Journal of Business Research 82 (2018) 213–219

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Job strains, job control, and POS on employee performance: An MARK

interactionist perspective
Yana Dua, Li Zhanga, Amanuel G. Tekleabb,⁎
a
Department of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, 13 Fayuan Street, Nangang District, Harbin, Heilongjiang, 150001, China
b
Department of Management & Information Systems, Mike Ilitch School of Business, Wayne State University, 304 Prentis Bldg., Detroit, MI 48202, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As globalization intensifies competition in business, employees of organizations face increasing job strain, and
In-role performance organizations continue their efforts in searching for alternatives to reduce the negative consequences of stress.
Job control Although there is a plethora of research on stress, the current research strives to utilize an interactionist ap-
Job strain proach to address the impacts of job strain and resources (job control and perceived organizational support) in
Perceived organizational support
affecting employee performance and to replicate Western theories in an Eastern context. Using two theories and
data from 594 employees from three companies in China, this study shows that job strain, job control, and POS
have direct effects on in-role performance. Importantly, two-way and three-way interaction effects show that in-
role performance is at its highest when both job control and POS are high, than it is when either one or both of
them is low.

1. Introduction inconsistent (Morgeson & Campion, 2003). These inconsistent results

The globalized world exposes Chinese organizations to much
tougher competition than ever before. Every organization feels the
pressure to improve overall performance. Under this circumstance,
employees face increasing requests for physical and psychological re-
sources, leading them to experience higher levels of strain
(Grant & Langan, 2007; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). As a result,
previous research has paid considerable attention to the negative effects
of job strain on work outcomes (e.g., Choi, Kim, Lee, & Lee, 2014) and
many researchers have tried to explore how to buffer these relation-
ships (Falk, Hanson, Isacsson, & Ostergren, 1992) and how to reduce the
levels of strain that employees experience (Parker & Sprigg, 1999).
One way of lowering employee job strain is by giving them more job
control, which has also proved to be an efficient way of providing them
with support, enabling them to reach individual and organizational
goals (Schaubroeck, Jones, & Xie, 2001). Job control is a type of work
design that contributes to employee work performance (Bond & Bunce,
2003; Judge & Bono, 2001). Employees with more job control have
more discretion to influence the outcomes of their jobs, more decision
rights over their tasks, and more flexibility to efficiently allocate re-
sources, which can all lead to improvements of in-role performance
(Bond & Flaxman, 2006). However, there have been some mixed find-
ings regarding the direct effect of job control on job performance (Joo,
Jeung, & Yoon, 2010). In some studies, this effect is small and
could be due to the fact that other factors (e.g., current status of job
strain) are not yet controlled when testing how job control affects
performance.
In a similar perspective, research on perceived organizational sup-
port (POS) has consistently shown that employees who perceive that
their company cares about their wellbeing (Eisenberger, Armeli,
Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001; Eisenberger, Huntington,
Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Paille & Raineri, 2015) are more likely to
reciprocate positively by raising their performance. Moreover, meta-
analysis on POS also shows that when organizations provide job control
to employees, it is interpreted as the organization providing support to
its employees (i.e., high POS), which in turn, lowers job strain
(Kurtessis et al., 2017; Riggle, Edmondson, & Hansen, 2009).
While the above brief review assumes directional relationships
among job control, POS and job strain, the reality in organizational
phenomena is that all of them can and do occur at the same time
(Tremblay & Roger, 2004). Thus, it is possible that an employee per-
ceives high POS, job control, and job strain at the same time. Fur-
thermore, another employee may perceive high POS and job control
and low job strain. Any other combination of the three variables is also
possible. Thus, in this research, we take the interactionist perspective in
examining the direct, as well as interactive, effects of the three key
variables on employee performance. Thus, based on the conservation of
resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993) and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zhanglihit@hit.edu.cn (L. Zhang), atekleab@wayne.edu (A.G. Tekleab).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.040
Received 15 November 2016; Received in revised form 19 September 2017; Accepted 21 September 2017
0148-2963/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Y. Du et al.
social exchange theory (SET; Blau, 1964), the first objective of this
research is to investigate the roles of organizational phenomena on
employee performance.
The second objective of the current study is to extend current ap-
plications of theories developed in the West to the East. As stated above,
the roles of job control, job strain, and POS on employee performance
have been well documented. However, we know little about how the
direct and interactive effects of these three constructs affect employee
performance in the East. Meanwhile, facing fierce competition world-
wide, most Chinese companies seek to reform their old management
style to enhance employee performance. Their leaders are becoming
more and more open to Western management theories and practices. As
Xie (1996) pointed out, China is an ideal site for testing the general-
izability of Western organizational theories. Therefore, we reexamine
whether COR and SET theories apply to Eastern cultures, especially in
China, in order to fill the theoretical gap mentioned above and guide
management practices for Chinese enterprises.
2. Theory and hypotheses
2.1. Main effects of job strain, job control, and POS on in-role performance
Job strain is a state of mental impairment resulting from a perceived
goal-discrepancy (Mohr, Müller, Rigotti, Aycan, & Tschan, 2006). Job
strain has also been defined as ‘adverse psychological reaction to job
stress’ (Bridger, Brasher, Dew, Sparshott, & Kilminster, 2010) and gen-
erally has negative consequences on both employees and organizations
(Webster, Beehr, & Christiansen, 2010). According to the COR theory
(Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993), individual psychological re-
sources are limited, and employees are motivated to retain or enhance
those resources (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Job strain drains em-
ployee resources; and as such, employees will be motivated to retain
their resources by lowering their contribution to the organization. In
