“增益”还是“损耗”?挑战性工作要求对工作-家庭增益的“双刃剑”影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01234

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于资源保存理论和不确定管理理论, 采用日记研究法收集81个样本10个工作日的数据, 从静态和动态两个视角, 通过明晰挑战性工作要求的不同属性(每日水平、平均水平、日间变动、波动变化), 全面检验了挑战性工作要求对工作-家庭增益的影响。研究结果表明：(1)在静态模型中, 挑战性工作要求通过工作专注度(增益路径)和放松(损耗路径)作用于工作-家庭增益, 且在个体间的平均水平模型中, 放松的中介作用更为显著; (2)在动态模型中, 挑战性工作要求的日间变动和波动变化, 均通过减少员工工作专注度和放松, 进而降低工作-家庭增益。最后, 本研究讨论了管理者应重视挑战性工作要求的双刃剑作用等实践启示。

关键词: 挑战性工作要求, 工作-家庭增益, 日间变动方向性, 波动变化, 日记研究法

Abstract:

The balance of work and family has received widespread attention from managers and researchers in recent years. Previous research claims that job demand, as a kind of pressure felt by employees, reduces employees’ work motivation, increases employee fatigue and anxiety, and hinders work-family enrichment. However, different job demands (e.g., challenge demand and hindrance demand) have different effects on employees. Challenge demand, which gives individuals the opportunity to acquire new knowledge and promote personal growth, influences work-family enrichment in a complex way. However, few researches pay sufficient attention to the mechanism of the double-edged effect in the relationship between challenge demand and work-family enrichment. In addition, although scholarly research on job demand and work-family enrichment has increasingly focused on within-person fluctuations in recent years, how to examine the “dynamic” effects of challenge demand on work-family enrichment has received little attention. Therefore, based on conservation of resource theory and uncertainty management theory and from static and dynamic perspectives, we comprehensively examined the effects of challenge demand on work-family enrichment by clarifying the different attributes of challenge demand (daily level model, average level model, daily shift model, and variability model).

We tested our hypothesis by conducting a diary study of 105 participations over 10 working days. Data were collected via a job demand scale, work absorption scale, relaxation scale, and work-family enrichment scale. First, we recorded control variables (gender, marital status, and spouse’s work status) during the weekends. Second, researchers collected daily data (challenge demand, hindrance demand, work absorption, relaxation, and work-family enrichment) from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. each workday. Ultimately, 645 valid data points at the within-person level were available for 81 participants. Using SPSS 24.0, Mplus 7.0, and R software, we conducted a multilevel path analysis to examine the theoretical model.

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the validity of the key variables (challenge demand, work absorption, relaxation, and work-family enrichment), and the results confirmed that the present study had good discriminant validity. The results of multilevel path analysis showed that the following. (1) In the static model, challenge demand had double-edged sword effects on work-family enrichment at the within-person level (daily level model); in the average level model (between-person level), the average level of challenge demand positively predicted chronic work absorption and negatively predicted chronic relaxation, and the mediating effect of chronic relaxation was stronger than that of chronic work absorption. (2) In the dynamic model, directionality of daily shifts in challenge demand negatively affected daily work absorption and daily relaxation in the daily shift model (within-person level). Only the mediating role of daily relaxation was significant; in the variability model (between-person level), the variability level of challenge demand had a negative impact on chronic work absorption and chronic relaxation, and only the mediating role of chronic relaxation was significant.

The study makes critical contributions both theoretically and practically. (1) The static model indicated that, through the gained and deleted paths, the double-edged sword effect of the relationship between daily challenge demand, average level of change demand, and work-family enrichment was significant. (2) Through the dynamic model, this study explored the negative effect of challenge demand fluctuations on work-family enrichment in two forms, namely, daily shift directionality and the variability of challenge demand. Practically, this study suggests that managers should fully recognize the double-edged sword effect of challenge demand.

