Is outcome responsibility at work emotionally exhausting? Investigating employee proactivity as a moderator.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2015, Vol. 20, No. 4, 491–500

© 2015 American Psychological Association 1076-8998/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039011

BRIEF REPORT

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Is Outcome Responsibility at Work Emotionally Exhausting? Investigating Employee Proactivity as a Moderator Antje Schmitt

Deanne N. Den Hartog and Frank D. Belschak

University of Kassel

University of Amsterdam

This study investigates the relationship between outcome responsibility and employees’ well-being in terms of emotional exhaustion. Outcome responsibility is a job demand implying that employees’ decisions at work have high material and/or nonmaterial consequences. Previous research indicates that outcome responsibility can have both positive and negative effects on employee well-being. Based on the person–job fit approach we hypothesize that whether or not outcome responsibility is positively or negatively related to emotional exhaustion depends on whether employees’ behavioral style fits with this job demand. We investigate the role of proactive behavior as a personal resource that fits with high responsibility. We test our hypothesis in a multisource study among 138 employee– colleague dyads. Results of hierarchical moderated regression analysis reveal that peer-rated proactive behavior moderates the relationship between outcome responsibility and emotional exhaustion, such that the relationship is negative for employees showing high and nonsignificant for employees showing low proactivity. This finding holds also when controlling for trait positive and negative affect. The current study contributes to previous research on job design, proactivity, and occupational well-being and offers practical implications in terms of selection and training of employees for jobs high in outcome responsibility. Keywords: emotional exhaustion, job demands, outcome responsibility, person-job fit, proactive behavior

as a result of deficient products or damage to the expensive equipment. Performing a job high in responsibility may also affect an employee’s well-being. However, the existing literature does not provide adequate knowledge on how responsibility affects employees’ well-being (Jackson et al., 1993; Martin & Wall, 1989). Here we focus on outcome responsibility in relation to emotional exhaustion as one important dimension of well-being. Emotional exhaustion is characterized by the feeling of being overextended and depleted of one’s emotional and physical resources. It forms the core component of burnout and the most relevant burnout dimension for the field of occupational health (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Previous work suggests that outcome responsibility as a job demand can have both positive and negative consequences for employee well-being (Jackson & Mullarkey, 2000; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005; Martin & Wall, 1989). On the one hand, as suggested in the job enrichment approach, responsibility is positively related to some indicators of well-being such as job satisfaction (Jackson & Mullarkey, 2000). On the other hand, being aware that making errors can cause costly losses may be linked to job-related anxiety and worry about damage. This may deplete employees limited cognitive resources and lead to exhaustion and strain (cf. Jackson et al., 1993; Martin & Wall, 1989; Payne & Rick, 1986). Extant literature on outcome responsibility and employee well-being is thus contradictory. The job demands–resources (JD-R) model may help to explain these divergent findings. The model holds that employees’ occu-

Being faced with high responsibility is a frequently reported job demand by both white- and blue-collar employees (LohmannHaislah, 2012; Martin & Wall, 1989). For instance, in a poll of 600 U.S. employees 55% of the respondents indicated that their responsibilities and duties had increased as a result of the economic crisis (Frauenheimer, 2011). Employees in jobs high on outcome responsibility are accountable for the results of their work, and their decisions can have potentially serious consequences for the organization in terms of economic, material implications (e.g., financial losses) and/or nonmaterial implications related to others (e.g., health and safety of colleagues or customers) (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Jackson, Wall, Martin, & Davids, 1993; Martin & Wall, 1989). Imagine a shop-floor employee with a job high in outcome responsibility working with complex computercontrolled machinery. If this employee makes mistakes in programming the machine tools he or she would cause financial harm

This article was published Online First March 23, 2015. Antje Schmitt, Department of Business Psychology, University of Kassel; Deanne N. Den Hartog and Frank D. Belschak, Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behaviour, Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam. This work was supported by a fellowship within the Postdoc-Program of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) to the first author. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Antje Schmitt, Department of Business Psychology, University of Kassel, NoraPlatiel Strasse 5, 34109 Kassel, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] 491


492

SCHMITT, DEN HARTOG, AND BELSCHAK

pational well-being is determined by job demands and job resources as two dimensions of job characteristics (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Being perceived as a job demand (Jackson et al., 1993), responsibility may contribute to emotional exhaustion through a health impairment process. Further, the JD-R model argues that the interaction between job demands and job resources needs to be taken into account when predicting well-being and exhaustion. In the present study, we aim to extend previous work based on the JD-R model by adding the role of a personal (rather than job) resource in explaining the relation between outcome responsibility and emotional exhaustion. Our arguments are based on the person– job fit perspective, which refers to the match between the job requirements and an employee’s characteristics and personal resources (Caplan & Harrison, 1993; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). We propose that whether the demands of outcome responsibility relate positively or negatively to emotional exhaustion depends on whether employees’ personal resources fit with the demands of the environment. Specifically, we propose a key moderating role for employees’ proactivity. A proactive behavioral style implies that employees take an active approach to work, are forward thinking, and go beyond formal job requirements (Crant, 2000; Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997). We argue that proactive employees respond positively to high outcome responsibility as they have the behavioral and cognitive skills to effectively deal with such responsibility (e.g., anticipating what may come up to help avoid problems). Employees low on proactivity miss these skills and therefore more likely feel psychologically and emotionally drained when confronted with high outcome responsibility. Further, we assume that the interaction of outcome responsibility and proactivity explains variance in emotional exhaustion even when controlling for trait affect which has previously been linked to exhaustion and strain (e.g., Wright & Cropanzano, 1998; Zellars, Hochwarter, Perrewé, Hoffman, & Ford, 2004). This study extends the scarce literature on outcome responsibility by exploring how responsibility relates to employee well-being. We propose a contingency model for the effects of responsibility by combining the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001) and the person-job fit approach (Caplan & Harrison, 1993; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Also, by investigating whether employee proactivity modifies the impact of outcome responsibility on emotional exhaustion, we add to the role of proactivity in occupational health psychology (Cunningham & De La Rosa, 2008). Finally, we add to the recently increasing stream of research on job design and job enrichment (e.g., Grant, Fried, Parker, & Frese, 2010) by answering the call to include a proactive perspective in considering the effects of job design (Grant & Parker, 2009).

Outcome Responsibility and Emotional Exhaustion Outcome responsibility can be conceptualized as a job demand that increases with the growing focus on quality of services and production and increased task interdependence and job autonomy in today’s organizations (Jackson & Mullarkey, 2000; LohmannHaislah, 2012). Job demands include those aspects of the job that require physical, cognitive, or emotional effort and are related to certain physiological or psychological costs for the employee (Demerouti et al., 2001). Outcome responsibility is specifically related to responsibility for not making errors or being inattentive

at work such that damage or losses can be prevented. It is an extension of general job responsibility which focuses on whether employees face high responsibility for the work they do and whether this work is done correctly. Jackson and colleagues (1993) argued that the job characteristics theory (JCT; Hackman & Oldham, 1976) which is central to the job design literature did not capture all job dimensions relevant for employee well-being and performance. In particular, they held that JCT missed a specific focus on employee responsibility for the outcomes of their work. Outcome responsibility focuses on being responsible for the proper completion of one’s job and on broader losses and problems that can occur for the organization (Jackson & Mullarkey, 2000; Jackson et al., 1993). In a job high on outcome responsibility, the value of job outcomes is highly sensitive to worker input and efforts (Manove, 1997). Being responsible for organizational outcomes may indicate a sense of ownership, impact, and meaningfulness such that employees more fully identify with their work. This in turn may cause greater intrinsic motivation, satisfaction, and concern about the quality of one’s work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In line with this, some previous studies on job responsibility found that employees experience high levels of job satisfaction when working on responsible tasks (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Jackson & Mullarkey, 2000). Based on theoretical and empirical evidence, increasing employees’ level of responsibility has become part of job design and job enrichment approaches (Kulik, Oldham, & Hackman, 1987). However, being responsible for the prevention of errors and losses can also form a potential strain for employees. As Grant, Christianson, and Price (2007) indicate, enriched jobs can increase some aspects of well-being but can also undermine health and lead to strain. Being faced with responsibility requires sustained cognitive effort. Employees need to be constantly alert and vigilant; they need to consciously control and monitor their environment by paying careful attention to the proper completion of their tasks (Jackson et al., 1993; Payne & Rick, 1986). Thus, well-being outcomes and especially those related to fatigue and depletion may be affected by outcome responsibility (Martin & Wall, 1989). Only few studies have investigated the relationship between responsibility in terms of being responsible for important work outcomes and strain or exhaustion in employees (e.g., Campion & McClelland, 1993), and findings on the simple main effects of responsibility on health-related outcomes are inconsistent (see Jackson & Mullarkey, 2000). Here, we argue that the relationship between responsibility and well-being is more complex (e.g., Martin & Wall, 1989), and that the differential effects of responsibility on different facets of well-being may be best explained by taking the role of resources as a boundary condition into account. Resources refer to aspects of the job that are functional in attaining work goals or reducing job demands and their associated costs (Demerouti et al., 2001). We propose that for some people perceiving high outcome responsibility might be a debilitating threat, whereas others may see this same demand as a positive challenge, and this differential perception may depend on the resources they hold. In the present study we focus on emotional exhaustion as a core dimension of burnout and a main indicator of well-being. Emotional exhaustion is a state of depletion and work-related fatigue, which is manifested in physical symptoms, a lack of energy, and the feeling of being psychologically and emotionally drained (Maslach & Leiter, 2008; Maslach et al., 2001). Emotional ex-


OUTCOME RESPONSIBILITY AND EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION

haustion may ensue from prolonged exposure to certain job demands (Maslach & Leiter, 2008; Zohar, 1997). Outcome responsibility may constitute such a demand. Along with emotional exhaustion, the overall concept of burnout also covers cynicism and a lack of felt efficacy (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996; Maslach et al., 2001). We focus specifically on emotional exhaustion for several reasons. First, emotional exhaustion forms the core component of burnout (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003) and is more predictive of negative wellbeing consequences than the other components (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Maslach & Leiter, 2008). Further, emotional exhaustion emerges early whereas cynicism and inefficacy occur later in the burnout process (Leiter & Maslach, 1988). Finally, exhaustion is especially sensitive to job demands and hassles at work (Maslach et al., 2001; Zohar, 1997). Hence exhaustion seems most relevant in relation to job demands such as outcome responsibility. The JD–R model argues that job resources can buffer the negative effects of job demands on emotional exhaustion (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011; Demerouti et al., 2001). Accordingly, under demanding work conditions such as high outcome responsibility, employees with sufficient job resources (e.g., autonomy, social support) are expected to be more capable of dealing with these job-related demands and thus at less risk of developing high exhaustion (cf. Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005). Extending the JD-R model, the so-called matching hypothesis can more specifically explain why some resources are effective in buffering certain job demands whereas others are not. The matching hypothesis entails that the strongest relationships between demands and resources occur when they are based on the same functional (cognitive, physical, emotional) dimensions (De Jonge & Dormann, 2006). For instance, cognitive resources should be especially effective in buffering cognitive job demands as they belong to the same functional domain. However, both the JD-R model and the matching hypothesis focus only on the buffering role of job resources. Extending this, personal resources matching with job demands can also function as buffers of strain and exhaustion (cf. Schmitt, Zacher, & Frese, 2012; Tremblay & Messervey, 2011). One key aspect that was neglected so far in the debate on positive or negative well-being effects of job demands in general and responsibility in particular is whether employees’ personal resources in terms of their behavioral styles fit with environmental demands. High outcome responsibility provides a job requirement that is cognitively and behaviorally demanding. It implies the need to actively attend to one’s job and to anticipate potential future problems. Planning, structuring, and organizing work tasks in ways that prevent damage and loss becomes important (Jackson & Mullarkey, 2000). We propose that for employees whose behavioral style fits with these requirements, work environments high in outcome responsibility are more beneficial, and these employees respond well to them in terms of well-being.

The Framework of Person–Job Fit The importance of the availability of personal resources that match work requirements is highlighted in the person-job fit approach. Person–job fit is defined as the congruence between employees’ abilities and skills and the job demands (Edwards, 1991; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). A meta-analysis by Kristof-Brown

493

and colleagues (2005) revealed significant negative correlations between demands–abilities fit and indicators of employee strain and positive correlations with job satisfaction. Also, Xie and Johns (1995) found that employees’ perceptions of person–job fit moderated the relationship between job scope (e.g., skill variety, task significance, autonomy) and job stress. People with a high job scope who perceived a fit between job demands and their abilities and skills experienced less exhaustion than those perceiving a misfit. Thus, one benefit of the person–job fit approach is that it incorporates the interaction between characteristics of the work environment and people’s abilities and skills (Edwards, 1991). Hackman and Oldham (1976) incorporated the idea of fit into the JCT by arguing that not all employees respond positively to jobs high on certain job characteristics. They suggested that an individual’s level of growth need strength (i.e., the need for personal development and learning) moderates whether the individual responds favorably to motivational job dimensions and perceived job responsibility (cf. Kulik et al., 1987). However, JCT alone is not sufficient to explain the relationship between responsibility and well-being. JCT focuses on motivational outcomes; inferences for well-being related outcomes such as emotional exhaustion cannot be directly drawn. Also, while JCT refers to individuals’ needs as moderating variables, from a theoretical and practical point of view it would be valuable to know more about behavioral styles that facilitate a fit between environmental demands such as responsibility and well-being (Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001). Here, we argue that the extent to which individuals benefit from outcome responsibility depends on their behavioral style, and specifically their proactive behavior.

The Moderating Role of Proactive Behavior as a Personal Resource Proactive behavior can be seen as a personal resource that influences how employees deal with the demands of outcome responsibility. Proactivity is characterized as anticipatory, changeoriented, active, and self-starting behavior (Crant, 2000). Proactive employees anticipate problems through observing discrepancies in their environment, they aim to implement strategies to control the situation and to create a change in the work system (Crant, 2000). We propose that because of their cognitive and behavioral abilities (e.g., active, future-oriented thinking and planning, effort and persistence in the face of obstacles) (Frese & Fay, 2001), employees high in proactive behavior fit better with the environmental demands of high outcome responsibility than those low on proactivity. Feeling personal responsibility for one’s job and for the outcomes of one’s job means that employees will need to take care of things themselves, and that it is in their own and others’ best interest to do so as they are aware of the fact that making errors would cause costly losses or problems. Hence, to deal well with outcome responsibility employees need to be high on proactivity in terms of taking an active approach to work and being forward thinking to anticipate and prevent problems for the organization. Jobs with high responsibility for outcomes are likely to fit better with employees who take an active, self-starting approach to work, who are forward-looking, and who plan carefully (Parker et al., 2001). For instance, a security guard who is required to take full responsibility for securing a building might feel less exhausted if


494


he or she is self-starting by developing ideas and making suggestions on how to improve the security system, by being active and persistent in implementing useful security strategies, and by making plans on coordinating the best route on how to inspect the building in an economical way. However, a security guard who faces high responsibility but does not follow such a planful, active, and forward-looking approach might more easily feel overwhelmed and exhausted. Highly proactive employees may realize that they have the cognitive and behavioral resources to effectively deal with high responsibility demands; also, they may have already made the experience of performing well when being faced with this job demand as their proactive approach fits well with the demands of high responsibility (Parker et al., 2001). They are therefore likely to perceive outcome responsibility as a positive challenge rather than a threat (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; LePine et al., 2005). By contrast, employees who tend to act passively, prefer to wait and adapt to circumstances rather than proactively change them, and do not implement strategies to control their environment, lack the cognitive and behavioral requirements necessary to fit in environments with high responsibility (e.g., Parker et al., 2001). Because of this lack of cognitive and behavioral resources, people low in proactivity likely perceive that they are unable to effectively deal with high responsibility demands and may have experienced problems in dealing with high responsibility in the past (e.g., because of making errors or investing energy without effective goal attainment). These employees might more easily feel overwhelmed by high outcome responsibility, are more likely to experience difficulties in adjusting to this demand, and consequently suffer from increased feelings of depletion and fatigue. Thus, we propose that employees whose general behavioral style makes them less able to manage the demands generated by high responsibility risk an increase in exhaustion. In line with the person-job fit framework (Edwards, 1991; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), we propose that the fit between highly proactive behavioral tendencies and being required to take high outcome responsibility positively affects well-being in individuals. Thus, we do not expect an overall positive or negative effect of outcome responsibility on emotional exhaustion, but rather assume that this effect is contingent on employees’ personal resources in terms of their proactive behavioral style. We propose that outcome responsibility relates to lower exhaustion for highly proactive employees and to higher exhaustion for employees low on proactivity. The interaction of outcome responsibility and proactivity should explain variance in emotional exhaustion even when controlling for trait affect. Their affective disposition might influence people’s emotional susceptibility to work demands such as high outcome responsibility and their likelihood to report emotional exhaustion (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998; Zellars et al., 2004). High trait negative affect (NA) is characterized by the tendency to experience negative activating emotions such as fear, nervousness, or anger across time and situations. Research suggests that people high in trait negative affect have more negative views of their environment and show greater reactivity to work demands than people low in trait negative affect (Zellars et al., 2004). People high in trait positive affect (PA) are likely to experience positive activating emotions such as enthusiasm, excitement, and joy (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), and they generate more flexible

solutions to difficult situations and work demands. Consistently, previous research has found that PA was negatively and NA positively related to emotional exhaustion (Zellars et al., 2004). Affect has also been found to enhance employee proactive behavior (e.g., Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, & Hagger-Johnson, 2012; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007). Thus we included PA and NA as control variables to rule out alternative explanations of potential relationships between proactivity and emotional exhaustion (e.g., that the relationships found are attributable to affect rather than proactivity). Hypothesis: Employee proactivity moderates the relationship between outcome responsibility and emotional exhaustion even when controlling for PA and NA. The relationship is negative for employees showing high proactivity and positive for employees showing low proactivity.

Method Sample and Procedure To test our hypothesis we collected data from employees working in different companies in the Netherlands. The sample included a variety of industries (e.g., retailing, banking, IT, and governmental organizations). Individuals in 104 companies were contacted and asked for participation in a study on well-being at work. A total of 69 companies agreed to participate (66.4% response rate) and provided contact details of one to four employees. Questionnaires with stamped return envelopes and a letter explaining the study and the confidential and voluntary nature of participation were provided to employees. We asked participating employees to give a questionnaire with a separate stamped return envelope and letter to a colleague they frequently worked with who would be able to evaluate their work behavior. We asked the colleague to rate the focal employee’s proactive behavior, again stressing confidentiality. Respondents worked in a wide range of jobs including lawyers, salespersons, and administrative employees. All respondents participated voluntarily and anonymously, and they did not receive anything in return for participation. Employee surveys were only included in the analyses when a matching colleague evaluation was available (141 employee and 138 colleague surveys were received). The final sample consisted of 138 complete dyads. Seventy-nine (57.2%) focal employees were male, and 59 (42.8%) were female. Their mean age was 37.8 years (SD ⫽ 12.4), ranging from 20 to 61 years. Fourteen (10.1%) had a high school degree, 33 (23.9%) completed vocational training, 57 (41.3%) were college graduates, and 34 (24.6%) had a university degree. Average tenure was 15.0 years (SD ⫽ 12.4). Of the colleagues, 68 (49.3%) were male, 69 (50.0%) female, one did not report gender.

Measures We obtained employee self-ratings on outcome responsibility, emotional exhaustion, and control variables. Colleagues evaluated employees’ proactive behavior in the peer-survey. All surveys were administered in Dutch, and we used validated scales as measures.



Outcome responsibility. Outcome responsibility was measured with three self-report items adapted from the production responsibility measure developed and validated by Jackson et al. (1993). The introductory sentence of the items read: “The following statements refer to the characteristics of your job. To what extent do you agree with these statements about your work environment?” The items were: “If I fail to notice a problem, it will lead to high losses,” “My alertness prevents high costly losses for my company,” and “An error on my part can cause expansive damage to my company.” Employees responded on a scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .89. Emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion was measured with the corresponding subscale of the Utrecht Burnout Scale (UBOS; Schaufeli & van Dierendonck, 2000, 2001). The UBOS is a well-validated Dutch measure (e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2005; van Gelderen, Heuven, van Veldhoven, Zeelenberg, & Croon, 2007), based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al., 1996). A sample item of the eight-item subscale is “I feel emotionally drained from my work.” The items had a 7-point rating scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). Cronbach’s alpha was .82. Control variables. We controlled for employees’ age, gender (1 ⫽ male, 2 ⫽ female), and trait affect as previous studies found that these variables relate to emotional exhaustion (e.g., Brewer & Shapard, 2004; Nolen-Hoeksema, Larson, & Grayson, 1999; Purvanova & Muros, 2010; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Trait affect was assessed with the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988). Participants rated 10 positive adjectives (e.g., excited, inspired, proud) and 10 negative adjectives (e.g., afraid, upset, ashamed) referring to dispositional affect. The items are scored on a 7-point rating scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). Cronbach’s alpha was .85 for PA and .77 for NA. Proactive behavior. Proactive behavior was assessed with the personal initiative scale by Frese et al. (1997) formulated as a colleague rating. The extant proactivity literature has investigated several specific proactive work behaviors (e.g., feedback seeking, whistleblowing) as well as more general proactivity constructs (e.g., proactive personality, personal initiative) that cover a wide range of behaviors (e.g., see Crant, 2000). In this study, we focus on the behavioral style of personal initiative as a broad form of proactivity (Crant, 2000). Personal initiative is self-starting, goaldriven, and future-oriented behavior (Frese et al., 1997). Compared with employees with a reactive or passive approach to work, people high on initiative actively seek opportunities to improve the