other words, employees will have fewer resources left to utilize in the
reduction of errors, to focus on strategies to improve processes, and
generally, to perform at their maximum capabilities. Indeed, prior re-
search has provided ample evidence of the negative consequences of job
strain on work outcomes (e.g., Bridger et al., 2010; Stansfeld, Shipley,
Head, & Fuhrer, 2012). When employees suffer high levels of job strain,
they experience a negative psychological state, which in turn, impacts a
worker's perception of the work environment (Häusser, Mojzisch,
Niesel, & Schulz-Hardt, 2010), leading to low levels of enthusiasm to
work.
A potential resource enhancer is job control. Job control has been
defined as a perceived ability to exert some influence over one's work
environment, so as to make it more rewarding and less threatening
(Ganster, Fusilier, Cooper, & Robertson, 1989). Job control also refers
to the belief that an individual has an available response that can in-
fluence the aversiveness of an event (Lee, Ashford, & Bobko, 1990).
Employees experiencing job control may believe that they possess the
power and the ability to control events in the organizations where they
work. Several studies have shown that giving job control to employees
can significantly improve their performance (Bond & Flaxman, 2006).
Consistent with the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom,
1993), job control allows employees to make their own decisions about
how to allocate their resources appropriately. Job control is a resource
employees can use to enhance their performance at a higher level.
Additionally, job control can be regarded as an important resource and
has motivational potential to lead to high work engagement and per-
formance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Moreover, as employees dis-
cover how to perform their jobs more effectively, they also gain in-
creased competence and confidence that serves to improve their in-role
performance efficiently (Bond & Flaxman, 2006).
On a separate line of research, POS also has been instrumental in
explaining its direct (or indirect) effects on employee performance.
Based on the SET (Blau, 1964), employees who perceive a high level of
214
Journal of Business Research 82 (2018) 213–219
support by the organization feel that they have to reciprocate by en-
gaging in behaviors that contribute to organizational goals (DeConinck,
2010; Eisenberger et al., 1986; Kurtessis et al., 2017; Riggle et al.,
2009). Indeed, Kurtessis et al. (2017, p. 1856) noted, “POS should elicit
the norm of reciprocity, leading to a felt obligation to help the orga-
nization, as well as the expectation that increased performance on be-
half of the organization will be noticed and rewarded.” These authors,
based on 98 studies, also empirically provided support for the direct
effect of POS on performance. These findings are also corroborated by
the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993) in that POS
could be considered as a resource that increases employees motivation
to perform at a higher level.
Although the above theoretical arguments provide strong support to
the negative effect of job strain and positive effect of job control and
POS on in-role performance, there is limited research on these findings
in the Chinese context. Research in China is mostly focused on the effect
of job stressors on performance (Lu, Kao, Siu, & Lu, 2010), but few of
them have examined the direct relationship between job strain and in-
role performance. Similarly, POS can be particularly important in the
context of the collectivistic culture of China. However, there is little
understanding on how and to what extent POS directly affects employee
in-role performance in China. Furthermore, offering job control to
employees has appealed to the attentions of both Chinese scholars and
managers. However, most research investigating the effect of job con-
trol on performance has been based on non-Chinese samples. Given this
situation, it is appropriate to reexamine the main effects of job strain,
job control, and POS on performance. Thus, we hypothesize the fol-
lowing to be replicated in the Chinese context as well:
H1a. Job strain will have a negative effect on in-role performance.
H1b. Job control will have a positive effect on in-role performance.
H1c. POS will have a positive effect on in-role performance.
2.2. Interactive effects on in-role performance
We noted above that job strain drains an employee's mental and
physical ability to perform in their workplace. Moreover, it also
weakens their motivation and energy to fully utilize their abilities.
However, having job control may, at the same time, reduce the negative
effects of job strain. In other words, while job strain drains resources
and motivation, job control does the opposite, providing the motivation
and ability to develop a strategy to accomplish tasks, counteracting the
negative effects of job strain. Furthermore, employees who experience
high levels of emotional strain might also experience high levels of ir-
ritability, which can produce a lack of incentive to achieve goals
(Dormann & Zapf, 2002); but when these employees also have more job
control, the effects of job strain on their performance is weakened be-
cause, consistent with the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989;
Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993), they can draw on resources from the high job
control to counteract the resources drained by high job strain. On the
other hand, where there is low job control, the negative effect of job
strain remains strong. In other words, employees do not have resources
that they can draw from when job control is low, and hence, as the COR
theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993) would predict, em-
ployees strive to conserve their energy and resources, thus minimizing
their contribution to the organization. Thus, we predict the following:
H2. There will be a two-way interactive effect of job strain and job
control on in-role performance such that the relationship between job
strain and in-role performance will be weaker when job control is high
(than when it is low).
There is considerable theoretical and empirical research examining
the moderating effects of POS on several relationships (e.g.,
Stamper & Johlke, 2003; Zacher & Winter, 2011). Here, POS may also
serve as a different type of resource for employees, to counteract the
Y. Du et al.
negative consequences of job strain, and moderate the negative re-
lationship between job strain and in-role behavior. Specifically, work
environments with enough resources foster an employee's willingness
to dedicate efforts and abilities to work-related tasks
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). As such, these resources alleviate some of
the tension employees have due to job strain. Moreover, support from
organizations can help employees by giving information and advice
(Daniels, Beesley, Wimalasiri, & Cheyne, 2013) when employees are
facing problems, such as experiencing high level of job strain due to the
intensive demand they are facing. POS makes employees feel more
relaxed because they know that their organizations will help them if
they experience challenging situations. On the other hand, when em-
ployees perceive a low level of organizational support, they suffer from
the job strain and, consistent with the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989;
Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993), these employees will strive to conserve their
resources and contribute little to the organization. Thus, we predict the
following:
H3. There will be a two-way interactive effect of job strain and POS on
in-role performance such that the relationship between job strain and
in-role performance will be weaker when POS is high (than when it is
low).
Extending the two interaction effects, we also expect a three-way
interaction among job strain, job control, and POS on in-role perfor-
mance. Specifically, while job strain dampens employee in-role per-
formance, the combination of job control and POS should provide a
strong signal (resources) to the employees to counteract the negative
emotions from job strain. In other words, job control gives employees
autonomy to distribute their resources in more effective ways and or-
ganizational support replenishes the resources consumed by job strain,
and as a result, they perform at a higher level. When POS is high and
job control is low, while POS might still be enough to compensate for
the effects of job strain on performance, low job control may weaken
the effect of POS. Given that prior research has shown that POS pro-
vides aid and emotional support when it is needed (Krishnan & Mary,
2012), it is expected to reduce adverse psychological and psychoso-
matic reactions due to strain, despite the low level of job control.
Conversely, when POS is low and job control is high, the later may
serve as a resource to offset the dampening effect of job strain. How-
ever, when both POS and job control are low, the effect of job strain
might weaken performance because employees, as the COR theory
(Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993) predicts, strive to conserve
their limited resources already drained by job strain and, consequently,
minimize their contribution to the organization in the form of in-role
performance. Overall, we predict the following:
H4. There will be a three-way interaction effect among job strain, POS,
and job control such that the effects of job strain will be the highest
when both POS and job control are high; it will be the lowest when both
POS and job control are low; and it will be average when either POS or
job control is high and the other is low.
3. Methods
3.1. Data collection and sampling
Data were collected through questionnaires from three manu-
facturing companies in Northeast China. We directly contacted the
human resource departments of these companies and invited them to
participate in the study. After securing their agreement to participate,
we sent questionnaires to the human resource department personnel
who distributed the surveys to their employees. Each respondent sent
the survey back via paper questionnaire or email directly to the re-
searchers.
We distributed 1000 questionnaires, and 860 were returned. After
removing surveys that were deemed invalid, the final sample size was
215
Journal of Business Research 82 (2018) 213–219
594 (59.4%). A t-test analysis revealed that non-respondents were not
statistically different from the individuals who participated in the final
sample in terms of age, organizational tenure, or level of education. In
this sample, 63.1% of the respondents were male; about 50% of the
respondents were between 21 and 30 years old; and most respondents
(61.4%) had bachelor's degrees.
3.2. Measures
All items in this study were measured using a five-point Likert scale
anchored by 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.” The
survey items were translated in to Chinese using a double-translation
procedure (Harkness & Schoua-Glusberg, 1998). Minor translation is-
sues were resolved by four translators.
We used three items developed by Lee et al. (1990) to measure job
control. A sample item is, “I have enough power in this organization to
control events that might affect my job.” The Cronbach's alpha of the
scale was 0.72. We used the eight-item scale developed by Mohr et al.
(2006) to assess job strain. A sample item includes, “I have difficulty
relaxing after work.” The Cronbach's alpha of the scale was 0.81. We
adopted four-validated items developed by Shanock and Eisenberger
(2006) to measure POS. A sample item is, “The organization is willing
to help me when I need a special favor.” Its Cronbach's alpha was 0.79.
Five items from Williams and Anderson (1991) were adapted and used
to measure in-role performance. A sample item reads, “I adequately
complete assigned duties.” The Cronbach's alpha was 0.78. We included
age, education and tenure as control variables in our study since these
variables generally correlate with job control and in-role performance
(e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2008).
In addition, we conducted ANOVA to see if there were significant
differences between respondents from the three organizations. The re-
sults showed that the differences were all significant (job strain,
F = 5.63, p < 0.01; job control, F = 6.55, p < 0.01; POS, F = 18.28,
p < 0.01; and in-role performance, F = 8.69, p < 0.01). Therefore,
we included two dummy variables representing the three organizations
as control variables in all analyses.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive statistical analyses
Given all of the variables in our dataset came from respondents' self-
reports, which potentially can create common method variance, we
used the Harman single-factor method (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012) to test whether this is problematic.
Analyses of principal axis factoring with varimax rotation generally
resulted in the expected factors that explained 67.5% of the total var-
iance. The first factor referred to autonomy and explained only 23.3%
of all the variance. These results clearly show that our study variables
can be empirically discriminated and suggest that common-method
variance is not a serious problem in our study. In addition, we con-
ducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the distinc-
tiveness of our scales for all the variables used. The expected four-factor
model fitted the data well (χ2 = 489.08, DF = 113, CFI = 0.91,
IFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07). More importantly, our study focused on
interaction effects, which were not affected by common-method bias
(Podsakoff et al., 2012). Table 1 presents the means, standard devia-
tions, reliabilities, and correlations of the study variables.
4.2. Hypotheses testing
We used hierarchical regression analyses to test the hypotheses.
Firstly, we entered the control variables (Model 1), followed by the
main predictors (job strain, job control, and POS; Model 2), and then
the interaction between job strain and job control (Model 3a, in order to
test H2) or the two-way interaction between job strain and POS (Model
Y. Du et al. Journal of Business Research 82 (2018) 213–219

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations for study variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Organization (Dummy 1) 0.33 0.470 −

2. Organization (Dummy 2) 0.36 0.481 − 0.53⁎⁎⁎ −
3. Age 32.69 7.67 0.20⁎⁎⁎ − 0.09⁎⁎⁎ −
4. Education 2.75 0.83 0.10⁎ − 0.48⁎⁎⁎ − 0.20⁎⁎⁎ −
5. Tenure 7.54 7.46 0.21⁎⁎⁎ − 0.08⁎ 0.80⁎⁎⁎ −0.22⁎⁎⁎ −
6. Job strain 2.91 0.63 − 0.10⁎ − 0.03 0.01 −0.02 0.06 (0.72)
7. Job control 3.34 0.70 0.04 0.10⁎ 0.10⁎ −0.15⁎⁎⁎ 0.08+ −0.07+ (0.81)
8. POS 3.47 0.66 − 0.06 0.23⁎⁎⁎ 0.09⁎ −0.23⁎⁎⁎ 0.03 −0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎⁎ (0.79)
9. In-role performance 3.63 0.48 − 0.05 0.16⁎⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎⁎ −0.09⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ −0.26⁎⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎⁎ 0.37⁎⁎⁎ (0.78)

N = 594. Numbers in parentheses represent reliability. Education: 1 = high school, 2 = college, 3 = bachelor, and 4 = master or above. POS = perceived organizational support.
+
p < 0.10.
⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001.

Table 2
Direct and interactive effects of job strain, job control, and POS on in-role performance.

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3a Model 3b Model 4 Model 5

Organization (Dummy 1) 0.03 − 0.04 − 0.04 −0.04 − 0.04 − 0.03

Organization (Dummy 2) 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.13⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ 0.13⁎
Age 0.35⁎⁎⁎ 0.27⁎⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎⁎ 0.26⁎⁎⁎
Education 0.06 0.10⁎ 0.09⁎ 0.10⁎ 0.10⁎ 0.09⁎
Tenure − 0.13+ − 0.06 − 0.04 −0.03 − 0.03 − 0.04
Job strain − 0.18⁎⁎⁎ − 0.17⁎⁎⁎ −0.17⁎⁎⁎ − 0.16⁎⁎⁎ − 0.20⁎⁎⁎
POS 0.21⁎⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎⁎
Job control 0.26⁎⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎⁎ 0.26⁎⁎⁎ 0.27⁎⁎⁎
Job strain ∗ job control − 0.11⁎⁎ − 0.05 − 0.04
Job strain ∗ POS −0.11⁎⁎ − 0.05 − 0.06
Job control ∗ POS 0.07+ 0.07+
Job control ∗ job strain ∗ POS 0.09⁎
R2 0.09 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31
ΔR2 0.09⁎⁎⁎ 0.19⁎⁎⁎ 0.01⁎⁎ 0.01+ 0.01+ 0.01⁎
F 11.81⁎⁎⁎ 28.68⁎⁎⁎ 26.87⁎⁎⁎ 22.61⁎⁎⁎ 22.61⁎⁎⁎ 21.21⁎⁎⁎

N = 594. Education: 1 = high school, 2 = college, 3 = bachelor, and 4 = master or above. POS = perceived organizational support.
+
p < 0.10.
⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001.

3b, in order to test H3). Then, in Step 4, we entered the other two 4
interaction terms (Model 4). In step 5, we added the three-way inter- 3.8 Low Job Control High Job Control
action to the equation (Model 5).
The results in Table 2 (Model 2) show that job strain significantly 3.6
In-role performance

and negatively effects in-role performance (β = − 0.18, p < 0.01), 3.4

while job control (β = 0.26, p < 0.01) and POS (β = 0.21, p < 0.01) 3.2
significantly and positively affect in-role performance. Therefore, H1a,
H1b, H1c are supported. We also predicted that there would be a ne- 3
gative interactive effect between job strain and job control (H2) as well 2.8
as between job strain and POS (H3) on in-role performance. The results 2.6
in Table 2 (Model 3a) show that the two-way interaction between job
2.4
strain and job control is significant and negative (β = − 0.11,
p < 0.01), which provides support for H2. The results in Table 2 2.2
(Model 3b) show that the interactive term of job strain and POS is 2
significant and negative as well (β = − 0.11, p < 0.01), thus sup- Low Job Strain High Job Strain
porting H3. We further plotted interaction figures to confirm the di-
Fig. 1. Two-way interaction between job strain and job control on in-role performance.
rectionality of the interaction effects. Figs. 1 and 2 show that the ne-
gative relationship between job strain and in-role performance is
changed when job control and POS are at different levels. Specifically, way interaction is significant (β = 0.09, p < 0.05). Furthermore, the
although the negative relationships are not significant when job control three-way interaction figure (Fig. 3) shows that job strain has differ-
or POS is low, when either of them is high, the figures show that per- ential negative effects on in-role performance at different levels of job
formance is higher at all levels of job strain than when either of them is control and POS. As hypothesized, performance is the highest when
low. Thus, these results further provided support for H2 and H3. both POS and job control are high; it is at the lowest level when both are
H4 predicted a three-way interactive effect of job strain, job control, low; and, it is average when either job control or POS is high and the
and POS on in-role performance. Table 2 (Model 5) show that the three- other is low. These results provide support H4.

216
Y. Du et al. Journal of Business Research 82 (2018) 213–219

4 accomplish their tasks. Similarly, the current study examined POS as

Low POS High POS another force that may replenish the diminished resources caused by
3.8
job strain. Indeed, consistent with the prediction, POS had a negative
3.6 interactive effect with job strain on performance. Specifically, the
In-role performance

