Job Demands-Resources Theory: Frequently Asked Questions PDF

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2024 American Psychological Association 20...

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2024 American Psychological Association 2024, Vol. 29, No. 3, 188–200 ISSN: 1076-8998 https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000376 Job Demands–Resources Theory: Frequently Asked Questions Arnold B. Bakker1, 2 and Evangelia Demerouti2, 3 1 Center of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam 2 Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, University of Johannesburg 3 Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology Job demands–resources (JD–R) theory is commonly used to predict employee well-being, work behaviors, and performance. This article provides a short description of JD–R theory and discusses issues and questions that have been raised regarding the theory. These issues include the differences This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. between conservation of resources theory and JD–R theory, whether a job resource can be a job demand, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. the impact of job resources on strain and health, the role of hindrance and challenge job demands in JD– R theory, the relationship between job demands and resources, and the likelihood of work engagement being a redundant concept. We also discuss whether JD–R theory can be falsified, the role of personality in the theory, within- and between-person effects in JD–R theory, the question whether there is a standard JD–R questionnaire, and the existence of loss and gain spirals. Finally, we discuss the use of JD–R theory in domains other than work and answer the question whether JD–R theory is universally applicable. Keywords: burnout, job demands–resources theory, job design, job resources, work engagement Research of the past century has shown that work design can have JD–R Theory in Brief an important impact on employee well-being and performance (Parker et al., 2017). Moreover, the design of workplaces has become JD–R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) is a job design theory increasingly relevant, given the ongoing evolution of work due to that explains how various aspects of the physical and social work societal changes and technological advancements. Simultaneously, environment (job demands and resources) influence job perfor- organizations try to focus on well-being and work–life balance so mance through employee well-being. The theory also outlines how that their employees feel engaged and committed. The ongoing employees use proactive as well as reactive work behaviors to transformation of work continues to pique the interest of scholars and influence job demands and resources and, indirectly, their own well- practitioners in job design theories, reflecting the need for innovative being (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023). The core of JD–R approaches to job design. Since its inception at the turn of the theory consists of seven propositions. First, and different from millennium, the job demands–resources (JD–R) model (Demerouti et classic job design theories such as job characteristics theory al., 2001) has become an influential theory (Bakker & Demerouti, (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) and the Michigan model (French et al., 2017; Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023; Demerouti & 1982), JD–R theory is a flexible theory. JD–R theory does not Bakker, 2023) explaining employee well-being and performance. propose a fixed set of job characteristics to be important for Although the theory seems simple, there are several issues that need employee well-being and performance but rather acknowledges that clarification in order for the theory to be applied in the way that it all organizations/occupations are unique and may be characterized makes the best predictions. In the present article, we briefly describe by different job demands and resources. Job demands refer to the conceptual framework of our theory and focus on important aspects of the job that require effort and are therefore associated with unanswered questions. physiological (heart rate, oxygen consumption) and/or psychologi- cal (fatigue, anxiety) costs (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job resources refer to the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that have motivating potential, such as constructive Editor’s Note. Sharon Clarke served as the action editor for this article.—SC feedback, skill variety, and social support from colleagues. Job resources are functional in achieving work goals, alleviating the impact of job demands, and encouraging learning and personal development (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023). Arnold B. Bakker https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1489-1847 A second proposition of JD–R theory is that job demands and This article was inspired by Ajzen (2020). resources instigate two distinctive processes. The health impairment Arnold B. Bakker played a lead role in conceptualization and writing– process refers to the unique impact of job demands (e.g., complex original draft. Evangelia Demerouti played a lead role in conceptualization work problems, email overload) on health outcomes through and writing–review and editing. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Arnold B. the depletion of employees’ physical, emotional, and cognitive Bakker, Center of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, resources (e.g., Demerouti et al., 2001; Li et al., 2023). This process Erasmus University Rotterdam, Woudestein Campus, Mandeville Building seems to work particularly over a longer period of time. Thus, when T16-35, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Email: employees are continuously confronted with difficult tasks that are [email protected] cognitively taxing or high numbers of emails that constantly need 188  JOB DEMANDS–RESOURCES THEORY 189 attention, they use up so much energy that short-term fatigue preferences. Job crafting increases person-job fit and has a positive becomes chronic and serious health problems may arise. In contrast, impact on meaningfulness and work engagement (Tims et al., 2016; the motivational process refers to the unique impact of job resources van Wingerden et al., 2017). Moreover, research of the past decade (e.g., decision latitude, time control) on performance through has shown that when employees make small adjustments to their work engagement (e.g., Hakanen et al., 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2009). daily job demands and resources (e.g., acquiring support and Job resources can satisfy basic psychological needs, such as the feedback, starting a new project, proactively looking for a silent need to belong and the need to do something meaningful in an workplace to focus), their daily well-being and job performance autonomous way (Van den Broeck et al., 2008). This fosters increases (e.g., Demerouti & Bakker, 2024; Oprea et al., 2019). intrinsic motivation to reach work-related goals and facilitates Whereas job resources and work engagement may encourage persistence and performance (Kovjanic et al., 2013; see also Lesener employees to be proactive, JD–R theory proposes that job demands et al., 2020). and strain may lead to maladaptive self-regulation cognitions The third proposition of JD–R theory is that job demands and and behaviors (Bakker & de Vries, 2021; Proposition 7). When resources have a combined impact on employee well-being employees experience higher levels of job strain, they find it more This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. (including burnout and work engagement). There are two interaction difficult to focus and make more work-related mistakes (Oosterholt et This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. effects. The buffer hypothesis proposes that job resources weaken al., 2012). In addition, the negative emotions (e.g., anger, irritation) the impact of job demands on strain. There may be various reasons experienced by employees under stress may narrow their thought– for this; job resources may change the perception of job demands, action repertoire (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). Thus, when job moderate the responses that follow the appraisal process, or reduce demands are persistently high, employees may start to use destructive the health-damaging consequences of such responses (Bakker, strategies like avoidance coping and self-undermining. That is, they Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023). Indeed, job resources like social create new obstacles that may compromise their job performance support and performance feedback can mitigate the impact of (Bakker & Wang, 2020; Roczniewska & Bakker, 2021). Examples various job demands (workload, cognitive demands, interpersonal are poor communication, making careless mistakes, and starting conflicts, etc.) on psychological distress and burnout (e.g., de Jonge interpersonal conflicts (Bakker & Costa, 2014). & Huter, 2021; Lavoie-Tremblay et al., 2014). In contrast, the boost hypothesis in JD–R theory proposes that challenging job demands Frequently Asked Questions strengthen the positive impact of job resources on work engagement. Particularly when employees need to deal with challenging job JD–R theory is a popular theory that is used to predict and change demands (e.g., work complexity, time pressure), they can benefit employee well-being, work behaviors, and performance. Core JD–R from various job resources, including performance feedback and publications (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2008, 2017; Bakker, support from colleagues (Bakker et al., 2007; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli In short, job resources become salient and are most important for & Bakker, 2004) have generated myriads of citations—indicating work engagement when job demands are high. that the theory is widely used in empirical research. Moreover, JD–R Personal resources are positive self-evaluations that refer to theory is actively applied by managers, consultants, human individuals’ sense of their ability to control and impact upon their resources professionals, and other work experts who have developed environment successfully (Hobfoll et al., 2003). Proposition 4 in risk assessment tools, workshops, seminars, trainings, smartphone JD–R theory states that personal resources have a reciprocal apps, and organization-wide interventions (Bakker & Demerouti, relationship with job resources. This means that employees with 2017; see also Aguinis et al., 2012). In their attempts to apply the higher levels of optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience are likely to theory, scholars and practitioners have faced several issues, also have access to more job resources, and vice versa. Personal sometimes turning to us for assistance. In the following overview, resources can also qualify the impact of job demands on employee we answer the most frequently asked questions. well-being (Proposition 5). When employees are optimistic and self-efficacious and believe they have an impact on their work What Is the Link Between JD–R Theory and environment, they are better able to deal with various types of job Conservation of Resources Theory? demands. For example, using a weekly diary study among nurses, Bakker and Sanz-Vergel (2013) predicted and found that emotional JD–R theory stands on the shoulders of giants. It builds on classic job demands (emotionally laden interactions with patients that were job design theories, including two-factor theory (Herzberg, 1966), job identified as challenging for nurses in a separate study) resulted in characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), and the demand- higher levels of work engagement when self-efficacy and optimism control model (Karasek, 1979). JD–R is clearly an organizational were high. However, emotional job demands resulted in lower levels psychology theory. Although JD–R theory can also be applied of work engagement when these personal resources were low. outside the work domain (e.g., in educational and sports contexts—as JD–R theory proposes that employees may also proactively will be discussed later), it has most often been used in organizational change their job design and optimize their own job demands and settings. In contrast, conservation of resources (COR) theory resources (Proposition 6). This process of employees shaping their (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018) is a general stress theory that jobs is called job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Tims and has also been applied to the work domain. The central idea in COR Bakker (2010) showed that employees can engage in various types theory is that human beings need resources for survival, and, of proactive behavior, including role innovation, feedback seeking, therefore, all humans attempt to obtain, retain, foster, and protect and task revision. They defined job crafting as employees’ personal resources. Resources are broadly defined as all the things individuals initiative to change their job demands and job resources in order to centrally value and may include objects (e.g., power tools, a better align the design of the job with their own abilities and car), conditions (e.g., marriage, employment), and skills or beliefs  190 BAKKER AND DEMEROUTI (e.g., sociability, self-efficacy). Resources may also be more volatile resources do not generate energy but rather spark motivation. Job and take the form of physical energy, attention, or time. resources buffer the impact of job demands on strain because job COR theory is basically a theory with propositions regarding what resources generate the motivation to effectively deal with these people do when they anticipate losing or actually lose resources. This demands (Bakker et al., 2005). When job resources are low—for is typically a situation of change—one possesses certain resources example, when employees receive limited support from others or and then loses them. An important principle of COR theory is that have reduced control over the pace of their work—employees’ people must invest resources in order to (a) protect against resource work engagement and intrinsic motivation usually decrease. When loss, (b) recover from losses, and (c) gain new resources (Hobfoll, employees do not have access to resources, they are less able to 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018). COR’s gain paradox principle, stating that regulate their energy through proactive behaviors such as job resource gain increases in salience in the context of resource loss, crafting and playful work design (e.g., Bakker & de Vries, 2021; is directly relevant for the buffer hypothesis in JD–R theory. Scharp et al., 2019). In short, a low score on job resources is not the Accordingly, job resources moderate (alleviate) the impact of job same as a high score on job demands. demands on strain. This hypothesis has been based on Karasek’s In a similar way, a low score on job demands is not the same as a This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. (1979) demand-control model, but it is evident that employees lose high score on job resources. When job demands such as workload and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. various volatile resources (energy, attention, time) on the days they cognitive demands are low, employees need to invest only limited encounter high job demands and that, particularly on these days, effort to carry out their work. This does not mean that work is more various job resources can be extremely helpful. The difference motivating—in contrast, work may actually be understimulating. between JD–R theory and COR theory is that JD–R theory is more Note that certain characteristics of the job may, in some cases, be explicit in explaining which type of resources are needed (resources characterized as job demand or job resource dependent on their in the work environment, called job resources) to deal with job positive or negative manifestation. An example is leadership that may demands in order to prevent a depletion of volatile psychological manifest itself as constructive (e.g., transformational leadership) resources and protect well-being. versus destructive behavior (e.g., abusive supervision). Whereas The boost hypothesis in JD–R theory is directly based on COR’s transformational leaders are inspiring, take perspective, and are gain paradox principle. Accordingly, job demands strengthen the intellectually stimulating (Bass, 1999), abusive leaders humiliate their motivating potential of job resources. Particularly on the days when employees, remind them of their past mistakes, and put them down in employees face a high work pressure, complex work tasks, or public (Tepper, 2007). Such constructive and destructive leadership emotionally challenging clients, they will benefit from available behaviors behave as job resources and job demands, respectively—as job resources, like decision latitude and support from colleagues. evidenced by a recent meta-analysis showing unique effects on work However, what COR theory seems to propose more specifically engagement, burnout, and performance (Pletzer et al., 2024). In this is that on the days when job demands are relatively high (and example, leader behavior manifests itself in two completely different employees thus lose volatile resources including energy, time, ways, implying that leader behavior can be a job demand or a and attention), it becomes more important to protect and mobilize job resource. However, also here, a low score on transformational available job resources and actively seek new job resources— leadership is not a demand, and a low score on abusive supervision is implying expansion-oriented job crafting. This is paradoxical not a resource. because it implies that employees need to become more active when Another example is job insecurity, as the literature does not they are low on psychological resources—making it more difficult really give an answer to the question whether job security is the to engage in adaptive coping and proactive behavior (Bakker & de opposite of job insecurity or whether both are the ends of the same Vries, 2021). continuum. The confusion is sustained by the fact that scholars Finally, the loss and gain spirals in JD–R theory are based on have used items that measure job security—(e.g., “I am sure I can COR-theory. However, JD–R theory explicitly models loss and gain keep my job”—Vander Elst et al., 2014) in order to capture job processes (e.g., Bakker & Costa, 2014). The loss cycle implies that insecurity. In order to understand the function of job security, we job demands evoke self-undermining behaviors through job strain turn to International Labour Organization standards (Convention and that self-undermining, in turn, increases future job demands. No. 158 and Recommendation No. 166), which suggest that The gain spiral implies that job resources encourage job crafting worker employment should not be terminated unless there is a valid (or other proactive behaviors) through work engagement and that reason for such termination. This would imply that employers job crafting, in turn, increases future job resources. Research has should provide job security for their employees, but this will not suggested that the loss cycle is stronger for individuals who necessarily increase their work motivation (which also applies to are already high on chronic burnout (Bakker, Xanthopoulou, & an ergonomically designed desk). Employees will experience an Demerouti, 2023; Roczniewska & Bakker, 2021). Similarly, the insecure job as a result of high job demands, which also applies gain cycle is stronger for individuals who are already high on work when they work in an office that is not ergonomically designed. engagement (e.g., Bakker, 2018; Bakker & Oerlemans, 2016). What Impact Do Job Resources Have on Can a Job Resource Be a Job Demand? Strain and Health? This question pops up regularly, and the forthright answer is no. Although JD–R theory proposes that job demands are uniquely Job demands are all aspects of work that cost effort and therefore related to strain and health (health impairment process) and that job consume energy (Demerouti et al., 2001, 2019). Job demands resources are uniquely related to work engagement (motivational instigate the health impairment process. In contrast, job resources process), several meta-analytic studies have reported a direct are not directly involved in the health impairment process because negative relationship between job resources and burnout  JOB DEMANDS–RESOURCES THEORY 191 (e.g., Alarcon, 2011; Crawford et al., 2010; Lesener et al., 2019). coworkers (Owens et al., 2016). Energetic colleagues can increase This may suggest that job resources are directly involved in employees’ levels of energy (and lower their levels of exhaustion) the health impairment process. However, we believe that previous through an emotional contagion process (Bakker, 2022). In addition, JD–R research has not tested the unique effect of job resources on JD–R theory proposes that job resources facilitate personal resources strain in the best possible way. (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy, optimism), which are related to First, JD–R theory predicts that job resources are negatively related positive health (e.g., Boudrias et al., 2011). Future research may to strain (e.g., exhaustion) through their relationship with work specifically focus on the job resources—health link and use robust engagement. However, if this indirect effect is not modeled, scholars tests to rule out the alternative explanations discussed here. may find a direct effect of job resources on strain. Second, earlier studies often used overall measures of burnout, indicated by exhaustion (a clear marker of strain), as well as cynicism and What Is the Role of Hindrance and Challenge Job reduced personal accomplishment (markers of reduced motivation). Demands in JD–R Theory? When a burnout measure includes markers of motivation, it can be This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. In JD–R theory, job demands are defined as all aspects of the job expected that job resources are directly related to burnout—because This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. that necessitate continuous effort and are therefore associated with resources have motivating potential. This cannot be taken as evidence physiological and/or psychological costs (Demerouti et al., 2001). for the idea that resources directly influence strain. Third, previous However, researchers have suggested and partly shown that some job research has overlooked the possibility that employees who have demands may also benefit employees. According to the challenge– access to more job resources may actually be