Since its introduction approximately 20 years ago, the Challenge-Hindrance Stress Model (CHM) has been widely accepted both among academic and practitioner audiences. The model posits that workplace stressors can be grouped into two categories. Hindrance stressors will interfere with performance or goals, while challenge stressors contribute to performance opportunities. These two categories of stressors are theorized to exhibit differential relationships with strain, with hindrance stressors being more consistently linked to psychological, physical, or behavioral strain compared to challenge stressors. Despite the popularity of this model, recent evidence suggests that the proposed differential relationship hypothesis has not consistently held true for all types of strain. Thus, a reexamination or modification of this paradigm is clearly warranted. In the present review, we describe existing evidence surrounding the CHM and describe the rationale for a shifting paradigm. We outline recent advances in research using the CHM, such as novel moderators and mediators, the need to explicitly measure challenge and hindrance appraisal and differentiate between hindrance and threat appraisal, the dynamic nature of these appraisals over time, and the recognition that a single stressor could be appraised simultaneously as both a challenge and a hindrance. Finally, we provide recommendations and future research directions for scholars examining stress and stress management through a CHM lens, including recommendations related to study design, the measurement of stressors, the integration of CHM with other models of stress, and interventions for stress management.

Helping behaviors are considered critical for business and societal recovery in light of economic crises and natural disasters, including the COVID-19 pandemic that has both economic and health disaster elements. However, because the current COVID-19 pandemic has both of these elements, it is unclear how helping may be impacted. Economic crisis research suggests that such events are associated with less helping, whereas disaster research suggests that such events are associated with greater helping. We pair the event system theory (Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. (2015). Event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 515-537) with these two logics (economic downturn and disaster) to suggest that health and economic threats within the COVID-19 pandemic operate with potentially opposing forces on helping-related outcomes. To test these ideas at a macro-level, we examined internet search volume for recession, COVID-19, and interest in helping. At a micro-level, we examined the relationships between work- hour insecurity and perceived job-related COVID-19 risk—two salient COVID-19-related economic and health threats—and helping customers and coworkers. Consistent with economic crisis logic, macro-level concern about recession was negatively associated with interest in helping. Moreover, at the individual level, work-hour insecurity negatively predicted helping coworkers. Consistent with disaster logic, at the individual level, perceived job-related COVID-19 threat was positively associated with helping coworkers and negatively associated with helping customers. These findings suggest that the specific feature of the COVID-19 event system (economic versus health) and the target (organizational insiders versus outsiders) matter for shaping helping behavior. These findings have implications for helping during crises that involve economic and/or disaster elements.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract