Social Job Stressors can Foster Employee Well-Being: Introducing the Concept of Social Challenge Stressors

Abstract

Existing social stressor concepts disregard the variety of task-related situations at work that require skillful social behavior to maintain good social relationships while achieving certain task goals. In this article, we challenge the view that social stressors at work are solely dysfunctional aspects evoking employee ill health. Drawing from the challenge-hindrance stressor framework, we introduce the concept of social challenge stressors as a job characteristic and examine their relationships with individual well-and ill-being. In study 1, we developed a new scale for the measurement of social challenge stressors and tested the validity of the scale. Results from two independent samples indicated support for a single-factor structure and showed that social challenge stressors are distinct from related stressor concepts. Using two samples, one of which was already used to test the factor structure, we analyzed the unique contribution of social challenge stressors in predicting employee well- and ill-being. As expected, social challenge stressors were simultaneously related to psychological strain and well-being. Using time-lagged data, study 2 investigated mechanisms that may explain how social challenge stressors are linked to well-being and strain. In line with the stress-as-offense-to-self approach, we expected indirect relationships via self-esteem. Additionally, social support was expected to moderate the relationships between social stressors and self-esteem. Whereas the indirect relationships were mostly confirmed, we found no support for the buffering role of social support in the social hindrance stressors-self-esteem link. Although we found a moderation effect for social challenge stressors, results indicated a compensation model that conflicted with expectations.

Emotion work as a source of employee well- and ill-being: the moderating role of service interaction type

“…This is consistent with recent work that identified aspects like the specific nature and quality of the stressor (Chong et al, 2011), stressor exposure time (Baethge et al, 2018), or illegitimate tasks (Schmitt et al, 2015) as moderators. Our findings underpin the view that stressors can be functional for attaining goals and promote well-being if they meet the challenge stressor definition (Kern et al, 2020;Van den Broeck et al, 2010).…”

“…In addition to their positive effects on strain, however, challenge stressors such as time pressure or job responsibility have been found to be positively linked to work engagement (Crawford et al, 2010), job satisfaction (Podsakoff et al, 2007) and personal accomplishment . According to recent literature, stressors are labelled challenge stressors, if they a) relate to one's core work tasks and foster the attainment of meaningful personal and/or work goals (Van den Broeck et al, 2010), b) are appraised as a legitimate and central aspect of the job (Schmitt et al, 2015;Semmer et al, 2019), c) lead to valued outcomes and offer opportunities for mastery, learning, and personal growth (e.g., Kern et al, 2020;Ohly & Fritz, 2010), and d) have a fair chance to be overcome successfully (Wallace et al, 2009). Hindrance stressors are seen as obstacles or roadblocks that keep employees away from goal attainment and threaten personal growth and learning, thus eliciting negative emotions (Rodell & Judge, 2009).…”

“…To fill this gap, we propose to apply the concept of challenge and hindrance stressors (Cavanaugh et al, 2000;LePine et al, 2005) to emotion work variables because it provides a well-supported theoretical explanation why some stressors are positively associated with employee well-being beyond their positive link to strain. Building on studies that have defined the characteristics of challenge stressors (e.g., Kern et al, 2020;Van den Broeck et al, 2010), we examine which emotion work variable may be labelled a challenge or a hindrance stressor and which boundary conditions may affect a classification. We posit that the motivational potential attributed to challenge stressors (LePine et al, 2004) may help to better understand when and why employees enjoy to perform emotion work.…”

Disruptions and General Distress for Essential and Nonessential Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Similarly, Prem et al (2017) demonstrated that challenge stressors were related to thriving at work, i.e., learning, not vitality, which could improve employees' health (Porath et al, 2012). Hence, in line with Kern et al (2020)-who suggested that challenge stressors can increase performance, engagement and well-being-we suggest that challenge stressors may reduce distress because they are related to the attainment of personal work goals (van den Broeck et al, 2010), have a fair chance of being managed successfully (Pearsall et al, 2009), offer opportunities for personal gains and growth (Crane & Searle, 2016;Prem et al, 2017), and can be viewed as a legitimate aspect of the job that is either inherent to the work tasks or difficult to avoid under the circumstances of the job (Kern et al, 2020). Conversely, hindrance stressors typically do not offer any potential gains, can be viewed as unnecessary or unreasonable, and lead more univocally to psychological strain (Kern et al, 2020), while challenge stressors could have positive implications on well-being.…”

Short-term effects of social stressors at work on rumination and physical symptoms in social workers

“…For example, the European working conditions survey 6 ) reported that within one month prior to the survey 12% of employees experienced verbal abuse, 6% humilation behaviour and 4% threats. In certain instances, socially tense situations can have enhancing effects (e.g., opportunity to show competence) 7 ) . However, the majority of empirical evidence suggests that social stressors are mainly linked to strainful consequences 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 ) .…”