exposed to lower levels hindrance stressor framework (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Podsakoff et of job demands (or may perceive fewer demands) and therefore al., 2023), challenge job demands offer opportunities for personal experience reduced strain. In this case, the direct effect of job growth and achievement. Examples are complexity, time pressure, resources on strain is actually an indirect effect through job demands. and responsibility. Such challenge demands may stimulate employ- Fourth, it is conceivable that the direct link between job resources and ees, fostering a sense of accomplishment and development. In strain is an artifact of the method and is actually due to the statistical contrast, hindrance job demands hinder personal growth and interaction with job demands. According to JD–R theory, job achievement and obstruct the attainment of goals. Examples are resources buffer the positive impact of job demands on strain. role ambiguity, administrative hassles, and interpersonal conflict. However, if the JD–R interaction term is not included in the Consistent with JD–R theory, meta-analyses have shown that, prediction, we may instead observe the main effect of job resources irrespective of whether they are classified as challenging or hindering, on strain (e.g., exhaustion). Another possibility is that the variance in stressors are demanding and necessitate the expenditure of effort and job demands may be limited—for example, because most employees energy to be managed effectively. Thus, both challenges and included in the sample experience high levels of job demands (see hindrances can result in energy depletion and health impairment if Figure 1). In that case, the Job Demands × Resources interaction they are too high or chronic. However, whereas hindrance job effect is masked since really low job demands are not observed. demands undermine work engagement, motivation, and task Nevertheless, given the available evidence (Alarcon, 2011; Crawford performance, challenge job demands may have additional favorable et al., 2010; Lesener et al., 2019), a direct effect of job resources on effects on these outcomes (e.g., LePine, 2022; Podsakoff et al., 2023). strain cannot be ruled out and may make sense in practice. When The distinction between challenge and hindrance job demands employees have access to many social job resources (social needs further clarification. First, whether a job characteristic is support, constructive feedback, inspirational leadership), they may experienced as a challenge or hindrance requires the interpretation be influenced by the physical and emotional energy of their of the employee. This increases the subjectivity of the categorization Figure 1 High Levels of Job Demands May Mask the Job Demands × Resources Interaction Effect on Exhaustion  192 BAKKER AND DEMEROUTI of job demands and job resources, which is, from a practical point of higher, T2 job demands were lower. Note that Lesener and view, confusing for organizations. Second, Bakker and Sanz-Vergel colleagues did not conduct formal tests of reciprocity regarding (2013) argued and found that nurses perceived work pressure more demands and resources. as a hindrance demand than as a challenge demand and that the In a study among almost 300,000 federal government employees reverse was true for emotional demands. In a second study, they working in one of 38 different U.S. agencies, Jong and Ford (2016) showed that work pressure undermined the positive impact of found that agency-level job demands (i.e., workload) had a negative personal resources on flourishing and that emotional demands impact on individual-level job resources at a later point in time (1–3 strengthened the positive effect of personal resources on work years later). Collective workload resulted in decreased individual engagement. These findings illustrate that the occupational sector levels of cooperation and empowerment (i.e., influence over work can change the perception of job demands. From a job design point processes and strategic decisions). In addition, agency-level job of view, it is important to note that both types of job demands can resources (empowerment, cooperation, supervisory feedback) had a prompt the hypothesized health impairment process and result in negative impact on individual-level job demands (workload, strain and health problems. When job demands are perceived as ambiguity) over time. These findings suggest that job demands This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. challenges, they may also have positive outcomes. and job resources are reciprocally and negatively related. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. According to JD–R theory, the differential effects of challenges Bakker and de Vries (2021) have argued that job demands and hindrances on work engagement and other favorable outcomes are negatively related to job resources through a process of may depend on the level of job resources. Since challenges are accumulating strain and decreased adaptive regulation (job crafting, motivating but cost considerable effort, resources can boost the recovery; see also Sonnentag et al., 2017). When job demands positive impact of challenge job demands on work engagement and increase, employees experience fatigue or anxiety that impairs self- performance. In contrast, hindrances are frustrating, and employees regulation. Because stressed workers do not recover well and do not need resources to buffer the negative impact of hindrance job craft their jobs, they eventually end up with fewer resources to deal demands on work engagement and other outcomes. Consistent with with future job demands. However, it should be noted that the these assumptions, Tadić et al. (2015) found