See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282354925

The HRD Eustress Model: Generating Positive Stress

With Challenging Work

Article  in  Human Resource Development Review · September 2015

DOI: 10.1177/1534484315598086

CITATIONS READS

45 10,402

3 authors:

M. Blake Hargrove Wendy S Becker

Shippensburg University, John L. Grove College of Busi… Shippensburg University
33 PUBLICATIONS   290 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   669 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Debra F. Hargrove
Dickinson College
5 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

justice, organizational justice occupational health psychology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Blake Hargrove on 01 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

598086
research-article2015
HRDXXX10.1177/1534484315598086Human Resource Development ReviewHargrove et al.

Theory and Conceptual Articles

Human Resource Development Review
2015, Vol. 14(3) 279­–298
The HRD Eustress Model: © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Generating Positive Stress sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1534484315598086
With Challenging Work hrd.sagepub.com

M. Blake Hargrove1, Wendy S. Becker1,

and Debra F. Hargrove2

Abstract
Building on existing conceptualizations of stress, we present a model that provides
an alternate explanation of the efficacy of human resource development (HRD)
interventions. Unlike most stress research that emphasizes the negative side of stress,
we view eustress—good stress—as a positive individual and organizational outcome.
The HRD eustress model extends theory from the positive psychology and positive
organizational behavior literature and positions a role for HRD in creating positive stress
as a means to improve performance. We describe how HRD professionals can help
challenge employees as a means of attaining individual goals and personal development.

Keywords
eustress, work stress, HRD research and practice, positive HRD, stress intervention,
challenge hindrance framework, transactional model, preventive stress management
I’m always up for a challenge.
—Michelle Kwan (Zinser, 2005)
Two Olympic medals, five world championships, nine U.S. championships

I think it’s healthy for a person to be nervous. It means you care—that you work hard and want
to give a great performance. You just have to channel that nervous energy into the show.

— Beyoncé Knowles (Redbook, 2009)

17 Grammys, 118 million records sold

1Shippensburg University, PA, USA

2Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:
M. Blake Hargrove, Associate Professor of Management, John L. Grove College of Business, Shippensburg
University, Shippensburg, PA 17257, USA.
Email: mbhargrove@ship.edu

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

280 Human Resource Development Review 14(3)

For decades, managers have understood that workers perform at higher levels when
challenged with high performance standards. Yet, setting high standards also has the
potential to produce detrimental physical and psychological symptoms such as work-
based strain, anxiety, and burnout. Costs associated with negative workplace stress
include absenteeism, turnover, diminished productivity, as well as medical, legal,
insurance, and other associated costs. In this regard, current work stress models inad-
equately address the subjective experience of employees regarding chronic and acute
stressors in the workplace (Sikora, Beaty, & Forward, 2004).
Understandably, human resource development (HRD) professionals have paid spe-
cial attention to strategies that prevent negative stress (Gilbreath & Montesino, 2006;
Morris, 2008; Morris, Messal, & Meriac, 2013; Russ-Eft, 2001; Sur & Ng, 2014). The
difficulty is to identify strategies that set challenging developmental expectations for
employees that do not induce distress.
This seeming paradox is addressed in the present article. Positive stress is the psy-
chological state and mindful focus on challenges present in stressful organizational
events (Quick, Quick, Nelson, & Hurrell, 1997; Quick, Wright, Adkins, Nelson, &
Quick, 2013; Nelson & Simmons, 2011). Although research often focuses on the nega-
tive aspects of stress (i.e., Driskell & Salas, 1996), our model offers a mechanism for
the development of positive stress in organizations. The HRD eustress model exam-
ines positive stress as a psychological concept that builds upon extant models of orga-
nizational stress, including the transactional model (TM) of stress, the theory of
preventive stress management, and the challenge hindrance framework (CHF).
Because of HRD’s central focus to improve individual and organizational perfor-
mance (Nadler & Nadler, 1989), HRD professionals must be cognizant of factors that
affect performance. Positive stress is one such factor. Addressing performance
improvement from a positive position is not novel to the field of HRD; for example,
Luthans and Jensen (2002) explored the role of hope theory in goal setting and empow-
erment. In this regard, we extend theory from the positive psychology (Seligman,
1998a, 1998b, 1999; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and organizational behav-
ior domain (Luthans & Jensen, 2002) to HRD by positioning positive stress as a means
to improve performance.
The HRD eustress model proposes an explanation for the relationship between
positive stress and performance. In keeping with previous calls in the literature (e.g.,
Russ-Eft, 2001), we reframe HRD interventions that can help improve employee per-
formance by generating healthy levels of stress. We focus on the positive potential of
eustress in organizations rather than the effects of employee distress. We also focus on
HRD’s purpose to improve and enhance the effectiveness, performance, and growth of
individuals, groups, and organizations (Hamlin & Stewart, 2010). To do so, we exam-
ine specific organizational practices which have the potential for challenging employ-
ees and generating healthy stress. In addition, we provide practical examples of the
model’s potential contributions. The HRD eustress model frames the dialogue on how
organizational stress can be converted from a threat into a source of energy with con-
comitant positive outcomes for employees and organizations. The question to be
addressed is which specific practices promote workplace challenge while contributing

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

Hargrove et al. 281

to the well-being of employees. In other words, this article seeks to explain how HRD
can help construct work environments that help employees perform at high levels but
that do not lead to negative stress.

