香京julia种子在线播放

The basic premise of the CHM framework is that stressors can be conceptualized into the two broad categories of Challenge Stressors and Hindrance Stressors. Challenge stressors are those that may result in strain, but at the same time, are energizing and provide opportunities for feelings of accomplishment, as well as growth and development (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). In most treatments of the CHM, stressors such as workload or impending deadlines are assumed to be challenge stressors. In contrast, hindrance stressors are those that result in strain, but in contrast to challenge stressors, are typically not energizing and do not provide employees with opportunities for growth and development (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). A good exemplar of a hindrance stressor is the concept of organizational constraints (Spector and Jex, 1998), or conditions (e.g., interruptions, poor equipment, etc.) that prevent employees from performing their jobs well.

The CHM is a fairly recent development in occupational stress theory, since it is typically attributed to the article by Cavanaugh et al. (2000) where it was first introduced. Given its recent development, it is easy to overlook its many historical roots. In fact, in recent treatments of this framework (e.g., Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019) the development of this model was attributed simply to the fact that in many occupational stress studies the signs of correlations were counterintuitive. While this is certainly true, we contend that the historical roots of the CHM go back much further than this.

In fact, the historical roots of this model can be traced back to the widely known Yerkes-Dodson law (Yerkes and Dodson, 1908), which relates one’s level of physiological arousal to task performance. The form of this relationship is an Inverted-U, indicating that there is some optimal mid-range level of arousal that facilitates performance. Although Yerkes and Dodson were not theorizing about the impact of stress on individuals, their model is often invoked to support the idea that the relationship between stressors and many outcomes may deviate from linear, as had often been assumed (e.g., Jex, 1998).

In the organizational literature the Yerkes-Dodson model has been used as a rationale for designing work that has a moderate amount of physiological activation (Scott, 1966), and to explain the link between job complexity and physical health symptoms (Xie and Johns, 1995). In recent years, with the growth of the positive psychology movement, this model has been used as a rationale for arguing that some stressors may actually result in positive outcomes for employees (e.g., Britt and Jex, 2015).

Similar with this notion that strains vary as a function of stressor intensity or duration, Selye (1956) suggested that stressor type determined the resulting strain. He coined terms that later become analogous to hindrance stressors and challenge stressors. “Distress” was the term used to refer to stressful situations that exceed individuals’ resources, and “eustress” referred to stressful situations that engage and energize individuals (Selye, 1974).

Another historical foundation of the CHM is the widely known Job Demands-Control (JD-C) model of stress developed by Robert Karasek (Karasek, 1979; Karasek and Theorell, 1990). The most widely known proposition of the JD-C model is that stress is highest when job demands are high and job control (termed “job decision latitude” by Karasek) is low. In essence, what Karasek proposed is that job demands represent physiological challenges to the body and will result in strain when there is no control over how to meet those demands. In more recent years it has been proposed that this interaction occurs only under conditions of low social support.

A less widely cited proposition of the JD-C model (see Kain and Jex, 2010), and one that bears directly on the CHM, is that some jobs are high in demands and at the same time are high in job control (called “Active” jobs). Such jobs are demanding, yet at the same time potentially rewarding, because employees in such jobs have the discretion in how to address those demands. As a result, there is a high probability that individuals holding these types of jobs will accomplish important organizational and occupational goals and reap the benefits of goal accomplishment. While empirical evidence on active jobs is sparse, there is evidence that active jobs can result in positive outcomes (e.g., Van Yperen and Hagedorn, 2003).

Another stress theory which is a forerunner of the CHM (e.g., Cavanaugh et al., 2000) is the transactional theory of stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). At its core, the transactional theory is a theory of two forms of appraisal—primary and secondary. Primary and secondary appraisals are cognitive judgments of events and situations. Primary appraisal represents an individual’s judgments as to whether or not something is a stressor. For example, an impending work deadline may or may not be perceived as stressful, and there are a number of factors that would impact this judgment such as the importance of the deadline, the work tasks necessary to meet the deadline, and the consequences of not meeting the deadline. If something is in fact perceived as a stressor, the next form of appraisal that comes to the forefront, according to the transactional model, is secondary appraisal. Secondary appraisal, also referred to in the transactional model as coping, represents the way(s) that a person chooses to confront a stressor once it is perceived. Moreover, it is theorized that each appraisal occurs simultaneously and that secondary appraisals can inform primary appraisals, such that the available resources an individual has to cope with a stressor may inform how they appraise said stressor (primary appraisal).

