The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

An empirical investigation of the Relationship

between
relationship between workload workload and
performance
and performance
Alexander Brüggen 2377
Accounting and Information Management Department, Received 17 February 2015
Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands Revised 17 July 2015
Accepted 9 September 2015

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of workload on quantitative and
qualitative job performance. Different levels of workload can affect performance of employees, and it is
important for firms to assess the effect of this in order to improve capacity decisions. The literature is
not entirely clear on the relationship and calls for further empirical evidence on that matter.
Design/methodology/approach – The study uses field data from a mid-sized grocery supplier. In
total, 9,210 observations of 27 employees over three years and eight months are analyzed with different
statistical models. Employees all work in the same department so that it is a very homogenous data set.
Findings – Results show that there is an inverted U-shape relationship between workload and
performance. Output of employees increases up to a certain point after which it decreases. Similarly,
the quality of performance is highest under moderate levels of workload, which provides evidence
against a tradeoff between quantity and quality.
Research limitations/implications – The study uses a unique set of data from one firm, which
limits generalizability, but adds to an important stream of literature.
Practical implications – Results show how workload has a direct effect on performance. Consequently,
firms need to balance the workload in order to be able to maximize the performance of their employees.
Originality/value – Despite the relevance of the topic, there is hardly any empirical evidence on the
relationship between workload and performance. This study thus contributes to the management literature
and provides significant evidence on an inverted U-shape between workload and quantitative performance.
Keywords Performance, Workload, Quality, Quantity
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of workload on performance of
individuals and to investigate the relationship between workload and the quantity and
quality of output. The concept that employees are a company’s best asset is put forward
by many firms and management is interested in high productivity and quality. Employee
job performance is therefore one of the most relevant variables which have been examined
in the past decades in management theory and in research (Jex, 1998; Lepine et al., 2005;
Kahya, 2007). Combinations of diverse predictor variables such as gender and age
(Waldman and Avolio, 1986), personality (Day and Silverman, 1989), working hours
(Shepard and Clifton, 2000), contract status (Chu and Hsu, 2011) or working conditions
(Kahya, 2007) influencing job performance have been investigated in performance
evaluation literature. Results of this literature are mixed and there is still no clear evidence
on the relationship between workload and performance. Further, firms and employees are
often confronted with the tradeoff of increasing output or focussing more on quality,
as these two dimensions are typically substitutes of effort, i.e., providing more output as Management Decision
employee reduces the time available to spend on increasing the quality of the output. Vol. 53 No. 10, 2015
pp. 2377-2389
Based on a unique data set with production workers this study examines in detail © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747
the relationship between workload on employee job performance, measured both in DOI 10.1108/MD-02-2015-0063
MD terms of quantitative output and output quality. Daily performance observations of
53,10 27 employees over a period between January 2011 and August 2013 are used, resulting
in more than 9,000 observations.
Results of the analysis show that there is an inverted-U relationship between
workload and performance, that is, output per employee increases with increases in
workload up to a certain level of workload after which output per employee decreases
2378 significantly. Further, the relative number of quality problems is lowest under
moderate levels of workload, but high at low and high levels of workload, suggesting
an inverted-U relationship between workload and output quality. That is, high
quantitative output is associated with high-quality performance.
This study contributes to the literature in several ways. Unlike most preceding
studies on the relationship between job stress and performance this study analyses
field data. Results add to the body of literature in the field of goal-setting and
performance pressure and can help to clarify the so far mixed evidence on the
relationship between performance pressure and performance. Further, there is also an
inverted-U relationship between quantity and quality of output, suggesting that it is
necessary to have a certain level of workload in order to stimulate optimal performance.
Results of this study have also direct managerial implications. Very busy periods as
well as quite periods can mean lower efficiencies.
The remainder of this study is as follows. The next section reviews the literature and
develops the testable hypotheses. After that the research method, sample selection and
research measures are described. That section is followed by the analysis. A discussion
and conclusion are the final section of this study.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Job performance is due to its importance to businesses probably one of the most
relevant variables investigated in management in the past decades (Jex, 1998;
Lepine et al., 2005; Kahya, 2007; Eatough et al., 2011). It is usually described
as “actions and behaviors that are under the control of the individual that contribute
to the goal of the organization” (Rotundo and Sackett, 2002). Performance of
employees is a crucial factor associated with company outcomes and success. In this
context, an often raised question is the impact of workload on employee performance.
In particular, how do employees respond to low or high levels of workload?
A considerable stream of literature examines the relationship between goals
and performance.
Workload, however, is conceptually different from goal-setting. Goals are typically
very explicit, whereas workload is often just characterized by “being very busy”
without a direct reference to a specific target. In particular, in absence of an explicit
target, a goal becomes rather a “do-your-best” goal.
Many studies associate a high workload with stress (Frankenhaeuser, 1986)
evoked by either the quantity of tasks confronted with or by the difficulty of a task
(Shaw and Weekley, 1985). The number of tasks (quantitative) or the difficulty of
tasks (qualitative) can be increased to increment the workload and therefore to
increment the level of employee job stress. The relationship between workload or job
stress and job performance has been examined in many studies. Positive and
negative effects of stress have been detected in the past decades of research, but a
results are mixed.
In a positive relationship between workload and performance it is assumed
that individuals need a certain level of stress or challenge, to be activated and to
perform at their best (Merelman, 1997). Individual’s performance is low at a low level Relationship
of workload, at medium level at a moderate workload, and highest at a high level of between
workload (Jamal, 2007). Only few laboratory studies support this form of relationship
(Arsenault and Dolan, 1983; Kahn and Long, 1988). In Muse’s et al. (2003) literature
workload and
review only 13 percent of empirical studies support a positive relationship between performance
workload and job stress and job performance.
By contrast, numerous studies provide support for the negative relationship 2379
between workload and performance. Workload and a possibly resulting stress can be
dysfunctional for the individual and the organization (Bhagat et al., 1985; Long et al.,
1992; Siu, 2003; Westman and Eden, 1991; Westman and Eden, 1996; Vinokur-Kaplan,
1991). A workload that is too high is viewed as barrier and distracts employees from
their work, an increase, for example in workload may lead to a reduction in job
performance. Long et al. (1992) figured out that individuals have emotional and
defensive coping mechanisms for situations with high workload, rather than
problem-solving behavior which lead to a decrement of task performance. Friedman
and Mann (1993) found out that under conditions of stress, employees tend to suffer
from narrowed thinking and performance rigidity. Further, a reduction in the ability
to analyze complicated situations can be observed (Larsen, 2001). Jamal (1984, 1985,
2005) has conducted a study to test all above mentioned explanations by taking a
random sample of 227 managerial workers and 283 blue-collar workers from a
Canadian organization. Workers originated from collectivistic cultures, Pakistan and
Malaysia and were surveyed on aspects such as job stress and organizational
commitment. Job performance data were taken from company records for the
analysis. Results revealed support for the negative linear relationship between job
stress and job performance because whenever workers reported high stress, their
performance was mainly low, and whenever they reported low stress, their
performance was rather high. This, however, does not provide evidence of the causal
linkages between stress and performance.
However, not only the negative relationship between workload and job
performance has found support in the literature, but also the inverted-U
relationship. An acquainted motivation theory which supports the inverted-U
relationship between workload and performance is the so called Activation Theory or
Arousal Theory (Berlyne, 1949; Scott, 1966). This theory originated from the Yerkes-
Dodson Law (Yerkes and Dodson, 1908) and describes how an individual’s
psychological activation is required to be sufficiently motivated for an effective and
efficient performance and to achieve goals. Without this activation the individual is
likely to fail the work. Yet, there is an upper limit to activation beyond that the
individual gets overworked and over stressed with the result of a performance
reduction. This is exactly what Yerkes and Dodson (1908) propose: a curvilinear
(or inverted-U) relationship between workload and job performance implying that
performance increases with an increased workload, however, only up to a certain
point. Once the workload becomes too high performance decreases. So the
performance is best at a moderate level of workload (Johns and Xie, 1995; Sullivan
and Bhagat, 1992; Jex, 1998). At moderate levels of stress and workload, performance
may be improved due to the presence of sufficient stimulation of the individual to
perform tasks effectively, but not too much to shift the individual’s focus from the
task away. At low levels of stress activation may be too low to encourage effective
performance, while at high levels of stress arousal is too high to be beneficial for an
effective task performance.
MD Previous research thus provides different explanations for the relationship between
53,10 workload and job performance. The above discussion leads to the following first
hypothesis in null form:
H1. There is no relation between workload and task performance.
A related question deals with the tradeoff between quantity and quality. One expectation
2380 could be that quality decreases monotonically with increasing quantity. The general
assumption is that effort on quality and effort on quantity are substitute efforts and
increasing effort on quantity reduces the effort available for quality (Holmström and
Milgrom, 1991), a typical problem of multi-tasking. Working on multiple dimensions of a
task, such as quantity and quality can be cognitively demanding. There are
psychological reasons for restricting multi-tasking in general and even in absence of any
incentives (Lee and Taatgen, 2002). Extant psychological research indicates that the
ability of an individual to engage in simultaneous tasks is, at best, limited (Fisch, 2000;
Lang, 2006), and at worst, impossible (James, 1890; Woodworth, 1921; Broadbent, 1958).
For example, research evidence shows that an individual requires 25 minutes to recover
from interruptions such as phone calls or e-mail. The problem of such dual task
interference is estimated to have cost the US economy 650 billion dollars in 2007 (Lohr,
2007). Therefore, tasks with multiple and unrelated dimensions are also likely have a
higher level of overall cognitive overload. When incentive compensation is attached to
one of the task dimensions, such as quantity, it is cognitively easier for the individual to
focus on only one task. The individual can justify such effort misallocation by
rationalizing that if the firm was interested in other dimensions of performance, then
it would have attached a bonus to these other dimensions. In organizations where
quantity is rewarded and all that matters in performance evaluation and incentives is the
quantity, qualitative aspects will suffer even though an incentive scheme based on
quantity considers only “good” output. The focus on quantity leads to a mindset that
tends to ignore the quality dimension of a task as the strong attention to deliver quantity
often comes along with a certain level of “sloppiness” on other dimensions. This
argument is in line with cognitive research that suggests that individuals simplify
multidimensional objectives, such as quantity and quality, and typically prioritize one
dimension over another one (Payne et al., 1993). Based on this literature that is not
entirely clear in the directional effect of quantity and quality, the second hypothesis in
null form is stated as follows:

H2. There is no relationship between the quality of output and the quantity of output.

Research method
Archival data of a company is collected from a period of three years and eight months
from January 2010 until August 2013. In order to avoid the usage of falsified and
subjective data for the analysis, no self-reported data are used, but objective data
recorded by a computer system. Workload, time as well as performance will be
measured by considering solely objective measures, such as productivity, amount of
complaints, working hours, age, and employment type. In addition, employees are
exposed to real and natural working situations, which decrease the chance for bias in
contrast to laboratory settings which tend to be biased due to the participants’
knowledge of the study.
To test the hypothesis, changes in employee performance need to be identified. Data
are obtained from one single department of a company and from only one task
performed by the employees. Working conditions remain the same for all sample Relationship
employees throughout the sample period. This ensures a high accuracy, comparability, between
and reliability of the study.
workload and
Sample company performance
Data were collected from employees working in the logistics department of a mid-size
grocery B2B supplier. The company has been founded 15 years ago and is located in 2381
Germany. One of the core competencies and principles of the company is besides its
excellent service and quality, a fast delivery service of grocery products to its clients in
Germany and Benelux.
The grocery industry is an ideal setting because high fluctuations in workload occur
throughout a year. Peak times for high amounts of orders can be recorded especially
before Christmas and Eastern. So such a setting in a fluctuating industry makes it
possible to identify changes in the amount of workload and the corresponding effects
on job performance of employees.
Productivity data (quantitative performance) of each employee are recorded
automatically in detail, as well as customer complaints data which can be traced back
to each employee responsible for a particular order (qualitative performance). Such
detailed recording on employee level allows identifying changes in their performances.
Furthermore, the logistics departments represent in this case a of physical and
mental work. Some work is done physically, however, most of the work is considered to
be mental work. Forklifts are used to transport and position boxes and pallets in the
warehouse in order to store them in the right locations or place them for delivery into
trucks. Only the scanning and checking of products is done manually by employees,
which requires physical work.
The tasks which need to be fulfilled remain constant all the time. During peak
periods the only aspect which changes, is the amount of boxes the employees need to
process, however, the nature of the task to process the boxes does not change. Thus, it
constitutes an appropriate setting to really identify changes in job performance during
different order amount periods and make them comparable. If task nature was changed
enormously it would be difficult to identify employee performance changes and it
would be even more difficult to compare outcomes.

