挑戰型與干擾型壓力對工作家庭衝突和工作倦怠的影響

全文

(1) . 國立高雄大學經營管理研究所碩士論文 . The effects of Hindrance Stress and Challenge Stress on Work-family Conflicts and Burnout 挑戰型與干擾型壓力對工作家庭衝突和工作倦怠的影響 . 研究生：蘇浩撰指導教授：吳毓麒博士中華民國一 O O 年七月.

(2) Catalog ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................1 摘要..........................................................................................................................................................3 1. RESEARCH MOTIVATION .............................................................................................................5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................7 2.1 STRESS ...........................................................................................................................................7 2.1.1 What is stress?.......................................................................................................................7 2.1.2 Stress Theories.......................................................................................................................8 2.2 JOB STRESS ....................................................................................................................................9 2.3 BURNOUT .....................................................................................................................................12 2.4 WORK-FAMILY CONFLICTS.........................................................................................................14 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................18 3.1 SAMPLE PROCESS ........................................................................................................................18 3.2 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN ............................................................................................................18 3.2.1Challenge stressor ................................................................................................................18 3.2.2 Hindrance stressor ..............................................................................................................19 3.2.3 Burnout ...............................................................................................................................20 3.2.4 Work-family conflicts ..........................................................................................................20 3.3 CONTROL VARIABLES .................................................................................................................20 3.3.1 Control variables for burnout .............................................................................................21 3.3.2 Control variable for work-family conflicts .........................................................................21 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS.................................................................................................22 4.1 DATA COLLECTION .....................................................................................................................22 4.2 CORRELATION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................23 4.3 RESULTS ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................23 4.3.1 Two stress and burnout .......................................................................................................24 4.3.2 Two stress and work-family conflicts..................................................................................25 4.4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................26 5. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................27 APPENDIX ...........................................................................................................................................30 QUESTIONNAIRE (ORIGINAL VERSION) ............................................................................................30 QUESTIONNAIRE (CHINESE VERSION) ..............................................................................................33 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................37.

(3) The Effects of Hindrance Stress and Challenge Stress on Work-Family Conflicts and Burnout Advisor: Dr. Yu-Chi Wu Institute of Business and Management National University of Kaohsiung Student: Hao Su Institute of Business and Management National University of Kaohsiung. ABSTRACT LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine indicated that hindrance-related stress and challenge-related stress tend to have contrary relationships with employees’ attitudes and performance. Prior empirical studies investigated the relationships of two stress types (i.e., hindrance-related stress and challenge-related stress) with performance outcomes (e.g., learning performance and creativity). The findings indicated that hindrance-related stress has negative relation with learning performance and creativity. Conversely, challenge-related stress has positive relation with learning performance and creativity. This study primarily investigates the relationships of two stress types with. work-family. conflicts. and. burnout.. This. study. proposes. that. the. hindrance-related stress and challenge-related stress have contrary relationships with burnout (i.e., positive and negative relationship, respectively), and both stress types have contrary relationships with work-family conflicts as well. A purposive sampling method will be adopted to select various types of finance, marketing, transport, catering, and personnel enterprises in Taiwanese service industry. These service sectors will be chosen because heterogeneous samples of 1.

(4) employees in the service industry are more likely to be sought there. Once a firm is selected, a quota sampling method will be used to recruit equivalent numbers of employees from both genders, and from various ranks of various departments to participate in the survey. The results of this study may clarify our current knowledge of how stress effects can be useful in guiding efforts intended to enhance the usefulness of stress management practices. The results of this study show that challenge stress has a negative relation with burnout; however, the hindrance stress has a positive relation with it. As to work-family conflict, challenge stress has a negative relation with burnout, but the hindrance stress has a positive relation with work-family conflict. Judging from this study, we may know that not every stress is such a bad factor as one think if properly categorized. Stress will help to relieve the burnout and work-family conflict of employees while they are under proper stress like challenge stress. Keywords: Job stress, challenge stress, hindrance stress, work-family conflicts, burnout 2.

(5) 挑戰型與干擾型壓力對工作家庭衝突和工作倦怠的影響指導教授：吳毓麒博士國立高雄大學經營管理研究所學生：蘇浩國立高雄大學經營管理研究所摘要 LePine, Podsakoff, LePine 指出干擾型壓力和挑戰型壓力往往會與員工的態度與績效有著相反的關係。過去有許多實證研究探討了這兩種壓力型式(干擾型壓力和挑戰型壓力)和績效產出(如學習成效和創造力)之間的關係。這些研究在先前發現了干擾型壓力與學習成效與創造力有著負向的關係。相反的，挑戰型壓力卻與學習成效和創造力呈現正向的關係。本研究主要是在探討兩壓力型式對工作家庭衝突和工作倦怠之間的關係，並認為干擾型壓力和挑戰型壓力對於工作倦怠會呈相反之關係(亦即各別一正一負的關係)。至於工作家庭衝突，兩壓力型式則會皆與其呈現正向關係。本研究將對台灣各式各樣的金融服務業進行抽樣，如壽險業、金控業、銀行、信託和合作社等企業。一旦選好了研究的企業對象，本研究便會納入來自各層級的男女員工，一同參加本研究。研究結果能夠釐清當前我們對於壓力的效果能如何有效指引員工，藉以提高壓力管理實務的有效性。研究結果顯示，在工作倦怠部份，挑戰型壓力對其呈負相關，干擾型壓力則對其呈正相關；而對於工作家庭衝突，挑戰型壓力與其呈負相關，干擾型壓力則對其呈正相關。. 3.

(6) 根據本研究結果可知，若將壓力分為挑戰與干擾兩類型，可發現壓力對員工而言並非是個有害的因子，員工們在工作環境中，假若有給予適度地壓力類型(如挑戰型壓力)，也可降低它們的工作倦怠感以及緩和他們的工作家庭衝突。. 關鍵字︰工作壓力、挑戰型壓力、干擾型壓力、工作家庭衝突、工作倦怠. . 4.

(7) 1. Research Motivation With the rapid economic development worldwide, the business competition is getting fierce nowadays. For sustainable development, most companies always regard profit as top priority. When profit is overemphasized, employees' issues regarding heavy workload, stress, health and feeling might be easily neglected. In 2010, over ten people committed suicide at a private firm raise public concern. For this reason, employees' stress is extensively reported and discussed. Some employees handle their difficulties properly, while others may probably shy away or even resort to committing suicide. Employees' suicide cases caused by stress are more frequent than our imagination. Because of stress impact on employees, a wide variety of researches are conducted. No matter what the main points are, those researches almost have something in common. According to the previous literature on stress, most researches treated stress as negative factor for employees’ attitudes and performance. For instance, Jex & Beehr (1991) found the relations between stress and job satisfaction were negative. Besides, the connection between stress and role ambiguity proved to be negative from Cooper and Marshalls’ (1976) research as well. In addition, researches reported positive relation between stress and some negative outcomes, such as job dissatisfaction, violence, burnout, and organizational withdrawal (Kinicki, & Davy, Zohar, 1997). However, LePine, Podsakoff, & Nathan (2005) indicated that when stress are categorized into two stress types (i.e., hindrance-related stress and challenge-related stress), hindrance-related stress and challenge-related stress tend to have contrary relationships with employees’ attitudes and performance. Prior empirical study (e.g., Gevers et al., 2009) investigated the relationships of two stress types (i.e., 5.

(8) hindrance-related stress and challenge-related stress) with performance outcomes (e.g., learning performance and creativity). The findings indicated that hindrance-related stress has negative relation with learning performance and creativity. Conversely, challenge-related stress has positive relation with learning performance and creativity. To obtain more diverse and objective results, this study suggests that it is worthwhile to examine stress related issues in a different way from prior research. Therefore, this research tries to investigate whether stress can be a positive factor other than a negative factor usually indentified by prior researches for employees’ attitudes and performance. This study will categorize stress into two stress types (i.e., hindrance-related stress and challenge-related stress) to investigate the possible different results from previous literatures. In prior researches, stress not categorized into two stress types presented positive relations with Work-family conflicts (Byron, 2005), and it also has positive relationship with burnout (Cherniss, 1980). Thus, the main purpose of this study is to investigate whether the relationships between stress and work related outcomes (i.e., work-family conflicts and burnout) will be the same or not as mentioned previous studies (i.e., Byron, 2005; Cherniss, 1980), when stress are categorized into two stress types (i.e., hindrance-related stress and challenge-related stress). As mentioned above, research questions are generated as below: 1. Do hindrance and challenge stressors have a positive relation and negative one with work-family conflicts respectively? 2. Do hindrance and challenge stressors have a positive relation and negative one with burnout respectively? From a theoretical perspective, to address the theoretical issues underlying the stress and worked related outcomes relationship, this study sets out to develop and test 6.

(9) a theory that can help scholars and managers better understand the relationship between stress and worked related outcomes. From a practical perspective, organizations may expend a large amount of resources in attempts to help employees to manage stress and to get better knowledge of stress effects, and this study should be useful in guiding efforts intended to enhance the usefulness of stress management practices.. 2. Literature Review This chapter assembles diverse resources on challenge and hindrance stressors, burnout and work-family conflicts in order to lay the groundwork for the research analysis. Next, this topic is going to introduce stress, different types of job stress, burnout, and work-family conflicts respectively.. 2.1 Stress 2.1.1 What is stress? The term of stress can date back to 1950s. Selye (1936, 1952) is the first man that promoted this issue. After Selye’s promotion of stress, his issue extensively used from all walks of life, such as biology, psychology, and medicine in particular, and it’s hard to define stress specifically due to the different meanings of stress. This study lists some opinions about stress from some scholars are as follows: Stress can be considered to be dependent variables, which means that a person’s reflections towards stress are caused by external surroundings (Cooper, Dewe, O’Driscoll, 2001). On one hand, Lazarus & Folkman (1984) believed that stress occured in the situation which individual and surroundings were intertwined with. On 7.

(10) the other hand, Cox (1975) said Stress was an outcome which results from the interaction between stimulation and response, and this outcome might accompany individual with the imbalance of varying environment. No matter what those definitions are, they have one thing in common— Stress is the reaction people have to excessive pressure placed on them from extraordinary demands, constraints, or requirements.. 2.1.2 Stress Theories From mentioned above, we may know that stress is not only a person’s physical and psychological reaction, but also a result of interaction resulting from human and surroundings. Therefore, regarding stress, this study attributes the definitions to some theories and they are as follows: First, stress is an outcome of the perceived demands getting the best of perceived ability to deal with: According to Cox (1975), stress involves external stimuli, the physiological response to these stimuli, and psychological processes that mediate between stimulus and response. The psychological processes involve differences between individuals in their perception of the environmental demands and their own capacity to cope with them. Second, Stress is cognition: Lazarus (1966) contends that it is not the stressor itself that causes stress, but a person’s perception from the stress. After 25 years (1991), Lazarus developed a comprehensive emotion theory that a stress theory is also included in it. Two basic forms of appraisal are categorized in this theory: primary and secondary appraisal. These forms count on various sources of information. Primary appraisal puts an emphasis on whether something of relevance to the individual's well being takes place, whereas secondary appraisal emphasizes coping options. Third, Causes of Stress: As shown in Fig 8.

(11) 2.1.2(a), stress can be caused by personal factor and by job-related factors. Clearly, change of any kind—personal or job related—has the potential to cause stress as it can involve demands, constraints, or opportunities (Robbins , 2007).. Personal Factors. Stress. Job-related Factors. Fig 2.1.2(a) Causes of Stress Materials adapted from Stephen P. Robbins (2007),” Management”, p.398. In a word, we may know that the stress theories have been evolving constantly. Initially, the stress was thought of as a physical response by reacting to the environmental stimuli; furthermore, it wasn’t until 1991 that scholar had explored stress by introducing emotion—stress was physically and psychologically explored from then on. Nowadays, some scholars have found out stress originating from job-related factors and personal factors. Next, we are going to explore job stress.. 2.2 Job stress Job-related stress among employers and employees has been depicted as contagion (Marino, 1997). The potential for stress exists when a person wishes to obtain something from the environment but cannot achieve it. Occupational stress 9.

