Reducing Work Withdrawal Behaviors Facing Work Obstacles: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Jing Zhang
,
Di Su
,
Andrew P. Smith
,
Lei Yang

Work withdrawal behavior is a type of negative reaction when employees face obstacles at work. Its negative impact on individuals and organizations has caught the attention of academic circles and managers.

  • cognitive flexibility
  • negative work rumination
  • obstructive stress

1. Introduction

Interpersonal conflicts, red tape, unfair treatment, and other obstructive pressures at work are relatively common phenomena. These obstructive pressures are difficult for individuals to overcome on their own, even if they try hard [1]. Out of consideration for protecting their resources, when faced with these obstacles, employees will consider responding negatively, withdrawing from their current work [2]. They exhibit negative behaviors, such as reducing working hours, arriving late and leaving early without a reason, negatively treating work content, and even thinking about leaving the job. These negative ways of coping with work obstacles can be collectively referred to as work withdrawal behavior. This refers to the intentional behavior of an employee in an attempt to avoid work, including physically withdrawing from the workplace (e.g., absence or tardiness), intentionally avoiding or leaving the organization [3][4], or psychologically disengaging from work (e.g., cyberloafing during work time) [5].
Work withdrawal behavior is already a common concern for organizations [6]. It will have cumulative negative effects on employees, such as weakening employees’ sense of career efficacy and reducing work performance [7]. Moreover, this withdrawal behavior is contagious. When some employees slack off at work, it will send negative psychological messages to others, and morale and work motivation within the organization will also decline. In turn, it will cause serious economic losses to the organization and hinder its long-term development. Existing studies have shown that work withdrawal behavior is related to various obstacles encountered by employees at work (e.g., uncivilized behavior in the workplace, abusive experience, and job insecurity) [8][9]. As for the internal mechanism of the connection between the two, existing studies have mainly focused on the emotional aspect [6][10]. However, emotion can only be one of the internal mechanisms through which stress affects behavior, and other mechanisms need to be paid attention to, such as cognitive variables. According to the persistent cognitive model of stress, work stress can continue to exert its influence after employees leave the office through work rumination [11]. According to Cropley and Zijlstra (2011) [12], work rumination includes negative affective rumination and positive problem-solving rumination. Studies have confirmed that the relationship between obstructive stress and problem-solving rumination fails to achieve a significant link with stability across time [13]. In other words, when faced with obstacles at work, employees only experience affective rumination, and affective rumination can positively predict work withdrawal behavior [14][15][16].

2. Obstructive Stress and Work Withdrawal: The Mediating Role of Negative Work Rumination

The effect of various obstacles on work withdrawal behavior has always been the key point to which organization managers and related researchers pay attention. With the development of research, the categories of obstacles continue to expand, and a large number of studies have consistently confirmed that obstructive stress significantly positively predicts work withdrawal behavior [6][17]. However, existing research has not fully analyzed the internal mechanism of the connection between the two. The intermediary mechanism mainly focuses on employee emotion (e.g., negative emotion [10]; emotional exhaustion [6]) and attitude (e.g., job satisfaction [18]), and there is a lack of analysis of the mediation mechanism in the cognitive domain. Researchers in the field of work stress have found that the effects of work stress on individuals can continue after work through the role of persistent cognition. This persistent cognition is work rumination, which refers to the state in which some people ruminate over work-related issues and events outside of work [19]. Negative work stress, such as effort–reward imbalance, workplace incivility, and job insecurity, can cause negative work rumination [20], namely, repetitive thinking about negative experiences and experiencing negative emotions in the process [12]. Moreover, the significant relationship between obstructive stress and negative work rumination has been confirmed to be stable at the cross-sectional measurement level, 4-week interval measurement level, and daily measurement level [13]. Negative work rumination can prolong the cognitive presentation of stressors and becomes an intermediary mechanism for work stress to affect various outcome variables, such as health, well-being, and work performance [16]. Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that negative work rumination may play a mediating role between obstructive stress and work withdrawal behavior.

