Rethinking job characteristics in work stress research

By Kevin Daniels. 2006

125 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8219291f1bd211a273a19b3f3951841eab465327

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Job Demands–Resources Theory: Taking Stock and Looking Forward (2017, background): “Microprocesses in the JD-R Theory Daniels (2006) was among the first to propose that generalized perceptions of job characteristics (of how a job usually is) should be distinguished from so-called enacted job characteristics, which comprise more dynamic job characteristics that can vary across work…”
Saying it with feeling: Analysing speakable emotions (2008, background): “This might influence how we come to make judgements about the nature of job characteristics and work events (Daniels, 2006), thresholds between what is and is not acceptable, and how events will impinge on personal goals (Warr, 2006), wellbeing, or coping ability (Daniels et al.”
A diary study on the happy worker: How job resources relate to positive emotions and personal resources (2012, background): “By differentiating between multilevel facets of job resources, and by examining how these interrelate, we provide a firmer and more complete theoretical grounding for examining employee well-being on a day-level (Daniels, 2006).”
Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi‐level study (2010, background): “In addition, daily work characteristics are the focus of appraisal (Daniels, 2006).”
Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers (2010, background): “Every working day, employees may use their job resources to reach their workrelated goals (Clegg & Spencer, 2007; Daniels, 2006; Totterdell, Wood, & Wall, 2006), for example, educating students regarding a specific topic in the case of teachers. On some days, teachers may have several job resources ”
Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy – performance relationship (2014, background): “For example, because self-efficacy and job crafting fluctuate on a daily basis, they may be difficult or impossible to report by colleagues or supervisors (Daniels, 2006; Spector, 2006).”
Resources and time pressure as day-level antecedents of work engagement (2012, unknown): “Theoretically, we refer to Daniels (2006), who claimed to rethink job characteristics by differentiating between perceived and enacted job characteristics.”
To Invest or Not? The Role of Coworker Support and Trust in Daily Reciprocal Gain Spirals of Helping Behavior (2015, background): “Day-level research designs have become increasingly important because daily events at work have a significant impact on both performance and psychological states through the day (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009; Daniels, 2006; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Heu”
Proactive Vitality Management, Work Engagement, and Creativity: The Role of Goal Orientation (2018, background): “Daniels, K. (2006). Rethinking job characteristics in work stress research. Human Relations, 59, 267–290. De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A., Baas, M., Wolsink, I., & Roskes, M. (2012). Working memory benefits creative insight, musical improvisation, and original ideation through maintained task-focused”
Beyond motivation: job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more. (2014, background): “However, although social cues do affect perceptions of work characteristics, there is plenty of evidence that using perceptions to assess job characteristics is valid in most situations (see Daniels 2006, Morgeson & Campion 2003).”
The job demands-resources model : state of the art (2007, background): “People are not passive receivers of information from their work environment, but rather active in interpreting their jobs, and consequently in shaping their jobs (Daniels, 2006).”