r Academy of Management Journal

2021, Vol. 64, No. 1, 235–264.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0164

DO THE HUSTLE! EMPOWERMENT FROM SIDE-HUSTLES

AND ITS EFFECTS ON FULL-TIME WORK PERFORMANCE
HUDSON SESSIONS
University of Oregon

JENNIFER D. NAHRGANG
MANUEL J. VAULONT
RASEANA WILLIAMS
Arizona State University

AMY L. BARTELS
University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Side-hustles, income-generating work performed alongside full-time jobs, are in-

creasingly common as the gig economy provides opportunities for employees to
perform supplementary work. Although scholars have suggested that side-hustles
conflict with full-time work performance, we assert that psychological empower-
ment from side-hustles enriches full-time work performance. We argue that side-
hustle complexity—the motivating characteristics of side-hustles—positively relates to
empowerment and that side-hustle motives moderate this relationship. A study of
337 employees supports these assertions. We then investigate the spillover of side-
hustle empowerment to full-time work performance in a 10-day experience-
sampling method study of 80 employee–coworker dyads. We address an affective
pathway in which daily side-hustle empowerment enriches full-time work perfor-
mance through side-hustle engagement and positive affect at work. We also consider a
cognitive pathway wherein side-hustle empowerment distracts from full-time work
performance through side-hustle engagement and attention residue—persistent cog-
nitions about side-hustles during full-time work. Overall, performance enrichment
from side-hustles was stronger than performance conflict. We also consider affective
shift from full-time work to side-hustles, finding negative affect from full-time work
strengthens the relationship between side-hustle empowerment and engagement.
Combined, our two studies examine the source of side-hustle empowerment and how
side-hustle empowerment influences affective and cognitive experiences during full-
time work.

With the rise of platform technologies and in-
creased demand for freelancers, contractors, and
other “gig” workers (Maxim & Muro, 2018), it has
never been easier for employees to supplement their
primary employment with a side-hustle, or income-
generating work performed alongside a full-time job
(Ashford, Caza, & Reid, 2018; Dokko, Mumford, &
We thank Markus Baer and three anonymous reviewers
for helping us to improve our work. We are also grateful for
insightful feedback from Mike Baer and Kevin Corley. We
acknowledge the financial support provided by the De-
partment of Management and Entrepreneurship at Arizona
State University. We also acknowledge a presentation of an
earlier version of our work at the 2018 Annual Meeting of
the Academy of Management in Chicago, Illinois.
235
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
Schanzenbach, 2015; Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary, n.d.). The ubiquity of the phenomenon
can be seen in the estimated 44 million workers in the
United States who participate in side-hustles (Clark,
2017, 2018), as well as the books, social media sites,
and podcasts dedicated to serving those seeking or
managing side-hustles (e.g., Guillebeau, 2017; Loper,
2013). Indeed, Uber’s (2018) recent advertising cam-
paign goes as far as to invite everyone with a car to “get
your side-hustle on” by driving for Uber on the side.
Although they are widespread, side-hustles have
been disparaged by both employers and scholars,
who characterize them as an activity that conflicts
with full-time work performance. For example, some
organizations explicitly prohibit side-hustles in their
employment contracts (Kirkham, 2017; Lussier &
236 Academy of Management Journal
Hendon, 2018). Scholars have predominantly up-
held this perspective on the detriments of side-
hustles, arguing that side-hustles are a “distraction
that harms job performance” (Rodell, 2013: 1275;
see also Betts, 2006; Sliter & Boyd, 2014). The basis
of this assertion is that a side-hustle drains an em-
ployee’s finite resources, thereby diminishing their
capacity to perform well in a full-time job (e.g.,
Barnett, 1998; Haas, 1999). This consensus on the
derogative effects of side-hustles suggests to man-
agers and employees that participating in side-hustles
is detrimental to the successful performance of full-
time work.
Although this consensus is intuitive, we chal-
lenge it by suggesting that employees may accrue
benefits from side-hustles that, in turn, enrich full-
time work performance. Specifically, side-hustles
provide opportunities to personalize, direct, and
take ownership of work (e.g., Petriglieri, Ashford, &
Wrzesniewski, 2019). Consider, for example, a full-
time accountant who has a side-hustle of complet-
ing odd jobs on TaskRabbit—an online platform that
matches freelance labor with local demand. This
individual has control over when, where, and how
to approach work for TaskRabbit and is otherwise
closely connected to the work process and out-
comes. The experience of these work characteristics
may promote the individual’s sense of empower-
ment, or a sense of freedom to shape an activity and
its context (Spreitzer, 1995). In turn, the positive
day-to-day experience of side-hustle empowerment
may carry forward to enrich their full-time work
performance. We ground our theory building about
the positive spillover of side-hustles in role en-
richment theory—a theory on the beneficial effects
of psychological resources transferred between do-
mains (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006)—and concur-
rently consider the potential for side-hustles to distract
from full-time work performance.
Given organizations’ and scholars’ potential mis-
understanding of the interplay between side-hustles
and full-time work, the purpose of our paper is to
(a) advance understanding of the prevalent phe-
nomenon of side-hustles and (b) shift the consensus
about how and why side-hustles impact perfor-
mance in one’s full-time job. We address both of
these points in a novel way by employing an em-
powerment perspective. As a first step toward
unpacking the phenomenon of side-hustles, we
consider what makes side-hustles empowering. We
argue that side-hustle empowerment depends on the
work characteristics of the side-hustle (i.e., side-
hustle complexity) and the reasons why employees
February
participate in side-hustles (i.e., side-hustle motives).
We combine these two considerations to investigate
how side-hustle motives moderate the relation-
ship between side-hustle complexity and side-hustle
empowerment.
Building on this consideration of between-person
differences in side-hustle empowerment, we then
examine the spillover of daily side-hustle empow-
erment to full-time work performance. Scholarly
and practical interest in empowerment has largely
stemmed from its downstream effects on employee
motivation and, subsequently, performance (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990). We assert that daily side-hustle
empowerment exerts spillover effects through side-
hustle engagement, a motivational state entailing
positive affect and cognitive attention and absorp-
tion (Kahn, 1990; Newton, LePine, Kim, Wellman, &
Bush, 2020; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006).
Given the affective and cognitive nature of engage-
ment, we outline an affective pathway in which daily
side-hustle empowerment enriches full-time work
performance through increased side-hustle engage-
ment and positive affect within full-time work, and
we address a cognitive pathway in which daily side-
hustle empowerment distracts from full-time work
performance through increased side-hustle engage-
ment and ensuing attention residue (Leroy, 2009;
Newton et al., 2020). Finally, we consider a recip-
rocal effect of full-time work on side-hustles by
using the affective shift model (Bledow, Schmitt,
Frese, & Kühnel, 2011) to understand when the
affective and cognitive paths we outline may be
stronger or weaker.
This study makes several contributions. First,
we advance understanding of how the changing
world of work shapes outcomes for employees and
organizations. The increase in gig work in the
United States represents nearly all net employ-
ment growth since 2005, and gig work is even more
prevalent outside the United States (Cappelli &
Keller, 2013; Katz & Krueger, 2016). In addressing
this development, Ashford et al. (2018: 24) asserted
that “the new world of work is on our doorstep, and
organizational studies seems woefully unpre-
pared.” Our study of side-hustles examines a
unique and contemporary work arrangement in
which we argue that workers anchor the benefits
of independent gig work (i.e., empowerment) to
the stability of a traditional work role. Our con-
tribution to better understanding this contempo-
rary means of “organizing” work is of particular
importance to organizational behavior research
in the modern era.
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels
Second, we use role enrichment theory to chal-
lenge the consensus about the the effects of side-
hustles on full-time work. Specifically, we advance
understanding of the spillover effects of side-hustle em-
powerment and engagement for affective and cog-
nitive experiences during full-time work as well
as the implications for employee performance. In
addition to addressing an impetus for spillover
(i.e., empowerment) and specific pathways for perfor-
mance enrichment and conflict, our investigation of
spillover from side-hustles advances understand-
ing of empowerment and affective shift within the
multiple domain literature (e.g., Rodell, 2013). Spe-
cifically, we build a better understanding of the spill-
over of psychological empowerment across domains
(e.g., side-hustles and full-time work) through en-
gagement, positive affect, and attention residue. In
addition, we gain further understanding of the affec-
tive shift that takes place across domains by extending
the research demonstrating affective shift between the
morning and afternoon at work (e.g., Bledow et al.,
2011; Bledow, Rosing, & Frese, 2013).
Third, in addition to addressing side-hustle
complexity and its relationship with side-hustle
empowerment, we consider why people engage in
side-hustles (i.e., side-hustle motives) and how
these motives moderate the effects of side-hustle
complexity on side-hustle empowerment. This ef-
fort is needed to understand worker outcomes that are
driven by the interaction between side-hustle com-
plexity and the motives that workers bring to the ac-
tivity. In particular, we integrate a framework of work
motives (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Schwartz, 1992) with
theory from the job design literature that suggests that
worker motives affect how vigorously people re-
spond to work complexity (Hackman & Oldham,
1980). Thus, our work aligns with and advances theo-
rizing from the job design literature that indicates that
both work characteristics and the motives that people
have for work affect their subsequent psychological
states (Hackman & Oldham, 1976); in our case, side-
hustle empowerment.
We approach our investigation into the phe-
nomenon of side-hustles with two studies (see
Figure 1 for an overview of our studies). In Study
1, a sample of 337 employees, we provide insight
into between-person differences in assessments
of side-hustle empowerment, thereby providing
a base for our exploration of the downstream
implications of side-hustles for employee perfor-
mance in full-time work. In Study 2, an experience
sampling method (ESM) study of 80 employee–
coworker dyads, we investigate our assertions
237
about how the experience of side-hustle empow-
erment enriches full-time work performance by
examining daily fluctuations in workers’ baseline
experiences over a 10-day period (Gabriel et al.,
2019).
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
The Phenomenon and Work Characteristics
of Side-Hustles
Side-hustles are a domain in which full-time em-
ployees participate in income-generating work that
is separate from their full-time jobs. This arrange-
ment has also been referred to as moonlighting
or multiple jobholding (Betts, 2006; Caza, Moss, &
Vough, 2018; Crawford, 1978). However, side-hustle
is the increasingly popular term for the phenomenon
because of its close association with the gig economy
(Clark, 2017, 2018; Merriam-Webster Online Dic-
tionary, n.d.). Within the gig economy, side-hustle is
a narrower term than “gig work” because a side-
hustle is gig work that specifically occurs alongside
one’s primary job. We consider the phenomenon of
side-hustles through the lens of job characteristics
theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) because it “re-
mains the dominant model of job design today”
(Grant, Fried, & Juillerat, 2011: 421) and is thus an apt
theoretical perspective for understanding the char-
acteristics of side-hustles (i.e., task autonomy, task
significance, task identity, skill variety, and task
feedback).
Given that side-hustles take place outside organi-
zational boundaries, supervisor control, and strictly
formalized systems (Petriglieri et al., 2019), they of-
fer freedom to choose how work is done, when and
where work takes place, and often what work one
performs (Ashford et al., 2018). The freedom to
schedule work, make decisions, and choose the
methods of performing the work suggests that side-
hustles tend to feature task autonomy (Hackman
& Oldham, 1976; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
Furthermore, side-hustles often take place in the
customer-facing service economy (Fried, Levi, &
Laurence, 2008; Spreitzer, Cameron, & Garrett, 2017).
Therefore, side-hustle workers generally contract di-
rectly with customers or clients (Ashford et al., 2018).
The resulting proximity to customers—the bene-
factors of the side-hustle work—should be associ-
ated with task significance (Fried et al., 2008;
Grant, 2007) or tasks that have a substantial effect
on the lives of other people (Hackman & Oldham,
1976).
238 Academy of Management Journal February

FIGURE 1
Empowerment from Side-Hustles and Its Spillover Effects on Full-Time Work Performance

Side-hustle
motives
Study 1: The Phenomenon
of Side-Hustles and Global
Assessments of Side-Hustle
Empowerment

Side-hustle Side-hustle
complexity empowerment

(Hypotheses 1 and 2)
Between-Individual Effects

Within-Individual Effects

Role Enrichment through

Affective shift Positive Affect

(Hypothesis 4)
(Hypotheses
6 and 7)

Study 2: The Spillover Effects

of Task Assessments of Side- Daily side-hustle Daily side-hustle Daily full-time
Hustle Empowerment on Full- empowerment engagement work performance
Time Work Performance
(Hypothesis 3)

(Hypothesis 5)

Role Conflict through

Attention Residue

Moreover, workers often direct the completion of
side-hustle work from beginning to end (Ashford
et al., 2018; Petriglieri et al., 2019). This indepen-
dent task execution represents low interdepen-
dence or relatively few contextual features outside
an individual that affect their activity (Campion,
Medsker, & Higgs, 1993). Additionally, providing
goods or services in side-hustles commonly occurs
over a matter of minutes or hours, as exemplified by
the role of an Uber driver or worker on TaskRabbit
(Spreitzer et al., 2017). Given this low interdepen-
dence and short turnaround for deliverables, side-
hustles often feature task identity, or a sense of
completing easily identifiable, whole pieces of work
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Side-hustles may also provide opportunities to
learn fresh routines and practice new skills as
workers direct the entire work process (Ashford
et al., 2018). Said differently, in the same manner
that employees operating in flat organizational
structures exercise greater skill variety (Davis,
1995; Wegman, Hoffman, Carter, Twenge, & Guenole,
2018), workers tend to operate outside hierarchies
in side-hustles, which provides them with op-
portunities to employ a variety of skills. Thus,
side-hustles can feature skill variety, or require a
number of different skills and talents (Hackman &
Oldham, 1976).
Finally, the absence of organizational membership
in side-hustles encourages individuals to define them-
selves by the performance of the work itself
(Petriglieri et al., 2019). This close connection to the
work is associated with visibility of when things are
going well or poorly (Ashford et al., 2018). The ten-
dency of independent workers to define them-
selves by the work itself, as well as the high
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels
visibility of the outcomes, suggests that side-hustles
likely exhibit task feedback, or direct and clear in-
formation about the effects of the worker’s perfor-
mance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Petriglieri et al.,
2019). The availability of task feedback is further
enhanced by technological advances in side-hustles
(Wegman et al., 2018) (e.g., driver ratings on Uber
and Lyft, Human Intelligence Tasks acceptance
rates on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, and seller re-
views from online sales platforms).
In sum, the phenomenon of side-hustles can be un-
derstood in terms of the extent of work complexity, or
degree of “independence, opportunity to use a variety
of skills, information about [one’s] performance, and
chance to complete an entire and significant piece of
work” (Baer, Oldham, & Cummings, 2003: 576) (here-
after referred to as side-hustle complexity).1 Job char-
acteristics theory posits that this complexity reflects
the motivating potential of work which in turn shapes
the psychological state of workers (Hackman &
Oldham, 1976). Empowerment is a particularly sa-
lient psychological state of the work characteristics of
side-hustles because side-hustle complexity provides
opportunities for workers to act as causal agents within
the activity. Thus, we consider the relationship between
side-hustle complexity and a worker’s psychological
state of empowerment.
Side-Hustle Complexity and
Side-Hustle Empowerment
Whereas side-hustle complexity refers to the motivat-
ing potential of side-hustles based on their char-
acteristics, side-hustle empowerment represents a
1 in side-hustles should increase perceived competence
We note that we consider side-hustle complexity and
side-hustle empowerment in our theorizing and methods
as aggregated, higher-order constructs. Regarding com-
plexity, considering work characteristics in the aggregate
aligns with the original theorizing from Hackman &
Oldham (1976). Moreover, empirical work suggests that
the work characteristics are best represented and more
predictive of criteria (e.g., psychological states) when
treated as a multidimensional construct (e.g., Fried &
Ferris, 1987). Concerning empowerment, meta-analytic
evidence suggests that the four empowerment cognitions
share antecedents and operate as a better predictor of be-
havioral outcomes as a unitary, second-order construct
rather than four separate constructs (Humphrey, Nahrgang,
& Morgeson, 2007; Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011). This
aggregation of empowerment cognitions also aligns with
Spreitzer’s (1995) original theorizing, and thus we treat
empowerment as a single, cohesive construct.
239
set of cognitions that emerge from the experience of
this complexity. More specifically, empowerment
represents cognitions of self-determination, im-
pact, competence, and meaning (Spreitzer, 1995;
Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).1 Seibert, Wang, and
Courtright (2011) have argued that although em-
powerment theory shares roots with the psychological
states from job characteristics theory (i.e., experienced
meaningfulness, responsibility for the outcomes, and
knowledge of results), it deviates from and ad-
vances the theory in important ways. Specifically,
although both theories consider meaning and self-
determination, empowerment theory also includes
competence and impact, both of which are per-
ceptions that specifically relate to an active ori-
entation toward work in which workers feel able
and desirous to shape work and its context (Conger
& Kanungo, 1988; Seibert et al., 2011; Spreitzer,
1995, 1996). Overall, we assert that experiencing
higher levels of side-hustle complexity will be as-
sociated with a greater degree of psychological
empowerment.
For example, the task autonomy in side-hustles
should positively relate to workers’ sense of self-
determination (i.e., a perception of choice in initiat-
ing and regulating action) (Kraimer, Seibert, & Liden,
1999; Spreitzer, 1995) because it represents freedom.
Additionally, side-hustle task autonomy may relate
to perceived meaning (i.e., an evaluation of value in
work) (Spreitzer, 1995), provided that doing activi-
ties that are self-chosen increases their perceived
value (Weinstein, Ryan, & Deci, 2012). Increased
meaning from autonomy arises because autonomy
enables workers to fit tasks to their values and by
doing so create a better fit of the tasks to their value system
(Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2010). The task identity
(i.e., a belief in one’s capability to skillfully perform work
tasks) (Spreitzer, 1995). Task identity prompts a sense of
competence because completing whole pieces of work
fosters a sense of control, mastery, and pride in the
worker’s abilities (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Hackman &
Oldham, 1976; Hodson, 1998; Morgeson & Humphrey,
2008). Further, the task feedback in side-hustles should
be associated with a sense of impact (i.e., a perception
that one’s performance in an activity makes a difference)
(Kraimer et al., 1999; Spreitzer, 1995). Task feedback
promotes perceived impact because a close connection
to information about one’s performance within a side-
hustle provides evidence that a worker’s performance
is observable by and influential on others (Greenberger
& Strasser, 1986; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Kraimer
et al., 1999). In sum, to the extent that side-hustles
240 Academy of Management Journal
exhibit complexity, we expect a positive association
with side-hustle empowerment.
Hypothesis 1. Side-hustle complexity positively re-
lates to side-hustle empowerment.
The Moderating Effect of Side-Hustle Motives
In addition to understanding what makes side-
hustles empowering, it is also important to consider
the reasons why employees participate in side-
hustles given that the motives for pursuing side-hustles
may regulate how people respond to side-hustle
complexity. Specifically, Hackman and Oldham
(1980: 85) have argued that work motives 2 are
“critical in determining how vigorously an indi-
vidual will respond to a job high in motivating
potential” (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman &
Oldham, 1976). Thus, we suggest that side-hustle
motives will moderate the relationship between
side-hustle complexity and side-hustle empow-
erment. Because individuals may have a variety of
motives for working on their side-hustles, we
draw on the comprehensive work motives frame-
work from Cable and Edwards (2004) that specifies
self-enhancement, self-transcendence, openness
to change, and conservation work motives (Schwartz,
1992).
Side-hustles generally involve self-enhancement
motives, or the pursuit of personal interests in terms
of increased pay and prestige (Sliter & Boyd, 2014).
However, additional motives may arise. In addition
to self-enhancement, Cable and Edwards (2004) and
Schwartz (1992) have suggested that workers may
have a self-transcendence motive in which they seek
to promote the welfare of other people. This is ac-
complished by forming and developing relation-
ships through the side-hustle or doing work that
benefits others. For example, an individual may
choose to drive for Lyft to seek increased social in-
teractions. Further, an individual may work on a
side-hustle because of an openness to change motive
that entails pursuing new intellectual and emotional
interests (Cable & Edwards, 2004). Workers pursue
2
We note that although Hackman & Oldham (1980) re-
ferred to needs, the terms needs and motives are largely
synonymous and often used interchangeably (Pittman &
Zeigler, 2007). Deci and Ryan (2000) argued that “needs”
represent the pursuit of fundamental nutriments that pro-
mote well-being, whereas “motives” refer more broadly to
a desire for any particular outcome We therefore use the
term “motive” as it subsumes fundamental needs and other
desires.
February
this motive through seeking increased variety and
autonomy. For example, employees who want more
variety in their work lives could pursue new intel-
lectual interests within a side-hustle in which they
make handcrafts and sell them on Etsy, an online
platform for selling handmade goods. Finally, an
individual may pursue a side-hustle because of a
conservation motive, consisting of a desire for secu-
rity or to preserve stability (Schwartz, 1992). This
entails seeking to quell uncertainty and pursue
role clarity in a side-hustle.
Side-hustle workers with self-enhancement, self-
transcendence, openness to change, and conservation
motives for their side-hustles will be more likely to
value the opportunities and internal rewards that side-
hustle complexity offers (Hackman & Oldham, 1976,
1980). These opportunities and rewards include the
potential for empowerment or to shape side-hustle work
and its context in line with their motives (Spreitzer,
1995). Individuals with strong side-hustle motives will
have an eagerness to exploit opportunities that side-
hustle complexity offers to align the activity and its
context with desired outcomes. This more vigorous re-
sponse should strengthen the relationship between
side-hustle complexity and side-hustle empower-
ment because side-hustle workers with strong mo-
tives will increasingly capitalize on opportunities to
act as a causal agent. In contrast, individuals who are
lacking strong side-hustle motives may fail to register
the motivating potential of their side-hustles, may not
value such motivating potential, or may even be
threatened by it (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). These
workers will not likely exploit opportunities to shape
the activity and its context.
Hypothesis 2. The positive relationship between side-
hustle complexity and side-hustle empowerment is
moderated by side-hustle motives such that the rela-
tionship is stronger for workers with high (a) self-
enhancement, (b) self-transcendence, (c) openness to
change, and (d) conservation motives.
Side-Hustle Empowerment and
Side-Hustle Engagement
Thus far, we have argued that between-person
differences in side-hustle complexity will be posi-
tively associated with side-hustle empowerment and
that this relationship will be moderated by side-
hustle motives. We now consider the potential
spillover of side-hustle empowerment to full-time
work by examining daily, within-person variance
in side-hustle empowerment and its relationship
to full-time work performance. We do so because in
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels
addition to global assessments of empowerment
(Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), empowerment cog-
nitions ebb and flow as workers continually assess
themselves in relation to the work environment
(Spreitzer, 1995). Thus, we examine empowerment, its
relationship with engagement, and the effects of its
spillover to full-time work performance on a daily
basis.
Although side-hustles have often been cast in a
disparaging light (e.g., Rodell, 2013), we adopt a role
enrichment theory perspective to suggest that em-
powerment from side-hustles enriches, as well as
conflicts with, full-time work performance. We expect
that daily side-hustle empowerment will be associated
with engagement, which entails a positive affective
state and cognitive attention and absorption (Kahn,
1990). Engagement is a motivational state involving the
simultaneous investment of affective, cognitive, and
physical energy in work (Kahn, 1990; Rich, LePine, &
Crawford, 2010). Empowerment has been associated
with motivation since its inception in the management
literature (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Kanter, 1977) and
is viewed as a “proximal cause” of motivation
(Thomas & Velthouse, 1990: 678). Thus, we expect
side-hustle empowerment to be positively associ-
ated with side-hustle engagement.
Engagement arises when a worker perceives
meaning (i.e., a return on investments of the self within
work), availability (i.e., capability to perform the work
at hand), and safety (i.e., the absence of fear of negative
consequences) in their work (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al.,
2010). Side-hustle empowerment captures a worker’s
sense of ownership of tasks, and this personal con-
nection to the activity enhances its positive valuation
(Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). In turn, this positive
valuation promotes the worker’s sense of meaningful-
ness, thereby increasing worker engagement. More-
over, empowerment represents an assessment that the
task at hand is within the worker’s power (Conger &
Kanungo, 1988). This sense of power should foster the
worker’s evaluation of possessing sufficient personal
resources with which to perform the task effectively
(Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012), thereby enhancing
their engagement because of their perception of avail-
ability. Finally, the worker’s sense of personal power
associated with empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995) in-
creases their focus on rewards and inattention toward
risks (Anderson, & Berdahl, 2002; Anderson et al.,
2012; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). This in-
attention toward risks enhances their perceived safety,
resulting in increased engagement. In sum, we expect
daily assessments of side-hustle empowerment to
promote the perceived meaningfulness, availability,
241
and safety associated with side-hustle work, resulting
in increased side-hustle engagement.
Hypothesis 3. Daily side-hustle empowerment posi-
tively relates to daily side-hustle engagement.
Side-Hustle Enrichment of Full-Time
Work Performance
We assert that side-hustle empowerment influ-
ences full-time work performance through side-
hustle engagement, which has both affective and
cognitive components (Newton et al., 2020; Schaufeli
et al., 2006). Side-hustle empowerment, which posi-
tively relates to a state of engagement, fosters psycho-
logical resources. Specifically, a state of engagement
entails positive emotions such as enthusiasm, inspi-
ration, happiness, and alertness (Rich et al., 2010;
Schaufeli et al., 2006). This positively valenced affec-
tive state represents a psychological resource or an
“asset that may be drawn on when needed to solve
a problem or cope with a challenging situation”
(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006: 80; Hobfoll, 2002).
Thus, positive affect represents a key psychologi-
cal resource as it helps with persistence in problem
solving and improved coping by cooperating with
others (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Hobfoll, 2002;
Tsai, Chen, & Liu, 2007).
Interestingly, positive affect—or the extent of
feeling enthusiastic, active, and alert (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988)—accrued in one domain is a resource
that carries forward into other domains (Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Thus, af-
fective states from side-hustles will likely influence
affective experiences within full-time work because
affective states do not reset between domains (Judge
& Ilies, 2004; Newton et al., 2020; Song, Foo, & Uy,
2008). Meta-analyses uphold this spillover effect
across domains (Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, DeHauw, &
Greenhaus, 2018; Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007)
and support our assertion that the positive affective
state underlying side-hustle engagement should per-
sist as employees enter full-time work, thereby in-
creasing daily positive affect within full-time work.
The spillover of psychological resources across do-
mains, including positive affect, enhances employee
performance (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Scholars
have suggested that positive affect enhances full-time
work performance in two ways (Tsai et al., 2007). First,
positive affect is associated with improved employee
performance because of increased task persistence or
the continuance of a chosen behavior for a greater du-
ration (Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004). That is, indi-
viduals persist longer in activities when they are in a
242 Academy of Management Journal
positive affective state (Erez & Isen, 2002; Martin,
Ward, Achee, & Wyer, 1993). Increased task persis-
tence comes from better recall of past successful per-
formance when in a positive affective state (Bower,
1981) as well as greater confidence in future perfor-
mance (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Thus, increased task
persistence results in improved performance due to
prolonged effort and problem solving within work
(Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Second, positive affect
enhances employee performance due to increased co-
operation with coworkers (Lyubomirsky, King, &
Diener, 2005). Employees with a high level of
positive affect tend to attract more interactions
with coworkers and are also more likely to reach
out to coworkers with requests for help (Carlson,
Charlin, & Miller, 1988; Tsai et al., 2007). This in-
creased cooperation positively relates to improved
performance by enhancing the amount of help that
employees receive when working (Podsakoff &
MacKenzie, 1997). In sum, we expect daily side-
hustle empowerment to enrich daily full-time work
performance through increased side-hustle engage-
ment and positive affect.
Hypothesis 4. Daily side-hustle empowerment posi-
tively relates to daily full-time work performance
through daily side-hustle engagement and daily pos-
itive affect within full-time work.
Side-Hustle Conflict with Full-Time
Work Performance
In addition to potential performance enrichment
through an affective pathway, side-hustle empowerment
may also conflict with full-time work performance
through a cognitive pathway. A potential detriment of
an individual’s engagement in one domain is that it
divides the individual’s attention when performing
activities within another domain (Leroy, 2009; Marks,
1977). As side-hustle empowerment increases em-
ployee engagement, attention on (i.e., time spent
thinking) and absorption in (i.e., intensity of one’s
focus) a side-hustle grows (Kahn, 1990). Attention
and absorption in a domain prompt individuals to
continue thinking about activities in that domain as
they transition their attention to another activity (Leroy,
2009; Newton et al., 2020). Thus, side-hustle engage-
ment should be positively associated with attention
residue, or the persistence of cognitions about the side-
hustle domain as an individual performs activities in the
full-time work domain (Leroy, 2009; Newton et al.,
2020). In short, we expect attention on and absorption in
side-hustles to persist in full-time work as employees
February
reflect back on recent episodes of side-hustle engage-
ment as well as look forward to upcoming side-hustle
work (Leroy & Glomb, 2018).
Unfortunately, allocating attention to one domain can
hinder performance in another domain (Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000). Specifically, attention residue serves
as a distraction that hinders performance at work (Leroy,
2009; Newton et al., 2020) as mental effort and atten-
tion are necessary when performing any mental task
(Kahneman, 1973). Attentional capacity diminishes
when attention becomes diverted across multiple
processes (Norman & Bobrow, 1975), and thus perfor-
mance suffers for two reasons. First, simultaneously
attending to multiple processes in one’s mind increases
cognitive load, which slows down performance (Kanfer
& Ackerman, 1989). Second, errors accrue as distracted
workers are prone to “failures of divided attention”
(Kahneman, 1973: 141). When attention is diverted,
performance loss occurs as the competition for cogni-
tive resources is associated with a slower work pace and
more errors. In sum, we expect daily side-hustle em-
powerment to conflict with daily full-time work per-
formance through increased side-hustle engagement
and attention residue.
Hypothesis 5. Daily side-hustle empowerment nega-
tively relates to performance within full-time work
through daily side-hustle engagement and daily at-
tention residue within full-time work.
Affective Shift Between Full-Time Work
and Side-Hustles
Finally, we examine the reciprocal spillover of
full-time work experiences into side-hustles. To do
so, we draw on the affective shift model, which is a
model of intraindividual affective change that con-
nects affect, cognitions, and motivation (Bledow et al.,
2011; Yang, Simon, Wang, & Zheng, 2016). This model
suggests that when a negative affective state is followed
by an activity that induces a positive affective state,
engagement increases (Bledow et al., 2013). Applied to
our model, we expect negative affect within full-time
work to strengthen the relationship between side-
hustle empowerment and side-hustle engagement.
The basis for the affective shift model is that neg-
ative affect—meaning subjective distress and an
unpleasurable mood state (Watson et al., 1988)—signals
that things are not going well and corrective action is
needed (Bledow et al., 2011). A negative affective state
pervades mental processes and prompts an analytic
mode of information processing in which individuals
experience heightened attention to detail and sensitiv-
ity to discrepancies, including a focus on impending
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels
deadlines or lack of goal progress (Bledow et al., 2013;
Schwarz & Bless, 1991; Yang et al., 2016). This analytic
mode of information processing focuses individuals on
the discrepancy between their current negative affec-
tive state and a more desirable positive affective state.
This focus, in turn, enables an accurate grasp of the
situation and lays the foundation for executing goal-
directed action in subsequent activities (Frijda, 1988;
Kuhl, 2000). The ensuing positive affect then heightens
reward expectations, prompting eagerness and energy
to attain positive outcomes (Higgins, 1997; Yang et al.,
2016). Consequently, work engagement increases
when an event introduces positive affect following a
negative affective state (Bledow et al., 2011; Carver &
Scheier, 1990).
Drawing on the affective shift model, we assert that
the relationship between side-hustle empowerment
and side-hustle engagement will be stronger when an
individual has experienced negative affect within
full-time work earlier in the day. A prior episode of
negative affect within full-time work results in an
analytic information processing mode that fosters
a discrepancy focus and encourages goal-directed
action (Yang et al., 2016). As side-hustle empow-
erment evokes positive emotions (Spreitzer, 1995),
this positive affect serves as a means to correct the
discrepancy between the negative affective state
from full-time work and a desired positive affective
state. Further, the increased positive affect is as-
sociated with heightened reward expectations
that promote increased activity. In sum, negative
affect from full-time work earlier in the day should
strengthen the relationship between side-hustle em-
powerment and side-hustle engagement given the
affective shift between the domains. In turn, we expect
that negative affect from full-time work will strengthen
both the positive serial indirect effect of the affective
pathway in our model as well as the negative serial
indirect effect of the cognitive pathway.
Hypothesis 6. Negative affect within full-time work
from earlier in the day strengthens the relationship
between daily side-hustle empowerment and daily
side-hustle engagement such that a positive rela-
tionship will occur at low levels of negative affect and
a stronger positive relationship will occur at high
levels of negative affect.
Hypothesis 7. Negative affect within full-time work
from earlier in the day strengthens (a) the positive
serial indirect effect between daily side-hustle em-
powerment and daily full-time work performance
through daily side-hustle engagement and positive
affect and (b) the negative serial indirect effect between
243
daily side-hustle empowerment and daily full-time
work performance through daily side-hustle en-
gagement and attention residue.
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES
To explore the between- and within-person dy-
namics in our model, we have conducted two studies.
In Study 1, we examined the phenomenon of side-
hustles and addressed between-person differences in
the relationship between side-hustle complexity and
empowerment (Hypothesis 1). We also examined side-
hustle motives as moderators of this relationship (Hy-
pothesis 2). In Study 2, we investigated the interplay
between side-hustles and full-time work performance
(Hypotheses 3–7). The ESM design of Study 2 enables
us to examine within-person, daily fluctuations
from workers’ central tendencies (Gabriel et al.,
2019). Specifically, we test the spillover effect of
within-person variance in side-hustle empower-
ment as it relates to full-time work enrichment and
conflict. We also test the affective shift that occurs
between full-time work and side-hustles. Our ap-
proach of addressing global assessments of em-
powerment in Study 1 and the ebb and flow of
empowerment in Study 2 aligns with theoretical
work from Thomas and Velthouse (1990).
STUDY 1: METHOD
Samples and Procedure
Study 1 included 337 full-time employees with
side-hustles. We recruited participants through
Facebook pages and Reddit communities associated
with side-hustles, LinkedIn, and a network of MBA
graduates. This recruitment approach has been used
in studies in various top-tier management journals
(e.g., Colquitt, Baer, Long, & Halvorsen-Ganepola,
2014; Vogel, Rodell, & Lynch, 2016). Our sample was
45% female. On average, the participants were 29.6
years old (SD 5 6.94), mostly held a bachelor’s degree
or higher (69%), and engaged in a variety of side-
hustles (e.g., Uber driving, graphic design, and
selling goods online) while having full-time jobs.
See Table A1 in Appendix A for details on their
work roles. The median annual income was $3,000
for side-hustles and $45,000 for full-time jobs,
which is comparable to the median income of
$48,500 for full-time U.S. workers over age 25
(U.S. Department of Labor, 2019).
The participants provided their demographics in a
registration survey and completed three surveys
separated by three weeks each to reduce common
244 Academy of Management Journal
method bias (Doty & Glick, 1998; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). A total of 417 participants
rated their side-hustle complexity in the first survey,
and 370 participants rated their side-hustle motives in
the second survey (89% response rate). In the third
survey, 342 participants rated the extent to which they
generally experienced empowerment when working
on their side-hustle (92% response rate). We excluded
five participants who, when asked if they had
responded conscientiously to one of our surveys, in-
dicated that they had not (Meade & Craig, 2012). Our
final sample entailed 337 employees after listwise
deletion. Of the 582 workers who expressed initial
interest in the study, 417 participated in one or more of
the surveys (72% response rate). We paid participants
in Study 1 $5 per survey completed as well as a $5
bonus if they completed all three surveys.
Measures
All measures were rated with five-point scales
(1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree).
Side-hustle complexity. We assessed side-hustle
complexity using five dimensions of the job char-
acteristics model with scales from Morgeson and
Humphrey (2006). We measured task autonomy
with a four-item measure (e.g., “My side-hustle
allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own”),
task identity with a four-item measure (e.g., “My
side-hustle is arranged so that I can do an entire
piece of work from beginning to end”), task feedback
with a three-item measure (e.g., “My side-hustle pro-
vides me with information about my performance”),
task significance with a four-item measure (e.g., “My
side-hustle is very significant and important in the
broader scheme of things”), and skill variety with a
four-item measure (e.g., “My side-hustle requires the
use of a number of skills”). We averaged the five di-
mensions to obtain a combined measure of side-hustle
complexity (e.g., Fried & Ferris, 1987; a 5 .83).
Side-hustle motives. We adapted items for
side-hustle motives from Cable and Edwards (2004)
and Schwartz (1992). Each item included the stem “I
work on my side-hustle to. . ..” In line with Schwartz
(1992) and Cable & Edwards, 2004), we aggregated
these dimensions to form six-item measures of the
four work motives of self-enhancement: pay and
prestige (e.g., “Increase my income” and “Gain re-
spect”; a 5 .68), self-transcendence (altruism and re-
lationships; e.g., “Be of service to society” and
“Develop close ties with other people”; a 5 .90),
openness to change (variety and autonomy; e.g., “Do
many different things” and “Make my own decisions”;
February
a 5 .90), and conservation (security and authority;
e.g., “Be certain I have work in the future” and “Have
the final say”; a 5 .82).
Side-hustle empowerment. We assessed side-hustle
empowerment using the 12-item empowerment mea-
sure from Spreitzer (1995). This measure captures
cognitions of self-determination (e.g., “I have consider-
able opportunity for independence and freedom in how
I do my side-hustle”), impact (e.g., “The impact of my
side-hustle is large”), competence (e.g., “I am confident
in my ability to do my side-hustle”), and meaning
(e.g., “The work I do on my side-hustle is meaningful to
me”). In line with theory and meta-analytic evidence
(Seibert et al., 2011), we averaged across dimensions to
obtain a combined measure (a 5 .82).
Analysis and Results
Given the potential overlap in the motivational
constructs in our model, we ran confirmatory factor
analyses (CFA) on the dimensions underlying side-
hustle complexity, side-hustle motives, and side-
hustle empowerment. This measurement model
demonstrated adequate fit with the data (x2 5 2467.95,
df 5 1294, p , .01, CFI 5 .93, RMSEA 5 .05, SRMR 5
.05) and was superior to a general factor model (x2 5
13283.77, df 5 1430, p , .01, CFI 5 .26, RMSEA 5 .16,
SRMR 5 .15) (cf. Antino, Rico, & Thatcher, 2019;
Zhang, George, & Chattopadhyay, 2020). To further
investigate construct validity, we computed the aver-
age variance extracted (AVE) for each dimension
and found that all exceeded the recommended
value of .50 (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff,
2011) and were larger than the squared correla-
tions between the latent factors (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). Taken together, these results provided evi-
dence of distinctiveness among the underlying con-
struct dimensions, suggesting that the aggregation of
these dimensions resulted in distinguishable con-
structs.3 Table 1 provides the means, reliabilities,
3
A helpful reviewer pointed out the potential overlap
between some of our items. For example, the items “My
side-hustle allows me to plan how I do my work” and “My
side-hustle is very significant and important in the broader
scheme of things” from our side-hustle complexity mea-
sure seemingly overlap with the following empowerment
items, respectively: “I have significant autonomy in de-
termining how I do my side-hustle” and “The impact of the
side-hustle is large.” To consider the effect of this overlap
on our final model, we excluded the two aforementioned
items from our measure of side-hustle complexity. Re-
running our analyses without these two items did not
change the pattern or significance level of our results.
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels
and correlations. We tested Hypotheses 1 and 2
using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. We
included all of the side-hustle motives alongside
side-hustle complexity in a single regression to
account for the shared variance between them. We
then entered the interaction terms in separate models
because such a large number of correlated predictors
may introduce multicollinearity issues that can bias
results (Schwab, 2005).
Hypothesis 1 predicted that side-hustle complexity
would be positively related to side-hustle empowerment.
In support of this hypothesis, we found a positive rela-
tionship between side-hustle complexity and side-hustle
empowerment (b 5 .43, SE 5 .05, p , .01).4 Although not
hypothesized, we noted that a self-enhancement motive
had no main effect on side-hustle empowerment, self-
transcendence and openness to change motives had
positive main effects on side-hustle empowerment (p ,
.01), and a conservation motive had a negative main
effect on side-hustle empowerment (p , .05).
We then tested the moderating effects of side-
hustle motives on the relationship between side-
hustle complexity and side-hustle empowerment.
We mean-centered our predictors before creating
interaction terms and plotted the slopes at plus and
minus one standard deviation for each motive
(Aiken & West, 1991). The interactions of side-
hustle complexity with self-enhancement (b 5
.15, SE 5 .07, p , .05), self-transcendence (b 5 .11,
SE 5 .04, p , .01), and conservation (b 5 .14, SE 5
.04, p , .01) were significant, while the interac-
tion of side-hustle complexity with openness to
change was not significant (b 5 .00, SE 5 .04, n.s.).
The plots of these interactions revealed that high
levels of self-enhancement, self-transcendence,
and conservation motives strengthened the rela-
tionship between side-hustle complexity and side-
hustle empowerment (see Figure 2). Thus, Hypotheses
2a, 2b, and 2d were supported, and Hypothesis 2c
was not supported.
4
To further support job characteristics theory’s causal
ordering of work complexity preceding critical psycho-
logical states, we also ran a model in which we controlled
for psychological empowerment captured in the second
survey as a predictor of side-hustle empowerment cap-
tured in the third survey. With the inclusion of this control
for prior levels of side-hustle empowerment, side-hustle
complexity retained its positive affect on side-hustle em-
powerment (b 5 .23, SE 5 .06, p , .01). These findings
align with our assertion that side-hustle complexity pre-
cedes side-hustle empowerment as well as the ordering
that job characteristics theory predicts.
245
Discussion of Study 1
In Study 1, we examined the phenomenon of
side-hustles by considering what makes side-hustles
empowering and whether the reasons for pursuing
side-hustles strengthen or weaken this relationship. We
found that side-hustle complexity was positively associ-
ated with side-hustle empowerment. Moreover, we iden-
tified motives that serve to regulate how people respond to
side-hustle complexity. We found that side-hustle com-
plexity had a stronger effect on side-hustle empowerment
when workers had a strong motive to increase their in-
come (self-enhancement), connect with or benefit others
(self-transcendence), or seek security in side-hustles
(conservation). Although the increased income motive is
likely the most universal motive for side-hustles, the other
motives we examined had moderating effects when con-
trolling for the increased income motive. In sum, Study 1
supported our assertions that side-hustle complexity
positively relates to side-hustle empowerment and
side-hustle motives determine how vigorously workers
respond to side-hustle complexity.
STUDY 2: METHOD
Sample and Procedure
In Study 2, we considered the spillover of daily side-
hustle empowerment into full-time work perfor-
mance through a 10-day ESM study of 80 employee–
coworker dyads, resulting in 2,124 observations. Our
sample was 62% female. On average, the focal em-
ployees in our sample were 40 years old (SD 5 11.00)
and had worked for their full-time employers for 10 years
(SD 5 9.31). The participants performed a variety of
side-hustles (e.g., driving for Uber or Lyft, event
photography, completing surveys online, and selling
goods online) and full-time jobs (e.g., teaching, soft-
ware engineering, sales, and nursing), which suited our
research design as this variety improves generaliz-
ability (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). See Table A1 in Ap-
pendix A for details on these work roles.
We followed the same recruitment approach as
was used in Study 1. The participants were then re-
quired to provide the names of three coworkers with
whom they had frequent contact during their full-
time work. After receiving the participants’ co-
worker nominations, we randomly selected one
coworker and invited him or her to participate. By
doing so, we sought to increase the validity of the
performance ratings as focal employees could not
completely control the source of their performance
evaluations and the ratings did not exclusively
come from the participants’ closest friends at work.
246 Academy of Management Journal February

TABLE 1
Study 1: Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities of Study Variables
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Side-hustle complexity 3.51 0.57 (.83)

Side-hustle motives
2. Self-enhancement 3.32 0.55 .46** (.68)
3. Self-transcendence 2.39 0.95 .45** .48** (.90)
4. Openness to change 3.40 0.94 .39** .32** .30** (.90)
5. Conservation 2.92 0.88 .46** .52** .41** .54** (.82)
6. Side-hustle empowerment 3.61 0.59 .60** .40** .51** .44** .33** (.82)

Notes: n 5 337. Coefficient a is provided along the diagonal.

**p , .01

On average, the coworkers in our sample (66% fe-
male) were 39 years old (SD 5 11.91) and had
worked for their full-time employers for eight years
(SD 5 9.07). Our employee–coworker dyads had
worked together for an average of seven years
(SD 5 7.60). We carefully looked for irregularities
in the contact information provided for each par-
ticipant. For example, we removed participants
who had provided their own name for the name
of a coworker, had suspicious email addresses
(e.g., v3142br@hotmail.com), or provided unreal-
istic information (e.g., stated having worked with a
coworker for 10 years but were only 24 years old).
Our ESM design enabled us to capture within-
person, daily variation in side-hustle and full-time
work experiences (Gabriel et al., 2019). Employees
received two surveys daily for five consecutive days.
We sent the first survey every evening prior to a
workday from Sunday to Thursday. We considered
evening side-hustle work, as opposed to other pe-
riods of side-hustle work, because all participants
were occupied by full-time jobs from “nine to five,”
and the participants had reported working on their
side-hustles on an average of three or more evenings
per week. We expected previous evenings’ experi-
ences to have an effect on next-day work experi-
ences, which is in line with prior studies in sleep
research (e.g., Barnes, Lucianetti, Bhave, & Christian,
2015; Wagner, Barnes, Lim, & Ferris, 2012) and other
spillover research (Butts, Becker, & Boswell, 2015;
Lanaj, Johnson, Barnes, 2014; Song et al., 2008). Our
timing also provided a compact time frame between
side-hustle work and our observations, offered time
separation between side-hustle and full-time work
experiences, and aligned with our assertions of a
temporal precedence between variables (Fisher &

FIGURE 2
Study 1: Interaction Effects of Side-Hustle Complexity and Side-Hustle Motives on Side-Hustle Empowerment
A. Interaction Effect of Side-Hustle Complexity and Self-Enhancement on Side-Hustle Empowerment

4
Side-hustle empowerment

Low self-
3.5 enhancement
High self-
enhancement

3
Low side-hustle complexity High side-hustle complexity
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels 247

B. Interaction Effect of Side-Hustle Complexity and Self-Transcendence on Side-Hustle Empowerment

4.5

Side-hustle empowerment
4

Low self-
transcendence
High self-
3.5 transcendence

3
Low side-hustle complexity High side-hustle complexity

C. Interaction Effect of Side-Hustle Complexity and Conservation on Side-Hustle Empowerment

4
Side-hustle empowerment

Low
3.5 conservation
High
conservation

3
Low side-hustle complexity High side-hustle complexity

To, 2012). The evening survey captured side-
hustle empowerment, time spent working on side-
hustles, and side-hustle engagement. We sent the sec-
ond employee survey at midday during the work week
(Monday–Friday) to capture positive and negative affect
at work as well as attention residue.
The coworker participants received one daily
survey at the end of the workday (Monday–Friday) to
capture employee work performance. Each survey
link expired after a few hours to ensure that the
participants reported on their most recent side-
hustle or work experiences. We paid focal em-
ployees $3 for each day that they completed both of
the surveys they received, a $5 bonus for completing
the evening and midday surveys for the first three
days, and a $5 bonus for completing the evening
and midday surveys on seven or more days. The
coworker participants received $2 for completing
their daily survey, a $5 bonus for completing 100%
of the surveys for the first three days, and $5 for
completing seven or more surveys.
Of the 164 employees who expressed initial in-
terest in the study, 111 had coworkers who registered
for the study (67% response rate), and a total of 89
employee–coworker dyads completed one or more
days of surveys (80% response rate). We followed
recommendations to include only dyads with at
least three days of complete data in our analyses
(e.g., Singer & Willett, 2003; Trougakos, Hideg,
Cheng, & Beal, 2014). Participants could not pro-
vide the ratings of daily side-hustle empowerment
and daily side-hustle engagement needed for
analysis on days in which they did not perform side-
hustle work. As a result, our analyses did not include
248 Academy of Management Journal
observations in which individuals did not work on their
side-hustles (only 8% of the evening surveys indicated
no side-hustle work; please see supplementary ana-
lyses on the effects of this approach). After listwise
deletion, our final sample entailed 507 complete ob-
servations from 80 employee–coworker dyads with an
average of 6.3 complete days per dyad. To clarify, an
“observation” consisted of an evening survey and a
midday survey completed by an employee, an end-of-
day survey completed by their coworker, and each
of these three surveys from the preceding day.
Measures
All scale measures used a five-point Likert scale
(1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree). We
utilized short, reliable measures due to our ESM
design, which required shortened measures to
increase the response rates and avoid mental fa-
tigue (Beal & Weiss, 2003).
Side-hustle empowerment. Participants rated
empowerment cognitions related to their side-hustles
using the 12-item measure of empowerment from
Study 1 (Spreitzer, 1995) (a 5 .91).
Side-hustle engagement. Participants rated side-
hustle engagement using the six-item measure from
Bakker and Xanthopoulou (2009). Sample items
were “This evening, while working on my side-hustle,
I have felt enthusiastic about my work” and “This
evening, while working on my side-hustle, I have been
completely immersed in my work” (a 5 .93).
Negative and positive affect within full-time
work. Participants rated their affective states during
full-time work using the 10-item, shortened form of
the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule from
Mackinnon, Jorm, Christensen, Korten, Jacomb, and
Rodgers (1999). The lead-in to the items was “Today,
while working on my full-time job, I have felt. . ..” The
five items for negative affect were “Upset,” “Afraid,”
“Nervous,” “Scared,” and “Distressed” (a 5 .92). In our
analysis, we time lagged the negative affect variable
to apply the preceding afternoon’s side-hustle work.
The five items for positive affect were “Enthusiastic,”
“Inspired,” “Alert,” “Determined,” and “Excited”
(a 5 .96).
Attention residue. Participants rated attention
residue related to their side-hustle using the three-
item attention residue scale from Newton et al.
(2020). Whereas the original items referred to a
prior task, we adapted the items to refer to a side-
hustle. A sample item was “Today, while working
at my full-time job, I have kept thinking about my
side-hustle” (a 5 .94).
February
Full-time work performance. Coworkers rated
the focal participant’s work performance using a
three-item measure of task performance from Griffin,
Neal, and Parker (2007). We adapted the wording of
the items to reference the employee in the study. A
sample item was “Today, [Employee first name] has
carried out the core parts of his/her job well” (a 5 .78).
Control variables. We controlled for previous-
day levels of side-hustle engagement, positive affect
within full-time work, attention residue, and work
performance (cf. Johnson, Lanaj, & Barnes, 2014;
Scott & Barnes, 2011) (see Figure 3). To account for
daily fluctuations in the amount of contact between
employees and coworkers, we also controlled for the
coworker’s opportunity to observe the focal employee
using a three-item measure from Judge and Ferris
(1993; see also Baer, Matta, Kim, Welsh, & Garud, 2018;
Rodell, 2013). A sample item was “Today, I have had
the opportunity to observe [Employee name]’s behav-
ior” (a 5 .95). We also controlled for time spent
working on the side-hustle because it relates directly to
potential conflict between side-hustles and full-time
work (i.e., “How much time have you spent working
on your side-hustle this evening after work?”).
Analysis and Results
First, we assessed the fit of our measurement
model by conducting a multilevel CFA in Mplus
7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). Items were loaded
on their respective constructs and specified at
the within-person level to examine the factorial
structure. The fit of this measurement model was ac-
ceptable (CFI 5 .93, RMSEA 5 .06, SRMR 5 .07). Next,
we examined within-person variance for our study vari-
ables in null models and found all study variables had
substantial within-person variance (i.e., 23%–47%
within-person variance; see Table 2), which sug-
gested that multilevel modeling was appropriate.
To test our hypotheses, we clustered observations
by dyad, group-mean centered our predictors, and
allowed for random intercepts within the analysis of
our model (Beal & Weiss, 2003; Hofmann & Gavin,
1998; Preacher, Zhang, & Zyphur, 2016). More spe-
cifically, we group-mean centered side-hustle em-
powerment and full-time work negative affect to
understand how daily fluctuations in these predic-
tors affected daily side-hustle engagement, full-time
work positive affect, attention residue, and full-time
work performance. To further isolate daily fluctua-
tions in the variables in our model, we controlled for
previous-day levels of side-hustle engagement, pos-
itive affect within full-time work, attention residue,
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels 249

FIGURE 3
Study 2: Path Model of Side-Hustle Enrichment and Conflict with Full-Time Work Performance

Full-time work
positive affect
(previous day)

Full-time work .62**

negative affect Full-time work
(midday) performance
Full-time work
(previous day)
positive affect
(next day,
.70** .22** midday) .12** .40**
(Hypotheses 6 and 7)

(Hypothesis 4) (Hypothesis 4)
Daily full-time
Daily Daily
work
side-hustle side-hustle
performance
empowerment .65** engagement
(Hypothesis 3) (next day,
(evening) (evening)
(Hypothesis 5) (Hypothesis 5) end-of-day)

.63** .16** Full-time work -.05**

attention residue
Daily (next day,
side-hustle midday)
engagement
(previous day)
.73**

Full-time work
attention residue
(previous day)

Notes: We controlled for side-hustle empowerment on our mediators and dependent variable. The gray variables are controls that were modeled but
not hypothesized. Side-hustle work time and opportunity to observe were also modeled (see Table 4). All variables were considered on a daily level.
** p , .01

and work performance. The inclusion of these previous-
day controls enabled us to interpret our results as a
change in the level of these variables and offered
further evidence for our hypothesized causal di-
rection (Beal, 2015). We then specified a multilevel
path model in Mplus and examined all variables at
the within-person level (Level 1). This model
exhibited an acceptable fit to the data (CFI 5 .93,
RMSEA 5 .09, SRMR 5 .05). Means, standard de-
viations, correlations, and reliabilities of the study
variables are presented in Table 3. See Table 4 and
Figure 3 for the results of the multilevel path analysis.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that daily side-hustle
empowerment would be positively related to daily side-
hustle engagement. We found support for this hypothesis
(g 5 .65, SE 5 .08, p , .01).5 The pseudo R2 for side-hustle
engagement was 51.1% (see Figure 3 and Table 4).
Next, we tested Hypothesis 4, which predicted that
daily side-hustle empowerment would positively re-
late to full-time work performance through daily
side-hustle engagement and positive affect within
full-time work. We found that side-hustle engagement
5
We note that the relationship between empowerment
and engagement also holds for each of the four empower-
ment cognitions as predictors. That is, using daily self-
determination, impact, competence, or meaning as the
independent variable in our model is also positively as-
sociated with engagement to the same degree of signifi-
cance (p , .01).
250 Academy of Management Journal February

TABLE 2
Study 2: Variance Components of Null Models for Daily Variables
Within-individual Between-individual Percentage of variability
Variable variance (r2) variance (t00) within-individual

Evening side-hustle empowerment experiences 0.10** 0.27** 27.0

Midday full-time work negative affect 0.12** 0.23** 34.3
Evening side-hustle engagement 0.21** 0.36** 36.8
Next day full-time work positive affect 0.38** 0.86** 30.6
Next day full-time work attention residue 0.35** 1.20** 22.6
Full-time work performance 0.18** 0.20** 47.4

Notes: r2 5 within-individual variance in the dependent variable. t00 5 between-individual variance in the dependent variable. Percentage
of variability within-individual was computed as r2 / (r2 1 t00).
**p , .01

positively related to next-day positive affect within
full-time work (g 5 .22, SE 5 .06, p , .01; see
Figure 3). We also found that daily positive affect
within full-time work positively related to daily
full-time work performance (g 5 .12, SE 5 .02, p ,
.01). To analyze serial mediation, we tested for a
significant indirect effect, which occurs when
there is a significant product of path coefficients
along a mediation chain, while controlling for the
direct effect (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams,
2004; Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2016). We used a
resampling method to avoid biased indirect ef-
fect estimates caused by the nonnormal distribu-
tion of multiplied path coefficients. We used the
Monte Carlo method, resulting in bias-corrected
confidence intervals for our indirect effects
(MacKinnon et al., 2004; Preacher & Selig, 2012).
We found a positive serial indirect effect of daily
side-hustle empowerment on daily full-time work
performance (IND 5 .02, 95% CI [.008, .030]),
supporting Hypothesis 4 (see Figure 3 and Table 4).
The pseudo R2 for positive affect was 49.3% and 46.9%
for full-time work performance.
We then tested Hypothesis 5, which predicted
that daily side-hustle empowerment would nega-
tively relate to daily full-time work performance
through side-hustle engagement and attention res-
idue. We found that daily side-hustle engagement
positively related to attention residue within full-
time work (g 5 .16, SE 5 .05, p , 01; see Figure 3).
We also found that daily attention residue within
full-time work negatively related to daily full-time
work performance (g 5 –.05, SE 5 .02, p , .01).
Finally, we found support for the negative serial
indirect effect from daily side-hustle empowerment
to daily full-time work performance (IND 5 –.01,
95% CI [–.011, –.001]). Thus, Hypothesis 5 was
supported (see Figure 3 and Table 4). The pseudo
R2 for attention residue within full-time work
was 62.2%.

TABLE 3
Study 2: Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities of Study Variables
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Side-hustle empowerment 4.07 0.63 (.91) –.18 .79** .40** .37** .33** .31** .40**
2. Full-time work negative affect 1.40 0.70 –.02 (.92) –.23* –.43** .28* –.37** .08 .00
3. Evening side-hustle engagement 3.90 0.75 .22** –.07 (.93) .43** .43** .23* .36** .46**
4. Full-time work positive affect 3.64 1.08 .02 .02 .47** (.96) –.04 .59** .20 .43**
5. Full-time work attention residue 2.99 1.22 .06 –.02 .37** .07 (.94) –.04 .28* .28*
6. Full-time work performance 4.22 0.60 .03 .00 .27** .46** .06 (.78) .01 .54**
7. Side-hustle work time (hours) 2.08 1.33 .06 –.05 .28** .23** .16** .07 – .34**
8. Opportunity to observe 4.28 0.78 .05 .03 .37** .37** .27** .52** .28** (.95)

Notes: Level 1: n 5 507. Level 2: n 5 80. Average coefficient a across days is provided along the diagonal. All correlations are at the within-
person level. All correlations above the diagonal are at the between-person level. Between-person correlations were calculated using the
aggregated level-1 variables.
*p , .05
**p , .01
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels 251

TABLE 4
Study 2: Results of Multilevel Path Analysis
Side-hustle Positive affect within Attention residue within Full-time work
Variables engagement (g) full-time work (g) full-time work (g) performance (g)

Side-hustle empowerment 0.65** 20.02 0.03 20.06

Full-time work negative affect 20.11
Interaction of side-hustle engagement and 0.70**
full-time work negative affect
Previous-day side-hustle engagement 0.63**
Side-hustle work time 0.04**
Side-hustle engagement 0.22** 0.16**
Previous-day positive affect within full- 0.62**
time work
Positive affect within full-time work 0.12**
Previous-day attention residue within full- 0.73**
time work
Attention residue within full-time work –0.05**
Previous-day full-time work performance 0.40**
Coworker opportunity to observe 0.24**
Pseudo R2 51.1% 49.3% 62.2% 46.9%

Notes: All variables are at the within-person level, n 5 507. Hypothesized coefficients are bolded. Controlling for previous day ratings of
focal constructs enables us to interpret our results as a change in that criterion from the previous day (for a similar approach, see Johnson et al.,
2014; Scott & Barnes, 2011).
**p , .01

Lastly, we tested our hypotheses related to affec-
tive shift. Hypothesis 6 predicted that daily nega-
tive affect within full-time work would strengthen
the relationship between subsequent side-hustle
empowerment and side-hustle engagement. The
interaction term for side-hustle empowerment
3 negative affect within full-time work was sig-
nificant (g 5 .70, SE 5 .20, p , .01). The plot of the
interaction (Figure 4) shows that daily side-hustle
empowerment was positively associated with
daily side-hustle engagement when negative affect
within full-time work was low (g 5 .31, SE 5 .13,

FIGURE 4
Study 2: Interaction of Side-Hustle Empowerment and Full-Time Work Negative Affect
on Side-Hustle Engagement
4.5
Side-hustle engagement

4
Low full-time work
negative affect

High full-time work

negative affect
3.5

3
Low side-hustle High side-hustle
empowerment empowerment
252 Academy of Management Journal
p , .05) and that the positive relationship was
stronger when negative affect within full-time work
was high (g 5 .99, SE 5 .13, p , .01). Thus, Hy-
pothesis 6 was supported. Hypothesis 7a predicted
that the positive indirect effect of side-hustle em-
powerment on full-time work performance through
side-hustle engagement and positive affect would
be moderated by negative affect within full-time
work. We found that this indirect effect was signif-
icant at low levels of negative affect within full-time
work (IND 5 .01, 95% CI [.001, .018]) and significant
at high levels of negative affect within full-time
work (IND 5 .03, 95% CI [.011, .045]). Importantly,
the difference between the low and high conditions
was statistically significant (DIFF 5 .02, 95% CI
[.003, .041]), suggesting that the serial indirect effect
was moderated by negative affect within full-time
work. Thus, Hypothesis 7a was supported. Hy-
pothesis 7b predicted that the negative indirect ef-
fect of side-hustle empowerment on full-time work
performance through side-hustle engagement and
attention residue would be moderated by negative
affect within full-time work. We found that this in-
direct effect was significant at low levels of negative
affect within full-time work (IND 5 –.00, 95% CI
[–.006, –.000]) and significant at high levels of
negative affect within full-time work (IND 5 –.01,
95% CI [–.017, –.002]). Furthermore, the difference
between the low and high conditions was statistically
significant (DIFF 5 –.01, 95% CI [–.022, –.004]), sug-
gesting that the serial indirect effect was moderated by
negative affect within full-time work. Thus, Hypothe-
sis 7b was supported.
Supplementary Analyses and Robustness Checks
We found that empowerment was associated with
side-hustle engagement and spilled over into full-
time work via two pathways: an affective pathway
through positive affect and a cognitive pathway
through attention residue. We compared these
pathways by testing whether the indirect effect of
the affective pathway (IND 5 .02) was different
than the absolute value of the indirect effect of
the cognitive pathway (IND 5 .01) by employing
the product of coefficients approach and the Monte
Carlo method of resampling in the R program
(MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets,
2002; Preacher & Selig, 2012). The results showed
that the indirect effect of side-hustle empowerment on
full-time work performance through positive affect
was significantly stronger than the indirect effect of
side-hustle empowerment on full-time work
February
performance through attention residue (DIFF 5
.01, 95% CI [.001, .024]).
Our analysis excluded the days on which partic-
ipants did not work on their side-hustles because
we could not obtain ratings of side-hustle empow-
erment and side-hustle engagement on those days.
Any concerns regarding selection bias may be some-
what mitigated given that participants worked on their
side-hustles for the sizeable majority of evenings in our
study: 901 evenings out of the 976 evening surveys
reported (92%). We acknowledge the potential for
endogeneity in that some factors may make partici-
pants more or less likely to work on their side-hustles
and have a bearing on the variables in our model. To
explore such potential confounds, we created a di-
chotomous variable to capture side-hustle work on a
given day (0 5 did not work on the side-hustle, 1 5
worked on the side-hustle). We then analyzed whether
the focal variables in our model significantly predicted
this dichotomous variable using a logit model with
clustered standard errors (Wooldridge, 2016). This
test revealed that none of the variables in our
model were significant predictors of whether par-
ticipants worked on their side-hustles in a given
evening, with the exception of attention residue
within full-time work rated earlier in the day (b 5
.58, SE 5 .20, p , .01). Thus, participants were
more likely to conduct evening side-hustle work
following days on which they had thought about
their side-hustles at work. We suggest that the
controls we included for previous-day levels of
attention residue, as well as all other endogenous
variables in our model, help account for the influ-
ence of these variables as potential confounds.
Following recommendations, we conducted our
hypothesis testing with and without several control
variables (e.g., Breaugh, 2008; Spector & Brannick,
2011). Removing side-hustle work time as a control
had no effect on the significance level of any of our
findings. Removing opportunity to observe had no
effect on the significance level of our findings with
the exception of the relationship between atten-
tion residue and full-time work performance. We
retained opportunity to observe as a control vari-
able because it addressed a factor that could con-
found performance ratings (Judge & Ferris, 1993;
see also Baer et al., 2018; Rodell, 2013). Removing
previous-day controls for all of our endogenous
variables strengthened our effects. However, we
retained these controls to enable us to interpret our
results as a change in each variable from the pre-
vious day (Johnson et al., 2014; Scott & Barnes,
2011).
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels
We were also interested in whether there was a
curvilinear effect for side-hustle activity. We found
no effects for side-hustle empowerment as a curvi-
linear predictor of side-hustle engagement (b 5 .02,
SE 5 .17, n.s.), side-hustle engagement as a curvi-
linear predictor of positive affect within full-time
work (b 5 0.04, SE 5 .05, n.s.), or side-hustle en-
gagement as a curvilinear predictor of attention res-
idue (b 5 0.09, SE 5 .05, n.s.). We did find a
curvilinear relationship between side-hustle en-
gagement and side-hustle work time (b 5 .32, SE 5
.05, p , .01). The plot of this relationship suggests
that a one-unit increase in side-hustle engagement
exponentially increases the amount of time that
participants spend on their side-hustles.
Finally, we were interested in whether the extent
of side-hustle income altered the relationship be-
tween side-hustle empowerment and side-hustle
engagement or the spillover of side-hustle activi-
ties into full-time work. To examine this effect, we
considered whether side-hustle income as well as
the proportion of total income from side-hustle
work (i.e., side-hustle income divided by full-time
work income plus side-hustle income) served as
cross-level moderators in these relationships.
However, neither side-hustle income nor the
proportion of total income from side-hustle work sig-
nificantly moderated the relationship between side-
hustle empowerment and side-hustle engagement,
side-hustle engagement to positive affective within full-
time work, or side-hustle engagement to attention res-
idue. Thus, we did not find that side-hustle income had
significant effects on the relationships in our model.
Discussion of Study 2
In Study 2, we considered how side-hustles posi-
tively and negatively related to performance in one’s
full-time job as well as when these effects were
stronger or weaker. More specifically, we sought to
better understand the spillover effects of side-hustle
empowerment and engagement on affective and
cognitive experiences during one’s full-time work.
This parallel consideration of affective and cogni-
tive effects aligns with other recent work (e.g., Christian
& Ellis, 2011; Koopman, Lanaj, & Scott, 2016; Newton
et al., 2020). We found support for an affective pathway
in which side-hustle empowerment enriched full-time
work performance through side-hustle engagement
and positive affect within full-time work. Further, our
findings supported a cognitive pathway in which side-
hustle empowerment conflicted with full-time work
performance through side-hustle engagement and
253
attention residue. In our supplemental analyses, we
found that the affective pathway had a significantly
greater effect on full-time work performance than the
cognitive pathway, indicating a net positive effect of
side-hustle empowerment on full-time work perfor-
mance. Regarding when these affective and cognitive
effects were stronger or weaker, we also found that ex-
periences in full-time work had an effect on side-hustles.
Specifically, negative affect during full-time work earlier
in the day strengthened the relationship between side-
hustle empowerment and side-hustle engagement due
to an affective shift between the domains. In turn, this
effect significantly moderated the affective and
cognitive pathways we theorized. Overall, the re-
sults from our ESM design informed the variation
in employees’ affective and cognitive experiences in
full-time work as well as daily performance fluctua-
tions as predicted by deviations in their mean levels of
side-hustle empowerment and negative affect in full-
time work (Gabriel et al., 2019).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Theoretical Implications
For millions of workers, involvement in the gig
economy entails participating in side-hustles in
conjunction with full-time work. Despite the preva-
lence of this phenomenon, organizational studies have
been slow to consider developments in the new world
of work (Ashford et al., 2018). Our work sought to ad-
vance understanding of the confluence of gig work and
traditional work roles by considering side-hustles and
their effects on full-time work performance from an
empowerment perspective. We offer a more balanced
consideration of side-hustles that accounts for the
benefits not considered by prior work while still ac-
counting for the potential downsides. Interestingly, the
arrangement we considered suggests that workers may
be able to reap the benefits of independent work while
retaining the stability of a traditional work role, thereby
avoiding the downsides of full reliance on gig work
(Ashford et al., 2018). That is, side-hustles offer em-
powerment as workers feel able to shape the work and
its context, and the organizational affiliation of a full-
time job may offer a sense of belonging, self-esteem,
and reduced social anxiety (Ashforth, Harrison, &
Corley, 2008). Advancing understanding of the
arrangement of holding a side-hustle and a full-
time job contributes to theory by focusing on the
contemporary phenomenon of how work is pres-
ently being organized and its effects on employees
and organizations.
254 Academy of Management Journal
Role enrichment theory guided our investigation
of the spillover effects of side-hustle empowerment
and engagement on the affective and cognitive ex-
periences of employees during full-time work. Our
findings demonstrate that side-hustles have both
enriching and conflicting effects on full-time work.
Overall, we found a net benefit of side-hustle em-
powerment on full-time work performance, which is
significant because side-hustles have generally been
cast in a negative light (e.g., Rodell, 2013). Our efforts
contribute to the longstanding debate over the effects
of engaging in activities outside work as enriching
(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Sieber, 1974) or con-
flicting with (Barnett, 1998; Haas, 1999) a full-time
work role. Furthermore, whereas others have focused
solely on the spillover of emotions to address en-
richment and conflict from engaging in work and
family domains (e.g., Rothbard, 2001), we couple af-
fective spillover with a consideration of cognitive
spillover (see Newton et al., 2020). More specifically,
we advance theory about the spillover of empower-
ment across domains by specifying an affective and
cognitive pathway through which empowerment in
one domain (i.e., side-hustles) influences affective
states, cognitions, and behavior in another domain
(i.e., full-time work) through work engagement.
Moreover, our work points to the importance of
affective shift between domains rather than solely
focusing on affective shift between the morning
and afternoon at work. Taken together, our work
builds on theory about how side-hustle empower-
ment affects full-time work performance for better
and worse and the moderating role of affective shift
that strengthens this relationship.
Our consideration of side-hustle empowerment
builds on recent research indicating that indepen-
dent work leads to fulfillment and positive emotions
because workers feel they can personalize the role
(Petriglieri et al., 2019). We use job characteristics
theory to advance understanding of the phenome-
non of side-hustles. More specifically, we found that
whether or not employees experience side-hustle
empowerment depends on the complexity of the
side-hustle and on their motives for engaging in the
side-hustle. We utilize theorizing from the job design
literature that suggests that both work characteristics
and the motives of workers affect psychological
outcomes (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). We found
that motives for increasing income, connecting
with or benefitting others, or seeking security in
side-hustles strengthened the relationship between side-
hustle complexity and side-hustle empowerment.
Thus, our work contributes to theory by identifying
February
people’s precise motives for engaging in side-hustles
and how these motives regulate the effects of side-
hustle complexity on empowerment.
Future Research
Our research into the phenomenon of side-hustles
opens up further investigations into this unique
work arrangement and the gig economy more broadly.
Future research could explore how individuals can craft
their overall work lives to be more meaningful or
cultivate a satisfying work identity (Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001) by pairing a side-hustle with full-time
work. For example, employees could adopt side-
hustles that supplement needs that are partially
met by full-time work (i.e., supplementary fit) or
select side-hustles that fulfill needs that are unsatisfied
through full-time work (i.e., complementary fit). Both
supplementary and complementary arrangements
between side-hustles and full-time work could enrich
employee well-being or experiences within full-time
work (e.g., Cable & Edwards, 2004). Future research
could examine how workers can successfully craft an
enriching fit between side-hustles and full-time work.
Such an approach could focus on supplementary or
complementary experiences of work characteristics or
fulfillment of psychological needs or work character-
istics between side-hustles and full-time work. Alter-
natively, future research could consider the effect of
congruence between side-hustle work and full-time
work in terms of knowledge and skills. One benefit
of a side-hustle that employs similar knowledge
and skills as full-time work is that it can provide
training that one can apply to full-time work (Betts,
2006). However, such congruence in the activities could
prevent employees from psychologically detaching
from full-time work, which is associated with dimin-
ished recovery from full-time work and increased ex-
haustion (Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010). Thus,
future research could also consider the interesting ten-
sion that exists in the supplementary and complemen-
tary experiences of side-hustles and full-time work.
Although we adopted an empowerment perspec-
tive, future research could explore alternative per-
spectives to address the positive and negative effects
of side-hustle on full-time work performance. An
interesting extension of our work would be to ex-
amine whether holding a side-hustle adds to the
demands present in a full-time job in terms of chal-
lenge and hindrance stress (e.g., Cavanaugh, Boswell,
Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; LePine, Podsakoff, &
LePine, 2005; Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007). Al-
though we partially address the effects of combined
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels
workload from side-hustles by controlling for time
spent working on side-hustles, a more concerted study
of combined workload would advance the topic. Fur-
ther, future research could employ a boundary theory
perspective to consider the costs and benefits of tran-
sitioning between side-hustles and full-time jobs
(Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000). This approach
could advance current research into managing
multiple work identities (Caza et al., 2018).
Relatedly, the seemingly higher latitude in deter-
mining a side-hustle compared to the external factors
that determine one’s full-time job is worthy of con-
sideration within future research. The labor market
for side-hustles and full-time work are described
quite differently by sociologists. For example,
scholars have argued that the new economy con-
sists of a primary, traditional job market as well as
a separate secondary market comprised of more
flexible work (Sennett, 2006; Sweet & Meiksins,
2013). Thus, as opposed to the primary market in
which workers find their careers, work from the
secondary labor market (i.e., the gig economy) ap-
pears to be easier to adopt and discard (Ashford
et al., 2018; Ashford et al., 2018). The high degree of
latitude in selecting side-hustles may shape how
employees pair their side-hustle with full-time
work to enrich their experience in full-time work
to a greater or lesser degree.
Finally, our investigation of side-hustles sheds light
on a large component of the gig economy. However,
side-hustles are just one type of “gig” performed in the
new world of work. Many freelancers, contractors,
and gig workers piece together a variety of gigs to
constitute full-time employment. Whereas qualitative
investigations have shed light on the experience of
those in the gig economy (Caza et al., 2018; Petriglieri
et al., 2019), future quantitative investigations are
needed. Specifically, our results point to spillover
effects between side-hustles and full-time work that
are likely even more prevalent as workers engage in, or
perhaps juggle, multiple gigs. Although we found a
net positive benefit of spillover, handling multiple
daily transitions or working for multiple organizations
with varying norms could result in both positive and
negative outcomes for workers (e.g., Newton et al.,
2020; O’Leary, Mortensen & Woolley, 2011; Rapp
& Mathieu, 2019) and is thus worthy of future
investigation.
Potential Limitations
Our work entails some limitations that should be
noted and could be addressed by future research.
255
Our survey methodology is accompanied by poten-
tial common method bias in self-reported relation-
ships, which can inflate correlations and raise questions
about causal directions (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In re-
sponse, we employed the two most effective procedural
steps to limit the effects of common method bias: tem-
poral and source separation (Doty & Glick, 1998). In both
Study 1 and Study 2, we applied temporal separation
between our measures of interest. In Study 2, we utilized
source separation between our measures rated by em-
ployees and performance outcomes rated by coworkers.
Although we present theoretically grounded arguments
about the causal relationships proposed within our
model and include control variables to aid in our as-
sertions, limited causal inferences can be made within
survey research. Future research could advance the
study of side-hustles further by employing an experi-
mental ESM (see Song et al., 2018) in which data are
captured before and after a sample of full-time em-
ployees adopt side-hustles.
We also note two limitations related to side-hustle
work characteristics. First, we relied on worker per-
ceptions of side-hustle characteristics, which could
be biased, rather than on objective data about side-
hustle work characteristics. However, research has
found that objective work characteristics shape
perceptions of work characteristics (Fried & Ferris,
1987). After reviewing findings about potential
bias introduced by self-ratings of work character-
istics and performing their own analysis, Fried and
Ferris (1987) concluded that problems associated
with self-rated work characteristics are less serious
than initially believed. Thus, research has tradi-