3. Work Demand–Control–Personal Model

In dealing with the negative impact of work stress, researchers have paid attention to the important role of work resources and predicted that work resources could alleviate the negative effect of work demands on work outcomes [21]. For the interaction effect of work demands and work resources, current research mainly has three directions: additive effects, synergistic effects, and moderating effects. Existing studies have obtained more supporting evidence for the additive effects but only limited support for the other two effects, especially the moderating effect [22]. Analyzing the moderating effects is of great significance in finding ways to alleviate the negative effects of obstructive stress. In order to provide more empirical evidence for the moderating effects, this analyzed the moderating effect of work resources on the relationship between obstructive stress and negative work rumination. According to the work demand–control model, high levels of work demand often result in employees experiencing high levels of stress. Obstructive demands are especially likely to lead to negative outcomes. The level of work control reflects the degree to which employees can freely choose work tasks, flexibly apply work strategies, and arrange work progress [23]. When employees have high work control, they can choose valuable new tasks with their own judgment and have greater autonomy in working method innovation and work process improvement. Therefore, work control resources can alleviate the stress experienced brought by negative work demands. Based on this, the second hypothesis is:
Existing researchers have found that only 10% of relevant studies support the buffering effect of work control resources on work stress when examining work demand control models [24]. Some scholars have suggested that this may be partly due to the individual differences in how individuals respond to their environment. Some studies have found that the hypothesized effects of the demand–control model vary by gender, culture, and personality [25][26][27]. This suggests that the significance of the interaction between work demands and work resources may only be valid under certain conditions. In predicting work stress effects, a comprehensive analysis of the moderating effects of individual resources may be more enlightening than considering situational factors alone or the main effect alone. Work resources are similar to personal resources in that they help to accomplish work goals and stimulate personal growth and development [28]. An individual who believes that they have the internal resources for the control and management of stressful situations perceives them as less stressful and responds less negatively [10]. As a consequence, personal variables related to control may prevent undesirable stress outcomes, such as counterproductive work behavior [10][29][30]. In 2012, Rubino and coworkers [31] found that the positive effect of job control was only significant in emotionally stable groups. Given this, they put forward the demand–control–individual model, arguing that work demands, work resources, and individual resources jointly affect the individual’s sense of stress. This theory has received support from other studies. Perry et al. [32] confirmed that the cushioning effect of work autonomy on work stress is only effective for emotionally stable employees. These studies suggest that employees with high levels of personal resources have greater mastery that helps them to deal more effectively with demanding conditions and, in turn, protects them from negative outcomes (i.e., exhaustion).
Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability of an individual to actively switch thoughts or behaviors to adapt to new situations [33]. Cognitive flexibility makes an individual aware that there are other options and alternatives in any situation, such as being willing to be flexible, adapting to the environment, and believing that he/she can be flexible [34]. Employees with high cognitive flexibility are typically responsive, confident, and insightful, and able to actively seek out other resources and shift perspective as circumstances change to solve novel problems [35]. Studies have shown that individuals with high levels of cognitive flexibility are better able to recover from negative events [36] and have higher life satisfaction [37]. Cognitive flexibility is thought to be a key factor in determining a person’s ability to manage and cope with stress [38]. It can mitigate the negative effects of stressful events on happiness [39]. In addition, individuals with a high level of cognitive flexibility can utilize external resources at a higher level [40][41], redeploy resources more efficiently [42], and thus achieve the desired learning effect and realize problem solving. Therefore, when faced with obstacles at work, employees with high levels of cognitive flexibility are better able to adapt and make full use of work control resources to reduce the negative impact of obstructive pressure on themselves.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/bs13110908