Key words: challenge demand, work-family enrichment, daily shift directionality, variability, diary study

中图分类号:

B849: C93

徐姗, 张昱城, 张冰然, 施俊琦, 袁梦莎, 任迎伟. (2022). “增益”还是“损耗”?挑战性工作要求对工作-家庭增益的“双刃剑”影响. 心理学报, 54(10), 1234-1247.

XU Shan, ZHANG Yucheng, ZHANG Bingran, SHI Junqi, YUAN Mengsha, REN Yingwei. (2022). Gain or Loss? Examining the double-edged sword effect of challenge demand on work-family enrichment. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(10), 1234-1247.

图/表 11

参考文献 48

[1]	Airila, A., Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., Luukkonen, R., Punakallio, A., & Lusa, S. (2014). Are job and personal resources associated with work ability 10 years later? The mediating role of work engagement. Work & Stress, 28(1), 87-105. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2013.872208 URL
[2]	Bakker, A. B. (2009). Building engagement in the workplace. In C. L. Cooper & R. J. Burke (Eds.), The peak performing organization. London: Routledge.
[3]	Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 157-167. doi: 10.1002/job.2053 URL
[4]	Bennett, A. A., Bakker, A. B., & Field, J. G. (2018). Recovery from work-related effort: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 262-275. doi: 10.1002/job.2217 URL
[5]	Bennett, A. A., Gabriel, A. S., Calderwood, C., Dahling, J. J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2016). Better together? Examining profiles of employee recovery experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1635-1654. pmid: 27618407
[6]	Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 507-532. doi: 10.1023/B:JOBU.0000028449.99127.f7 URL
[7]	Butler, A. B., Grzywacz, J. G., Bass, B. L., & Linney, K. D. (2005). Extending the demands-control model: A daily diary study of job characteristics, work-family conflict and work-family facilitation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(2), 155-169. doi: 10.1348/096317905X40097 URL
[8]	Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self- reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65-74. pmid: 10740957
[9]	Culbertson, S. S., Huffman, A. H., & Alden-Anderson, R. (2009). Leader-member exchange and work-family interactions: The mediating role of self-reported challenge-and hindrance- related stress. The Journal of Psychology, 144(1), 15-36. doi: 10.1080/00223980903356040 URL
[10]	Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The job demands- resources model: Challenges for future research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 974-983.
[11]	Foo, M.-D., Uy, M. A., & Baron, R. A. (2009). How do feelings influence effort? An empirical study of entrepreneurs’ affect and venture effort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 1086-1094. doi: 10.1037/a0015599 URL
[12]	Gardner, H. K. (2012). Performance pressure as a double- edged sword: Enhancing team motivation but undermining the use of team knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(1), 1-46. doi: 10.1177/0001839212446454 URL
[13]	Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72-92. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.19379625 URL
[14]	Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527130 URL
[15]	Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2015). To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of Management, 41(6), 1628-1650. doi: 10.1177/0149206312455246 URL
[16]	Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513 pmid: 2648906
[17]	Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 116-122. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02016.x URL
[18]	Kang, Y. J., & Peng, J. (2019). Benefits and costs of servant leadership behavior: A work-home resource model perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(2), 227-237. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00227 URL
	[康勇军, 彭坚. (2019). 累并快乐着: 服务型领导的收益与代价——基于工作-家庭资源模型视角. 心理学报, 51(2), 227-237.]
[19]	Kühnel, J., Sonnentag, S., & Bledow, R. (2012). Resources and time pressure as day-level antecedents of work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 181-198. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02022.x URL
[20]	Lapierre, L. M., Li, Y., Kwan, H. K., Greenhaus, J. H., DiRenzo, M. S., & Shao, P. (2018). A meta-analysis of the antecedents of work-family enrichment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 385-401. doi: 10.1002/job.2234 URL
[21]	LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883-891. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883 pmid: 15506867
[22]	LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. (2005). A meta- analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764-775. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.18803921 URL
[23]	Li, A. M., Wang, X. T., Xiong, G. X., Li, B., & Ling, W. Q. (2015). A dual-pathway model of work influencing on happiness: A perspective of job demands-resources. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(5), 624-636. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00624 URL
	[李爱梅, 王笑天, 熊冠星, 李斌, 凌文辁. (2015). 工作影响员工幸福体验的“双路径模型”探讨——基于工作要求-资源模型的视角. 心理学报, 47(5), 624-636.]
[24]	Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Koopman, J., & Passantino, L. G. (2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 743-770. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0455 URL
[25]	O'Brien, K. E.,& Beehr, T. A. (2019). So far, so good: Up to now, the challenge-hindrance framework describes a practical and accurate distinction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(8), 962-972. doi: 10.1002/job.2405 URL
[26]	Perrewé, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of attributions and emotions in the transactional approach to the organizational stress process. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(5), 739-752. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199909)20:5<739::AID-JOB1949>3.0.CO;2-C URL
[27]	Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. -Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 pmid: 14516251
[28]	Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209-233. doi: 10.1037/a0020141 pmid: 20822249
[29]	Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubicek, B., & Korunka, C. (2017). Thriving on challenge stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(1), 108-123. doi: 10.1002/job.2115 pmid: 28133415
[30]	Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1438-1451. doi: 10.1037/a0016752 URL
[31]	Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 655-684. doi: 10.2307/3094827 URL
[32]	Selig, J. P., Preacher, K. J., & Little, T. D. (2012). Modeling time-dependent association in longitudinal data: A lag as moderator approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 697-716. pmid: 24771950
[33]	Shipp, A. J., & Cole, M. S. (2015). Time in individual-level organizational studies: What is it, how is it used, and why isn’t it exploited more often? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology & Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 237-260.
[34]	Song, Z., Foo, M.-D., Uy, M. A., & Sun, S. (2011). Unraveling the daily stress crossover between unemployed individuals and their employed spouses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 151-168. doi: 10.1037/a0021035 pmid: 20919793
[35]	Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204-221. pmid: 17638488
[36]	Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Reciprocal relations between recovery and work engagement: The moderating role of job stressors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 842-853. doi: 10.1037/a0028292 pmid: 22545619
[37]	Sun, J., Wayne, S. J., & Liu, Y. (2021). The roller coaster of leader affect: An investigation of observed leader affect variability and engagement. Journal of Management, 48(5), 1188-1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211008974 doi: 10.1177/01492063211008974 URL
[38]	Sun, J. M., Chen, L. N., & Yin, K. (2018). When challenge stressors increase employee innovative behaviors? The role of leader member exchange and abusive supervision. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 50(4), 436-449. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00436 URL
	[孙健敏, 陈乐妮, 尹奎. (2018). 挑战性压力源与员工创新行为: 领导-成员交换与辱虐管理的作用. 心理学报, 50(4), 436-449.]
[39]	Tadić, M., Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. M. (2015). Challenge versus hindrance job demands and well-being: A diary study on the moderating role of job resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(4), 702-725. doi: 10.1111/joop.12094 URL
[40]	Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy-performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 29(5), 490-507.
[41]	van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 931-941. pmid: 11414375
[42]	van den Broeck, A., de Cuyper, N., de Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 735-759. doi: 10.1080/13594320903223839 URL
[43]	Wang, M., Liu, S., Liao, H., Gong, Y., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Shi, J. (2013). Can’t get it out of my mind: Employee rumination after customer mistreatment and negative mood in the next morning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 989-1004. doi: 10.1037/a0033656 pmid: 23895040
[44]	Wang, Y.-R., Ford, M. T., Wang, Y., & Jin, J. (2019). Shifts and variability in daily interpersonal justice are associated with psychological detachment and affect at home. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 103-117.
[45]	Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work-family facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 63-76. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.01.002 URL
[46]	Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: Relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 108-130. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00035-6 URL
[47]	Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2010). Toward a better understanding of the effects of hindrance and challenge stressors on work behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(1), 68-77. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.012 URL
[48]	Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183-200. doi: 10.1348/096317908X285633 URL

