REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1 The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model
2.1.3 The Revised JD-R Model with the Challenge-Hindrance Demand Framework
Due to its popularity, the JD-R model has been studied, investigated, extended, and refined progressively. A number of refinements are, for instance, to reveal the roles of personal resources, such as extraversion, optimism, hope, or self-esteem, as an antecedent, a moderator, or a mediator in the revised JD-R model, and to include a variety of work outcomes beyond performance, such as innovativeness (Huhtala &
Parzefall, 2007) and safety behavior (Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011), into the revised JD-R model (see Schaufeli & Taris, 2014, for discussion).
Apart from those contributions, one of the outstanding model refinements is from the study of Crawford et al. (2010) whose attempt was to address the results’
inconsistency between job demands and work engagements that were found in a number of previous studies. Some found only positive relationships (e.g., Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, 2008); some found both positive and negative relationships depending on each work condition (e.g., Bakker, van Emmerik, & Euwema, 2006;
Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007). The other found no significant relationship (e.g., Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). In this regards, Crawford et al. (2010) separated job demands in the JD-R model into hindrance demands and challenge demands based on the study of Cavanaugh et al. (2000).
Cavanaugh et al. (2000)’s study attempted to discover why the relationship between work stress associated with certain stressors and work outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, job search, and intention to quit) had not been found in several previous studies. The authors discussed that one practical explanation might be the existence of the relationship depending on types of stressors. Specifically, items of work stress from different types of stressors in a single scale might possibly cancel out the actual effects of work stress on work outcomes. Accordingly, it would be more beneficial to classify work stress into two dimensions: (a) challenge stressors refers to “work-related demands or circumstances that, although potentially stressful, have associated potential gains for individuals”; and (b) hindrance stressors refers to “work-related demands or circumstances that tend to constrain or interfere with an individual’s work achievement and that do not tend to be associated with potential gains for the individual” (Cavanaugh et al., 2000, p. 68). The authors further revealed that stress related to challenge stressors
(e.g., job overload, time pressures, and high level of responsibilities) is positively related to job satisfaction and negatively associated with job search because individuals considered pressure and stress relevant to these demands as rewarding work experience that led to growth and development so it is worth facing uneasiness to experience goal achievement afterward. The significant opposite results were found in stress related to hindrance demands (e.g., politics, role ambiguity, red tape, or lack of job security).
Following the work of Cavanaugh et al. (2000), Crawford et al. (2010) classified job demands into challenge and hindrance and tested them with the revised JD-R model in the meta-analysis study. The results revealed the significant relationship between job resources and burnout, and job resources and engagement as predicted by the previous JD-R model. Importantly, challenge demands were positively associated with engagement while hindrance demands were negatively related to engagement. In addition, both challenge and hindrance demands were positively associated with burnout. The authors further discussed that the underlying reasons might be challenge demands activated positive feelings and thoughts, which in turn led to problem-focused coping styles and then triggered engagement; on the other hand, hindrance demands activated negative feelings and thoughts, which in turn led to emotion-focused coping styles and then lowered engagement (Cavanaugh et al., 2000).
In the last few years, there has been a growing interest in testing the revised JD-R model with challenge-hindrance stressor framework; nevertheless, very few publications that discuss this issues can be found because the model with both types of demands has been established quite recently. Interestingly, many results of those studies are inconsistent with the findings reported in the meta-analysis study of Crawford et al. (2010) which might be because of the difference in the number of participants. The number of participants in the meta-analysis study is from 64 samples of 55 articles and in such a large sample size, even small differences can be detected.
In recent years, the whole model with the different sets of challenge demands, hindrance demands, and job resources has been studied in several publications. Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, and Vansteenkiste (2010) tested the model comprising challenge demands (i.e., workload and cognitive demands), hindrance demands (i.e., emotional demands), job resources (i.e., autonomy and social support), vigor (i.e., the main component of engagement), and exhaustion (i.e., the main
component of burnout) in two samples (i.e., Dutch call center agents and Belgian police officers) and revealed results as follows: challenge demands were positively and not significantly related to vigor and exhaustion respectively; hindrance demands were negatively and positively associated with vigor and exhaustion respectively; and job resources were positive and negatively associated with vigor and exhaustion respectively.
In addition, Lin, Siu, Shi, and Bai (2009) tested the model in the sample of nurses in Beijing and discovered that challenge demands (e.g., quantitative workload) were positively related to vigor and emotional exhaustion. Hindrance demands (i.e., office politics) were negatively and positively associated with vigor and emotional exhaustion respectively. However, job resources (i.e., autonomy) were not significantly related with both constructs. This might be because, among Beijing nurses, other job resources (e.g., supervisor or colleague supports or rules and standards) might affect work engagement and burnout stronger than did autonomy.
Moreover, Searle and Lee (2015) discovered that, in the convenient samples, challenge demands (i.e., workload, time urgency, job responsibility and job complexity) were positively related to engagement but not burnout; conversely, hindrance demands (i.e., red tape, role ambiguity, role conflict and hassles) had no significant relationship with both variables. While job resources (i.e., perceived coworker support, supportive and non-controlling supervision and role autonomy) were positively and negatively related to engagement and burnout respectively.
Ventura, Salanova, and Llorens (2015) tested the model in two samples (i.e., teachers of secondary schools and users of information and communication technology) and discovered that hindrance demands (i.e., role conflict, lack of autonomy, and lack of social support) were positively and negatively related to burnout and engagement respectively. While challenge demands (i.e., mental overload) were positively related to only engagement but not burnout.
Regarding the Thai context, Seeda (2012) found that among employees in both private and public sectors, challenge demands and job resources had positive effects on work engagement while hindrance demands and job resources had positive and negative effects on burnout respectively. In addition, Sapyaprapa (2012) examined the model in employees of private organizations in Bangkok Metropolitan Region and found that
challenge demands and job resources were positively related to work engagement and the opposite result was found in the relationship between hindrance demands and work engagement.
According to the previous studies having been noted, it is obvious that those results cannot reach a consensus; however, some basic patterns emerge from the results which are as follows: challenge demands are positively related to work engagement;
hindrance demands are negatively and positively related to work engagement and burnout respectively; and job resources are positively and negatively related to work engagement and burnout.