References

  1. Rodell, J.B.; Judge, T.A. Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1438–1451.
  2. Farrell, D. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad. Manag. J. 1983, 26, 596–607.
  3. Bluedorn, A.C. The Theories of Turnover: Causes, Effects, and Meaning; Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1; Bacharach, S.B., Ed.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1982; pp. 75–128.
  4. Hanisch, K.A.; Hulin, C.L. General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model. J. Vocat. Behav. 1991, 39, 110–128.
  5. Koay, K.Y.; Lim, V.K.; Soh, P.C.H.; Ong, D.L.T.; Ho, J.S.Y.; Lim, P.K. Abusive supervision and cyberloafing: A moderated moderation model of moral disengagement and negative reciprocity beliefs. Inf. Manag. 2022, 59, 103600.
  6. Hou, J.Y.; Da, S.; Wei, Y.Y.; Zhang, X.C. Work-family conflict and withdrawal behavior among mainland China’s IT employees: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and moderating role of job autonomy. Ind. Health 2022, 61, 112–124.
  7. Viswesvaran, C. Absenteeism and measures of job performance: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 2002, 10, 12–17.
  8. Bibi, Z.; Karim, J.; Din, S. Workplace incivility and counterproductive work behavior: Moderating role of emotional intelligence. Pak. J. Psychol. Res. 2013, 28, 317–334. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-23158-008 (accessed on 3 May 2023).
  9. Piccoli, B.; Reisel, W.D.; De Witte, H. Understanding the relationship between job insecurity and performance: Hindrance or challenge effect? J. Career Dev. 2021, 48, 150–165.
  10. Fida, R.; Paciello, M.; Tramontano, C.; Barbaranelli, C.; Farnese, M.L. “Yes, I Can”: The protective role of personal self-efficacy in hindering counterproductive work behavior under stressful conditions. Anxiety Stress Coping 2015, 28, 479–499.
  11. Demsky, C.A.; Fritz, C.; Hammer, L.B.; Black, A.E. Workplace incivility and employee sleep: The role of rumination and recovery experiences. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2019, 24, 228.
  12. Cropley, M.; Zijlstra, F.R.H. Work and rumination. In Handbook of Stress in the Occupations; Langan-Fox, J., Cooper, C.L., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: Cheltenham, UK, 2011; pp. 487–503.
  13. Zhang, J.; Liu, F.; Smith, A.P. Exploring the Relationship Between Work Stress and Work-related Rumination. Psychol. Rep. 2023, 00332941231168783.
  14. Kinnunen, U.; Feldt, T.; Bloom, J. Testing cross-lagged relationships between work-related rumination and well-being at work in a three-wave longitudinal study across 1 and 2 years. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2019, 92, 645–670.
  15. Kinnunen, U.; Feldt, T.; Sianoja, M.; de Bloom, J.; Korpela, K.; Geurts, S. Identifying long-term patterns of work-related rumination: Associations with job demands and well-being outcomes. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2017, 26, 514–526.
  16. Zhang, J.; Li, W.; Ma, H.; Smith, A.P. Switch off totally or switch off strategically? The consequences of thinking about work on job performance. Psychol. Rep. 2021, 124, 2721–2738.
  17. Nauman, S.; Zheng, C.; Naseer, S. Job insecurity and work–family conflict: A moderated mediation model of perceived organizational justice, emotional exhaustion and work withdrawal. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2020, 31, 729–751.
  18. Carpenter, N.C.; Berry, C.M. Are counterproductive work behavior and withdrawal empirically distinct? A meta-analytic investigation. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 834–863.
  19. Querstret, D.; Cropley, M. Exploring the relationship between work-related rumination, sleep quality, and work-related fatigue. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2012, 17, 341–353.
  20. Van Laethem, M.; Beckers, D.G.; de Bloom, J.; Sianoja, M.; Kinnunen, U. Challenge and hindrance demands in relation to self-reported job performance and the role of restoration, sleep quality, and affective rumination. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2019, 92, 225–254.
  21. Bakker, A.B.; Demeroeuti, E.; Euwema, M.C. Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2005, 10, 170–180.
