Extending Theory on Job Stress

83 downloads 10182 Views 245KB Size Report
Feb 21, 2014 - “Big 5” dimensions moderate the “Other 3”–job stress relationship. ..... with calls to study job stress as a variable (Beehr, 1998; Beehr & Newman, 1978), ...... work attitudes of home health care and hospital nurses. ... Emotional exhaustion and performance among call center customer service representatives.
492332

HRD13110.1177/1534484313492332Human Resource Development ReviewSur and Ng

research-article2013

Theory and Conceptual Article

Extending Theory on Job Stress: The Interaction Between the “Other 3” and “Big 5” Personality Traits on Job Stress

Human Resource Development Review 2014, Vol. 13(1) 79–101 © 2013 SAGE Publications Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1534484313492332 hrd.sagepub.com

Sujit Sur1 and Eddy S. Ng1

Abstract This article proposes that the variation in perceived job stress by individuals is explained by the interaction between the situational “Other 3” dimensions (locus of control, self-monitoring, and self-efficacy) and the “Big 5” personality traits. Situational stressors primarily impact the “Other 3” dimensions in the general model. The “Other 3” dimensions mediate the stressor–job stress relationship, while the “Big 5” dimensions moderate the “Other 3”–job stress relationship. In the sequential process model, the “Other 3” dimensions and job stress are cross-lagged related to define subsequent variations in the “Other 3” dimensions of personality and job stress. This perspective is consistent with the interactional perspective, wherein personality mediates the relationship of the individual with the environment. We offer several research propositions and conclude with implications for research and practice. Keywords personality traits, locus of control, self-efficacy, self-monitoring, job stress

Introduction Despite the commonly accepted importance of job stress in view of its economic and health impact (Cooper, 2006; Gilboa, Shirom, Fried, & Cooper, 2008; Kowske & Woods, 2008), the concept of job stress was a relatively neglected area in research until the late 1970s (Beehr, 1998). Subsequent research has been fraught with confusion in 1Dalhousie

University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Corresponding Author: Eddy S. Ng, Rowe School of Business, Dalhousie University, 6100 University Ave, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

80

Human Resource Development Review 13(1)

terminology, relatively weak methodology, lack of systematic, interdisciplinary approaches, and poor attention to many elements of specific facets (Baba, Jamal, & Tourigny, 1998; Beehr, 1998; Meurs & Perrewé, 2011; Siegrist, 2001). Furthermore, we identified a gap in the literature for understanding the variation in job stress over time, as perceived by the same individual in a relatively unchanging situation. This article attempts to fill that gap and extend the theory on job stress by exploring only one specific aspect, namely the interplay of personality dimensions and job stress, at the individual level, within a relatively unchanging situational environment. Specifically, we developed an individual level exploratory model grounded in literature, which might be indicative of the ongoing dynamics between the personality dimensions and job stress, and offer some propositions on the ongoing personality–job stress relationship. The proposed model will further our understanding of the personality–job stress relationship in three distinct ways: First, we develop a general model explaining the relationship among the different personality dimensions as determinants of job stress. Second, we offer a process model for understanding the ongoing cross-lagged relationship (Kenny, 1975; Lang, Bliese, Lang, & Adler, 2011) between personality on job stress, and vice versa. And third, we advance a tentative rationale for explaining the mixed/modest findings in the literature on the relationship between personality and job stress by researchers. It is important to study job stress within the context of human resource development, because of its impact on learning and performance. Russ-Eft (2001) noted the lack of attention to job stress in human resource development literature (with two articles on stress in Human Resource Development Quarterly [HRDQ], one in Advances in Developing Human Resources [ADHR], and none in Human Resource Development International [HRDI]). We updated her survey and found three subsequent studies involving job and stress in HRDI (Boerner, Dutschke, & Wied, 2008; Kuchinke, Cornachione, Oh, & Kang, 2010; Kwakman, 2001), and one conceptual paper in Human Resource Development Review (HRDR; Sikora, Beaty, & Forward, 2004). Kwakman examined the relationship between stress and learning, and found that job control mediated that relationship. Likewise, Boerner and colleagues examined the relationship between charismatic leadership and follower citizenship behavior, and reported that stress mediates that relationship. Kuchinke and colleagues also examined the meaning of work and work stress in three countries. However, none of these studies examined stress as a dependent variable. Sikora et al. (2004) proposed a model for examining multiple sources of stress and individual response to asynchronous stress. In this article, we extend the work of Sikora and her colleagues by examining the variation in job stress over time, in a relatively unchanging situation. This article is organized as follows: First, we undertake a review of the extant literature on job stress, and the personality dimensions; thereafter, we develop a model for determining job stress based on the interaction between stressors and personality, and the ongoing dynamics between personality and job stress; next some exploratory propositions on causality and prediction of the relationships are presented; and the final section concludes with some issues for further research, brief comments on research and managerial implications, the limitations of our model, and concluding remarks.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

81

Sur and Ng

Job Stress: Defining the Domain According to the International Labour Organization Encyclopedia on Occupational Health and Safety, “job stress” is conceptualized in terms of the relationship between the job and the person. According to this view, job stress and the potential for ill health develop when job demands are at variance with the needs, expectations or capacities of the worker (Sauter, Hurrell, Murphy, & Levi, 1997). Although job stress has been extensively researched, job (work or occupational) stress was largely ignored by industrial-organizational psychologists until the 1980s (Beehr, 1998). A majority of stress research has been focused on the physical and mental health outcomes (see Baba et al., 1998; Danna & Griffin, 1999 for a review) than on the determinants or the process in the variation of stress. Most studies on job stress after the 1980s build on the organizational stress model defined by the Michigan group (Kahn, 2001; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, & Snoek, 1964). This model views stress as an individual’s reaction to the characteristics of work environment1 which appear threatening (Jamal, 1984; Kahn, 2001; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992), thus suggesting a poor fit between an individual’s capabilities and their work environment (Jamal, 1984). Most of these studies also focused on the role of demographics (e.g., gender, age, tenure, and ethnicity) and situational stressors (e.g., demands, role ambiguity, job control) to determine the appropriate fit, or interventions for mitigating the effects of the situational stressors (e.g., social support, autonomy, feedback). Karasek (1979) first offered the job control-demand model that asserted that enabling greater discretion to an individual leads to lowered job strain, as the individual develops appropriate coping behavior patterns. These “fit” studies, though relevant and greatly improving the understanding on the topic of occupational stress, do not however address the issue of differing job stress levels perceived by the same individual over time, even in a relatively unchanging job situation, vis-à-vis her job demands and control. In that vein, Nelson and Sutton (1990) suggest that personality dispositions might be a better predictor in assessing variation in job stress than situational tressors and social support. Other researchers, such as Schauboeck and Merritt (1997), and Xie (1996) also propose amending/extending the job control-demand model to include an individual’s personality dimensions. Some recent research also finds evidence between personality traits and perceptions of stress across different vocational types, thus supporting the relationship between individual personality traits and job stress (Saksvik & Hetland, 2011). Thus, situational stressors alone do not seem to explain the perceived job stress, while the individual’s personality dimensions appears to have a major role in the process. Although stress has been extensively studied in the last two decades in terms of its outcomes—so much so that job stress is seen more as a field than as a variable (Beehr, 1998)—the causal processes of job stress2 as perceived by an individual is relatively underresearched. To add to the confusion, the nomenclature of stress itself is sometimes used to mean an environmental “stressor” stimulus, and sometimes to mean an individual’s strain or distress reactions (Beehr, 1998). As the situational stressors were seen as the primary determinant of stress, researchers further classified job stress as perceived by an individual into specific areas, for example, psychological strain, time