495

status quo and are persistent in the face of barriers and setbacks that may occur in the process of change implementation (Crant, 2000; Frese et al., 1997). The initiative scale consists of seven items. It is well-validated, correlates with other measures of proactive behavior (e.g., see Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010), and was used in several other studies (e.g., Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012; Fay & Sonnentag, 2002; Searle, 2008). Respondents were asked to indicate the focal employees’ proactive work behavior. Sample items are “Whenever there is a chance to get actively involved, he or she takes it,” “He/She takes initiative immediately, even if others don’t,” and “He/She is particularly good at realizing ideas.” Peers responded on a scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Cronbach’s alpha was .93. We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2012) to test the factor structure of the three scales (outcome responsibility, emotional exhaustion, and proactivity). Results of the CFA showed that the items constitute three distinct factors. The three-factor model (␹2[134] ⫽ 271.174, CFI ⫽ .90, RMSEA ⫽ .08, SRMR ⫽ .08) had a significantly better fit to the data than a one-factor model (⌬␹2[4] ⫽ 615.79, p ⬍ .01), and a two-factor model modeling outcome responsibility and emotional exhaustion as one factor and proactivity as a second factor (⌬␹2[1] ⫽ 434.62, p ⬍ .01).

Results Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations. As expected, no significant correlation existed between outcome responsibility and emotional exhaustion (r ⫽ ⫺.12, ns). The correlation between responsibility and proactivity was nonsignificant (r ⫽ .16, ns). Proactivity and exhaustion correlated negatively (r ⫽ ⫺.24, p ⬍ .01) as did proactivity and NA (r ⫽ ⫺.21, p ⬍ .05) and PA and exhaustion (r ⫽ ⫺.33, p ⬍ .01). NA and exhaustion correlated positively (r ⫽ .60, p ⬍ .01) as did PA and proactivity (r ⫽ .41, p ⬍ .01). To test our hypothesis we used hierarchical moderated regression analysis. We mean-centered the variables before they were entered into the analysis and before we calculated the interaction term by multiplying the independent and the moderator variable (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). In line with recommendations by Becker (2005) and Spector and Brannick (2011), we ran the analysis with and without the control variables included. The control variables did not strongly affect the results on testing our hypothesis (the results on the interaction effect remained the

Table 1 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Inter-Correlations of Study Variables Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Age Gender Trait positive affect Trait negative affect Outcome responsibility Proactive behavior (peer-rated) Emotional exhaustion

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

37.84 1.43 5.20 2.60 4.38 5.52 2.69

12.43 0.50 0.88 0.80 1.42 1.06 0.98

— .00 ⫺.00 ⫺.21ⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.13 ⫺.04

— .08 ⫺.10 ⫺.23ⴱⴱ .02 ⫺.13

— ⫺.23ⴱⴱ .16 .41ⴱⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱ

— ⫺.03 ⫺.21ⴱ .60ⴱⴱ

— .16 ⫺.12

— ⫺.24ⴱⴱ

Note. Gender (1 ⫽ male; 2 ⫽ female), n ⫽ 138. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.



496

same). PA and NA, however, did act as important control variables in the relationship between peer-rated proactive behavior and emotional exhaustion, such that the relationship became negative and significant when omitting both variables (␤ ⫽ ⫺.21, p ⬍ .01). Our hypothesis states that employee proactivity moderates the relationship between outcome responsibility and emotional exhaustion even when controlling for trait affect. Hence, in line with our hypothesis we kept the trait affect variables in the model but report the results without age and gender as controls to eliminate any unnecessary decline of statistical power (Becker, 2005; Spector & Brannick, 2011). Table 2 shows the results of the hierarchical moderated regression analysis. First, in Model 1, we included the control variables and main effects. As expected, we found no main effects apart from a significant effect of trait PA and NA on emotional exhaustion. Next, in Model 2 we added the interaction term. The interaction between responsibility and proactive behavior in relation to emotional exhaustion was significant (␤ ⫽ ⫺.20, p ⬍ .01). Model 2 explained 3.40% additional variance in emotional exhaustion beyond the control variables and main effects included in Model 1. This result was equivalent when we did not control for trait PA and NA. The significant interaction is depicted in Figure 1. We conducted a simple slope analysis as recommended by Dawson and Richter (2006). The results indicated that the slope for high (⫹ 1 SD) proactivity was significant (t ⫽ ⫺2.77; p ⬍ .01) whereas the slope for low (⫺ 1 SD) proactivity was nonsignificant (t ⫽ 1.85; ns). Hence, our hypothesis is partially supported in that peer-rated proactivity moderates the relationship between outcome responsibility and emotional exhaustion, such that the relationship is negative for employees showing high proactivity. However, the relationship is nonsignificant for employees showing low proactivity, rather than positive.

