Literature Summary Well-Being at Work
LITERATURE SUMMARY
WELL-BEING AT WORK (PSB3E-IO12)
2022-2023
TABLE OF CONTENT
Week 1 .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
De Jonge & Dormann (2017) ............................................................................................................................... 2
Lysova, Allan, Dik, Duffy & Steger (2019) ............................................................................................................ 9
Week 2 .................................................................................................................................................................. 16
Delanoeije & Verbruggen (2020) ...................................................................................................................... 16
Selenko, Makikangas & Stride (2017) ............................................................................................................... 20
Wang et al. (2013) ............................................................................................................................................. 25
Week 3 .................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Le Blanc, Demerouti & Bakker (2017) ............................................................................................................... 30
Zhang, Zhang, Ng & Lam (2019) ........................................................................................................................ 35
Week 4 .................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Beus & Taylor (2018) ......................................................................................................................................... 39
Salas, Bisbey, Taylor & Rosen (2020) ................................................................................................................ 48
Week 5 .................................................................................................................................................................. 57
LePine, Yiwen, Crawford & Rich (2016) ............................................................................................................. 57
Kelloway & Barling (2010) ................................................................................................................................. 61
Schonfeld & Chang (2017) – Chapter 6 ............................................................................................................. 66
Week 6 .................................................................................................................................................................. 72
Qin, Huang, Johnson, Hu & Ju (2018) ................................................................................................................ 72
Steed, Swider, Keem & Liu (2019) ..................................................................................................................... 77
Schonfeld & Chang (2017) – Chapter 9 ............................................................................................................. 83
1
,Literature Summary Well-Being at Work
WEEK 1
DE JONGE & DORMANN ( 2017)
Job stress is a major concern in all developing and industrialized countries, affecting not only employees whose
health is at stake but also organizations and society as a whole. In economically developing and developed
countries, the nature of work has been changing in the past few decades. One of the most striking
developments is the changing nature of work itself and increased workloads. Work spaces and work processes
have been redesigned in many ways. New jobs and new types of companies have emerged. Nowadays, for
many employees, job stress has mainly become a mental and emotional issue rather than being a physical one.
According to recent figures, the prevalence of job stress is high. Job stress is related to psychological disorders
such as burnout and depression, and also to a number of physical ailments such as cardiovascular diseases,
musculoskeletal diseases, chronic low back pain, and reduced performance and absenteeism from work.
Job stress has become as much a business issue as it is a health issue in many countries. For instance, job-
related stress costs US companies hundreds of billions of US dollars a year due to burnout, turnover, higher
absenteeism and lower productivity. Even a single job stress outcome such as depression is known to produce
direct (through treatment) and indirect (through absence and reduced productivity) costs that add up to
billions.
The original meaning of the term ‘stress’ is derived from the field of engineering. By analogy with physical force
on a metal bar, it refers to external pressure that is exerted on a person, which in turn results in tension or
stress reactions. These stress reactions are also called ‘strain’. Up to a certain level, people are able to deal
with this external pressure, can adapt to the situation, and recover when the stress is relieved. A person’s
adaptability is determined by personal characteristics, for instance, stress tolerance or coping style, and by
situational characteristics, for instance, the availability of social support.
It is quite normal to experience some stress. Stress releases hormones that speed up the heart rate, make us
breathe faster, and give us energy to act. Short-term stress is sometimes experienced as positive activation,
however, too much stress is not good for a person as it will deplete a person’s resources and energy.
In everyday language as well as in the scientific literature, the term ‘stress’ is used to refer to the causes as well
as the accompanying state of tension, and the consequences of this state. As there is little agreement on how
exactly ‘stress’ should be defined, there is no general and overarching theory of stress.
Most researchers do agree that three different meanings of the term stress can be distinguished:
1. Stress as a stimulus (cause)
Stress-related job characteristics can be categorized under two broad main categories: (1) job
demands, and (2) job resources.
Job demands refer to those properties of the job that require immediate or sustained cognitive,
emotional and/or physical effort. Examples of job demands are workload, time pressure, role conflict,
and physical exertion.
Job resources are conceptually similar to coping options; they can be broadly conceptualized as work-
related assets that can be employed when an employee has to deal with demands at work. Examples
of job resources are job autonomy, job variety and workplace social support.
As far as job demands are concerned, three types can be distinguished: (1) cognitive demands that
impinge primarily on the brain processes involved in information processing, (2) emotional demands
which refer primarily to the effort needed to deal with organizationally desired emotions during
2
,Literature Summary Well-Being at Work
interpersonal transactions, and (3) physical demands that are primarily associated with the
musculoskeletal system (i.e., sensomotor and physical aspects of behaviour). Similarly, job resources
may have a cognitive-informational component (e.g., colleagues providing information), an emotional
component (e.g., colleagues providing sympathy and affection), and a physical component (e.g.,
instrumental help of colleagues or ergonomic aids).
