Search results

The aim of this chapter is to provide a literature review on daily recovery during non-work time. Specifically, next to discussing theories that help us understand the process of recovery, we will clarify how recovery and its potential outcomes have been conceptualized so far. Consequently, we present empirical findings of diary studies addressing the activities that may facilitate or hinder daily recovery. We will pay special attention to potential mechanisms that may underlie the facilitating or hindering processes. Owing to the limited research on daily recovery, we will review empirical findings on predictors and outcomes of a related construct, namely need for recovery. We conclude with an overall framework from which daily recovery during non-work time can be understood. In this framework, we claim that daily recovery is an important moderator in the process through which job characteristics and their related strain may lead to unfavorable states on a daily basis.

This chapter describes methodological issues that are relevant for research on recovery. We aim to provide an overview of methodological approaches that have been or can be used in recovery research, and to provide methodological guidelines that researchers may use in assessing the process of recovery. We argue that studies on recovery must be explicit about recovery settings, recovery processes (i.e., activities and experiences) and recovery outcomes. We describe typical operationalizations of these three perspectives and focus in more detail on potential measures of recovery outcomes. We give an overview of research designs including experiments and quasi-experiments, diary studies, and longitudinal field studies. We conclude by pointing to remaining challenges for researchers in the area of recovery.

This study conducted among 751 employees of the Dutch Postal Service examined (1) the prevalence of various types of work‐home interaction, (2) the relationships of (these various types of) work‐home interaction with selected work and home characteristics, and (3) the relationships of (these various types of) work‐home interaction with two health indicators (i.e., fatigue and health complaints). Results supported our assumption that workhome interaction is best characterized by a four‐dimensional structure crossing the distinction between the direction of influence (work → home influence (WHI) vs. Home → work influence (HWI)) and the quality of influence (negative vs. positive). The results further supported our hypotheses, derived from the Demand‐Control‐Support Model and the Effort‐Recovery Model: job demands were most strongly related to negative influence from work (negative WHI), and home demands were primarily (albeit weakly) related to negative influence from home (negative HWI). In accordance with our expectation, job control and particularly job support were associated with positive WHI. There was no support, however, for a similar facilitating process originating in the home situation: home control and home support were not related to any type of interaction. Furthermore, particularly negative WHI was associated with fatigue and health complaints. These findings add to the existing knowledge about possible antecedents and consequences of the interaction between work and private life.

For decades research on occupational stress and well-being has been dominated by studies that demonstrated the negative effects of job stressors and lack of resources on employee health and well-being. Although this body of research is highly important and informative, it offers only limited insight into the processes that offset and “undo” the stress process. During recent years, researchers have paid increasing attention to such processes that reduce and reverse the effects of stress (i.e., recovery processes). This 7th volume of Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being is devoted to this growing research area on job stress recovery. The volume includes seven excellent chapters that provide state-of-the-art overviews on this theme, identify research gaps, and provide inspiring suggestions for further research.

Torbjörn Åkerstedt, Ph.D. in psychology, 1979, is professor of behavioral physiology at Stockholm University and director of the Stress Research Institute, affiliated to Karolinska institute. He has been President of the Scandinavian Research Society, the European Sleep Research Society, and Secretary General of the World Federation of Sleep Research and Sleep Medicine Societies. He has published more than 200 papers in peer-reviewed journals. The focus of his work has been on sleep regulation, sleep quality, sleepiness and risk, effects of shift work, and stress on sleep and sleepiness.

Recovery seems to be one of the most important mechanisms explaining the relationship between acute stress reactions and chronic health complaints (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006). Moreover, insufficient recovery may be the linking mechanism that turns daily stress experiences into chronic stress. Given this role recovery has in the stress process, it is important to ask in which contexts and under what circumstances recovery takes place.

Drawing from research on personal resources (e.g., Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Fredrickson, 1998) and the episodic nature of work (Beal, Weiss, Barros, & MacDermid, 2005), we examine research and theory relevant to the study of momentary recovery in the workplace. Specifically, we propose that the nature of within workday breaks influences the levels of psychological resources, which in turn influence various workplace outcomes. First, we discuss the momentary approach to studying workplace breaks and consequent resource levels. In doing so, we distinguish between two types of breaks, respites and chores; and we detail two types of psychological resources, regulatory and affective resources. Consequences of psychological resource levels on emotional exhaustion and performance are considered. We also explore possible moderators of the proposed relationships; we discuss job and individual characteristics, and motivation to perform. Finally, we conclude the chapter with a brief discussion on future research and possible applications of the momentary approach to work recovery in organizations.

The purpose of this study is to address the relation between task and relationship conflicts at work and employee well‐being. It seeks to examine psychological detachment from work during off‐job time as a moderator in the relation between conflicts and well‐being.

In a field study, 291 white‐collar employees completed survey measures of task conflicts, relationship conflicts, psychological detachment from work during off‐job time, and well‐being. Control variables included workload and job control.

Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that employees experiencing high levels of task conflicts and high levels of relationship conflicts report poorer well‐being. As predicted, psychological detachment from work mitigated the negative relation between relationship conflicts and well‐being. Contrary to expectations, psychological detachment failed to moderate the relation between task conflicts and well‐being.

The study suggests that employees should be encouraged to disengage mentally from work during leisure time.

This study links research on workplace conflicts with research on recovery processes. It tests the moderator effect of psychological detachment from work on the association between workplace conflicts and well‐being.

Based on the limited strength model, the purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship of self-leadership strategies (behavior-focused strategies, constructive thought patterns) and qualitative and quantitative overload with subsequent self-control strength.

The present study is a field study with 142 university affiliates and two measurement occasions during a typical workday (before and after lunch). Self-control strength was measured using a handgrip task.

Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that self-leadership, quantitative overload, and qualitative overload were not directly associated with self-control strength at either of the two measurement occasions. Qualitative overload moderated the relationship between self-leadership and self-control strength, such that self-leadership was associated with lower self-control strength at both measurement occasions when individuals experienced high qualitative overload in the morning.

Employees and employers should be aware of the possibly depleting characteristics of self-leadership in order to be able to create a work environment allowing for the recovery and replenishment of self-control strength.

The present field study theoretically and methodologically contributes to the literature on self-leadership and self-control strength in the work context by investigating the depleting nature of self-leadership and workload.