that teachers were relationship between job demands and resources may depend on the more inspired, excited, and engaged on the days they had to work job position or organizational context. For instance, most managers hard and needed to solve complex problems—but only when have high job demands but also high job resources to help them deal these challenges were accompanied with daily job resources (e.g., with these demands. The relatively high resources are, in this case, constructive feedback, social support). This is consistent with the part of the job and may naturally covary with the high job demands. boost hypothesis in JD–R theory. Additionally, Tadić et al. showed Indeed, Bakker et al. (2004) found in their study among highly that teachers were less inspired and engaged on the days they were educated employees working in different occupational sectors that confronted with hindrance demands, such as role conflict and job demands and resources (e.g., work pressure and autonomy; hassles—but this negative effect was most pronounced when emotional demands and opportunities for development) were teachers had limited access to daily job resources. This is consistent positively related. with the buffer hypothesis in JD–R theory’s proposition that job resources can buffer the impact of job demands. In a similar vein, Is the Work Engagement Concept Redundant? Breevaart and Bakker (2018) found that challenge demands were most strongly positively related to daily work engagement when One concept that plays a central role in JD–R theory is work employees interacted with a leader who used individual consider- engagement—an affective–motivational state that is characterized ation, intellectual stimulation, and inspiration (i.e., transformational by high levels of energy (vigor), enthusiasm regarding the content leadership behaviors). In addition, Breevaart and Bakker’s research of work (dedication), and focused attention on work activities revealed that hindrance demands, such as role conflicts, undermined (absorption; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2022). Since work engagement daily work engagement, particularly when leaders exhibited few was introduced in the literature (Schaufeli et al., 2002), there is an transformational leadership behaviors. ongoing debate about its relationship with burnout—also an affective motivational state that is characterized by chronic fatigue (exhaustion), a negative attitude toward work (cynicism), and How Are Job Demands Related to Job Resources? reduced professional efficacy (Maslach & Leiter, 2008) or reduced Usually, job demands and resources are negatively related. The ability to regulate cognitive and emotional processes (Schaufeli reason is that when job demands are high, there is only limited time et al., 2020). to mobilize, utilize, and exchange job resources with colleagues. Some scholars have argued that work engagement is indicated by When all psychological and physical effort is invested in a complex low scores on burnout (Cole et al., 2012; Maslach & Leiter, 2008). work task, there is no room to solicit customer feedback or socialize However, employees low on burnout are not necessarily highly with colleagues. Also, when job demands are high, there is very little engaged during work, and those who are low on work engagement opportunity to exchange resources with colleagues, such as do not necessarily feel burned out (Schaufeli & De Witte, 2017). information, feedback, and support. Indeed, the meta-analysis by Theoretically, this can be illustrated using the circumplex model of Lesener et al. (2019) showed negative correlations between job emotions (Russell & Carroll, 1999). Accordingly, emotions (and demands and job resources within time (simultaneous effects) and also employee well-being; Bakker & Oerlemans, 2011) can be across time (lagged effects). Thus, when quantitative, emotional, categorized as being (a) negatively or positively valanced and (b) and cognitive demands were higher at Time 1 (T1), various job active or passive. Whereas work engagement is a highly activated resources such as social support, autonomy, and leadership quality and positive form of well-being, burnout is a passive and negative were lower at Time 2 (T2). Similarly, when T1 job resources were form of well-being. It seems evident that employees may be neither  JOB DEMANDS–RESOURCES THEORY 193 enthusiastic nor cynical—they may feel indifferent toward work and surprising phenomena, when developing a broad theory of (technically, they score low on work engagement and low on employee well-being, it is less likely that we will discover many burnout). This stoic attitude is related to the phenomenon of “quiet remarkable propositions that can withstand empirical testing. quitting”—simply doing the work that is expected of the position It should be noted, however, that JD–R theory has been modified without going above and beyond what is expected (Scheyett, 2023). and refined on the basis of emerging research findings. For example, Crawford et al. (2010) used 43 studies, including almost 27,000 in the first decade of JD–R theory, scholars have found reciprocal employees, to test a meta-analytic structural JD–R model. They relationships between (a) job demands and strain (e.g., Bakker et al., found that the meta-analytic correlation between work engagement 2000; Demerouti, Bakker, & Bulters, 2004) and (b) job resources and burnout was only −.37. Nahrgang et al. (2011) conducted a and work engagement (Hakanen et al., 2008; Xanthopoulou et al., meta-analysis based on 203 independent samples (N = 186,440) to 2009). This has informed the novel idea that job demands and strain study work engagement and burnout in the context of safety at work. may lead to