REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.5 PsyCap as a Moderator in the JD-R Model
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.
1989, p. 519). He further explains that when investment is followed by neither a satisfied return nor a conflict resolved, this process will inevitably lead to stress and depression. Such long-term conditions will unavoidably create burnout. For instance, when a government imposes new rules, such as 300-baht national daily minimum wage, all entrepreneurs have to follow the rules and maintain their businesses. Entrepreneurs with low business and economic knowledge and low working capital might invest or spend their money in the way that does not help create income. In this case, they might increasingly experience stress from failures to address the problems and their working capitals might be continuously decreasing. Finally, they cannot last long and have to close down their businesses. However, the opposite results would be found in individuals with stronger resource reservoirs who are more successful to address the stressful demands (Hobfoll, 2002). Hobfoll (1989) also stresses the importance of personal characteristics (i.e., personal traits and key skills) as a general stress resistance resources. Based on the importance of the high level of general resources as well as stress resistance resources, it can be assumed that when facing the same stressful circumstances, individuals with high PsyCap would less experience burnout than those with low PsyCap.
Apart from the theory, empirical studies also support the buffering role of PsyCap in which predictors and PsyCap affect dependent variable in the opposite direction as follows. PsyCap weakened the positive relationship between stress and incivility, such that the association was weaker for American working adults who were high in PsyCap (Roberts et al., 2011). Similarly, PsyCap weakened the association between surface acting and depersonalization in a way that the association was weaker for Chinese school teachers with high PsyCap (Cheung et al., 2011). Likewise, PsyCap buffered the negative effects of organizational politics on job performance and job satisfaction, such that the relationships were weaker for employees from private and public sectors in Pakistan with high in PsyCap (Abbas et al., 2014). Finally, PsyCap buffered the effects of faculty deans’ narcissism on faculty members’ psychological well-being in Turkey, such that the relationship was weaker when faculty members had high PsyCap (Erkutlu, 2014).
Apart from the buffering role, the strengthening role (in which predictors and moderators affect dependent variables in the same direction; Frazier, Tix, & Barron,
2004) of PsyCap are also supported by the study of Cheung et al. (2011) revealing that PsyCap intensified the positive relationship between deep acting and job satisfaction.
Although PsyCap could not strengthen this type of relationships, at least, it was found that individuals with higher PsyCap tend to create desirable outcomes irrespective of high or low support from the workplace. For instance, PsyCap moderated the relationship between organizational support and organizational trust and commitment, such that those with higher PsyCap had higher organizational trust and commitment, than those with low PsyCap, when low levels of organizational support were reported (Shukla & Rai, 2014). In addition, PsyCap of followers moderated the relationship between authentic leadership and followers’ performance such that those with high PsyCap had higher performance when low levels of authentic leadership were reported (H. Wang, Sui, Luthans, Wang, & Wu, 2014).
The previous paragraphs provide an overview of the moderating roles of PsyCap in general relationships. Specific to the purpose of this study, PsyCap could, also, moderate the relationship between job demands and burnout. Teo, Roche, Pick, and Newton (2014) found that PsyCap moderated the relationship between job overload and stress such that registered practicing nurses in Australia with higher PsyCap reported lower levels of stress than those with lower PsyCap irrespective of high or low workload. Brouze (2013) found that among management staff at a retail organization in South Africa, PsyCap moderated the relationship between workload and cynicism, such that those with high PsyCap had lower cynicism than those with low PsyCap;
however, PsyCap did not moderate the relationship between role conflict and role ambiguity as independent variables, and exhaustion and cynicism as dependent variables.
Regarding the moderating role of PsyCap in the relationship between challenge- hindrance demands and outcomes, Tadic et al. (2015) found that, among primary school teachers in Croatia, daily PsyCap did not moderate the relationship between both daily challenge demands and daily hindrance demands as independent variables, and both daily positive emotions and daily engagement as dependent variables. In contrast to the previous study, Min et al. (2015) found that PsyCap moderated the effect of challenge and hindrance demands on work engagement and burnout when longer work conditions, rather than daily basis, were considered. Specifically, the positive
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.