Work and Nonwork Influences on Health: A Research Agenda Using Inability to Leave as a Critical Variable

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Review.A basic path analytic model of stressor-health relationships is formulated from a multidisciplinary literature base. Work, nonwork, and individual difference variables act as exogenous stressors influencing endogenous job and life satisfaction variables, which are then posited to influence health variables. Inability to leave is added to the model as a means of more completely integrating a research framework investigating work and nonwork influences on health.In 1974 House wrote: "The analysis of work and nonwork environmental causes of mental and physical health remains fragmentary, scattered, and theoretically unintegrated, due both to the disciplinary diversity of researchers and the nebulous status of mental and physical health as a concept or theoretical framework" (1974, p. 12). One year later, Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison, and Pinneau wrote: "Literature on stress and health shows widespread confusion and disagreement about the types of variables which should be studied, how they should be defined, and the theoretical models for relating them" (1975, p. 3). And in 1980 Jamal and Mitchell were still led to suggest "that in predicting mental health adequate attention should be given to work-related variables. Future investigations of mental health should focus on the interaction of different types of variables in work and nonwork environments" (1980, p. 93).Taken together, the prior statements call for an interdisciplinary approach to developing a comprehensive model of work and nonwork influences on mental and phsycial health. It is the premise of the present authors that scholars have yet to answer this call for knowledge. Accordingly, this paper examines a convergence in the existing literatures on health, occupational stress, and organizational withdrawal that offers promising directions to the concerned researcher. Specifically, the objectives of the paper are: (1) to

A New Perspective on Job Lock

“…The inability to adapt to job dissatisfaction may have adverse effects on both the employee and the organization. It may lead to distress for the employee (Martin and Schermerhorn 1983; Rosse and Hulin 1985). Eventually, distress can cause physical and mental health problems (Rosse and Hulin 1985) that could result in low productivity for the organization (Chmiel 2000).…”

Building on job immobility concepts: a conceptual model and future research agenda on “locked at the job”

“…An early construct originating from stress-health research is the inability to leave, as studied by Martin and Schermerhorn (1983). The inability to leave is defined as “the absence of actual opportunities to withdraw from a situation by changing the location of one's work or residence” (Martin and Schermerhorn, 1983, p. 655).…”

“…An early construct originating from stress-health research is the inability to leave, as studied by Martin and Schermerhorn (1983). The inability to leave is defined as “the absence of actual opportunities to withdraw from a situation by changing the location of one's work or residence” (Martin and Schermerhorn, 1983, p. 655). In a later study, Martin (1984) redefined the inability to leave as “a situation in which the employee had little behavioral discretion or choice about leaving his or her job” (p. 974).…”

“…In addition, the dissatisfaction dimension was not mentioned in the conceptualization or operationalization of the inability to leave. Nevertheless, as the first definition by Martin and Schermerborn (1983) mentioned the absence of opportunities, this construct was taken into consideration for the further development of locked at the job.…”

Examining the Relationship Between Work/Life Conflict and Life Satisfaction in Executives

“…Numerous theories have been used to help explain the process underlying the conflict between work and family (e.g., spillover, conservation of resources, compensation, segmentation, person-environment fit; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000, 2005). Furthermore, Edwards and Rothbard (2005) contend that using theories from other domains, such as stress research (e.g., Eckenrode & Gore, 1990; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992a; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1986; Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992; Kopelman, Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983; Martin & Schermerhorn, 1983) has brought “theoretical rigor” to work/life research (p. 212). Not only do Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), contend work/life conflict is a stressor manifested through competing interrole demands, but Greenhaus (1988) also maintains that using a stress-based lens for work/life research is beneficial because researchers have the benefit of an existing, respected paradigm.…”