(12) comes into existence in people’s recognition of their inability to deal with demands relating to work, and in their subsequent experience of discomfort (Yamaguchi, 2008). Job stress has been an difficult problem not only for individuals but also for organizations. For employees, there are costs at a personal level, in terms of physical, psychological, and behavioral symptoms (e.g., anger, anxiety, depression, mental fatigue, etc.). The cost of unmanaged stress may lead to many problems, which is severe as an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. At an organizational level, costs are considered absenteeism, loss of productivity, health care consumption, and so forth. The findings from these studies suggest a positive relationship between job-related stress and a variety of positive relations including job dissatisfaction, burnout, and work-family conflicts (Bhagat, 1985; Goazalez, 1997; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985 ;). To obtain more diverse and objective results, it is necessary for this study to be examined in a different way. The reason why the previous literature categorized stress as challenge and hindrance was just because there has been more and more recognition of the potential positive outcomes having something to do with job-related stress. Surveys show that at least some employers perceive stress as contributing to positive outcomes. These employers know that not all stress is awful; stress can result in a competitive merit and compel positive changes (Marino, 1997; Merelman, 1997). By dividing stress into two parts—challenge stressor and hindrance stressor, we may get a comprehensive understanding different from previous literatures. In the present study, the job demands or work circumstances that are expected to result in stress that is associated with positive outcomes are termed “challenges,” and are defined as follows: “Challenges are work related requirements or surroundings that, even though probably stressful, have associated potential gains for individuals. Cavanaugh, (2000) said potential gains come with intrinsic rewards (e.g., satisfaction) 10.

(13) and gains which employees get from work that bring about work achievement (e.g., achievement referred to learning, skill development, or demonstration of competent ability). On the other hand, Mark, & John (2000) also found two stressors which was composed of scores on items from a few popular measures of stress. One stressor consisted of demands such as high workload, tight deadlines, job scope, and high duty. This stressor was tagged “challenge stress”. And Mark & John (2000) thought that challenge stress included stressful demands that employees perceived as obstacles that needed to be overcome in order to enhance learning and achievement. Judging from the definitions, this study prefers Cavanaugh’s to Mark & John’s in that the former’s definition is so suitable for the questionnaire to adopt that this study will use in the near future. In contrast to challenges, some job demands or work circumstances produce stress without accompanying challenge stress feelings or other potential gains. While challenges tend to be associated with work achievement, the other stressor of demands involves excessive or undesirable constraints which interfere with or hinder an individual’s ability to achieve goals, creating “negative stress” (Bhagat et al., 1985), and this stressor was tagged ”hindrance stress”. In this study, this study used the term “hindrances,” and the following definition was adopted: “Hindrances are work related requirements or surroundings that tend to constraint or interfere with an individual’s work achievement, and which is not prone to be associated with potential gains for the individuals. Hindrances are an negative source of stress because they have a tendency to yield the negative consequences of stress without providing gains(Cavanaugh & Boswell, 2000).”. 11.

(14) 2.3 Burnout The term of burnout has been extensively used by all walks of life since decades ago, which is prone to cause mental and physical problems to human. Cherniss(1980) thought burnout was a mental withdrawal phenomenon for employees after they faced something extremely tensional. Maslach and Jackson (1986) described burnout as an exhausted condition of body, mentality, and affection; in addition, Maslach & Jackson (1986) developed a comparative index to measure burnout, Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-HSS), the interviewee of the study is professional helpers. This measurement. method. measures. three. dimensions,. emotional. exhaustion,. depersonalization, lack of personal accomplishment. After a decade, Maslach & Leiter (1996) developed another Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) defining work burnout as the relations problem between individuals and their work, instead of the original MBI-HSS which focus only on the problems between an individual and the people they come in contact with in their work, but is far more suitable for people from every walk of life, which also includes three dimensions: Emotional exhaustion, cynicism, professional efficacy. Most of the results of the study with respect to burn and stress are considered to be the same so far. Jeffery in 2007 also has made a suggestion that in many ways entrepreneurs with the personal factors that may enhance their chance for entrepreneurial success should tend to be the most susceptible to burnout. That is, younger, higher educated individuals that are highly idealistic, who strive for perfection, who have a difficulty saying no, and thinking of work as one of the most essential things in their life are primary concerns to suffer from the problems with entrepreneurial burnout. So the result Jeffery found between stress and burnout was a positive relation, and this is what makes the author want to do it over again in that the dichotomy for the stress — challenge stressor and 12.

(15) hindrance stressor — may lead to a result which is far more different from the past. Previous literature has shown a positive relation between job stress and burnout (Cherniss, 1999; Jeffery, 2007). On the other hand, scholars have occasionally reported negative relationships between burnout and job stress associated with the level or the demands of the work itself (Iverson & Olekalns, 1998). Based on the above, empirical findings on the relationship between stress and burnout have been inconsistent in terms of magnitude and direction. This study argues that one of the possible reasons for the failure to consistently find the relationship between stress and burnout may be the problem of classification of stress. Therefore, this study expects that the results should be different from prior researches if the job stress is classified as challenge stressor and hindrance stressor. Briefly, challenge stressor has been defined as stress that creates challenge and feelings of fulfillment or achievement. Although the physiological effects of challenge stressor and hindrance stressor are similar, the former has been found to be a positive motivating force (Selye, 1982). Some scholars (Roehling, Boudreau, Cavanaugh, and Boswell, 2000) suggested that challenge stressor is a kind of stress that producing job requirements or work surroundings involve challenge or feelings of achievement or fulfillment, and positive outcomes may result. As for burnout, Maslach and Jackson (1986) described it as an exhausted condition of body, mentality, and affection. People who have suffered from the problems with burnout may lack energy to go after their goals and do their work aimlessly and hopelessly. When employees face the challenge stress, the challenge stress is likely to relieve the employees’ setback and frustration, because challenge stressor creates challenge and feelings of fulfillment or achievement for employees (Selye, 1982). So, it’s hypothesized that challenge stressor has a negative relation with burnout. 13.

