Thriving on challenge stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents of thriving at work

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2115
• Published date: 01 January 2017
• Date: 01 January 2017

Thriving on challenge stressors? Exploring time

pressure and learning demands as antecedents of

thriving at work

ROMAN PREM

1

*, SANDRA OHLY

2

, BETTINA KUBICEK

1

AND

CHRISTIAN KORUNKA

1

1

University of Vienna, Vienna,Austria

2

University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany

Summary In the conceptualization of thriving at work, it is emphasized that employees’learning and vitality are two

equally important components of thriving and that thriving is facilitated by contextual features and available

resources. In this study, we examined the effects of two challenge stressors (time pressure and learning de-

mands) on thriving at work. Based on the literature on challenge and hindrance stressors, we proposed that

challenge stressors positively affect learning and negatively affect vitality. To uncover underlying mecha-

nisms, we measured challenge appraisal and hindrance appraisal of work situations in a diary study. A sample

of 124 knowledge workers responded to three daily surveys (before the lunch break, during the afternoon, and

at the end of the workday) for a period of five workdays. Results indicate that the indirect effects of learning

demands and time pressure on learning are mediated by challenge appraisal, whereas indirect effects of learn-

ing demands on vitality are mediated by hindrance appraisal. Overall, our study shows that challenge stressors

have a positive total effect on learning but no total effect on vitality. These differential relationships call for a

finer distinction between the two components of thriving at work in future research. Copyright © 2016 The

Authors Journal of Organizational Behavior Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords: time pressure; learning demands; cognitive appraisal; thriving; diary study

We live in a fast-paced world characterized by turbulent economic changes (e.g., Cascio, 1995; Rosa, 2003, 2013).

In globalized markets, companies have to adapt quickly to changing environments to stay competitive. In order to

be sustainable, it is becoming increasingly important for companies to maintain a thriving workforce energized to

grow and develop (Spreitzer, Porath, & Gibson, 2012). Thriving at work can be described as a “psychological

state in which individuals experience both a sense of vitality and a sense of learning at work”(Spreitzer, Sutcliffe,

Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant, 2005, p. 538). Thriving employees supposedly create new resources, such as

knowledge, meaning, and strong social relationships, while performing their work. Consequently, thriving at work

contributes to performance while improving employees’health at the same time (e.g., Porath, Spreitzer, Gibson, &

Garnett, 2012).

In their socially embedded model of thriving at work, Spreitzer et al. (2005) highlight that learning and vitality are

two equally important components of thriving. They further propose that contextual features and available resources

positively affect both learning and vitality at work (Spreitzer et al., 2005). The assumption that available resources

affect both components has been supported for positive meaning at work, as the experience of positive meaning in

the morning increases feelings of learning and vitality at the end of the workday (Niessen, Sonnentag, & Sach,

2012). However, although available resources affect both learning and vitality in the same way, it is questionable

*Correspondence to: Roman Prem, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria. E-mail: roman.prem@univie.ac.at

†

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 31st annual SIOP conference in April 2016, Annaheim. We are thankful to Ines Natzschka,

Jonathan Öhler, Eva Schunk, and Lars Uhlig for their collaboration in the data collection process. This research was partly supported by the

Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P23377-G17.

Copyright © 2016 The Authors Journal of Organizational Behavior

Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Received 26 February 2015

Revised 26 February 2016, Accepted 30 May 2016

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 108–123 (2017)

Published online 30 June 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2115

Research Article

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

whether this would also hold for other work characteristics. Thus far, scholars have not considered that certain job

stressors might also hold the potential to foster thriving at work.

In the literature, job stressors are differentiated into challenge stressors and hindrance stressors (Cavanaugh,

Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005).

Meta-analytical evidence showed that although both types of job stressors have adverse effects, challenge

stressors (as opposed to hindrance stressors) also have favorable effects, for example, on motivation and perfor-

mance (Crawford et al., 2010; LePine et al., 2005; Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007). Thus, we propose that

exposure to challenge stressors might hold the potential for both positive and negative effects on employees’

thriving at work.

Because coping with challenge stressors may be motivating and provide opportunities for personal growth and

learning at work (LePine et al., 2005; Paulsson, Ivergård, & Hunt, 2005), we propose that challenge stressors pos-

itively affect employees’learning at work. At the same time, coping with challenge stressors can also be effortful

and increase strain (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), and therefore, we propose depleting effects on employees’

vitality at work. Overall, there seems to be reason to believe that challenge stressors will have differential effects

on the two components of thriving at work.

In this paper, we pursue two goals: First, we examine possible differential effects of two challenge stressors (time

pressure and learning demands) on learning and vitality at work. To our knowledge, this is the first study examining

whether, aside from available resources, challenge stressors might also positively influence thriving at work. It is

also the first study to examine differential effects on the two components of thriving at work: learning and vitality.

Second, as we propose cognitive appraisal processes to play an important role as underlying mechanisms explaining

the relationships between challenge stressors and both components of thriving at work, we measure employees’

challenge and hindrance appraisal of their work situation in a diary study. Asking participants about their cognitive

appraisals directly on multiple workdays enables us to get a more accurate understanding of the underlying within-

person processes.

The concept of thriving at work

In recent years, the concept of thriving at work has emerged and received a great deal of attention in positive orga-

nizational scholarship (e.g., Paterson, Luthans, & Jeung, 2014; Spreitzer & Porath, 2012). Thriving at work is char-

acterized by the joint experience of learning and vitality (Spreitzer & Sutcliffe, 2007; Spreitzer et al., 2005). When

employees experience learning, they have a sense that they are continually improving and getting better at what they

do (Porath et al., 2012). The experience of vitality is characterized by positive feelings based on available energy and

feelings of aliveness (Porath et al., 2012). Based on hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives on psychological function-

ing and development (cf. Ryan & Deci, 2001), Spreitzer et al. (2005) emphasize that only the joint experience of

both cognitive (learning) and affective (vitality) components of thriving gives employees a sense that they are

progressing in their self-development.

The assumption that experiences of learning and vitality are equally important components of thriving at work

distinguishes thriving from other concepts in positive organizational scholarship. For example, thriving and

flourishing (e.g., Diener et al., 2010) share similarities, as they both involve positive states of human functioning.

However, flourishing only requires the experience of either psychological or social well-being and does not depend

on experiences of learning (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Similarly, thriving at work and work engagement (e.g., Bakker,

Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008) share a conceptual overlap to some degree. In both concepts, available energy

(termed vitality or vigor, respectively) is a main component. Still, work engagement does not require experiences

of learning, as it is more strongly concentrated around experiences of dedication and absorption (Spreitzer, Lam,

& Fritz, 2010).

Thriving at work provides benefits, not only for the employees themselves but also for the organizations in which

they work. Porath et al. (2012) have shown that thriving at workis related to better general health and well-being, less

strain, and lower levelsof burnout. Further, thriving at work is positively associated with career development initiative

THRIVING ON CHALLENGE STRESSORS 109

Copyright © 2016 The Authors Journal of Organizational Behavior

Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 108–123 (2017)

DOI: 10.1002/job