So far, so good: Up to now, the challenge–hindrance framework describes a practical and accurate distinction

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2405
• Published date: 01 October 2019
• Author: Terry A. Beehr,Kimberly E. O'Brien
• Date: 01 October 2019

POINT‐COUNTERPOINT

So far, so good: Up to now, the challenge–hindrance

framework describes a practical and accurate distinction

Kimberly E. O'Brien |Terry A. Beehr

Psychology Department, Central Michigan

University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan

Correspondence

Terry A. Beehr, Psychology Department,

Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI

48859.

Email: beehr1ta@cmich.edu

Summary

There are many ways to categorize work‐related stressors, and in recent years, a

common distinction in occupational health psychology is between stressors viewed

as challenges versus hindrances. Is this a useful conceptualization that provides prac-

tical and theoretical implications for IO psychologists? As Kurt Lewin famously pre-

scribed, “there is nothing so practical as a good theory,”and we discuss the

challenge–hindrance framework as a developing theory that can be useful for

researchers and practitioners. We note that some of the early thinking and develop-

ment of the challenge–hindrance distinction relied on both resource and appraisal

theories of stress. Overall, we find that the challenge–hindrance distinction can be

viewed as a framework that is useful by producing interesting, valuable, and innova-

tive research. Simply striving to find meaningful and useful categorizations of

stressors can lead us to discover new insights into the occupational stress domain,

and the challenge–hindrance categories have already spurred a great deal of research.

KEYWORDS

challenge, hindrance, strains, stressors

1|INTRODUCTION

In the conceptualization of occupational stress, the usual predictor

variables are stressors, which are characteristics of or events in the

workplace environment that can result in employee strains, that is, ill

health (psychological or physical) or well‐being (e.g., McGrath & Beehr,

1990; Semmer, McGrath, & Beehr, 2005). This understanding is an

analogy based on physics and engineering, in which a force on an

object results in potential weakening of the object. Thus, the weight

of a truck on a bridge results in tension, under which the bridge might

even become distorted by stretching (e.g., Levi, 2005). Just so, stress-

ful events or conditions of work can weaken the employee in the form

of illness, broadly defined. This somewhat simplistic analogy cannot

explain occupational stress in human employees very completely,

however, because not all stressors are alike and not all people react

alike to the same stressors (we note that the bridge analogy is also

more complicated in reality, as conditions such as the speed of the

vehicle, the materials making up the bridge, and the construction of

the bridge means that not all bridges react alike either). There are so

many potential stressors in the workplace that it would enhance our

understanding and attempts at helping stressed employees if there

were a limited number of useful categories of stressors. If stressors in

a single category have similar effects on employees, then we do not

have to know as much about the effects of each stressor independently.

The challenge–hindrance dichotomy is one way to categorize stressors

that has shown some promise. It has been purported (and supported

through meta‐analyses, e.g., LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005) that

these two categories of stressors may relate to certain other variables

in different ways. If the challenge–hindrance categorization of stressors

can help us understand occupational stress better, then it will provide

some utility in the field of occupational health psychology.

The challenge–hindrance stressors at least loosely parallel other

categorizations (i.e., positive versus negative; eustress versus distress).

In a working paper, Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, and Boudreau

(1998) initially presented an argument as to why challenge versus hin-

drance is superior to similar distinctions, relying heavily and explicitly

Received: 11 February 2019 Revised: 23 May 2019 Accepted: 20 June 2019

DOI: 10.1002/job.2405

J Organ Behav. 2019;40:962–972.

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job

962