Worker’s wellbeing is a crucial aspect of maintaining an organisations long-term efficiency. The main reason for deteriorating work performance amongst employees is typically due to stress. Stress has been defined as a psychological state that affects a person when they do not have the adequate resources or coping mechanisms to deal with a specific situation (Michie, 2002). Recently, employers have been held accountable for employee stress and therefore, many have developed procedures to help an individual adjust to stressful work situations. High stress contributes to long-term economic stressors for the employer, resulting in increased staff turnover, unsatisfactory work performance and reduced customer satisfaction. Due to these reasons, this area of study is especially significant in identifying what factors contribute to high stress, and to what degree they actually influence the worker’s wellbeing.
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) stated that how people react to a situation heavily relies upon how they interpret it. Research has greatly focused on two typical antecedents of stress, developed by the challenge-hindrance framework (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling & Boudreau, 2000). Cavanaugh et al. (2000) identified stressors based on their ability to support or hinder employee performance. The first category is hindrance stressors, which are demands that hinder a person’s ability to perform. Hindrance stressors are described as causing negative-related stress to the worker (Nixon, Mazzola, Bauer, Krueger & Spector, 2011). On the other hand, challenge stressors are demands that are interpreted positively by viewing the task as an opportunity and providing a sense of achievement (Webster, Beehr & Love, 2011). These appraisals have been shown to differ in terms of their influence over attitudes, motivation and performance of a task (LePine, LePine & Jackson, 2004). Therefore, a factor such as time pressure can be viewed as either a hindrance or a challenge appraisal, depending on the individual’s interpretation of the job demand.
Time pressure also correlates positively with some aspects of work engagement. Work engagement is defined by having an optimistic outlook and a form of enthusiasm that involves strong identification with one’s own work (Kahn, 1990). According to Schmitt et al. (2015), time pressure should be appraised as motivating up to a specific threshold and appraised as hindering to work engagement once this threshold is passed. Similarly, Gardner & Cummings (1988) also predicted that moderate levels of time pressure produce the most optimal challenge appraisal. Feelings of boredom arise from low time pressure and high levels of time pressure cause high arousal leading to avoidance of the task. On the other hand, Ohly, Sonnentag and Pluntke (2006) deemed time pressure as a positive aspect that enhances performance and allows workers to use adaptive strategies that they usually would not. This is further expanded on by Hall and Lawler (1970), who found that it resulted in constructive pressure when the task was complex and demanding which produced more work engagement, as opposed to tasks that were easy or repetitive (Ivancevich & McMahon, 1977).
When an individual experiences low challenge appraisals whilst at work, it has been suggested that procrastination comes into play. According to Lay (1986), procrastination has been defined as a mechanism that allows an individual to postpone important work, delaying the required goal. Procrastination is seen as a negative behaviour, which often leads to low self-esteem and low levels of wellbeing (Sirois, 2007). Eddy, D’Abate and Thurston (2010) stated that almost 80% of employees admitted that they use the Internet for personal reasons whilst at work for things such as shopping, reading or using social media. This has been attributed to boredom and a lack of stimulation during business hours (Metin et al. 2016). Individuals who do not experience any challenge within their work will often turn to other types of distractions. Therefore, employees that are challenged by their work are likely to display better performance and less likely to participate in non-work related activities. However, Seo (2012) found no distinction on exam results between a group of Korean students who procrastinated and a group that did not. The effects of low challenge appraisals on procrastination need to be studied further to uncover whether it is detrimental to work attitudes.
Previous literature has heavily focused on one or two aspects related to wellbeing at work however, has failed in displaying how the different concepts interact with one another. Another limitation of previous research is that time pressure has gained popularity in the view that it contributes to low levels of wellbeing. However, time pressure has shown to challenge the worker, improve engagement and lower procrastination levels.
The current study’s aim is to examine the effects that challenge appraisals have on time pressure, work engagement and procrastination in relation to wellbeing. Three hypotheses were developed to guide the study. It was proposed that more time pressure would be associated with higher challenge appraisal, allowing workers to feel more motivated. The second prediction is that higher challenge appraisals would produce more work engagement because the employee is motivated by the possibility of reward. Lastly, it was suggested that low challenge appraisals would be linked to higher levels of procrastination due to workers being less cognitively stimulated, resulting to more participation in non-work related activities.
References
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
Eddy, E. R., D’Abate, C. P., & Thurston, P. W. (2010). Explaining engagement in personal activities on company time. Personnel Review, 39, 639–654.
Gardner, D. G., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Activation theory and job design: Review and reconceptualization. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 81–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Hall, D. T., & Lawler, E. E. (1970). Job characteristics and pressures and the organizational integration of professionals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 271-281.
Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1977). A study of task goal attributes, higher order need, strength and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 552-563.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Lay, J. R. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 474-495
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York, NY: Springer
LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 883–891.
Metin, B. U., Peeters M. C., & Taris. T. W. (2018). Correlates of procrastination and performance at work: The role of having “good fit”. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 46, 228-244.
Michie, S. (2002). Causes and management of stress at work. Occupational and environmental medicine, 59(1), 67-72.
Nixon, A. E., Mazzola, J. J., Bauer, J., Krueger, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Can work make you sick? A meta-analysis of the relationships between job stressors and physical symptoms. Work & Stress, 25(1), 1-22.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257-279.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J.M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 1217–27
Schmitt, A., Ohly, S., & Kleepies. (2015). Time Pressure Promotes Work Engagement: Test of Illegitimate Tasks as Boundary Condition. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14. 28-36.
Seo, E. H. (2012). Cramming, active procrastination, and academic achievement. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 40(8), 1333-1340.
Sirois, F. M. (2007).”Ill look after my health later”: A replication and extension of the procrastination health model with community dwelling adults. Personality and Individual Differences. 43, 15-26
Van Yperen, N. W., & Hagedoorn, M. (2003). Do high job demands increase intrinsic motivation or fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support. The Academy of Management Journal, 46, 339–348.
Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. (2011). Extending the challenge–hindrance model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 505–516