rethinking job characteristics in work stress research

8/16/2019 Rethinking job characteristics in work stress research

1/25

http://hum.sagepub.com

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/00187267060641712006; 59; 267Human Relations

Kevin DanielsRethinking job characteristics in work stress research

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/59/3/267 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Tavistock Institute

can be found at:Human RelationsAdditional services and information for

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/59/3/267SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 39 articles hosted on theCitations

© 2006 The Tavistock Institute. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by georgiana ciobanu on November 22, 2007http://hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/59/3/267http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/59/3/267http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/59/3/267http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.tavinstitute.org/index.php


2/25

Rethinking job characteristics in work stress research

Kevin Daniels

A B S TRA C T In work stress research, consistent relationships between job charac-

teristics and strain have not been established across methods for

assessing job characteristics. By examining the methods used to

assess job characteristics in work stress research, I argue that this is

because different methods are assessing interrelated, yet distinct,

facets of job characteristics: latent, perceived and enacted facets. The

article discusses the implications for work stress research of differ-

entiating these facets of job characteristics.

KE YW ORD S job characteristics measurements stress stressors

Within post-positivist approaches to organizational research, methods areseen as fallible and triangulation of results across methods is recommended

(e.g. Cook & Campbell, 1979). But what happens if researchers’ presump-

tions about multi-method triangulation are wrong and different methods

produce diverging results? What if different methods are assessing different

yet interrelated phenomena? Could a critical examination of methods used

evoke more insight and help develop more sophisticated approaches to

research and theory? By examining methods used in research on work stress

to assess the causes of strain, it is the aim of this article to illustrate how this

might be so.The methods used in this arena are important for several reasons. First,

many dominant theoretical models that guide work stress research accord

psychosocial aspects of the work environment, known as job characteristics,

2 6 7

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726706064171

Volume 59(3): 267–290

Copyright © 2006

The Tavistock Institute ®

SAGE Publications

London, Thousand Oaks CA,

New Delhi

www.sagepublications.com


http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/


3/25

with powerful causal status in determining health reactions, well-being and

job satisfaction (e.g. Karasek & Theorell; 1990; Warr, 1987). Such environ-

mental aspects are sometimes also known as stressors. Second, in spite of

this assumed causal status, there is little evidence of triangulation of results

across methods assessing job characteristics (Spector & Jex, 1991; Spector

et al., 1988). Third, it is not clear whether the dominant method used to

assess job characteristics – the self-report questionnaire – is better than other

methods at assessing the causes of work-related strain (Morrison et al.,

2003), or whether other methods actually assess the same constructs as self-

reports (Spector, 1992, 1994).

Noting weaknesses with how self-reports and the alternatives have

been used, I propose a multi-level approach to conceptualizing job charac-teristics, comprising latent, perceived and enacted facets. This differentiation

of job characteristics has implications for the methodologies stress

researchers employ, the interpretation of results and the research questions

they might begin to ask.

The contributions of this article are twofold. First, and most generally,

the article illustrates the need for researchers to think carefully on the con-

sonance of theory, operational definitions and methods, lest attempts at

triangulation of findings lead to conflicting results emerging in an area of

research. Second, and more specifically, the article shows that by carefullyconsidering different approaches to measuring job characteristics, it is

possible to develop a much richer appreciation of how organizational, social

and individual factors combine to influence what is experienced at work, and

how this might relate to the processes that produce strain.

Self-reports and alternatives

Self-report measures of job characteristics have become the predominant

means through which researchers link objective working conditions to

psychosomatic and psychological strain. The assumption underlying their

use is that perceptual measures reflect, at least partially, the objective work

environment: that is, the objective work environment is thought to cause

perceptions of work.1 Some have argued that self-report measures can be

problematic and their use can lead to unwarranted inferences from research

into work, strain and health (e.g. Spector, 1994). Some of the major criti-

cisms of self-report measures of job characteristics include:

1) Self-reports are subject to a number of biases, including transient mood

effects, that systematically bias both reports of job characteristics and

outcome measures (Brief et al., 1995; Spector, 1992);

Human Relations 59(3)2 6 8




4/25

2) Self-reports and strain are mutually influenced by trait affect or

temperament – failure to control for trait affect seriously undermines

the strength of conclusions drawn from studies using self-reports (e.g.

Brief et al., 1988);

3) Self-reports of job characteristics are influenced, through social inter-

action, by the attitudes, opinions and perceptions of others, rather than

just the nature of the job itself (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).

There are several alternative strategies to simple self-reports of job

characteristics. Examples are: a) using someone other than the incumbent to

rate the incumbent’s job characteristics, such as managers, colleagues or

researchers; b) using aggregate ratings of a job across several incumbents; c)using large databases or documents that contain information on the charac-

teristics of a particular class of job; and d) assessing the impact of interven-

tions designed to change job characteristics. The assumption underlying these

strategies is that the objective work environment, at least to some extent, is

reflected in the assessments obtained.

Others’ ratings of focal jobs (e.g. Fox et al., 1993). The logic here is

that others’ reports are not subject to the same perceptual biases that limit

the strength of conclusions drawn from studies using self-reports of job

characteristics. Other raters could include managers, colleagues or membersof the research team.

However, manager and colleague ratings may become subject to other

biases – such as ‘halo’ or ‘horn’ effects – thus introducing a new set of

problems to interpreting results. For example, some evidence indicates that

people exhibiting high strain are rated by others as being less attractive (Staw

et al., 1994), which may generalize through stereotyping effects to awarding

those people high ratings on undesirable job characteristics (e.g. make little

effort to participate in decisions, self-impose heavy workloads). In thisexample, the ‘horn’ effect has served to inflate an association between

measures of job characteristics and strain.

Observers from the research team have also been used to assess job

characteristics (e.g. Frese, 1985). One problem here is that independent

observers rarely get the chance to spend extended periods with the target

person. Unless every possible job behaviour is witnessed within the period

of observation, then the observer is likely to miss some potentially import-

ant aspects of the job. Another limitation is that independent observers may

not be allowed to witness clandestine or otherwise sensitive job activities –a criticism that can also apply to managers and colleagues. Also, unless

observers spend many months in an organization, they could remain largely

unaware of the social context and perhaps misattribute some behaviour from

their own frame of reference, rather than the frame of reference of those

Daniels Rethinking job characteristics in work stress research 2 6 9




5/25

observed. For example, what passes for ‘bullying’ or ‘mobbing’ may be very

different in a military context to that of a university, and might vary from

person to person.

Perhaps the most important limitation is that independent observers

are only able to observe manifest behaviour – such as hours spent in work

– that are just some of the elements that a job comprises. Independent

observers are less likely to be able to obtain an accurate picture of cognitive

processes such as planning and decision-making – yet such cognitive activity

might be critical to how job characteristics such as complexity and autonomy

come to be. This criticism also applies to managers’ and colleagues’ ratings.

What we can be sure of, however, is that rating by observers – whether

managers, colleagues or researchers – represents someone’s perception of thefocal job. These perceptions are unlikely to reflect cognitive activity at all

accurately and possibly not reflect sensitive activities or activities incumbents

keep hidden for other purposes.

Aggregate ratings. Another approach to remove biases inherent in self-

reports is to aggregate ratings from several individuals, all in the same job

(e.g. Vahtera et al., 1996). The assumption underlying aggregation is that

variations in perceptions of jobs will be cancelled out (Jones & James, 1979),

therefore reducing the impact of biases associated with particular individuals.

Jones and James provide four criteria for justifying aggregation:

(a) significant differences in aggregated or mean perceptions across

different organisations or subunits; (b) interperceiver reliability or

agreement; (c) homogeneous situational characteristics (e.g., similarity

of context, structure, job type, etc.); and (d) meaningful relationships

between the aggregated score and various organisational, subunit, or

individual criteria.

(Jones & James, 1979: 208)

Criteria a) and b) can be demonstrated empirically in any study,

through analysis of variance techniques and correlational indices of inter-

rater reliability respectively. Criterion c) can be justified through examining

people with the same contractual status, job descriptions, etc. However, the

greatest question concerns the theoretical interpretation of results inherent

in criterion d). If a significant relationship is found between an aggregated

measure of work demands and individual measures of strain, it cannot be

concluded that ‘objective’ work demands influence an individual’s strain.There exist commonalties of perception in any social grouping (Thompson

et al., 1990), and perceptions of job characteristics might be conditioned by

social information processing to some extent (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).





6/25

Moreover, there is also evidence that affective tone in work groups is linked

to convergence in trait affect in work groups (George, 1990), indicating that

aggregation might further compound some of the biases inherent in self-

reports of job characteristics.

It is then possible that any association between strain and aggregated

measures of job characteristics reflects a shared perception of job character-

istics, rather than any ‘objective’ reality. This is not to say that this approach

is meaningless, only that aggregated measures by themselves cannot help

construct unambiguous interpretations of results concerning objective job

characteristics.

It might be argued that where there is no direct contact between incum-

bents – such as where they are situated in different locations or on differentshifts – then this social information processing explanation may not be valid

(Semmer et al., 1996). However, common institutional factors present at

national, sector, industry and organizational levels will serve to condition

perceptions within physically separated jobs (Scott, 1995). For example,

selection of similar people, and then socialization into particular job roles

through the actions of others and common experiences (e.g. through contact

with managers, trades unions, trainers, and educators), inculcates and

reinforces particular perceptions of work (Schneider, 1987). This socializa-

tion process might be especially strong in institutionalized arenas with stronglegislation, strong organizational cultures and proscribed training or

education (such as medical professions, accountancy, strongly unionized

industries; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Using large databases or documents. Another approach is to determine

job characteristics from documentary evidence associated with job titles. In

the United States, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and, more

recently, the O*NET databases allow researchers to match job titles to a

number of job characteristics in an extensive database of job analyses (Roos& Treiman, 1980, used by Spector & Jex, 1991; Spector et al., 1995).

Whilst attractive given the rigour with which such databases are assem-

bled and their breadth of coverage, there exist problems with these methods

too. First, job analyses may quickly become out of date, especially in current

economic environments of hypercompetition, accelerated innovation,

frequent organizational change and rapid developments in information tech-

nology. However, perhaps the greatest limitation is that national databases

represent the occupation not the job – that is local peculiarities of a job are

ignored, especially changes individuals themselves make to their job charac-teristics (Parker et al., 2001; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). This makes it

difficult to draw unambiguous inferences about the stressors associated with

a particular job in a particular organization.





7/25

A related approach to determine job characteristics is for job descrip-

tions to be rated by expert raters (either job incumbents not sampled, HR

managers or the research team, e.g. Spector et al., 1995). The same problems

of inferring cognitive processes and social norms could apply here as to

reports from managers, colleagues or observers, as could problems concern-

ing job descriptions becoming out of date if a given context changes.

Therefore, databases and documents do not necessarily provide pure

reflections of ‘objective’ job characteristics. Rather such methods may better

reflect a job as it has become institutionalized in documentary form, rather

than how a job is evolving in the present.

Interventions. One solution to problems with self-report, other-report,

aggregation, databases and documentary measures is to examine interven-tions only. In this approach, a structural, managerial or technological change

is made in an organization that is hypothesized to change job characteristics

so as to make the job more psychosocially ‘hygienic’ (e.g. increase levels of

job control; Wall et al., 1986). If strain reduces, then it could be concluded

this is a result of the changes in job characteristics bought about by organiz-

ational change. Notwithstanding problems of design associated with inter-

vention studies (Cook et al., 1990), there are at least three other problems

with this approach.

First, from a practical point of view, some other assessment of jobcharacteristics is needed. Prior to the intervention, assessment of job charac-

teristics is needed to determine the levels of aversive job characteristics

present in the environment, and therefore which job characteristics need to

be altered through intervention. Then, subsequent to the intervention, assess-

ment is needed to ensure that the intervention changed the target job charac-

teristics (i.e. a manipulation check). Without these data, it would be

impossible to know whether the intervention changed what it was supposed

to and, therefore, whether correct inferences are being drawn. Therefore,even if researchers were to concentrate on interventions, they would still be

a practical need to assess job characteristics independent of interventions.

Second, interventions can change many job characteristics and

personal skills. For example: the introduction of semi-autonomous work

teams could increase support from co-workers, work autonomy and work

variety. Further, in this example, Cotton (1993) considers training of workers

to be an important factor in the success of semi-autonomous work teams. In

these circumstances, it would be impossible to infer whether changes in strain

could be attributed to changes in levels of particular job characteristics,training or some combination of job characteristics and training.

Third, organizational changes are an obtrusive way of researching

work stress. Without first conducting unobtrusive research in natural





8/25

settings, there would be no ecologically valid and empirical basis for the

intervention. As such, the chances of an intervention producing unintended

and harmful consequences would be increased. This raises serious questions

about the ethics of this approach in isolation from other research.

Conclusions on alternative strategies: Why triangulation does

not work

If all methods are flawed to some degree, then what strategies are available

to researchers? Perhaps the most commonly prescribed strategy is that of

triangulation – if a job characteristic produces an association with strainacross several different measuring techniques, then it can be reliably inferred

that there is an association between the job characteristic and strain. That

is, because methods measure the relevant phenomena imperfectly (see, for

example, Frese & Zapf, 1988), by using several independent methods in a

study or research programme, the errors in measurement can be assumed to

mitigate each other (Cook & Campbell, 1979).

Techniques exist for triangulation of results, both within studies (multi-

trait-multi-method matrices, latent variable modelling, e.g. Bagozzi & Yi,

1990) and between studies (meta-analysis, e.g. Hunter & Schmidt, 1990).Triangulation of results might work only if different methods produce the

same results. If different methods were to produce contradictory results, then

any benefits of triangulation are lost. Further, if triangulation occurred only

in some circumstances (only for some job characteristics, some jobs or some

organizational settings), and not in others – pursuing a strategy of triangu-

lation would limit severely the scope of theory and practical application of

work stress research.

What is clear is that triangulation across data sources is often difficult(e.g. Sanchez et al., 1997). In a study using latent variable analysis to aggre-

gate multiple self-reports and multiple observer ratings of job characteristics

and strain (Semmer et al., 1996), the best fitting models indicated differences

in how observers and incumbents rated the characteristics of focal jobs. Other

studies have indicated that different methods of assessing job characteristics

produce different associations with indices of strain (Morrison et al., 2003;

Spector & Jex, 1991). In one study, self-reports of work control and human

resource managers’ ratings of incumbent’s work control were not highly corre-

lated (r = 0.41), yet both contributed independently to predicting subsequentindicators of coronary heart disease (Bosma et al., 1997). Even in the most

controlled settings of a laboratory study, Jimmieson and Terry (1997) were

unable to triangulate findings from objective manipulations of the features of





9/25

a simulated job task with those of perceptual measures taken during the

course of the experiment.

Of course, it could be argued that discrepancies within and between

studies are due to differential predictive validity of measures of job charac-

teristics, as well as imperfect validity of measures of strain. However, even

where triangulation is possible, any results might be theoretically meaning-

less. For example, triangulated evidence of an association between job

control and strain merely tells us that there is an association – not why there

is an association.

Perhaps the best approach is to be clear on the kind of information

provided by each approach to measuring job characteristics. This might help

to achieve a better level of explanation and help to avoid any difficulties if triangulation does not occur. That is, because different methods might be

assessing different phenomena, we need to examine more closely the

construct validity of different methods. From above, it is clear that it is

possible to collect information: a) on people’s perceptions of their own job

characteristics (self-reports); b) on people’s perceptions of others’ job charac-

teristics (other-reports); c) on collective perceptions of job characteristics

(aggregate reports); and d) on the more institutionalized aspects of job

characteristics (databases cross-referenced across documentary data on job

titles, analysis of job descriptions, interventions). This might lead us tosuppose that job characteristics comprise of many different subjective and

institutionalized facets that might be interrelated in some way.

Differentiating facets of job characteristics

It has been suggested that much research on job characteristics and strain

gives the impression that people are more passive receivers of informationfrom the environment than we know is the case (Briner et al., 2004). It is the

idea that people are active in interpreting their jobs, and consequently in

shaping their jobs (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), which leads to consider-

ing an aspect of job characteristics hardly mentioned in the literature – that

is enacted job characteristics. By this, it is meant that people are likely to

enact those job characteristics that they perceive are part of their job, should

be part of their job or otherwise might help them achieve something at work

(Weick, 1995). For example, a person, who believes that they have enough

autonomy over work to reschedule some tasks, may enact this autonomy byrescheduling tasks in such a way to spend more time on aspects of work they

enjoy and avoid undesirable features of work. A person, who believes a

supervisor would offer sympathy, might be more likely to confide in that





10/25

supervisor as a source of social support. As well as enacting desirable job

characteristics – people can also enact undesirable job characteristics. For

example, associations between achievement-oriented pressured type A

personality and workload (Spector & O’Connell, 1994) could be explained

by type As taking on more workload to achieve ambitious career goals and

status symbols.

The job incumbent is not the only person capable of enacting job

characteristics. Given their power over others (Braverman, 1974), it is possible

that managers enact the job characteristics that they believe are characteristics

of a given person’s job (for example, by asking subordinates to perform

certain tasks, achieve certain objectives, prescribing ways in which tasks are

to be performed or providing levels of resources that constrain how sub-ordinates can meet work objectives). Professional and organizational norms

are also likely to reflect on how colleagues and subordinates enact the working

environment, in such a way as to encourage or proscribe the enactment of

certain job characteristics (Scott, 1995). Of course, managers, colleagues and

subordinates can enact positive job characteristics (such as support, allowing

autonomy, participation) or they can enact negative job characteristics (such

as creating a greater workload, role conflict).

It is possible, then, to differentiate between enacted job characteristics

– what actually happens – and perceived job characteristics (self-perceptions,other perceptions). To some degree, enacted job characteristics are a product

of one or more persons’ perceptions of what a job entails. However, earlier

I referred to institutionalized elements of job characteristics. These are

embedded in the contractual elements of job descriptions, technology,

organizational structures and the networks of social relationships embedded

in job design, organizational structures and reporting relationships. These

elements could serve to limit what is possible for various people to enact

within a particular job (for example, we might expect: professional workersto report greater autonomy than non-professional workers; assembly line

work to limit job autonomy, skill use and variety; workers in matrix organiz-

ations to experience greater role ambiguity and conflict). Since these institu-

tionalized elements serve to proscribe limits – they are referred to as latent

job characteristics.

On the basis of this discussion, it is possible, then, to define three

different facets of job characteristics as follows:

• Latent job characteristics2 are those aspects of job characteristicsembedded in organizational and technical processes. They are inde-

pendent of activity or perception, but remain dormant unless there is

an incumbent doing a job.





11/25

• Perceived job characteristics are someone’s generalized perceptions of

job characteristics.

• Enacted job characteristics3 are the events that job incumbents, and

those that come into contact with the incumbent, enact. They comprise

the emergent and dynamic characteristics of the job.

Latent job characteristics

Latent job characteristics comprise the institutional and technological pres-

sures that influence work, and are reflected in techniques usually considered

to be furthest from the perceptions and actions of individuals in work – and

therefore are often considered to be the most ‘objective’ indicators of jobcharacteristics (Spector & Jex, 1991). They might include details of contract

lengths or notice periods as indicators of job security, contractual hours –

rather than actual hours worked – as an indicator of work demands or

machine-paced work as an indicator of lower job autonomy. Suitable

methods to assess latent job characteristics might be analysis of large data-

bases such as the O*NET, or analysis of documents such as job descrip-

tions, employment contracts, operating manuals and organizational charts.

Latent job characteristics might also be inferred, at least partially, from

interventions that change job descriptions, employment contracts, operat-ing manuals, organizational structures, work processes or technology.

However, latent job characteristics, in themselves, are unlikely to provide

the basis of explaining links between work and strain. Evidence indicates it

is factors much closer to individuals that have the closest links to strain

(Lazarus, 1999; Suh et al., 1996).

Perceived job characteristics

Several kinds of observers can form judgements and make reports about the

characteristics they usually associate with a job. Therefore, many current

measures of job characteristics used in survey research reflect the generalized

perceptions of incumbents, line managers, co-workers, some aggregate

thereof or researchers – depending on who is doing the rating. With the

exception of researchers’ perceptions, links might be expected between latent

job characteristics and perceived job characteristics.

The first way in which latent job characteristics could influence

perceived job characteristics might be through direct judgement. Here, indi-viduals make inferences concerning how the nature of work is dictated by

factors such as technology, organizational processes and employment





12/25

contracts. That is, factors that might serve to influence incumbents’ and

others’ perceptions of work characteristics include production or service

delivery technology, extent of teamworking, information systems, perform-

ance management practices, reward structures and job descriptions (see, for

example, Parker et al., 2001). Indeed, changes in factors indicative of latent

job characteristics have been found to be associated with subsequent changes

in self-reports of job characteristics (Parker, 2003; Parker et al., 2002).

Clearly, shared experience could lead to commonality in perceptions of job

characteristics amongst a group.

However, there are other indirect routes by which latent job charac-

teristics might influence perceived job characteristics and promote conver-

gence of perceptions. These concern observation and discussion with others.For example, during socialization into a new job, incumbents may come to

judge levels of job characteristics by discussion with line managers (Ostroff

& Kozlowski, 1992). Further, shared stories and discourses about work that

reinforce a shared perception of that job may be passed around incumbents

with the same job title, their line managers and others with whom they come

into contact (Feldman & Rafaeli, 2002). In this way, others’ perceptions may

come to influence an incumbent’s perception of his or her job.

Others’ perceptions may come to converge with incumbents’ percep-

tions in a manner more or less independent of latent job characteristics too.This might occur through socialization practices that reflect shared training,

especially where early training is carried out in organizations, such as

universities, largely independent of the eventual working environment

(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). It might also occur where powerful groups of

workers with common interests are able to claim the right to certain job

characteristics, such as skill use, regardless of job descriptions, technology

and other factors related to latent job characteristics (Noon & Blyton, 1997).

These groups may then be able to protect that claim and influence percep-tions through regulations that place restrictions on who is allowed to do a

job, as has been the case for some trades unions and professional institutions

(Noon & Blyton, 1997).

The perceptions of researchers are unlikely to be influenced directly by

others’ perceptions. Usually, researchers’ ratings are based on what

researchers can observe. Thus reflecting, partially at least, job characteristics

as they are enacted. We might expect some degree of overlap between

researchers’ ratings of job characteristics and those of incumbents, co-

workers and managers. This is because job characteristics as they are enactedare driven by the perceptions of those with direct influence on a particular

job: incumbents, co-workers and line managers (Weick, 1995). That is,





13/25

incumbents, co-workers and managers enact those job characteristics that

they attribute to the incumbent’s job.

Enacted job characteristics

These are events that reflect jobs as they happen. It is these events that are

proximal to the individual’s experience of strain (Weiss & Cropanzano,

1996). For example, Suh et al. (1996) found that more recent events have a

stronger effect on strain than more distant events. Pillow et al. (1996) found

that the impact of major life events on strain was mediated by daily stress-

ful events caused by the disruption of the life events. Further, work events

are considered the basis upon which several cognitive processes come toinfluence affective experience at work (Daniels et al., 2004). Hence, I

consider enacted job characteristics to be the locus of appraisals and coping

that influence strain, not enduring perceptions of work or structural, techno-

logical or contractual features of work. That is, I consider that the intra-

individual processes that produce strain within people do so because those

processes are influenced by enacted job characteristics.