Conceptualizations of Organizational Stress

The TM and the Theory of Preventive Stress Management
Individual response to stressors encountered in the workplace has been studied for
more than a century (Cannon, 1915; Quick et al., 2013). Stress is a broad and ambigu-
ous concept rather than a carefully defined scientific term (Kahn, 1987). Quick et al.
(1997) defined individual stress within an organizational context as an “overarching
rubric for the domain concerned with how individuals adjust to their environments”
(p. 2). In this article, we use the term stress to refer to this overarching concept whether
at the level of stimulus, response, or outcome—stress as a construct that is neither
positive nor negative.
Most commonly, stress is conceptualized as a negative construct associated with
discomfiting stimuli such as hazardous conditions or interpersonal conflict, inadequate
coping such as workplace disengagement or conflict avoidance, and negative out-
comes such as burnout or cardiovascular disease. In this article, we will use the term
negative stress to refer to these general negative conceptualizations whether at the
level of stimulus, response, or outcome. In addition, we will follow Quick et al. (2013)
and define distress as “outcomes associated with negative stress which cause a devia-
tion from healthy physiological, psychological, and affective functioning” (p. 15).
Yerkes and Dodson (1908) first recognized that optimal stress load on performance
varies by individual and task. In other words, some stress is good. Selye (1987) coined
the term eustress for this positive conceptualization of stress (from the Greek root eu
for good). Selye (1987) described this positive form of stress as a way that individuals
react to stressors with positive emotions, such as hope and goodwill. Parallel with our
above conceptualization of negative stress, we will use the term positive stress to refer
to generally positive conceptualizations of stress whether at the level of stimulus,
response, or outcome. In this article, we follow Quick et al. (1997) and define eustress
as “the healthy, positive, constructive outcome of stressful events and the stress
response” (p. 4). Nelson and Simmons (2011) suggest that eustress is associated with
hope, positive affect, and vigor. This places eustress firmly within the domain of posi-
tive psychology and positive organizational behavior.
Perhaps the dominant conceptualization of organizational stress is the TM (Folkman
& Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In this model, individuals encounter
stressors as stimuli; as these stressors are encountered, they are iteratively appraised
by the individual. During primary appraisal, stressors are perceived by individuals as
either a threat or a non-threat. TM theorizes that those stimuli appraised as non-threats
are no longer a source of stress. Stimuli appraised as threats undergo secondary
appraisal. During secondary appraisal, the individual assesses the controllability of the
threat and the resources that are available to cope with the threat. Individuals

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

282 Human Resource Development Review 14(3)

have different tolerances for stress. Frone (1990) found that individuals with a higher
tolerance of ambiguity are less vulnerable to the effects of job-related negative stress
and strain caused by roles with less clarity and more ambiguity. When stimuli are per-
ceived as controllable and able to be coped with, positive stress results. If coping
resources are insufficient, negative stress results.
The preventive stress model (TPSM) attempts to explain both how stress occurs
within organizations and how stress can be managed (Hargrove, Quick, Nelson, &
Quick, 2011; Quick & Quick, 1979; Quick et al., 1997). An alternative model to the
TM, TPSM suggests that individuals respond to stressors with a holistic response that
includes cognitive, affective, and physiological reactions. From this response, a state
of distress or eustress results, and these states predict outcomes. Primary prevention
addresses stressors, secondary prevention addresses the response to stressors, and ter-
tiary prevention addresses the response to outcomes (Quick & Quick, 1979).
Much research in the organizational sciences over the last three decades has cen-
tered on the negative side of stress response and negative stress-related outcomes
(Driskell & Salas, 1996; Hargrove, Nelson, & Cooper, 2013; Hargrove et al., 2011;
Nelson & Simmons, 2011). Although negative stress remains a ubiquitous and power-
ful factor affecting individuals in organizations, the focus of this article, closely asso-
ciated with the positive organizational behavior framework, is on positive stress.
Luthans and Jensen (2002) built the case for research focused on positively oriented
organizational behavior in HRD. Both TM and TPSM concur that stress has the poten-
tial to produce positive outcomes for individuals and organizations. Research suggests
a number of pathways for stress to be a positive force in organizations (Hargrove et al.,
2013; Nelson & Simmons, 2011; Quick, Bennett, & Hargrove, 2014; Quick et al.,
1997). Here, we focus on opportunities for HRD professionals to make a contribution
to performance.
To be effective in their role-enhancing performance outcomes, HRD professionals
must recognize the strong and well-understood connection between stress and perfor-
mance; in fact, HRD must actively manage stress in the organization. Consistently,
researchers have found that negative stress leads to undesirable performance out-
comes, including absenteeism (Manning & Osland, 1989), turnover (Jamal, 1984;
Jung & Yoon, 2014; Mosadeghrad, Ferlie, & Rosenberg, 2011), and poor in-role
behavior (Yavas, Babakus, & Karatepe, 2013). Recent meta-analytic results confirm
the negative relationship between negative stress and both performance (Ford,
Cerasoli, Higgins, & Decesare, 2011) and citizenship behaviors (Eatough, Chang,
Miloslavic, & Johnson, 2011). There is a strong link between eustress, performance,
and other positive outcomes (Quick et al., 2013); for example, Simmons and Nelson
(2007) linked eustress with job performance, physical health, and psychological well-
being. Eustress is “essential to growth, development, and mastery” (Quick, Cooper,
Nelson, Quick, & Gavin, 2003, p. 53)—all performance related constructs that are
especially relevant to HRD professionals.
Related disciplines, such as human resource management (HRM), industrial-orga-
nizational psychology, and organizational behavior, link stress with performance. For
example, the workplace engagement literature suggests that distress is a significant

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

Hargrove et al. 283

factor in disengagement. Kahn (1990) suggested that psychological safety is requisite

for workplace engagement and, thus, for sustained performance. Stress is also linked
with performance via social exchange networks; Hargrove, Cooper, and Quick (2012)
suggested that perceptions of fairness, support, and commitment are potential stressors
among downsized workers and survivors. Additional theories in the behavioral science
literature examine the causal link between stress (both eustress and distress) and per-
formance. We note that the focus of this article is to highlight the positive steps that
HRD professionals may take to increase eustress and improve performance.

CHF
Developing employees through challenge in the workplace is not a new idea. The CHF
originally sought to explain why certain self-reported stressors produced positive
rather than negative outcomes. Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, and Boudreau (2000)
described stressors as either challenge related or hindrance related; challenge-related
self-reported stress leads to positive outcomes, whereas hindrance-related self-reported
stress leads to negative outcomes. Recent empirical work has provided general support
for the CHF, which continues to evolve theoretically (Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, &
LePine, 2004; Culbertson, Huffman, & Alden-Andersen, 2010; Haar, 2006; Lepine,
Podsakoff, & Lepine, 2005; Pearsall, Ellis, & Stein, 2009; Podsakoff, 2007; Podsakoff,
LePine, & LePine, 2007; Rodell & Judge, 2009; Webster, Beehr, & Christiansen,
2010; Webster, Beehr, & Love, 2011). Challenge stressors are defined as workplace
demands “appraised as promoting accomplishment of job tasks and the personal
development of the individual” (Podsakoff, 2007, p. 87). Four components—appraisal,
relatedness, task accomplishment, and personal development—are seen as important
for developing challenge in employees and generating positive stress (Hargrove et al.,
2013).
Podsakoff (2007) identified four types of challenge stressors: work pace, workload,
job complexity, and job responsibility. The pace of work is perhaps the most common
form of challenge stressor studied. Organizational efficiency depends up work being
accomplished in a timely manner. Units per hour, patients per day, sales per quarter,
transactions per year, and so on are basic productivity measures in many organizations
(Hargrove et al., 2013). Although work pace measures primarily focus on quantitative
measures, workload challenges combine the quantitative and qualitative nature of
tasks (Podsakoff, 2007). Challenging employees with workload means that the work
an employee is assigned should stimulate and arouse an individual to maximize per-
formance rather than overwhelm them with tasks that are too difficult or too numer-
ous. Challenging work, like Goldilocks’s porridge, should neither be too cold nor too
hot. For example, workers assigned to tasks that are too easy or too few in number will
not rise to their maximum performance capability. Setting unrealistically high expec-
tations is not the solution either. Work that tasks employees with demands too difficult
or quantitatively overwhelming will lead to distress, failure, and other negative conse-
quences. Challenging work finds the happy medium. Workers are pushed to their capa-
bilities in terms of both the difficulty of the task assigned and the quantity of tasks

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

284 Human Resource Development Review 14(3)

assigned. HRD managers must carefully (hopefully based on good data) balance the
quantity and quality of tasks with the capabilities of their employees.
Job complexity and job responsibility are concerned with the qualitative nature of
an individual’s work. Job complexity concerns the bundle of tasks that an employee is
asked to accomplish (Podsakoff, 2007). Good job complexity means an individual is
challenged by the variety and range of demands to which he or she is exposed. Jobs
that are appropriately complex should fit the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs)
of employees and move them toward improved employee engagement. Employees
engaged by their job responsibilities must “harness” themselves to their work by
employing and expressing “themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally dur-
ing role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). HRD managers should be careful to help
in the design of jobs that have sufficient breadth and take care not to take an overly
mechanistic approach (Brannick, Levine, & Morgeson, 2007). For example, we
recently visited a state-of-the-art FedEx distribution center and noticed that line
employees were given a variety of tasks on a given shift rather than being asked sim-
ply to move boxes from Point A to Point B. Job responsibility is concerned with the
level of accountability and control that an individual is assigned (Podsakoff, 2007).
Job responsibility should be carefully calibrated not to be above or below an individ-
ual’s capabilities. For example, giving an inexperienced young hospital manager con-
trol over a multimillion dollar budget and direct supervision of 60 staff members is
more likely to lead to failure than challenge. Conversely, assigning a management
professional with 10 years of executive experience to supervise a shift of 30 workers
at a factory is more likely to lead to boredom than high performance.
The majority of empirical work exploring the CHF focuses on hindrance stressors.
Meta-analyses have provided evidence that hindrance stressors predict negative indi-
vidual and organizational outcomes (Podsakoff et al., 2007). By definition, percep-
tions of hindrance stressors tend to predict distress because stressors are being
perceived as unrelated to goal accomplishment or personal development. Although we
fully support HRD practices designed to decrease hindrance stressors, the focus of this
article is generating eustress by promoting challenge stressors. The presence of hin-
drance stressors does not, in theory, contribute to eustress. Our point is that if organiza-
tions wish to create eustress, they should seek to decrease hindrance stressors.
Elaborating on how hindrance stressors potentially decrease eustress is beyond the
scope of this article because of our focus on the positive possibilities of generating
eustress.

HRD Eustress Model

The HRD eustress model (Figure 1) conceives of organizational stress in terms of
challenges (light gray box), response (medium gray boxes), and outcomes (dark gray
boxes). Employees are exposed to work challenges and appraise the nature of these
challenges in terms of demand and coping resources; either eustress or distress ensues.
The rounded boxes in the model consist of HRD practices particularly relevant to
organizational stress; the box on the top left represents primary HRD practices related

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

Hargrove et al. 285

TERTIARY HRD
PRIMARY HRD INTERVENTIONS SECONDARY HRD
INTERVENTIONS
INTERVENTIONS
Job Analysis/Design Performance Appraisal
Recruitment/Selection Wellness Programs
Mental Health Benefits Compensation
Training & Development Employee Recognition
Communication Flexible Scheduling
Coaching and Counseling Career Management

Positive Outcomes
Wellbeing
Commitment
Eustress Identification
Performance
Citizenship
Challenge Stressors Engagement
Individual
Work pace
Appraisal of
Work load (if in excess)
Job complexity Demands and Coping
Job responsibility Resources Negative Outcomes
Burnout
Physical symptoms Resulting Stressors
Distress Counterproductive which may be appraised
Behaviors as challenging or hindering
Withdrawal
Behaviors

TERTIARY HRD INTERVENTIONS

EAPs
Comprehensive Benefits
Leave Policies

Figure 1.  The HRD eustress model: HR interventions associated with generating eustress
among employees.
Note. HRD = human resource development; HR = human resource; EAP = employee assistance program.

to challenging employees. The box in top center of the model contains the HRD prac-
tices that can aid individuals in coping with challenges, promoting eustress, and reduc-
ing distress. The rounded box at the right of the model represents HRD practices
related to tertiary eustress interventions. The top right rounded box contains practices
to maximize the effects of positive stress and the bottom right rounded box presents
practices that have the potential to minimize the effects of negative stress. We note that
although much previous work in HRD has focused on the negative aspects of stress,
the present model offers a model for HRD practitioners to develop positive stress in
organizations. Thus, the HRD eustress model examines positive organizational stress
as a psychological concept that builds upon extant models of organizational stress.
Like other existing models of organizational stress, the HRD eustress model
reflects the ongoing, interactive nature of stress within organizations. Both positive
and negative outcomes result in new stressors faced by individuals within organi-
zational settings. Workers engaged in their work, experiencing high levels of well-
being, commitment, and performance may be more likely to appraise future
stressors as challenges rather than hindrances. Nelson and Simmons (2011) argued
that this ongoing process leads to states of savoring and flow. Similarly, negative
outcomes associated with distress generate new stressors for individuals, for exam-
ple, there are often consequences associated with counterproductive work

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

286 Human Resource Development Review 14(3)

behaviors. Finally, the HRD eustress model recognizes that outcomes are related to
one another. Workers do not experience either distress or eustress; they do not expe-
rience only positive outcomes or negative outcomes associated with stress. In their
jobs, workers are likely to experience both negative and positive outcomes associ-
ated with stress. For example, an employee suffering from burnout may still engage
in citizenship behavior.

Primary Interventions: Challenging Employees Through HRD Practices

HRD professionals can help challenge employees by supporting the targeted perfor-
mance of certain organizational functions, for example, job analysis, job design,
recruitment, selection, training and development, and communication. Most compa-
nies need not add functions to promote positive stress. Rather they need to better
focus existing functions in such a way as to create positive challenges for workers.
For example, as managers focus more on creating eustress, they have greater humil-
ity with regard to employee skills and abilities and perceive greater self-efficacy
(Frone, 1990).
Through careful job analysis, job design, and selection, organizations better chal-
lenge employees. By appropriately designing jobs and selecting people who are
aroused by the demands of jobs, organizations challenge employees appropriately
with work pace, workload, job complexity, and job responsibility, thus linking job
analysis and work design to stress (Abdel-Halim, 1981; Bond & Bunce, 2001;
Fairbrother & Warn, 2003; Gilbreath & Montesino, 2006; Humphrey, Nahrgang, &
Morgeson, 2007; Kompier, 2003; Smith & Sainfort, 1989).
Jobs that are too simple can be seen as the result of an overemphasis on the division
of labor. On the contrary, overly complex job designs can stem from false economies;
organizations may seek to combine distantly related tasks to reduce the number of
employees to perform a set of functions. For example, in small organizations and when
resources are tight, employees wear many hats. A receptionist overburdened by
answering phones, greeting visitors, and performing data-entry duties will be unlikely
to do any one of those tasks well. Job design is predicated on careful job analyses. Job
analyses must be performed methodically, preferably making use of best practices and
taking advantage of both quantitative and qualitative data (Brannick, Cadle, & Levine,
2012).
Morris (2008) challenged HRD professionals to become intervention specialists
as a means to combat workplace negative stressors that result from turbulent change
in organizations. Strategic, structural, and human forces such as mergers, acquisi-
tions and layoffs, globalization, talent wars, changes in technology, and workforce
diversity have brought about this turbulent environment (Morris, 2008). HRD pro-
fessionals can intervene through contributions to better job design, for example, by
auditing for negative stress factors such as job control, role overload, social support,
and supervisory behavior (Gilbreath & Montesino, 2006). Here, employees are seen
as having to deal with a broad array of negative work stressors that result from work
environment factors, such as role ambiguity, conflict, monotony, uncertainty,

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

Hargrove et al. 287

unhealthy supervisory behavior, and lack of person-environment fit. Our HRD pro-
fessional expertise obligates us to help employees overcome these stressors
(Gilbreath & Montesino, 2006).
Through the selection function, organizations attract and choose people to perform
jobs; as such, selection systems that accurately assess the capabilities of applicants and
ensure that selectees have the KSAs to meet the demands of a given job must be uti-
lized (Kristof-Brown, 2000; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). In this
regard, HRD professionals can work collaboratively to build on HRM efforts to affect
these outcomes. For example, a recent stream of research suggests that positive core
self-evaluation (CSE) predicts individual engagement (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford,
2010). HRD professionals should work within their organizations to ensure that CSE
and other individual characteristics linked to stress-related outcomes be considered
during the selection process.
For example, effective training and development programs help make the work-
place a learning environment (Armstrong & Foley, 2003). Just as school students are
challenged by academic subjects, workers can be challenged by learning new work-
related concepts and skills. Training and development programs contribute by chal-
lenging employees to stretch their capabilities to perform new tasks and provide a path
to advancing within the organization (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Employees are frus-
trated rather than challenged when they lack the resources to complete assigned tasks.
By providing training, however, HRD professionals help employees develop new
skills that enable them to step up to successfully complete assignments. For example,
providing continuing education to older experienced workers helps them respond to
the challenge of changing technologies.
It is axiomatic that many problems in business arise from communication policies
and procedures. Communications should focus on relating HRD policies and proce-
dures to work and relating work to goal accomplishment. For example, an email
informing employees about a change in payroll procedure is unlikely to promote posi-
tive stress—it is more likely to be greeted with groans. But if the communication
frames the change in terms of better serving employee needs and relates it to goals that
employees share, employees are more likely to accept and contribute to the work nec-
essary to implement the change.
The key to success in these primary intervention strategies lies within the defini-
tion of challenge stress. The reader will remember that challenge stress is meaning-
fully related to goal accomplishment or personal development. To effectively
challenge employees and generate eustress, HRD professionals must constantly seek
to align organizational expectations with employees’ needs to accomplish goals and
to develop personally. In others words, jobs should be designed that enable goal
accomplishment. Workers should be selected who have the potential to succeed and
grow professionally. Training and development should be meaningfully related not
only to organizational needs but also to the individual needs of employees. Finally,
the value and relevance of information communicated by HRD should be apparent
to recipients.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

288 Human Resource Development Review 14(3)

Secondary Interventions: Helping Employees Cope and Promoting

Eustress Through HRD Programs
In the second stage of our conceptual model, individuals appraise challenging stimuli
and respond with either eustress or distress. Organizations should adopt those prac-
tices that are most likely to produce eustress. It is important to note that eustress is not
always a good thing. Too much stress, even positive stress, can result in negative out-
comes. Even the most fit athletes must rest and recover from the physical challenges
of sport. Our conceptual model focuses on four practices that organizations can use to
promote eustress: wellness programs, mental health benefits, flexible scheduling, and
coaching and counseling.
Morris (2008) categorized direct interventions to combat negative stress into five
broad categories: time (e.g., flex time, time off), financial assistance (e.g., flexible
spending accounts, child care subsidies, credit unions), programs and services
(employee assistance program [EAP], employee wellness and fitness programs), poli-
cies (telecommuting, diversity), and community-based programs (on-site child care,
elder care resources). Furthermore, these interventions alleviate negative workplace
stress through positive employee and organizational outcomes, such as increases in
productivity, improved recruitment, retention and turnover, improved job satisfaction,
morale, and employee loyalty, improved corporate image and ethical behavior, and
increased retention of females and older workers (Morris, 2008).
Wellness programs and mental health benefits provide coping resources for work-
ers experiencing challenging stressors. Walking programs and smoking cessation pro-
grams, perhaps the most common wellness plans, have both been demonstrated to
improve coping responses (Carnethon et al., 2009). Similarly, offering hassle-free
mental health benefits is likely far less expensive than providing care resultant from
serious psychological distress. Rather than viewing mental health benefits as a costly
expense, coping resources can be increased to promote a positive stress response;
these benefits should be viewed as a valuable investment. For example, Intel offers a
9-week mindfulness program to its workforce of 100,000 employees across 63 coun-
tries using a train-the-trainer model. On average, participants report a 2-point decrease
(on a scale of 1 to 10) in stress and feeling overwhelmed, a 3-point increase in overall
happiness and well-being, and a 2-point increase in having new ideas, insights, mental
clarity, creativity, the ability to focus, the quality of relationships at work, and the level
of engagement in meetings, projects, and collaboration (Wong, 2014). A wide variety
of coping intervention programs are available to organizations wishing to help their
employees positively deal with challenge (Richardson & Rothstein, 2008).
Flexible scheduling empowers employees to healthily cope with organizational and
personal objectives. While deadlines are sometimes inflexible, there are many times
when they do not need to be. Arbitrary deadlines create negative stress, and employees
are often better at making time management decisions than their managers (Grzywacz,
Carlson, & Shulkin, 2008). If permitted to prioritize and juggle their tasks according
to their own schedule, they can respond positively to the challenges they face. Although
deadlines that cannot be changed need to be enforced, organizations should advocate

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

Hargrove et al. 289

giving employees maximum flexibility. Allowing workers the flexibility to manage

their own schedules empowers employees to accomplish both their personal and orga-
nizational goals. For example, allowing a parent to do office work from home at night
rather than during the normal workday may facilitate a parent’s desire to volunteer at
a school. For such a parent, this type of flexibility is crucial to their own sense of
achievement and personal development.
Many challenges do not require psychological intervention; a positive stress
response can be accomplished through effective coaching and counseling. Just as an
effective coach can help encourage her athletes to face difficult competitive chal-
lenges, managers can provide valuable support to their employees. There is substantial
evidence that perceived supervisor support is a key factor in reducing negative stress
response (Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, 2011). Managers can help employees
deal with challenges by offering constructive suggestions and by helping employees
find creative solutions; employees have the capacity to develop optimism and resil-
ience (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). Congruent with the HRD eustress
model, coaching would include demonstrating the alignment between the organiza-
tion’s goals and an individual’s goals. For example, an HRD professional who is work-
ing with an employee experiencing significant workplace stress resulting from a
competitive bonus program should take the time to relate the nature of the stress with
the personal goals the employee is trying to achieve. Perhaps the employee is seeking
to purchase a new home; the bonus opportunity could be connected to the down pay-
ment needed. Effective coaching can help build valuable resources to deal with these
challenges. Levinson (2004) described techniques that can be taught to employees
such as delayed reactions, distinguishing facts from inferences, using the scientific
method to problem solve, recognition of the idealization–frustration–demoralization
syndrome, and the notion of logical fate, among others.

Tertiary Interventions: Promoting Eustress Through HRD Practices

Organizations can maximize positive outcomes associated with stress by accurate per-
formance appraisal, employee recognition programs, performance-based compensa-
tion programs, and effective career management. To promote positive outcomes
associated with stress, these tasks must help relate challenges at work to personal
development and goal achievement.
Performance appraisal, employee recognition programs, and performance-based
compensation programs are all important practices for extending the benefits of posi-
tive stress. Accurate performance appraisal employing best practices such as 360°
evaluation, qualitative portfolio assessments, and validated quantitative instruments
has the potential to provide employees with useful and constructive feedback (Rossett,
2009). This feedback has the potential to reinforce positive behaviors associated with
meeting challenging organizational tasks. Employee recognition programs are cost-
effective methods of rewarding desirable behavior. Research indicates that positive
reinforcement is crucial to motivation (c.f. Wiegand & Geller, 2005). Recognition
needs to be timely and based on real accomplishments.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

290 Human Resource Development Review 14(3)

Like employee recognition programs, compensation programs have the potential to

reinforce positive behavior. Many organizations use market-based compensation sys-
tems to judge whether they are paying employees too much or too little (Milkovich,
Newman, & Milkovich, 2008). The degree to which compensation systems aid in pro-
moting positive outcomes associated with stress is largely a function of relating three
things: the work, the rewards, and the financial goals of an employee. Organizations
can accomplish this by using compensation systems that make these connections as
transparent as possible. Performance-based compensation plans that focus on the
value of productivity have the potential to extend positive outcomes (Milkovich et al.,
2008). For example, basing a salary for a manufacturing supervisor on market rates
might not be as effective as relating the quantity and quality of the supervisor’s work
to the profitability of the firm. In the first case, it is difficult for the supervisor to place
a value on the completion of work-related tasks. In the second case, the supervisor can
directly relate the work performed to the compensation received and to her personal
financial goals.
To effectively extend the positive outcomes associated with stress, organizations
should provide employees with a path for career success. Employees who can see a
pathway to advancement by meeting the work challenges requisite for that advance-
ment are more likely to remain hopeful and positive (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman,
2005). Organizations must hold up their part of the bargain. HRD professionals should
capitalize on the increased employee engagement that may result from eustress by
clearly communicating steps for employees to excel and grow at work. Engaged
employees may be more willing to rise up and meet challenges associated with per-
sonal goal attainment. Pursuing career goals is likely to be a eustressful experience—
career advancement should place significant demands on employees. HRD
professionals can generate positive stress by clearly communicating career steps, pro-
viding training resources needed to accomplish those steps, and ensuring that those
employees who successfully follow these pathways are rewarded with advancement.
Finally, HRD professionals should monitor the positive outcomes that their employees
experience and use this learning to inform primary and secondary interventions.

Tertiary Interventions: Reducing Distress Through HRD Practices

Although our primary focus is on positive stress, negative stress in organizations cannot
be ignored. Here, we briefly address tertiary interventions of distress. Organizations have
a role in reducing negative outcomes associated with stress (Quick et al., 1997); three
specific practices that have this potential are EAPs, the provision of comprehensive health
and mental health benefits, and flexible leave policies. A large body of research supports
the effectiveness of EAPs at reducing stress (c.f. Giga, Cooper, & Faragher, 2003). On-site
counseling and stress reduction training are additional examples of effective interven-
tions. For example, Levinson (2004) described techniques that can be used in organiza-
tional stress management workshops to positively influence workers’ cognitive appraisal,
lessen conflict, and expand self-awareness to decrease distress and increase eustress.
Consequences of distress include cardiovascular disorders, musculoskeletal pain,

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

Hargrove et al. 291

headaches, anxiety disorders, and depression (Quick et al., 1997). Employees need to
have a comprehensive set of benefits to receive treatment for distress-related disease. Just
as flexible scheduling helps employees cope with challenging stress, flexible leave poli-
cies provide space for employees who are in a state of distress. Voluntary turnover can be
a significant cost (Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2005); it is likely far more cost-effective to
temporarily replace valued employees than to lose them to voluntary turnover. Flexible
leave policies and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) give employees the time and
space to deal with negative consequences associated with stress.
Finally, HRD professionals can help employees convert stress from a threat to a
source of energy using concepts based in experiential learning theory (see Holman,
2000; Holman, Pavlica, & Thorpe, 1997; Kolb, 1984; Kolb, Boyatsiz, & Mainemelis,
2000). In this regard, HRD professionals can help employees construct new learning
about stressful work by stimulating individual reflection and helping employees con-
vert stress to eustress. Reflection in action helps employees learn through experience
through the integration of spirals of activity with tacit and explicit knowledge (Raelin,
1997). The reflection that takes place is both active and purposeful, helping employees
incorporate new experiences as a learned response that involves both cognition and
feeling (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985). This presents an opportunity for HRD profes-
sionals because reflections that take place in the presence of others represent an active
and spontaneous mental process that helps individuals make sense of experience
(Schön, 1983). Reflection in action leads to learning new meaning and is essential for
development (Cunliffe, 2004; Mezirow, 1981, 1991; Raelin, 2001).
Counterfactual reflection involves the replay of a mental representation of alterna-
tives to past stressful events, leading to new insight into what might have been differ-
ent if some detail of the past were altered. Thus, reflecting on past stressful events
offers great value for HRD practitioners because new learning can be linked directly
to a job, experience, or organizational context, including specific individual employee
skills needed to deal with similar stressful situations. General Mills implemented a
program of reflective mindfulness for officers and senior managers; the program has
been so successful that it has been extended to all employees (Gelles, 2012). Eighty-
three percent of participants said they were taking time each day to optimize personal
productivity while 82% said that as a result of the program, they now make time to
eliminate tasks with limited productivity value (Gelles, 2012).

Implications
The HRD eustress model provides a framework for exploring empirical links between
positive stress and performance in organizations. Conceptually, the model suggests an
important causal link (generating eustress) between HRD actions and performance.
Future research can help determine which interventions are most efficacious and the
amount of stressors that are optimal. With regard to training, research can be con-
ducted to determine the modes of training that are most likely to induce eustress. Thus,
the model provides a clear and testable theoretical platform to explore the role of
eustress in HRD interventions.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

292 Human Resource Development Review 14(3)

The HRD eustress model also suggests theoretical questions of interest to HRD
researchers. Although the focus of this article is on the effects of HRD interventions in
generating eustress for individuals, the model may also be explored at the macro or
organizational level. As the organizational development (OD) function is ultimately
concerned with organizational performance, researchers may use the HRD eustress
model to investigate the role of organizational eustress on organizational performance.
Another possible theoretical question suggested by this article relates to the CHF.
Although we focused on the generation of eustress through challenge stressors, a
related question could be the role that HRD can take in reducing distress by reducing
hindrance stressors.
By synthesizing three existing models of organizational stress (the TM, TPSM, and
the CHF) the HRD eustress model has the potential to guide researchers toward new
theoretical questions. Are there opportunities to design jobs to focus on generating
positive stress rather than just focusing on employee efficiency? Are developmental
training programs that relate organizational demands to personal goal achievement
more effective than those that focus only on the needs of the organization? Are HRD
professionals, coaches, and counselors who focus on goal relatedness and individual
meaningfulness successful at providing employees with the coping resources they
need? Are employees who experience eustress rewarded within organizations with
advancement and compensation? These questions and many others can be addressed
using the HRD eustress model as a basis of hypothesis testing.
Throughout this article, we have focused on HRD’s role in generating positive
stress; however, the impact of negative stress cannot be ignored. Although space limi-
tations condensed our discussion of how HRD professionals handle hindrance stress-
ors and negative stress in organizations, others provide guidance in this regard (e.g.,
Driskell & Salas, 1996; Giga et al., 2003; Hargrove et al., 2013; Hargrove et al., 2011;
Levinson, 2004; Nelson & Simmons, 2011; Quick et al., 1997). Although the HRD
eustress model is firmly grounded in the HRD literature, the model awaits further tests
of support.

Conclusion
The HRD eustress model contributes to the field by providing an explanation for the
efficacy of existing HRD practices drawn from the organizational stress literature. We
reframe HRD practices in terms of primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions that
can improve employee performance by generating healthy levels of stress. Contrary to
the vast majority of workplace stress research, this article focuses on the positive
potential of eustress in organizations rather than the effects of employee distress.
Building on the work of other scholars (Luthans et al., 2007; Luthans & Jensen, 2002),
this article extends the positive psychology and positive organizational behavior into
the field of HRD. Perhaps this article can serve as an additional launching point in a
new developing domain—positive HRD.
The model contributes to the practice of HRD by providing HRD professionals
with a meaningful explanation for the good work that many are already doing. The

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

Hargrove et al. 293

HRD eustress model provides a parsimonious explanation for why challenge matters
and how many activities within HRD are crucial to generating healthy stress among
employees. HRD professionals can find new meaning in their activities in terms of
stress intervention.
Organizational interventions to prevent negative workplace stress have been widely
and deeply described. The model presented offers a different perspective. The model
presents a new opportunity for HRD professionals to improve performance. By help-
ing develop positive employee responses to the challenges of workplace stress, HRD
professionals can make their organizations stronger and healthier. The HRD eustress
model contributes to the field by providing a synthetic model for positive interventions
of benefit to both HRD researchers and practitioners.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1981). Effects of role stress-job design-technology interaction on employee
work satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 260-273.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474.
Armstrong, A., & Foley, P. (2003). Foundations for a learning organization: Organization learn-
ing mechanisms. The Learning Organization, 10, 74-82.
Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2001). Job control mediates change in a work reorganization inter-
vention for stress reduction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 290-302.
Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & LePine, M. A. (2004). Relations between stress and
work outcomes: The role of felt challenge, job control, and psychological strain. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 64, 165-181.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In
D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning
(pp. 18-40). New York, NY: Croom Helm.
Brannick, M. T., Cadle, A., & Levine, E. L. (2012). Job analysis for knowledge, skills, abilities,
and other characteristics, predictor measures, and performance outcomes. In N. Schmitt
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 119-146). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Brannick, M. T., Levine, E. L., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Job and work analysis: Methods,
research, and applications for human resource management (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Cannon, B. (1915). Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear and rage: An account of recent
researches into the function of emotional excitement. New York, NY: Appleton Century
Crofts.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

294 Human Resource Development Review 14(3)

Carnethon, M., Whitsel, L. P., Franklin, B. A., Kris-Etherton, P., Milani, R., Pratt, C. A., &
Wagner, G. R. (2009). Worksite wellness programs for cardiovascular disease prevention
a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 120, 1725-1741.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empiri-
cal examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 65-74.
Culbertson, S. S., Huffman, A. H., & Alden-Anderson, R. (2010). Leader-member exchange
and work-family interactions: The mediating role of self-reported challenge and hindrance
stress. The Journal of Psychology, 144(1), 15-36.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management
Education, 28, 407-426.
Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (Eds.). (1996). Stress and human performance. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Eatough, E. M., Chang, C. H., Miloslavic, S. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2011). Relationships of
role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 619-632.
Fairbrother, K., & Warn, J. (2003). Workplace dimensions, stress and job satisfaction. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 18, 8-21.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and
coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 150-170.
Ford, M. T., Cerasoli, C. P., Higgins, J. A., & Decesare, A. L. (2011). Relationships between
psychological, physical, and behavioural health and work performance: A review and meta-
analysis. Work & Stress, 25, 185-204.
Frone, M. (1990). Intolerance of ambiguity as a moderator of the occupational role stress-strain
relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 309-320.
Gelles, D. (2012, August 24). The mind business. The Financial Times. Retrieved from http://
www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/d9cb7940-ebea-11e1-985a-00144feab49a.html
Giga, S. I., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2003). The development of a framework for a com-
prehensive approach to stress management interventions at work. International Journal of
Stress Management, 10, 280-296.
Gilbreath, B., & Montesino, M. U. (2006). Expanding the HRD role: Improving employee well-
being and organizational performance. Human Resource Development International, 9,
563-571.
Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Shulkin, S. (2008). Schedule flexibility and stress: Linking
formal flexible arrangements and perceived flexibility to employee health. Community,
Work & Family, 11, 199-214.
Haar, J. M. (2006). Challenge and hindrance stressors in New Zealand: Exploring social
exchange theory outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
17, 1942-1950.
Hamlin, B., & Stewart, J. (2010). What is HRD? A definitional review and synthesis of the HRD
domain. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35, 199-220.
Hargrove, M. B., Cooper, C. L., & Quick, J. C. (2012). Individual outcomes resulting from
downsizing related stress. In C. L. Cooper, A. Pandey, & J. C. Quick (Eds.), Downsizing: Is
less still more? (pp. 293-325). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hargrove, M. B., Nelson, D. L., & Cooper, C. (2013). Generating eustress by challenging
employees: Helping people savor their work. Organizational Dynamics, 42, 61-70.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

Hargrove et al. 295

Hargrove, M. B., Quick, J. C., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. D. (2011). The theory of preven-
tive stress management: A 33-year review and evaluation. Stress & Health: Journal of the
International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 27, 182-193.
Holman, D. (2000). A dialogical approach to skill and skilled activity. Human Relations, 53,
957-980.
Holman, D., Pavlica, K., & Thorpe, R. (1997). Rethinking Kolb’s theory of experiential learn-
ing in management education: The contribution of social constructionism and activity the-
ory. Management Learning, 28, 135-148.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social,
and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of
the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332-1356.
Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical assessment.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 1-21.
Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of employees’ job stress
in a foodservice industry: Focused on emotional labor and turnover intent. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 38, 84-88.
Kahn, R. L. (1987). Work stress in the 1980’s: Research and practice. In J. C. Quick, R. S.
Bhagat, J. E. Dalton, & J. D. Quick (Eds.), Work stress: Health care systems in the work-
place (pp. 311-320). New York, NY: Praeger.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and develop-
ment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A., Boyatsiz, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). Experiential learning theory: Previous
research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cogni-
tive, learning, and thinking styles (pp. 227-248). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kompier, M. (2003). Job design and well-being. In M. J. Schbracq, J. A. M. Winnubst, &
C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 429-454).
Chichester, England: John Wiley.
Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support
and work-family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of work-family specific
supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64, 289-313.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of indi-
viduals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and
person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
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 relationships
among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764-775.
Levinson, M. H. (2004). Managing organizational stress through general semantics. Et Cetera,
61, 245-253.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital:
Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,
60, 541-572.
Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2002). Hope: A new positive strength for human resource devel-
opment. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 304-322.
Manning, M. R., & Osland, J. S. (1989). The relationship between absenteeism and stress. Work
& Stress, 3, 223-235.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

