Employee Relations

Job demands, health, and absenteeism: does bullying make things worse?
Dwayne Devonish
Article information:
To cite this document:
Dwayne Devonish , (2013),"Job demands, health, and absenteeism: does bullying make things worse?",
Employee Relations, Vol. 36 Iss 2 pp. 165 - 181
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2013-0011
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded on: 28 August 2015, At: 08:21 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 55 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1169 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Dwayne Devonish, (2013),"Workplace bullying, employee performance and behaviors: The mediating
role of psychological well-being", Employee Relations, Vol. 35 Iss 6 pp. 630-647 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
ER-01-2013-0004
Renee de Reuver, Marianne van Woerkom, (2010),"Can conflict management be an antidote to
subordinate absenteeism?", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 Iss 5 pp. 479-494 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941011048382
Jeff Frooman, Morris B. Mendelson, J. Kevin Murphy, (2012),"Transformational and passive avoidant
leadership as determinants of absenteeism", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 33
Iss 5 pp. 447-463 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731211241247

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:586319 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

Job demands,
Job demands, health, and health, and
absenteeism: does bullying absenteeism
make things worse?
Dwayne Devonish 165
Department of Management Studies, University of the West Indies,
Received 21 January 2013
Bridgetown, Barbados Revised 10 June 2013
18 June 2013
Accepted 18 June 2013
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine workplace bullying as a potential moderator
(or exacerbator) in the relationship between job demands and physical, mental and behavioral strain.
Design/methodology/approach – Survey data from a cross-section of 262 employees were collected
using a range of measures and hierarchical moderated regressions were performed to examine the
interactive effects of job demands and workplace bullying on physical exhaustion, depression, and
medically certified and uncertified absenteeism.
Findings – The results revealed that workplace bullying significantly exacerbated the effects of job
demands on physical exhaustion, depression, and uncertified absenteeism.
Research limitations/implications – The study utilized a cross-sectional self-report survey
research design which does not permit causal inferences to be made. Longitudinal research is needed
to further investigate these relationships reported here.
Practical implications – Managers should seek to minimize workplace bullying as well as excessive
job demands to help alleviate the risk of employees developing negative health outcomes.
Originality/value – The study investigated how different categories of stressors interact with each
other to predict various health outcomes or forms of job strains.
Keywords Caribbean, Health, Job demands, Workplace bullying
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The theoretical and empirical study of the psychosocial work environment has
developed substantially over the years since the work of Karasek (1979) on psychosocial
work environment. The resulting evidence and knowledge about its nature and impacts
on individuals and organizations have also grown in many respects. First, it is now clear
that various elements of the work environment (known as job demands) have the
potential to induce high levels of job stress among employees in organizations. According
to Karasek (1979), job demands represent “the aggregate of psychological (not physical)
stressors affecting work” (p. 696). Second, the psychosocial work environment also
consists of a range of characteristics that may serve to reduce the adverse effects of job
demands on employee health. These elements are referred to as job resources and are
relevant for achieving work-related goals and stimulating personal growth in individual
employees (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Third, job strain, which largely represents the affected
state of an individual’s employee’s health and well-being, results from a combination of
effects of job demands and job resources operating within the broader psychosocial
context of the work environment. Job strain may exist in the forms of physical,
psychological, and behavioral states or responses to the psychosocial work environment Employee Relations
Vol. 36 No. 2, 2014
(Jex and Beehr, 1991). Notwithstanding the growth of knowledge and understanding of pp. 165-181
the nature and context of the psychosocial work environment to date, more scholarly r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
attention is still required to better understand how specific elements of work environment DOI 10.1108/ER-01-2013-0011
 ER interact with each other to either promote or inhibit the development of healthy workers
36,2 in organizations. The next section covers some of the main highlights in the existing
literature regarding the impacts of job demands/stressors on various outcomes at work
and how their implications provide a solid base on which the present research can
advance the study of the psychosocial work environment.

166 Job demands in action: a selective review of the literature

Two of the most interesting and robust models that have been developed to explain
the impact of psychosocial work characteristics on health and well-being among
employees and managers are the Job Demands-Control-Support (JDC-S) Model
(Johnson and Hall, 1988) and Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model (Demerouti et al.,
2001). Both models have demonstrated a high degree of predictive validity across a
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

range of health-related and behavioral outcomes within various organizational

contexts. For example, van der Doef and Maes (1999) reviewed a number of research
publications which examined the predictive effects of JDC-S on a variety of health
outcomes and concluded that individuals working in high-strain jobs (jobs with high
demands-low support/control) experienced the lowest levels of physical and
psychological well-being. Similarly, the JD-R has also gained a high level of recognition
in the literature in terms of its predictive impact on health outcomes such as burnout and
psychological well-being (Bakker et al., 2004, 2007; Crawford et al., 2010; Demerouti et al.,
2001; Hakanen et al., 2008; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Generally, these models have
confirmed that job demands, in particular, have adverse effects on individuals employed
in organizations. Overall, these effects are clearly varied and multidimensional including
physical health problems (e.g. physical exhaustion, chronic diseases, etc.), mental health
problems (e.g. anxiety and depression), and involuntary and voluntary absenteeism.
In the realm of physical health outcomes, job demands were found to significantly
predict a range of physical health indicators and outcomes across a number of
empirical studies. In one of their earliest empirical attempts, Karasek et al. (1981)
revealed a significant impact of high job demands in combination with low control and
support on the development of coronary heart disease such that employees who were
facing high levels of job demands and low levels control and support reported an
increased risk of coronary heart disease. In a review of a number of major research
studies on job demands and physical health, van der Doef and Maes (1998) highlighted
that job demands impacted on a range of physical health outcomes including heart
disease, negative pregnancy outcomes, and increased psychosomatic health complaints.
Moreover, Cheng et al. (2000), in a longitudinal study, found the experience of high job
demands (assessed separately from control and support) were significantly associated
with declines in physical functioning, physical health problems, and bodily pain in
women in the USA. However, these physical outcomes worsened when high job demands
were assessed in combination with low control and low support. In a study among
adolescent workers, Fischer et al. (2005) revealed that higher psychological job demands
(measured by Karasek’s Job Content Questionnaire) were associated with increased
physical or somatic pain, reduced sleep duration on weekdays, and a higher number of
physical injuries at work.
In terms of mental or psychological health outcomes, Sanne et al. (2005) examined
the impact of job demands, control and support and revealed that high-strain jobs
(high demands-low control-low support) were associated with higher levels of anxiety
and depression among employees. In their review, Stansfeld and Candy (2006) conducted
a meta-analysis examining the impact of the psychosocial work environment on mental
 health and concluded that employees in fast-paced, high-demanding jobs with little or Job demands,
no access to job resources (control, support, fairness, etc.) are more likely to suffer from health, and
depleted levels of mental and psychological health. These employees also fell into a
higher risk of developing a range of common mental disorders. van der Doef and Maes absenteeism
(1999), in a review on job demands and psychological (mental) health from studies
conducted between 1979 and 1999, revealed that high job demands, separately from and
interactively with low control and low support, predicted poorer levels of psychological 167
well-being including mental health problems, anxiety, and depression. In a more recent
review of 83 studies between 1998 and 2007, Häusser et al. (2010) indicated that, overall,
the additive effects of job demands, control, and support were significant in predicting
a range of psychological well-being indicators.
In terms of absenteeism, much research has demonstrated that high job demands
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

are predictive of high (certified and non-certified) absenteeism from work. For example,
Parkes (1982) found that the main effect of job demands on uncertified absence
was significant suggesting that higher levels of job demands were associated with
higher spells of uncertified absence, whereas Vahtera et al. (1996, 2000) revealed the
interactive effects of high job demands, low control, and low support predicted
medically certified absenteeism among employees. Moreover, Dwyer and Ganster
(1991) indicated that high job demands and low control significantly predicted higher
levels of absenteeism and tardiness. In a three-year prospective study, De Jonge et al.
(2000) revealed that significant addictive effects of job demands (as well as significant
interactive effects with control and support) on physical health (psychosomatic health
complaints), psychological well-being (job satisfaction), and sickness absence.
The aforementioned review of the literature clearly suggests that job demands and
associated aspects of the work environment have significant predictive effects on a
wide range of health outcomes or various forms of job strain. However, the present
study deviates somewhat from the conventional research on job demands and health to
examine another form of work-related stressor – workplace bullying – to ascertain how
it might play a role in exacerbating the effects of job demands on negative health
outcomes/problems.

Workplace bullying: from bad to worse?

Workplace bullying “occurs when an individual perceives negative actions directed at
him or her from one or more persons, continuing over at least 6 months, and when
he/she has difficulty defending these actions” (Simons et al., 2011, p. 133). Workplace
bullying has been conceptually associated with harassment and includes features of
repeated and persistent attempts to torment, frustrate, or create discomfort for an
individual at work (Brodsky, 1976).
Workplace bullying has become a “disturbing” but interesting phenomenon that
has attracted a high level of attention from scholars and practitioners in the academic
and organizational settings (Rayner and Cooper, 1997). Essentially, the prevalence
of workplace bullying has led research to concentrate on three different agendas:
the nature of bullying (its conceptualization and operationalization); the antecedents of
bullying including demographic, psychological/attitudinal, and environmental/
contextual factors; and the effects or consequences of bullying for individuals’ health
and well-being in the organization (and potential impacts on organizational outcomes).
The last agenda is becoming increasingly popular in academic circles and scholarly
literature. Workplace bullying has a number of stress-related consequences including
higher body-mass (weight gain), chronic and cardiovascular diseases, certified and
 ER uncertified absence (Kivimäki et al., 2000), reduced job satisfaction (Quine, 1999), self-
36,2 reported psychological, and mental health problems such as anxiety and depression
(Einarsen et al., 2003; Hoel and Cooper, 2000), and even suicide (Leymann, 1989).
Clearly, workplace bullying has arisen as a relevant social stressor which results in
the same negative outcomes that arise from high job demands found in the past
research. Some research studies have attempted to link both workplace bullying and
168 job demands. For example, one study (Agervold and Mikkelsen, 2004) revealed that
poor psychosocial work conditions (e.g. high job demands and negative management
styles) led to higher levels of workplace bullying and yet another study (Van den
Broeck et al., 2011) demonstrated that higher job demands contributed to a higher
likelihood of workplace bullying in organizations. Other studies have examined
how workplace bullying may mediate the relationship between job strain measured by
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

high job demands, low control and social support, and employee health outcomes
(Takaki et al., 2010). Finally, Balducci et al. (2011) found that workplace bullying
significantly mediated the relationship between job demands and post-traumatic stress
disorder, and that job resources buffered the job demands-bullying relationship.
In light of these attempts to link job demands and workplace bullying, the present
study seeks to examine workplace bullying as a moderator in the relationship between
job demands and employee health. The reasons for this focus are as follows. First, the
studies above attempted to link workplace bullying to job demands as a mediator and
as an outcome but, to the best of the author’s knowledge, there has been no scholarly
or empirical attempt to examine workplace bullying as a potential moderator of the
job demands-health relationship. Second, workplace bullying is regarded as a social
stressor which is parallel to stressors of interpersonal conflict and negative peer
relationships in the organization. Social stressors represent the nature of social context
in the work environment, and given that job demands naturally contribute to and
shape this context, it is expected that workplace bullying is likely to exacerbate
the impacts of these demands on negative health outcomes. Employees who endure
both heavy job demands and the pressures associated with workplace bullying are
more at risk of developing negative health problems than employees with heavy job
demands alone. Hence, the interactive or multiplicative effects of job demands and
bullying may be more significant to examine than the main effects of job demands
and workplace bullying alone. Third, there have been numerous attempts to examine
moderators (e.g. control and support) which buffer the adverse effects of job demands
but there has been very little research that examines how certain moderators in the
psychosocial work environment may exacerbate or worsen the impact of job demands
on the development of negative physical and psychological problems. Although
“buffering” moderators help us to better understand how to control or minimize
the negative effects of job stressors, “exacerbating” moderators help us understand the
conditions under which the negative effects of job stressors may vary in their intensity
(or worsen). For example, given two organizations with heavy job demands, employees
in one organization may have a higher risk of developing health problems because of
workplace bullying than employees in the other organization with little or no incidence
of such behaviors.

Significance of study and research hypotheses

In light of the above, the present study hypothesizes that workplace bullying will
moderate (i.e. exacerbate) the relationship between job demands and employee strain.
In particular, it examines three outcomes of employee job strain: physical ill-health
 (physical exhaustion), mental ill-health (depression), and absenteeism (medically Job demands,
certified absence). Uncertified absenteeism represents a form of behavioral strain in health, and
which employees respond to stressors by removing themselves from the situation (e.g.
psychological and physical withdrawal – similar to turnover and tardiness). The study absenteeism
hypotheses are as follows:

H1. Workplace bullying moderates (or exacerbates) the relationship between job 169
demands and physical exhaustion.

H2. Workplace bullying moderates (or exacerbates) the relationship between job
demands and depression.
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

H3. Workplace bullying moderates (or exacerbates) the relationship between job
demands and employee absenteeism (certified and uncertified).

The present study is significant in a number of ways. From a theoretical point of view,
the present study is based on the theoretical assumptions advanced by Serido et al.
(2004). These authors contended that although different categories of stressors may
operate to produce unique direct effects on employees’ health and well-being, it is more
plausible to expect that these different categories of work-related stressors, in
combination or interaction, are likely to exacerbate the effects on job strain. In their study,
Serido et al. (2004) revealed that chronic stressors exacerbated the positive relationship
between daily hassles and psychological distress such that the relationship was stronger
when chronic stressors were perceived as high. As the prior study (Serido et al., 2004)
examined only chronic stressors and daily hassles, the present study offers additional
value to the existing literature by examining two different categories of stressors – job
demands and workplace bullying – and whether the latter category exacerbates the
effects of the former.
Moreover, the present study examines multiple dimensions of strain rather than a
single dimension of strain (e.g. psychological distress) as the former study (i.e. Serido
et al., 2004) did. Zapf et al. (2001) and Lewig and Dollard (2003) have also theorized and
examined how different categories of stressors interact to exacerbate the effects of the
psychosocial environment on the well-being of individual employees. This study builds
on this theoretical line of argument and empirical focus by assessing the interaction of
a psychological workload stressor with a social or interpersonal stressor on physical,
psychological, and behavioral strain outcomes. In addition, no published research to
date has examined the interactive effect of job demands and workplace bullying on
different employee health outcomes and the present study represents one of the first
empirical attempts to explore this phenomenon within a small developing Caribbean
country in the English-speaking Caribbean – Barbados. Finally, by examining how
stressors interact with each other, the study contributes to future conceptual and
empirical work on the psychosocial work environment that seeks to move beyond the
assessment of unique, direct effects of individual stressors on strain outcomes to
the examination of various interactive effects of different categories of stressors.
As Serido et al. (2004) noted in their study on the two types of stressors examined,
“the combined effect of the two types of stressors is greater than the additive effects of
both” (p. 30) and “[this] approach highlights the importance of understanding
how stressors interact, rather than concentrating on the effects of a single type of
stressor” (p. 29).
 ER Method
36,2 Sample and data-collection procedure
A total of 400 employees from approximately 35 retail- and wholesale-based organizations
(e.g. supermarkets, distribution centers, and wholesale-oriented companies) operating in
Barbados were targeted in the study. Overall, survey data of 262 employees across the 35
selected organizations were obtained. This represented a 65 percent response rate.
170 After permission was granted by key managers in the chosen businesses, a combination
of self-administered and face-to-face survey modes was applied to gather relevant data
from the targeted employees. Of these 262 surveys, majority of respondents were male
(52 percent), in the age range of 19-34 years (65 percent), shop assistants, clerks or
attendants (71 percent), and full-time employees (81 percent). Majority of respondents
were employed in supermarkets (78 percent), and 22 percent were employed in
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

distribution and wholesale-oriented companies.