Discussion Our results indicate that outcome responsibility is differentially related to well-being in terms of emotional exhaustion depending on employees’ level of proactive behavior as rated by a peer. The relationship between responsibility and emotional exhaustion was found to be negative for individuals high in proactivity and nonsignificant for those low in proactivity. These findings held when

Figure 1. Peer-rated employee proactivity as a moderator of the relationship between outcome responsibility and emotional exhaustion.

controlling for PA and NA, which have been linked to emotional exhaustion and proactivity in earlier studies (e.g., Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998).

Theoretical Implications Our study adds to the literature in several ways. First, by investigating the moderating role of proactive behavior as a personal resource our findings extend assumptions of the JD-R model (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011; Demerouti et al., 2001) and the matching hypothesis (De Jonge & Dormann, 2006), which to date focused on the role of job resources. Following the person–fit approach (e.g., Caplan & Harrison, 1993; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), we show that whether or not outcome responsibility has a positive role in terms of well-being depends on whether the behavioral and cognitive style of an employee fits these environmental demands. Thus, including the interaction between responsibility and employees’ proactive behavior to predict well-being outcomes provides a differentiated perspective and adds to the existing literature. As expected, outcome responsibility was negatively related to emotional exhaustion for employees scoring high on a proactive

Table 2 Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analysis With Emotional Exhaustion as Dependent Variable Emotional exhaustion Model 1

Model 2

Variable

B

SE

␤

B

SE

Intercept Trait positive affect Trait negative affect Outcome responsibility Proactive behavior (peer-rated) Outcome responsibility ⫻ Proactive behavior (peer-rated) R2 ⌬R2

2.69 ⫺0.19 0.67 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.04

0.07 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.07

⫺.18ⴱ .55ⴱⴱ ⫺.06 ⫺.04

2.73 ⫺0.20 0.64 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.10 ⫺0.15

0.07 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.436 0.034

Note. n ⫽ 138. Predictor variables were mean-centered. p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

ⴱ

0.402

␤ ⫺.18ⴱ .53ⴱⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.11 ⫺.20ⴱⴱ



behavioral style. These results suggest that the motivating potential of this demanding aspect of a job may only hold for employees having the cognitive and behavioral resources that enable them to manage the demands generated by high outcome responsibility effectively. Here, we add to the literature on job enrichment and JCT (Campion & McClelland, 1993; Hackman & Oldham, 1976) by showing that a proactive behavioral style forms a contingency variable that influences whether the job characteristic of high outcome responsibility yields positive consequences. This is in line with the argument by Hobfoll (2002) stating that resources become most salient and important under demanding conditions (cf. Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007). Well-being is optimized if there is a balance between demands and resources, the mere presence of high resources is not sufficient (De Jonge, Dormann, & van den Tooren, 2008). Indeed, Bakker and colleagues (2007) found that job resources (e.g., supervisor support, organizational climate) gain their potential particularly when employees face high job demands. Our study extends this work. Finally, the present study contributes to the occupational health literature by providing a better understanding of the behavioral characteristics that are necessary to manage high outcome responsibility and decrease emotional exhaustion. Specifically, this study adds to the underresearched role of proactivity in the occupational stress and strain process (Cunningham & De La Rosa, 2008). Our findings suggest that proactivity forms an important behavioral style that helps to cope with high outcome responsibility and to decrease emotional exhaustion. The findings also answer a recent call by researchers in job design who argue that proactivity needs to be integrated in being highly responsible for important outcomes of one’s job. However, our findings showed that for employees low in proactivity, being faced with a highly responsible job was unrelated to emotional exhaustion. Thus, rather than the expected higher exhaustion, no significant relationship was found for these employees. One explanation is that other personal resources (e.g., coping strategies, general cognitive ability, experience) and/or job resources (e.g., social support, leadership style) (Bakker et al., 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001), might play an important role there and should be taken into account in future research. Another possible explanation is that because responsibility is a frequently reported job demand (cf. Lohmann-Haislah, 2012), many employees in today’s organizations have become used to it, and they may have adapted to outcome responsibility over time, making it less stressful and exhausting, albeit not motivating, for them.

497

larger sample of observations and situations shared with the focal employee (Tornau & Frese, 2013). However, because different raters have unique views on an individual’s behavior and employees themselves may sometimes have a broader or different understanding of their own proactive behavior (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Tornau & Frese, 2013), it would be desirable to assess proactivity from different sources and with different methods (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010). Third, our cross-sectional study design does not allow drawing conclusions about causality as the possibility of spurious effects attributable to third or unmeasured variables exists. Experimental and quasi-experimental study designs are required to test causality and thereby strengthen our results (Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996). More research is also needed to uncover the underlying processes of the moderating effect of proactive behavior on the outcome responsibility– exhaustion relationship. We argued that whether or not outcome responsibility is positively or negatively related to emotional exhaustion depends on whether employees’ behavioral style fits with this job demand. Future research should test such conditional indirect effects by investigating employees’ perceived person–job fit as a mediator of the interactive effect of outcome responsibility and proactivity on exhaustion. In addition, it would be valuable to investigate the mediating role of cognitive appraisal processes. People appraise job demands in terms of their significance for well-being as either challenging or threatening (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; LePine et al., 2005). Accordingly, people high in proactivity might appraise outcome responsibility as challenging, fulfilling, and stimulating. This in turn could lead to an increase in positive affect and work motivation and a decrease in emotional exhaustion. Employees low in proactivity, on the contrary, might more likely perceive this demand as a hindrance or threat (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Finally, while we studied emotional exhaustion, future research should integrate other indicators of well-being that might be positively relate to responsibility (e.g., job satisfaction, see Jackson & Mullarkey, 2000) to build a more comprehensive model of responsibility and different well-being outcomes. In addition, we investigated only the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout as this conceptually seemed the most relevant dimension. Future studies could explore the link between outcome responsibility, proactivity, and all burnout dimensions in a longitudinal design to test how these processes unfold over time.

Practical Implications Limitations and Future Research Our study has some limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, we asked companies for randomly selected employees. However, we do not know whether they really randomly selected the employees (e.g., companies may have chosen employees who are generally more engaged to participate). Therefore, possible selection effects cannot be excluded. Second, we used peer-ratings of personal initiative to measure employee proactivity. On the one hand, this approach is a clear strength of our study as the use of multisource data prevents limitations resulting from single-source data collection (e.g., common-source bias). Also, colleague ratings might be more accurate than supervisor ratings, because colleagues’ evaluations tend to be based on a

Basic approaches of job design and job enrichment are based on the assumption that responsibility provides a motivating aspect of the job (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Kulik et al., 1987). There is plenty of managerial literature and practical guides providing suggestions and advice for how to provide employees with high responsibility for the outcomes of their jobs. Our results imply, however, that exposing employees to high outcome responsibility is not always beneficial for wellbeing. Managers who consider giving high responsibility to employees should pay attention to person–job fit. Employees’ level of proactive behavior provides a personal resource that determines whether they fit to high responsibility demands of their environment, and only those high on proactivity seem to



498

benefit from the motivating potential of responsibility in terms of well-being. This finding offers practical implications for HRM in terms of selection and training of employees for high responsibility jobs. First, it is important to carefully select employees for high outcome responsibility jobs. Our findings suggest that proactive employees may feel especially comfortable and energized in high outcome responsibility environments as they experience less work-related fatigue and depletion there. Organizations may thus benefit from identifying proactive employees in their recruitment process by using adequate test procedures, behavior-based interview questions, or analyses of past work achievements (Bateman & Crant, 1999). Further, our results suggest implementing approaches such as realistic job previews to communicate important aspects of the job at an early stage. This allows applicants to better evaluate whether their behavioral and cognitive styles fit with the demands of the jobs they are applying for and thus helps to prevent future strain and exhaustion. As a second approach, managers who want employees to take on responsibility could encourage these employees to acquire proactive skills to fit with the new requirements. Research suggests that proactivity can be developed through training and coaching interventions (cf. Frese & Fay, 2001; Searle, 2008). In this manner, more employees can benefit from the energizing potential of job demands such as outcome responsibility.

References Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 170 –180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998 .10.2.170 Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). The crossover of burnout and work engagement among working couples. Human Relations, 58, 661– 689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726705055967 Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly, when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 274 –284. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274 Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1999). Proactive behavior: Meaning, impact, recommendations. Business Horizons, 42, 63–70. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/S0007-6813(99)80023-8 Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274 –289. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021 Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 475– 498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317909X439208 Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 134 –150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0024368 Brewer, E. W., & Shapard, L. (2004). Employee burnout: A meta-analysis of the relationship between age or years of experience. Human Resource Development Review, 3, 102–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1534484304263335 Campion, M. A., & McClelland, C. L. (1993). Follow-up and extension of the interdisciplinary costs and benefits of enlarged jobs. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 78, 339 –351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010 .78.3.339 Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. (1993). Person-environment fit theory: Some history, recent developments, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 253–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993 .tb01192.x Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–74. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration of research on job burnout. The Academy of Management Review, 18, 621– 656. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1993.9402210153 Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435– 462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304 Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 160 – 169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.160 Cunningham, C. J., & De La Rosa, G. M. (2008). The interactive effects of proactive personality and work-family interference on well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 271–282. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/1076-8998.13.3.271 Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.917 De Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2006). Stressors, resources, and strain at work: A longitudinal test of the triple-match principle. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1359 –1374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.91.5.1359 De Jonge, J., Dormann, C., & van den Tooren, M. (2008). The demandinduced strain compensation model: Renewed theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. In K. Näswall, J. Hellgren, & M. Sverke (Eds.), The individual in the changing working life (pp. 67– 87). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511490064.004 Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The job demands–resources model: Challenges for future research. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37, 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v37i2.974 Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands–resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499 –512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499 Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 601– 622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/ 096317906X171442 Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 194 – 202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024903 Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 283–357). Chichester, UK: Wiley & sons. Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2002). Rethinking the effects of stressors: A longitudinal study on personal initiative. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 221–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.7 .3.221


OUTCOME RESPONSIBILITY AND EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION Frauenheimer, E. (2011). Today’s workforce—Pressed and stressed. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from http://www.workforce.com/articles/ today-s-workforce-pressed-and-stressed Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative (PI): An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 133– 187). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science. Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 70, 139 –161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997 .tb00639.x Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287– 322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x Grant, A. M., Christianson, M. K., & Price, R. H. (2007). Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 51– 63. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2007.26421238 Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., Parker, S. K., & Frese, M. (2010). Putting job design in context: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 145–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.679 Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19416520903047327 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 16, 250 –279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 1089-2680.6.4.307 Jackson, P. R., & Mullarkey, S. (2000). Lean production teams and health in garment manufacture. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 231–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.231 Jackson, P. R., Wall, T. D., Martin, R., & Davids, K. (1993). New measures of job control, cognitive demand, and production responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 753–762. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.753 Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005 .00672.x Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1987). Work design as an approach to person-environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 278 –296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(87)90044-3 Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer. Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1988). The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 297–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030090402 LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stress-hindrance stress framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships between stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764 –775. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ AMJ.2005.18803921 Lohmann-Haislah, A. (2012). Stressreport Deutschland 2012. Psychische Anforderungen, Ressourcen und Befinden [Stress report Germany 2012. Psychological demands, resources and health]. Dortmund, Germany: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin. Manove, M. (1997). Job responsibility, pay, and promotion. The Economic Journal, 107, 85–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00143

499

Martin, R., & Wall, T. D. (1989). Attentional demand and cost responsibility as stressors in shopfloor jobs. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 69 – 86. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256420 Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 498 –512. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.498 Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397– 422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev .psych.52.1.397 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2012). Mplus user’s guide (seventh ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Larson, J., & Grayson, C. (1999). Explaining the gender difference in depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1061–1072. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514 .77.5.1061 Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 413– 440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317901167460 Payne, R. L., & Rick, J. T. (1986). Heart rate as an indicator of stress in surgeons and anaesthetists. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 30, 411– 420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(86)90080-2 Purvanova, R. K., & Muros, J. K. (2010). Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 168 –185. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.006 Schaufeli, W. B., & van Dierendonck, D. (2000). Utrecht Burnout Scale: Test manual. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harcourt Test Series. Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2001). Utrechtse burnout schaal (UBOS). Psycholoog, 36, 9 –12. Schmitt, A., Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2012). The buffering effect of selection, optimization, and compensation strategy use on the relationship between problem solving demands and occupational well-being: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 139 –149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027054 Searle, B. J. (2008). Does personal initiative training work as a stress management intervention? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 259 –270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.13.3.259 Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 287–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428110369842 Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 275–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317910X502359 Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62, 44 –96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012 .00514.x Tremblay, M. A., & Messervey, D. (2011). The job demands–resources model: Further evidence for the buffering effect of personal resources. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37, 10 –19. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4102/sajip.v37i2.876 van Gelderen, B., Heuven, E., van Veldhoven, M., Zeelenberg, M., & Croon, M. A. (2007). Psychological strain and emotional labor among police-officers: A diary study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 446 – 459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.09.001 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

500



Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 486 – 493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3 .486 Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1288 –1309. http://dx.doi .org/10.2307/256858 Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: A review of the literature with reference to methodological issues. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 145–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.2.145 Zellars, K. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., Hoffman, N., & Ford, E. W. (2004). Experiencing job burnout: The roles of positive and

negative traits and states. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 887–911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02576.x Zohar, D. (1997). Predicting burnout with a hassle-based measure of role demands. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 101–115. http://dx .doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199703)18:2⬍101::AID-JOB788⬎3 .0.CO;2-Y

Received November 27, 2013 Revision received November 29, 2014 Accepted February 4, 2015 䡲

Members of Underrepresented Groups: Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate more in this process. If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at [email protected]. Please note the following important points: • To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective review. • To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission within the context of existing research. • To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information. Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example, “social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude change” as well. • Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly. APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/reviewmanuscript-ce-video.aspx.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: Enabling Employees to Employ More of Their Whole Selves at Work.

Employee decision-making about disclosure of a mental disorder at work.

Instability of depression severity at intake as a moderator of outcome in the treatment for major depressive disorder.

Work Demands-Burnout and Job Engagement-Job Satisfaction Relationships: Teamwork as a Mediator and Moderator.

The Work-Family Interface as a Mediator between Job Demands and Employee Behaviour.

Attachment history as a moderator of the alliance outcome relationship in adolescents.

Why We Need More Nature at Work: Effects of Natural Elements and Sunlight on Employee Mental Health and Work Attitudes.

Exploring Selective Exposure and Confirmation Bias as Processes Underlying Employee Work Happiness: An Intervention Study.

Corrigendum: Exploring Selective Exposure and Confirmation Bias as Processes Underlying Employee Work Happiness: An Intervention Study.

Oncologist burnout and compassion fatigue: investigating time pressure at work as a predictor and the mediating role of work-family conflict.

Workplace climate, employee actions, work injury and structural equation modelling.

Proactivity in VTE prevention: a concept analysis.

Social support as a moderator of the effect of work stress on personal strain among black employees in South Africa.

Erratum to: Socioeconomic status as a moderator between frailty and mortality at old ages.

Is Mindful Practice Our Ethical Responsibility as Anesthesiologists?

A pilot training program to develop physical recreation leaders for work with emotionally disturbed children.

Line manager implementation perceptions as a mediator of relations between high-performance work practices and employee outcomes.

Are proactive personalities always beneficial? Political skill as a moderator.

Arousal seeking as a moderator of life stress.

Relational utility as a moderator of guilt in social interactions.

The importance of work participation as an outcome in rheumatology.

"Home is at work and work is at home": telework and individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication.

Making Sense of Corporate Social Responsibility and Work.

Income, ethnicity, and sleep: coping as a moderator.