模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	Δχ²	Δdf	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
四因子模型：挑战性要求、工作专注度、放松、工作-家庭增益	285.23	96	2.97	-	-	0.94	0.93	0.05	0.06
三因子模型：挑战性要求、工作专注度+ 放松、工作-家庭增益	801.87	101	7.94	516.64	5	0.79	0.75	0.09	0.12
二因子模型：挑战性要求+工作专注度+ 放松、工作-家庭增益	1963.89	103	19.07	1162.02	2	0.43	0.34	0.15	0.19
单因子模型：挑战性要求+工作专注度+ 放松+工作-家庭增益	3673.04	104	35.32	1709.15	1	0.00	-0.26	0.21	0.23

模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	Δχ²	Δdf	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
四因子模型：挑战性要求、工作专注度、放松、工作-家庭增益	285.23	96	2.97	-	-	0.94	0.93	0.05	0.06
三因子模型：挑战性要求、工作专注度+ 放松、工作-家庭增益	801.87	101	7.94	516.64	5	0.79	0.75	0.09	0.12
二因子模型：挑战性要求+工作专注度+ 放松、工作-家庭增益	1963.89	103	19.07	1162.02	2	0.43	0.34	0.15	0.19
单因子模型：挑战性要求+工作专注度+ 放松+工作-家庭增益	3673.04	104	35.32	1709.15	1	0.00	-0.26	0.21	0.23

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. 每日挑战性要求	3.26	0.81	1
2. 每日阻碍性要求	2.73	0.73	0.46^**	1
3. 挑战性要求日间变动	0.23	0.53	0.62^**	0.20^**	1
4. 阻碍性要求日间变动	-0.11	0.52	0.15^**	0.58^**	0.16^**	1
5. 每日工作专注度	3.09	0.68	0.32^**	0.19^**	0.07	-0.02	1
6. 每日放松	3.50	0.76	-0.24^**	-0.24^**	-0.22^**	-0.23^**	-0.06	1
7. 每日工作-家庭增益	3.35	0.81	0.08^*	-0.19^**	-0.12^**	-0.15^**	0.10^**	0.37^**	1

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. 每日挑战性要求	3.26	0.81	1
2. 每日阻碍性要求	2.73	0.73	0.46^**	1
3. 挑战性要求日间变动	0.23	0.53	0.62^**	0.20^**	1
4. 阻碍性要求日间变动	-0.11	0.52	0.15^**	0.58^**	0.16^**	1
5. 每日工作专注度	3.09	0.68	0.32^**	0.19^**	0.07	-0.02	1
6. 每日放松	3.50	0.76	-0.24^**	-0.24^**	-0.22^**	-0.23^**	-0.06	1
7. 每日工作-家庭增益	3.35	0.81	0.08^*	-0.19^**	-0.12^**	-0.15^**	0.10^**	0.37^**	1

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. 性别	-	-	1
2. 婚姻状况	1.79	0.46	0.07	1
3. 配偶工作情况	1.94	0.67	-0.07	0.43^**	1
4. 挑战性要求平均水平	3.28	0.58	-0.07	-0.24^**	-0.05	1
5. 阻碍性要求平均水平	2.73	0.52	0.05	-0.27^**	-0.11^**	0.52^**	1
6. 挑战性要求波动水平	0.53	0.24	-0.02	-0.07	-0.08*	-0.27^**	-0.17^**	1
7. 阻碍性要求波动水平	0.49	0.23	0.02	-0.13^**	-0.25^**	0.04	0.12^**	0.56^**	1
8. 长期工作专注度	3.10	0.41	-0.07	-0.16^**	0.08^*	0.41^**	0.29^**	-0.29^**	-0.11^**	1
9. 长期放松	3.49	0.51	-0.19^**	-0.00	0.04	-0.12^**	-0.15^**	-0.20^**	-0.15^**	0.02	1
10. 长期工作-家庭增益	3.35	0.61	-0.09^*	0.11^**	0.25^**	0.18^**	-0.19^**	-0.37^**	-0.22^**	0.16^**	0.49^**	1