(16) H1a: Challenge stressor has a negative relation with burnout.. In contrast to challenges, some job demands or work circumstances produce stress without accompanying motivation feelings or potential gains as challenge stressor does. While challenge stressor tends to be associated with work achievement, hindrance stressor of demands involves excessive or undesirable constraints which interfere with or hinder an individual’s ability to achieve valued goals, creating “negative stress” (cf. Bhagat et al., 1985). Base on the above, this study suggests that hindrance stress will make employees feel burnout at the work. On this basis, it was hypothesized:. H1b: Hindrance stressor has a positive relation with burnout.. 2.4 Work-family conflicts Striking balance between work and family are the two important life domains for most people (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992). Conflict may arise if work and home mutually exclude with one another. Work–family conflict is a source of stress that many individuals experience. Work-family conflict is a definition of interrole conflict in which the role gets pressured from the work and home domains are mutually exclusive (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). A great many approaches have been used to measure work-family conflict by researchers. Traditionally speaking, work–family conflict has been unidirectionally measured by researchers. That is to say, they studied the conflict that took place when work hindered family (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). In recent days, researchers have started to specify the duality of work–family conflict by taking contrary directions into consideration: work hindrance to family and family hindrance to work (Duxbury, 14.

(17) Higgins, & Mills, 1992). With a view to entirely catching on to the work–family interface, both directions of work–family conflict (WIF and FIW) need to be considered (Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Researchers also have set out to consider the different types of work–family conflict (Netemeyer, Boles & McMurrian, 1996; Stephens & Sommer, 1993). Being consistent with Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) definition, three types of work–family conflict have been identified in the literature: (a) time-based conflict, (b) strain-based conflict, and (c) behavior-based conflict. If time dedicated to one role makes it difficult to take part in another role, time-based conflict may happen. Strain-based conflict recommends that strain experienced in one role invades and hinders participation in another role, and behavior-based conflict may happen if specific behaviors demanded in one role are unsuitable with behavioral expectation in another role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). In 1991, Gutek et al. contended that each of these three work–family conflicts has two directions: (a) conflict due types work interfering with family (WIF) and (b) conflict due to family interfering with work (FIW). When these three types and two directions make combinations with six dimensions of work–family conflicts, which are likely to result: (1) time-based WIF, (2) time-based FIW, (3) strain-based WIF, (4) strain-based FIW, (5) behavior-based WIF, and (6) behavior-based FIW. As can be seen in Fig. 2.4(a), six specific dimensions of work–family conflict result from the combination of the types and directions of conflict. Looking over work–family conflict from this perspective raises questions regarding the degree to which the six dimensions have been blended in with the measures and research before.. 15.

(18) Fig. 2.4(a) Dimensions of work–family conflict Materials adapted from Dawn S. Carlson (2000), Construction and Initial Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Work–Family Conflict, p.251. Directions of Work-Family Conflict. Forms of Work-Family Conflict. Work Interference with Family. Family Interference with Work. Time Based Work Interference with Family. Time Based Family Interference with Work. Strain Based. Strain Based. Work Interference with Family. Family Interference with Work. Behavioral Based Work Interference with Family. Behavioral Based Family Interference with Work. Time. Strain. Behavioral. In all, this study’s goal is to explore a comprehensive understanding of work–family conflict that can be used so as to have a further comprehension of this complex phenomenon. Work–family conflict is a source of stress that may affect the relation between work and personal life. More specifically, stress results from a lacking of striking the balance between the individual and the environmental requirements with family or on the job (Eulberg, Weekley, & Bhagat, 1988). This unbalance between the person and environment is a result of conflict between work and family due to the exclusive requirements from the two roles, and work-family conflicts also have been found to 16.

(19) be positively related with stress (Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2003; Triplett, Mullings, & Scarborough, 1999). Workers suffering from work-family conflicts will possibly feel stressed, which is likely to lead to spillover and arise problems at home (Lambert & Hogan, 2005). In spite of a positive relation between job stress and work-family conflicts reported in prior study (i.e., Byron, Bellavia & Frone, 2005), it is still valuable to investigate the relation between job stress and work-family conflicts, when stress is categorized into two stress types (i.e., hindrance-related stress and challenge-related stress). As mentioned above, prior empirical studies (e.g., Boswell et al., 2004; Lepine et al., 2004; Gevers et al., 2009) indicated that hindrance-related stress and challenge-related stress tend to have contrary relationships with employees’ attitudes and performance. And this study argues that both challenge stressor and hindrance stressor inclined to have a positive relation with work-family conflicts. Linney et al. (2008) indicated that money and social status can buffer the negative impact of work-family conflicts. Therefore, if employees are under challenge stress, challenge stress may motivate them to face change at their work and make achievement in their workplace. In addition, this will result them to devote more energy, effort, time to their work, and help to improve family life in that challenge stress bring employees with promotion and higher salary if they are finished with their job on schedule. Thus, work-family conflicts among them will loosen because employees gain money and social status from their work accompanying challenge stress. On the other hand, hindrance stressor makes employees feel frustration, exhaustion and so on. When they feel frustration or exhaustion at their workplace, this may make them lose their patience and temper to deal with occasional events with their family. Thus, the higher hindrance stressor may make the work-family conflicts even worse. Based on the above rational, the following hypotheses are developed. 17.

(20) H2a: Challenge stressor has a negative relation with work-family conflicts. H2b: Hindrance stressor has a positive relation with work-family conflicts.. 3. Research Methodology 3.1 Sample Process A purposive sampling method will be adopted to select various types of finance, marketing, transport, catering, and personnel enterprises in Taiwanese service industry. These service sectors will be chosen because heterogeneous samples of employees in the service industry are more likely to be sought there. Once a firm is selected, a quota sampling method will be used to recruit equivalent numbers of employees from both genders, and from various ranks of various departments to participate in the survey.. 3.2 Questionnaire Design This part is to express the operational definitions of each variable; in the meanwhile, the author will show the subsidiary dimensions of some variables.. 3.2.1Challenge stressor Challenges are work related demands or circumstances that, although potentially stressful, have associated potential gains for individuals. Potential gains include intrinsic rewards (e.g., satisfaction) and gains that promote work achievement (e.g., achievement related learning, skill development, or demonstration of competence). Work achievement refers to both current job and career success (Cavanaugh, 1998). This measure is assessed with 4-item scale developed by Lee, Robert S. & Patricia, (1995). The dimensions which challenge stressor contains are time pressure 18.

(21) and potential gains. Items are as follows: Challenge Stress (Lee, Robert S. & McGrath, Patricia, 1995) I experienced that… 1. …I used my time more efficiently because of the time pressure I was under. 2. …I enjoyed the excitement of working under time pressure. 3. …the time pressure made me more productive. 4. …the challenge of meeting the deadline gave me an energy boost. This measure is assessed in 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 strongly disagreement to 5 strongly agreement.. 3.2.2 Hindrance stressor Hindrances are work related demands or circumstances that tend to constrain or interfere with an individual’s work achievement, and which do not tend to be associated with potential gains for the individual (Cavanaugh, 1998). This measure is assessed with 3-item scale developed by LePine et al., 2005. The dimensions which hindrance stressor contains are no potential gains and obstacles in development and achievement for employees. Items are as follows:. Hindrance stress (LePine et al., 2005) 1. Working to fulfill my job jobs thwarts my personal growth and well-being. 2. In general, I feel that my job goals hinder my personal accomplishment. 3. I feel that my job goals constrain my achievement of personal goals and development. The previous literatures used this hindrance stressor items as a measurement for employees or interviewers (Christine L. Jackson, 2004 & Nathan P. Podsakoff, 2005). This measure is assessed in 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 strongly disagreement to 5 strongly agreement. 19.

(22) 3.2.3 Burnout "Emotional exhaustion, cynicism and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who do 'people work' of some kind" Maslach and Leiter(1996). As implied by the definition, we may know burnout consists of 3 components. The author uses 20-item scale which are developed by Maslach and Leiter(1996). Sample items are “I feel tired” & “I have no desire to do anything” & “I have a low output”. This measure is assessed in 7-point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 strongly disagreement to 7 strongly agreement. Technologically, this burnout items are very popular for those scholars who studies burnout (Carlos P Zalaquett and Richard J. Wood, 1997; Mayumi, 2007); therefore, this study is to adopt this burnout items, developed by Maslach and Leiter(1996).. 3.2.4 Work-family conflicts Work–family conflict has been defined as “a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible is some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The work-family conflicts items which the author decides to use were adapted by Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000), and the total items are 18. Sample items are “My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like” & ”The time I spend on family responsibilities often interfere with my work responsibilities” This measure is assessed in 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 strongly disagreement to 5 strongly agreement.. 3.3 Control variables The author controlled individual and organizational features that may affect dependent variables including sex, age, educational level, marriage status, and job 20.

(23) tenure. And the control variables are described as follows:. 3.3.1 Control variables for burnout (1) Marriage Maslach (1982) argued that employees who are unmarried are superior at work to those who are already married, because unmarried employees don’t have to cope with so many chores as married employees do. Therefore, employees who are single feel less exhausted than the employees who are married do. (2) Age Cherniss (1982) indicated that if employees are young, they may have a passion for their job so that they can easily relieve themselves from burnout. (3) Educational Background An employee who has a lot of schooling is more capable of relieving himself or herself from burnout so as to overcome the difficulties in company (Maslach & Cherniss, 1982). (4) Sex It was reported that female employee perceives burnout is higher than male employee (Council of Labor Affairs, 2007). (5) Job tenure Anderson (1980) indicated that employees can adapt themselves to work conditions including burnout, work conflicts, red tape, etc. if they have worked for the company for a long time.. 3.3.2 Control variable for work-family conflicts (1) Sex With the passing of time, women have made great strides in every walk of life. 21.

(24) Therefore, if they are asked to play the role well between job and family, the conflicts may arise (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1980). (2) Marriage Employees who are married need to take good care of the relation between job and family. If family and job is too tough to cope with, conflicts may arise and consequently nothing gets done (Cooper, 1992). (3) Job tenure Employees’ salary and position may be raised alone with their job tenures. Linney et al. (2008) indicated that money and social status can buffer the negative impact of work-family conflicts.. 4. Data analysis and results 4.1 Data Collection The main purpose of this study is to explore the relations between the two stressors along with burnout and work-family conflicts. This study implemented convenient sampling, and the participants were chosen from Taiwan financial industry. The questionnaire was made up of 45 questions which adopted from scholars as mentioned in chapter 3, and the author give 270 copies away to 5 companies in total, including banks, insurance firms, and trust companies, etc. The data collection was undertaken from March 2011 to April 2011; afterwards, 201 copies were returned for 83% rate. The samples contain 79 males and 122 females. The Cronbach’s α of completed questionnaires are listed in Table 4.1(a). The Cronbach’s α of of challenge stress is 0.905; the Cronbach’s α of hindrance stress is 0.787; the Cronbach’s α of burnout and work-family conflicts is 0.796 and 0.947 respectively.. 22.

(25) Table 4.1 The Reliability of Challenge & Hindrance stress, Burnout, and Work-family conflicts Variable. Cronbach’s α. Challenge stress. 0.905. Hindrance stress. 0.787. Burnout. 0.796. Work-family conflicts. 0.947. 4.2 Correlation Analysis As depicted in Table 4.1, all reliabilities reached the acceptable level of 0.70 as outlined by Nunnally (1978). The means, standard deviations, and bivariated correlations between the variables involved in this research are reported in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables Variable. Mean. SD. 1. 2. 3. 1. Challenge stress. 3.37. 0.90. -. 2. Hindrance stress. 2.40. 0.86. -.149. 3. Burnout. 2.59. 0.40. -.346**. .587**. 4. Work-family conflicts. 2.52. 0.68. -.202*. .634**. 4. .703**. -. Note: * p < 0.05; * * p < 0.01.. 4.3 Results Analysis With a view to verifying the hypotheses, the author decides on the method of multiple regression so as to have a further understanding regarding the relations 23.