296 Human Resource Development Review 14(3)

Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education Quarterly,
32, 3-24.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Milkovich, C. (2008). Compensation (9th ed.). New York,
NY: Irwin.
Morris, M. L. (2008). Combating workplace stressors: Using work-life initiatives as an OD
intervention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19, 95-105.
Morris, M. L., Messal, C. B., & Meriac, J. P. (2013). Core self-evaluation and goal orientation:
Understanding work stress. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24, 35-62.
Mosadeghrad, A. M., Ferlie, E., & Rosenberg, D. (2011). A study of relationship between job
stress, quality of working life and turnover intention among hospital employees. Health
Services Management Research, 24, 170-181.
Nadler, L., & Nadler, Z. (1989). Developing human resources (3rd ed.). London, England:
Jossey-Bass.
Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (2011). Savoring eustress while coping with distress: The
holistic model of stress. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational
health psychology (pp. 55-74). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ng, T. W., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and
subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367-408.
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stress-
ors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 109, 18-28.
Podsakoff, N. P. (2007). Challenge and hindrance stressors in the workplace: Tests of linear,
curvilinear, and moderated relationships with employee strains, satisfaction, and perfor-
mance (Doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville.
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hin-
drance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and with-
drawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438-454.
Quick, J. C., Bennett, J. B., & Hargrove, M. B. (2014). Stress health and wellbeing in practice:
Workplace leadership and leveraging stress for positive outcomes. In P. Chen & C. L.
Cooper (Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, volume III, work and wellbeing (pp.
175-204). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Quick, J. C., Cooper, C. L., Nelson, D. L., Quick, J. D., & Gavin, J. H. (2003). Stress, health,
and well-being at work. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the
science (2nd ed., pp. 53-59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Quick, J. C., & Quick, J. D. (1979). Reducing stress through preventive management. Human
Resource Management, 18(3), 15-22.
Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Hurrell, J. J. (1997). Preventive stress management
in organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Quick, J. C., Wright, T. A., Adkins, J. A., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. D. (2013). Preventive
stress management in organizations (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Raelin, J. A. (1997). A model of work-based learning. Organization Science, 8(6), 563-578.
Raelin, J. A. (2001). Public reflection as the basis of learning. Management Learning, 32(1),
11-30.
Redbook. (2009, September 21). Retrieved from http://www.redbookmag.com/body/mental-
health/interviews/a5266/beyonce-knowles-interview/

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

Hargrove et al. 297

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617-635.
Richardson, K. M., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Effects of occupational stress management inter-
vention programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 69-93.
Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The medi-
ating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and
counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1438-1451.
Rossett, A. (2009). First things fast: A handbook for performance analysis. San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer.
Russ-Eft, D. (2001). Workload stress & human resource development (Editorial). Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 1-3.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London,
England: Maurice Temple Smith.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998a, January 2). Building human strengths: Psychology’s forgotten mis-
sion. APA Monitor, 29(1), 2.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998b). Positive social science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
1(3), 181.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). The president’s address. American Psychologist, 54, 559-562.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. American
Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Selye, H. (1987). Stress without distress. London, England: Transworld.
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative conceptualizations of the relation-
ship between voluntary turnover and organizational performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 50-68.
Sikora, P. B., Beaty, E. D., & Forward, J. (2004). Updating theory on organizational stress: The
asynchronous multiple overlapping change (AMOC) model of workplace stress. Human
Resource Development Review, 3, 3-35.
Simmons, B. L., & Nelson, D. L. (2007). Eustress at work: Extending the holistic stress model.
In D. L. Nelson & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Positive organizational behavior (pp. 40-53).
London, England: Sage.
Smith, M. J., & Sainfort, P. C. (1989). A balance theory of job design for stress reduction.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 4, 67-79.
Sur, S., & Ng, E. S. (2014). Extending theory on job stress: The interaction between the “other
3” and “Big 5” personality traits on job stress. Human Resource Development Review, 13,
79-101.
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.
Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. (2011). Extending the challenge-hindrance model of
occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 505-516.
Wiegand, D. M., & Geller, E. S. (2005). Connecting positive psychology and organizational
behavior management: Achievement motivation and the power of positive reinforcement.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 24, 3-25.
Wong, K. (2014, April 8). There’s no price tag on a clear mind: Intel to launch mindfulness pro-
gram. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/
price-intel-mindfulness-program-employee

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

298 Human Resource Development Review 14(3)

Yavas, U., Babakus, E., & Karatepe, O. M. (2013). Does hope moderate the impact of job
burnout on frontline bank employees’ in-role and extra-role performances? International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 31, 56-70.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-
formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459-482.
Zinser, L. (2005, May 27). New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/
sports/othersports/27skating.ready.html?_r=0

Author Biographies
M. Blake Hargrove is associate professor of Management in the John L. Grove College of
Business at Shippensburg University. His research interests include positive organizational
behavior, scale development, and applied business ethics. He holds a PhD from the University
of Texas at Arlington.
Wendy S. Becker is professor of Management, Shippensburg University. Research interests
include experiential learning and the efficacy of workplace interventions, as well as managerial
development and motivation theory. She received the Award for Innovative Excellence in
Teaching, Learning, and Technology from the International Conference on College Teaching
and Learning and she is a Fellow of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Debra F. Hargrove is associate vice president for Human Resources Services at Dickinson
College. She has dedicated her career to make the organizations in which she serves better
places for all employees. She has been an HR practitioner for more than twenty years, holds an
MA in Human Resources, and earned the Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR)
designation.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIV on October 1, 2015

View publication stats