Enacted job characteristics can take several forms. They can be poten-

tially observable – comprising behaviours or discourse. A behavioural

example might be using several tools to complete a task as enacted skill use.For discourse, an example might be voicing an objection to others’ plans, as

an example of participation in decision-making. Note, even clandestine activi-

ties that are behavioural or discursive are potentially observable by someone

other than the incumbent. Enacted job characteristics might also be cognitive,

and therefore not amenable to direct external observation, whatever the

circumstances. An example of cognitive enactment might be complex

problem-solving, as an example of demands. Enacted job characteristics can

be enacted by the incumbent, or by the actions of others. For instance, roleambiguity can be enacted by managers setting tasks with no clear objectives.

It might be supposed that latent job characteristics in seemingly

restricted environments, such as machine-paced manufacturing, have

stronger relations to other facets of job characteristics than in less restricted

environments, such as managerial work. However, Briner et al. (2004) argue

that even in restricted environments, people still enact the environment and

have some influence over the characteristics of their work (Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2001).

The idea of enacted job characteristics echoes episodic eventsapproaches to work and affect (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), where the

interpretations of specific events as they happen cause changes in affect, and

changes in affect subsequently influence attitudes such as job satisfaction.

More widely, concentrating on job characteristics as enacted events allows





14/25

us to study the processes by which organizational life influences individuals

and how individuals act within organizational contexts (Peterson, 1998).

This is not to say that generalized perceptions or structural, technological or

contractual features of work are not without influence on strain. Rather,

because enacted job characteristics are the locus of intra-individual processes

that produce strain, enacted job characteristics may mediate the relationships

between perceived job characteristics, latent job characteristics and strain –

hence perhaps offering an explanation for associations between indicators of

perceived or latent job characteristics and strain.

As an example of the inter-relationships between latent, perceived and

enacted job characteristics, consider a matrix organization consisting of over-

lapping project teams. Here there is great potential for role conflict where anindividual belongs to more than one project team (latent job characteristic).

Incumbents’ previous experience of working in such structures plus

discussion between them and their managers might lead to the perception of

role conflict within the job (perceived job characteristic). Because managers

may then consider role conflict as an inevitable consequence of working in

such organizational structures, managers may then ask workers to complete

tasks to deadlines without checking on the progress of other tasks against

other deadlines, producing role conflict (enacted job characteristic) which is

subsequently appraised as stressful.Some mutual influence between perceived and enacted job character-

istics might be expected. Mere enactment of a job characteristic might alter

a person’s view of his/her work (Weick, 1995). Extrapolating from the role

conflict example just given – repeated exposure to conflicting priorities given

by managers may create heightened perceptions of role conflict. However,

where there is opportunity to observe or discuss work with others, then

others’ perceptions of the focal person’s job might change too. This is

perhaps likely to be strongest where enactment of job characteristics isroutinized, so that there is more opportunity for shared understandings to

emerge (Feldman & Rafaeli, 2002). For example, the routinized timetables

and breaks in schools provide the perceptual impetus for discussing the

demands imposed by school timetables, and visiting the staff room at break-

times provides a routinized forum for discussing these issues. Perhaps too,

where there is mutual dependence between workers to perform tasks, then

perceptions of others’ job characteristics might develop that allow indi-

viduals to enact job characteristics in a manner that is heedful of others’ work

(Weick & Roberts, 1993). For instance, in self-regulating work teams, clearlyspecifying one’s own tasks and estimated time of completion of those tasks

might enact role clarity for colleagues.

Supposing interdependence of enacted job characteristics and various

actors’ perceived job characteristics allows less restrictive assumptions about





15/25

relations between the work environment and measurements than has largely

been the case hitherto. As noted earlier, using perceptual measures has often

entailed assuming/presuming the work environment causes perceptions.

Positing the existence of enacted job characteristics means perceptions might

cause events in the work environment, and events in the work environment

might cause perceptions.

Table 1 summarizes the features of latent, perceived and enacted job

characteristics. Figure 1 is a representation the relationships between

enacted, perceived and latent job characteristics that have been illustrated in

the preceding paragraphs. Strain is included in the model as a consequence

of the relationships between these different facets of job characteristics, with

enacted job characteristics as the most proximal cause of strain. However,this relationship is shown as conditional, because the processes linking

specific forms of strain to job characteristics are complex (e.g. Daniels et al.,

2004). Therefore the detail of these relationships is beyond the scope of the

current model.

Figure 1 is an illustration of the potential gain in theoretical richness

by expanding the conception of job characteristics to differentiate enacted,


Table 1 Summary of facets of job characteristics

Facet Key features Sub-classes Example methods

Latent job Institutional, social and National job databases

characteristics technological pressures Analysis of job

that influence work descriptions,

employment contracts,

operating manuals and

organizational charts

InterventionsPerceived job Generalized Perceptions of own Survey methods that

characteristics perceptions of how a job rely on individuals

job usually is Line managers’ rating the extent to

perceptions which they agree a

Co-workers’ statement describes a

perceptions target job

Researchers’

perceptions

Enacted job Events and activities Behavioural Self-reports of events

characteristics in the job as they Discursive or activities withinhappen Cognitive specific time frames,

using, for example, daily

diary methods




16/25

perceived and latent facets of job characteristics. The strength of relations

suggested in Figure 1 might vary in strength according to the nature of thejob characteristic under investigation (e.g. are the relations shown in Figure 1

stronger for skill use and autonomy, than for work demands?). The differ-

entiation of facets of job characteristics, and the mapping of possible

relations among them, raises implications for both methods and the kinds of

research questions researchers might choose to investigate. We turn to these

implications next.