Sample characteristics
The sample which has been taken for the analysis consists of n ¼ 9,210 cases from 27
employees between the age 21 and 55, whereas the main sample portion (46.2 percent) is
between the ages of 30 and 40 years. In total, 35 percent of the employees are 40-50 years
old, 12 percent are 20-30 years, and 7 percent are above 50 years. All employees from this
logistics department are male and are experienced workers as they have been working
for the company for at least five years, except for those who entered the company during
the sample period. The job and tasks to be fulfilled in this logistics department are the
same for all employees working there. A computer randomly chooses which employee
receives which order to process, so that the luck of draw decides which employee receives
the bigger orders which may be faster to process. In addition to a salary a variable
payment of €0.06 is paid per processed box to the employee who has processed the box.
Thus, an employee who processed 100 boxes, receives 100 × €0.06 ¼ €6.00 variable pay.
A box is defined as a package of a grocery product. It may be a package containing six
bottles of wine, but it also may be a package containing 20 frozen bags of vegetables or a
package containing 50 bags of instant soup. Thus, size and weight of boxes may vary,
MD however, variable payment always remains identical. Further, processing of boxes is not
53,10 limited to constraints of a supply chain. Boxes that are ordered can always be processed.
This is a necessary condition for this study as the performance might be affected then by
limitations of the work processes and not the human physical and cognitive limitations.

Measures
2382 It was possible to obtain company record data from the period January 2010 until
August 2013 (all data recorded on daily basis) containing the following information:
employee names, employee age, per employee: boxes processed per day, per employee:
working hours per day, customer complaints received that can be traced back to the
employee who was responsible for the order and the processed boxes, amount of orders
received per day (demand).

Performance
In this study, job performance is defined as quantitative and qualitative performance.
Quality of performance includes the fact how well the job has been done, and quantity
includes the volume of the output produced by the individual (Viswesvaran et al., 2002).
This can be measured and analyzed with the obtained company data. The quantitative
performance can be measured by analyzing the amount of boxes processed per time
unit per employee (daily boxes processed by employee/daily hours worked in sample
department), which is an efficiency measure indicating the number of boxes processed
given a certain period of time. Quality of job performance is measured by the daily
amount of customer complaints received per employee per box processed.

Workload and time

In order to identify the effects of quantitative workload on job performance, periods will
be classified by weekly order amount. From the study conducted by Banker et al. (2000)
it is known, that performance decreases or increases gradually and not immediately.
Thus, longer periods need to be classified to identify changes in performance due to
workload differences. Small daily changes in performance may be due to the luck of
draw, as one employee might be lucky to receive a bigger order size. Such small changes
may also be due to the fact that box sizes vary. An employee may be lucky to receive
orders with only small boxes which are easier to process, whereas another employee may
only receive orders with big boxes on a certain day. To overcome these issues, longer
periods need to be classified. A decrease or increase of performance during a longer period
may be more likely to be due to workload demands and not due to the luck of draw.
The classification has been made on weekly basis based on input from the field site:
with less than 40,000 ordered boxes in a week, the period has been designated as
low-order amount period; with 40,001 up to 50,000 boxes, the period is designated
as medium order amount period; and during a week with more than 50,000 ordered
boxes, the designation is high-order amount period.
For the analysis, working hours and employee age are included in the data obtained
directly from company records.

Results
Descriptive statistics
The sample consists of 9,210 cases from 27 employees. In total 62 percent of cases belong
to the medium order amount period, whereby only 12 percent to low and 25 percent to
high. Of all cases there are 73 percent complaints-free, 27 percent show 1 – 5 complaints.
Relationship
Descriptive statistics are described in Table I. between
workload and
Models
Hypotheses are tested with two models. Given that the data are longitudinal data, the
performance
models are tested with a clustered regression analysis. Clustered regression analysis
takes into account multiple observations over time and the possible correlation of 2383
individual observations (for a discussion see Petersen, 2009). In line with prior research
using time-series data, clustered regression analysis is an adequate technique for the
analysis of this data (Petersen, 2009). The first model (Model 1) is a clustered regression
containing boxes/hour as dependent variable:

Boxes=hour ¼ a0 þ a1 dLow þ a2 dM edium þ a3 Age þ a4 W orkhrsþ e (Model 1)

where Boxes/hour is the number of boxes processed per hour by an employee, dLow is a
dummy variable that equals one for a low-order period and zero otherwise, dMedium is
a dummy variable that equals one for a medium order period and zero otherwise, age
is the employee age in years, and Workhrs is the total number of hours an employee is
working in the job on that day. The reason for these two control variables is that age
could possibly influence the productivity of employees, so that results could be driven
more by age than by job workload. Further, short or long days can have an influence
on the efficiency of the employee’s output. For reasons of clarity, the model is also
tested without the two control variables, and results are reported untabulated in the
next section.
The second model (Model 2) is a clustered logistic regression model with Complaints
as dependent variable, where one equals at least one complaint for a particular day for
an employee and zero no complaint on a particular day for an employee:

Complaints ¼ a0 þ a1 Boxes=hour þ a2 Age þ a3 W orkhrs þ e (Model 2)

where variables are specified as in Model 1. If the coefficient for the variable Boxes/hour
is significant, H2 has to be rejected. Here as well, the two control variables could
possibly affect the dependent variable. Similar to Model 1, the model is tested also
without these control variables and results are reported in the next section.

Hypotheses testing
Results of the models are provided in Table II. The relationship between the order
period and the dependent variable of Model 1 are shown in Figure 1. As can be seen in
the figure, the relationship looks like an inverted U-shape, suggesting a low
performance in high order periods and low-order periods, but peak performance at
medium order periods.

Category Mean Mean Frequency

Amount period Boxes/hour Complaints Cases

Low-order period 133 0.36 1,131

Medium-order period 146 0.36 5,751 Table I.
High-order period 118 0.36 2,328 Descriptive statistics
MD Panel A: clustered regression of workload on quantitative performance (Boxes/hour) (n ¼ 9,210 in 27
53,10 clusters)
Independent variable Estimate t-value p-value
Intercept α0 112.81 21.24 0.00
dLow α1 16.95 13.71 0.00
dMedium α2 30.18 28.88 0.00
2384 Age α3 −0.09 −0.68 0.50
Workhrs α4 1.02 3.87 0.00
R2 ¼ 0.57
Panel B: clustered logistics regression of workload on qualitative performance (complaints) (n ¼ 9,210 in
27 clusters)
Independent variable Estimate χ2 p-value
Intercept α0 −3.01 69.75 0.00
Boxes/hour α1 −0.08 150.62 0.00
Age α2 −0.02 4.96 0.03
Workhrs α3 0.34 331.57 0.00
R2 ¼ 0.44
Notes: Boxes/hour are the number of boxes processed by an employee per hour; Complaints is a
dummy variable that equals one if an employee received a complaint on a day and zero otherwise;
dLow is a dummy variable that equals one for a low-order period and zero otherwise. dMedium is a
Table II. dummy variable that equals one for a medium-order period and zero otherwise; Age is the employee
Hypotheses tests age in years; Workhrs is the total number of hours an employee is working in the job on that day

150
145
Boxes processed per hour

140
135
130
125
120

Figure 1. 115
Relationship between 110
workload and 105
quantitative 100
performance Low Medium High
Workload

Table II, Panel A, shows the results for the first model (Model 1) with quantitative
performance (box/hour) as dependent variable. Results confirm statistically the shape
of the relationship between workload and quantitative performance (Figure 1). In
particular, the coefficients of the variables dLow and dMedium are positive and
significant (α1 ¼ 16.95, p o 0.01; α2 ¼ 30.18, p o 0.01). Based on this, the hypothesis of
no relationship between workload and (quantitative) performance must be rejected. In
particular, quantitative performance is significantly larger at low levels of workload,
peaks at medium levels, and is lowest in periods of high workload. There is thus a
pattern of an inverted U-shape of the relationship between job workload and
quantitative output. Results are robust to a model specification without control
variables, specified as: Boxes/hour ¼ α0 + α1 dLow+α2 dMedium + ε[1].
 Figure 2 shows the relationship between the number of boxes per hour and the Relationship
number of complaints per box processed. The relationship is negative, which is first between
evidence against H2.
Results for Model 2 are shown in Table II, Panel B. Whereas in Figure 2 shows a
workload and
continuous variable of output quality (number of complaints per box), the model to test performance
the relationship between quantity and quality uses a dummy variable in order to see
effects of the independent variable better[2]. Statistical results of the logistics 2385
regression indicate that higher output, measured as boxes processed per employee
per hour is negatively associated with customer complaints (α1 ¼ −0.08, p o 0.01). That
is, more boxes processed per hour are associated with a significantly lower likelihood of
a customer complaint on a day. Even though the coefficient is small, it is economically
significant as the dependent variable is a dummy variable and the independent
variable varies sufficiently high. Based on these results, H2 can thus be rejected.
Results are robust to a model specification without control variables: Complaints ¼ α0 +
α1 Boxes/hour + ε[3].
Based on the finding that quantitative output is highest under medium levels of
workload, and lower under low and high levels of workload, the quality of output is
thus also highest under medium levels of workload.

Discussion and conclusion

This paper examines the relationship between workload on quantitative and
qualitative employee task performance and provides evidence of the general shape of
this relationship. Results reveal that there is an inverted U-shape relationship between
workload and quantitative task performance. The performance of employees is highest
when workload is moderate, but decreases when workload is low and high (Jex, 1998;
Johns and Xie, 1995; Sullivan and Bhagat, 1992). The qualitative performance is
linearly associated with quantitative performance. In particular, increasing the
quantitative performance (per hour) increases also the quality of output. This sheds
light on the tradeoff between quantity and quality of output and provides evidence that
the tradeoff is in fact less of a tradeoff then often predicted. Given that the two aspects
of performance, i.e., quantity and quality, are related, output quality is highest under
moderate levels of workload where quantitative output is at a peak. At low and high
levels of workload where quantity of output is also lower, quality of output is also
lower. This study adds to the existing literature by examining workload and
performance in a highly controlled field setting. This study examines this relationship
in a real company setting and therefore adds to the empirical literature. Combined with

0.006

0.005
Complaints per Box

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001
Figure 2.
0 Relationship between
50 100 150 quantity and quality
Boxes handled per hour
MD prior research, results offer several implications for managers. One of the most
53,10 important implications refers to job design. Managers should try to find a balanced
workload for their employees in order to maximize the quantitative performance and to
keep quality problems low. Too high and too low workload leads to decreases in
quantitative performance. A well-established HR controlling system might help to
balance the workload. To handle workload careful scheduling of work flow is
2386 necessary as well as technological innovations to allow workers to handle time-
pressured high order amount periods (Shaw and Weekley, 1985).
This study is subject to certain limitations. The first limitation of this study is the
restricted sample. Another limitation is the simplification of various aspects considered
in this study. Job performance is defined as task performance measured by quality and
quantity whereby task performance has been reduced to one single task in the logistics
department to enable comparisons and identify changes. In reality, performance is a
multidimensional construct whereby many other crucial factors may play a significant
role. As for instance Kahn and Byosiere (1992) or Kahya (2007) state, absenteeism
might also play a role, as well as injuries or environmental conditions in the company.
Thus, changes in employee performance might not only be caused by the variables
presented in this current study, but also by other factors, which have not been
considered here. Performance changes might also occur due to intra-group relations.
The performance of one employee may influence the performance of other employees in
the group. So, stressors at the individual-level may be linked to group-level or
group-level factors influence individual-level. Therefore, for future studies it may be
recommended to consider performance as a more complex construct. Such factors as
intra-group relations may be of interest in terms of the effect on performance for future
research. Further, different personalities of workers are not considered (Anderson,
1976). Each single employee might have a different reaction to workload and might feel
more or less stressed by a given level of workload. This might be taken into account for
future research.

Notes
1. Analysis of this model provides coefficients of α1 ¼ 15.64, p o 0.01, and of α2 ¼ 28.71,
p o0.01. Results are thus robust to a model specification without control variables.
2. Results are also robust when the dependent variable is a continuous variable.
3. Analysis of Model 2 without control variables provides a coefficient of α1 ¼ −0.06, p o 0.01.

References
Anderson, C. R. (1976), “Coping behaviors as intervening mechanisms in the inverted-U stress-
performance relationship”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 30-34.
Arsenault, A. and Dolan, S. (1983), “The role of personality, occupation and organization in
understanding the relationship between job Stress, performance and absenteeism”, Journal
of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 227-240.
Banker, R., Lee, S., Potter, G. and Srinivasan, D. (2000), “An empirical analysis of continuing
improvements following the implementation of a performance-based compensation plan”,
Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 315-250.
Berlyne, D. (1949), “Interest as a psychological concept”, British Journal of Psychology General
Section, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 184-195.
Bhagat, R., McQuaid, S., Lindholm, H. and Segovis, J. (1985), “Total life stress: a multimethod Relationship
validation of the constrct and its effects on organizational valued outcomes and
withdrawal behaviors”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 203-214.
between
workload and
Broadbent, D. (1958), Perception and Communication, Pergamon, Oxford.
performance
Chu, C. and Hsu, Y. (2011), “Hospital nurse job attitudes and performance: the impact of
employment status”, Journal of Nursing Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 53-60.
Day, D. and Silverman, S. (1989), “Personality and job performance: evidence of incremental 2387
validity”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 25-36.
Eatough, E., Chang, C., Miloslavic, S. and Johnson, R. (2011), “Relationship of role stressors with
organizational citizenship behavior: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 619-632.
Fisch, S.M. (2000), “A capacity model of children’s comprehension of educational content on
television”, Media Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 63-91.
Frankenhaeuser, M. (1986), “A psychobiological framework for research on human stress and
coping”, in Appley, M.H. and Trumbull, R. (Eds), Dynamics of Stress: Physiological,
Psychological, and Social Perspectives, Plenum, New York, pp. 101-116.
Friedman, I. and Mann, L. (1993), “Coping patterns in adolescent decision-making: an
Israeli-Australian comparison”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 187-199.
Holmström, B. and Milgrom, P. (1991), “Multi-task principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts,
asset ownership, and job design”, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organizations, Vol. 7,
January, pp. 24-52.
Jamal, M. (1984), “Job stress and job performance controversy: an empirical assessment”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Jamal, M. (1985), “Relationship of job stress to job performance: A study of managers and blue-
collar workers”, Human Relations, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 409-424.
Jamal, M. (2005), “Burnout among canadian and chinese employees: a cross-cultural study”,
European Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 224-230.
Jamal, M. (2007), “Job stress and job performance controversy revisited: an empirical
examination in two countries”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 175-187.
James, W. (1890), The Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1, Henry Hold & Co, New York, NY.
Jex, S. (1998), Stress and Job Performance: Theory, Research and Implications for Managerial
Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Johns, G. and Xie, J. (1995), “Job scope and stress: can scope be too high?”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1288-1309.
Kahn, R. and Byosiere, P. (1992), Stress in Organizations. Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Kahn, S. and Long, B. (1988), “Work related Stress, self-efficacy and well-being of female clerical
workers”, Counseling Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 1 Nos 2-3, pp. 145-153.
Kahya, E. (2007), “The effects of job characteristics and working conditions on job performance”,
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 515-523.
Lang, A. (2006), “The limited capacity model of mediated message processing”, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 46-70.
Larsen, R. (2001), “Decision-making by military students under extreme stress”, Military
Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 89-91.
MD Lee, F.J. and Taatgen, N.A. (2002), “Multi-tasking as skill acquisition”, Proceedings of the
Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, George Mason
53,10 University Fairfax, VA, August 7-10, pp. 572-577.
Lepine, J., Podsakoff, N. and Lepine, M. (2005), “A meta-analytic rest of the challenge stressor –
hindrance stressor framework: an explanation of the inconsistent relationship among
stressors and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 764-773.
2388 Lohr, S. (2007), “Correction appended”, New York Times Online, March 25, available at: www.
nytimes.com/2007/03/25/business/25multi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Long, B.C., Kahn, S.E. and Schutz, R.W. (1992), “Causal model of stress and coping: women in
management”, Journal of Counselling Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 227-239.
Merelman, D. (1997), “Stressed”, Forbes, Vol. 157 No. 11, pp. 20-21.
Muse, L., Harris, S. and Feild, H. (2003), “Has the inverted-U theory of stress and job performance
had a fair test?”, Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 350-365.
Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R. and Johnson, E.J. (1993), “The adaptive decision maker”, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Petersen, M.A. (2009), “Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: comparing
approaches”, The Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 435-480.
Rotundo, M. and Sackett, P. (2002), “The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy capturing
approach”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 66-80.
Scott, W. (1966), “Activation theory and task design”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
Shaw, J. and Weekley, J. (1985), “The effects of objective work-load variations of psychological
strain and post work-load performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 87-99.
Shepard, E. and Clifton, T. (2000), “Are longer working hours reducing productivity in
manufacturing?”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 540-553.
Siu, O. (2003), “Stress and job performance among employees in Hong Kong: the role of Chinese
work values and organizational commitment”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 38
No. 6, pp. 337-347.
Sullivan, S.E. and Bhagat, R.S. (1992), “Organizational stress, job satisfaction and job
performance: Where do we go from here?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 353-374.
Vinokur-Kaplan, J.X. (1991), “Job satisfaction among social workers in public and voluntary child
welfare agencies”, Child Welfare, Vol. 155 No. 1, pp. 81-89.
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. and Ones, D. (2002), “The moderating influence of job performance
dimensions on convergence of supervisory and peer ratings of job performance:
unconfounding construct-level convergence and rating difficulty”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 345-354.
Waldman, D. and Avolio, B. (1986), “A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 33-38.
Westman, M. and Eden, D. (1991), “Implicit stress theory: the spurious effects of stress on
performance ratings”, Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, Vol. 6 No. 7, pp. 131-170.
Westman, M. and Eden, D. (1996), “The inverted-U relationship between stress on performance:
a field study”, Work and Stress, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 165-173.
Woodworth, R.S. (1921), Psychology: A Study of Mental Life, Henry Holt & Co., New York, NY.
Yerkes, R. and Dodson, J. (1908), “The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit
formation”, Journal of Comparative Neurological Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 459-482.
Further reading Relationship
Jamal, M. (1986), “Moonlighting: personal, social and organizational consequences”, Human between
Relations, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 977-990.
workload and
Miller, H. and Terborg, J. (1979), “Job attitudes of part-time and full-time employees”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 380-386.
performance
Neiss, R. (1988), “Reconceptualizing arousal: Psychobiological states in motor performance”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 345-366. 2389
Williamson, A., Feyer, A. and Friswell, R. (1996), “The impact of work practices on fatigue in long
distance truck drivers”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 709-719.

About the author

Alexander Brüggen is an Associate Professor of Management Accounting at the Maastricht
University. His research interests are in the area of capital budgeting, incentive design,
performance measures, and budgeting, using experimental research designs as well as archival
and field studies. Alexander’s work has been published in Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Journal of Management Accounting Research, Contemporary Accounting Research and Economics
Letters. His research has been awarded with several prizes. His study on the US automotive
industry entitled “Drivers and consequences of short-term production decisions: evidence from
the auto industry” and published in Contemporary Accounting Research received the “Highest
Impact on Practice” Award of the American Accounting Association, another study was awarded
the “Best Paper Award” of the Journal of Management Accounting Research, and his dissertation
won the Runner-Up of the Best Dissertation Award of the American Accounting Association.
Associate Professor Alexander Brüggen can be contacted at: a.bruggen@maastrichtuniversity.nl

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com