Measures
Job demands. The study examined job demands using a seven-item job demands
subscale derived from the “Job Demands and Decision Latitude” measure developed by
Karasek (1979). The items describe psychological job stressors such as workload and
time pressures. The scale items were measured on a five-point Likert scaled ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach a for the scale was 0.80.
Workplace bullying. Workplace bullying was measured using a 22-item scale known
as the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R). The NAQ-R is a valid and
reliable measure of self-reported workplace bullying experiences and measures how
often during the last six months respondents have been subjected to a range of
negative acts including behaviors such as intimidation, negative or destructive
criticism, aggressive and hostile behaviors, and humiliation (Einarsen and Hoel, 2001).
The NAQ-R was found to measure a single dimension of bullying including work-
related and personal bullying. The scale items was anchored from 1 (never) to 5 (daily).
The Cronbach a for the scale was 0.95.
Physical exhaustion. Physical exhaustion was operationalized using a seven-item
physical exhaustion scale derived from Pines and Aronsson (1988) Burnout Inventory.
This physical exhaustion scale is a measure of physical health and captures the
degree to which individuals suffer from fatigue, low energy, and physical weakness.
The scale has demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability and validity in past research
(Enzmann et al., 1998). Respondents were required to indicate the extent to which they
experienced a range of negative physical health symptoms (e.g. being tired, being
weary, and feeling weak, etc.) over the last month, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
The Cronbach a for this scale was 0.84.
Depression. A six-item work-related depression scale (Caplan et al., 1980) was used
to assess the quality of mental health in the research. Work-related depression has been
used as a measure of mental health or psychological well-being in past research on job
stress and strain (De Lange et al., 2003; Sanne et al., 2005). The scale has been reported
to have high reliability and validity in prior research (Jalajas, 1994). Employees were
required to respond to this measure on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4
(most of the time). The Cronbach a for the scale was 0.77.
Absenteeism. To measure absenteeism, efforts were made to locate objective
(or record-based) data from management information systems in the organizations.
These efforts were futile given the relative absence of absenteeism data or incomplete
records. Hence, self-reported absence data were obtained via the survey. Self-reported
 absence data have been shown to be as valid and reliable as record-based absence data Job demands,
(Ferrie et al., 2005). In particular, two forms of absence data were obtained: medically health, and
certified absence (use of a medical certificate) and uncertified (no certificate or
voluntary) absence. Each of these variables was anchored on an absence duration scale absenteeism
(one item each) which measured the total number of days absent or lost in the last six
months.
Control variables. To control for the effects of relevant demographics, sex, age, 171
marital status, and organizational tenure were used as control variables in all of the
moderated regression analyses.

Data analysis techniques

Means and standard deviations, and Pearson product-moment correlations were
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

computed for all study variables. Hierarchical moderated regressions were conducted
to examine whether workplace bullying moderates or exacerbates the effects of job
demands on physical exhaustion (indicator of physical health), work-related depression
(indicator of mental health), and absenteeism (both certified and uncertified absence).
Four hierarchical moderated regressions were performed on the four dependent variables
in study. For each regression analysis, four steps were requested in which control
variables such as gender, age, marital status, and tenure were entered in Step 1; the
independent variable, job demands, in Step 2; the moderator, workplace bullying, in Step
3; and interaction term, job demands  workplace bullying in Step 4. This four-step
approach is consistent with suggestions of Cohen et al. (2003) in which control variables,
the independent variable, the moderator, and the interaction terms are entered in separate
steps. The variables were centered prior to analysis in keeping with past
recommendations for testing moderation using regression analysis (Aiken and West,
1991). Moderation is evident if an interaction term is found to be statistically
significant in the final step of the regression analysis. Interaction graphs depicted
actual regression lines for low (1 SD) and high ( þ 1 SD) for workplace bullying as a
moderator in the relationship between job demands and a specific dependent variable.
Simple slope analyses were also conducted to further assess the nature of significant
interaction effects.

Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
Table I shows the correlations among the main study variables including the control
variables. Descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s a’s (for scale variables) are also
presented.

Results from moderated regression

Table II shows the results of the moderated regression examining the interaction
between job demands and workplace bullying on physical exhaustion. Unstandardized
regression coefficients were reported in the tabular results (these values were
instrumental for calculating simple slope tests for moderation). The results revealed
that the interaction was statistically significant (B ¼ 0.11, po0.05) in the final step of
the analysis. The moderation graph (see Figure 1) and simple slope analyses revealed
that the relationship between job demands and physical exhaustion was positive
and significant (B ¼ 0.24, po0.05) under high levels of workplace bullying, but the
relationship was non-significant (B ¼ 0.02, p40.05) under low levels of workplace
bullying.
 ER M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
36,2
1 Sex – – –
2 Age – – 0.12 –
3 Marital status – – 0.22** 0.37*** –
4 Tenure 4.72 4.18 0.10 0.49*** 0.09 –
172 5 Job demands 2.95 0.78 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.80
6 Workplace bullying 2.42 1.41 0.03 0.11 0.04 0.17** 0.02 0.95
7 Physical exhaustion 2.96 0.86 0.00 0.18** 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.26** 0.84
8 Depression 2.56 0.58 0.14* 0.07 0.01 0.15* 0.01 0.36*** 0.34*** 0.77
9 Certified absence 5.06 7.49 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.05 –
Table I. 10 Uncertified absence 2.79 3.73 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.18** 0.18** 0.17** 0.26** –
Correlations and
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

descriptives of main Notes: Cronbach’s a’s are in the diagonal in italic-faced font. Sex (0 ¼ male, 1 ¼ female), age (0 ¼ 18-35, 1 ¼ over 35),
study variables and marital status (0 ¼ unmarried, 1 ¼ married). *po0.05; **po0.01;***po0.001

Dependent variable: physical exhaustion

Variables S1 S2 S3 S4

Controls
Gender 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03
Age 0.37* 0.35* 0.32* 0.33*
Marital status 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04
Tenure 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Independent variable
Job demands 0.15* 0.16* 0.13*
Moderator
Workplace bullying 0.14* 0.17**
Interaction
Job demands  workplace bullying 0.11*
F 2.45* 2.93* 4.60*** 4.54***
Overall R2 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.12
Table II. Adjusted R2 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.10
Hierarchical moderated Change in adjusted R2 0.02 0.05 0.01
regression on physical
exhaustion Notes: S1, S2, S3, S4: Steps 1-4. *po0.05; **po0.01; ***po0.001

Table III shows the moderated regression results of the interaction between job
demands and workplace bullying on work-related depression. Similarly, the interaction
was statistically significant (B ¼ 0.17, po0.05), and the simple slope analyses revealed
that that the relationship between job demands and work-related depression was
positive and significant (B ¼ 0.13, po0.05) under high levels of workplace bullying,
but the effect of job demands on work-related depression was negative and significant
(B ¼ 0.21, po0.05) under low levels of workplace bullying (see Figure 2).
Tables IV and V reveal the moderated regression results of the interactions between
job demands and workplace bullying on medically certified absence and uncertified
absence, respectively. In terms of medically certified absence, the interaction between
job demands and workplace bullying was not statistically significant (B ¼ 0.02,
p40.05); however, the interaction was statistically significant in the model predicting
uncertified absence (B ¼ 1.17, po0.001). Simple slope analyses revealed that the
relationship between job demands and uncertified absence was positive and significant
 5 Job demands,
4.5
health, and
absenteeism
4
PHYSICAL EXHAUSTION

3.5 173
3

2.5
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

1.5
Figure 1.
Interaction between job
1 demands and workplace
Low Job Demands High Job Demands bullying on physical
exhaustion
Low Workplace Bullying High Workplace Bullying

Dependent variable: work-related depression

Variables S1 S2 S3 S4

Controls
Gender 0.16* 0.16* 0.15* 0.13*
Age 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
Marital status 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01
Tenure 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01
Independent variable
Job demands 0.01 0.01 0.04
Moderator
Workplace bullying 0.15** 0.19**
Interaction
Job demands  workplace bullying 0.17**
F 2.41* 1.93 7.44*** 10.23***
Overall R2 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.24
Adjusted R2 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.22 Table III.
Change in adjusted R2 0.00 0.13 0.07 Hierarchical moderated
regression on work-related
Notes: S1, S2, S3, S4: Steps 1-4. *po0.05; **po0.01; ***po0.001 depression

(B ¼ 1.30, po0.01) under high levels of workplace bullying, whereas the effect was
negative and significant (B ¼ 1.04, po0.05) under low levels of workplace bullying
(Figure 3).

Discussion
The study examined workplace bullying as a moderator or exacerbator in the
relationship between job demands and physical exhaustion, depression and absenteeism.
Generally, the findings revealed that workplace bullying significantly exacerbated the
 ER 5
36,2 4.5

WORK-RELATED DEPRESSION
4

174 3.5

2.5
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

1.5
Figure 2.
Interaction between job
1
demands and workplace
Low Job Demands High Job Demands
bullying on work-related
depression
Low Workplace Bullying High Workplace Bullying

Dependent variable: medically certified absence

Variables S1 S2 S3 S4

Controls
Gender 1.51 1.57 1.62 1.62
Age 0.70 0.80 0.67 0.68
Marital status 1.47 1.67 1.54 1.54
Tenure 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.13
Independent variable
Job demands 0.91 0.85 0.85
Moderator
Workplace bullying 0.46 0.46
Interaction
Job demands  workplace bullying 0.02
F 1.46 1.48 1.47 1.25
Overall R2 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04
Table IV. Adjusted R2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Hierarchical moderated Change in adjusted R2 0.10 0.00 0.00
regression on medically
certified absence Notes: S1, S2, S3, S4: Steps 1-4

effects of job demands on physical exhaustion, depression, and uncertified absence

(but not medically certified absence). In particular, the findings suggest that employees
are at higher risk of being physically exhausted, being mentally depressed, and
exhibiting higher levels of voluntary absenteeism under high levels of job demands and
workplace bullying, interactively, compared with these stressors operating individually
(as main effects). In terms of direct effects, job demands made a significant unique
direct effect on physical exhaustion alone but not on depression and absenteeism.
Hence, similar to prior arguments, the combined or interactive effect of stressors provides
 Dependent variable: uncertified absence
Job demands,
Variables S1 S2 S3 S4 health, and
absenteeism
Controls
Gender 0.22 0.21 0.27 0.29
Age 0.20 0.17 0.01 0.11
Marital status 0.77 0.74 0.88 0.98 175
Tenure 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02
Independent variable
Job demands 0.16 0.21 0.13
Moderator
Workplace bullying 0.55* 0.91**
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

Interaction
Job demands  workplace bullying 1.17***
F 0.56 0.49 1.74 3.95***
Overall R2 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.12
Adjusted R2 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.10 Table V.
Change in adjusted R2 0.00 0.01 0.08 Hierarchical moderated
regression on uncertified
Notes: S1, S2, S3, S4: Steps 1-4. *po0.05; **po0.01; ***po0.001 absence

