REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.4 PsyCap as a Mediator in the JD-R Model
According to Baron and Kenny (1986), to establish mediation, independent variables have to affect mediators and dependent variables. In addition, the mediators have to affect the dependent variables. The previous section has already explained how the job demands and job resources (independent variables) affect burnout and work engagement (dependent variables). In this section, how job demands and job resources (independent variables) affect PsyCap (mediator) and how PsyCap (mediator) affect burnout and engagement (dependent variables) are described.
2.4.1 Job Demands and PsyCap
According to COR theory, stressful environmental conditions frequently harm or deplete both individuals’ external and internal resources, such as status, position, financial stability, or even basic beliefs and self-esteem (Hobfoll, 1989). However, not all kinds of stressful circumstances or coping results will lead to resource loss.
Regarding COR theory, although stressful conditions demand an investment of resources and frequently lead to resource loss, individuals who successfully deal with those challenging conditions will gain incremental resources which, in turns, create
resource gain spirals, and such positive coping process is often followed by the enhancement of personal resources, such as self-efficacy or self-esteem (Hobfoll, 2002). Based on this suggestion, it is likely that challenge demands might be able to create PsyCap.
Conversely, when individuals are ineffectively tackling major stressors due to either excessively irresistible circumstances or insufficient resources, more resource deterioration and negative conditions will subsequently happen in progressively rapid and serious cycles (Hobfoll, 2002). Based on this suggestion, it can be concluded that when individuals face hindrance demands (e.g., politics) which might be too uncontrollable stressors for any resources to deal with, individuals naturally try to minimize net loss of resources by employing available resources to deal with those demands; however, they tend to spend lots of resources but receives little return or tries to succeed whatever cannot be succeeded. Finally, their existing resources, including PsyCap might be seriously deteriorated afterward.
To the author’s knowledge, very few publications that discuss the relationship between challenge demands, hindrance demands, and PsyCap are available. Among those studies, Tadic, Bakker, and Oerlemans (2015) found that challenge demands and hindrance demands were positively and negatively related to PsyCap respectively. The results are partly compatible with those of Sapyaprapa (2012) which revealed that challenge demands positively affected PsyCap, but hindrance demands did not significantly affect PsyCap; in addition, PsyCap partially mediated the relationship between challenge demands and work engagement. However, no indirect effect of hindrance demands on work engagement through PsyCap was found.
2.4.2 Job Resources and PsyCap
Hobfoll (2002, 2011, 2014) suggested the concept of resource caravans which can support the relationship between job resources and PsyCap. Resource caravans or the association of connected resources explain that resources do not exist alone and have a propensity for being developed together across the lifespan which is relatively stable and their impact tends to maintain across time and situations (Gorgievski &
Hobfoll, 2008; Hobfoll, 2002, 2014). Some resources are generated simultaneously
because of the overlap between resources’ characteristics, such as self-esteem and self- efficacy; however, although some resources are obviously different, such as supportive network and self-esteem, people can simply understand how having a group of resources can create other resources (Hobfoll, 2002).
In addition, socialization resources theory (Saks & Gruman, 2011) suggests that organizational socialization resources (e.g., leadership, training, and social support) could enhance PsyCap of employees which, in turn, enhances positive organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job performance, and reduces negative organizational outcomes, for instance, turnover intention through some practical processes, such as feedback, role modeling, mentoring, and encouragement.
Furthermore, Luthans et al. (2006) asserted that the training that provides staff members with resources (e.g. facilitator-peer feedback, role models, support, and encouragements) increase staff’s PsyCap.
In the last few years, there has been a growing interest in the effect of job resources on PsyCap. Some cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have found that job resources (e.g., supportive organizational climate, social support, performance feedback, supervisor coaching, opportunities for development, and organizational justice) positively affect PsyCap in various groups of participants, for instance, Chinese undergraduate students, primary school teachers in Croatia, employees of insurance service firm, engineers in high-technology manufacturing firm, employees from the service sector in India, employees from a retail organization in South Africa, Thai employees in private organizations, and Thai public health officers (Arin et al., 2012;
Bin et al., 2014; Brouze, 2013; Luthans, Norman, et al., 2008; Sapyaprapa, 2012; Tadic et al., 2015; Totawar & Nambudiri, 2014).
2.4.3 PsyCap and Burnout
PsyCap negatively affects burnout due to at least two reasons. First, people with PsyCap tend to deal with problems directly and effectively. Instead of using emotion- focused and avoidance coping (e.g., self-blame, rumination, denial, behavioral disengagement, or substance abuse), people with PsyCap use problem-focused coping
(e.g., proactive coping or taking practical action) to deal with problems (Ding et al., 2015; Khan, Siraj, & Li, 2011). The more they continually experience achievement in addressing problems, the less they experience burnout.
Second, people with PsyCap show less fake positive expression. Instead of using surface acting (i.e., altering only emotional expression without adjusting inner emotions), people with PsyCap use deep acting (i.e., adjusting their inner emotions until they are in line with organizationally preferred emotions) or show naturally felt emotion at work (Cheung et al., 2011; Hur, Rhee, & Ahn, 2015). The less they fake at work, the less they use self-control, and the less they experience burnout.
In addition, some cross-sectional and longitudinal studies found that PsyCap negatively affected burnout among employees of Canadian nurses, Chinese nurses, Chinese doctors, Chinese bank officers, and Thai public health officers (Arin et al., 2012; Ding et al., 2015; Laschinger & Fida, 2014; Li et al., 2015; Y. Wang, Liu, Wang,
& Wang, 2012; W. Yang, Ying, Jialiang, & Lie, 2012).
2.4.4 PsyCap and Work Engagement
The article by Sweetman and Luthans (2010) dedicated itself to the explanation of the effect of PsyCap on work engagement as follows: (1) task-mastery, a factor of self-efficacy which involves the ability to accomplish a specific task, could provide individuals with more energy to devote to and concentration towards their tasks which, in turn, raise the level of vigor and absorption; (2) by using external attributions to explain the stressful situations (i.e., temporary, not omnipresent, and not caused by themselves), optimists perceive personal control over the demanding situations which, in turn, can lead to the increased levels of dedication and absorption; (3) although facing stressful demands, people with high hope (i.e., high willpower and waypower) would increase their motivation and create several pathways which, in turn, increase the likelihood of making proper decisions to achieve their goals, as well as the levels of vigor and dedication; and (4) regarded as a capability to adapt to and bounce back or beyond adverse situations, resiliency helps individuals persist with and be ready once
more to encounter important changes which, in turn, raise the level of vigor, dedication, and absorption.
In addition, some cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have found that PsyCap and its dimensions (e.g., self-efficacy, and optimism) positively influence work engagement among German healthcare professionals, Spanish university students, working adults of US organizations, employees form a large telecom company in Taiwan, frontline employees in the international chain and five-star hotels in Romania and South Korea, employees from a retail organization in South Africa, Thai employees from private organizations, and section chiefs of a Thai state enterprise (Avey, Wernsing, et al., 2008; Brouze, 2013; Chen, 2015; Karatepe & Karadas, 2015;
Llorens, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2007; Mache et al., 2014; Paek, Schuckert, Kim, & Lee, 2015; Sapyaprapa, 2012; Yodrakang, 2011).
In summary, the arguments in the previous sections suggest that individuals with higher challenge demands, lower hindrance demands, and higher job resources develop higher PsyCap and that this personal resource help them have less burnout and drives them to have more work engagement (see Figure 2.3). Therefore, the present study formulates the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The empirical data are consistent with the hypothesized model (PsyCap as a mediating variable) with a reasonable degree of certainty.