In the previous example, a person with an impending deadline can respond to this stressor in a number of ways. For example, he or she can plan to spend more work time on the deadline, or ask for organizational resources to help meet the deadline—both of which would appear to be functional responses since they would likely increase the probability of actually meeting the deadline. On the other hand, we know that people often cope with deadlines in much less functional ways. They may procrastinate, downplay the importance of the deadline, or even consume alcohol in an effort not to think about the deadline.

The link between the transactional theory of stress and the CHM is rather straightforward since perceptions of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors are appraisals at their core. Interestingly, however, appraisal has not been explicitly incorporated to applications of the CHM until relatively recently and stressors were simply classified by researchers in an a priori fashion. This is a point we return to later in the review, but it is a very important one.

Since the model’s publication two decades ago, it has gained traction within the occupational stress literature. Empirical work based on the model continues to grow, and has expanded to incorporate a wider variety of criterion variables (e.g., organizational citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors, Rodell and Judge, 2009; workplace safety, Clarke, 2012), more rigorous methodology (multi-level studies, Idris and Dollard, 2014; daily diary studies, Tadić et al., 2015), and a more nuanced understanding of the boundary conditions and explanatory mechanisms associated with the model (O’Brien and Beehr, 2019).

To quantitatively summarize support for the model across individual studies, multiple meta-analyses have been conducted. For example, LePine et al. (2005) and Podsakoff et al. (2007) categorized stressors studied without an explicit basis in the CHM model as challenge stressors or hindrance stressors, finding partial support for the tenets of the CHM. Specifically, differential relationships were supported for some variables (performance and motivation in LePine et al., 2005 and job attitudes in Podsakoff et al., 2007), but there were also significant positive relationships between both types of stressors and strain in both meta-analyses.

A more recent meta-analysis investigated support for the model among studies using the CHM framework, finding some evidence for CHM predictions when considering task performance as the dependent variable, but not for organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior, job attitudes, retention and strain (Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019). Based on the existing body of evidence, our field remains divided on the utility and generalizability of the model, as evidenced by a recent point-counterpoint piece in which authors recommend to “move away from the current challenge-hindrance model” (Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019, p. 949) and recommend continued use of the framework to produce “interesting, valuable, and innovative research” (O’Brien and Beehr, 2019, p. 962). It is important to note that these recent point-counterpoint reviews aimed to investigate current levels of support for the model as it currently stands. Although the authors did offer some suggestions to improve the state of CHM literature, their arguments were framed primarily toward the discontinued or continued use of the existing model. The present review, however, expands upon these arguments through an integration of the arguments for and against the CHM, offering conceptual and methodological suggestions to shape future CHM research. In the following sections, we outline the rationale for a shifting paradigm in CHM research and describe advances in the literature that are illustrative of the proposed shift.

One indicator of the value of any theoretical framework is the extent to which it generates empirical research. If we judge the CHM by this criterion, it has proven to be at least as useful as any occupational stress theory ever developed (see Jex and Yankelevich, 2008 for a description of occupational stress theories). Thus, we are not advocating in this review that the CHM be abandoned or accepted in its current form. Rather, what we are arguing is that evidence has accumulated which suggests that the CHM must undergo major modifications if it is to remain valuable as a guiding framework for occupational stress research. As research and theory-building is an inherently incremental effort, we assert that now is the appropriate time to adapt the CHM based on advances in research design, measurement, and analysis. In this section we briefly summarize the reasons behind the need for a shifting paradigm.

Since its initial conception by Cavanaugh et al. (2000), research applying this framework made several advances in the way in which the tenets of the model are measured. Specifically, the opportunity to measure appraisals rather than classifying certain stressors as challenge stressor or hindrance stressor a priori is discussed. This notion is based on prior research that has found stressors can be appraised as both challenging and hindering (e.g., Webster et al., 2011; Searle and Auton, 2015). Additionally, some researchers argue for the inclusion of a third type of appraisal, threat appraisals.

Stressors were initially classified as either a challenge stressor or hindrance stressor in a universal fashion in the CHM (Cavanaugh et al., 2000) and initial CHM instruments followed this approach. For example, in Rodell and Judge (2009) measure of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they have experienced certain stressors that are considered to be challenge stressors. The items are based on a priori classifications, such as workload, responsibility, time pressure, and job complexity. Participants are also asked to indicate whether they have experienced role conflict, role ambiguity, red tape, and hassles at work, which are classified as hindrance stressors in an a priori fashion. Although these measures do build upon previous work by measuring a variety of stressors considered to be challenge stressors or hindrance stressors, a priori classification of a stressor in this manner can be problematic for both theoretical and empirical reasons.

