A Dynamic View of the Challenge-Hindrance Stressor Framework: a Meta-Analysis of Daily Diary Studies

Abstract

Abstract Are some daily job stressors good for employees? The challenge-hindrance stressor framework (CHSF) attempts to shed light on this question by categorizing stressors according to their ability to facilitate (challenge stressors) or inhibit (hindrance stressors) growth and achievement. According to the CHSF, challenge stressors should be associated with increased performance, but also with increased strain which subsequently hurts performance. Conversely, hindrance stressors should be associated with reduced performance both directly and indirectly via strain. Prior meta-analytic investigations have focused on more stable job stressors (using cross-sectional or longitudinal primary studies), and found contradicting resulted in support of the CHSF predictions. In the current meta-analysis, we tested the validity of the CHSF using a more dynamic view of stressors, by applying it to short-term, daily experiences of stressors, strains, and performance outcomes. Results from 78 unique samples indicated that at the within-person level, hindrance stressors have both a direct and an indirect (via strain) short-term effect on performance. Challenge stressors have a positive direct effect on performance but a negative indirect effect via strain. Furthermore, we examined two performance indicators separately: task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). The results revealed that challenge stressors have a stronger positive association with OCB than with task performance. Hindrance stressors exhibited the opposite pattern, a stronger negative association with task performance than with OCB. The results of this study suggest that all daily stressors result in strain, which negatively relates to performance, though challenge stressors also have some positive effects on daily performance.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 45 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.