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

82

Human Resource Development Review 13(1)

pressures, and work-life conflict. Additionally, stress was categorized as acute stress or chronic stress based on the duration of time for which it acts on an individual—in effect implying that the duration of stressor stimulus is the determinant of the type of stress, and if there are no changes in the stressors, the perceived stress levels too will not change. Some researchers (Baba et al., 1998; Beehr, 1998; Siegrist, 2001) also assert that most of the studies on job stress suffer from poor attention to many elements of specific facets, and are generally lacking in systematic analysis and suffer from methodological shortcomings. To cite an example, some of the proposed job stress models are process based, yet most studies are cross-sectional in design. Furthermore, most of the personality studies either focused on: (i) Negative affectivity or optimism (Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, & Webster, 1988; Watson & Clark, 1984), or (ii) Between person attributes such as gender (Greenglass, 2001; Hyde, 2004; Tokar, Fischer, Schaub, & Moradi, 2000), ethnic groups (Bernardi, 2003; Kirkcaldy, Trimpop, & Williams, 2002; Moradi & Hasan, 2004), age (Weist, Freedman, Paskewitz, Proescher, & Flaherty, 1995; Wheaton & Clarke, 2003), occupation (Jamal & Baba, 2001; Simmons, Nelson, & Neal, 2001), and other demographics (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003; Bernardi, 2003; Christie & Barling, 2009); or (iii) Situation-personality interactions (Lee & Ashforth, 1990; Magnusson, 2004; Saks & Ashforth, 2000). Most of these studies also find modest direct effects of personality dimensions (such as neuroticism, self-efficacy, and locus of control) and strong effect of social and supervisory support (Gelsema et al., 2006; Lepore, Evans, & Schneider, 1991), but no interaction effects (c.f. Roskies, Louis-Guerin, & Fournier, 1993; Xie, 1996). Some longitudinal studies do analyze the long-term effect of situational interventions like social support (Mackay & Cooper, 1987), but again find no interaction between personality and such external factors (Lee & Ashforth, 1992, 1993), or even interaction between situational stressors and social support (Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000). Thus, while most studies do find general effect for situational stressors like job demands, control, and role ambiguity, and specific effects of social and supervisory support, there is no consistent or conclusive finding of personality trait effects or interactive effects between personality and situation/support in the extant literature on job stress. While the underlying cause for stress might very well be the situational stressors (c.f. Nelson & Sutton, 1990), we assert that given the same situational stressors, different individuals do perceive different levels of stress. Furthermore, the same individual also perceives differing levels of stress over time, even in a relatively unchanging job situation. Hence, in accordance with the interactional perspective (Bandura, 1986; Caprara & Cervone, 2000), we assert that variation in job stress perceived by an individual is best understood by a fine-grained analysis of the individual’s personality over

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

83

Sur and Ng

time, and on the premise that personality fully mediates the stressor–job stress relationship (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).3 However, the full effect of an individual’s personality on that person’s perceived job stress is still relatively underresearched, likely because the personality trait effects are difficult to theorize. By definition, personality traits are temporally stable, while job stress may vary over time for the same individual. Hence, while a cross-sectional design is inappropriate for researching variation in job stress, because of the immutable nature of personality traits, a longitudinal analysis too is not fruitful as there will be inadequate variation in traits over time. The few studies (Elliott et al., 1994; FirthCozens, 1992; Firth-Cozens & Hardy, 1992; Stiles, Shapiro, & Firth-Cozens, 1988), that assess the change in levels of perceived stress within an individual, focus on the effect of psychodynamic psychological therapy on individuals, thereby analyzing the effect of intervention and coping mechanisms in alleviating job stress. Thus, these studies do not specifically address the issue of the causal mechanism and the developmental process of the personality–job stress relationship. In order to understand the personality–job stress relationship, we review the relevant literature on personality in the context of its effect on job stress.

The Personality Dimensions The Big Five Personality researchers have accepted the trait theory (Costa & McCrae, 1978, 1997; Goldberg, 1993) and proposed the five-factor model as most definitive in assessing personality (c.f. Hogan, 1996; Wiggins, 2004). Also referred to as the “Big 5,” the model consists of defining personality in terms of the traits of openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, and Barrick (1999) defined the “Big 5” as follows: Neuroticism is related to anxiety, instability and stress proneness, as well as personal insecurity and depression. Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely to experience negative moods and physical symptoms, and are more likely to be affected by negative life events. Extraversion is related to sociability, dominance, ambitiousness, and assertiveness. Extroverts are more likely to be associated with positive moods, have a greater number of friends, and take on leadership positions. Conscientiousness is associated with achievement orientation, dependability, and orderliness, and is linked with job performance. Openness to experience is characterized by intellectual, imaginative, and nonconforming. Agreeableness is associated with trusting, cooperative, and likeable. These traits are considered to be stable, consistent, and mostly genetically determined (Costa & McCrae, 1978; Wiggins, 2004).