maladaptive self-regulation cognitions and behaviors These authors found a meta-analytic correlation of −.25. Finally, (i.e., self-undermining; Bakker & Costa, 2014; Bakker & Wang, Lesener et al. (2019) used 57 independent samples (N = 37,324) to 2020) and that job strain can instigate a loss cycle (Bakker, This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. conduct a meta-analysis of longitudinal JD–R studies and found a Xanthopoulou, & Demerouti, 2023). In a similar vein, these findings This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. meta-correlation between T1 work engagement and T2 burnout of have informed the idea that job resources and work engagement may −.36. The correlation between T1 burnout and T2 work engagement increase proactive work behaviors (e.g., job crafting, playful work was exactly the same. These findings indicate that both concepts design) and that work engagement can prompt a gain cycle in which share only limited variance and cover unique psychological proactive behaviors lead to more resources and higher levels of phenomena. engagement over time (Bakker, 2010; Reis et al., 2015). Thus, the Furthermore, JD–R studies have shown that work engagement theory has been changed and expanded on the basis of the finding and burnout have unique predictors and outcomes (Bakker, that job demands and resources do not only have a causal impact on Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023). Whereas work engagement is outcomes, but these outcomes also predict job demands and typically the highest when employees have access to an abundance resources. JD–R theory is open to change based upon new research. of job resources—combined with high challenge job demands (e.g., Moreover, JD–R theory contains several less evident propositions work pressure, task complexity), burnout is typically the highest that can be tested empirically. Among other things, it predicts a when employees are confronted with high job demands—combined number of mediating and moderating processes: (a) Exhaustion with a lack of job resources. Thus, there are unique combinations of mediates the effects of various job demands on performance, whereas job characteristics that are responsible for work engagement and work engagement mediates the effects of various job resources on burnout. It should also be noted that whereas engaged workers take performance; (b) job and personal resources moderate the effects of personal initiative and craft their jobs so that they stay engaged (i.e., job demands on job strain; (c) job demands moderate the effects of job a gain cycle; Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023; Hakanen et resources on work engagement; (d) job crafting mediates the effect of al., 2008), burned out workers show self-undermining behaviors work engagement on job and personal resources; (e) self-undermining leading to increased job demands and even higher burnout levels mediates the effect of exhaustion on job demands; (f) job crafting (Bakker, Xanthopoulou, & Demerouti, 2023). On the basis of these influences job resources, which then moderate the effect of job findings, we can conclude that the work engagement construct is not demands on job strain (mediated moderation); (g) self-undermining redundant. Instead, work engagement plays an important role in the influences job demands, which then moderate the effect of job organizational psychology and management literatures. It is also a resources on work engagement; (h) stable personality moderates the better predictor of job performance than burnout (Bakker, within-person effect of job demands on self-undermining, through job Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023). strain; (i) stable personality characteristics moderate the within-person effect of job resources on job crafting through work engagement. Methodologically sound empirical research that disconfirms these Can JD–R Theory Be Falsified? propositions would falsify the theory. JD–R theory is one of the most-cited theories in management and organizational psychology, and research has provided extensive What Is the Role of Personality in JD–R Theory? empirical support for the predictive value of the theory. However, the theory’s propositions may seem to be obvious and self-evident. In a volatile, uncertain, and ambiguous world, job demands and Indeed, it makes sense that employees who are exposed to higher job resources may rapidly change. Indeed, research of the past 2 decades demands should also be more likely to feel tired and experience job has shown that job demands such as work pressure and task strain. Also, employees who have access to many job resources complexity change even from day to day (Downes et al., 2021). should also be more likely to be motivated and perform well than Similarly, job resources such as colleague support and skill variety employees who do not have access to such resources. Because the may be available on 1 day and lacking on other days (Xanthopoulou propositions in JD–R theory seem intuitively reasonable, their & Bakker, 2021). Furthermore, JD–R theory proposes that on days falsifiability is sometimes questioned. One could argue that most employees are more engaged in their work, they are more likely to research will confirm the self-evident hypotheses of the theory. use job crafting and—in this way—mobilize new jobs and personal When some studies do not consistently support the hypotheses, we resources (Demerouti & Bakker, 2024; Tims et al., 2014). may be tempted to point the finger at the studies’ design and In contrast to daily job demands, resources, and employee methods. We agree with Ajzen (2020, p. 321) that “there is nothing behaviors, personality refers to characteristic, enduring patterns of wrong