3.4 feelings of tension due to job strain are alleviated by other resources
provided by the organizations. These moderating effects are also con-
3.2 sistent with prior research that investigated the moderating role of POS
3 (e.g., Stamper & Johlke, 2003; Zacher & Winter, 2011). For example, in
an eldercare context, Zacher and Winter (2011) argued and found
2.8
support for the moderating role of POS on the relationship between
2.6 eldercare stress and work engagement. In Zacher and Winter (2011)
2.4 and the current study, the outcome variables (engagement and per-
formance, respectively) were at a lower level when POS was low than
2.2
when it is high. Thus, these results provide further evidence that POS
2 counteracts the negative consequences of job strain.
Low Job Strain High Job Strain We also examined the three-way interactive effect of job strain,
POS, and job control. Consistent with the prediction, we found a sig-
Fig. 2. Two-way interaction between job strain and perceived organizational support
(POS) on in-role performance. nificant interaction effect. Two important findings of the three-way
interaction effect need special attention. Firstly, the best in-role per-
formance is attained when both POS and job control are at high levels.
4 (1) High Job Control, High POS Although the rate at which job performance decreases for a unit in-
(2) High Job Control, Low POS
3.8 crease in job strain under these conditions (high POS and job control)
(3) Low Job Control, High POS
3.6 (4) Low Job Control, Low POS seems to be stronger than when either POS or job control is low, or both
3.4
are low, the emphasis managers give to is the level of in-role perfor-
In-role Performance

mance. Moreover, a post-hoc test of slopes for each line in Fig. 3 shows
3.2
that neither of them is significant. These results demonstrate the im-
3 portance of POS and/or job control in weakening the negative effect of
2.8 job strain on in-role performance. Overall, the current study provides
strong evidence that efforts should be made to lower resource depleting
2.6
conditions (i.e., job strain) and to increase resource replenishing con-
2.4
ditions (i.e., job control and/or POS). The other conditions which re-
2.2 sulted in comparable effects of job strain on in-role performance were
2 when either job control or POS was at a high level and the other was at
Low Job Strain High Job Strain a low level. These results imply that the positive effects of POS or that of
Fig. 3. Three-way interaction among job strain, job control, and perceived organizational
job control is still strong enough to replenish the resources drained due
support (POS) on in-role performance. to job strain.

5.1. Theoretical contributions and practical implications

5. Discussion and conclusion
The results of our study shed light on important issues for re-
Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Bond & Bunce, 2003; Choi et al.,
searchers. First, our study extends COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989;
2014; Kurtessis et al., 2017), we found support for the direct and ne-
Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993) and SET (Blau, 1964) by showing that re-
gative effect of job strain as well as positive effects of POS and job
sources consumed by job strain can be replenished by resources pro-
control on employee in-role performance. However, we highlight that
vided by the organization (e.g., providing job control and/or POS). That
the independent effect of each construct was stronger than when all of
is, by taking into account key constructs from each theory/model, it
them are taken together. For example, the correlation between job
showed that the loss of energy, motivation, engagement, and generally,
strain and in-role behavior was −0.26 (p < 0.01), which is reduced to
performance, due to job strain, could be overturned (at least attenuate)
− 0.18 (p < 0.01) when the other variables are taken into account.
if other constructs (e.g., job control and/or POS) are taken into account.
These results are consistent with the COR (Hobfoll, 1989;
Second, our study extends interactionist perspective research by de-
Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993) theory in that having more resources (here, in
monstrating the need to consider constructs from multiple theories/
the form of more job control and POS) reduces the impact of job strain
models. Specifically, focusing on the two- and three-way interactions
on in-role performance. In other words, job control and POS replenish
beyond the direct effects of each of the constructs provides further re-
the resources drained by job strain and, thus, help employees perform
finement to the role the constructs play in organizational science. With
at a higher level. Moreover, the contributions of both job control and
a three-way interaction test, we showed that the effect of job strain on
POS could be viewed from the SET (Blau, 1964) in that when organi-
in-role performance depends not only on the levels of job control but
zations provide job control and care about their employees, employees
also on the levels of POS.
reciprocate by performing at a higher level.
Third, and, most importantly, the current study extends COR theory
This research, however, goes beyond prior research by examining
(Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993) and SET (Blau, 1964), which
two- and three-way interactions. Firstly, we found that job control has a
are practically developed in the West, to the East. In this effort, it is
negative moderating effect on the relationship between job strain and
important to highlight two points. First, in terms of the direct effects of
in-role performance. Consistent with the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989;
each construct, the two perspectives (COR and SET), indeed, could be
Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993), employees who experience high level of
affirmatively extended to the East, since we found significant effects of
emotional strain experience high level of irritability that limits their
each construct on in-role performance. This is consistent with the
incentive to achieve their goals (Dormann & Zapf, 2002), but having
Chinese reality that most companies seek to reform their old manage-
higher level of job control reversed the negative experience by pro-
ment styles to enhance their overall performance. Their leaders are
viding employees with opportunities to develop strategies to
becoming more and more open to Western management theories and

217
Y. Du et al.
practices. For large companies like Tencent and Huawei, the applica-
tions of the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993) and
SET (Blau, 1964) to practice are quite normal. Plenty of changes have
been enacted to help employees manage resources and enhance the
social exchange between organization and employees. Second, and
consistent with prior studies, which have examined the interactions and
the application of the two theories, the current study seems to support
the extension of these theories to the East as well. Although the fierce
competition among companies in China has exposed employees to more
job stress and job strain than ever before, we have found that more and
more companies have also realized the importance of providing re-
sources to employees and are now trying to offer job control and or-
ganizational support to their employees. As a result, employee perfor-
mance has greatly improved. Moreover, the results from the East (at
least in China) can also be extended to the West. Specifically, it will be
important to apply the interactionist perspective and reexamine the
roles of job strain, job control, and POS collectively and interactively,
using data from the West. Given that some of the two-way interaction
effects found in the past (e.g., POS as a moderator, Stamper & Johlke,
2003; Zacher & Winter, 2011) provide early support to the management
style of Chinese organization, we also expect the other interactions
supported in the current study to be applicable in the West as well.
The results of our study also provide suggestions for practitioners.
Given job strains are common in many organizations (Bridger et al.,
2010; Stansfeld et al., 2012), our study provides organizations/man-
agers with a few approaches to weaken the negative effects of job
strain. The first, and the best approach, is to tackle the issue with
multiple resources. With regard to this, our study specifically showed
that providing high levels of support and job control can help em-
ployees perform at a higher level when compared to other conditions.
Acknowledging that organizations may not have adequate resources,
our study also suggests that at least they can use either resource (POS or
job control) to weaken the negative effects of job strain. Thus, they can
allocate their limited resources efficiently while still counteracting the
undesirable consequences of job strain.
5.2. Limitations and future research
Our study has some limitations that might be addressed by future
researcher. First, the cross-sectional nature of our study may undermine
strong causal inferences between the predictors and performance.
However, utilizing longitudinal research designs, prior research has
already demonstrated that job strain, POS, and job control influence in-
role performance, which is also supported in our study. More im-
portantly, the current research questions involve interactions, which
are less affected by common-method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Thus,
the impact of the cross-sectional dataset in the current study is minimal,
if any. Second, data were collected from three large Chinese organiza-
tions in only one (manufacturing) industry. Although we do not expect
the results to be different in other industries, future research may ex-
tend the sample scope to offer strong evidence to the findings in this
study. Relatedly, the current study examined the relationships based on
data from one country (China). Although there are some similarities in
terms of the culture in China and other Eastern countries, we cannot
assume they are substitutable. As such we encourage further research to
replicate the findings of the current study.
5.3. Conclusions
Based on COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993) and
SET (Blau, 1964), the current study examined the main and interactive
effects of job strain, POS, and job control on in-role behavior in the
Chinese context. The results of the study provided support for these
effects. More importantly, the results of the study provided evidence
that those theories developed in the West are also generalizable to the
East. Based on these results, the study extends the literature in the three
218
Journal of Business Research 82 (2018) 213–219
areas and provides clear guidance for managers on how to minimize the
negative consequences of job stress on work outcomes.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant number: 71472054).
References
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career
Development International, 13, 209–223.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2003). The role of acceptance and job control in mental health,
job satisfaction, and work performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1057–1067.
Bond, F. W., & Flaxman, P. E. (2006). The ability of psychological flexibility and job
control to predict learning, job performance, and mental health. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 26, 113–130.
Bridger, R. S., Brasher, K., Dew, A., Sparshott, K., & Kilminster, S. (2010). Job strain
related to cognitive failure in naval personnel. Ergonomics, 53, 739–747.
Choi, C. H., Kim, T. T., Lee, G., & Lee, S. K. (2014). Testing the stressor–strain–outcome
model of customer-related social stressors in predicting emotional exhaustion, cus-
tomer orientation and service recovery performance. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 36, 272–285.
Daniels, K., Beesley, N., Wimalasiri, V., & Cheyne, A. (2013). Problem solving and well-
being exploring the instrumental role of job control and social support. Journal of
Management, 39, 1016–1043.
DeConinck, J. B. (2010). The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational
support, and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees' level of trust.
Journal of Business Research, 63, 1349–1355.
Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2002). Social stressors at work, irritation, and depressive
symptoms: Accounting for unmeasured third variables in a multi-wave study. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 33–58.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001).
Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
42–51.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organiza-
tional support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Falk, A., Hanson, B. S., Isacsson, S. O., & Ostergren, P. O. (1992). Job strain and mortality
in elderly men: Social network, support, and influence as buffers. American Journal of
Public Health, 82, 1136–1139.
Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., Cooper, C. L., & Robertson, I. T. (1989). Control in the
workplace. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4,
235–280.
Grant, S., & Langan, F. J. (2007). Personality and the occupational stressor-strain re-
lationship: The role of the Big Five. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12,
20–33.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of
work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.
Harkness, J. A., & Schoua-Glusberg, A. (1998). Questionnaires in translation. ZUMA-
Nachrichten Spezial. 3, 87–127.
Häusser, J. A., Mojzisch, A., Niesel, M., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Ten years on: A review
of recent research on the Job Demand–Control (-Support) model and psychological
well-being. Work and Stress, 24, 1–35.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (1993). Stress and burnout in the workplace: Conservation of
resources. Handbook of organizational behavior. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Joo, B. K. B., Jeung, C. W., & Yoon, H. J. (2010). Investigating the influences of core self-
evaluations, job autonomy, and intrinsic motivation on in-role job performance.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 353–371.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits–self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability–with job satisfac-
tion and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.
Krishnan, J., & Mary, V. S. (2012). Perceived organizational support–An overview on its
antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research,
2, 2–3.
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S.
(2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organiza-
tional support theory. Journal of Management, 43, 1854–1884.
Lee, C., Ashford, S. J., & Bobko, P. (1990). Interactive effects of “Type A” behavior and
perceived control on worker performance, job satisfaction, and somatic complaints.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 870–881.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the chal-
lenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent re-
lationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48,
764–775.
Lu, L., Kao, S. F., Siu, O. L., & Lu, C. Q. (2010). Work stressors, Chinese coping strategies,
and job performance in Greater China. International Journal of Psychology, 45,
294–302.
Mohr, G., Müller, A., Rigotti, T., Aycan, Z., & Tschan, F. (2006). The assessment of psy-
chological strain in work contexts: Concerning the structural equivalency of nine
language adaptations of the irritation scale. European Journal of Psychological
Y. Du et al.
Assessment, 22, 198–206.
Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2003). Work design. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, &
R. J. Klimoski (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psy-
chology. 10. Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 423–
452). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 392–423.
Paille, P., & Raineri, N. (2015). Linking perceived corporate environmental policies and
employees eco-influence of perceived organizational support and psychological
contract breach. Journal of Business Research, 68, 2404–2411.
Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role
of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 925–939.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in
social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the re-
lationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of
research. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1027–1030.
Schaubroeck, J., Jones, J. R., & Xie, J. L. (2001). Individual differences in utilizing control
to cope with job demands: Effects on susceptibility to infectious disease. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 265–278.
Shanock, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships
with subordinates' perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support,
and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689–695.
Stamper, C. L., & Johlke, M. C. (2003). The impact of perceived organizational support on
the relationship between boundary spanner role stress and work outcomes. Journal of
Management, 29, 569–588.
Stansfeld, S. A., Shipley, M. J., Head, J., & Fuhrer, R. (2012). Repeated job strain and the
risk of depression: longitudinal analyses from the Whitehall II study. American Journal
of Public Health, 102, 2360–2366.
219
Journal of Business Research 82 (2018) 213–219
Tremblay, M., & Roger, A. (2004). Career plateauing reactions: the moderating role of job
scope, role ambiguity and participation among Canadian managers. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 996–1017.
Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2010). Toward a better understanding
of the effects of hindrance and challenge stressors on work behavior. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 76, 68–77.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment
as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17, 601–617.
Xie, J. L. (1996). Karasek's model in the People's Republic of China: Effects of job de-
mands, control, and individual differences. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
1594–1618.
Zacher, H., & Winter, G. (2011). Eldercare demands, strain, and work engagement: The
moderating role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
79, 667–680.
Yana Du is a Ph.D. student of business management at Harbin Institute of Technology,
Harbin, China. Her research interests include organizational behavior, leadership, crea-
tivity, and stress management. Yana Du can be contacted at: duyana199@163.com
Li Zhang is a professor of business management at Harbin Institute of Technology,
Harbin, China. Her teaching and research interests include management communication,
organizational behavior, human resource management, and leadership. Li Zhang can be
contacted at: zhanglihit@hit.edu.cn
Amanuel G. Tekleab is a professor of management at Wayne State University, Detroit,
USA. His teaching and research interests include psychological contracts, leadership,
teams and team processes, justice, and organizational change. Amanuel G. Tekleab can be
contacted at: atekleab@wayne.edu.