Two sides of the same coin: motivating and demotivating mediation paths of time pressure and their relationship with strain.

BACKGROUND: Time pressure, commonly categorized a challenge stressor, consistently and positively relates to employees' experience of strain. However, regarding its relationship with motivational outcomes such as work engagement researchers have reported positive as well as negative effects. OBJECTIVES: Drawing on the challenge-hindrance framework, we introduce two explanatory mechanisms (i.e., a loss of time control and an increase of meaning in work) which may explain both, the consistent findings related to strain (here operationalized as irritation) as well as the diverse findings related to work engagement. METHODS: We conducted a two-wave survey with a two-week time-lag. The final sample consisted of 232 participants. To test our hypotheses, we used structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Time pressure negatively and positively related to work engagement through loss of time control and meaning in work. Further, only loss of time control mediated the time pressure-irritation relationship. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate that time pressure likely acts motivating and demotivating at the same time, only through different paths. Hence, our study provides an explanation for the heterogeneous findings regarding the relationship between time pressure and work engagement.

Hindrance demands as a boundary condition to the appraisal of challenge demands.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies show that prototypical challenge demands can be appraised as challenging, hindering and threatening. Yet, to date there exists no clear reasoning as to why these different appraisals occur. Drawing on transactional stress theory, we propose that co-occurring hindrance demands likely affect the day-specific appraisal of challenge demands (i.e., time pressure and complexity). DESIGN AND METHOD: To test this proposition we conducted a daily diary study with 432 employees. We tested our hypotheses using multi-level latent interaction analyses at the within-person level. RESULTS: Results revealed that on days when individuals experienced more hindrance demands, they were less likely to appraise time pressure and complexity as challenging and more likely to appraise them as hindering or threatening. CONCLUSION: The results outline the need to consider co-occurring hindrance demands when assessing appraisal patterns associated with challenge demands.

Do challenge and hindrance job demands prepare employees to demonstrate resilience?

Job demands may affect employee resilience in future stress events. However, not all job demands are equal. Drawing on the challenge-hindrance framework, we argue that challenge and hindrance demands differentially relate to psychological and physiological resilience. Further, based on the concept of habituation, we propose that it is essential to factor in temporal issues, that is job demands' variance. By including job demands' type, level, and variance we add to a more holistic understanding of the job demands-resilience relationship. To test our assumptions, we combined field and experimental data. Specifically, over the course of 1 month 63 employees repeatedly provided information on their experience of job challenge and hindrance demands. Following, using the paradigm of the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) we exposed participants to an acute stress situation within a laboratory setting. Piecewise growth curve modeling revealed that moderate levels of challenge demands may enhance employees' ability to demonstrate psychological resilience. Further, moderate levels of challenge demands related to a stronger cortisol reactivity and marginally enhanced cortisol recovery. Hindrance demands as well as demands' variance did not affect employee resilience. Overall, our results suggest that moderate levels of challenge demands may train employees' resilience, particularly psychological resilience, in future stress events. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).