(26) between two independent variables and dependent variables.. 4.3.1 Two stress and burnout To test hypotheses 1a and 1b, the author utilized regression analysis. The results of this analysis are reported in Table 4.3, which depicts that the control variables (i.e., sex, age, educational level, marriage status, and job tenure) were added to Model 1, and that the independent variables (i.e., challenge stress and hindrance stress) were added to Model 2. Using multiple regression analysis evaluates the relation between two stress and burnout. Table 4.3 displays the coefficients of challenge stress as well as hindrance stress to burnout. Table 4.3 shows that challenge stress (β= -0.125, p<0.001) is negative and significant, while hindrance stress (β= 0.253, p<0.001) is positive and significant. This result correspond to the hypothesis H1a and H1b. That is to say, challenge stress and hindrance do have opposite relation respectively to burnout. H1a and H1b have been supported as we may see from the table 4.3.. Table 4-3Result of Regression Analysis Burnout Model 1. Model 2. Step 1: Age. -0.008. 0.002. Sex. -0.038. -0.021. Marriage. 0.119. 0.129. Educational background. 0.008. -0.042. 24.

(27) Job tenure. 0.000. 0.000. Step 2: Challenge stress. -0.125***. Hindrance stress. 0.253***. R2. 0.047. 0.437. ΔR2. 0.022. 0.416***. Notes: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. 4.3.2 Two stress and work-family conflicts To test hypotheses 2a and 2b, the author utilized regression analysis. The results of this analysis are reported in Table 4.4, which depicts that the control variables (i.e., sex, marriage status, and job tenure) were added to Model 1, and that the independent variables (i.e., challenge stress and hindrance stress) were added to Model 2. Table 4.4 shows that challenge stress (β=﹣0.096, p<0.05) is negative and significant with work-family conflicts. On the other hand, hindrance stress (β= 0.481, p<0.001) is positive and significant to work-family conflicts. Therefore, as shown in Table 4.4, both H2a and H2b are supported by the result. Table 4.4 Regression Analysis Results Work-family conflicts Model 1. Model 2. Step 1: Sex. -0.131. -0.090. Marriage. 0.062. 0.021. Job tenure. -0.001. -0.001. 25.

(28) Step 2: Challenge stress. -0.096*. Hindrance stress. 0.481***. R2. 0.027. 0.429. ΔR2. 0.013. 0.414***. Notes: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. 4.4 Discussion This study tried to explore how challenge and hindrance stress affect burnout and work-family conflicts, and the participants were all from Taiwan financial industry. The results of all hypotheses are all summarized in table 4.5. The result of H1a shows that challenge stress has a negative relation with burnout. That is, when under challenge stress, employees may think of stress as an incentive so that he or she can achieve the goals efficiently. The result of H1b indicates that hindrance stress is positively related with burnout, which means stress is often viewed as an obstacle by employees. In a nutshell, both of the results of H1a and H1b live up to the author’s expectations. On the other hand, H2a shows that challenge stress has a significant and negative relation with work-family conflicts. Therefore, we know challenge stress do serve as the function of buffer with burnout from the result; in addition, H2b is supported by this study. According to the result of H2b, it’s safe to say that hindrance stress hinders employees from their life between job and family. Table 4.5 Hypothesis. Results. H1a: Challenge stressor has a negative relation. Support. 26.

(29) with burnout. H1b: Hindrance stressor has a positive relation with burnout.. Support. H2a: Challenge stressor has a positive relation with work-family conflicts.. Support. H2b: Hindrance stressor has a positive relation with work-family conflicts.. Support. 5. Conclusion In this chapter, the author highlighted the contributions and limitations of this study. The result showed that challenge stress has a positive relation with burnout. Challenges are work related demands or circumstances that, although potentially stressful, have associated potential gains for individuals. Potential gains include intrinsic rewards (e.g., satisfaction) and gains that promote work achievement (Cavanaugh, 2000), whereas hindrances are unmitigated sources of stress in that they tend to produce the negative consequences of stress without offsetting gains (Cavanaugh & Boswell, 2000). If employees are properly rewarded and encouraged, they may feel beneficial to work for the company. According to the results of H1a and H2a, managers should map out some incentives on challenge stress to help employees relieve their burnout from work for fear that hindrance stress may hinder employees from their career life like work achievement or skill development. Not only does this study come with practical contribution, but also lead to a theoretical one. The results of H1a and H1b in this study were different from the result of prior study (e.g., Jeffery, 2007) indicating that stress has a positive relation with burnout. This study argued that if stresses were divided into two types (i.e., challenge stress and hindrance stress, the relationships between two types of stresses 27.

(30) may have different relationships with burnout, and it was verified. In this study, stress doesn’t merely present a positive relation with burnout. Thus, it’s believed that other negative factors like job dissatisfaction or organizational withdrawal may have a different result with stress providing that the dichotomy of stress is used (challenge stress and hindrance stress). In view of H2a, it’s reported that challenge stress has a negative and significant relation with work-family conflicts which is consistent with the hypotheses. This result might attribute to the reward that challenge stress had offered in that it provided employees intrinsic rewards and gains. Happily, the author has successfully found a result which is different from the result of prior study (i.e., Kacmar & Williams, 2000) indicating that stress has a positive relation with work-family conflicts. Concerning H2b, we may know the more hindrance stress employees feel the more work-family conflicts they face. Employees from financial industry need to bear a lot of risks in their everyday life because they must deal with financial cases carefully, and they are often seen to work over time (e.g., employee training) and don’t get paid fairly. To make matters worse, financial employees under hindrance stress tend to have work-family conflicts in that they don’t have enough time to spend with their family, or they can’t rid themselves of the task from company when home. So, it’s natural that work-family conflicts should arise from employees who under hindrance stress. The findings of this study are in line with the recent research of challenge stress and hindrance stress (i.e., LePine, Podsakoff, & Nathan 2005) that two types of stresses tend to have a contrary directional relation with their dependent variables respectively (LePine, Podsakoff, & Nathan 2005). If employers want to help employees with work-family conflicts, perhaps raising salary is a best bet for most of them (Brenda, 2008) and this is one of the able ways to give it a try in the future. 28.