  22. Hu, Q.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Taris, T.W. The job demands–resources model: An analysis of additive and joint effects of demands and resources. J. Vocat. Behav. 2011, 79, 181–190.
  23. Gonzalez-Mulé, E.; Cockburn, B. Worked to death: The relationships of job demands and job control with mortality. Pers. Psychol. 2017, 70, 73–112.
  24. Shultz, K.S.; Wang, M.; Crimmins, E.M.; Fisher, G.G. Age differences in the demand—Control model of work stress: An examination of data from 15 European countries. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2010, 29, 21–47.
  25. Parker, S.K.; Sprigg, C.A. Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 925–939.
  26. Tsutsumi, A.; Tsutsumi, K.; Kayaba, K.; Theorell, T.; Nago, N.; Kario, K.; Igarashi, M. Job strain and biological coronary risk factors: A cross-sectional study of male and female workers in a Japanese rural district. Int. J. Behav. Med. 1998, 5, 295–311.
  27. Verhoeven, C.; Maes, S.; Kraaij, V.; Joekes, K. The job demand-control-social support model and wellness/health outcomes: A European study. Psychol. Health 2003, 18, 421–440.
  28. Bauer, G.F.; Hämmig, O.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Taris, T.W. A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. Bridg. Occup. Organ. Public Health A Transdiscipl. Approach 2014, 43–68.
  29. Fox, S.; Spector, P.E. The many roles of control in a stressor-emotion theory of counterproductive work behavior. In Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being; Perrewé, P.L., Ganster, D.C., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 2011; pp. 171–201.
  30. Fox, S.; Spector, P.E.; Miles, D. Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. J. Vocat Behav. 2001, 59, 291–309.
  31. Rubino, C.; Perry, S.J.; Milam, A.C.; Spitzmueller, C.; Zapf, D. Demand–control–person: Integrating the demand–control and conservation of resources models to test an expanded stressor–strain model. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2012, 17, 456.
  32. Perry, S.J.; Rubino, C.; Hunter, E.M. Stress in remote work: Two studies testing the Demand-Control-Person model. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2018, 27, 577–593.
  33. Palm, K.M.; Follette, V.M. The roles of cognitive flexibility and experiential avoidance in explaining psychological distress in survivors of interpersonal victimization. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess 2011, 33, 79–86.
  34. Martin, M.M.; Anderson, C.M. The cognitive flexibility scale: Three validity studies. Commun. Rep. 1998, 11, 1–9.
  35. Wu, D.Y.; Gao, L.L.; Duan, J.Y. The Mechanism of Job Engagement on Voice Behavior: The Moderating Effects of Cognitive Flexibility and Power Motive. Chin. J. Appl. Psychol. 2014, 20, 67–75. (In Chinese)
  36. Bonanno, G.A.; Papa, A.; Lalande, K.; Westphal, M.; Coifman, K. The importance of being flexible: The ability to both enhance and suppress emotional expression predicts long-term adjustment. Psychol. Sci. 2004, 15, 482–487.
  37. Metzl, E.S. The role of creative thinking in resilience after Hurricane Katrina. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2009, 3, 112–123.
  38. Koesten, J.; Schrodt, P.; Ford, D.J. Cognitive flexibility as a mediator of family communication environments and young adults’ well-being. Health Commun. 2009, 24, 82–94.
  39. Fu, F.; Chow, A. Traumatic exposure and psychological well-being: The moderating role of cognitive flexibility. J. Loss Trauma 2017, 22, 24–35.
  40. Stad, F.E.; Wiedl, K.H.; Vogelaar, B.; Bakker, M.; Resing, W.C.M. The role of cognitive flexibility in young children’s potential for learning under dynamic testing conditions. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2019, 34, 123–146.
  41. Feng, X.; Feng, C. The effect of cognitive flexibility on probabilistic category learning. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2022, 54, 1340–1353. (In Chinese)
  42. Lange, F.; Seer, C.; Müller, D.; Kopp, B. Cognitive caching promotes flexibility in task switching: Evidence from event-related potentials. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 17502.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback