Empirical research on Karasek's job demand–control (JD‐C) model has often failed to demonstrate the predicted interaction effect of high job demands and low job control on measures of strain. It has been suggested that the conceptualization of the control dimension as well as the neglect of workers' individual characteristics in the JD‐C model may be responsible for its relative lack of empirical support. In the current study among 367 Dutch nurses from 18 intensive care units, a more focused measure of control was used. In addition, two individual characteristics (i.e. active coping and need for control) were included as potential moderators in the JD‐C model. The demand‐control interaction effect as predicted by the JD‐C model could not be demonstrated. However, active coping turned out to moderate the interaction between job demands and job control. A misfit between level of control and individual coping style intensified the stress‐enhancing effect of job demands. Further research on the extension of the JD‐C model with personal characteristics is recommended.

The objective of this diary study was to look at the potential positive within-person relationships between positive emotions, work-related hope, and the three dimensions of work engagement on a daily level (i.e. vigor, dedication, and absorption). Following Broaden-and-Build theory and Affective Events Theory, it was expected that the experience of positive emotions would cause hope, which in turn would lead to a state of vigor, dedication, and absorption. The study was conducted among 59 employees of a Dutch university, who filled in a diary questionnaire for five consecutive working days, twice a day. As expected, the experience of positive emotions had an indirect effect on the level of vigor, dedication, and absorption through hope across days. So, it seems that an individual and daily perspective on work engagement is particularly worthwhile and provides valuable insights to enhance employee engagement in practice.

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www. informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

In the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership, the quality of the exchange relationship between a leader and a particular member of a work unit, team or organization is the basic unit of analysis (dyad). In this article, we try to answer the question whether research on the various aspects of the exchange processes between leaders and their subordinates is consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of LMX theory. Our focus is on the similarities and differences between the theoretical assumptions of LMX theory and the way the core concepts are elaborated in empirical studies. Although LMX theory has resulted in a number of useful accomplishments, both theoretical and practical, it still faces a number of challenges. The main challenges are to carry out a thorough and consistent refinement of the measuring instruments used, and to gain more insight into the mutual behaviours, attributions, and evaluations which facilitate or inhibit the development of high-quality working relationships.