When challenges hinder: An investigation of when and how challenge stressors impact employee outcomes.

Abstract

Over the past two decades, accumulating evidence has indicated that individuals experience challenge and hindrance stressors in qualitatively different ways, with the former being linked to more positive outcomes than the latter. Indeed, challenge stressors are believed to have net positive effects even though they can also lead to a range of strains, eliciting beliefs that managers can enhance performance outcomes by increasing the frequency of challenge stressors experienced in the workplace. The current article questions this conventional wisdom by developing theory that explains how different patterns of challenge stressor exposure influence employee outcomes. Across 2 field studies, our results supported our theory, indicating that when challenge stressors vary across time periods, they have negative indirect effects on employee performance and well-being outcomes. In contrast, when employees experience a stable pattern of challenge stressors across time periods, they have positive indirect effects on employee performance and well-being outcomes. These results, which suggest that the benefits of challenge stressors may not outweigh their costs when challenge stressors fluctuate, have important implications for theory and practice.

A Review of the Challenge-Hindrance Stress Model: Recent Advances, Expanded Paradigms, and Recommendations for Future Research

“…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.…”

“…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.…”

“…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.…”

“…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.…”