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

84

Human Resource Development Review 13(1)

Literature suggests that neuroticism (Gunthert, Armeli, & Cohen, 1999; Tokar, Fischer, & Subich, 1998; van den Berg & Pitariu, 2005; Watson, 2001) and conscientiousness (Hyde, 2004; Knudstrup, Segrest, & Hurley, 2003; Tokar et al., 1998; van den Berg & Pitariu, 2005; Witt, Andrews, & Carlson, 2004) are highly correlated to perceived stress. Similarly, extraversion (Bowling, Beehr, & Swader, 2005; Dijkstra, Dierendonck, Evers, & Dreu, 2005; Hart, Wearing, & Headey, 1995; Tokar et al., 1998), agreeableness (Chen & Spector, 1992; Dijkstra et al., 2005; Simmons et al., 2001), and openness to experience (van den Berg & Pitariu, 2005; Wiggins, 2004) also have some effect on job stress. However, these relationships are considered to be complex, with modest effects, and/or are poorly understood. Furthermore, the consistency in behavior as predicted by the trait theory has been repeatedly challenged by researchers (e.g., Funder, 1997; Mischel, 1968; Nisbett, 1980) who assert that situations are more important than traits in explaining behavior. Though not denying the validity of the “Big 5,” some researchers (e.g., Buss, 1996; Heatherton & Weinberger, 1994; Hogan, 1996; Wiggins, 2004) critique the “Big 5” model for its inability to include the adaptive component of personality into account. They assert that human beings evolve or adapt their personality based on their social interactions. Some researchers also argue that people differ in their level of consistency even in their traits (Baumeister & Tice, 1988; Baumeister & Twenge, 2001; Bem & Allen, 1974; Britt & Shepperd, 1999). Thus, according to trait theory, the “Big 5” will fully determine the individual’s behavior, and changes in adulthood, if any, will be extremely gradual or negligible (Costa & McCrae, 1997), while adaptive theories predict that an individual will modify/adapt aspects of their personality based on their ongoing interactions. Without entering the debate on the merits of these perspectives, we agree with Wiggins’ (2004) and Wiggins and Trapnell’s (1996) proposition that these perspectives are complementary and we assert that inclusion of the situational dimensions will enable a better analysis of the specific effect of personality on job stress perceived by an individual. Such a perspective is in keeping with arguments that personality traits may be predictors of aggregated behavior over time and across situations, but may not be accurate predictors of specific individual acts (Epstein, 1979; Epstein & O’Brien, 1985). Thus, there is a need to include the situational dimensions of personality in order to understand the specific as well as the aggregated individual behavior when analyzing perceived job stress. We group the three situational personality dimensions, namely locus of control, self-efficacy and self-monitoring, under a nomenclature of the “Other 3” as explained below.

The Other Three Some other dispositional personality dimensions have also been considered by researchers to be of importance in analyzing the personality–job stress relationship. The three main situational dimensions of personality are locus of control, self-efficacy and self-monitoring. The construct of locus of control was first defined by Rotter (1966) as a predisposition in the perception of what causes reinforcement. Internal

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

85

Sur and Ng

locus of control implies a perception that reinforcement is contingent on one’s own behavior or personality, and external locus implies that reinforcements are due to luck, fate or other factors beyond one’s control (see Kormanik and Rocco, 2009, for a comprehensive review of locus of control). Self-efficacy was first defined by Bandura (1977) as the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the desired or required outcomes (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). Finally, self-monitoring was first defined by Snyder (1974) as the disposition to attend to social cues and to adjust one’s behavior to one’s social environment. Each of these personality dimensions are considered to be mutable (i.e., vary over time) and are considered to be dependent on the general context and specific situation, and thus are generally considered as situational personality dimensions. The literature on job stress points to consistent effects of locus of control (Bernardi, 1997; Chorpita & Barlow, 1998; Spector, Cooper, Sanchez, O’Driscoll, & Sparks, 2002) and self-efficacy (Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001; Jex & Gudanowski, 1992; Schaubroeck, Xie, & Lam, 2000) on reducing job stress. Literature also suggests that self-monitoring (Baron, 1989; Caligiuri & Day, 2000; Gangestad & Snyder, 2000; Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001; Miller, 2001; Zahrly & Tosi, 1989) also plays a role in determining an individual’s perception of their job stress. Based on the foregoing literature, research on intervention and coping mechanisms draws heavily from the findings of situational determinants of personality to define and design effective stress mitigation mechanisms. Thus, in the context of analyzing job stress, the role of locus of control, self-efficacy, and self-monitoring as a buffer against situational stressors is reasonably well-established (Bandura, 1977, 2004; Flammer, 2004). We collectively refer to these three dimensions as the “Other 3” in contrast to the established “Big 5” traits. However, some researchers argue that these three dimensions might also be the cause of job stress, insofar as these might induce some individuals (e.g., overtly ambitious, hurried, or high need for social status) to assume more responsibilities than they are able to cope (Bandura, 2004; Krohne, 2004; Wonderlich, 2001). In this regard, these three dimensions are generally considered to mutate or adapt, contingent on the situation, and thus are considered mostly as moderators or mediators in the personality-situation relationship by some researchers; while others consider these purely as situation specific behavior, useful in explaining variation in behavior by an individual only in that specific situation. Hence, most personality researchers consider the “Big 5” traits (indicative of the consistent behavior of an individual) as the “personal variables” and do not include the situational variables of the “Other 3” when analyzing personality effects on job stress (c.f. Organ, 1981). We assert that variation in job stress is better understood by analyzing the interaction between the relatively mutable “Other 3” personality dimensions, and the relatively stable traits of the “Big 5” dimensions. Thus, only by analyzing the interaction between the trait and situational dimensions of personality, can we can fully understand variable behavior (Ekehammer, 1974; Magnusson, 2004; Wonderlich, 2001) such as job stress as perceived by an individual. This perspective is also consistent with calls to study job stress as a variable (Beehr, 1998; Beehr & Newman, 1978),

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

86

Human Resource Development Review 13(1)

Figure 1. General model of personality–job stress relationship.

with personal, environmental, and time facets. In this regard, the interaction of the personality dimensions and their relationship and impact on the stressor–job stress relationship is argued to operate as illustrated in the following general and sequential process models.

Process Models of Personality—Job Stress We propose that the effects of situational stressors on perceived job stress are fully mediated by the “Other 3” personality dimensions of self-efficacy, locus of control and self-monitoring. Social support mitigates the effect of situational stressors on “Other 3,” while the “Big 5” personality dimensions moderate the “Other 3”–job stress relationship as shown in Figure 1. Thus in effect, we are arguing for interaction between the “Big 5” and “Other 3” as predictive of the variation in job stress perceived by an individual. This perspective is consistent with the interactional perspective (Bandura, 1986; Caprara & Cervone, 2000) wherein personality mediates the relationship of the individual with the environment (Caprara, 2001), explaining why the same situation affects different individuals differently. Thus unlike most literature on job stress, we argue for the main effects of the situational dimensions of “Other 3” and indirect trait effects of the “Big 5,” building on the premise that situations are the proximal causes for behavior, at least in the context of job stress. Such a view is also implied in the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework (Schaubroeck, Ganster, & Jones, 1998; Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995) as well as the interactional perspective (Snyder & Cantor, 1998) which suggests that personality traits dictate the selection of a particular situation, and the situation guides actual behavior (Baumeister & Twenge, 2001). This perspective is also consistent with the characteristic adaptation view toward stress and challenge (Pervin & John, 1999) that is favored by clinicians and practicing psychologists (c.f. McAdams, 2001).