with a theory that is intuitively reasonable.” Although there thought, emotion, and behavior that are expressed in a variety of is potential for theories and studies that investigate unexpected situations (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Personality is relatively stable  194 BAKKER AND DEMEROUTI over time and influences a person’s interactions with, and adaptations shed light on job demands, they each consider only one level in to, the external environment (Larsen et al., 2017). The five-factor isolation. Thus, the two perspectives do not acknowledge the model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992) can be used to describe possibility that people experience variable job demands differently the most salient aspects of personality: openness, conscientiousness, than they experience stable job demands (i.e., that the deviations extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. give a new meaning to individuals’ averages; Downes et al., 2021). The multilevel version of JD–R theory (Bakker, 2015; Bakker, Time does not represent a cause of change to which employees are Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023) describes the role of personality reacting; instead, time is an ongoing context for understanding when in JD–R theory. Accordingly, stable personality traits weaken one construct changing will lead to another construct changing (moderate) the positive relationships between daily or weekly job (McCormick et al., 2020). demands, exhaustion, and self-undermining. In addition, personality The meta-analysis by Downes et al. (2021) showed that the strengthens the positive relationships between job resources, work relationships between job demands/resources and outcomes (strain, engagement, and proactive work behaviors. Supporting these effects, work engagement) were similar on the within- and the between- Debusscher et al. (2016) showed that the trait emotional stability person level. However, challenge demands had stronger positive This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. weakened the relationship between momentary job demands and effects on strain when employees encountered higher (vs. lower) This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. negative emotions (momentary neuroticism). Momentary job levels of within-person challenge demand variability. These findings demands such as work pressure and task complexity particularly indicate that when higher levels of challenge demands are more evoked negative emotions when the trait emotional stability was low variable, they present a more significant tax on psychological (vs. high). resources (and thus produce more strain) than do job demands In a similar vein, Oerlemans and Bakker (2014) found that that are more stable across employees’ work experiences. According individuals who scored high (vs. low) on extraversion were the to Pitariu and Ployhart (2010), dynamics of change over time can happiest on days they spent considerable time on paid work be incorporated into hypotheses in terms of time (which acknowl- activities or athletic activities, particularly when they carried out edges that a dynamic relationship exists and offers more temporal these activities with other people. Scharp et al. (2019) found that precision), duration (which emphasizes the idea that a dynamic daily proactive and playful work design was positively related to relationship may change in magnitude over time), and shape (which daily work engagement and creativity when employees scored high specifies how a relationship between two constructs changes over (vs. low) on Openness. In short, although personality may influence time, e.g., curvilinear effects; trends, cycles, spirals, rhythms). the choice for certain occupations and hence the prevalence of job demands and resources (Denissen et al., 2018), once employees Is There a Standard JD–R Questionnaire? have become socialized to their organization, their stable personality determines the impact of daily fluctuations in job demands and The first proposition of JD–R theory is that every job has its own resources on daily fluctuations in employee well-being and the specific job characteristics that can be classified into job demands and impact of daily work behaviors on daily job design and well-being. resources. Because of the flexibility inherent in JD–R theory, it can be One other way in which personality could play a role in JD–R applied in every work context. Although specific demands and theory is by influencing whether employees perceive a job resources could be relevant for specific organizations, there is a set of characteristic as a hindrance, challenge, or resource. For example, demands and resources that are relevant in most organizations, such individuals scoring low on emotional stability may perceive as workload, time pressure, autonomy, social support, and feedback performance feedback as threatening and stressful, and, hence, (see also Hakanen et al., 2024). These job characteristics could be feedback could potentially act as a job demand and lead to strain (but measured with a standard instrument, such as the one developed by see Bell & Arthur, 2008). In a similar vein, individuals scoring high the first author (Bakker, 2014). Also, there are validated instruments on openness to new experiences may perceive role ambiguity as an that can be used to measure work engagement (Utrecht work opportunity to take initiative and learn new things. Future research engagement scale; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2022), burnout (Oldenburg should further test whether personality can change the perception burnout inventory; Demerouti et al., 2010), job crafting (Tims et al., and function of job demands and resources.