Implications for methods

How then should enacted, perceived and latent job characteristics be

measured? Self-reports are obviously necessary to determine perceived job


Latent job

characteristic

Managers a nd

colleagues’

perceptions of

job

Enacted job

characteristic

Researchers’

perception of job

Strain

Incumbent’s

perceptions of

job

Indicates a potentially weaker or conditional relationship

Figure 1 Possible relationships between facets of job characteristics




17/25

characteristics. Suitable measures might include many of the popular

measures for assessing job characteristics, with Likert-type scaled responses

for assessing generalized levels of agreement with statements describing job

characteristics over an unspecified time span. Aggregated measures of this

kind may serve to identify coherent collective perceptions, should researchers

be interested in the influence of a social group as a whole on individuals’

perceived and enacted job characteristics. Researchers might assess latent job

characteristics by examining various forms of organizational documents and

processes, for example: job descriptions and contractual arrangements; struc-

tural network relationships with co-workers, subordinates and supervisors;

examination of the job’s place in the organizational structure; and how tech-

nology is used in the job. Researchers might then assess each source of datafor the extent to which it provides evidence of the presence or absence of

pre-defined job features. For example, the latent job characteristics for ‘role

conflict’ might be assessed by looking at the number of reporting relation-

ships for an individual (from the job description), the number of project

teams or committees that individual belongs to (from the organizational

chart), the number of processes that individual is responsible for (from exam-

ining production or service delivery manuals).

To measure enacted job characteristics, self-reports may also be the

best strategy. However, the kind of self-reports used would be different fromthose used to assess perceived job characteristics. There are a number of

arguments for this point of view. These can be divided into three main areas:

a) other methods are unsuitable; b) self-reports are commonly used in coping

research; c) in the right circumstances, self-reports can minimize bias.

The argument that other methods are unsuitable is essentially a prac-

tical argument. Enacted job characteristics are dynamic and activity-oriented

– so measures should tap these features. Clearly, documentary and techno-

structural assessments are unable to achieve this. As mentioned earlier,ratings by external observers are subject to framing biases and cannot assess

hidden or cognitive activity well. Moreover, as jobs become more knowledge

intensive, the potential to use external observers is reduced.

The argument that self-reports are used in coping research is essentially

an argument of precedent. At least since the development of the Ways of

Coping Checklist (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), self-report methods have been

the standard way of assessing coping. This is because coping includes cogni-

tive and hidden activity, as well as overt behaviour and discourse – features

shared with enacted job characteristics. It may be reasonable, then, to expectthat people can provide accurate assessments of the work events they

encounter. However, self-reports can be inaccurate and researchers need to

pay close attention to the nature of self-report methodologies and the psycho-

metric properties of instruments.





18/25

Therefore, the strongest argument for self-reports of enacted job charac-

teristics is that self-reports can provide accurate assessments of enacted job

characteristics, if designed properly and used in the right circumstances. To

minimize bias, self-reports used to assess enacted job characteristics should

concentrate on specific events, be clearly worded and require recall only over

a short, recent and specified time frame (Frese & Zapf, 1988).

The best period may be to report on current activity or within the past

few hours. Evidence indicates people may exaggerate how proactive they are

if the time frame becomes too great (Stone et al., 1998). Because of their

ability to capture processes close to when they happen (Bolger et al., 2003),

the best methods to develop and test theory around enacted job character-

istics might be event sampling methods – such as computerized momentaryassessments or daily diary studies. This means that self-report measures of

enacted job characteristics are best employed in short-term studies – and

therefore in research on rapidly changing aspects of strain – such as affect

(Weiss et al., 1999). However, event sampling methods are not straight-

forward, and researchers need to take steps to eliminate potential biases that

can affect event sampling studies if short-term assessments of enacted job

characteristics are to be accurate (see, for example, Bolger et al., 2003).

Further steps need to be taken to ensure designs can rule out alternative

explanations for findings.For some health outcomes (such as clinical levels of depression), short-

term assessments of enacted job characteristics may not be suitable, as the

causal process is too extended. Instead, more traditional measures of job

characteristics may need to be used. Whilst such studies may not be able to

offer unambiguous theoretical statements of specific causal processes, if

supplemented with short-term studies of the processes involved in the sub-

clinical stages of long-term health outcomes, then more precise theoretical

statements might be possible. For example, affective reactions to work,which are highly dynamic (Parkinson et al., 1995), might mediate the link

between work characteristics and longer-term indicators of strain (Robinson,

2000; Spector & Goh, 2001). In these circumstances, event sampling studies

can be used to examine the affective reactions to work presumed to mediate

between job characteristics and more slowly changing forms of strain. Simi-

larly, short-term and dynamic physiological reactions, such as heart rate, can

be monitored by portable devices, and so can be assessed in studies looking

at job characteristics and physical strain.

Notwithstanding all these considerations, examining a complete set of relationships between the latent, perceived and enacted aspects of just one

job characteristic, plus assessing relationships with strain, might seem very

labour intensive, since data need to be collected from several sources and the

validity and reliability of three sets of measures for each job characteristic





19/25

need to be established. Moreover, if quantitative methods are to be used in

event sampling studies, statistical methods are needed that can cope with

complex multi-level data with a time series element. Multi-level regression

and multi-level structural equations modelling methods would seem appro-

priate (e.g. Bentler, 2003; Muthén & Muthén, 1998).

Implications for research questions

The differentiation of latent, perceived and enacted job characteristics does

not just have implications for supplementing more traditional approaches to

assessing job characteristics with event-based measures. This differentiationshifts the level of explanation from one concerned with explaining variance

in concurrent levels of strain or subsequent changes in strain, to a much

richer, dynamic and multi-level view of job characteristics. In this dynamic

view, enacted job characteristics are at the juncture between the cognitive

interpretation and coping processes that influence strain and the social and

organizational processes from which enacted job characteristics emerge. Put

another way, identifying enacted job characteristics neither privilege work

and organizational approaches nor cognitive and perceptual approaches to

understanding strain. Rather, the differentiation provides one way of thinking about how the two approaches might be reconciled. There are novel

research questions that arise too.

