Search

Work design plays an important role in workers' job-related well-being, but not every employee responds to work design in the same way. Given trends toward longer working lives and higher age diversity in the workforce, worker age is an important factor to consider. However, knowledge about the interplay between worker age and work design is limited, especially when considering the multitude of job characteristics that people experience at the same time. Integrating the work design and lifespan/career development literatures and adopting a person-centered approach, we investigated how worker age affects membership in work design profiles and the relationship between work design profiles and occupational well-being. Using two independent samples (N = 989; 980), we conducted latent profile analysis to group workers into work design profiles based on 6 age-relevant job characteristics (autonomy, information-processing, workload, social support, emotional demands, and social conflicts). We identified 3 profiles and linked them to well-being: motivating (most favorable), moderately stimulating, and socially taxing (least favorable). Older workers were more likely to be in, and responded better to motivating work design profiles, and less likely to be in, and responded worse to socially taxing profiles. Meanwhile, younger workers seemed more tolerant of socially taxing work design profiles than older workers. Most age-contingent effects were robust after adding organizational tenure as a covariate. Findings qualify lifespan development theories and shed light on workers' nuanced responses to work design profiles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implying an offense to self, appraising a stressor as indicating a lack of consideration by others should have effects beyond its stressfulness per se. In Stress-as-Offense-to-Self theory (SOS), such stressors are called "illegitimate stressors." We assessed situations appraised as stressful in two diary studies (N1 = 117, N2 = 137). Outcome variables were feelings of resentment in both studies, plus nervousness, anxiety, and sadness in Study 1 and depressive mood, threat to social self-esteem, and desire for revenge in Study 2. Controlling for stressfulness, perceived illegitimacy predicted affective reactions that are outward-directed (feelings of resentment [Studies 1 and 2], threat to social self-esteem and desire for revenge [Study 2]); it also predicted sadness in Study 1 but not depressive mood in Study 2, nor nervousness (Study 1). Thus, not all hypotheses were confirmed but the pattern was as expected, in that results were consistent regarding outcomes typically associated with the attribution of blame. The independent contribution of perceived illegitimacy aligns well with the underlying Stress-as-Offense-to-Self theory. Practical implications refer to efforts to avoid illegitimate stressors, for instance by perspective-taking, by showing appreciation and support, and by supporting such behaviours through keeping stressors in general at a manageable level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Work interruptions are contemporary job stressors that occur frequently in the workplace. Theories on work interruptions and the stressor–strain relationship over time suggest that work interruptions should have a lagged negative effect on well-being. However, we argue that continued changes in work interruptions may also be important for employees' well-being. We investigated the mid- and long-term effects of work interruptions on employee job satisfaction and psychosomatic complaints across two studies (Study 1: N = 415, four waves over five years; Study 2: N = 663, five waves over eight months). Using latent growth modelling, we predicted job satisfaction and psychosomatic complaints with respect to the level of, and changes in, interruptions. Controlling for initial well-being, we found that the mean levels (intercepts) of work interruptions had negative effects on later well-being in Study 1, but not in Study 2. However, increases in interruptions over time (slopes) predicted later well-being consistently. An analysis on reversed effects revealed that only the initial level of psychosomatic complaints positively predicted work interruptions. The studies underscore not only the importance of interruptions for well-being over time in general, but also the particular importance of exposure to increases in interruptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study analyzed the effects of work interruptions as a stressor and appreciation of employees by supervisors as a resource with regard to four parameters of well-being, postulating main effects and interactions. Using latent moderated structural equation modeling, we analyzed longitudinal data on 208 employees at seven different companies who completed an online questionnaire twice. There were no main effects; however, the interactions between work interruptions and appreciation by supervisors were significant, and in the expected direction. Appreciation by supervisors moderated the effects of interruptions on the four parameters of employees' well-being: job satisfaction, self-efficacy, job-related depressive mood, and sleep problems. These results held after accounting for conceptually relevant control variables, namely, time pressure, job control, and social support by supervisors. There were no indications for reversed effects. The findings underscore the importance of contextual factors like appreciative leader behavior for handling difficult situations such as work interruptions and thus confirm the potential of feeling appreciated at work as a protective resource in stressful work situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Recent leadership research has drawn greater attention to how the well‐being of leaders influences leadership behaviors, follower performance and well‐being, and overall leadership effectiveness. Yet little attention has been paid to the relationship between occupying leadership positions and job incumbents' well‐being. This research addresses this question by developing and testing a dual‐pathway model. Our model proposes that incumbency in leadership positions is positively related to high levels of both job demands and job control, whereas job demands and job control have offsetting effects on well‐being. Results based on a longitudinal sample revealed that employees who transitioned from nonleadership positions to leadership roles showed trajectories of increasing job demands and job control, whereas such trends were weaker among those who remained in nonleadership positions. Findings from three additional samples generally demonstrated that leadership role occupancy was indirectly related to various indices of psychological and physiological well‐being through job demands and job control. Because the signs of the indirect effects through job demands and job control differed in expected ways, the overall relationship between leadership role occupancy and the well‐being outcomes was generally small and nonsignificant. We discuss research and practical implications of our framework and findings for organizations, employees, and leaders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research on calling has pointed to the important distinction between having and living a calling in order to explain the positive effects of callings on well-being. However, how the link between having a calling and living a calling might be explained has only been partially addressed. In the present study, we focused on the neglected role of workplace characteristics as key factors in this regard. In a sample of 232 working adults in Germany, we established that presence of calling and living a calling were significantly related to job resources in terms of decision-making autonomy, task significance, and social support at work. Moreover, presence of calling and living a calling positively related to level of education, leadership position, and salary. Testing indirect effects with bootstrapping analyses, we found that job resources, specifically decision-making autonomy and task significance, partially mediated the relation of presence of calling with living a calling, while controlling for educational level and leadership position. The results support the idea that living a calling is not just about finding work that fits one's calling. People who have a calling are also more likely to live their calling by working in jobs with more job resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]