(31) As with all studies, limitations in our work exist. In this study, the object of study is only from financial industry and the sample is deficient due to a lack of time. In addition, the author has yet to compare public-owned businesses with private-owned ones; therefore, the author cannot specify the differences between them at length. The author suggests that public firms and private ones can be compared separately so as to know whether stress varies with different organization patterns. That’s because with the passing of time, many a government-run business needs to have a privatization process so as to transform the old bureaucracy management into a new one that puts emphasis on profit lest it should be unable to meet the customer’s requirements. Therefore, a lot of public-own firms tend to change their management style to cater to the trend nowadays, and public banks are no exception. Thus, the author thinks it worthwhile to have a comparison between public-own private management firms and private firms in that both of them regard profit as top priority. Besides, stress exists in all walks of life, so the author also recommends exploring the differences among various industries like tour, transportation, and medicine industries so as to have a subjective result which is different from the past.. 29.

(32) Appendix Questionnaire (Original version) ※ Stress Ⅰ.Challenge stress (Lee, Robert S. & McGrath, Patricia, 1995) I experienced that… 1. ….I used my time more efficiency because of the time pressure I was under. 2. ….I enjoyed the excitement of working under time pressure. 3. ….the time pressure made me more productive. 4. ….the challenge of meeting the deadline gave me an energy boost. Ⅱ. Hindrance stress (LePine et al., 2005) 1. Working to fulfill my job jobs thwarts my personal growth and well-being. 2. In general, I feel that my job goals hinder my personal accomplishment. 3. I feel that my job goals constrain my achievement of personal goals and development. ※ Burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 1996) 1. I feel tired. 2. I feel very active. 3. Thinking requires effort. 4. Physically I feel exhausted 5. I feel like doing all kinds of nice things. 6. I feel fit. 7. I do quite a lot within a day. 8. When I am doing something, I can concentrate quite well. 9. I feel weak. 10. I don’t do much during day. 11. I can concentrate well. 30.

(33) 12. I feel rested. 13. I have trouble concentrating. 14. Physically I feel I am in a bad condition. 15. I am full of plans. 16. I get tired very quickly. 17. I have a low output. 18. I feel no desire to do anything. 19. My thoughts easily wander. 20. Physically I feel in a good shape. ※ Work-family conflicts (Carlson & Kacmar, 2000) Ⅰ.Time-based work interference with family 1. My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like. 2. The time I must devote to my job keeps me from participating equally in household responsibilities and activities. 3. I have to miss family activities due to the amount of time I must spend on work responsibilities. Ⅱ. Time-based family interference with work 4. The time I spend on family responsibilities often interfere with my work responsibilities. 5. The time I spend with my family often causes me not to spend time in activities at work that could be helpful to my career. 6. I have to miss work activities due to the amount of time I must spend on family responsibilities. Ⅲ. Strain-based work interference with family 7. When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in family activities/ responsibilities. 31.

(34) 8. I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it prevents me from contributing to my family. 9. Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too stressed to do the things I enjoy. Ⅳ. Strain-based family interference with work 10. Due to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with family matters at work. 11. Because I am often stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time concentrating on my work. 12. Tension and anxiety from my family life often weakens my ability to do my job. Ⅴ. Behavior-based work interference with family 13. The problem-solving behaviors I use in my job are not effective in resolving problems at home. 14. Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at work would be counterproductive at home. 15. The behaviors I perform that make me effective at work do not help me to be a better parent and spouse. Ⅵ. Behavior-based family interference with work 16. The behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be effective at work. 17. Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at home would be counterproductive at work. 18. The problem-solving behaviors that work for me at home does not seem to be as useful at work.. 32.

(35) Questionnaire (Chinese version) 親愛的女士/先生,您好! 這是一份學術性問卷,本研究的目的在探討「壓力和工作理論」。您就以下問卷所作之回答對於本研究有莫大幫助。回答本問卷大約需要 15 分鐘。本問卷採不記名方式填答，資料絕對保密。問卷中的問題並無所謂對錯之標準答案,請依照您個人真實的感受填答，請不要忘記每一題都必須作答。在此感謝您的協助。謹祝萬事如意國立高雄大學指導教授:吳毓麒學. 生:蘇浩. 【第一部分】說明:1. 本部分希望了解您目前在公司內所感受到的壓力型態。依照您的實際感受，請在每個問題右邊圈選一個數字以代表您目前感受到的狀況。請務必回答每一題。 2. 數字 1 代表「從不如此」、2 代表「甚少如此」、3 代表「偶爾如此」、4 代表「經常如此」、 5 代表「總是如此」。從. 甚. 偶. 經. 總. 不. 少. 爾. 常. 是. 如. 如. 如. 如. 如. 此. 此. 此. 此. 此. 1.. 在時間壓力下我能更有效的使用時間。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2.. 我很享受時間壓力下的工作刺激性。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3.. 有了時間壓力可讓我更有生產力。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4.. 有了工作截止日期的挑戰可以使我振作。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5.. 工作危害到我個人的成長和健康。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.. 大致上來說，我覺得我的工作目標妨礙到我個人的成就。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7.. 我覺得我的工作目標限制了我個人目標和發展。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 【第二部分】說明：1.本部分希望了解您在您所就業之公司所感受到的壓力程度，以及您與公司間的關係。依照您的實際感受，請在每個問題右邊圈選一個數字以代表您認為最適當的答案。請務必回答每一題。 2.數字 1 代表「非常不同意」、2 代表「不同意」、3 代表「普通」、4 代表「同意」、5 代表「非常同意」。 33.