The first pertains to the empirical status of the different facets of job

characteristics – if latent, perceived and enacted job characteristics represent

different phenomena, then evidence of their differentiation should be

produced. One way of doing this might be through factor analysis. For

example, multiple indicators of latent job autonomy should correlate more

closely with each other than multiple indicators of perceived and enactedautonomy. In turn, multiple indicators of perceived autonomy should corre-

late most closely with each other and indicators of enacted autonomy corre-

late most closely with other indicators of enacted autonomy. In this case,

multiple indicators of latent job autonomy, multiple indicators of perceived

job autonomy and multiple indicators of enacted job autonomy should

produce three distinct factors if subjected to factor analysis. On top of this

requirement, if event sampling studies are to be used to assess enacted job

characteristics, then variation in levels of enacted job characteristics should

be evident across short time intervals. However, recent evidence does suggestmeaningful daily variability in job characteristics such as demands, skill use,

control and support (Butler et al., 2005; Daniels & Harris, 2005).

If the different facets of job characteristics are empirically distinct, then





20/25


21/25

hand, linking job characteristics to embedded organizational processes and

perceptions provides a theoretical footing for understanding the links

between the institutional and economic factors, at the levels of nation-state,

industry and organization, that influence job design and the perception of

work (Hall & Soskice, 2001; Scott, 1995). Further, by differentiating

amongst different aspects of job characteristics, there is a firmer and more

fertile theoretical grounding for the assessment of job characteristics and

explaining how different facets of job characteristics contribute directly and

indirectly to strain.

One contribution of this article, then, is to illustrate how careful

consideration of methods can provide a better basis for interpreting results

produced by different methods and, hence, help explain why triangulationdoes not occur. Another contribution is that, at least in the area of work

stress research, such a careful consideration of methods can enhance theor-

etical richness and suggest new avenues for research. This theoretical richness

comes from considering job characteristics, not as separate from or as

distinct influences on work events, but as phenomena that comprise inter-

related institutional, technological and perceptual facets together with events

that are the product of actors’ agency. This approach favours the use of

dynamic methods capable of capturing processes instead of or as well as

variance, and suggests new ways of interpreting the findings of variance-oriented research designs. The article’s contribution may extend beyond the

application of new ways of conceptualizing job characteristics to interpret-

ing research findings. As noted above, considering different facets of job

characteristics and how they interrelate enables us to consider how enacted

job characteristics may be changed or impeded by organizational factors and

shared and individual perceptions. Arguably, this might lead to more sophis-

ticated approaches to intervention that consider simultaneously both the

perceptual and organizational levers and barriers to changing the experienceof job characteristics.

Notes

1 In much work stress research, self-report methods require participants to rate the

characteristics of their work. It is these ratings we concentrate on here. This articledoes not concern itself with methods to assess the interpretative processes by which

a person appraises a job characteristic to be more or less unpleasant or stressful.

Rather, in this article, I concentrate on methods that seek to assess the reality of jobcharacteristics without further interpretation of their desirability.

2 The term should not be confused with ‘latent variables’, familiar from structuralequations modelling, that are unobservable variables indexed by a set of observable

variables.





22/25

3 Enacted job characteristics are events as they happen, rather than the appraisal of

those events. It is possible for people to enact job characteristics to fulfil somepurpose. For example, job autonomy or social support can be enacted to help cope

with other aversive enacted job characteristics, by facilitating problem-focusedcoping, avoidance or emotion-focused coping (Daniels & Harris, 2005). In this

sense, enacted job characteristics can be a coping behaviour, used to fulfil some

coping function (Lazarus, 1999). However, enacted job characteristics are a muchwider concept, encompassing events enacted for whatever purpose by job incum-

bents and others that come into contact with the incumbent.

References

Bagozzi, R.P. & Yi, Y. Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: Thecase of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,1990, 75, 547–60.

Bentler, P.M. EQS V6.1 for Windows Beta Build 51. Chicago, IL: Multivariate StatisticalSoftware Incorporated, 2003.

Bolger, N., Davis, A. & Rafaeli, E. Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 2003, 54, 579–616.

Bosma, H., Marmot, M.G., Nicholson, A.C., Brunner, E. & Stansfeld, S.A. Low job control

and risk of coronary heart disease in Whitehall ii (prospective cohort) study. BritishMedical Journal , 1997, 314, 558–65.

Braverman, H. Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentiethcentury. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974.

Brief, A.P., Burke, M.J., George, J.M., Robinson, B.S. & Webster, J. Should negative affec-

tivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1988, 73, 193–8.

Brief, A.P., Houston Butcher, A. & Roberson, L. Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes:

The effects of positive mood inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfactionin a field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes,1995, 62, 55–62.

Briner, R.B., Harris, C. & Daniels, K. How do work stress and coping work? Toward a

fundamental theoretical reappraisal. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling , 2004,32, 223–34.

Butler, A.B., Grzywacz, J.G., Bass, B.L. & Linney, K.D. Extending the demands-control

model: A daily diary study of job characteristics, work-family conflict and work-familyfacilitation. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 2005, 78, 155–69.

Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1979.

Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T. & Peracchio, L. Quasi experimentation. In M.D. Dunnette &

L.M.Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2nd edn,vol. 1. Palo Alto, CF: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1990, pp. 491–576.

Cotton, J.L. Employee involvement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993.Daniels, K. & Harris, C. A daily diary study of coping in the context of the job demands-

control-support model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2005, 66, 219–37.Daniels, K., Harris, C. & Briner, R.B. Linking work conditions to unpleasant affect:

Cognition, categorisation and goals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2004, 77 , 343–64.

DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism andcollective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 1983, 48,147–61.





23/25

Feldman, M.S. & Rafaeli, A. Organizational routines as sources of connections and under-

standings. Journal of Management Studies, 2002, 39, 309–31.Fox, M.L., Dwyer, D.J. & Ganster, D.C. Effects of stressful job demands and control on

physiological and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting. Academy of Management Journal , 1993, 36, 289–318.

Frese, M. Stress at work and psychosomatic complaints: A causal interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1985, 70, 314–28.

Frese, M. & Zapf, D. Methodological issues in the study of work stress: Objective vs.

subjective measurement work stress and the question of longitudinal studies. In C.L.Cooper & R. Payne (Eds), Causes, coping, and consequences of stress at work. Chich-ester: Wiley, 1988, pp. 375–411.

George, J.M. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,1990, 75, 107–16.

