Challenge Stressors, Work Engagement, and Affective Commitment Among Chinese Public Servants

• Published date: 01 December 2020
• Date: 01 December 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0091026020912525
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020912525

Public Personnel Management

2020, Vol. 49(4) 547 –570

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0091026020912525

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

Challenge Stressors, Work

Engagement, and Affective

Commitment Among

Chinese Public Servants

Qingzhi Jiang1, Hyeongkwon Lee2,

and Dapeng Xu3

Abstract

Drawing on the transactional theory of stress and the person–situation interactionist

perspective, we theorize that the indirect effect of challenge stressors on affective

commitment through work engagement is moderated by the joint effects of core self-

evaluations and perceived organizational support. In a sample of 226 Chinese public

servants, we tested a new moderated moderated (three-way) mediation model using

structural equation modeling. Our results show that challenge stressors positively

influence work engagement, which has a significant positive effect on affective

commitment. Moreover, the indirect effect of challenge stressors is maximized when

both perceived organizational support and core self-evaluations are high.

Keywords

challenge stressor, work engagement, perceived organizational support, core self-

evaluations, moderated moderated (three-way) mediation

Introduction

Due to the increasing complexity of public affairs, work-related stress is now a com-

mon problem for government departments and their staff. It has become a key topic

for theoretical studies; however, there is little research analyzing the effects of

1Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, P.R. China

2Semyung University, Jecheon, Republic of Korea

3Qufu Normal University, P.R. China

Corresponding Author:

Dapeng Xu, Department of Cultural Industry Management, Qufu Normal University, 57 Jingxuan West

Road, Qufu 273100, Shandong Province, P.R. China.

Email: xdp@qfnu.edu.cn

912525PPMXXX10.1177/0091026020912525Public Personnel ManagementJiang et al.

research-article2020

548 Public Personnel Management 49(4)

work-related stress on the health, job satisfaction of public servants, public service

motivation as well as the various strategies for relieving their stress (De Simone et al.,

2016; Liu et al., 2014). Furthermore, the research on work-related stress performed by

public administration scholars is insufficient in comparison to the research performed

on the same topic by business and psychology researchers. Particularly when attempt-

ing to define the relationship between work-related stress and working outcomes, pre-

vious studies have failed to reach a consensus. Similar results are common in other

research fields, one example being the frequently contradictory findings of studies

exploring the relationship between work-related stress and job engagement and those

that focus on the relationship between physical and mental health and attitude toward

work (Bakker et al., 2006; Beehr et al., 2001). One of the reasons for this situation is

that researchers have ignored the environmental factors that contribute to work-related

stress. In other words, they have failed to deeply explore or classify the sources of

work-related stress as well as the mechanisms that influence it.

Some studies have indicated that stress can be divided into two types, namely,

good stress and bad stress, which lead to different results (Lepine et al., 2005).

Furthermore, job demands (job stress) had been divided into challenge stressors and

hindrance stressors. Challenge stressors such as workload and job responsibility, are

positive forms of stress that promote individual development and goal achievement.

Hindrance stressors, such as role ambiguity and role conflict, are negative forms of

stress that obstruct individual development and job satisfaction (N. P. Podsakoff

et al., 2007). Using this differentiating method, Cavanaugh et al. (2000) were the first

to prove that challenge stressors had a positive effect on job satisfaction, while hin-

drance stressors had a negative effect on job satisfaction. Since then, this argument

has been confirmed by many researchers, including Crawford et al. (2010), who dis-

covered through meta-analysis that, when challenge stressors and hindrance stressors

are not differentiated in the traditional job demands-resources (JD-R) model, undif-

ferentiated job demands can have a significant negative effect on work engagement.

When differentiated, challenge stressors can have a significant positive effect on

work engagement, while hindrance stressors can have a significant negative effect on

work engagement.

Some researchers have tried to use a transactional model to explain why challenge

stressors have a positive effect and have demonstrated that challenge stressors generate

a positive effect on work engagement mainly by triggering positive emotions (Crawford

et al., 2010; Webster et al., 2011). From a person–situation interactional perspective,

some scholars believe that the effect of challenge stressors on work engagement is

influenced by personality traits and situational factors. In the present study, the former

variable is measured through core self-evaluations (CSEs), while the latter is measured

using perceived organizational support (POS). Many studies have discovered that POS

can regulate the effect of challenge stressors on work engagement by providing a sig-

nificant buffering effect (Pomaki et al., 2010; Witt & Carlson, 2006; Zacher & Winter,

2011). In other studies, however, POS has also presented a reverse buffering effect

(Casper et al., 2011; Stamper & Johlke, 2003; Wallace, 2005). Thus, previous studies

have been unable to generate a consensus.