20
UNCERTIFIED ABSENCE

15

10

Figure 3.
Interaction between job
0 demands and workplace
Low Job Demands High Job Demands bullying on uncertified
absence
Low Workplace Bullying High Workplace Bullying

a better understanding of the stressor-strain relationship in organizations than do the

unique effects of single stressors (Serido et al., 2004). It is important to mention that there
is no prior research study that examined the interactive effects of the same stressors used
in the present study, and hence, there is very limited research evidence against which the
present findings can be compared. However, there are a number of similar studies that
have revealed interactive effects of different categories of stressors that would provide a
degree of support for the study’s findings.
Although the study examined the interactive effects of two work-related stressors,
its findings are consistent with those of Price and Spence (1994) who revealed that non-
work stressors interacted with work-related stressors to predict emotional exhaustion
and depersonalization. These authors noted that interaction effects were statistically
 ER significant and indicated that the interactive combination of various stressors is crucial
36,2 in explaining changes in a variety of individual health outcomes. Moreover, Zapf et al.
(2001) demonstrated that interaction effects of emotional dissonance and organizational
and social stressors showed that the coincidence of these stressors led to exaggerated
levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. These authors similarly noted that
“if all stressors are high at the same time, exaggerated levels of emotional exhaustion
176 [will] occur” (p. 543). Lewig and Dollard (2003) also found that emotional dissonance
exacerbated levels of burnout at high levels of job demands, which suggested that jobs
with a combination of high levels of different types of demands and stressors are much
more risky. More recently and closely related to the prior study, the findings of Serido
et al. (2004) highlighted the value of studying the interactive nature of stressors on
employee well-being rather than focussing solely on direct effects of individual stressors.
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

They too revealed that different stressors interacted significantly to predict psychological
well-being such that one category of stressor acted to exacerbate the adverse effects of
another category of stressor.
Overall, the study findings do confirm prior arguments that workplace bullying
constitutes a serious and dangerous phenomenon that has the potential to inflict harm
and damage on individual workers and the organization itself (Adams and Crawford,
1992; Yamada, 2000). The study further notes that workplace bullying can also create a
work environment and organizational culture in which other negative work stressors
and undesirable environmental factors can further exacerbate the negative health
problems that employees are likely to encounter. Other researchers and authors on
bullying (Neuman and Baron, 2003; Salin, 2003) have suggested that management
must be careful about this reality and ensure that the various organizational systems
and processes governing workplace norms, culture, and behavior do not support
or facilitate the development of bullying at work but rather seek to prevent such
behaviors from occurring. Clearly, the study has a number of implications for
practitioners and future researchers.

Practical implications
The onus is on management to foster a positive, non-hostile, and cordial work
environment for all its employees. In most jobs, high job demands may be a natural or
inevitable state of affairs for employees. However, managers can still seek to control
or attend to other problematic areas of the work environment (e.g. workplace bullying)
that can interact dangerously with these daily demands. Several practical implications
are worthy of mention, especially in context of the workplace bullying and its
interaction with job demands.
First, managers can seek to develop a culture in which workplace bullying is not
tolerated and individual acts of bullying are monitored and sanctioned appropriately.
From a primary intervention standpoint, efforts to prevent the risk of bullying at work
rest on one’s ability to create such a culture. Promoting work environments which
foster positive interpersonal relations, sound communication and cooperation, empathy,
and an overall sense of teamwork and community within the organizations is a necessary
step. In particular, Vartia and Leka (2010) noted that these types of interventions should
manifest in the development and implementation of strategic and organizational policies
and procedures which target the prevention of bullying behavior at work. Whereas
primary interventions are preventative, secondary interventions against bullying act as
timely reactive initiatives that seek to provide the individual with the necessary job
resources including interpersonal training and support systems that promote better
 management of their experiences and interactions with other coworkers and managers in Job demands,
the organization. Finally, tertiary interventions aim to reduce or minimize the damage health, and
caused by bullying in ways that allow victims to recover physically and psychologically
and includes workplace counseling, psychological therapy and after care programmes. absenteeism
Overall, Vartia and Leka (2010) suggested that the fight against bullying must integrate
individual-directed and organizational-directed strategies and interventions that are
mutually reinforcing and that cover primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. 177
With respect to the interactive effect of workplace bullying and job demands, the
exacerbating role of workplace bullying is serious concern that must be addressed
strategically and with careful urgency. The study demonstrated little support for the
significant direct effect of job demand on strain outcomes, but its effect became
significant when workplace bullying was high. Hence, the key practical implication for
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

management is the recognition that the coincidence of different stressors is much more
damaging than effects of a single type of work stressor. Indeed, there are occupations
and jobs, due to their very design and nature, which are highly demanding for
employees. However, those in management should be much more vigilant in these
environments to ensure that incidents of bullying behaviors are prevented or curbed
before they intensify or worsen the effects of the “innate” job demands that employees
must contend with on a daily basis. The management of the emergence of new
stressors becomes a critical responsibility for those who manage the psychosocial
work environment and it involves attentive leadership, supportive risk management
systems, and opportunities for employees to acquire a variety of resources that allow
them to cope, vent, and manage their experiences at work.

