ABSTRACT

Despite converging theoretical arguments regarding non-linear relationships between workload and employee attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction) and mental well-being outcomes, prior empirical support for these curvilinear effects has been mixed. In this study we offer and test two potential explanations that may help to reconcile this discrepancy. First, existing workload scales do not assess the full range of workload, thereby making it difficult to detect curvilinear relationships. Second, outcomes typically examined are too distal and there are different mediators (i.e. boredom and frustration) that explain effects at the low and high ends of the workload continuum, respectively, which also serves to obscure curvilinear effects. We examined these possibilities in two North American samples (N = 499 and 493) that employed different designs (i.e. cross-sectional versus multi-wave surveys). Overall, we find support for our hypotheses; ability to detect curvilinear effects is enhanced when using too much/too little rating scales that capture the entire workload continuum. Furthermore, boredom mediated the impact of low workload on outcomes, whereas frustration mediated the impact of high workload on outcomes. Therefore, this study helps clarify why prior studies may have inconsistently observed non-linear relationships between workload and outcomes. We discuss the implications for both researchers and practitioners.

摘要

尽管关于工作量和员工态度（即工作满意度）以及心理健康结果之间的非线性关系的理论争论趋于一致，但先前对这些曲线效应的实证支持却是混杂的。在这项研究中，我们提供并测试了两种可能有助于消除这种差异的潜在解释。首先，现有的工作负荷量表无法评估工作负荷的全部范围，从而难以检测曲线关系。其次，通常检查的结果太遥远，并且有不同的中介因素（即无聊和沮丧）分别解释工作量连续体低端和高端的影响，这也掩盖了曲线效应。我们在两个北美样本中检验了这些可能性（N = 499 和 493）采用了不同的设计（即横截面与多波调查）。总的来说，我们的假设得到了支持；当使用太多/太少的评估量表来捕获整个工作负载连续体时，检测曲线效应的能力会增强。此外，无聊介导了低工作负荷对结果的影响，而挫败感介导了高工作负荷对结果的影响。因此，这项研究有助于澄清为什么之前的研究可能不一致地观察到工作量和结果之间的非线性关系。我们讨论了对研究人员和从业者的影响。