujuan untuk secara sistematis mengumpulkan, mensintesis, dan meneliti bukti empiris yang ada, berhubungan dengan pengaruh job demands berdasarkan CHSF terhadap work engagement dan burnout. Penelitian ini merupakan systematic review yang dilakukan melalui pengidentifikasian pada penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya dilaksanakan dengan melibatkan pemrosesan informasi secara menyeluruh dan analisis mendalam serta menggunakan meta-analisis sebagai metode statistik. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat pengaruh positif signifikan challenges stressor terhadap work engagement, sebaliknya hindrances stresssor memiliki pengaruh negatif signifikan terhadap work engagement, serta ditemukan hasil bahwa kedua variabel ini baik challenges stressor maupun hindrances stressor memiliki pengaruh positif signifikan terhadap burnout. Kata Kunci : Burnout; Challenges Stressors; Hindrances Stressors; Work Engagement Abstract Job demands are one of the contributors leading to workplace stress, always associated with negative outcomes. However, the challenge-hindrance stressor framework (CHSF) distinguishes job demands into two categories (challenge stressors and hindrance stressors) that allow job demands to motivate and encourage more positive outcomes. Therefore, this study aims to systematically collect, synthesize, and examine existing empirical evidence related to the effect of job demands based on CHSF on work engagement and burnout. This research is a systematic review conducted by identifying previous studies involving thorough information processing and in-depth analysis and using meta-analysis as a statistical method. The results demonstrated a noteworthy positive impact of challenge stressors on work engagement. Conversely, hindrance stressors exhibited a significant negative effect on work engagement. Moreover, the study revealed that both challenge stressors and hindrance stressors had a significant positive effect on burnout. Keywords: Burnout; Challenge Stressors; Hindrance Stressors; Work Engagement

<p id="p00005">Employee innovation is the focus of current organizational behavior research, and the high demand for employee innovation and change in enterprises lead to the high pressure that employees face at work. Several studies have been conducted by researchers on the relationship between work stressors and employee innovation. Current empirical research findings on the relationship between challenge-hindrance stressors and employee innovation vary, for example, in terms of relationship strength and relationship direction. Employee innovation is found to have positive, negative, and nonlinear relationships with the challenge-hindrance stressors. Furthermore, the mechanism and boundary conditions for the challenge-hindrance stressors that affect employee innovation have not been fully revealed. Based on the current state of research on the relationship between the challenge-hindrance stressors and employee innovation, this study used the challenge-hindrance stressors model to investigate the relationship between different types of challenge-hindrance stressors and employee innovation through the meta-analysis method. <p id="p00010">According to literature retrieval and screening, keywords such as challenging stressor(s) (workload, job complexity, task conflict, and time pressure), hindrance stressor(s) (role stress, interpersonal conflict, and job insecurity), and innovation (individual creativity, individual innovation behavior, and individual innovation performance) were included. Finally, 149 independent studies with 141 articles were included for the analysis, with a total sample size of 46,261. For the analysis, we used the psychmeta meta-analysis package in R, which included publication bias tests, main effect tests, heterogeneity tests, and moderating effect analyses. <p id="p00015">The publication bias results showed that the <italic>p</italic> values of Egger’s regression coefficient and Begg rank correlation test for challenging stressor, hindrance stressor, and their subgroups were insignificant (<italic>p</italic> &gt; 0.05). The heterogeneity test was significant, indicating that the random effect model was suitable for the study. The main effect results showed that the task complexity and task conflict in challenge stressor and subgroups had a positive effect on employee innovation. Hindrance stressor had a negative impact on employee innovation. Cultural differences, data sources, and data collection time had different moderating effects on the relationship between different stressors and innovation, which can be expressed as follows. (1) Compared with individualism orientation, under the background of high collectivism orientation, high power distance, and a long-term orientation, the hindrance stressor had a stronger and significantly negative correlation with employee innovation, while under the background of high collectivism orientation, the hindrance stressor had a significantly positive correlation with employee innovation. (2) Compared with other-rating, when the data comes from employee self-rating, challenge stressor had a stronger and significantly positive correlation with innovation, and hindrance stressor had a stronger and significantly negative correlation with innovation. (3) compared with longitudinal study, in the cross-sectional study, challenging stressor has a stronger positive effect on employee innovation, while data collection time has insignificant moderating effect on the relationship between hindrance stressor and employee innovation. <p id="p00020">Consequently, we aimed to investigate the strength and direction of the relationship between binary work stressors and employee innovation in a large sample and consider the potential moderating effects of cultural differences, data sources, and data collection time points. The results of this study will provide a reference model for future enterprise management practices, such as maintaining a reasonable pressure level and category control, encouraging employee innovation within the organization, and improving the innovation performance and core competitiveness of individuals and organizations.

