Should we be “challenging” employees?: A critical review and meta‐analysis of the challenge‐hindrance model of stress

• Date: 01 October 2019
• Author: Joseph J. Mazzola,Ryan Disselhorst
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2412
• Published date: 01 October 2019

POINT‐COUNTERPOINT

Should we be “challenging”employees?: A critical review and

meta‐analysis of the challenge‐hindrance model of stress

Joseph J. Mazzola

1

|Ryan Disselhorst

2

1

Department of Psychology, Meredith College,

Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.

2

Department of Psychology, Roosevelt

University, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

Correspondence

Joseph J. Mazzola, Department of Psychology,

Meredith College, Raleigh, North Carolina,

U.S.A.

Email: jjmazzola@meredith.edu

Summary

The challenge‐hindrance model of stress proposes that stressors can be divided into

two distinct groups: those that challenge employees and those that hinder

employees. This critical review seeks to explain the history of the model and its basic

tenets, while succinctly summarizing the findings of existing studies based on the

model. A thorough search of the stress literature uncovered 32 studies that specifi-

cally examined the relationship between challenge and hindrance stressors and

important personal/organizational variables. Results were reviewed and analyzed,

specifically by describing past meta‐analyses on the model, looking at the overall pat-

tern of results from primary studies, and meta‐analyzing the relationships presented

in those papers. This synthesis suggests that although there are some differential

relationships of challenge and hindrance stressors with organizational variables (e.g.,

performance and engagement), the relationships to other key variables, such as coun-

terproductive work behaviors, psychological strains, and physical health, are consis-

tently negative for both challenge and hindrance stressors. Thus, we propose that

stress research move away from the current challenge‐hindrance model in favor of

other established models and/or a more appraisal‐based approach.

KEYWORDS

burnout, challenge,hindrance, strain, stress

1|INTRODUCTION

The transactional model of occupational stress (Lazarus & Folkman,

1984), likely the most prevalent model used in stress research,

suggests that stress occurs when employees perceive a stimulus as

threatening, and that this stress response has a direct positive rela-

tionship to detrimental physical and psychological outcomes (i.e.,

strains). However, the evolutionary purpose of stress posits that stress

has beneficial qualities that aided our ancestors in survival (Selye,

1976); thus, some researchers have sought to better understand

the duality of stress and have attempted to capture its positive com-

ponents (e.g., Cahill, Gorski, & Le, 2003; Dienstbier, 1989; Duncko,

Johnson, Merikangas, & Grillon, 2009).

In an effort to identify and explain how relationships between stress

and desirable outcomes could be utilized in the workplace, Cavanaugh,

Boswell, Roehling, and Boudreau (2000) proposed the challenge‐

hindrance stress model (CHM). The CHM states that workplace

stressors should be split into two distinct categories. The first category,

hindrance stressors (HS), are demands that are likely to interfere with or

thwart performance and personal goals. These stressors align with the

more traditional conceptualization of stress and stressors as negative

and strain‐inducing (e.g., Nixon, Mazzola, Bauer, Krueger, & Spector,

2011). The second category, challenge stressors (CS), are demands that

create opportunities for performance and a sense of accomplishment

(Webster, Beehr, & Love, 2011), which Cavanaugh et al. (2000) posited

would relate differently and likely positively to relevant outcomes in

comparison to HS (specifically job satisfaction and job search in their

initial examination). They felt these two distinct categories had differing

effects on individuals and could better account for the inconsistent and

weaker than expected relationships found in past stress literature.

Received: 20 May 2019 Accepted: 20 June 2019

DOI: 10.1002/job.2412

J Organ Behav. 2019;40:949–961. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 949