Too much of a good thing: The interactive effects of cultural values and core job characteristics on hindrance stressors and employee performance outcomes

• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Author: Fauzia Syed,Saima Naseer,Magda Bezerra Leite Donia,Fatima Bashir
• Date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21993

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Too much of a good thing: The interactive effects of cultural

values and core job characteristics on hindrance stressors and

employee performance outcomes

Saima Naseer

1

| Magda Bezerra Leite Donia

2

| Fauzia Syed

1

| Fatima Bashir

1

1

Faculty of Management Sciences,

International Islamic University, Islamabad,

Pakistan

2

Telfer School of Management, University of

Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence

Saima Naseer, Faculty of Management

Sciences, International Islamic University,

Sector H 10, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Email: saima.naseer@iiu.edu.pk,

saimanaseersheikh@yahoo.com

Abstract

This study contributes to research on core job characteristics by examining when

employees may perceive enriched jobs as a hindrance stressor and in turn may expe-

rience lower performance at work. Utilizing time-lagged data collected from a sample

of 386 employee–coworker dyads and drawing on cognitive appraisal theory of

stress and coping, we explore the mediating role of hindrance stressors on the rela-

tionship between core job characteristics and key employee performance outcomes

(i.e., creativity, counterproductive work behaviors, in-role performance, and organiza-

tional citizenship behaviors) and the moderating roles of cultural values (i.e., power

distance and uncertainty avoidance) in influencing this mediation. The results

supported the hypotheses, providing evidence that the experience of hindrance

stressors mediates the relationship between core job characteristics and job perfor-

mance outcomes when employees score high on power distance and uncertainty

avoidance cultural values, and not when their scores on these cultural values were

low. Practical implications and future research are discussed.

KEYWORDS

core job characteristics, counterproductive work behaviors, creativity, cultural values,

hindrance stressor, in-role performance, organizational citizenship behaviors

1|INTRODUCTION

Job design has been one of the most widely studied topics in the field

of organizational behavior (Clegg & Spencer, 2007; Hofmans, Gelens &

Theuns, 2014). Research in this field gained momentum with Hack-

man and Lawler's (1971) study, which laid the foundation for the job

characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1974, 1976). The core job

characteristics model became the most extensively researched and

widely examined approach to job design from the late 1970s to date

(Ghosh, Rai, Chauhan, Gupta & Singh, 2015; Grant, Fried & Juillerat,

2009). Research in this field of investigation assumed that five core

aspects of a job (skill variety, task identity, task significance, auton-

omy, and feedback) have the potential to enrich the experience of an

employee at work (Hackman & Oldham, 1974, 1976).

Indeed, research on job design in general and job characteristics in

particular has mostly focused on examining the positive consequences

of these core job characteristics. For example, the core job character-

istics have been found to be positively related to a number of

employee outcomes, such as job satisfaction, motivation (Hackman &

Oldham, 1974, 1976), in-role performance, creativity (Farmer,

Tierney & Kung-McIntyre, 2003; Oldham & Cummings, 1996), organi-

zational citizenship behaviors (OCBs; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &

Bommer, 1996) employee health, and well-being (Humphrey,

Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007).

Wegman, Hoffman, Carter, Twenge and Guenole (2018) in a

recent meta-analysis on job characteristics highlighted that despite

the widespread appeal of the job characteristics model for the past

many years, this model is limited as it considers job design features as

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21993

Hum Resour Manage. 2020;59:271–289. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 271

objective characteristics. This traditional approach to job design con-

sidered core job characteristics as aspects that enriched jobs and

eventually created positive work outcomes for employees

(Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1980). However, research has shown

mixed findings in the positive relationship between core job charac-

teristics and job performance outcomes (Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013;

Fried, 1991; LePine et al., 2005; Oldham, 1996; Parker et al., 2001).

For instance, Chung-Yan (2010) found that jobs that are too complex

and difficult can lead to negative consequences for individuals and

organizations. In addition, Xie and Johns (1995) found that job scope

being a closely linked element of the JCM, when too high, might result

in negative outcomes for individuals.

Researchers started to explain these mixed findings by inter-

preting that the job design theory in general and the JCM model in

particular were constrained only adopting a single positive view of

core job characteristics (Grant & Parker, 2009; Grant et al., 2009,

2010; Humphrey et al., 2007). As the bulk of research on job design

has focused on the favorable effects of core job characteristics on

conventional outcomes (P. M. Podsakoff et al., 1996; Humphrey et al.,

2007), less is known about its unfavorable effects (Fried et al., 2013;

Xie & Johns, 1995). Only recently, a few studies have focused on the

effects of the core job characteristics on undesirable outcomes, such

as bullying (Astrauskaite, et al., 2015; Schuller, Roesler & Rau, 2014).

In their review of the job design literature, Oldham and Fried (2016)

highlight the need to study alternative outcomes apart from those

that have been well-established (e.g., Farmer, Tierney & Kung-

McIntyre, 2003; Hackman & Oldham, 1974, 1976; Oldham & Cum-

mings, 1996).

Research on job performance consistently suggests that an indi-

vidual's job performance encompasses various dimensions; one's in-

role performance and contextual performance, such as OCBs, coun-

terproductive work behaviors (CWBs), and creativity (Sackett, 2002;

Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). Moreover, it has also established that all

these performance outcomes exhibit similar patterns with organiza-

tional and dispositional antecedents. For example, meta-analyses on

job performance outcomes indicate common attitudinal (i.e., job satis-

faction, organizational commitment, perceived organizational support,

and perceptions of organizational justice) and dispositional variables

(conscientiousness, locus of control, trait anger, and positive and neg-

ative affectivity) as antecedents of performance, OCB, and CWBs

(Dalal, 2005; O'Brien & Allen, 2008). In order to address the ambiguity

in the study of the relationship between job characteristics and job

performance dimensions, this study considers job performance, OCBs,

CWBs, and creativity under the umbrella of job performance

outcomes.

The job characteristics model conceptually identified three psy-

chological states as mediators in the relationship between core job

characteristics and employee outcomes. Hackman and Oldham (1976)

describe these psychological states as experienced meaningfulness of

the work (the extent to which an individual takes the job to be valu-

able and meaningful), experienced responsibility for the outcomes of

the work (the extent to which one feels responsible and accountable

for work outcomes), and the knowledge of the results of the work

activities (the extent to which the individual is aware of his/her per-

formance). Although the psychological states are a key component of

the JCM, limited empirical support has been found for these psycho-

logical mechanisms (Oldham & Fried, 2016). To date, research on the

JCM has presumed the mechanisms, linking core job characteristics

with work outcomes as mostly motivational. However, these studies

have produced weak to contradictory findings (Fried & Ferris, 1987)

indicating the need to undertake an opposing view of job characteris-

tics. There might be alternative pathways which reveal the other side

of the picture where core job characteristics can unveil negative con-

sequences. For example, recent reviews and meta-analyses agree on

the need for more research to identify alternative mechanisms and

unconventional processes that can more fully account for both the

positive and even negative effects of job characteristics (Marinova

et al., 2015; Oldham & Fried, 2016). One important mechanism is the

extent to which the core job characteristics are perceived as a chal-

lenge or a hindrance stressor. For example, Bakker & Sanz-Vergel

(2013) recently identified that job demands traditionally perceived to

be challenging, such as time pressure, might be interpreted as a hin-

drance, whereas emotional demands which are normally labeled as

hindrances might in fact be viewed as challenging in the home health

care nurses sector. The authors called for future researchers to initiate

more theoretical and empirical work on the classification of job

demands either as a challenge or a hindrance stressors (Bakker &

Sanz-Vergel, 2013).

Johns (2006) argued that the work context plays an important role

in shaping employee attitudes and behaviors. By highlighting the

importance of considering omnibus context, one important factor he

argues must be considered is the “where”of a study, which can have a

marked impact on its results. Recent research has also highlighted the

need to more closely focus on the conditions or contextual factors

under which job demands might be perceived as challenge or hin-

drance stressors (Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013). In line with this, many

personal, social, and situational factors have been studied as boundary

conditions or moderators in the relationship between the core job

characteristics and employee's outcomes (Raja & Johns, 2010). Impor-

tantly, a great deal of what we know about job design is based on

research that has been conducted in Western countries and cultures

(Erez, 2010; Fried et al., 2008). As with other domains of HRM where

the “uncritical adaptation”of HR practices may not effectively trans-

late to other cultural contexts (Aycan et al., 2000), research is needed

on the effects of cultural dimensions on outcomes of core job charac-

teristics, especially given that the research that has been conducted

so far has resulted in generally inconsistent findings across studies.

For instance, Robert et al. (2000) found that autonomy and skill

variety were negatively related to satisfaction in India, whereas this

relationship was positive for individualistic countries, such as the

United States. Similarly, Huang and Van De Vliert (2003), in a sample

of 49 countries comprised of varied cultural dimensions, reported that

intrinsic job characteristics resulted in favorable employee attitudes

and behaviors in individualistic, low power distance, and low uncer-

tainty avoidance cultures, whereas the opposite was true for more

eastern high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance cultures.

272 NASEER ET AL.