Core Self‐Evaluation and Goal Orientation: Understanding Work Stress

• Published date: 01 March 2013
• Date: 01 March 2013
• Author: Carrie B. Messal,Michael Lane Morris,John P. Meriac
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21151

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 24, no. 1, Spring 2013 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21151 35

Core Self-Evaluation and Goal

Orientation: Understanding

Work Stress

Michael Lane Morris, Carrie B. Messal,

John P. Meriac

This study investigates the dispositional factors related to work stress.

Specifi cally, previous research has demonstrated a relationship between core

self-evaluation (CSE) and general life stress. This article extends past research

by examining the relationship between CSE and work stress, and includes goal

orientation as a potential mediator of this relationship. Learning goal

orientation and performance goal orientation are two variables that are salient

to HRD scholarship interests. The study results supported the hypothesis that

CSE is negatively related to work stress, and that performance-prove goal

orientation partially mediates this relationship. Given Russ-Eft’s (2001) call for

additional research exploring work stress and lear ning, and a recent meta-

analysis exploring the relationship between another core personality trait

(psychological capital) and work stress (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre,

2011), the results of this study make an important contribution to our

understanding of the relationship between core personality traits and work

stress research. Furthermore, managers and executive coaches can use the

results of this study to develop interventions designed to address the stress-

related problems of individuals and organizations.

Core Self-Evaluation and Goal Orientation:

Understanding Work Stress

The American Institute of Stress (2010) has estimated that US organizations

spend as much as $300 billion each year (Canada $16 billion) in expenses

associated with reported work-related stress as a result of accidents, absentee-

ism, turnover, worker compensation claims, and direct medical and insurance

The fi rst two authors, Michael Lane Morris and Carrie B. Messal, share fi rst authorship of this article.

36 Morris, Messal, Meriac

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

costs (DeFrank & Ivancevich, 1998; Farren, 1999; Nelson & Simmons, 2003;

Schwartz, 2004; Tangri, 2003; Wright & Smye, 1996). Work-induced stress is

a common concern for managers and over the past decade has been a popular

topic within the public media (Adler, 1999; Mamberto, 2007; Sanchez, 2011;

Scarff, 2000).

The consequences of stress are of paramount importance to employees

and their employers. Across all echelons in the organizational hierarchy,

employees are susceptible to negative consequences associated with work

stress (Kiev, 1987; Quillian-Wolever & Wolever, 2003; Spielberger, Vagg, &

Wasala, 2003). These negative consequences have direct and indirect ramifi ca-

tions for individuals and organizations, including impeded learning transfer,

resistance to change initiatives, interrupted career development, employee dis-

satisfaction, absenteeism, tardiness, turnover, reduced quality and quantity in

job performance, counterproductive behavior, accidents, health care costs,

low morale, low motivation, and violence (Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, &

Salas, 1998; Spielberger et al., 2003; Quick, Quick, Nelson, & Hurrell, 1997;

Quick & Tetrick, 2003; Zivnuska, Kiewitz, Hochwater, Perrewe, & Zellars,

2002).

Due to the adverse effects of work stress, Russ-Eft (2001) challenged the

HRD discipline to close this research gap by initiating research studies that

explored how employee stress infl uenced learning and performance. It is

important for HRD scholars and practitioners to gain a better understanding

of factors that may contribute to employees’ experiences of work-related stress

(Kuchinke, Cornachione, Oh, & Kang, 2010), which potentially undermine

their ability to reach maximized levels of potential and performance (Swanson

& Holton, 2001).

In our review of HRD research in this topic area, we learned that HRD

scholars have initiated research studies that broadly explore stress within mul-

tiple contexts (e.g., work/family, call centers, secondary education) utilizing

multiple theoretical approaches (e.g., conservation of resources, job demand/

control) with a variety of stress mediators (e.g., social support, subjective psy-

chological, physiological, and behavioral reactions), stress moderators (e.g.,

objective workload), and stress outcomes such as burnout (Avey et al., 2011;

Boerner, Dutschke, & Wied, 2008; Brewer & Clippard, 2002; Kwakman,

2001; Kuchinke et al., 2010; Morris, Storberg-Walker, & McMillan, 2009).

The existing HRD research has also examined a number of different types of

stress interventions including stress audits, career conducive organizations,

and adaptive coping strategies (Gilbreath, 2008; Gilbreath & Montesino,

2006; Halbesleben & Rotondo, 2007; Ormond, Keown-Gerrard, & Kline,

2003; Pitt-Catsouphes, Matz-Costa, & MacDermid, 2007; Workman, 2003).

Furthermore, there has been recent research toward understanding the impact

of another trait, psychological capacity, on HRD outcomes, including work

stress (Avey et al., 2011).