First, as we previously mentioned, the a priori classification of stressors is not consistent with the transactional theory of stress, a foundational theory for the CHM (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). A central tenet of this theory is that individuals make an appraisal of a stressor as a hindrance if they feel like there are obstacles blocking them from achieving their work-related goals (Lazarus, 1991). In contrast, when a stressor offers an opportunity for mastery and growth it should be appraised as a challenge stressor (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Although prior research has supported that some stressors have a tendency to be related to positive and negative outcomes (LePine et al., 2005), the value of measuring individual appraisal cannot be overstated.

Second, research has provided evidence that measuring appraisal accounts for unique variance in strain outcomes (Searle and Auton, 2015). This indicates that perceptions of stressors such as workload is meaningful above and beyond the content of the stressor itself, and explaining increased variance bears theoretical importance given that it means findings are better grounded in expected factors as opposed to error. Yet, the current measurement of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors largely ignores the subjective appraisal of stressors. A recent meta-analysis found that challenge stressors and hindrance stressors were not always related to positive and negative outcomes as expected based on the CHM (Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019). As Mazzola and Disselhorst note, some of these inconsistent findings may be explained by the fact that many of the studies included in the meta-analysis did not measure challenge and hindrance appraisal and relied on a priori classification.

Give these findings, we argue that the needed shift in the existing CHM paradigm will incorporate individual appraisal of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors more often rather than relying on a priori classifications, and we highlight research that has incorporated this approach. For example, Webster et al. (2011) examined the relationship between two traditionally categorized hindrance stressors (role ambiguity and role conflict) and two challenge stressors (workload and responsibility for things) with challenge and hindrance appraisal. They found that these stressors were significantly related to both challenge and hindrance appraisal, with the exception of responsibility which was only positively related to challenge appraisal. These findings are consistent with the idea that stressors can be simultaneously appraised as both sources of challenge and hindrance simultaneously (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). More recently, Searle and Auton (2015) also found that stressors have the potential to be appraised simultaneously as challenging and hindering. Specifically, the authors found that time pressure, a stressor typically categorized as a challenge stressor, was appraised as both a challenge and hindrance to a similar extent. The a priori classification framework may present some challenges for understanding findings such as these.

Although one of the primary theses of the current review is that a shifted CHM paradigm will incorporate appraisals of stressors as challenge, hindrance, or threat, there may be situations where measuring appraisal may not be of feasible or advisable. Considerations should be made to how appraisals may influence participant response burden or the generalizability of previous findings from archival data and meta-analyses. In regard to research design, there are a number of instances in which appraisals should not be measured. Appraisals should not be measured in retrospect, given that the anticipated positive or negative outcome that influenced their appraisal may have already occurred and distorted their recollection of their initial appraisal. We also assert that there may be little value in asking participants how they generally appraise a stressor or event, given within-person variation in appraisal (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Instead, appraisals should be framed to a specific situation (Searle and Auton, 2015).

As the measurement of CHM appraisals is a relatively recent phenomenon (e.g., Webster et al., 2011), more work is needed to identify the situations in which researchers should or should not measure appraisals, as well as to advance the measurement of our objective work environment and our subjective experience of that environment (e.g., Frese and Zapf, 1999; Perrewé and Zellars, 1999). We do not assert that research based on a priori classification is invalid, but rather that within a shifted CHM paradigm, researchers will opt for the nuance and precision of explicit measurement of appraisal when possible and when appropriate for the research design. Researchers interested in measuring appraisals are referred to Webster et al. (2011), who measured appraisal by presenting participants with the definitions of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors and asking participants about the degree to which the stressor represented that definition. Readers are also referred to Searle and Auton (2015), who measured appraisals in terms of anticipated future impact (i.e., “will make my work challenging” on an agreement-based Likert scale).

As previously mentioned, there is considerable within-person variation in most stressors and strains (Beal, 2015). Additionally, researchers contend that the stress process is dynamic rather than static (McGrath and Beehr, 1990; Rosen et al., 2020). However, little research has sought to examine the temporal aspects underlying peoples’ experience of stress, such as fluctuating appraisals of stressors. Theories based on appraisal (e.g., the transactional theory of stress; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) highlight the importance of considering the acute event on which appraisals are based, as well as amount of resources available to direct toward stress-inducing stimuli. Given that events and availability of resources will differ over time, there is a great deal of value in accounting for temporal dynamics in stress research.

Based on this logic, not only should the appraisals of stressors differ over time, but the relationships between challenge stressors, hindrance stressors, and strain should also show temporal fluctuations. When an individual is able to predict and plan responses to a stressor, they are better able to invest their energy and efforts toward preparing for the stressor (Lazarus, 1991; Parke et al., 2018; Rosen et al., 2020). As a result of anticipation and planning, they should experience less strain compared to instances when they are not able to foresee a stressor.

Although this notion is currently understudied, a recent study by Rosen et al. (2020) highlights the value of considering the stability of challenge and hindrance stressor appraisals in the shifted CHM paradigm. When challenge stressors were stable from week-to-week, individuals were better able to anticipate stressors, relative to when challenge stressors fluctuated. As a result of anticipating stressors, individuals with stable challenge stressors appraised their stressors as challenging and ultimately experienced less overall stress. Individuals who experienced more fluctuations in challenge stressors exhibited worse task performance and reported greater subjective stress due to lower stressor anticipation and greater hindrance appraisals (Rosen et al., 2020). In sum, these findings provide preliminary evidence that accounting for the dynamic nature of challenge stressors may explain when challenge stressors are beneficial for employees and when they are detrimental.

Our review of the literature found no studies that have drawn from the CHM to examine the variability of hindrance stressors. However, a study conducted by Matta et al. (2017), may provide some evidence to help theorize how the fluctuation of hindrance stressors may result in negative outcomes. Matta et al. (2017) conducted both a lab and field study that examined the effects of consistent and inconsistent fair treatment. Interestingly, in their lab study, the authors found that being treated inconsistently fair and unfair resulted in worse physiological stress than being treated consistently unfair. Additionally, in their follow-up field study they found that people who experienced more justice variability were less satisfied with their job and more emotionally exhausted at the day level.

The theoretical mechanism that explains these findings is posited to be the uncertainty individuals feel when they experience inconsistency at work (Matta et al., 2017). Across a wide variety of contexts, when individuals experience uncertainty they feel less control and ultimately more stress (Bordia et al., 2004; Matta et al., 2017). Applied to hindrance stressors, it is possible that fluctuations in hindrance stressors are worse for well-being relative to experiencing high levels of this type of stressor regularly. For example, if an individual sporadically has to cope with role conflict, they may experience worse strain than an individual who consistently deals with role conflict because they are unable to anticipate the hindrance stressors and mobilize resources to cope with it. However, research has yet to investigate how fluctuations in hindrance stressors between time points impact individuals’ ability to anticipate stressors and mobilize coping resources to deal with their stress.

Overall, accounting for the temporal dynamics of stressors sheds light on whether challenge stressors result in positive or negative outcomes for employees, which has theoretical implications for the CHM (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Namely, accounting for changes in the amount of challenge stressors employees experience is important to understand when hypothesizing about the relationship between stressors, appraisals, and subsequent outcomes. Such findings also have important practical implications. Based on the idea that challenge stressors should promote goal attainment at work, researchers (e.g., LePine et al., 2005) have recommended that managers and supervisors provide their employees with challenging opportunities. However, if an employee is not able to predict or anticipate when they will be faced with a greater workload or be placed under time pressure, they are likely to experience strain (Parke et al., 2018; Rosen et al., 2020). Therefore, managers and supervisors should be cognizant that challenge stressors have the potential to result in mastery and growth when an employee has the ability to predict and allocate coping resources to that demand. Perhaps building in planned opportunities for challenge into employee training and development plans would be an effective way of achieving this goal.

Another potential explanation for the inconsistent support for the tenets of the CHM could lie in the fact that curvilinear relationships have not been explored extensively. Earlier in this review, we noted that the historical roots of CHM acknowledge the possibility of non-linear relationships (Yerkes and Dodson, 1908). Challenge stressors may have the potential for growth and mastery, but when they are experienced in excess, employees may not obtain the positive benefits challenges have to offer. For example, responsibility for tasks at work is commonly characterized as a challenge stressor (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Rodell and Judge, 2009). However, benefits and goal attainment may only occur when individuals have moderate responsibility for certain aspects of their work. In contrast, when an individual has very little responsibility, they may not be given the opportunity to experience growth. On the other hand, when they experience too much responsibility, they may feel overwhelmed and not perform to their fullest. Therefore, it is possible that when it comes to challenge stressors, an individual may experience too much, or little, of a good thing to reap the benefits of said stressor (Mazzola and Disselhorst, 2019).

The possibility of curvilinear relationships was explored in Cavanaugh et al. (1998) working paper, but much of the CHM literature seems to default to linear hypotheses. Although understudied, there is some evidence that challenge stressors have the potential to have curvilinear relationships with outcomes. For instance, Baer and Oldham (2006) found that time pressure had a curvilinear relationship (inverted U-shape) with creativity for employees who reported high levels of openness to experience and worked in an organization that reported high levels for creativity. Although not the primary focus of their study, Rosen et al. (2020) conducted a polynomial regression analysis and found that greater fluctuations in challenge stressors from week-to-week had a curved response surface. This finding suggests that as the difference between past challenge stressors and current stressors becomes greater, individuals are increasingly less attentive and able to anticipate stressors at work. In regard to stress appraisal, the curved estimate for the difference between past and current challenge stressors, was significant for both challenge and hindrance appraisal. In other words, as fluctuations between past and current stressors increase, individuals make even fewer challenge appraisals and increasingly more hindrance appraisals. Increased consideration of non-linear forms of CHM relationships, particularly when integrated with appraisal-based measurement rather than a priori classification, will foster a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of stressor-strain relationships in a shifted CHM paradigm.

While some recent CHM advances relate to the measures and analytic techniques used in studies examining the model, other advances relate to the CHM itself. That is, recent research on boundary conditions and explanatory mechanisms provide a greater understanding of how CHM components related to one another and the conditions under which CHM tenets are supported.

The CHM provides a useful lens for understanding stressor-strain relationships. However, with the exception of appraisal-based theories of stress, occupational stress theories have rarely incorporated challenge and hindrance distinction into their propositions. We discuss opportunities for integration with other influential work stress theories and hope that more authors will consider integration of CHM with these theories when appropriate for the aims and scope of their research.

We encourage researchers to adhere to the measurement and design-related recommendations made throughout this review, including direct measurement of appraisal of stressors as challenging or hindering when appropriate, a consideration of the differentiation between hindrance appraisals and threat appraisals, greater attention to temporal influences in appraisals and the relationships between stressors and strain, attention to the possibility of non-linear relationships, and continued exploration of moderators and mediators pertinent to the CHM. Although each recommendation may not be relevant or feasible for all future CHM studies, attention to such recommendations when possible will better acknowledge the foundational theoretical models on which CHM is built, better acknowledge the complexities of occupational stress research, and may help address inconsistent findings in CHM research. In addition to the recommendations offered throughout this review, we encourage researchers to consider the following recommendations for future CHM research design.

Despite the simplicity and popularity of the model, the CHM has yet to be fully explored from an intervention perspective. In a recent systematic review of occupational health psychology interventions, none of the coded studies cited CHM as a basis for the intervention being evaluated (Burgess et al., 2019). Interventions based off of the CHM framework could adopt several approaches. First, employees could be trained on the potential value of appreciating challenges, combatting any pervasive avoidance response to all stressors. Prior to an intervention based on this educational approach, an employee could universally avoid or react poorly to all stressors, even challenge stressors. Through the intervention they would reshape appraisals and behaviors toward challenge stressors. Such logic is consistent with the approach of providing psychoeducation on eustress and distress in a stress management intervention (Le Fevre et al., 2006).

Second, a job crafting perspective could encourage employees to seek out more features of their job that are challenging and fewer that are hindering. Job crafting, thought of as “individual job redesign” (Tims and Bakker, 2010, p. 1), refers to employees actively changing the boundaries, conditions, relationships, and meaning involved in their work (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). In fact, the Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012) represents an integration of the CHM with the JD-R Model, as the items reference increasing challenging job demands, decreasing hindering job demands, and securing social and structural resources. Although not explicitly based on CHM, job crafting interventions (particularly those in which protocols mirror the factors of the Job Crafting Scale), could be seen as interventions that are related to CHM. Although the body of evidence on job crafting interventions is still growing, preliminary support exists for their utility in supporting employee well-being (Demerouti et al., 2019).

Finally, a job design perspective would suggest that interventions based on CHM should design work to decrease hindrances and build in more challenges. Whereas the job crafting approach would depend on proactive redesign efforts from the part of the employee, a job design perspective would involve an organization creating or restructuring a job in a way that better supports motivation and well-being (e.g., Hackman and Oldham, 1976). From a CHM perspective, the goal of a job redesign effort would be to minimize hindrance stressors and maximize challenge stressors.

Strategies used in job design or redesign efforts include job rotation (rotating jobs to promote flexibility, awareness, and motivation), job enlargement (expanding the breadth of work tasks and responsibilities), and job enrichment (increasing autonomy in the manner of fulfillment of job tasks; Belias and Sklikas, 2013). Although these strategies are expected to lead to enhanced satisfaction and motivation, they could also introduce some new stress into an employee’s work life due increased responsibility and expanded tasks. Yet, through a CHM framework these new stressors would be more likely to be appraised as challenge stressors and support positive outcomes. As the literature on interventions to improve employee quality of work life continues to grow and evolve, researchers and practitioners may wish to further investigate the utility of a CHM perspective.