Future research
Future research should seek to test how workplace bullying may moderate or
exacerbate the adverse effects of other forms of stressors (outside of job demands) such
as role ambiguity, role conflict, and organizational justice on employee health. Second,
the examination of other stressors as moderators in the relationship between job
demands and employee health can better explain how different categories of stressors
may interact with each other to predict a range of health outcomes. Third, future
research must continue to rely on longitudinal research designs to better understand
the causal nature of the stressor-moderator-strain relationships as cross-sectional
studies are inherently limited in this regard. Finally, future research must also seek to
develop more integrative models depicting job demands/stressors-strain relationships
which take into consideration other categories of psychosocial work characteristics
that may operate as buffering and exacerbating moderators in these relationships.

Limitations and conclusion

The cross-sectional nature of the study design does not lend one to interpret
the investigated relationships among the variables in any causal manner; however, the
findings still provide some preliminary ground for others to build on with more
structured, rigorous designs. Moreover, the use of self-report measures for health and
absence (recorded in the last six months) might have led to some common self-report
biases. Such biases may have had some impact on the findings reported here.
In addition, the use of self-report measures for all variables is likely to result in
common method variance. Common method variance is very likely to affect the results
of the study as this phenomenon leads to either inflated or deflated correlations among
study variables. This bias tends to increase either the Type 1 or Type 2 error rate.
 ER Finally, the study examined job demands in a general manner; others (e.g. De Jonge
36,2 et al., 2000) have suggested that specific forms of job demands should be investigated
with specific forms of health outcomes to better understand the differential effects of a
variety of job demands and stressors on specific forms of job strain.
Overall, the study adds to our growing understanding and knowledge base
regarding the impacts of the psychosocial work environment on employee health
178 outcomes and highlights the need to determine how various types and categories of
stressors may interact collectively to wreak havoc in organizations today.

References
Adams, A. and Crawford, N. (1992), Bullying at Work: How to Confront and Overcome It, Virago
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

Press, London.
Agervold, M. and Mikkelsen, E.G. (2004), “Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work
environment and individual stress reactions”, Work Stress, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 336-351.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Verbeke, W. (2004), “Using the job demands resources model
to predict burnout and performance”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 No. 1,
pp. 83-104.
Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2007), “Job resources boost work
engagement, particularly when job demands are high”, Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 274-284.
Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F. and Schaufeli, W. (2011), “Workplace bullying and its relation with
work characteristics, personality, and post-traumatic stress symptoms: an integrated
model”, Anxiety, Stress & Coping, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 499-512.
Brodsky, C.M. (1976), The Harassed Worker, Lexington Books, DC Heath and Company, Toronto.
Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P. Jr, Harrison, R.V. and Pinneau, S.R. Jr (1980), Job Demands
and Worker Health: Main Effects and Occupational Differences, Institute for Social
Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
Cheng, Y., Kawachi, I., Coagley, E.H., Schwartz, J. and Colditz, G (2000), “Association between
psychological work characteristics and health functioning in American women:
prospective study”, BMJ, Vol. 320 No. 7247, pp. 1432-1436.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences 3rd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2010), “Linking job demands and resources to
employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 834-848.
De Jonge, J., Dollard, M.F., Dormann, C., Le Blanc, P.M. and Houtman, I.L.D. (2000), “The demand-
control model: specific demands, specific control, and well-defined groups”, International
Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 269-287.
De Lange, A.H., Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A.J., Houtman, I.L.D. and Bongers, P.M. (2003), “The
very best of the millennium: longitudinal research and the Demand-Control-(Support)
model”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 282-305.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The Job Demands –
Resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 499-512.
Dwyer, D.J. and Ganster, D.C. (1991), “The effect of job demands and control on employee
attendance and satisfaction”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 7,
pp. 595-608.
 Einarsen, S. and Hoel, H. (2001), “The negative acts questionnaire: development, validation and Job demands,
revision of a measure of bullying at work”, paper presented at the 10th European Congress
on Work and Organizational Psychology, Prague, May 16-19. health, and
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (2003), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the absenteeism
Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, CRC Press, London.
Enzmann, D., Schaufeli, W., Janssen, P. and Rozeman, A. (1998), “Dimensionality and validity of
the burnout measure”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 71 179
No. 4, pp. 331-351.
Ferrie, J.E., Kivimaki, M., Head, J., Shipley, M.J., Vahtera, J. and Marmot, M.G. (2005),
“A comparison of self reported sickness absence with absences recorded in employers’
registers: evidence from the Whitehall II study”, Occupational Environmental Medicine,
Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 74-79.
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

Fischer, F.M., Oliveira, D.C., Nagai, R., Teixeira, L.R., Junior, M.L., Latorre, M.D.R. and Cooper, S.P.
(2005), “Job control, job demands, social support at work and health among adolescent
workers”, Revista de Saude Publica, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 245-253.
Hakanen, J.J., Schaufeli, W.B. and Ahola, K. (2008), “The Job Demands-Resources model: a three-
year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement”,
Work and Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 224-241.
Häusser, J.A., Mojzisch, A., Niesel, M. and Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010), “Ten years on: a review
of recent research on the Job-Demand-Control (-Support) model and psychological well-
being”, Work Stress, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-35.
Hoel, H. and Cooper, C.L. (2000), Destructive Conflict and Bullying at Work, Manchester School of
Management, UMIST, Manchester.
Jalajas, D.S. (1994), “The role of self-esteem in the stress process: empirical results from job
hunting”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 22, pp. 1984-2001.
Jex, S.M. and Beehr, T.A. (1991), “Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of
work-related stress”, in Ferris, G.R. and Rowland, K. (Eds), Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, JAI Press Inc, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 9, pp. 311-364.
Johnson, J.V. and Hall, E.M. (1988), “Job strain, workplace social support and cardiovascular
disease: a cross-sectional study of a random sample of Swedish working population”,
American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 78 No. 10, pp. 1336-1342.
Karasek, R.A. (1979), “Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job
design”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 285-308.
Karasek, R.A., Baker, D., Marxer, F., Ahlbom, A. and Theorell, T. (1981), “Job decision latitude,
job demands, and cardiovascular disease: a prospective study of Swedish men”, American
Journal of Public Health, Vol. 71 No. 7, pp. 694-705.
Kivimäki, M., Elovainio, M. and Vahtera, J. (2000), “Workplace bullying and sickness absence in
hospital staff”, Occupational Environmental Medicine, Vol. 57 No. 10, pp 656-660.
Lewig, K.A. and Dollard, M.F. (2003), “Emotional dissonance, emotional exhaustion and job
satisfaction in call centre workers”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 366-392.
Leymann, H. (1989), Ingen annan utvag, Wahlstrdm & Widstrand, Stockholm, (in Swedish).
Neuman, J.H. and Baron, R.A. (2003), Social Antecedents of Bullying: A Social Interactionist
Perspective, Francis and Taylor, London.
Parkes, K.R. (1982), “Occupational stress among nurses: a natural experiment”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 784-796.
Pines, A.M. and Aronsson, E. (1988), Career Burnout: Causes and Cures, Free Press,
New York, NY.
 ER Price, L. and Spence, S.H. (1994), “Burnout symptoms amongst drug and alcohol service
employees: gender differences in the interaction between work and home stressors”,
36,2 Anxiety, Stress and Coping, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 67-84.
Quine, L. (1999), “Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: staff questionnaire survey”,
British Medical Journal, Vol. 318 No. 7178, pp. 228-232.
Rayner, C. and Cooper., C. (1997), “Workplace bullying: myth or reality – can we afford to ignore
180 it?”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 211-214.
Salin, D. (2003), “Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating and
precipitating structures and processes in the work environment”, Human Relations, Vol. 56
No. 10, pp. 1213-1232.
Sanne, B., Mykletun, A., Dahl, A.A., Moen, B.E. and Tell, G.S. (2005), “Testing the Job Demand-
Control-Support model with anxiety and depression as outcomes: the Hordaland Health
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

Study”, Occupational Medicine, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 463-473.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Van Rhenen, W. (2009), “How changes in job demands and
resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 893-917.
Serido, J., Almeida, D.M. and Wethington, E. (2004), “Chronic stressors and daily hassles: unique
and interactive relationships with psychological distress”, Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 17-33.
Simons, S.R., Stark, R.B. and DeMarco, R.F. (2011), “A new, four-item instrument to measure
workplace bullying”, Research in Nursing & Health, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 132-140.
Stansfeld, S. and Candy, B. (2006), “Psychosocial work environment and mental health – a meta-
analytic review”, Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 443-462.
Takaki, J., Taniguchi, T., Fukuoka, E., Fujii, Y., Tsutsumi, A., Nakajima, K. and Hirokawa, K.
(2010), “Workplace bullying could play important roles in the relationships between job
strain and symptoms of depression and sleep disturbance”, Journal of Occupational
Health, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 367-374.
Vahtera, J., Pentti, J. and Uutela, A. (1996), “The effect of objective job demands on registered sickness
absence spells; do personal, social and job-related resources act as moderators?”, Work &
Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organizations, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 286-308.
Vahtera, J., Kivimäki, M., Pentti, J. and Theorell, T. (2000), “Effect of change in the psychosocial
work environment on sickness absence: a seven year follow up of initially healthy
employees”, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 484-493.
Van den Broeck, A., Baillien, E. and De Witte, H. (2011), “Workplace bullying: a perspective from the
Job Demands-Resources model”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
van der Doef, M. and Maes, S. (1998), “The Job Demand-Control (-Support) Model and physical
health outcomes: a review of the strain and buffer hypotheses”, Psychology and Health,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 909-936.
van der Doef, M. and Maes, S. (1999), “The Job Demand-Control (-Support) Model and
psychological well-being: a review of 20 years of empirical research”, Work and Stress,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 87-114.
Vartia, M. and Leka, S. (2010), “Interventions for the prevention and management of bullying at
work”, In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H, Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (Eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse
in the Workplace. International Perspectives in Research and Practice, Taylor and Francis,
London, pp. 286-292.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Dollard, M.F., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and
Schreurs, P.J.G. (2007), “When do job demands particularly predict burnout? The moderating
role of job resources”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 766-786.
 Yamada, D.C. (2000), “The phenomenon of ‘workplace bullying’ and the need for status-blind Job demands,
hostile work environment protection”, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 88 No. 3,
pp. 475-536. health, and
Zapf, D., Seifert, C., Schmutte, B., Mertini, H. and Holz, M. (2001), “Emotion work and job absenteeism
stressors and their effects on burnout”, Psychology and Health, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 527-545.

Further reading 181

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Schaubroeck, J., Jones, J.R. and Xie, J.L. (2001), “Individual differences in utilizing control to cope
with job demands: effects on susceptibility to infectious disease”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 2, 265-278.
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 08:21 28 August 2015 (PT)

About the author

Dwayne Devonish is a Lecturer in Management Studies at the University of the West Indies in
Barbados. He has degrees in psychology and work psychology. His research interests include
work-related stress, emotions, employee health, and job performance. Dwayne Devonish can be
contacted at: dwayne.devonish@cavehill.uwi.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints