A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: examining main and moderating effects

TLDR: In this paper, the authors investigated the relationship of seven work-related stressors with job performance: role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, job insecurity, work-family conflict, environmental uncertainty, and situational constraints.

Abstract: We quantitatively integrated 169 samples (N= 35,265 employees) that have been used to investigate the relationships of the following 7 work-related stressors with job performance: role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, job insecurity, work–family conflict, environmental uncertainty, and situational constraints. Overall, we obtained a negative mean correlation between each job performance measure and each stressor included in our analyses. As hypothesized, role ambiguity and situational constraints were most strongly negatively related to performance, relative to the other work-related stressors. Analysis of moderators revealed that (a) the negative correlation of role overload and performance was higher among managers relative to nonmanagers; (b) publication year moderated the relation of role ambiguity and role overload with performance, although in opposite directions; (c) the correlations obtained for published versus unpublished studies were not significantly different; and (d) using the Rizzo et al. scale of role ambiguity and role conflict decreased the magnitude of the correlations of these stressors with performance, relative to other scales. Theoretical contributions, future research directions, and practical implications are discussed.

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: examining main and moderating effects" ?

The authors quantitatively integrated 169 samples ( N = 35,265 employees ) that have been used to investigate the relationships of the following 7 workrelated stressors with job performance: role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, job insecurity, work–family conflict, environmental uncertainty, and situational constraints. Overall, the authors obtained a negative mean correlation between each job performance measure and each stressor included in their analyses. Theoretical contributions, future research directions, and practical implications are discussed. 

Q2. What are the future works in "A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: examining main and moderating effects" ?

However, there is a clear need for future research to further examine the circumstances, which contribute to the experience of stress, and the process by which employees combine and integrate threat and challenge appraisals in assessing a situational demand. Moreover, future research should also examine alternative avenues concerning the direction in which work stressors affect performance. One such avenue for future research to explore is the potential for curvilinear relations between the different role stressors and performance. In addition, the fact that all statistical indicators ( Q test, credibility intervals, and proportions of variance accounted for by sampling error and measurement unreliability ) support the presence of moderators should direct future research to systematically examine the effect of theoretically relevant moderators including those that the authors described in the introduction. 

Q3. What is the common reason why people are viewed as defining features of life in organizations?

uncertainty regarding the environment (environmental uncertainty) is often viewed as one of the defining features of life in organizations (Duncan, 1972; Ellis & Shpielberg, 2003). 

Q4. What is the theoretical model that explains the expected positive relation between challenge-based stressors?

The theoretical model that explains the expected positive relation between challenge-based stressors and performance is the positive linear model, arguing that when a stressor is appraised primarily as a challenge it may lead to internal arousal and higher performance outcomes (LePine et al., 2005; McGrath, 1976). 

Q5. How did Rosenthal and Rubin label this potential bias?

Rosenthal and Rubin (1986) labeled this potential bias the “file drawer phenomenon,” and Fried and Ager (1998) suggested that meta-analysts test for it by systematically comparing the results from published and unpublished studies. 

Q6. What tests are available to them for the same purpose?

Scholars have other tests available to them for the same purpose, including the test of whether a credibility interval includes zero, which was described above, and also the 75% rule with respect to the variance attributable to artifacts. 

Q7. Why do the authors refrain from providing a formal hypothesis?

Because of the conflicting alternative rationales for the direction of the effect of publication year, the authors refrain from providing a formal hypothesis. 

Q8. What is the relationship between job insecurity and performance?

although job insecurity may lead to a reduction in effort and performance, associated with a reduced commitment to the organization, it can also lead to an increase in effort and performance.