Proactive coping as a personal resource in the expanded job demands–resources model.

Abstract

Personal resources are commonly examined as part o f the job demandsresources (JD-R) model, but unlike work resources, personal resources are rarely found to moderate the impact o f demands on well-being. The present study conceptualizes proactive coping (efforts directed toward the manage ment o f future stressors) as a personal resource within an expanded version o f the JD-R model that differentiates demands into 2 stressor categories: challenges and hindrances. We investigated the role o f proactive coping as a moderator o f the effects o f these 2 forms o f work demand on burnout and engagement. A measure o f proactive coping was developed from existing scales o f proactive work behavior. Results o f a cross-sectional survey o f 147 Australian employees showed that proactive coping moderated relations between challenge stressors and engagement, as well as relations between challenge stressors and burnout. No moderation effects were observed fo r hindrance stressors. The study highlights the value o f the expanded JD-R model, the merits o f proactive coping, and some o f the potential benefits o f developing employee proactivity.Proactive behavior involves anticipating future opportunities or prob lems, setting goals and planning how to achieve them, and implementing future-oriented plans in the face of obstacles

So far, so good: Up to now, the challenge–hindrance framework describes a practical and accurate distinction

“…Finally regarding an example of employee actions rather that traits or states as moderators, proactive coping moderated the relationships of challenge stressors with both employee engagement and burnout, but proactive coping did not moderate the relationships of hindrance stressors with burnout (Searle & Lee, ). Proactive coping may be exactly what is needed when encountering challenges, if proactive coping resembles working to overcome challenges.…”

“…If workplace stressors affect other outcome variables besides health, that may be important, but rather than inherent in the meaning of stress, they are “collateral damage” (or benefits) rather than part of the essence of or definition of occupational stress. Thus, for example, we sometimes examine employees' work engagement (e.g., Kim & Beehr, ; Searle & Lee, ), work attitudes like job satisfaction (e.g., Laurence, Fried, & Raub, ; Paškvan, Kubicek, Prem, & Korunka, ), types of work performance (e.g., Abbas & Raja, ; Lin et al, ), or types of withdrawal from the workplace (e.g., Abbas & Raja, ) as potential outcomes and we are investigating effects of work stressors on strains (on health and well‐being). It is an untenable stretch of the meaning of strain as health to consider these variables to be direct measures of health.…”

“…Thus, for example, we sometimes examine employees' work engagement (e.g., Kim & Beehr, 2018;Searle & Lee, 2015), work attitudes like job satisfaction (e.g., Laurence, Fried, & Raub, 2016;Paškvan, Kubicek, Prem, & Korunka, 2016), types of work performance (e.g., Abbas & Raja, 2018;Lin et al, 2015), or types of withdrawal from the workplace (e.g., Abbas & Raja, 2018) as potential outcomes and we are investigating effects of work stressors on strains (on health and wellbeing). It is an untenable stretch of the meaning of strain as health to consider these variables to be direct measures of health.…”

Time pressure and proactive work behaviour: A week‐level study on intraindividual fluctuations and reciprocal relationships

“…Proactive work behaviours (PWBs), that is, employees’ self‐started behaviours that go beyond their work role and aim at bringing about change in organizations (e.g., Bindl & Parker, ; Fay & Frese, ), have been found to positively relate to several desirable outcomes, such as individuals’ job satisfaction, commitment, and performance (e.g., Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, ). One perspective on how PWB can make individuals more successful in their jobs is that PWBs such as taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, ) or personal initiative (Frese & Fay, ) can be a way of coping with work stressors, such as time pressure or situational constraints (e.g., Fay & Sonnentag, ; Fritz & Sonnentag, ; Ohly & Fritz, ; Searle & Lee, ).…”

“…That way, PWBs significantly contribute to individuals’ job performance (see meta‐analyses, e.g., Thomas et al ., ; Tornau & Frese, , ). Reasons for this may be that through PWBs individuals find more efficient ways to deal with obstacles (e.g., Frese & Fay, ) or to cope with high work demands (Fay & Sonnentag, ; Searle & Lee, ). Thus, in terms of conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, , ), PWBs have been described as a means to protect individuals’ resources when they are facing stressors, and as a way to accumulate resources for the future (Ng & Feldman, ).…”