Here, There, and Everywhere: Applying Vignettes to Investigate Appraisals of Job Demands

Abstract

The job characteristics literature has revealed that job demands can be differentiated into hindrance and challenge demands. However, there has been little consensus on this categorization. Additionally, studies have revealed that job demands can be perceived as hindering and challenging at the same time. The present study aims to bring nuance to this topic by investigating two job demands (i.e., time pressure and emotionally demanding situations) and to what degree they are appraised as challenging and hindering for two occupational groups (i.e., nurses and real estate agents). This study also investigates the impact of emotional dispositions on demand appraisals. A convenience sample (N = 851 Norwegian students) read vignettes and reported their appraisals for six different job situations. A factor analysis revealed that our measures of demand appraisals differed from those reported in previous studies. We therefore labeled the two kinds of appraisals as hindrance-like and challenge-like since they overlap without being identical to the previously reported labels of hindrance and challenge, respectively. Furthermore, we found that job demands were appraised as hindrance-like and challenge-like at the same time but to different degrees. Job demands for core tasks were typically appraised as more challenge-like than hindrance-like. Job demands for non-core tasks were typically appraised as more hindrance-like than challenge-like. Positive trait emotions predicted challenge-like appraisals. By documenting how imagined job demands appear as hindrances and challenges, our study supports previous studies showing that challenge-like demands may play a role in the motivational process in the job demands–resources model. Limitations to vignette studies are discussed.

The occupational life cycle of real estate brokers: a cohort study

“…Regardless of the specific reason(s), turnover is usually neither initially expected nor wanted by employees or organizations. Turnover is therefore often seen as problematic and a consequence of a mismatch between (1) the anticipated skills of the employee and occupational/organizational demands (Cable and DeRue, 2002;Larsen and Coleman, 2003), and (2) the employee's needs and what the work supplies (Deci and Ryan, 1985;Ryan and Deci, 2000). It is often acknowledged that high matches indicate high person-job fit (PJF) whereas mismatches indicate low PJF (Cable and DeRue, 2002).…”

“…Employee turnover is seen as particularly problematic within professional services from an organizational perspective for several reasons (Lewin and Sager, 2008). Firstly, when a highperforming service provider leaves the organization, it usually leads to an instant decrease in sales (Larsen and Coleman, 2003;Zumpano et al, 2000). Secondly, the more specialized and customized the service is, the more dependent the organization is on the ability and personality of the individual service provider (Weitz and Bradford, 1999).…”

“…Secondly, the more specialized and customized the service is, the more dependent the organization is on the ability and personality of the individual service provider (Weitz and Bradford, 1999). This means that replacing the service provider is both time-consuming and expensive (Holtom et al, 2008;Larsen and Coleman, 2003). Thirdly, previous studies indicate that loyalty between the customers and the service providers might be stronger than the customers' loyalty to the organization (Palmatier et al, 2007).…”

“…Brokers could undoubtedly be described as professional service providers who need to be self-propelled and competitive (Ahlenius et al, 2021;Arndt et al, 2017;Benites-Gambirazio, 2020). Within the industry, employee turnover is argued to cause significant problems and costs and has therefore been studied and evaluated from an organizational perspective (Larsen and Coleman, 2003;Rosenberg et al, 1981). Most previous studies relating to turnover within brokerage have explored the effects of motivation (Mosquera et al, 2020), income (Larsen and Coleman, 2003), personality (Crant, 1995), burnout/ demanding customers (Love et al, 2011;Snyder et al, 2011) and job satisfaction, besides work-family conflicts (Lee et al, 2014).…”

“…Within the industry, employee turnover is argued to cause significant problems and costs and has therefore been studied and evaluated from an organizational perspective (Larsen and Coleman, 2003;Rosenberg et al, 1981). Most previous studies relating to turnover within brokerage have explored the effects of motivation (Mosquera et al, 2020), income (Larsen and Coleman, 2003), personality (Crant, 1995), burnout/ demanding customers (Love et al, 2011;Snyder et al, 2011) and job satisfaction, besides work-family conflicts (Lee et al, 2014). The income levels are described as problematic both in terms of level and being volatile.…”