Hall, P. & Soskice, D. Varieties of capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. Methods in meta-analysis: Correcting for bias and error in

research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990. Jimmieson, N.L. & Terry, D.J. Responses to an in-basket activity: The role of work stress,

behavioral control, and informational control. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-ogy, 1997, 2, 72–83.

Jones, A.P. & James, L.R. Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individ-ual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1979, 23, 201–50.

Karasek, R.A. & Theorell, T. Healthy work. New York: Basic Books, 1990.Lazarus, R.S. Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer, 1999.Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S. Stress, appraisal and coping . New York: Springer, 1984.Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J.A. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Manage-

ment Journal , 1985, 6, 257–72.Morrison, D., Payne, R.L. & Wall, T.D. Is job a viable unit of analysis? A multilevel analysis

of demands-control-support models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,2003, 8, 209–19.

Muthén, B. & Muthén, L. Mplus users’ guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén, 1998.Noon, M. & Blyton, P. The realities of work. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997.Ostroff, C. & Kozlowski, S.W.J. Organizational socialization as a learning process: The

role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 1992, 45, 849–74.Parker, S.K. Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and the

mediating role of work characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88,620–34.

Parker, S.K., Griffin, M.A., Sprigg, C.A. & Wall, T.D. Effect of temporary contracts onperceived work characteristics and job strain: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychol-ogy, 2002, 55, 689–719.

Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D. & Cordery, J.L. Future work design and practice: Towards an

elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-ogy, 2001, 74, 413–40.

Parkinson, B., Briner, R.B., Reynolds, S. & Totterdell, P. Time frames for mood: Relations

between momentary and generalized ratings of affect. Personality and Social Psychol-ogy Bulletin, 1995, 21, 331–9.

Peterson, M.F. Embedded organizational events: The units of process in organizational

science. Organization Science, 1998, 9, 16–33.

Pillow, D.R., Zautra, A.J. & Sandler, I. Major life events and minor stressors: Identifyingmediational links in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1996, 70, 381–94.

Robinson, M.D. The reactive and prospective functions of mood: Its role in linking daily

experiences and cognitive well-being. Cognition and Emotion, 2000, 14, 145–76.





24/25

Roos, P.A. & Treiman, D.J. DOT scales for the 1970 census classification. In R.A. Miller,

D.J. Treiman, P.S. Cain & P.A. Roos (Eds), Work, jobs, and occupations: A critical review of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 1980, pp. 336–89.

Salancik, G.R. & Pfeffer, J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and

task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 224–53.Sanchez, J.I., Zamora, A. & Viswesvaran, C. Moderators of agreement between incumbent

and non-incumbent ratings of job characteristics. Journal of Occupational and Organiz-ational Psychology, 1997, 70, 209–18.

Schneider, B.C. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 1987, 40, 437–53.Scott, W.R. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.Semmer, N., Zapf, D. & Grief, S. ‘Shared job strain’: A new approach for assessing the

validity of job stress measurements. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 1996, 69, 293–310.

Spector, P.E. A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report measures of job

conditions. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds), International review and industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 7. Chichester: Wiley, 1992, pp. 123–51.

Spector, P.E. Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a

controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1994, 15, 385–92.Spector, P.E. & Goh, A. The role of emotions in the occupational stress process. Exploring

Theoretical Mechanisms and Perspectives, 2001, 1, 195–232.Spector, P.E. & Jex, S.M. Relations of job characteristics from multiple data sources with

employee affect, absence, turnover intentions, and health. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 1991, 76, 46–53.

Spector, P.E. & O’Connell, B.J. The contribution of personality traits, negative affectivity,locus of control, and type A to subsequent reports of job stressors and job strains.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 1994, 67 , 1–12.Spector, P.E., Dwyer, D.J. & Jex, S.M. Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and

performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1988, 73, 11–19.

Spector, P.E., Jex, S.M. & Chen, P.Y. Relations of incumbent affect-related personality traits

with incumbent and objective measures of characteristics of jobs. Journal of Organiz-ational Behavior, 1995, 16, 59–65.

Staw, B.M., Sutton, R.I. & Pelled, L.H. Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes

at the workplace. Organization Science, 1994, 5, 51–71.Stone, A.A., Schwartz, J.E., Shiffman, S., Marco, C.A., Hickcox, M. & Paty, J. A compari-

son of coping assessed by ecological momentary assessment and retrospective recall.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1998, 74, 1670–80.Suh, E., Diener, E. & Fujita, F. Events and subjective well-being: Only recent events matter.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996, 70, 1091–102.Tennen, H. & Affleck, G. The challenge of capturing daily processes at the interface of

social and clinical psychology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2002, 21,610–27.

Thompson, M., Ellis, R. & Wildavsky, A. Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1990.Vahtera, J., Pentti, J. & Uutela, A. The effect of objective job demands on registered sickness

absence spells: Do personal, social and job-related sources act as moderators? Work &Stress, 1996, 10, 286–308.

Wall, T.D., Kemp, N.J., Jackson, P.R. & Clegg, C.W. Outcomes of autonomous work-

groups: A long term field experiment. Academy of Management Journal , 1986, 29,280–304.

Warr, P.B. Work, unemployment and mental health. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1987.

Weick, K.E. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.





25/25

Weick, K.E. & Roberts, K.H. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on

flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1993, 38, 357–81.Weiss, H.M. & Cropanzano, R. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the

consequences of affective experiences at work. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds),

Research in organizational behaviour, vol. 18. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1996,pp. 1–74.

Weiss, H.M., Nicholas, J.P. & Daus, C.S. An examination of the joint effects of affectiveexperiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences

over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1999, 78, 1–24.Wrzesniewski, A. & Dutton, J. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of

their work. Academy of Management Review, 2001, 26, 179–201.


Kevin Daniels is Professor of Organizational Psychology, Loughborough

University. He has a PhD in Applied Psychology. He is currently an

Associate Editor of the Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology , and is on the editorial board of the British Journal of Manage-

ment. His research interests concern the relationships between emotion,

cognition and organizational processes.

[E-mail: [email protected]]

rethinking job characteristics in work stress research

Documents