2. Stress as a response (strain)
Stress reactions or strains can be expressed in different ways. They can be classified into five different
clusters: (1) affective (e.g., feeling anxious), (2) cognitive (e.g., making wrong decisions), (3) physical
(e.g., low back pain), (4) behavioural (e.g., sleeping problems; over-eating), and (5) motivational (e.g.,
feeling less energetic).
In addition, three levels of expression can be distinguished, since stress not only is manifested in the
form of individual symptoms (e.g., thoughts and feelings), but is also apparent in the form of
interpersonal symptoms (e.g., disliking and struggling), and organizational-level symptoms (costs
through reduced productivity, counterproductive work behaviour, and sickness absence).
Stress reactions can also differ in their intensity. In some occasions, the negative effects of stressful
stimuli can easily be overcome by recovery. However, in the case of prolonged exposure to stressful
stimuli, the individual may not be able to reduce their (physiological) state of stress, and high
activation levels are sustained. This can in turn give rise to chronic physical (e.g., coronary heart
disease) and/ or psychological stress complaints (e.g., burnout).
3. Stress as a mediational process between a demand (stimulus) and a stress reaction (response)
According to this mediational approach, which is also called a transactional model, stress reactions
are the result of the interaction (transaction) between the person and the environment. Potentially
stressful stimuli may lead to different types of stress reactions in different individuals, depending on
their cognitive evaluations (appraisals) of the situation and the resources they have at their disposal to
cope with the stressful situation.
Latack and Havlovic (1992) developed a conceptual framework for coping with job stress. In this
framework, a distinction is made between the focus of coping and the method of coping.
a) The focus of coping can be (1) problem-oriented (attempts aimed at altering the transaction
between person and environment) or (2) emotion-oriented (attempts aimed at regulating the
emotions of a person).
b) With respect to the method of coping, two dimensions are distinguished. First, coping behaviour
can be observable (overt) or not observable (covert). Second, each of these two types of coping
behaviour can either be aimed at control or at escape (i.e., fight or flight).
If the focus and/or method of coping do not match the stressful demand, feelings of stress will be
sustained or even intensified. Basically, active ways of coping (e.g., control coping) are to be preferred
to passive ones such as escape coping, provided that the situation offers possibilities for active
intervention.
From the outset, the very nature of stress has been debated: is it only ‘bad’, or does ‘good’ stress exist as well?
Originally, Selye (1956) defined stress as a non-specific biological response to an external demand, meaning
that stress in itself is neither bad nor good. He claimed that depending upon the relevant conditions, ‘distress’
or ‘eustress’ might occur. Eustress can be reconceptualized as a positive response to a cognitively appraised
demand.
3
, Literature Summary Well-Being at Work
Individual characteristics, such as age, gender, level of education, values, and personality, may influence one’s
coping abilities; they may interact with job demands and either exacerbate or alleviate their effects. In general,
we distinguish two main categories of individual characteristics:
1. Dispositional or trait-like characteristics (such as gender, ethnicity, constitution, coping styles, needs);
2. Acquired or state-like characteristics (such as education, competences, skills, social class).
Individual characteristics differ also in their level of objectivity and subjectivity. Objective characteristics refer
to some demographics such as gender and ethnicity, whereas subjective characteristics refer to those that are
experienced or perceived, and manifest themselves through certain behaviours. Dispositional characteristics
stand out in the literature as being potentially relevant in the job stress process.
Some job stress studies have shown that the relationship between a certain job demand and a certain stress
reaction mainly, or even exclusively, occurs in employees with particular dispositional characteristics. A study
with Japanese managers found that psychological distress was lowest among managers with high levels of co-
worker support combined with high levels of active coping, indicating that job resources worked effectively
only for employees who actively cope. According to the Effort–Reward Imbalance (ERI) model (Siegrist, 1996),
employees’ commitment to work is another important disposition. If people are over-committed to their job,
negative consequences for their health occur.
In the recent past, many different models focusing on job stress have been highlighted in the literature, and
most of them are connected with the process model that is presented in Figure 5.1 (Le Blanc et al., 2008). This
process model is based upon insights gained from several theoretical models and empirical studies.
According to this integrated process model, different types of job demands can result in different types of
stress reactions, such as (adverse) health, (poor) well-being, and (bad) performance. Moreover, the relation
between job demands and stress reactions may be moderated by (1) personal resources (e.g., coping
styles), and (2) situational resources, such as job autonomy or workplace social support.
In this section we discuss four theoretical models that have laid the foundation for contemporary job stress
research:
1. The Demand-Control-Support model
Karasek and Theorell’s Job Demand–Control (DC) model postulates that the original and primary
sources of stress lie within two basic job characteristics: job demands and job decision latitude. In the
DC model, job demands are primarily associated with expending psychological effort such as time
pressure and difficult work. Job decision latitude is a combination of job control and skill use. Job
control can be defined broadly as job autonomy. Skill use can be defined broadly as the opportunity to
enact one’s capabilities. Combining the two dimensions of job demands and job decision latitude
4