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

87

Sur and Ng

Figure 2. Process model of the personality-job stress relationship.

Furthermore, we propose that given a relatively unchanging job situation (i.e., relatively constant levels of situational stressors and social support over a period of time), job stress is cross-lagged related to the “Other 3” personality dimensions. In other words, we propose that an individual’s job stress at Time 1 impacts the “Other 3” personality dimensions at Time 2, which in turn affects job stress at Time 2, and so on. See Figure 2 for a diagrammatic illustration of this cross-lagged relationship between job stress and the “Other 3” in a network of recursive causation, within a given social and organizational constraint (Caprara & Cervone, 2000), that may explain the variation in job stress experienced by an individual over time. Thus, we propose that in a given organizational and social setting, the mutable “Other 3” personality dimensions define and in turn are reflective of the variation in job stress perceived by an individual over time. Furthermore, at any given time, this “Other 3”–job stress relationship is moderated by the “Big 5” personality dimensions. Such a process is asserted to be able to encompass the previous findings, and explain the moderate/mixed findings in literature. Additionally, we also assert that these models are generalizable across the commonly studied demographics of gender, age, and ethnicity. In the following section, we develop the theoretical underpinning for these models and offer some tentative propositions on the process we described.

Research Propositions Situational Dimensions as Mediators In a relatively unchanging work environment, that is, the job stressors and social support are more or less the same over time, we first develop propositions stating that the

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

88

Human Resource Development Review 13(1)

“Other 3” situational personality dimensions mediate the stressor–job stress relationship. We offer propositions for each of the three dimensions individually, and thereafter all three collectively, to predict the mediation mechanism of the personality–job stress relationship. The first three propositions essentially build on existing literature to establish the direct relationship between the “Other 3” situational dimensions and job stress. The fourth proposition is thereafter derived from literature to propose that the “Other 3” dimensions collectively mediate the relationship between stressors and job stress. Locus of Control (Internal). Internal locus of control is well-established as negatively affecting job stress (Spector et al., 2001; Spector et al., 2002). Spector and colleagues found strong negative correlation between work locus of control and psychological strain among 24 countries universally. Likewise, some researchers (Bandura, Cioffi, Taylor, & Brouillard, 1988; Bernardi, 1997; Schaubroeck et al., 2000) find beneficial effects of internal locus of control in lowering job stress. Based on the foregoing, we propose the following as a starting point for our model: P1: Higher locus-of-control (Internal) will lead to lower perceived job stress. Self-Efficacy. As reviewed earlier, numerous studies have found empirical support for self-efficacy affecting perceived job stress. Schauboeck and Merritt (1997) find support that self-efficacy (along with job demand and job control) is the primary mediator of situation–stress reaction relationship in an individual. Likewise (Jex et al., 2001; Jex & Gudanowski, 1992; Schaubroeck et al., 2000), also find support for individual’s self-efficacy reduces perceived job stress. Thus, we propose that: P2: Higher self-efficacy will lead to lower perceived job stress. Self-Monitoring. Since its inception, the concept of self-monitoring was offered as a partial resolution of the traits versus situation controversy in personality and social psychology (Snyder, 2001). In this view, high self-monitors pick their behavioral cues from the situation, while low self-monitors’ behavior is better predicted from their traits and other stable dispositions (Snyder, 1987). Insofar as emotional exhaustion and job dissatisfaction are related to perceived job stress, Abraham (1998) found high self-monitoring predicted lower emotional exhaustion and job dissatisfaction. Likewise, Zahrly and Tosi (1989) found self-monitoring to be a better predictor of work/ family conflict than even situational stressors (e.g., role ambiguity, role conflict, and job control). Thus, we propose that: P3a: Higher self-monitoring will lead to lower perceived job stress. A second stream of self-monitoring research focused on the social interaction including organizational behavior of individual with differing self-monitoring attributes (Blakely, Andrews, & Fuller, 2003; Caligiuri & Day, 2000; Kilduff & Day, 1994;

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

89

Sur and Ng

Snyder, Gangestad, & Simpson, 1983; Zahrly & Tosi, 1989). In this regard, individuals high in self-monitoring conform to the social cues of the group and thus offer support to one another (Abraham, 1998). We propose that: P3b: High self-monitors avail higher social support and experience lower job stress As in any given job environment, all individuals experience relatively the same situational stressor and social support, however, their perception of job stress differ based on their individual personality dimensions. Some researchers (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) found an individual’s appraisal of a stressor and its effect on the individual is independent of the stressors’ objective properties, while others (e.g., Beehr & Bhagat, 1985) also found this relationship to exist in organizational sources of stress. A longitudinal study conducted by Nelson and Sutton (1990) on the relationships between work stressors, coping techniques, distress symptoms, and the performance of newcomers, found no support for work stressors and even coping mechanisms in explaining the variance in perceived stress. This perspective is consistent with the interactional perspective (Bandura, 1986; Caprara & Cervone, 2000) wherein personality mediates the relationship of the individual with the environment (Caprara, 2001). More specifically, the role of internal locus of control as a buffer against situational stressors is reasonably well-established (Bandura, 1977, 2004; Flammer, 2004). Similarly, Schauboeck and Merritt (1997) found support for self-efficacy as the primary mediator of situation– stress reaction relationship in an individual. Finally, Gupta, Paterson, Lysaght, and von Zweck (2012) found that self-monitoring acts as a coping mechanism, and thereby mediates the stressor–stress relationship. Based on these findings, we propose that: P4: The “Other 3” situational personality dimensions will mediate the job stressstressor as well as job stress-social support relationships. Trait Dimensions as Moderators. As stated earlier, most of the personality dimensions— job stress studies were cross-sectional studies as either states or traits by most researchers (Saksvik & Hetland, 2011), which resulted in modest findings of personality effects. The only longitudinal study (Organ, 1981) that assessed the dimensions of locus of control and neuroticism together, reported complex correlations of these dimensions with perceived job stress. In another study, Spector and O’Connell (1994) found negative affectivity (the state predictor of the neuroticism trait) and locus of control together (termed personality variables) to be significant predictors of job stress. Franks, Chapman, Duberstein, and Jerant (2009) also reported that the “Big 5” traits moderated the self-efficacy dimension in their study on patient care. Likewise, Morrison (1997) found interactive effects between the trait dimensions and situational dimensions in a study on business owners and managers. Taken together, these studies show a consistent interactive linkage of the situational dimensions with the trait dimensions to predict the perceived job stress. Building on these findings and utilizing an interactional perspective, the situational dimensions (Other 3) predict specific job stress behavior, while the traits dimensions (Big 5) are predictive of the aggregated job