Drawing upon the conservation of resources theory, we intend to examine the relationships between voice behaviors and job stressors. Specifically, we propose a non-linear relationship between hindrance stressors and prohibitive and promotive voice behaviors. Furthermore, we argue that challenge stressors moderate the non-linear relationship between hindrance stressors and voice behaviors. Based on a sample of 361 employees in China, our results indicate that the relationship between hindrance stressors and prohibitive and promotive voice is U-shaped. The relationships between challenge stressors and prohibitive and promotive voice are linearly positive. Moreover, challenge stressors moderate the relationships between hindrance stressors and voice behaviors; thus, when challenge stressors are high, hindrance stressors are negatively linear related to prohibitive and promotive voice behaviors, and when challenge stressors are low, hindrance stressors are curvilinearly related to prohibitive and promotive voice behaviors. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.

PurposeThe number of self-initiated expatriates (SIEs) is growing, yet we know relatively little about their work experiences, especially how they react to stress. The purpose of this study is to examine whether challenge and hindrance stressors influence SIEs' intent to remain as well as the possible influence of emotional resilience and cultural novelty upon these relationships.Design/methodology/approachData were collected from 249 SIEs working in China.FindingsAs hypothesized, hindrance stressors were negatively related to the SIEs' intent to remain. Contrary to expectations, challenge stressors were not associated with intent to remain. Hindrance (challenge) stressors were negatively (positively) related to emotional resilience, and resilience mediated the relationship between stressors and intent to remain. Cultural novelty failed to moderate the relationship between emotional resilience and intent to remain and did not moderate the mediated effects of challenge stressors on intent to remain via emotional resilience. Cultural novelty did moderate the mediated effects of hindrance stressors on intent to remain via emotional resilience, but not in the hypothesized direction.Research limitations/implicationsThis study was cross-sectional. It examined SIEs working in China, and its findings may not be generalizable to SIEs working in other countries.Originality/valueThis is the first study to examine how emotional resilience may mediate the relationship between stressors and SIEs' intent to remain and also considered the possible moderating effects of cultural novelty. In addition, unlike most studies that focus only on the negative outcomes of hindrance stressors, this study tested the possible positive effects of challenge stressors.

Schoolteachers worldwide are facing stressful work conditions with heavy responsibilities. Stress may contribute to psychological disorders and physical health issues. The purposes of this study were (1) to investigate whether both challenge and hindrance stressors are positively associated with emotional exhaustion among Chinese schoolteachers and (2) to examine whether perceived servant leadership moderates the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on emotional exhaustion. This study was cross-sectional in nature. A sample of 2636 schoolteachers was elicited from schools in South China. Research data were collected in the fall semester of 2019 via WeChat®. Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations were conducted using SPSS 21. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to test measurement models to determine convergent and discriminant validities using Mplus 7.4. Hierarchical multiple regression was performed to test proposed hypotheses using SPSS 21. The study results demonstrated that both challenge and hindrance stressors were positively related to emotional exhaustion among schoolteachers in Chinese schools. It was also indicated that, while perceived servant leadership buffers the relationship between challenge stressor and emotional exhaustion, it enhances the relationship between hindrance stressor and emotional exhaustion. Implications and limitations are also provided.

Using a new theoretical perspective that authoritarian leadership can be the source of challenge and hindrance stressors, we hypothesize that the relationships between authoritarian leadership and employee performances can be both positive and negative. In particular, authoritarian leadership is positively related to performance via challenge stressors and negatively related to performance via hindrance stressors. Further, we hypothesize that the importance of performance to self-esteem Level (IPSE) of subordinates will moderate the effects of authoritarian leadership. We test this model using two studies. Results from Study 1 reveal that authoritarian leadership have contrasting effects on task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) through challenge stressors and hindrance stressors. Furthermore, in Study 2, we find that the positive relationship between authoritarian leadership and performance is stronger for subordinates low on IPSE.

The aim of the study was to better understand the health impairment process, postulated by Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model. Previous studies on the process have not clearly explained which types of job demands (challenge vs. hindrance) lead to depression and which burnout component (exhaustion or disengagement from work) mediates job demands—depression link. The direct and indirect (mediated via exhaustion and disengagement from work) effects of challenge and hindrance stressors (included 6 different demands) on depression were investigated in this 1-year cross-lagged study. Data were collected among 752 social service workers in Poland. Structural equation modeling confirmed a slightly different effects of challenge and hindrance stressors (T1) on the two components of job burnout (T2) and depression (T2). Hindrance (but not challenge) stressors were related to high depression. Hindrance stressors intensified exhaustion and disengagement from work, while challenge stressors were only associated with high exhaustion. Exhaustion (but not disengagement from work) was related to depression. These findings support the mediation function of burnout in the health impairment process but only in relation to exhaustion. They also showed that the challenge–hindrance distinction is justified also in the JD-R model. The implications for theory and research on the mental health of employees, as well as for human management practice are discussed.