(36) 非常. 非. 不. 不. 常. 同. 同. 普. 同. 同. 意. 意. 通. 意. 意. 1.. 在公司工作我覺得很累。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2.. 在公司工作我認為我很主動。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3.. 公司的工作常要努力思考。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4.. 公司的工作讓我身體疲倦。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5.. 在公司中我喜歡做對的事。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.. 我覺得我對工作的配適度不錯。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7.. 我一天的工作量相當大。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8.. 當我在工作時我可以相當專注。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.. 在公司中我感到我很懦弱。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10.. 一天當中我都做不到甚麼。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 11.. 在公司工作我可以很認真。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 12.. 我有適當的休息。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 13.. 我很難專心。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 14.. 我身體的狀況不好。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 15.. 我有滿腦子的計畫。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 16.. 在公司中我很快就感到疲憊。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 17.. 我的生產力很低。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 18.. 我很沒甚麼動力做事。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 19.. 我的想法容易優柔寡斷。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 20.. 我身體狀況不錯。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 【第三部分】說明：1.本部分希望了解您目前的工作對您家庭所帶來的衝突或不協調可能為何。依照您的實際感受，請在每個問題右邊圈選一個數字以代表您認為最適當的答案。請務必回答每一題。 2.數字 1 代表「非常不同意」、2 代表「不同意」、3 代表「普通」、4 代表「同意」、5 代表「非常同意」。. 34.

(37) 非常. 非. 不. 不. 常. 同. 同. 普. 同. 同. 意. 意. 通. 意. 意. 1.. 我在家庭裡解決問題的行為無法有效套用到工作上。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2.. 我對工作付出的時間沒等同於我對家裡付出的時間。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3.. 我必須犧牲家裡的時間來從事我的工作。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4.. 我在工作上有效且必須有的行為會對家庭產生不良的影響。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5.. 我陪伴家人所付出的時間，會影響到我的工作而這也會影響我的職涯發展。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.. 我對家裡付出的時間會干擾到我的工作。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7.. 下班回家後我累到沒辦法參加家裡的活動也沒辦法盡家裡的責任。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8.. 家裡的緊張和焦慮降低了我的工作能力。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.. 我在家裡有效且必須有的行為會對工作產生不良的影響。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10.. 因為家裡充滿了壓力，我在工作時老想到家裡的瑣事。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 11.. 我對家庭責任充滿了壓力導致我無法專心工作。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 12.. 下班回家後我累到沒辦法對家裡付出。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 13.. 我在工作上解決問題的行為無法有效套用到家庭上。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 14.. 我必須放棄工作的時間來付出我對家裡應盡的責任。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 15.. 我所表現的行為使我的工作有效率，但這無法改善我跟父母和配偶間的關係。. 1. 2. 4. 5. 16.. 我在家裡合宜的行為好像不適用在工作上。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 17.. 由於工作壓力實在太大了，我回家後都不太能做我想要做的事情。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 18.. 我的工作量妨礙了我的家庭活動。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 35. 3.

(38) 【第四部分】說明:請依下列問題在合乎您條件的項目方框上打勾。所得資料僅供統計分析之用,絕不會對外公開。. 1.. 您的年齡?. 2.. 您的性別? □男性; □女性. 3.. 您的婚姻狀況 □ 已婚 □ 未婚. 4.. 您的最高教育程度為? □國中或以下; □高中/職; □大學或專科; □碩士; □博士. 5.. 您在本組織(單位)服務的年資?. 歲. 服務年資總計. 年. 月. ~本問卷至此全部結束~ *請確認每一題都已經作答。最後，衷心感謝您的協助！. 36.

(39) References 1.. Beehr, T. A. (1985) Organizational stress and employees effectiveness: A job characteristics approach. In T.A. Beehr & R.S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organizations: An integrated perspective (pp. 57-81). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. 2.. Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B. & LePine, M. A. (2004). Relations between Stress and Work Outcome: The Role of Felt Challenge, Job Contract, and Psychological Strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 165-181.. 3.. Caelson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., &Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work-family interface: Development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68,131-164.. 4.. Cavanaugh, Marcie A.; Boswell, Wendy R.; Roehling, Mark V.; Boudreau, John W(2000). An Empirical Examination of Self-Reported Work Stress Among U.S. Managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65-74.. 5.. Cherniss, C. and Kranz, D.L. (1983), “The ideological community as an antidote to burnout in the human services”, in Farber, B.A. (Ed.), Stress and Burnout in the Human Services Professions, Pergamon, New York, NY, pp. 198-212.. 6.. Cohen, A. (1997). Facing pressure. Sales and Marketing Management, 149, 30-38.. 7.. Dawn S. Carlson, K. Michele Kacmar and Larry J. Williams(2000), Construction and Initial Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Work–Family Conflict, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2), 249-276.. 8.. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992) “Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family Conflict: Testing a Model of the Work-Family Interface.” 37.

(40) Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 55-78. 9.. Gary D. Walls, Louis M. & Walter E. Greene. (2001) “Toward a Source Stressors Model of Conflict Between Work and Family.” Review of Business, summer: 86-91.. 10. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88. 11. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N.(2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92. 12. Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C. S., Rabinowitz, S., & Beutell, N. J. (1989). Sources of work–family conflict among two career couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 133–153. 13. Jex, S . M. (1998) Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implication for managerial practice. Thousabd Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. 14. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, s. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. 15. LePine, Jeffrey A.; LePine, Marcie A.; Jackson, Christine L (2004). Challenge and Hindrance Stress: Relationships With Exhaustion, Motivation to Learn, and Learning Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883-891. 16. LePine, Jeffrey A.; Podsakoff, Nathan P.; LePine, Marcie A (2005). A Meta-Analytic Test of The Challenge Stressor–Hindrance Stressor Framework: An. ExplanationFor. Inconsistent. Relationships. Among. Stressors. And. Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764-775. 17. Maslach, C., Leiter, M.P. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “Measuring burnout”, in Cooper, C.L. and Cartwright, S. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 86-108. 18. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual 38.

(41) Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422. 19. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410. 20. Pearsall, Matthew J.; Ellis, Aleksander P.J.; Stein, Jordan H(2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 18-28 21. Podsakoff, Nathan P.; LePine, Jeffery A.; LePine, Marcie A (2007). Differential Challenge Stressor-Hindrance Stressor Relationships With Job Attitudes, Turnover Intentions, Turnover, and Withdrawal Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 438-454. 22. Robbins, S. T. (2003). Organizational Behavior, Tenth Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.. 23. Voydanoff, P. (2005). Toward a conceptualization of perceived work-family fit and balance: A demands and resources approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 822-836.. 39.

(42)