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

90

Human Resource Development Review 13(1)

stress behavior. In other words, the trait personality dimensions are expected to moderate the effects of the situational personality dimensions. Thus, we propose that: P5: The “Big 5” dimensions will moderate the “Other 3”–job stress relationship. Specifically, based on the findings of numerous researchers (Gunthert et al., 1999; Hankin, Fraley, & Abela, 2005; Tokar, Fischer, & Subich, 1998), neuroticism will enhance the effect of the situational dimensions on perceived job stress. In their literature review on personality and vocational behavior, Tokar, Fischer, and Subich (1998) found that the effect of neuroticism on job stress was attenuated by an internal locus of control. Similarly, we propose that: P5a: The “Other 3” effect on job stress will be attenuated for high neuroticism. Likewise, we build on earlier findings (Hyde, 2004; van den Berg & Pitariu, 2005; Witt et al., 2004) for linking conscientiousness to perceived job stress. Additionally, in a longitudinal study on students’ subjective well-being, Bostic and Ptacek (2001) also found that conscientiousness moderated the situational personality dimension. Thus, we propose: P5b: The “Other 3” effect on job stress will be enhanced for high conscientiousness. In so far as hostility and aggressiveness can be viewed as the negative endpoint of agreeableness, many studies (e.g., Chen & Spector, 1992; Sadava, 2001; Simmons et al., 2001) point to the strong correlation between job stress and hostility and/or aggressiveness. Others (Bowling, Beehr, & Swader, 2005; Dijkstra et al., 2005; Hyde, 2004; van den Berg & Pitariu, 2005) also found negative correlations between agreeableness and job stress. More specifically, Dijkstra et al. (2005) reported that agreeableness moderated the impact of workplace distress. Thus, we propose that: P5c: The “Other 3” effect on job stress will be enhanced for high agreeableness. Similarly, we build on the findings on job stress and openness (Hyde, 2004; Jordan & Cartwright, 1998; van den Berg & Pitariu, 2005; Wiggins, 2004) and extroversion (Dijkstra et al., 2005; Hart et al., 1995; Tokar et al., 1998) to link job stress to the trait and situational personality dimensions. Morrison (1997) also found that self-monitoring, self-efficacy as well as locus of control to be strongly correlated to openness and extroversion in defining subjective well-being or lower job stress. Thus, we propose: P5d: The “Other 3” effect on job stress will be attenuated for high openness. P5e: The “Other 3” effect on job stress will be attenuated for high extroversion. Our model thus proposes indirect effects of the trait dimensions of personality and direct effects for the situational dimensions. This argument is in keeping with the

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

91

Sur and Ng

situation-personality interactional model (Bandura, 1986; Magnusson, 2004) as well as the situational-based model (Snyder & Cantor, 1998) that predicts situation as a primary determinant of behavior, though personality (traits) dictates which situations an individual encounters, that is, the mechanism of personality based self-selection (Arthur, Woehr, & Graziano, 2001) and the ASA model. As we propose indirect effects of the “Big 5” traits, our model is also able to explain the modest effect of personality (i.e., traits only) on perceived job stress as reported in earlier studies (Baba et al., 1998). We surmise that the “Big 5” traits have an indirect effect on perceived job stress, and the “Other 3” dimensions have a continuous and cross-lagged reciprocating relationship with perceived job stress. Such a model can also explain the reason why spirituality and religiosity (external locus of control, but high self-efficacy and self-monitoring) or hardiness (high self-efficacy and locus of control) mitigate the effects of job stressors on perceived stress levels (Jamal & Badawi, 1993). Thus, to summarize our general model, we propose: P6: At any given time, the effects of the “Other 3” personality dimensions, moderated by the “Big 5” traits effect will determine perceived job stress. The Process Model of Job Stress. In keeping with the interactional model, we assert that an individual’s personality consisting of the “Big 5” trait dimensions as well as the “Other 3” situational dimensions, functions through continuous and recursive interactions with the environment (Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007; Lang et al., 2011). We propose that the “Other 3” situational dimensions of personality mutate as a result of the perceived job stress, which in turn changes, based on the changes in the “Other 3” dimensions. Support for this argument can also be found in studies on coping and intervention mechanisms (e.g., Elliott et al., 1994; Firth-Cozens, 1992; Firth-Cozens & Hardy, 1992; Pervin & John, 1999). Although we did not find any studies reporting changes in self-monitoring as a consequence of job stress, there is anecdotal and intuitive support for individuals under stress reacting emotionally, for example, breaking down and crying, lashing out in anger or frustration, reaching out to coworkers for advice or support. Such evidence might suggest that self-monitoring levels in a person also mutate or change based on the perceived stress by the individual. Such changes might result in changes in the social support offered to the individual, or might directly impact the individual’s acceptance or cognition of job stress. Thus, we propose that: P7a: Job stress at time 1 will be predictive of changes in “Other 3” dimensions at time 2. Finally, in keeping with the interactional perspective, this process of interaction between the “Other 3” dimensions and job stress will be ongoing and recursive in nature. Support for such a cross-lagged relationship between the situational dimensions and job stress can be found in Örtqvist and Wincent (2010) study on role stress. In other words, we propose that the changes in the situational personality dimensions

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

92

Human Resource Development Review 13(1)

in subsequent time-periods will be predictive of the changes in the perceived job stress by the individual. Therefore, we propose that: P7b: “Other 3” personality dimensions at time 2 will predict changes in job stress at time 2 in accordance with the general model.

Implications for Research and Practice The model proposed in this article is exploratory, and thus one of the first research implications will be to operationalize and test the models. Future research might also assess if any combination of the “Big 5” and “Other 3” dimensions might be predictive of the personality “types” (e.g., Type A or B) behavior, or the differences between the achievement striving and impatient—irritable dimensions within Type A behavior pattern. Furthermore, the proposed model does not address whether the “Other 3” situational dimensions mutate together or independently; whether the changes are limited within a range; or even if the reciprocating relationship between changes in perceived stress and “Other 3” is linear, curvilinear or spiraling. Future research should also explore this relationship in greater depth. Our proposed model also has important managerial implications. As our model examines within-individual changes in job stress in a relatively unchanging workplace stressors, we offer a mechanism for assessing job stress in a work environment where the Karasek (1979) model of increasing job control or autonomy is either not possible (e.g., assembly line workers or facility management technicians), or cannot be increased (e.g., knowledge workers like software developers). In our model, the “Other 3” dimensions are not job specific, for example, a community leader carries her high self-efficacy and locus of control levels to workplace, and thus the model enables management a mechanism to monitor the changes in the “Other 3” dimensions to assess changes in job stress levels. Organizations can also be able to effectively intervene by appropriately manipulating the mix of the “Other 3” levels (e.g., encouraging employees to organize community-centered activities, charity fundraising, increased social interactions, involvement with spiritual/religious bodies—especially for individuals with external locus of control). Thus our model offers a generalizable, yet focused and targeted managerial intervention for alleviating job stress in individuals.

