Arian Kunzelmann

There is a dearth of intervention studies carried out in real-world settings that investigate how worker well-being can be improved through work design (Daniels et al., 2017). This is not surprisin...

Work design is fundamental Human Resource Management (HRM) responsibility, which is crucial for employee well‐being. Current HRM research on work design largely relies on variable‐centered approaches. We argue that a person‐centered approach uncovers more complex interaction patterns that are often obscured and provides a more holistic view of work design. Additionally, work design research often neglects occupational specificity, focusing on universal work characteristics. While this is important for generalizability, it can miss important industry and occupational variations, such as in healthcare. In this research, we focus on both universal work characteristics (feedback, autonomy, and support) and a dominant occupation‐specific work characteristic in healthcare, emotional demands. Results from Latent Profile Analysis (LPA; N = 1344, 88.7% female) revealed four profiles of work design: Active (moderate demands, high resources) , Moderately Active (moderate resources, moderate demands) , Moderate Strain (low resources, moderate demands), and High Strain (low resources, high demands). Healthcare workers in the Active profile reported the highest thriving, followed by the Moderately Active , Moderate Strain , and High Strain profiles. The High Strain profile showed the highest burnout, followed by the Moderate Strain profile. The Moderately Active and the Active profiles did not differ in their burnout. Workers with supportive leadership were more likely to be in the Active profile, whereas those with precarious contracts were more likely to be in the High Strain profile. This study contributes to contemporary HRM research by accounting for the complex interplay of work characteristics that are associated with different types of well‐being in healthcare and provides guidance for HR practitioners about work design profiles that are most impactful for well‐being.

Working in social care is fraught with challenges fueled by changing policies, funding structures, societal expectations, and high relational demands, leaving employees in this sector particularly vulnerable to poor well‐being. In this study, we focus on the importance of a supportive work context—specifically coworker instrumental support and leaders' role clarity—in enabling employee role clarity, and how this can foster better mental health and reduce fatigue from ongoing changes in the sector. We ran a multilevel moderated mediation model on a sample of 270 social care employees matched with 47 leaders across two disability care organizations in Australia. Results showed that coworker instrumental support promotes role clarity, which in turn is associated with lower psychological distress and change fatigue, and higher job satisfaction. The positive relationship between coworker instrumental support and role clarity, and the subsequent relationships with well‐being, were stronger when employees had leaders who themselves had role clarity. Our findings highlight the importance of a supportive work context and role clarity as malleable levers in enabling a sustainable social care workforce and provide new theoretical and practical insights for human resource management in the social care sector.

This research challenges the a priori classification of time pressure and job complexity as challenge stressors and seeks to illuminate the emergence of different appraisal configurations using a latent profile approach. The sample consisted of 629 employees (66.1% male). Employees who appraised time pressure and job complexity as challenges reported higher job satisfaction and work engagement and felt less emotionally exhausted and mentally stressed compared to those with dominant hindrance/threat appraisals. Employees who report to be more resilient and have autonomy are more likely to fall into a Dominant Challenge Appraisal profile. Those who face high emotional demands are more likely to be in a Dominant Hindrance/Threat Appraisal profile. This research offers a fresh perspective on why it is essential for employers to consider their teams’ perceptions and resources when introducing new tasks or deadlines. By providing employees with adequate resources, organizations can promote a more adaptive approach to work challenges. JEL Classification: L20, L29, L00

This study investigates the relationship of challenge demands (i. e., time pressure, job complexity) on employee resilience. We provide insights into potential pathways (i. e., learning, cognitive irritation) for how challenge stressors influence employee resilience. We employed a two-wave, time-lagged design to examine the influences of challenge stressors and explanatory pathways on employee resilience 2 months later. The data from 359 participants (52.1 % male) were analyzed using a Bayesian time-lagged path model. Results indicate that time pressure and job complexity are negatively related to employee resilience via cognitive irritation. In contrast, we found a positive, indirect effect of job complexity and resilience via learning. This paper contributes to existing employee resilience and stress research by highlighting the roles of learning and cognitive irritation to explain the relationships of challenge stressors on employee resilience. Moreover, the results provide us with a deeper understanding of which factors foster or drain employee resilience.

Resilience in the organizational context is a fruitful concept for understanding employees’ success in dealing with workplace adversity. Through a diary study, we have examined the interaction effects of time pressure and different work-related capabilities of resilience (i.e. emotional coping, comprehensive planning, positive reframing, and focused action) on emotional exhaustion and work engagement of employees. A sample of 79 employees (54.4% male) responded to two daily surveys (after work and before bedtime) for a period of five consecutive workdays. Results show that time pressure had a positive association with emotional exhaustion. Further, time pressure showed a positive association with work engagement, but only when considering additional personal resources. Positive reframing was positively related to work engagement on the day-level but did not moderate the link between time pressure and the outcomes. Emotional coping as well as focused action decreased sensitivity to time pressure. The results underpin the impact of different work-related capabilities of resilience and provide novel theoretical and practical implications.