An experience sampling study of learning, affect, and the demands control support model.

Abstract

The demands control support model (R.A. Karasek & T. Theorell, 1990) indicates that job control and social support enable workers to engage in problem-solving. In turn, problem-solving is thought to influence learning and well-being (e.g, anxious affect, activated pleasant affect).Two samples (N = 78, N = 106) provided data up to four times per day for up to five working days. We assessed the extent to which job control was used for problem-solving by measuring the extent to which participants changed aspects of their work activities to solve problems. We assessed the extent to which social support was used to solve problems by measuring the extent to which participants discussed problems to solve problems. Learning mediated the relationship between changing aspects of work activities to solve problems and activated pleasant affect.Learning also mediated the relationship between discussing problems to solve problems and activated pleasant affect. The findings indicated that how individuals use control and support to respond to problem-solving demands is associated with organizational and individual phenomena such as learning and affective well-being. Learning, Control, and Support 3 An Experience Sampling Study of Learning, Affect, and the Demands Control Support Model Karasek and Theorell"s (1990) demands control support model (DCSM) is one of the most influential theories of work design. One central idea is the active learning hypothesis:Control and support used for problem-solving are hypothesized to promote learning and, in turn, learning promotes well-being. Another central idea of the DCSM is the strain hypothesis:Control and support are hypothesized to prevent the accumulation of strain induced by demands.The main contribution of this paper is to provide a direct test of the active learning hypothesis. Therefore, the contributions of this paper are relevant to debates on proactivity and work performance (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007; Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006;Parker, 2007) and cognitive processes in contemporary work environments (Hodgkinson & Healey, 2008; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). The paper also begins to redress the balance of research on the DCSM that has largely left the active learning hypothesis untested (de Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003; van der Doef & Maes, 1999). Karasek and Theorell (1990) indicate that people use job control and social support for specific purposes. However, most tests of the DCSM infer rather than assess directly the purposes for which people use control and support (see de Lange et al., 2003). We used measures that map onto the theoretical processes outlined by Karasek and Theorell. By assessing specific purposes for which people use job control and social support, we were able to overcome theoretical ambiguities inherent within other tests of the active learning hypothesis. To examine the active learning hypothesis, we used measures that assess the extent to which workers change aspects of their work activities to solve problems and...

Match making and match breaking: The nature of match within and around job design

“…Other forms of coping enacted by control and support, for instance avoidance and affective expression, were also found to be related to indicators of well-being and cognitive performance. In two samples, Daniels et al (2009) found some support for Karasek and Theorell"s active learning hypothesis of the DCSM (1990), in which learning is hypothesised to mediate the effects of job control and support enacted to solve problems on well-being. Consistent with de Jonge and Dormann (2006), the cognitive variable of learning was related to resources used for cognitive oriented coping (problem-solving) in response to a cognitive stressor (problem-solving demands).…”

“…The ideas here are that specific measures provide a better basis for uncovering the stress-buffering effects of job resources (Chrisopoulos et al, this volume;de Jonge & Dormann, 2006) or provide a better basis for examining how job resources facilitate specific forms of coping (Daniels, Boocock, Glover, Hartley & Holland, 2009;Daniels & Harris, 2005). In the following two sections, different approaches to specificity in match research will be described.…”

“…Other processes may indicate match can lead to an accumulation of job and other resources. For example, the finding that job control and support enacted for problem-solving leads to learning (Daniels et al, 2009) indicates how processes underpinning match can lead to an increase in cognitive repertoires and enable more effective problem-solving in future circumstances (Karasek & Theorell, 1990).…”

“…For example, the enactment of job control to deal with a specific stressor may entail rescheduling activities to spend more time on seeking a solution that will remove the stressor (problemfocused coping), rescheduling activities to engage in other forms of work to distract oneself from the problem (avoidant coping) or rescheduling breaks to allow emotional venting in response to a stressor away from the normal workplace. To capture coping and job characteristics as they are enacted in response to stressors, research has also started to use daily (Daniels & Harris, 2005) and hourly reports of coping (Daniels et al, 2008(Daniels et al, , 2009.…”

Learning in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace

“…Job crafting, which emphasizes the active role employees play in the design of their jobs by shaping the physical, emotional, relational, and/or cognitive aspects of their job tasks (Grant & Parker 2009, Wrzesniewski & Dutton 2001, may motivate learning. To meet their needs, individuals may job craft in a variety of ways, but through increasing structural job resources, social resources, and challenging job demands, individuals are likely to learn both informally, through social interactions, and formally, through participation in formal training and development programs (Daniels et al 2009, Tims & Bakker 2010). …”