Limitations of the Model Although the present article covers the person–environment fit and demand-supportcontrol perspectives, we did not address the issues of job stress from an effort–reward imbalance perspective, as it is outside the scope of our coverage. Future studies should address the interplay of personality dimensions in analyzing job stress from the effort– reward perspective, that is, stress as caused by the imbalance in distributive justice (Siegrist, 1996). Another limitation of our proposed model is that we did not consider the direct effects of the traits dimensions in determining perceived job stress, in keeping with interactional and ASA perspectives. The modest effects found in previous studies

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

93

Sur and Ng

also point toward the indirect effects, as proposed by our model. Furthermore, our model did not address the rate of change of the “Other 3” personality dimensions. It may be argued that these dimensions vary differentially or that there might be interactions within these dimensions (e.g., self-monitoring levels might not vary, while self-efficacy might be situation specific only, or that self-efficacy interacts with locus of control to determine perceived job stress). Finally, our model did not distinguish between types of job stress (e.g., eustress, distress, psychological strain, work-life conflict) or the duration of job stress (acute or chronic) in accordance with Doby and Caplan (1995), nor did we distinguish between attitude and behavior in this model. Our model is thus limited to the conceptualization of perceived job stress as a psychological response manifested in behavior (as in individual attitude). We also did not include the physiological response to stress manifested in illness, medical absence, and/or decreased productivity as behavior. Though our model might very well be descriptive and predictive of physiological response, we believe that illness and constraints on behavior caused by factors other than perceived job stress are certain to confound the analysis. Finally, although our conceptual model proposes a fully mediated relationship between situational stressors/support and job stress, it also possible that beyond a certain threshold or in a rapidly changing work environment, situational stressors/support might have direct impact on job stress, and only partially mediated by personality dimensions. We call for future empirical research to operationalize our model and investigate these relationships in greater detail.

Concluding Remarks In conclusion, our model argues for inclusion of the “Other 3” situational dimensions to the “Big 5” trait dimensions for analyzing the personality effects on perceived job stress. We propose that variation in perceived job stress is best understood in terms of a process model that encompasses changes in the “Other 3” dimensions. The question on whether the “Other 3” situational dimensions interact within themselves or not, is in itself of interest but can only be tested empirically and we call for future studies to explore the relationships among the “Other 3,” “Big 5,” and perceived job stress in depth. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes 1.

Stress can be a state anxiety or a trait anxiety. State anxiety is situational, while trait anxiety is individual, fixed level of stress (c.f., Sager & Wilson, 1995). We treat job stress as state anxiety because state anxiety fluctuates and is therefore changing.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

94 2.

3.

Human Resource Development Review 13(1) We acknowledge that there are varying ways to conceptualize and operationalize job stress (see Sager & Wilson, 1995 for a discussion), including perceived and actual job stress. Few studies have empirically examined actual job stress, likely due to difficulties in its conceptualization and measurement (Finnøy, 2000, Sager & Wilson, 1995). Although perceived job stress has been shown to be related to actual job stress (Zheng, 2012), evidence suggests that perceived job stress is a better predictor than actual job stress on work outcomes such as burnout (Chambers, 1993). In following the lead of Mark and Smith (2008), we offer that job stress may simply be measured by asking individuals if their job makes them feel stressed—however perceived by the individual. We do not distinguish between job stress and psychological strain in our argument. We acknowledge that time pressures, psychological strain and work-life conflict might operate differently between individuals; however, in accordance with Doby and Caplan (1995), we assume the high correlation between these to use the construct of job stress as an aggregation of all the different pressures, conflicts, and strains.

References Abraham, R. (1998). Emotional dissonance in organizations: A conceptualization of consequences, mediators and moderators. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19(3), 137-146. Arthur, W., Jr., Woehr, D. J., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Personality testing in employment settings: Problems and issues in the application of typical selection practices. Personnel Review, 30, 657-676. Baba, V. V., Jamal, M., & Tourigny, L. (1998). Work and mental health: A decade in Canadian research. Canadian Psychology, 39(1-2), 94-107. Bacchini, D., & Magliulo, F. (2003). Self-image and perceived self-efficacy during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 337-349. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2004). Self-efficacy and health. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 20, pp. 13815-13820). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Bandura, A., Cioffi, D., Taylor, C. B., & Brouillard, M. E. (1988). Perceived self-efficacy in coping with cognitive stressors and opioid activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 479-488. Baron, R. A. (1989). Personality and organizational conflict: Effects of the Type A behavior pattern and self-monitoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 281-296. Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1988). Metatraits. Journal of Personality, 56, 571-598. Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2001). Personality and social behavior. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 16, pp. 11276-11281). New York, NY: Elsevier. Beehr, T. A. (1998). Research on occupational stress: An unfinished enterprise. Personnel Psychology, 51, 835-844. Beehr, T. A., & Bhagat, R. S. (Eds.). (1985). Human stress and cognition in organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

95

Sur and Ng

Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665-699. Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and coworker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 391-405. Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The research for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506-520. Bernardi, R. A. (1997). The relationships among locus of control, perceptions of stress, and performance. Journal of Applied Business Research, 13(4), 1-8. Bernardi, R. A. (2003). A theoretical model for the relationship among: Stress, locus of control, and longevity. Business Forum, 26(3/4), 27-34. Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Fuller, J. (2003). Are chameleons good citizens? A longitudinal study of the relationship between self-monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(2), 131-144. Boerner, S., Dutschke, E., & Wied, S. (2008). Charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the role of stressors and strain. Human Resource Development International, 11, 507-521. Bostic, T. J., & Ptacek, J. T. (2001). Personality factors and the short-term variability in subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 355-373. Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., & Swader, W. M. (2005). Giving and receiving social support at work: The roles of personality and reciprocity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 476-489. Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. M. (1988). Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 193-198. Britt, T. A., & Shepperd, J. A. (1999). Trait relevance and trait assessment. Personality and Social Psychological review, 3(2), 108-122. Buss, D. M. (1996). Chapter six: Social adaptation and five major factors of personality. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Caligiuri, P. M., & Day, D. V. (2000). Effects of self-monitoring on technical, contextual, and assignment-specific performance. Group & Organization Management, 25(2), 154-174. Caprara, G. V. (2001). Personality and adaptive behaviors. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 11254-11256). New York, NY: Elsevier. Caprara, G. V., & Cervone, D. (2000). Personality: Determinants dynamics, and potentials. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Chambers, R. (1993). Avoiding burnout in general practice. British Journal of General Practice, 43, 442-443. Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(3), 177-184. Chorpita, B. F., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). The development of anxiety: The role of control in the early environment. Psychological Bulletin, 214(1), 3-21. Christie, A., & Barling, J. (2009). Disentangling the indirect links between socioeconomic status and health: The dynamic roles of work stressors and personal control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1446-1478. Cooper, C. L. (2006). The challenges of managing the changing nature of workplace stress. Journal of Public Mental Health, 5(4), 6-9.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

