Hindrances are not threats: Advancing the multidimensionality of work stress.

Tuckey, Michelle R.; Searle, Ben; Boyd, Carolyn M.; Winefield, Anthony H.; Winefield, Helen R.

doi:10.1037/a0038280

Cited by 132 publications

(233 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

212

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be explained by research into hindrance and challenge demands that has suggested appraisal of a stressor changes its impact. Challenge demands are those that help a person towards a goal and are associated with improved work engagement, whereas hindrance demands are those that block a person from attaining a goal and are associated with decreased engagement and potentially increased stress (Tuckey, Searle, Boyd, Winefeld, & Winefeld, ). Interactions with clients and dealing with their hostile or apathetic behaviour and attitudes may have been perceived as a challenge demand, with employees anticipating this as a challenging part of their job.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Investigating the JD-R occupational stress model with Australian direct-care workers: A focus group approach

Heckenberg

Kent

Wright

2018

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to explore the use of a contemporary workplace stress model, the Job Demands-Resources model, with direct-care workers using a qualitative approach. The JD-R model has successfully been used to predict health outcomes across different occupations using quantitative methods. However, the use of the generic questionnaire developed for this model may not always be appropriate. Direct-care workers (n = 19) attended two focus groups and reported on their job demands, job resources and personal resources. Six themes relating to demands across the two groups: funding insecurity, time pressure, hindrance demands, poor systems, emotional engagement and dealing with client crises were identified. Participants identified clinical supervision, social support and progressive workplace resources as job resources. Finally, the personal resources identified by participants were professional behaviours, disposition and self-care. The JD-R model and its standard questionnaire captures some of these aspects of direct-care work, but many were not assessed. As such, future investigations with direct-care workers should ensure items related to poor systems, progressive workplace resources, disposition and professional behaviours are included. Alternatively, a qualitative approach should be used as a first step in the development of valid questionnaires when investigating workplace stress with this group to ensure their experience is accurately quantified.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Challenge demands are those that help a person towards a goal and are associated with improved work engagement, whereas hindrance demands are those that block a person from attaining a goal and are associated with decreased engagement and potentially increased stress (Tuckey, Searle, Boyd, Winefeld, & Winefeld, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the JD-R occupational stress model with Australian direct-care workers: A focus group approach

Heckenberg

Kent

Wright

2018

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Measures for this construct often include role conflict, role ambiguity, conflict at work, and overload. 1 Issues such as conflict at work can create negative emotional responses in the form of anxiety and anger (Tuckey, Searle, Boyd, Winefield, & Winefield, 2015). In addition, anxiety at the end of the work day is linked to lower detachment at home (Van Hooff, 2015).…”

Section: Work-related Antecedents Of Recovery Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Human energy fits best in two dimensions: pleasant activation (e.g., vigor, vitality, energetic, and excited) and unpleasant deactivation (e.g., fatigued, exhausted, sluggish, and tired). For 1 Although there is some discrepancy in categorizing workload (e.g., Tuckey et al, 2015), we categorize time pressure and high workload as a challenge demand, but overload as a hindrance demand because having an unmanageable workload (e.g., White, 2010) prevents work goals (Tuckey et al, 2015) and provides no growth potential (Tadić et al, 2015). consistency with most of the recovery literature, we use the term vigor rather than pleasant activation and fatigue rather than unpleasant deactivation.…”

Section: Outcomes Of Recovery Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery from work‐related effort: A meta‐analysis

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary This meta‐analytic study examines the antecedents and outcomes of four recovery experiences: psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery, and control. Using 299 effect sizes from 54 independent samples (N = 26,592), we extend theory by integrating recovery experiences into the challenge–hindrance framework, creating a more comprehensive understanding of how both after‐work recovery and work characteristics collectively relate to well‐being. The results of meta‐analytic path estimates indicate that challenge demands have stronger negative relationships with psychological detachment, relaxation, and control recovery experiences than hindrance demands, and job resources have positive relationships with relaxation, mastery, and control recovery experiences. Psychological detachment after work has a stronger negative relationship with fatigue than relaxation or control experiences, whereas control experiences after work have a stronger positive relationship with vigor than detachment or relaxation experiences. Additionally, a temporally driven model with recovery experiences as a partial mediator explains up to 62% more variance in outcomes (ΔR2 = .12) beyond work characteristics models, implying that both work characteristics and after‐work recovery play an important role in determining employee well‐being.

show abstract

“…To this end, we will evaluate how well the evidence fits the proposed model through three methods: (a) critical evaluation of the CHM “meta‐analyses” previously conducted using samples of studies which included stressors typically categorized as CS or HS but which were not empirically testing the CHM at the time originally collected, (b) a meta‐analysis conducted for this review using those empirical studies designed to evaluate the CHM, and (c) an explanation of the pattern of results from all of the studies that have directly and empirically tested the CHM. Although previous researchers have noted potential issues with the CHM (e.g., Edwards et al, ; Tuckey, Searle, Boyd, Winefield, & Winefield, ; Webster et al, ), we believe this paper is the first to thoroughly compare the entirety of the CHM research side‐by‐side in a manner allowing for a better understanding of the model's overall functionality, including a quantitative combination of those findings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should we be “challenging” employees?: A critical review and meta‐analysis of the challenge‐hindrance model of stress

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The challenge‐hindrance model of stress proposes that stressors can be divided into two distinct groups: those that challenge employees and those that hinder employees. This critical review seeks to explain the history of the model and its basic tenets, while succinctly summarizing the findings of existing studies based on the model. A thorough search of the stress literature uncovered 32 studies that specifically examined the relationship between challenge and hindrance stressors and important personal/organizational variables. Results were reviewed and analyzed, specifically by describing past meta‐analyses on the model, looking at the overall pattern of results from primary studies, and meta‐analyzing the relationships presented in those papers. This synthesis suggests that although there are some differential relationships of challenge and hindrance stressors with organizational variables (e.g., performance and engagement), the relationships to other key variables, such as counterproductive work behaviors, psychological strains, and physical health, are consistently negative for both challenge and hindrance stressors. Thus, we propose that stress research move away from the current challenge‐hindrance model in favor of other established models and/or a more appraisal‐based approach.

show abstract

Hindrances are not threats: Advancing the multidimensionality of work stress.

Cited by 132 publications

References 72 publications

Investigating the JD-R occupational stress model with Australian direct-care workers: A focus group approach

Investigating the JD-R occupational stress model with Australian direct-care workers: A focus group approach

Recovery from work‐related effort: A meta‐analysis

Should we be “challenging” employees?: A critical review and meta‐analysis of the challenge‐hindrance model of stress

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About