The significance of occupational stressors as a risk factor in accidents has long been recognized; however, the behavioral mechanisms underlying this relationship are currently not well-understood. Meta-analysis was utilized to test the relationships between occupational stressors (challenge and hindrance), safety behaviors (compliance and participation), and safety outcomes (occupational injuries and near-misses). It was hypothesized that hindrance stressors would have negative effects on both safety compliance and safety participation, and subsequently, safety outcomes, whereas challenge stressors would have positive effects. The hypotheses relating to hindrance stressors were supported, suggesting that hindrance stressors lead to a significant reduction in both compliance with safety rules and participation in safety-related activities. Hindrance stressors were also associated with higher levels of occupational injuries and near-misses. The relationship between hindrance stressors and occupational injuries was fully mediated by safety behaviors. However, the hypotheses related to challenge stressors were not supported. Challenge stressors had a nonsignificant, near-zero association with compliance and occupational injuries, a small negative association with participation, and a small positive association with near-misses. The theoretical and practical implications of the meta-analytic findings are discussed, as well as avenues for further research.

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.

Factors influencing the thriving of emergency department nurses in China

Recent developments to the stressors literature have suggested that stressors can have both negative and positive influences. This study of 203 New Zealand government workers tested challenge (positive) and hindrance (negative) stressors as predictors of job outcomes focusing upon social exchange theory. The results found challenge stressors held positive relationships with supervisor support, perceived organizational support and employee loyalty; while, conversely, hindrance stressors were negatively related to these outcomes. Employer implications are that jobs structured to allow greater amounts of responsibility, with greater scope, are more likely to lead to positive job outcomes relating to feelings of reciprocity. Organizations that can better manage and control hindrance stressors while promoting challenge stressors will likely enjoy more loyal employees, with greater support perceptions, which might alleviate some of the tension of working into today's turbulent environments.

Abstract. This study examined daily hindrance and challenge stressors at work (rated after work) for effects on employees’ state negative affect at the beginning of the next workday. Building on the transactional stress model, the authors also examine whether general coping styles impact the relationships. Multilevel analyses show that previous-day hindrance stressors are positively related to next-day state negative affect, whereas previous-day challenge stressors are not significantly related to next-day state negative affect. The study identifies differential effects of problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping styles: High use of emotion-focused coping style increases state negative affect for both challenge and hindrance stressors; a lack of problem-focused coping style strengthens challenge stressors’ positive effect on state negative affect. The results suggest that occupational health can be promoted through specific stress management training and through workplace designs that reduce hindrance stressors.

The mediation role of work–family conflict (WFC) in job demands – job burnout link is well documented, also in group of nurses. It is still unclear, however, which job demands are particularly conducive to WFC and job burnout. Moreover the mediational effect of WFC was tested mainly in cross-sectional studies that were conducted in countries of North America and Western Europe. Drawing on the Job Demands-Resources and the Effort-Recovery models, this one-year cross-lagged study investigates the effects of five types of job demands related to challenge and hindrance stressors on job burnout (measured with exhaustion and disengagement from work) as well as the mediational role of WFC in Polish nurses. Job demands included emotional, cognitive demands, and demands for hiding emotions (as challenge stressors) as well as quantitative demands and work pace (as hindrance stressors). Data were collected among 516 nurses. Structural equation modelling (SEM) showed that hindrance stressors (T1) are predictor of higher job burnout (T2). The positive role of challenge stressors (T1) were not supported. Only emotional demands were associated with exhaustion but the direction of the relation was opposite than expected. WFC (T1) mediated the harmful effect of the two hindrance stressors and emotional demands on disengagement from work (but not on exhaustion). Cognitive demands and demands for hiding emotions were not related to negative outcomes. The obtained results shed light on the role of the challenge-hindrance stressors and WFI in development of job burnout. The implications for theory and research on the mental health of nurses are discussed.

The challenge–hindrance stress framework argues that certain job stressors have entirely detrimental effects (hindrance stress), but some may also have beneficial effects (challenge stress). Though the challenge–hindrance framework has largely been neglected in teacher stress research, we adopted it to provide a more differentiated view of the most prominent stressors in the teaching profession. We asked a sample of 528 secondary schoolteachers to report the extent to which they perceived occupation‐specific stressors as motivating (challenge stress) and burdening (hindrance stress). Most stressors (those associated with sociopolitical pressure, students’ misbehavior, and lack of resources) were seen as a hindrance rather than a challenge. Only stressors associated with expanded job scope seem to have had more challenge than hindrance potential. Teachers’ hindrance (but not challenge) stress in turn was a strong predictor of psychophysiological symptoms. Importantly, hindrance stress was highest and also the most significant predictor of psychophysiological symptoms if it arose from sociopolitical pressure. In sum, the results indicate that the challenge–hindrance framework might serve as a useful theoretical background in the field of teacher stress research and could offer another explanation for the poor health reported by this occupational group.