96

Human Resource Development Review 13(1)

Costa, J. P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1978). Objective personality assessment. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Costa, J. P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Longitudinal stability of adult personality. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25, 357-384. Dijkstra, M. T. M., Dierendonck, D. v., Evers, A., & Dreu, C. K. W.D. (2005). Conflict and well-being at work: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 87-104. Doby, V. J., & Caplan, R. D. (1995). Organizational stress as threat to reputation: Effects on anxiety at work and at home. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1105-1123. Ekehammer, B. (1974). Interactionism in personality from a historical perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1026-1048. Elliott, R., Shapiro, D. A., Firth-Cozens, J., Stiles, W. B., Hardy, G. E., Llewelyn, S. P., & Margison, F. R. (1994). Comprehensive process analysis of insight events in cognitivebehavioral and psychodynamic-interpersonal psychotherapies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 449-463. Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097-1126. Epstein, S., & O’Brien, E. J. (1985). The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 513-537. Finnøy, O. J. (2000). Job satisfaction and stress symptoms among personnel in child psychiatry in Norway. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 54, 397-403. Firth-Cozens, J. (1992). The role of early family experiences in the perception of organizational stress: Fusing clinical and organizational perspectives. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(1), 61-75. Firth-Cozens, J., & Hardy, G. E. (1992). Occupational stress, Clinical treatment and changes in job perceptions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 81-88. Flammer, A. (2004). Self-efficacy. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social &behavioral sciences (pp. 13812-13815). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Franks, P., Chapman, B., Duberstein, P., & Jerant, A. (2009). Five factor model personality factors moderated the effects of an intervention to enhance chronic disease management self-efficacy. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 473-487. Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1084-1102. Funder, D. C. (1997). The personality puzzle. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Gangestad, S., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-Monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530-555. Gelsema, T. I., Van Der Doef, M., Maes, S., Janssen, M., Akerboom, S., & Verhoeven, C. (2006). A longitudinal study of job stress in the nursing profession: Causes and consequences. Journal of Nursing Management, 14, 289-299. Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61, 227-271. Goldberg, L. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26-34.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

97

Sur and Ng

Greenglass, E. R. (2001). Gender role stress and health. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social &behavioral sciences (Vol. 9, pp. 6027-6029). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Gunthert, K. C., Armeli, S., & Cohen, L. H. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1087-1100. Gupta, S., Paterson, M. L., Lysaght, R. M., & von Zweck, C. M. (2012). Experiences of burnout and coping strategies utilized by occupational therapists. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(2), 86-95. Hankin, B. L., Fraley, R. C., & Abela, J. R. Z. (2005). Daily depression and cognitions about stress: Evidence for a trait like depressogenic cognitive style and the prediction of depressive symptoms in a prospective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 673-685. Hart, P. M., Wearing, A. J., & Headey, B. (1995). Police stress and well-being: Integrating personality, coping and daily work experiences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68(2), 133-156. Heatherton, T. F., & Weinberger, J. (Eds.). (1994). Can personality change? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hogan, R. (1996). Chapter five: A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hyde, J. S. (2004). Gender differences in personality and social behavior. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 5989-5994). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33(1), 1-21. Jamal, M., & Baba, V. V. (2001). Type A behavior, job performance, and well-being in college teachers. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 231-240. Jamal, M., & Badawi, J. (1993). Job stress among Muslim immigrants in North America: Moderating effects of religiosity. Stress Medicine, 9(3), 145-151. Jex, S. M., & Gudanowski, D. M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An exploratory study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 509-517. Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on stressor-strain relations: Coping style as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 401-409. Jordan, J., & Cartwright, S. (1998). Selecting expatriate managers: Key traits and competencies. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19(2), 89-96. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652. Kahn, R. L. (2001). Stress in organizations, psychology of. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 22, pp. 15179-15184). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., & Snoek, J. D. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-309. Kenny, D. A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 887-903.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

98

Human Resource Development Review 13(1)

Kilduff, M., & Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047-1060. Kirkcaldy, B. D., Trimpop, R. M., & Williams, S. (2002). Occupational stress and health outcome among British and German managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 491-505. Kormanik, M. B., & Rocco, T. S. (2009). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A review of the locus of control construct. Human Resource Development Review, 8, 463-483. Knudstrup, M., Segrest, S. L., & Hurley, A. E. (2003). The use of mental imagery in the simulated employment interview situation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 573-591. Kowske, B., & Woods, C. (2008). Rolaids® or revolution: Three scenarios for the future of work stress and employee health costs. People and Strategy, 31(4), 48-55. Krohne, H. W. (2004). Stress and coping theories. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social &behavioral sciences (Vol. 22, pp. 15163-15170). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Kuchinke, K., Cornachione, E., Oh, S., & Kang, H. (2010). All work and no play? The meaning of work and work stress of mid-level managers in the United States, Brazil, and Korea. Human Resource Development International, 13, 393-408. Kwakman, K. (2001). Work stress and work-based learning in secondary education: Testing the Karasek model. Human Resource Development International, 4, 487-501. Lang, J., Bliese, P. D., Lang, J. W. B., & Adler, A. B. (2011). Work gets unfair for the depressed: Cross-lagged relations between organizational justice perceptions and depressive symptoms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 602-618. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer. Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1990). On the meaning of Maslach’s three dimensions of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 743-747. Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Work-unit structure and processes and job-related stressors as predictors of managerial burnout. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1831-1847. Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1993). A longitudinal study of burnout among supervisors and managers: Comparisions between the Leiter and Maslach (1988) and Golembiewski et al. (1986) models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 369-398. Lepore, S. J., Evans, G. W., & Schneider, M. L. (1991). Dynamic role of social support in the link between chronic stress and psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 899-909. Mackay, C. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1987). Chapter six. New York, NY: Wiley. Magnusson, D. (2004). Interactionism and personality. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 7691-7695). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Mark, G. M., & Smith, A. P. (2008). Stress models: A review and suggested new direction. In J. Houdmont & S. Leka (Eds.), EA-OHP series (Vol. 3, pp. 111-144). Nottingham, UK: Nottingham University Press. McAdams, D. P. (2001). Personality psychology. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 16, pp. 11308-11313). New York, NY: Elsevier. Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low selfmonitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 121-146. Meurs, J. A., & Perrewé, P. L. (2011). Cognitive activation theory of stress: An integrative theoretical approach to work stress. Journal of Management, 37, 1043-1068.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

