REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.6 PsyCap as an Antecedent in the JD-R Model
relationship between both challenge and hindrance demands and burnout was weaker when employees possessed higher PsyCap. In addition, individuals with high PsyCap reported higher levels of work engagement irrespective of high or low challenge demands; however, PsyCap did not diminish the negative effect of hindrance demands on engagement. The authors suggested that hindrance demands might be intolerable even for individuals with high PsyCap.
Although no consensus emerges from these discussions, according to the COR theory and the previously mentioned studies, it can be assumed that PsyCap could moderate the relationship between challenge and hindrance demands, on the one hand, and work engagement and burnout, on the other.
In addition, to the author’s best knowledge, the moderating role of PsyCap in the relationships between job resources, and the work outcomes (i.e., burnout and engagement), has not been studied yet. However, the results of the previous relevant studies (i.e., PsyCap as a moderator between organizational support and some outcomes) might support that PsyCap could moderate the relationship between job resources, on the one hand, work engagement and burnout, on the other (see Figure 2.4). Therefore, the present study formulates the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: PsyCap moderates the relation between challenge demands, hindrance demands and job resources, on the one hand, and burnout and engagement, on the other.
influences “how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave” (Bandura, 1994, p. 71).
Corresponding to SCT, the RED model regards self-efficacy as a significant personal resource because of two reasons: (a) personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy) can decelerate or weaken the stress process because they determine how individuals evaluate the situations and facilitate the coping process against and the recovery process from job stress (Salanova, Bakker, & Llorens, 2006; Ventura et al., 2015); and (b) self- efficacy predicts “motivation process” of engagement (i.e., high self-efficacy would help enrich the consideration of more job resource which, in turn, enrich engagement) and “energy-draining process” (i.e., low self-efficacy would enhance the consideration of more job demands which, in turn, increase burnout) (Salanova et al., 2011, p. 350).
The RED model, previously described, could be used to explain why PsyCap would positively and negatively affect challenge demands and hindrance demands respectively. Individuals with high PsyCap would not only consider challenge demands as controllable situations but also tend to seek more opportunities to create a high performance so they would try to seek more challenges in order to learn, develop and achieve work goals. In addition, individuals with high PsyCap would consider hindrance demands as controllable situations to a certain degree and they tended to use problem-focused coping to deal with such situations so they were likely to reduce hindrances to a level that less negatively affected their success at work.
To the author’s knowledge, there is no publication that discusses how PsyCap affects challenge demands and hindrance demands. However, very few publications that discuss how personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy) affects challenge demands and hindrance demands are available. Ventura et al. (2015) found that self-efficacy positively and negatively affects challenge demands and hindrance demands, and this is, in turn, related to higher engagement and lower burnout.
Furthermore, the concept of resource caravan, which suggests that resources will help develop other resources and become individuals’ resource reservoir (Hobfoll, 2011), could explain not only why job resources could influence PsyCap but also on the other way round. The example of resource caravan is that individuals with high self- esteem will have other positive personal characteristics, such as a stronger sense of
mastery which their combination would provide individuals with better systems to acquire social supports (Hobfoll, 2002).
The effect of PsyCap on job resources has been scarcely investigated; however, the results of the existing studies reach a consensus. Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) found that, among staff members of an electrical engineering and electronics company in The Netherlands, personal resources significantly predicted job resources. They further explained that individuals who are self-efficacious or optimistic about their capacities and future might seek, discover, or create some beneficial features of their environment (e.g., autonomy or social support) which, in turn, lead to goal confrontation and goal attainment. Similarly, X. Wang, Zheng, and Cao (2014) found that among Chinese students, perceived social support mediated the relationship between PsyCap and problem behaviors. Likewise, Boudrias et al. (2011) found that, among teachers in France, organizational resources (i.e., supportive climate, procedural justice, and distributive justice) mediated the relationship between personal resources (i.e., optimism and resilience) and needs satisfaction.
According to longitudinal studies, Llorens et al. (2007) found that, among Spanish university students, self-efficacy at Time1 had a positive effect on task resources at Time2. The results are in line with those of Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli (2009) who found that among Dutch employees in an electrical engineering and electronics company, personal resources (self-efficacy, organizational based self-esteem, and optimism) at Time1 predicted job resources (e.g., autonomy, support and coaching, feedback, and professional advancement opportunities) at Time2.
According to these theories and existing findings, it can be assumed that PsyCap helps individuals seek challenge demands, reduce hindrance demands, and acquire job resources and this work environment are appropriate for increasing work engagement and decreasing burnout (see Figure 2.5). Therefore, the present study formulates the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: The empirical data are consistent with the hypothesized model (PsyCap as an antecedent) with a reasonable degree of certainty.