tionally relied on rater perceptions of work char-
acteristics, as evidenced by extensive use of the job
diagnostic survey over the last four decades
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Nonetheless, our
work is limited by its dependence on self-ratings
of work characteristics, and future work could com-
pare our findings to studies using objective data
from O*NET or work characteristics rated by a
coworker. Second, we also note the variance in
side-hustle complexity in Study 1 reflects hetero-
geneity in side-hustle work. Intuitively, this is not
surprising because creating and selling art on Etsy on
the side while engaging in full-time work, for exam-
ple, presents more complex work than cleaning
apartments on the side (e.g., lower skill variety and
less task significance). Thus, although we found an
overall net positive effect of side-hustle empowerment
on full-time work performance from a within-person
perspective, the variance at the between-person level
indicates that some workers experience side-hustles
256 Academy of Management Journal
that lack motivating potential and subsequently expe-
rience limited empowerment from side-hustle work.
However, given our consideration of within-person
variance in Study 2, the conclusions drawn from our
model on the positive and negative implications of
side-hustles for full-time work performance should
apply to individuals with a high baseline level of
empowerment as well as to individuals with lower
baseline levels of empowerment.
Another limitation of our work is that the effect of
hours worked on side-hustles does not have strong
and clearly interpretable results in our model. For
example, when we consider the indirect effects of
hours worked on side-hustles in place of side-hustle
empowerment, we observe a small indirect effect of
hours worked on side-hustles on full-time work
performance through side-hustle engagement and
positive affect at work (IND 5 .001, 95% CI 5 .000,
.002) and insignificant indirect effects through side-
hustle engagement and attention residue (IND 5 .000,
95% CI 5 2.001, .000). These effects suggest that an
individual would need to work a large number of hours
before any substantive effect is seen on full-time work
performance. Moreover, reverse causality is an issue in
that side-hustle engagement may well predict hours
worked on side-hustles rather than the other way
around. Thus, our model does not provide a clear ac-
count of the effects of hours worked on side-hustles
for full-time work outcomes. Instead, our work
better conveys how experiences in side-hustles
(i.e., empowerment) affect full-time work experi-
ences. However, hours worked on side-hustles may
have spillover effects given the finite resources of em-
ployees. Future research could apply a conservation of
resources approach (Hobfoll, 1989) to examine how
the number of hours spent working on side-hustles, as
well as the degree of scheduling flexibility, supplies or
depletes employee resources in full-time work.
Moreover, as with all research, a limitation of our
work is that we were unable to include several in-
teresting constructs and theoretical approaches
within the scope of our paper. For example, part of the
appeal of side-hustles is that they present opportuni-
ties to obtain work outside of one’s full-time job. This
acquisition of supplementary work may provide a
sense of relief from feeling stuck in one’s day job. This
point has particular bearing on our argument about
autonomy in side-hustles. Specifically, beyond work
scheduling autonomy, decision-making auton-
omy, and work methods autonomy that we cap-
ture, side-hustles may provide a more global
sense of autonomy in which individuals feel that
they can always choose to have another job. Thus, side-
February
hustles may provide a “hope for control” over an em-
ployee’s work life and associated optimism about new
work avenues. Future research could consider how the
psychological effect of feeling more in control of one’s
work options from adopting a side-hustle shapes em-
ployee outcomes. This point is particularly applicable
to employee turnover given that employment oppor-
tunities outside full-time work affect turnover inten-
tions (e.g., Gerhart, 1990).
Finally, our approach of recruiting participants
through message boards offered a solution to the
difficulty of obtaining data about individuals who
work on side-hustles, which is the most frequently
cited reason for the lack of systematic consideration
of side-hustles and multiple jobholding in the liter-
ature (e.g., Sliter & Boyd, 2014). However, the limi-
tation of this approach includes not knowing exactly
how many people saw our posts and decided not to
participate, and we may have recruited participants
who were more enthusiastic about side-hustles than
the average side-hustle worker who may not be in-
clined to participate in message boards on the topic.
However, we note that the message boards we posted
to were focused on finding, developing, and man-
aging side-hustles rather than extolling the benefits
of the activity. We also sought to recruit participants
broadly by posting to over 15 different message
boards. Drawing on various sources should have
helped to ensure diversity in our sample. Addition-
ally, our ESM design in Study 2 helps to account for
between-person differences that may be systemati-
cally related to participating in message boards
(e.g., extraversion) by focusing on within-person
variance. An advantage of our sample is that we
recruited participants involved in many different
organizations and side-hustles, and this diversity
in our sample should aid the generalizability of our
findings (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000).
Practical Implications
Our findings also have several practical implica-
tions. Given the sheer number of employees who
engage in side-hustles (Clark, 2018), organizations
should be cognizant that they may employ many
individuals who participate in side-hustles. Man-
agers should consider it a worthwhile endeavor to
understand how side-hustles affect full-time work
given our findings related to full-time work perfor-
mance. Ultimately, our findings suggest that side-
hustles offer empowerment that results in a mixture
of positive and negative effects with an overall net
positive effect. Thus, managers may find that the
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels
benefits of allowing employees to engage in side-
hustles outweighs their costs. Further, attempting to
limit what employees do outside of work, such as
participating in side-hustles, could create resent-
ment among employees. A more fruitful approach
may be combating other distractions at work (Jett &
George, 2003) as these other interruptions will
compound the effects of attention residue from
side-hustles. We note that our findings suggest that
experiences during side-hustles (i.e., the extent of
side-hustle empowerment) appear to have a more
significant effect on employee outcomes than merely
considering the number of hours worked. However, em-
ployees have finite resources (Hobfoll, 1989), so working
long hours on a side-hustle may have adverse conse-
quences such as exacerbating work–family conflict.
The present research also has implications for
employees who maintain side-hustles. Overall, our
study presents a positive outlook for employees with
side-hustles as our findings suggest that in addition
to increasing their income, these employees can ex-
perience psychological empowerment that posi-
tively spills over into the workplace. However, our
Study 1 findings suggest that the extent to which
employees experience side-hustle empowerment
is influenced by what they do (i.e., work charac-
teristics) and why they do it (i.e., motives). Al-
though side-hustle complexity was associated with
increased empowerment, employees who maintain a
side-hustle will have to weigh the benefits of increased
income and positive affect at work with the benefits
they would receive from using their limited time out-
side of work in other ways. For example, spending time
with family (e.g., Rothbard, 2001), engaging in leisure
activities (e.g., Vogel et al., 2016), volunteering
(e.g., Rodell, 2013), and sleeping (e.g., Barnes, Wagner,
& Ghumman, 2012) can all offer significant benefits for
employee energy, recovery, well-being, and other
positive outcomes at work. Although these other
nonwork activities offer benefits, our findings that
side-hustles provide empowerment in addition to
supplemental income is a point of encouragement
for the large and growing population of workers
who participate in side-hustles.
CONCLUSION
The new world of work is on our doorstep (Ashford
et al., 2018), and as organizational scholars, we have
much to learn about contemporary work dynamics.
To that end, we investigated the phenomenon of
side-hustles and the effects of opportunities to shape
the work and context therein. We found that
257
employees do indeed experience empowerment
from side-hustles to the extent that the work has high
motivating potential. Furthermore, employees re-
spond more vigorously to side-hustles, depending
on the motives for which they are pursued. We also
found that the empowering experience of side-hustles
spill over into full-time work to both enrich and con-
flict with full-time work performance, although the net
effect of side-hustle empowerment on full-time work
performance was positive. Overall, our research ad-
vances understanding of the gig economy and its im-
plications for employees and organizations as well as
opens avenues for future research.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L., & West, S. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE.
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. 2002. The experience of
power: Examining the effects of power on approach
and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 83: 1362–1377.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. 2012. The personal
sense of power. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80: 313–344.
Antino, M., Rico, R., & Thatcher, S. M. 2019. Structuring
reality through the faultlines lens: The effects of structure,
fairness, and status conflict on the activated faultlines–
performance relationship. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 62: 1444–1470.
Ashford, S. J., Caza, B. B., & Reid, E. M. 2018. From sur-
viving to thriving in the gig economy: A research
agenda for individuals in the new world of work. Re-
search in Organizational Behavior, 38: 23–41.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008.
Identification in organizations: An examination of
four fundamental questions. Journal of Management,
34: 325–374.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All in a
day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions.
Academy of Management Review, 25: 472–491.
Baer, M. D., Matta, F. K., Kim, J. K., Welsh, D. T., & Garud,
N. 2018. It’s not you, it’s them: Social influences on
trust propensity and trust dynamics. Personnel Psy-
chology, 71: 423–455.
Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 2003. Rewarding
creativity: When does it really matter? Leadership
Quarterly, 14: 569–586.
Bakker, A. A., & Xanthopoulou, D. 2009. The crossover of
daily work engagement: Test of an actor-partner
258 Academy of Management Journal
interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 94: 1562–1571.
Barnes, C. M., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D. P., & Christian, M. S.
2015. “You wouldn’t like me when I’m sleepy”:
Leaders’ sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work
unit engagement. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 58: 1419–1437.
Barnes, C. M., Wagner, D. T., & Ghumman, S. 2012. Bor-
rowing from sleep to pay work and family: Expanding
time‐based conflict to the broader nonwork domain.
Personnel Psychology, 65: 789–819.
Barnett, R. C. 1998. Toward a review and reconceptuali-
zation of the work/family literature. Genetic, Social,
and General Psychology Monographs, 124: 125–182.
Beal, D. J. 2015. ESM 2.0: State of the art and future po-
tential of experience sampling methods in organiza-
tional research. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2: 383–407.
journal
Beal, D. J., & Weiss, H. M. 2003. Methods of ecological
momentary assessment in organizational research.
Organizational Research Methods, 6: 440–464.
Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2010. Per-
ceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting
at different ranks: When proactivity requires adap-
tivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31:
158–186.
Betts, S. 2006. The decision to moonlight or quit: Incor-
porating multiple jobholding into a model of turnover.
Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications
and Conflict, 10: 63–78.
Bledow, R., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. 2013. A dynamic per-
spective on affect and creativity. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 56: 432–450.
Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Kühnel, J. 2011. The
affective shift model of work engagement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96: 1246–1257.
Bower, G. H. 1981. Mood and memory. American Psy-
chologist, 36: 129–148.
Breaugh, J. A. 2008. Employee recruitment: Current
knowledge and important areas for future research.
Human Resource Management Review, 18: 103–118.
Butts, M. M., Becker, W. J., & Boswell, W. R. 2015. Hot
buttons and time sinks: The effects of electronic
communication during nonwork time on emotions
and work-nonwork conflict. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 58: 763–788.
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. 2004. Complementary and
supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical inte-
gration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 822–834.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relations
between work group characteristics and effectiveness:
February
Implications for designing effective work groups. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 46: 823–847.
Cappelli, P., & Keller, J. R. 2013. Classifying work in the new
economy. Academy of Management Review, 38: 575–596.
Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. 1988. Positive mood and
helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55: 211–229.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 1990. Origins and functions of
positive and negative affect: A control-process view.
Psychological Review, 97: 19–35.
Casper, W. J., Vaziri, H., Wayne, J. H., DeHauw, S., &
Greenhaus, J. H. 2018. The jingle-jangle of work-
nonwork balance: A comprehensive and meta-analytic
review of its meaning and measurement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 103: 182–214.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., &
Boudreau, J. W. 2000. An empirical examination of
self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 85: 65–74.
Caza, B. B., Moss, S., & Vough, H. 2018. From synchronizing to
harmonizing: The process of authenticating multiple work
identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63: 703–745.
Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. 2011. Examining the effects
of sleep deprivation on workplace deviance: A self-
regulatory perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 54: 913–934.
Clark, D. 2017. Even senior executives need a side hustle. Har-
vard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/
2017/11/even-senior-executives-need-a-side-hustle.
Clark, D. 2018. How to figure out what your side hustle
should be. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2018/01/how-to-figure-out-what-your-
side-hustle-should-be.
Colquitt, J. A., Baer, M. D., Long, D. M., & Halvorsen-Ganepola,
M. D. 2014. Scale indicators of social exchange relationships:
A comparison of relative content validity. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 99: 599–618.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1988. The empowerment
process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 13: 471–482.
Crawford, R. L. 1978. Moonlighting: New look for an old
practice. Supervisory Management, 23: 2–9.
Davis, D. D. 1995. Form, function, and strategy in boun-
daryless organizations. In A. Howard (Ed.), The
changing nature of work: 112–138. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. The “what” and “why” of
goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination
of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11: 227–268.
Dokko, J., Mumford, M., & Schanzenbach, D. W. 2015. Workers
and the online gig economy. The Hamilton Project.
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels
Retrieved from https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/
files/workers_and_the_online_gig_economy.pdf.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. 1998. Common methods bias:
Does common methods variance really bias results?
Organizational Research Methods, 1: 374–406.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms linking
work and family: Clarifying the relationship between
work and family constructs. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 25: 178–199.
Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. 2002. The influence of positive affect
on the components of expectancy motivation. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87: 1055–1067.
Fisher, C., & To, M. L. 2012. Using experience sampling
methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33: 865–877.
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. 2007. Work
and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis
of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 92: 57–80.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. 1981. Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
28: 39–50.
Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., & Laurence, G. 2008. Motivation and
job design in the new world of work. In S. Cartwright &
C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of per-
sonnel psychology, vol. 24: 586–611. Oxford, U.K.:
Oxford University Press.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. 1987. The validity of the job
characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 40: 287–322.
Frijda, N. 1988. The laws of emotion. American Psychol-
ogist, 43: 349–358.
Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A.,
Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J. P., & Butts, M. M. 2019.
Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical
trends and considerations for scholarly advancement.
Organizational Research Methods.
Gerhart, B. 1990. Voluntary turnover and alternative job
opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75:
467–476.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theo-
retical analysis of its determinants and malleability.
Academy of Management Review, 17: 183–211.
Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation
to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 32: 393–417.
Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. 2011. Work matters:
Job design in classic and contemporary perspectives.
In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, vol. 1: 417–453. Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
259
Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. 1986. Development and ap-
plication of a model of personal control in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 11: 164–177.
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.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. 2007. A new model
of work role performance: Positive behavior in un-
certain and interdependent contexts. Academy of
Management Journal, 50: 327–347.
Guillebeau, C. 2017. Side hustle: From idea to income in
27 days. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Haas, B. K. 1999. A multidisciplinary concept analysis of quality
of life. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 21: 728–742.
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. 1971. Employee reactions to
job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,
55: 259–286.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through
the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250–279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Higgins, T. E. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American
Psychologist, 52: 1280–1300.
Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new at-
tempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psycholo-
gist, 44: 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. 2002. Social and psychological resources and
adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6: 307–
324.
Hodson, R. 1998. Pride in task completion and organiza-
tional citizenship behavior: Evidence from ethno-
graphic studies. Work and Stress, 4: 307–321.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. 1998. Centering decisions in
hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in
organizations. Journal of Management, 24: 623–641.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007.
Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work
design features: A meta-analytic summary and theo-
retical extension of the work design literature. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92: 1332–1356.
Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M. 2003. Work interrupted: A closer
look at the role of interruptions in organizational life.
Academy of Management Review, 28: 494–507.
Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. 2014. The good
and bad of being fair: Effects of procedural and inter-
personal justice behaviors on regulatory resources.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 635–650.
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1993. Social context of perfor-
mance evaluation decisions. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 36: 80–105.
260 Academy of Management Journal
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. 2004. Affect and job satisfaction: A
study of their relationship at work and at home.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 661–673.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal
engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of
Management Journal, 33: 692–724.
Kahneman, D. 1973. Attention and effort. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. 1989. Motivation and cognitive
abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction
approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 74: 657–690.
Kanter, R. M. 1977. Work and family in the United States:
A critical review and agenda for research and pol-
icy. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Katz, L. F., & Krueger, A. B. 2016. The rise and nature of
alternative work arrangements in the United States,
1995–2015. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power,
approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110:
265–284.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. 2000. Foundations of behavioral
research (4th ed.). Holt, NY: Harcourt College.
Kirkham, E. 2017, October 25. 6 common mistakes side hustlers
make—and how to avoid them. USA Today. Retrieved
from https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/
part-time-careers/2017/10/25/6-common-mistakes-side-
hustlers-make-and-how-avoid-them/792662001/.
Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. 2016. Integrating the
bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of
the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of
Management Journal, 59: 414–435.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. 1999. Psycho-
logical empowerment as a multidimensional construct:
A test of construct validity. Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement, 59: 127–142.
Kuhl, J. 2000. A functional-design approach to motivation
and self-regulation: The dynamics of personality sys-
tems interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: 111–
169. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Barnes, C. M. 2014. Beginning the
workday yet already depleted? Consequences of late-
night smartphone use and sleep. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Decision Processes, 124: 11–23.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. 2005. A
meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance
stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent
relationships among stressors and performance. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 48: 764–775.
February
Leroy, S. 2009. Why is it so hard to do my work? The
challenge of attention residue when switching be-
tween work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 109: 168–181.
Leroy, S., & Glomb, T. M. 2018. Tasks interrupted: How
anticipating time pressure on resumption of an in-
terrupted task causes attention residue and low
performance on interrupting tasks and how a “ready-
to-resume” plan mitigates the effects. Organization
Science, 29: 380–397.
Loper, N. 2013. The side hustle. Retrieved from https://
www.sidehustlenation.com/side-hustle-show/.
Lussier, R., & Hendon, J. 2018. Human resource man-
agement: Functions, applications, and skill devel-
opment (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. 2005. The benefits
of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to
success? Psychological Bulletin, 131: 803–855.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2011.
Construct measurement and validation procedures in
MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and
existing techniques. Management Information Sys-
tems Quarterly, 35: 293–334.
Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E.,
Jacomb, P. A., & Rodgers, B. 1999. A short form of the
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Evaluation of
factorial validity and invariance across demographic
variables in a community sample. Personality and
Individual Differences, 27: 405–416.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West,
S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to
test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods, 7: 83–104.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. 2004.
Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution
of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 39: 99–128.
Marks, S. R. 1977. Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes
on human energy, time and commitment. American
Sociological Review, 42: 921–936.
Martin, L. L., Ward, D. W., Achee, J. W., & Wyer, R. S. 1993.
Mood as input: People have to interpret the motiva-
tional implications of their moods. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 64: 317–326.
Maxim, R., & Muro, M. 2018. Rethinking worker benefits for an
economy in flux [The Avenue blog]. Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/29/
rethinking-worker-benefits-for-an-economy-in-flux/.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. 2012. Identifying careless re-
sponses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17:
437–455.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. N.d. The origins of
“side-hustle.” Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels
webster.com/words-at-play/words-were-watching-side-
hustle.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The work design
questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a
comprehensive measure for assessing job design and
the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91: 1321–1339.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2008. Job and team
design: Toward a more integrative conceptualization
of work design. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research
in personnel and human resources management,
vol. 27: 39–91. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. 2017. Mplus user’s guide.
Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Newton, D. W., LePine, J. A., Kim, J. K., Wellman, N., &
Bush, J. T. 2020. Taking engagement to task: The na-
ture and functioning of task engagement across tran-
sitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105: 1–18.
Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. 1975. On data-limited and
resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7:
44–64.
O’Leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. 2011.
Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its
effects on productivity and learning for individuals
and teams. Academy of Management Review, 36:
461–478.
Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J., & Wrzesniewski, A. 2019. Agony
and ecstasy in the gig economy: Cultivating holding
environments for precarious and personalized work
identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 124–
170.
Pittman, T. S., & Zeigler, K. R. 2007. Basic human needs. In
A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology:
Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.): 473–489.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. 2007. Differential
challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with
job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and with-
drawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92: 438–454.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. Impact of or-
ganizational citizenship behavior on organizational
performance: A review and suggestion for future re-
search. Human Performance, 10: 133–151.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff,
N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral re-
search: A critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88: 879–903.
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. 2012. Advantages of Monte
Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Com-
munication Methods and Measures, 6: 77–98.
261
Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. 2016. Multilevel
structural equation models for assessing moderation
within and across levels of analysis. Psychological
Methods, 21: 189–205.
Rapp, T. L., & Mathieu, J. E. 2019. Team and individual influ-
ences on members’ identification and performance per
membership in multiple team membership arrangements.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 104: 303–320.
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. 2010. Job en-
gagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 53: 617–635.
Rodell, J. B. 2013. Finding meaning through volunteering:
Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean
for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal, 56:
1274–1294.
Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dy-
namics of engagement in work and family roles. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 46: 655–684.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. A., & Salanova, M. 2006. The
measurement of work engagement with a short ques-
tionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66: 701–716.
Schwab, D. P. 2005. Research methods for organizational
studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and struc-
ture of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests
in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25: 1–65.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. 1991. Happy and mindless, but sad
and smart? The impact of affective states on analytic
reasoning. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social
judgments: 55–71. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Scott, B. A., & Barnes, C. M. 2011. A multilevel field inves-
tigation of emotional labor, affect, work withdrawal,
and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 54:
116–136.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. 2011. Ante-
cedents and consequences of psychological and team
empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic re-
view. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 981–1003.
Seo, M.-G., Barrett, L. F., & Bartunek, J. M. 2004. The role of
affective experience in work motivation. Academy of
Management Review, 29: 423–439.
Sennett, R. 2006. The culture of new capitalism. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sieber, S. D. 1974. Toward a theory of role accumulation.
American Sociological Review, 39: 567–578.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. 2003. Applied longitudinal
data analysis: Modeling change and event occur-
rence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sliter, M. T., & Boyd, E. M. 2014. Two (or three) is not equal
to one: Multiple jobholding as a neglected topic in
262 Academy of Management Journal
organizational research. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 35: 1042–1046.
Song, Y., Liu, Y., Wang, M., Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Shi, J.
2018. A social mindfulness approach to understanding
experienced customer mistreatment: A within-person
field experiment. Academy of Management Journal,
61: 994–1020.
Song, Z., Foo, M.-D., & Uy, M. A. 2008. Mood spillover and
crossover among dual-earner couples: A cell phone
event sampling study. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 93: 443–452.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. 2010. Staying
well and engaged when demands are high: The role of
psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 95: 965–976.
Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. 2011. Methodological urban
legends: The misuse of statistical control variables.
Organizational Research Methods, 14: 287–305.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the
workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Social structural characteristics of
psychological empowerment. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 39: 483–504.
Spreitzer, G. M., Cameron, L., & Garrett, L. 2017. Alterna-
tive work arrangements: Two images of the new world
of work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychol-
ogy and Organizational Behavior, 4: 473–499.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. 1998. Self-efficacy and
work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 124: 240–261.
Sweet, S., & Meiksins, P. 2013. Changing contours of
work: Jobs and opportunities in the new economy.
New York, NY: SAGE.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive elements
of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic
task. Academy of Management Review, 15: 666–681.
Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. 2016. Monte Carlo confi-
dence intervals for complex functions of indirect ef-
fects. Structural Equation Modeling, 23: 194–204.
Trougakos, J. P., Hideg, I., Cheng, B. H., & Beal, D. J. 2014.
Lunch breaks unpacked: The role of autonomy as a
moderator of recovery during lunch. Academy of
Management Journal, 57: 405–421.
Tsai, W., Chen, C., & Liu, H. 2007. Test of a model linking
employee positive moods and task performance. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1570–1583.
Uber. 2018. Get your side hustle on. Retrieved from
https://www.uber.com/sidehustle/.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2019. Usual weekly earnings of
wage and salary workers: First quarter 2019. News
release. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retreived from
February
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/wkyeng_
04162019.pdf.
Vogel, R. M., Rodell, J. B., & Lynch, J. W. 2016. Engaged and
productive misfits: How job crafting and leisure activity
mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence.
Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1561–1584.
Wagner, D. T., Barnes, C. M., Lim, V. K., & Ferris, D. L. 2012.
Lost sleep and cyberloafing: Evidence from the labo-
ratory and a Daylight Saving Time quasi-experiment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 1068–1076.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development
and validation of brief measures of positive and neg-
ative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 54: 1063–1070.
Wegman, L. A., Hoffman, B. J., Carter, N. T., Twenge, J. M., &
Guenole, N. 2018. Placing job characteristics in context:
Cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in job character-
istics since 1975. Journal of Management, 44: 352–386.
Weinstein, N., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2012. Motivation,
meaning, and wellness: A self-determination perspec-
tive on the creation and internalization of personal
meanings and life goals. In P. T. P. Wong (Ed.), Per-
sonality and clinical psychology series. The human
quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applica-
tions: 81–106. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wooldridge, J. M. 2016. Introductory econometrics: A mod-
ern approach (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2001. Crafting a job:
Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work.
Academy of Management Review, 26: 179–201.
Yang, L.-Q., Simon, L. S., Wang, L., & Zheng, X. 2016. To
branch out or stay focused? Affective shifts differen-
tially predict organizational citizenship behavior and
task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
101: 831–845.
Zhang, L., George, E., & Chattopadhyay, P. 2020. Not in my
pay grade: The relational benefit of pay grade dissimi-
larity. Academy of Management Journal, 63: 779–801.
Hudson Sessions (sessions@uoregon.edu) is an assis-
tant professor in the Department of Management at the
University of Oregon’s Lundquist College of Business. He
received his PhD in management from the W. P. Carey
School of Business at Arizona State University. His research
focuses on alternative work arrangements, the work–life in-
terface, and employee voice.
Jennifer D. Nahrgang (jennifer-nahrgang@uiowa.edu) is now
the Palmer Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship at
the Tippie College of Business at the University of Iowa. Her
research focuses on leadership and team effectiveness,
2021 Sessions, Nahrgang, Vaulont, Williams, and Bartels
employee voice and engagement, and the future world of work.
Her research focuses on leadership processes and leadership.
Manuel J. Vaulont (manuel.vaulont@asu.edu) is a doctoral
student in the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State
University. He received his BSc in industrial-organizational
psychology from Philipps-Universität in Marburg, Germany.
His research focuses on team coordination processes,
employee overqualification, and research methods.
Raseana Williams (raewilliams1993@gmail.com) received
her master’s degree from the W. P. Carey School of Business at
263
Arizona State University. Her research interests include
leadership, teams, and diversity.
Amy L. Bartels (amy.bartels@unl.edu) is an assistant profes-
sor of management at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
She received her PhD in management from the W. P. Carey
School of Business at Arizona State University. Her research
focuses on the dynamics of leadership and teams, and drivers
of employee well-being within and outside the workplace.
264 Academy of Management Journal February

APPENDIX A JOB FAMILIES OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS

TABLE A1 O*NET Job Families for Side-Hustles and Full-Time Jobs (Study 1 and Study 2)
Study 1: Study 1: Study 2: Study 2:
Job family per O*NET taxonomy Side-hustles (%) Full-time jobs (%) Side-hustles (%) Full-time jobs (%)

Architecture and Engineering 1 4 3 3

Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 15 5 12 5
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 1 1 — —
Business and Financial Operations 12 7 16 3
Community and Social Service — 2 — 3
Computer and Mathematical 4 12 3 9
Construction and Extraction — 1 3 —
Education, Training, and Library 4 7 — 10
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry — — — 3
Food Preparation and Serving Related 1 3 — 4
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 1 5 — 5
Healthcare Support 2 2 — —
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 5 1 5 1
Legal — 2 — —
Life, Physical, and Social Science 19 5 18 1
Management 1 14 3 24
Military Specific — 1 — —
Office and Administrative Support 9 10 3 10
Personal Care and Service 8 4 5 4
Production 1 1 3 4
Protective Service — 1 — —
Sales and Related 6 10 10 11
Transportation and Material Moving 10 2 15 —
Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.