99

Sur and Ng

Miller, J. S. (2001). Self-monitoring and performance appraisal satisfaction: An exploratory field study. Human Resource Management, 40, 321-332. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley. Moradi, B., & Hasan, N. T. (2004). Arab American persons’ reported experiences of discrimination and mental health: The mediating role of personal control. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 418-428. Morrison, K. A. (1997). Personality correlates of the five-factor model for a sample of business owners/managers: Associations with scores on self-monitoring, type A behavior, locus of control, and subjective well-being. Psychological Reports, 80, 255-272. Nelson, D. L., & Sutton, C. (1990). Chronic work stress and coping: A longitudinal study and suggested new directions. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 859-869. Nisbett, R. E. (1980). The trait construct in lay and professional psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Organ, D. W. (1981). Direct, indirect, and trace effects of personality variables on role adjustment. Human Relations, 34, 573-587. Örtqvist, D., & Wincent, J. (2010). Role stress, exhaustion, and satisfaction: A cross-lagged structural equation modeling approach supporting Hobfoll’s loss spirals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1357-1384. Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of personality theory and research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Roskies, E., Louis-Guerin, C., & Fournier, C. (1993). Coping with job insecurity: How does personality make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 617-630. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1-28. Russ-Eft, D. (2001). Workload, stress, and human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 1-3. Sadava, S. (2001). The uncertain mind: Individual differences in facing the unknown. Canadian Psychology, 42, 333-335. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). The role of dispositions, entry stressors, and behavioral plasticity theory in predicting newcomers’ adjustment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 43-62. Saksvik, I., & Hetland, H. (2011). The role of personality in stress perception across different vocational types. Journal of Employment Counseling, 48(1), 3-16. Sager, J. K., & Wilson, P. H. (1995). Clarification of the meaning of job stress in the context of sales force research. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15(3), 51-63. Sauter, S., Hurrell, J., Murphy, L., & Levi, L. (1997). Psychosocial and organizational factors. In J. Stellman (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety (Vol. 1, pp. 34.134.77), Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office. Schauboeck, J., & Merritt, D. E. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping with work stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 738-754. Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Jones, J. R. (1998). Organization and occupation influences in the attraction-selection-attrition process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 869-891. Schaubroeck, J., Xie, J. L., & Lam, S. S. K. (2000). Collective efficacy versus self-efficacy in coping responses to stressors and control: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 512-525. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-773.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

100

Human Resource Development Review 13(1)

Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high effort/low reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27-41. Siegrist, J. (2001). Stress at work. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 15175-15179). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Sikora, P. B., Beaty, E. D., & Forward, J. (2004). Updating theory on organizational stress: The asynchronous multiple overlapping change (AMOC) model of workplace stress. Human Resource Development Review, 3(1), 3-35. Simmons, B. L., Nelson, D. L., & Neal, L. J. (2001). A comparison of the positive and negative work attitudes of home health care and hospital nurses. Health Care Management Review, 26(3), 63-74. Snyder, M. (1974). Self monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537. Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, public realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. Snyder, M. (2001). Self-monitoring, psychology of. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 13841-13844). New York, NY: Elesiver. Snyder, M., & Cantor, N. (1998). Understanding personality and social behavior: A functionalist strategy. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Snyder, M., Gangestad, S., & Simpson, J. A. (1983). Choosing friends as activity partners: The role of self-monitoring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1061-1072. Spector, P. E., & O’Connell, B. J. (1994). The contribution of personality traits, negative affectivity, locus of control and Type A to the subsequent reports of job stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(1), 1-12. Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez, J. I., O’Driscoll, M., & Sparks, K. (2002). Locus of control and well-being at work: How generalizable are Western findings. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 453-466. Spector, P., Cooper, C., Sanchez, J., O’Driscoll, M., Sparks, K., Bernin, P., & Yu, S. (2001). Do national levels of individualism and internal locus of control relate to well-being: An ecological level international study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 815-832. Stiles, W. B., Shapiro, D. A., & Firth-Cozens, J. A. (1988). Do sessions of different treatments have different impacts? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 391-396. Tokar, D. M., Fischer, A. R., & Subich, L. M. (1998). Personality and vocational behavior: A selective review of the literature, 1993-1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53(2), 115-153. Tokar, D. M., Fischer, A. R., Schaub, M., & Moradi, B. (2000). Masculine gender roles and counseling-related variables: Links with and mediation by personality. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 380-393. van den Berg, P. T., & Pitariu, H. (2005). The relationships between personality and well-being during societal change. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 229-234. Watson, D. (2001). Neuroticism. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social &behavioral sciences (pp. 10609-10612). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490. Weist, M. D., Freedman, A. H., Paskewitz, D. A., Proescher, E. J., & Flaherty, L. T. (1995). Urban youth under stress: Empirical identification of protective factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 705-721.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014

101

Sur and Ng

Wheaton, B., & Clarke, P. (2003). Space meets time: Integrating temporal and contextual influences on mental health in early adulthood. American Sociological Review, 68, 680-706. Wiggins, J. S. (2004). Personality structure. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (p. 11317). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Witt, L. A., Andrews, M. C., & Carlson, D. S. (2004). When conscientiousness isn’t enough: Emotional exhaustion and performance among call center customer service representatives. Journal of Management, 30(1), 149-160. Wonderlich, S. (2001). Personality theory and psychopathology. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 16, pp. 1132611330). New York, NY: Elsevier. Xie, J. L. (1996). Karasek’s model in the People’s Republic of China: Effects of job demands, control, and individual differences. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1594-1618. Zahrly, J. A. N., & Tosi, H. (1989). The differential effect of organizational induction process on early work role adjustment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 59-74. Zheng, G. (2012). Employees’ job stress—Actual to perception: Mental toughness as a moderator (Master’s dissertation). Tamkang University, Graduate Institute of Education Psychology and Counselling.

Author Biographies Sujit Sur is an Associate Professor at Dalhousie University’s Rowe School of Business & College of Sustainability in Halifax, Canada. His research focuses upon corporate ownership and behavioral governance, and their implication for firm performance including sustainability related initiatives. Sujit’s research is published in Journal of Management and Governance, Corporate Governance: An International Journal of Business in Society, as well as in Corporate Governance: An International Review. Sujit has also authored book chapters in Managing Climate Change Business Risks and Consequences: Leadership for Global Sustainability, Building businesses in emerging and developing countries: challenges and opportunities, Encyclopédie de la stratégie, as well as in Management through Collaboration: Teaming in a Networked World. Eddy S. Ng is an Associate Professor at Dalhousie University’s Rowe School of Business in Halifax, Canada. His research focuses on gender and diversity in organizations, and human resource management practices.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on February 21, 2014