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

net/publication/357364312

The impact of perceived organizational support on work meaningfulness,

engagement, and perceived stress in France

Article in European Management Journal · December 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2021.12.004

CITATIONS READS

14 1,722

5 authors, including:

Caroline Tillou Cordula Barzantny

Toulouse Business School Toulouse Business School
7 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 541 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Burçin Güçlü Florence Bénichoux

ICN Business School Better Human Cie
9 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 37 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Burçin Güçlü on 19 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Management Journal

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

The impact of perceived organizational support on work meaningfulness,

engagement, and perceived stress in France
Başak Canboy a, *, Caroline Tillou b, Cordula Barzantny b, Burçin Güçlü c, Florence Benichoux d
a
Department of Human Resources Management and Business Law, TBS Business School, C/Trafalgar 10, 08010, Barcelona, Spain
b
Department of Human Resources Management and Business Law, TBS Business School, 1, Place Alphonse Jourdain F-31068, TOULOUSE, Cedex 7, France
c
Department of Marketing, ICN Business School Berlin, Quartier 207, Friedrichstraße 76-78, 10117, Berlin, Germany
d
Better Human Cie., Toulouse & Paris, ADH Groupe, France. 56, Rue Benjamin Baillaud F- 31500 Toulouse / 33, Rue de Naples, 75008, Paris, France

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

Keywords: This paper aims to show the strategic role of Perceived Organizational Support (POS) in developing positive work
Meaningfulness attitudes, thereby reducing stress in the workplace. We have conducted an empirical study to understand more
Work engagement about if and how work meaningfulness influence perceived stress and whether work engagement has a mediating
Perceived stress
effect between these two constructs. Based on the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model and Social Exchange
Perceived organizational support
Organizational support theory
Theory (SET), we hypothesize that POS has both direct and indirect relationships with these variables: mean­
ingfulness, work engagement, and perceived stress. We tested these hypotheses through path analyses on a
sample of 1111 employees in France. The results support our hypotheses on a) the negative association between
meaningfulness and perceived stress, b) the mediating role of engagement, and c) the direct and indirect effects
of POS. The strongest moderating effect of POS is observed on the relationship between meaningfulness and
engagement. Our findings have theoretical implications by showing, for example, that POS enhances positive
outcomes more than it diminishes negative ones. The results also have practical implications for managers and
organizations as they reinforce the interplay of intrinsic motivators (meaningfulness) as an individual process as
well as extrinsic motivators (POS) in the realm of an organization’s responsibility and interest in strengthening
employee engagement and reducing stress at work.

1. Introduction
Fast-paced lifestyles and modern workplaces with intensified de­
mands due to economic crises (Rosa, 2013) and information overflow
(Ledzińska & Postek, 2017) present a challenge for organizations with
regard to managing employees’ increased levels of stress (Hassard et al.,
2014). Employees currently are more expressive about what they expect
from their organizations and tasks, and emphasize that being engaged at
work is a meaningful goal (Baumann, 2018). In this context, the orga­
nization’s role has evolved into one of providing and implementing
support mechanisms for its employees (beyond the direct support from
their managers).
The importance of social support in shaping work attitudes and
outcomes has long been recognized and integrated into several theories.
In the Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R model) (Bakker & Demer­
outi, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), social
support is mentioned as one of the resources that an employee can draw
upon, in addition to autonomy, control or meaningfulness, to decrease
strain from job stressors (e.g. high workload, emotional dissonance,
work role conflict) and increase positive work attitudes such as
commitment and engagement (May et al., 2004; Schaufeli, 2017; Soane
et al., 2013; Truss et al., 2006). This model considers only environ­
mental and individual characteristics of either job demands or job re­
sources, therefore most studies group their variables accordingly.
However, within the broader framework of Social Exchange Theory
(SET), Organizational Support Theory (OST) specifically focuses on the
importance of Perceived Organizational Support (POS). While many
theories usually consider individuals, such as family members, col­
leagues, or supervisors, as sources of support (Albrecht & Adelman,
1984), OST refers to how organizations as institutions help boost em­
ployees’ work behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes through POS (Gaudet
& Tremblay, 2017; Kurtessis et al., 2017). Several studies have

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: b.canboy@tbs-education.es (B. Canboy), c.tillou@tbs-education.fr (C. Tillou), c.barzantny@tbs-education.fr (C. Barzantny), burcin.guclu@icn-
artem.com (B. Güçlü), florence.benichoux@betterhuman.fr (F. Benichoux).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.12.004
Received 14 July 2020; Received in revised form 21 October 2021; Accepted 22 December 2021
Available online 27 December 2021
0263-2373/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Başak Canboy, European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.12.004
B. Canboy et al. European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

confirmed that the support employees receive from individuals has a events that includes the presence of a demand, the perception that the demand
positive effect on creating meaningful work (Arnold et al., 2007; Lee is significant and is taxing on an individual’s resources, and the generation of
et al., 2017); however, there is little evidence, whether this also holds a response that typically affects the individual’s well-being” (Kahn & Byo­
when employees attribute human-like characteristics to the organiza­ siere, 1992 cf. Ellis, 2006, p. 576). In the context of our study, we focus
tion as in the case of POS. To the best of our knowledge, the current exclusively on job-related stress in the workplace. In line with the idea of
study is the first to explicitly look at the interplay of POS and mean­ job demands and strains, Locke and Taylor (1991) argued that work
ingfulness and compare it to relationships between POS and other var­ environments can conflict with individuals’ values, including the pur­
iables. Thus, it highlights the interaction between two job resources, pose or meaning they attach to their work. In such cases, individuals
more specifically the effect of an extrinsic motivator (POS) on an would experience stress and need to find strategies to cope with the
intrinsic one (meaningfulness). A better understanding of the relation­ conflicting forces (Müller et al., 2019). Also, Morin and Forrest (2007)
ship between these two constructs will allow researchers and organi­ confirmed that work meaningfulness relies on the job characteristics
zations to broaden their “toolkit” of possibilities to increase positive that will determine employees’ psychological states. They state that
behavioral outcomes while preventing employees from adopting trans­ some of these characteristics, such as adapted workload or recognition,
actional attitudes towards their employers; such as by doing the bare limit psychological distress.
minimum or changing jobs simply for better pay (Fletcher & Robinson, Therefore, we propose that:
2016). Additionally, the broad research on POS has yielded some mixed
Hypothesis 1. Work meaningfulness is negatively associated with
results, especially concerning the impact of POS on work stress (Ganster
perceived stress.
et al., 1986; Cummins, 1989; 1990), which needs further clarification.
To achieve the above objective, we propose a model that examines
2.2. Meaningfulness and engagement
the (negative) relationship between meaningfulness and perceived
stress, mediated by work engagement. Under the framework of SET and
Kahn (1990) argues that during work-role performance, individuals
more specifically OST, the proposed model aims to broaden our un­
themselves express physically, cognitively, and emotionally according
derstanding of the direct and indirect effects of POS on such constructs
to the characteristics of the task and role. Hackman and Oldham (1980)
and relationships. We test nine hypotheses on a sample of 1111 em­
refer to similar job characteristics when explaining how they can have
ployees of several organizations in France. Using path analyses and
motivational potential: they foster so-called psychological states,
bootstrapping, our results support our hypotheses. By combining two
resulting in more positive work attitudes and behaviors. Meaningful
theories, our findings contribute to theory and practice on multiple
work is therefore work that is experienced as particularly significant and
levels: First, they indicate that with only two job resources, organiza­
that holds a more positive meaning for individuals and consequently
tions can increase engagement and reduce perceived stress levels at
enables them to identify with the organization and its mission, thus
work. Second, we contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the
creating an effective connection (Steger & Dik, 2010; Steger et al.,
role of POS in complex work contexts by illustrating that POS contrib­
2012). Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated positive associ­
utes more strongly to positive work outcomes rather than reducing
ations not only between perceived meaningfulness and work motivation
negative ones. Third, our findings suggest that, in addition to specific
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980), empowerment (Spreitzer, 1996), individ­
individuals, the organizations as institutions can be an alternative
ual performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Wrzesniewski, 2003),
source of support in contributing to meaningful work. Finally, our
employee creativity (Cohen-Meitar et al., 2009), personal fulfillment
findings expand on the academic literature by including research in the
(Kahn, 2007; Wrzesniewski, 2003), job satisfaction (Chevalier et al.,
francophone context, thereby contributing to the generalizability of few
2019; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997), career development (Dik & Duffy,
findings.
2009; Dobrow, 2006), organizational commitment (Chalofsky &
Krishna, 2009; Fairlie, 2011; Geldenhuys et al., 2014), identification
2. Job demands and resources perspective
(Pratt et al., 2006; Sparks & Schenk, 2001) and lower absenteeism
(Wrzesniewski et al., 1997) but also between meaningfulness and
The Job Demands – Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti,
engagement (Chevalier et al., 2019; May et al., 2004; Soane et al., 2013;
2007; Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) considers that
Truss et al., 2006).
job demands and job resources can be identified in any professional
Work engagement is generally considered to be a positive and
situation. Among others, Bakker and colleagues also considered POS
persistent affective–cognitive state of well-being or fulfillment (Bakker
(Christian et al., 2011) and the motivational characteristics of a job, such
et al., 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2006). In earlier work, Maslach and Leiter
as meaningfulness (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Kahn, 1990), to be a job
(1997) conceptualize engagement on the basis of energy, involvement,
resource (Bakker et al., 2003).
and efficacy, and establish these variables as direct opposites of three
dimensions of burnout, to which it is thus related negatively. It is often
2.1. Meaningfulness and stress
considered to be a resource, as it plays a motivational role in reducing
negative work morale by either increasing morale and health (Bailey
Meaningfulness refers to the amount of significance that an indi­
et al., 2017) or reducing the so-called ill-health (Shimazu et al., 2012).
vidual attaches to something (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003), or – more spe­
Antecedents of engagement – sometimes differentiated as job or
cifically in the labor context – to an individual’s need to feel worthwhile
organizational engagement (Saks, 2006) - have been confirmed in
and valuable as well as being appreciated for the work they do (Kahn,
numerous empirical studies to be job resources (Bakker & Demerouti,
1990). May et al. emphasize the subjectivity of meaningfulness when
2007; Christian et al., 2011; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), including
defining it as “the value in one’s work goal and purpose, judged in relation to
meaningfulness (May et al., 2004; Soane et al., 2013).
an individual’s own ideals or standards” (May et al., 2004, p. 14). Tasks,
By considering perceived stress as an indicator of ill-health, com­
role characteristics, and interactions with others influence meaningful­
bined with the established antecedents of engagement, we propose that:
ness (Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004). At the same time, subjective per­
ceptions can be shaped by socially and culturally driven values and Hypothesis 2. Meaningfulness is positively associated with work
beliefs (Rosso et al., 2010), whereby ethnicity, gender, class, and age can engagement.
impact how individuals interact with others or the value they attribute
Hypothesis 3. Work engagement mediates the relationship between
to their work (Gill, 1999).
work meaningfulness and perceived stress.
Meaningfulness has also been associated negatively with organiza­
tional stress (Lopez & Ramos, 2017), which is defined as “a sequence of

2
B. Canboy et al. European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

3. Social exchange perspective: the role of perceived organizational consequences. Various previous studies find partial or
organizational support contradicting results for the buffering or moderating effect of social
support on the process of work stress (Cummins, 1989, 1990; Viswes­
Social interaction is an integral part of the job resources in the JD-R varan et al., 1999), since not all studies, often with a cross-sectional
model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli & design, based on self-reports and lacking statistical power, can identify
Bakker, 2004). Social support from colleagues, supervisors, and orga­ similar causal relationships between the studied variables. Despite the
nizations provides the most mentioned source of support in this context. shortage of empirical studies on the efficacy of support on work-related
Cohen and Wills (1985) argue that job resources can have a buffering stress and often weak or absent causality, Lecca et al. (2020) document
effect on the negative relationships between any pair of stressor and that a supportive work climate can positively influence psychological
strain variables. While the buffering hypothesis offers an interpretation and physical outcomes.
of how social support can reduce the negative effects of strain, SET In line with this reflection, we argue that the buffering effect of POS
proposes that this social interaction can enhance positive work out­ will also hold for the relationship between work engagement and
comes. Spanning various scientific disciplines, SET consists of a family of perceived stress. We, therefore, hypothesize that:
conceptual models that treat social interactions as a series of sequential
Hypothesis 9. POS moderates the relationship between engagement
transactions based on reciprocal exchanges of resources between two or
and perceived stress
more individuals (for a recent review, see Cropanzano et al., 2017; also:
Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
4. Method
The relationship between the involved parties is often indicative of
the quality of the exchange (Blau, 1964; cf. Cropanzano et al., 2017).
4.1. Sample
Ladd and Henry (2000) suggest that “one way to assess exchange re­
lationships is to examine how much individuals feel that they are supported”
Our study sample is derived from three French organizations - two in
(Ladd & Henry, 2000, p. 2030). Within SET, this idea is represented in
the private (cheese manufacturing industry) and one in the public
Organizational Support Theory (OST) (see review by Rhoades & Eisen­
(general administration) sector – that participated in a mindful consul­
berger, 2002) in which POS appears to be a variable with important
ting project on workplace stress and work climate. The participants had
implications for employee behavior and attitudes (Baran et al., 2012;
access to a survey through an individually accessible online platform.
Gaudet & Tremblay, 2017; Kurtessis et al., 2017; Moideenkutty et al.,
The information gathered through this platform included, among other
2001). POS represents “global beliefs [that employees have] concerning the
questions, a 36-item questionnaire on meaningfulness, work engage­
extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about
ment, perceived stress, and POS. Volunteer participants were invited to
their well-being” (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 501). Thus, from a social
use 30 min of their work time to answer the questions online, with their
exchange perspective, individuals who believe that they are being
anonymity guaranteed. The platform included information on the po­
valued and respected by their organizations are expected to be willing to
tential use of the data for research purposes, which participants could
reciprocate these perceptions with higher levels of commitment, per­
agree to or otherwise opt out of the study. Such individualized access
formance, and other positive work outcomes (Chevalier et al., 2019;
meant that participants could respond in a single session or across
Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Eisenberger et al., 2001; Eisenberger
various moments within a timeframe of 30 days. We used all 1111
et al., 1997; Gillet et al., 2013; Shore & Shore, 1995), even though this
complete responses for our analysis. Table 1 below shows the overall
relationship does not necessarily need to be linear (Harris & Kacmar,
sample characteristics.
2018). We, therefore, hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4. POS is positively associated with meaningfulness.
Table 1
Hypothesis 5. POS is positively associated with work engagement. Demographic characteristics of the sample.
Hypothesis 6. POS moderates the relationship between meaningful­ Count %
ness and work engagement. Gender
Female 626 56.3
In early research on the topic, Ganster et al. (1986) argued that social Male 485 43.7
support would – modestly – reduce work stress. More specifically, Total 1111 100.0
research on POS also suggests various implications for employee Age
well-being and coping with stress. For example, Jawahar et al. (2007) Between 16 and 25 years 53 4.7
Between 26 and 35 years 234 21.1
found negative direct relationships between POS and two aspects of
Between 36 and 45 years 275 24.8
burnout (emotional exhaustion and depersonalization) and that POS Between 46 and 55 years 371 33.4
moderated the relationship between role conflict and emotional Above 55 178 16.0
exhaustion. Similarly, Byrne and Hochwarter (2006) reported a buff­ Total 1111 100.0
ering effect of POS whereby relationships between chronic pain and Tenure
Less than a year 64 5.8
lower performance are weaker for employees with high as opposed to 1–3 years 151 13.6
low POS. High-level POS has also been associated with weaker re­ 4–5 years 99 8.9
lationships between workload and two well-being outcomes, affective 6–10 years 171 15.4
distress and blood pressure (Ilies et al., 2010). We, therefore, hypothe­ More than 10 years 626 56.3
Total 1111 100.0
size that:
Years of experience
Hypothesis 7. POS is negatively associated with perceived stress. Less than 2 years 85 7.6
2–5 years 171 15.4
Hypothesis 8. POS moderates the relationship between meaningful­ 6–10 years 225 20.3
ness and perceived stress. 11–20 years 311 28.0
More than 20 years 319 28.7
In a recent review, Lecca et al. (2020) analyzed the role of support in Total 1111 100.0
Sector
the context of work-related stress in academic publications between
Private 478 43.0
2014 and 2019. They mentioned several studies that refer to the Public 633 57.0
moderating – or buffering – the role of support both on health and on Total 1111 100.0

3
B. Canboy et al.
4.2. Measures
We used variables and measures validated through previous research
in which all items were expressed as statements and were followed by
labeled response ranges. The items were double-blind translated and
back-translated as the questionnaire was distributed in French. We
employed Brislin’s (1970) back-translation methodology and verified
for equivalence of meanings with experts in social sciences who are
native and fluent in both English and French.
4.2.1. Meaningfulness
We used May et al.‘s (2004) 6–item Meaningfulness scale allowing
agreement-related responses on a 6-point Likert scale labeled “no, not at
all”, “slightly”, “a bit”, “sufficiently”, “a lot” and “extremely” (α =
0.961). An example item from this measure is: “The work I do on this job is
very important to me.” The complete list of items is shown in Appendix A.
4.2.2. Perceived stress
We used Cohen’s 14-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) (Cohen et al.,
1994) to ask how frequently employees experience possibly stressful
situations. An example item from this measure is: “In the last month, how
often have you felt difficulties piling up so high that you cannot overcome
them?” Appendix A shows the full list as well as further information on
retained items. The 5-point Likert options were labeled “never”,
“rarely”, “sometimes”, “often enough” and “very often” (α = 0.721).
4.2.3. Work engagement
To determine work engagement, we used the reduced Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (UWES-9) with nine items by Schaufeli et al. (2006).
An example item from this measure is: “I am immersed in my work.” The
full list of items is shown in Appendix A. Participants could respond to
the frequency on a 7-point Likert scale labeled “never”, “almost never”,
“rarely”, “sometimes”, “often”, “very often”, and “always” (α = 0.943).
4.2.4. Perceived organizational support
POS was measured with the 8-item short version of the Survey of POS
(Eisenberger et al., 1997). Here, participants indicated their level of
agreement with certain statements regarding the organization, such as
“Help is available from the organization when I have a problem.” (The full
list of items with additional information on retained items is included in
Appendix A.) The response options on a 7-point Likert scale were labeled
“Strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “slightly disagree”, “neither agree, nor
disagree”, “slightly agree”, “agree”, and “strongly agree” (α = 0.863).
4.3. Control variables
Perception of support and stress is contingent on individual cognitive
processes. Scholars have found age and gender effects on what de­
termines work-related outcomes and perceptions such as psychosocial
well-being and stress (Matud, 2004; Rauschenbach et al., 2013; Shultz
et al., 2010; Vermeulen & Mustard, 2000), due to this reason we
included age and gender as control variables. Gender was incorporated
as a categorical variable, 1 for men and 2 for women. The age variable
was collected as a categorical variable increasing by five, 1 corre­
sponding to the group of 16 to 20-year-olds, 2 to 21 to 25-year-olds, and
so on until 12 groups which represented those aged >70 years. We
included this coded categorical variable as a continuous variable in our
data analysis. Since our robustness checks of the sample did not convey
any differences in the distribution of the participants in terms of sectors
and tenure, we excluded them as control variables.
5. Results
5.1. Procedure and preliminary analyses
Despite the cross-sectional survey-based methodology, which is
4
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
often criticized for being prone to Common Method Variance (CMV)
leading to Common Method Bias (CMB), Fuller et al.‘s (2016) recent
simulations indicate that most studies will not reach the high levels of
CMV required to present the risk of CMB. Nonetheless, in addition to the
aforementioned setup of the questionnaire in line with some of the
pre-hoc measures suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003), we followed
their recommendations also on post-hoc measures to further mitigate the
CMB risk. Reliability and discriminant validity were first established
through an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using Principal Compo­
nents Analysis (PCA). To test the unidimensionality of the constructs
used in our specific sample, four independent EFAs were conducted.
Initially, the analyses extracted one factor each except for perceived
stress and POS, for which two were extracted. Consequently, we
continued with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using four items for
perceived stress (Vallejo et al., 2018) that have also been shown reliable
in the French context (Lesage et al., 2012), and six items for POS
(removing items that were loaded on another factor). The remaining
constructs were kept unchanged. To ascertain the discriminant validity,
we conducted CFA with all items in the survey, which confirmed four
dimensions emerging from the survey data with each latent construct
loading on one factor.
We compared the above-mentioned four-factor model against a two-
factor model (perceived stress and other constructs), and a three-factor
model (perceived stress, perceived organizational support, and other
constructs). The goodness of fit results for the models are shown in
Table 2 below.
Of the models that we tested, the four-factor model best satisfies the
reference values for the goodness of fit.
5.2. Correlations
We generated the observable constructs by averaging the construct
items to use path analyses for bootstrapping (Hayes, 2017), and stan­
dardized these averaged constructs (Hair et al., 2014). All observable
constructs show significant correlations with each other (p < 0.001), as
shown in Table 3 with their descriptive statistics. Of the control vari­
ables, age shows significant correlation with meaningfulness (p <
0.001), while gender is significantly correlated with perceived stress (p
< 0.001) and meaningfulness (p < 0.05).
5.3. Mediated moderation
We used the bootstrapping method to obtain standard errors and
confidence intervals and conducted 2000 simulations to evaluate the
credibility of the results obtained. Conditional indirect effects were
obtained by multiplying coefficients from the path analyses along with
selected values of the moderator variable (Hayes, 2017). We determined
the conditional indirect effects for three different values of the moder­
ator variable: low, medium, and high.
5.4. Hypothesis testing
Table 4 presents the results from the direct effects model and three
mediated moderation models: the moderating role of POS on the rela­
tionship between meaningfulness and perceived stress, the moderating
role of POS on the relationship between meaningfulness and work
Table 2
Fit Comparison of Two-Factor, Three-Factor, and Four-Factor Models.
Model Fit Acceptable Level Two-Factor Three-Factor Four-Factor
Х2 Smaller, the better 7295.293 4846.275 2317.490
RMSE <0.080 0.152 0.123 0.083
CFI >0.900 0.685 0.795 0.908
TLI >0.900 0.655 0.773 0.897
SRMR 0.108 0.070 0.049
<0.080
B. Canboy et al. European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations between the Observable Constructs.
Means SD 1 2 3 4 5

1 Perceived stress 2.432 0.674

2 POS 4.895 1.169 − 0.296***
3 Meaningfulness 4.962 1.022 − 0.162*** 0.370***
4 Work engagement 4.029 1.151 − 0.267*** 0.451*** 0.743***
5 Age 6.216 2.159 0.037 − 0.025 0.134*** 0.024
6 Gender 1.563 0.496 0.154*** 0.018 0.073* 0.050 − 0.000

Note. ***p < 0.001, *p < 0.05.

Table 4
Results from the Direct Effects Model and three Mediated Moderation Models.
Variables Direct Effects Model Mediated Moderation Model - 1 Mediated Moderation Model - 2 Mediated Moderation Model - 3

Step 1 Meaningfulness Meaningfulness Meaningfulness Meaningfulness

Control variables Age 0.143*** 0.143*** 0.143*** 0.143***
Gender 0.066* 0.066* 0.066* 0.066*
Independent variable POS 0.372*** 0.372*** 0.372*** 0.372***
Step 2 Engagement Engagement Engagement Engagement
Control variables Age − 0.062** – − 0.064** − 0.062**
Gender − 0.003 – − 0.000 − 0.003
Independent Meaningfulness 0.678*** – 0.702*** 0.678***
variables
POS 0.199*** – 0.192*** 0.199***
Interaction variables POS*Meaning- – – 0.082*** –
fulness
Step 3 Perceived stress Perceived stress Perceived stress Perceived stress
Control variables Age 0.027 0.043 0.028 0.030
Gender 0.164*** 0.162*** 0.162*** 0.159***
Independent Meaningfulness 0.078 − 0.106** 0.057 0.063
variables
Engagement − 0.233*** – − 0.232*** − 0.237***
POS − 0.222*** − 0.266*** − 0.221*** − 0.230***
Interaction variables POS*Meaning- – − 0.054 − 0.035 –
fulness
POS*Engage-ment – – – − 0.069*
N 1111 1111 1111 1111

Note. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

engagement, and the moderating role of POS on the relationship be­
tween engagement and perceived stress, respectively.
Regarding the direct effects, our results indicate significant positive
relationships between meaningfulness and engagement (β = 0.678, p <
0.001), POS and meaningfulness (β = 0.372, p < 0.001), and POS and
work engagement (β = 0.199, p < 0.001), confirming Hypotheses 2, 4
and 5, respectively. Our results also suggest a significant negative rela­
tionship between POS and perceived stress (β = − 0.222, p < 0.001),
confirming Hypothesis 7.
In terms of the control variables, meaningfulness is contingent on age
and gender, which increases with age (β = 0.143, p < 0.001) and is
higher for women (β = 0.066, p < 0.05). Engagement is contingent on
age, whereby it decreases with age (β = − 0.062, p < 0.01). We also find
that perceived stress is dependent on gender: Women tend to perceive
more stress than men do (β = 0.164, p < 0.001). Fig. 1 depicts the
moderating role of POS on the relationship between meaningfulness and
perceived stress.
In this model, we observe a significant negative relationship between
meaningfulness and perceived stress (β = − 0.106, p = 0.002), sup­
porting Hypothesis 1. The interaction variable accounting for the
moderation is insignificant (β = − 0.054, p = 0.088) and raises specu­
lation about the strength of the moderating role of POS. Bootstrapping
results indicate that the moderating effect of POS on the relationship
between meaningfulness and perceived stress is negative, and they
strengthen the negative impact of meaningfulness on perceived stress by
0.015 from low levels of POS (β = − 0.025, p = 0.060) to medium levels
of POS (β = − 0.040, p = 0.004), and to high levels (β = − 0.055, p =
0.006). This effect is initially insignificant at low levels but gains sig­
nificance and momentum with higher levels of POS (medium and high),
thereby partially supporting Hypothesis 8. Similar results are obtained

Fig. 1. Moderating Role of POS on the Relationship between Meaningfulness and Perceived Stress
Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

5
B. Canboy et al.
concerning the control variables in this model. Age and gender are
significant for meaningfulness, whereby it increases with age (β = 0.143,
p < 0.001) and is higher for women (β = 0.066, p < 0.05). We also note
that perceived stress is dependent on gender, whereby women tend to
perceive it more than men do (β = 0.162, p < 0.001). These results are in
line with the findings in the direct-effects model.
The moderating role of POS on the relationship between meaning­
fulness and work engagement is depicted in Fig. 2.
Regarding the mediating role of engagement, we find a significant
negative relationship between engagement and perceived stress (β =
− 0.232, p < 0.001), and an insignificant relationship between mean­
ingfulness and perceived stress (β = 0.057, p = 0.221) when we control
for the engagement effect. Together with the significant and positive
impact of meaningfulness on engagement (β = 0.702, p < 0.001), we
conclude that engagement has a full mediating effect. This supports
Hypothesis 3.
The interaction variable accounting for the moderation is significant
(β = 0.082, p < 0.001) and positive and indicates that employees feel
more engaged with their work when that work is meaningful for them,
and this positive relationship is even stronger when they perceive more
organizational support. Bootstrapping results are also remarkable in
how they increase for low, medium and high levels of POS for its
moderating effect on the relationship between meaningfulness and work
engagement (β = 0.244, p < 0.001; β = 0.267, p < 0.001; β = 0.291, p <
0.001). Moreover, this moderating effect is carried over to the rela­
tionship between work engagement and perceived stress, as the overall
impact of the moderation is significant and negative - albeit with smaller
magnitude (β = − 0.056, p < 0.001 for low, β = − 0.061, p < 0.001 for
medium and β = − 0.066, p < 0.001 for high levels of POS). When
comparing the results in Figs. 1 and 2, the coefficients for the relation­
ship between meaningfulness and perceived stress increase when
including engagement as a mediating variable. Combined with the in­
formation that the magnitude and significance of the moderating role of
POS increases, we can confirm Hypothesis 6.
Concerning the control variables and in line with the findings in the
previous models, age and gender are significant for meaningfulness,
whereby it increases with age (β = 0.143, p < 0.001) and is higher for
women (β = 0.066, p < 0.05). Engagement is contingent on age, ac­
cording to which it decreases (β = − 0.064, p < 0.01). We also observe
the dependence of perceived stress on gender, with women tending to
perceive it more than men do (β = 0.162, p < 0.001).
The moderating role of POS on the relationship between work
engagement and perceived stress is depicted in Fig. 3.
In the current model, the interaction variable accounting for the
moderation is negative and significant (β = − 0.069, p = 0.019), indi­
cating that employees perceive less stress when their work is engaging,
and this negative relationship is even stronger when they perceive more
organizational support. The moderating effect of POS on the relationship
between work engagement and perceived stress – as detected through
bootstrapping - is significant and stronger with higher levels of POS (β =
− 0.046, p = 0.003 for low; β = − 0.060, p < 0.001 for medium; and β =
Fig. 2. Moderating Role of POS on the Relationship between Meaningfulness and Work Engagement
Note. ***p < 0.001.
6
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
− 0.074, p < 0.001 for high levels of POS). These results support Hy­
pothesis 9.
Regarding the control variables, age and gender are significant for
meaningfulness, whereby it increases with age (β = 0.143, p < 0.001)
and is higher for women (β = 0.066, p < 0.05) while engagement de­
creases with age (β = − 0.062, p < 0.01). We also find that perceived
stress is dependent on gender, whereby women report higher levels of
perceived stress than men do (β = 0.159, p < 0.001). These results are in
line with the findings in the previous models.
We can conclude that the moderating role of POS is more evident in
the relationship between meaningfulness and work engagement (Fig. 2).
Concerning the magnitude of the moderating effects, the results indicate
similar effects for POS on meaningfulness and work engagement (β =
0.082, p < 0.001) as for POS on work engagement and perceived stress
(β = − 0.069, p = 0.019). However, the overall impact of the moderation
is more evident in the relationship between meaningfulness and work
engagement when we account for the differences in moderating effects
for low, medium and high levels of moderation (β = 0.244, p < 0.001 for
low, β = 0.267, p < 0.001; for medium and β = 0.291, p < 0.001 for high
levels of moderation in the relationship between meaningfulness and
work engagement, and β = − 0.046, p = 0.003 for low; β = − 0.060, p <
0.001 for medium; and β = − 0.074, p < 0.001 for high levels of
moderation in the relationship between work engagement and perceived
stress). One standard deviation of increase in POS specifically impacts
the relationship between meaningfulness and work engagement by
0.023 in the former, while one standard deviation of increase in POS
impacts the relationship between work engagement and perceived stress
by − 0.014 in the latter relationship.
We illustrate the moderating effects of POS on the relationships be­
tween meaningfulness and perceived stress, between meaningfulness
and engagement, and between engagement and perceived stress in Fig. 4
shown below.
6. Discussion
The overall results of the study confirm the relevance of intrinsic
motivators (meaningfulness) in the workplace as an important source
and antecedent for positive work attitudes and outcomes, while the role
of extrinsic factors (POS) need not be underestimated as potentiating
these positive work attitudes (Moideenkutty et al., 2001; Moorman
et al., 1998; Ng & Sorensen, 2008; Wayne et al., 1997).
6.1. Theoretical implications
6.1.1. Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model
Our findings present broad support for the ideas of the JD-R model in
the sense that meaningfulness as a job resource helps increase work
engagement and reduce work stress. At the same time, the negative
correlations of POS as a type of social support with perceived stress also
coincide with the assumptions about job resources. Many studies have
analyzed the impact of job resources in a broader sense in buffering the
B. Canboy et al.
Fig. 3. Moderating Role of POS on the Relationship between Work Engagement and Perceived Stress
Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Fig. 4. Illustration of the Moderating Effects of POS on the different Relationships.
effects of burnout (Demerouti et al., 2001), rather than perceived stress,
but not specifically with meaningfulness. Our findings suggest that the
consequences of meaningful work go beyond the well-established work-
related outcomes but also impact – albeit indirectly – perceptions of
stress. The latter, in turn, may result in health-related dangers including
poorer health conditions or burnout. This contributes to the JD-R liter­
ature by indicating that organizations can also reap the benefits of
creating positive impacts and reducing negative work outcomes and
attitudes with a limited number of specific job resources such as
meaningfulness.
6.1.2. Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Organizational Support Theory
(OST)
The moderating role of POS on the relationships between the
different variables suggests that the feeling of being supported by the
organization enhances work attitudes and reduces negative work out­
comes. We found that the moderating role of POS is stronger between
work meaningfulness and engagement than between engagement and
perceived stress. It appears that employees reciprocate the positive
support they receive from organizations more easily through increased
engagement. These findings corroborate those in Eisenberger and
Stinglhamber’s (2011) study that show that employees attribute stress
more to the job than to the organization (cf. Kurtessis et al., 2017).
Previous literature has not been explicit about the relationship be­
tween POS and meaningfulness. In Guest (2017) meta-analysis the job
enrichment conditions included task identification, but not meaning­
fulness. Meaningfulness goes beyond task identification as it includes
the value that is attributed to the task by the employee. Even though SET
and OST are well-established theories, our study contributes to them by
7
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
showing that the interplay of POS on relationships, and explicitly on
meaningfulness, also holds for organizations as sources of support. This
also supports the idea that employees perceive and appreciate efforts
made by organizations as institutions without necessarily attributing
actions to specific individuals. Yielding these results with a French
sample further strengthens these theories and adds to the more global
generalizability of the results on the importance of POS in the organi­
zational context.
6.1.3. Meaningfulness and engagement literature
The strong positive association between meaningfulness and
engagement is in line with findings in previous studies. These studies
were either conducted in the United States (May et al., 2004), the United
Kingdom (Soane et al., 2013; Truss et al., 2006) or the health sector in
France (Chevalier et al., 2019). Our results, therefore, contribute
significantly to both the meaningfulness and the engagement literature
in terms of the generalizability of this relationship by expanding the
research into broader sectors (public and private organizations within a
francophone context). This generalizability also holds for the contin­
gency effects of gender and age: in line with previous literature, our
results present differences in the effects of gender on meaningfulness
and the lack thereof on engagement. Lopez and Ramos (2017) argue that
the higher ratings for women than men for meaningfulness might be due
to sampling bias as most of their participants were managers. In our
study, women at different organizational levels have been included in
the analysis and show similar results, thereby implying certain system­
aticity in the contingency effect of gender on meaningfulness.
B. Canboy et al.
6.1.4. Negative work outcomes literature
Our study also helps to clarify the mixed results in previous studies in
which the impact of social support on work stress was inconclusive
(Cummins, 1989, 1990; Ganster et al., 1986). Many previous studies
investigated social support on a broader scale without specifically
considering POS. There are several possible reasons for the change in the
results of our current findings and other more recent studies (Eisen­
berger & Stinglhamber, 2011, cf.; Kurtessis et al., 2017). First, it is
common knowledge that levels of stress in the workplace have increased
over the years: maybe individuals’ strategies are no longer enough for
them to cope and they now need to rely not only on social support from
colleagues and supervisors but also from the organization in general
through appropriate HR practices. Rodríguez et al. (2019) documented
that collective problem-focused coping seems far more efficient than
individual responses and is also better than co-active problem-focused
coping. Collective responses have the most positive effect on organiza­
tional stress climates. Second, employee expectations, i.e. the psycho­
logical contract (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2019; Hess & Jepsen, 2009)
toward the organization, might have changed over time, especially due
to generational differences between employees. Previous generations
(baby boomers) might consider stress from a more personal perspective,
while more recent generations of employees hold organizations
accountable for the stress they experience and thus expect to be
supported.
6.2. Practical implications
This study has practical implications for management in terms of the
design of the organizational environment so as to enhance employees’
performance while reducing harmful job stress. It confirms that moti­
vation is still mainly a matter of intrinsic conditions (meaningfulness).
However, leaders and organizations can also actively influence
engagement and the perception of stress through the support they offer
as possible extrinsic motivation. Depending on the employees’ needs,
this does not have to be financial but could take non-material forms like
feedback, human empathy, social interactions, and appreciation. Sup­
port needs to be even more individualized since it has to consider the
diversity of employees’ needs. This aspect goes beyond the personalized
supervisor support associated with a manager as an individual and
instead represents the organization as an entity that offers a unique
value. Managers are representative of these corporate values and create
a sense of coherence to be perceived as organizational support. In this
line of argumentation, our findings also have implications for the design
of managerial positions since there is a need to include sufficient time for
these types of interpersonal (leadership) activities (giving feedback,
supporting, being available for unanticipated empathetic needs and so
on).
Furthermore, managers and organizations must determine the
appropriate combination and balance between job demands and job
resources, so they can display the human involvement qualities that
their employees and organizations expect from them in order to respond
with positive work attitudes and outcomes. Moreover, the organizations
should design their work environments with flexible schedules, sup­
portive facilities, and remote workplace arrangements rather than being
focused solely on work results.
6.3. Limitations and directions for future research
This study does not establish any causalities between the mentioned
relationships. Some scholars manifest a positive spiral effect with
reciprocal (Byrne et al., 2016) or non-linear (Harris & Kacmar, 2018)
relationships, especially between meaningfulness and engagement.
Longitudinal studies would help to better understand the sequences and
the minimum or optimum levels of the interactions in order to
8
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
personalize organizational activities in the quest to improve work
environments.
Even though most of the constructs employed are subjective evalu­
ations of employee perceptions, self-assessments always include the risk
of bias or social desirability effects (Maccoby & Maccoby, 1954).
Empirical research, including the collection of physiological informa­
tion, such as objective health information, heart rates, or
electro-magnetic resonance profiles, as well as objective work-related
outcomes (e.g., employee turnover, performance), could help shed
light on the relationship between subjective perceptions and objective
outcomes. This could help either to “relativize” or “emphasize” the
importance of the measured effects.
Another limitation of the present study is that it includes data solely
from France. Even though some of the findings on the relationship be­
tween meaningfulness and engagement expand on research that has
been conducted previously in Anglo-Saxon contexts, the results need to
be interpreted with caution before generalizing to other countries. As
Rosso et al. (2010) suggested, many perceptions are shaped through
social and cultural contexts, so replications of this study in other coun­
tries and cultures, especially culturally distant ones, could help under­
stand whether the observed phenomena are universal.
Including additional moderators in our model that shape engage­
ment or the perception of stress, such as personality traits, emotional
intelligence (Martins et al., 2010), job-fit (Edwards, 1991; Kristof-Brown
et al., 2005; Maden-Eyiusta, 2016) or the use of certain coping mecha­
nisms (Rodríguez et al., 2019; Attell et al., 2017), would help paint a
more complete picture of the complexity of work environments.
In a similar vein, another research perspective for the future lies in
the examination of the JD-R model regarding job crafting (Demerouti &
Bakker, 2011). Future research should examine whether the complex
interaction of individual resources with the work environment takes the
form of three-way interactions between job demands, job resources, and
personal resources whereby personal resources qualify the two-way in­
teractions between job demands and job resources. Shifting the focus
from organizational support towards the individual with personal re­
sources, such as psychological capital including resilience, hope, opti­
mism, and personal resources of self-efficacy (Avey et al., 2009) leads
the way to an increasingly individualized people management approach.
7. Conclusion
We have conducted a study to test whether work engagement has a
mediating role between meaningfulness and perceived stress as well as
the role of POS on the relationships with these variables. The results
based on this French sample support our hypotheses on the direct re­
lationships between the studied variables, as well as the moderating role
of POS in most combinations. The strongest moderating relationship of
POS was detected between meaningfulness and work engagement. With
this research, we contribute to the academic literature by showing that
even a limited number of job resources (POS and meaningfulness) can
increase positive work behaviors and decrease stress. Additionally, the
findings in this French sample support the ideas of OST, meaningfulness,
and also engagement literature on a more global scale. From a practical
perspective, we suggest that managers and leaders, who are continu­
ously called upon to strike the right balance between job demands and
job resources, could leave more decisions to increasingly more autono­
mous and happier employees. This would consequently help reduce the
negative impacts of stress while enhancing organizational performance
beyond basic material conditions and considerations.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
B. Canboy et al. European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Appendices.

Appendix A. Measurement items

Dimensions Reference Item Scale Mean (standard deviation) of

retained items

Meaningfulness May et al. (2004) The work I do on this job is very important to me. 1–6 4.985 (1.111)
My job activities are personally meaningful to me. 1–6 5.010 (1.087)
The work I do on this job is worthwhile. 1–6 4.977 (1.075)
My job activities are significant to me. 1–6 4.896 (1.161)
The work I do on this job is meaningful to me. 1–6 4.884 (1.184)
I feel that the work I do on my job is valuable. 1–6 5.023 (1.077)
Perceived stress Cohen et al. (1994); Vallejo In the last month, how often have you felt anxious about something that 1–5 –
et al. (2018) happened unexpectedly?
In the last month, how often have you felt unable to control the important 1–5 2.672 (0.933)
things in your life?
In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and stressed? 1–5 –
In the last month, how often have you felt that you dealt successfully with day- 1–5 –
to-day problems and annoyances?
In the last month, how often have you felt that you were effectively coping with 1–5 –
important changes that were occurring in your life?
In the last month, how often have you felt confident about your ability to 1–5 2.122 (0.885)
handle your personal problems?
In the last month, how often have you felt like things were going your way? 1–5 2.654 (0.854)
In the last month, how often have you felt like you could not cope with all the 1–5 –
things that you had to do?
In the last month, how often have you dealt with irritating life hassles? 1–5 –
In the last month, how often have you felt like you were on top of things? 1–5 –
In the last month, how often have you felt worried about things that you have 1–5 –
to accomplish?
In the last month, how often have you been able to control the way you spend 1–5 –
your time?
In the last month, how often have you felt difficulties piling up so high that you 1–5 2.279 (0.981)
cannot overcome them?
In the last month, how often have you been angered because of things that 1–5 –
were beyond your control?

Dimensions Reference Item Scale Mean (standard deviation) of

retained items

Work Engagement Schaufeli et al. (2006) At my work, I feel bursting with energy. 0–6 4.086 (1.207)
At my job, I feel strong and. 0–6 4.121 (1.225)
I am enthusiastic about my job. 0–6 4.149 (1.497)
My job inspires me. 0–6 3.913 (1.515)
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work. 0–6 3.829 (1.496)
I feel happy when I am working intensely. 0–6 4.298 (1.337)
I am proud on the work that I do. 0–6 4.306 (1.350)
I am immersed in my work. 0–6 3.834 (1.409)
I get carried away when I am working. 0–6 3.729 (1.431)
Perceived Organizational Eisenberger et al. (1997) My organization cares about my opinions. 1–7 4.923 (1.511)
Support My organization really cares about my well-being. 1–7 4.285 (1.660)
My organization strongly considers my goals and values. 1–7 4.683 (1.579)
Help is available from my organization when I have a problem. 1–7 5.219 (1.462)
My organization would forgive an honest mistake from my side. 1–7 5.263 (1.419)
If given the opportunity, my organization would take advantage of me. 1–7 –
My organization shows very little concern for me. 1–7 –
My organization is willing to help me when I need a special favor. 1–7 4.994 (1.431)

References Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents and
outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 19(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12077
Albrecht, T. L., & Adelman, M. B. (1984). Social support and life stress: New directions
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
for communication research. Human Communication Research, 11(1), 3–32. https://
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/
doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00036.x
02683940710733115
Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007).
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job
Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of
resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational
meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193. https://doi.
Behavior, 62(2), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00030-1
org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193
Baran, B., Shanock, L., & Miller, L. (2012). Advancing organizational support theory into
Attell, B. K., Kummerow Brown, K., & Treiber, L. A. (2017). Workplace bullying,
the twenty-first century world of work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(2),
perceived job stressors, and psychological distress: Gender and race differences in
123–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9236-3
the stress process. Social Science Research, 65, 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Baumann, F. (2018). Le brown-out: Quand le travail n’a plus aucun sens. Paris: Josette
ssresearch.2017.02.001
Lyon.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.4324/
for combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48(5),
9780203792643
677–693. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20294
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

9
B. Canboy et al.
Byrne, Z. S., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2006). I get by with a little help from my friends: The
interaction of chronic pain and organizational support on performance. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-
8998.11.3.215
Byrne, Z. S., Peters, J. M., & Weston, J. W. (2016). The struggle with employee
engagement: Measures and construct clarification using five samples. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1201–12207. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000124
Chalofsky, N., & Krishna, V. (2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: The
intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 11(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422309333147
Chevalier, S., Fouquereau, E., Bénichoux, F., & Colombat, P. (2019). Beyond working
conditions, psychosocial predictors of job satisfaction, and work engagement among
French dentists and dental assistants. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 24
(1), Article e12152. https://doi.org/10.1111/jabr.12152
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel
Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
Cohen-Meitar, R., Carmeli, A., & Waldman, D. A. (2009). Linking meaningfulness in the
workplace to employee creativity: The intervening role of organizational
identification and positive psychological experiences. Creativity Research Journal, 21
(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902969910
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1994). Perceived stress scale. In S. Cohen,
R. C. Kessler, & L. U. Gordon (Eds.), Measuring stress: A guide for health and social
scientists (pp. 235–283). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1097/
00006842-199603000-00017.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., Pereira Costa, S., Doden, W., & Chang, C. (2019). Psychological
contracts: Past, present, and future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 6, 145–169. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
012218-015212
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange
theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. The Academy of Management
Annals, 11(1), 479–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206305279602
Cummins, R. C. (1989). Locus of control and social relationship: Clarifiers of the
relationship between job stress and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19
(5), 772–788. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb01258.x
Cummins, R. C. (1990). Job stress and the buffering effect of supervisory support. Group
& Organization Studies, 15(1), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/
105960119001500107
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. (2011). The job demands–resources model: Challenges for
future research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.4102/
sajip.v37i2.974, 01-09.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010863499
Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2009). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects
for research and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(3), 424–450. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0011000008316430
Dobrow, S. R. (2006). Having a calling: A longitudinal study of young musicians. [Doctoral
dissertation]. Harvard University.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and
methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review
of industrial and organizational psychology, 6 pp. 283–357). John Wiley & Sons.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001).
Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86
(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/12318-000
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational
support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82(5), 812–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–512. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering
enthusiastic and productive employees. American Psychological Association. https://
doi.org/10.1037/12318-000
Ellis, A. P. J. (2006). System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive
memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(3), 576–589. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159782
Fairlie, P. (2011). Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee
outcomes: Implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 13(4), 508–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311431679
Fletcher, L., & Robinson, D. (2016). What’s the point? The importance of meaningful
work. In Thoughts for the Day: IES perspectives on HR 2016 (pp. 14–20). Institute for
Employment Studies.
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common
methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8),
3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support in the
experience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 102–110. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.1.102
Gaudet, M. C., & Tremblay, M. (2017). Initiating structure leadership and employee
behaviors: The role of perceived organizational support, affective commitment and
10
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
leader–member exchange. European Management Journal, 35(5), 663–675. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.04.001
Geldenhuys, M., Laba, K., & Venter, C. M. (2014). Meaningful work, work engagement
and organisational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v40i1.1098
Gill, F. (1999). The meaning of work: Lessons from sociology, psychology, and political
theory. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 28(6), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s1053-5357(99)00054-2
Gillet, N., Huart, I., Colombat, P., & Fouquereau, E. (2013). Perceived organizational
support, motivation, and engagement among police officers. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 44(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030066
Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a
new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22–38.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12139
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Addison-Wesley.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on partial
Least Squares Structural Equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.
Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2018). Is more always better? An examination of the
nonlinear effects of perceived organizational support on individual outcomes. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 158(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224545.2017.1324394
Hassard, J., Teoh, K., Cox, T., Dewe, P., Cosmar, M., Gründler, R., Flemming, D.,
Cosemans, B., & Van den Broek, K. (2014). Calculating the cost of work-related stress
and psychosocial risks. European Risk Observatory, European Agency for Safety and
Health at Work. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/
10.2802/20493
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A Regression-based approach. Guildford Press.
Hess, N., & Jepsen, D. M. (2009). Career stage and generational differences in
psychological contracts. Career Development International, 14(3), 261–283. https://
doi.org/10.1108/13620430910966433
Ilies, R., Dimotakis, N., & De Pater, I. E. (2010). Psychological and physiological
reactions to high workloads: Implications for well-being. Personnel Psychology, 63(2),
407–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01175.x
Jawahar, I., Stone, T., & Kisamore, J. (2007). Role conflict and burnout: The direct and
moderating effects of political skill and perceived organizational support on burnout
dimensions. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 142–159. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.142
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://
doi.org/10.5465/256287
Kahn, W. A. (2007). Meaningful connections: Positive relationships and attachments at
work. In J. E. Dutton, & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), LEA’s organization and management series.
Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation
(189-206). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315094199-13.
Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, &
L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.,, 2
pp. 571–650). Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of
individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-
group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S.
(2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of
organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854–1884. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554
Ladd, D., & Henry, R. A. (2000). Helping coworkers and helping the organization: The
role of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 30(10), 2028–2049. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2000.tb02422.x
Lecca, L. I., Finstad, G. L., Traversini, V., Lulli, L. G., Gualco, B., & Taddei, G. (2020). The
role of job support as a target for the management of work-related stress: The state of
art. Quality-Access to Success, 21, 152–158.
Ledzińska, M., & Postek, S. (2017). From metaphorical information overflow and
overload to real stress: Theoretical background, empirical findings, and applications.
European Management Journal, 35(6), 785–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
emj.2017.07.002
Lee, M. C. C., Idris, M. A., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2017). The linkages between hierarchical
culture and empowering leadership and their effects on employees’ work
engagement: Work meaningfulness as a mediator. International Journal of Stress
Management, 24(4), 392. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000043
Lesage, F. X., Berjot, S., & Deschamps, F. (2012). Psychometric properties of the French
versions of the perceived stress scale. International Journal of Occupational Medicine &
Environmental Health, 25(2), 178–184. https://doi.org/10.2478/S13382-012-0024-8
Locke, E. A., & Taylor, M. S. (1991). Stress, coping, and the meaning of work. In
A. Monat, & R. S. Lazarus (Eds.), Stress and coping: An anthology (140-157). Columbia
University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/mona92982-019.
Lopez, F. G., & Ramos, K. (2017). An exploration of gender and career stage differences
on a multidimensional measure of work meaningfulness. Journal of Career
Assessment, 25(3), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716639851
Maccoby, E. E., & Maccoby, N. (1954). The interview: A tool of social science. In
G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology, 1 pp. 449–487). Addison-Wesley.
Maden-Eyiusta, C. (2016). Job resources, engagement, and proactivity: A moderated
mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(8), 1234–1250. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JMP-04-2015-0159
B. Canboy et al.
Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the
relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual
Differences, 49(6), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The Truth about burnout. Jossey Bass.
Matud, M. P. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and
Individual Differences, 37(7), 1401–1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2004.01.010
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37. https://
doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892
Moideenkutty, U., Blau, G., Kumar, R., & Nalakath, A. (2001). Perceived organisational
support as a mediator of the relationship of perceived situational factors to affective
organizational commitment. Applied Psychology: International Review, 50(4),
615–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00076
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. I., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational
support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational
citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 331–357. https://doi.
org/10.5465/256913
Morin, E. M., & Forest, J. (2007). Promouvoir la santé mentale au travail : Donner un
sens au travail. Gestion, 32(2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.3917/riges.322.0031
Müller, M., Huber, C., & Messner, M. (2019). Meaningful work at a distance: A case study
in a hospital. European Management Journal, 37(6), 719–729. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.008
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the
relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis.
Group & Organization Management, 33(3), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1059601107313307
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879
Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work.
In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship
(309–327). Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional
identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of
identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235–262.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20786060
Rauschenbach, C., Krumm, S., Thielgen, M., & Hertel, G. (2013). Age and work-related
stress: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7–8),
781–804. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2013-0251
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.87.4.698
Rodríguez, I., Kozusznik, M. W., Peiró, J. M., & Tordera, N. (2019). Individual, co-active
and collective coping and organizational stress: A longitudinal study. European
Management Journal, 37(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.06.002
Rosa, H. (22–25 May 2013). Acceleration at work. 16th Conference of the European
association of work and Organisational Psychology, Imagine the future world: How do we
want to work tomorrow? Germany: Muenster.
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A
theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30(1),
91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02683940610690169
Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Applying the job demands-resources model: A ‘how to’ guide to
measuring and tackling work engagement and burnout. Organizational Dynamics, 46
(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.008
11
View publication stats
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013164405282471
Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W. B., Kubota, K., & Kawakami, N. (2012). Do workaholism and
work engagement predict employee well-being and performance in opposite
directions? Industrial Health, 50(4), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.
MS1355
Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational
justice. In R. S. Cropanzano, & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and
support: Managing the social climate of the workplace (149-164). Quorum.
Shultz, K. S., Wang, M., Crimmins, E. M., & Fisher, G. G. (2010). Age differences in the
demand-control model of work stress: An examination of data from 15 European
countries. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 29(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0733464809334286
Soane, E., Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2013). The association
of meaningfulness, well-being, and engagement with absenteeism: A moderated
mediation model. Human Resource Management, 52(3), 441–456. https://doi.org/
10.1002/hrm.21534
Sparks, J. R., & Schenk, J. A. (2001). Explaining the effects of transformational
leadership: An investigation of the effects of higher-order motives in multilevel
marketing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(8), 849–869. https://
doi.org/10.1002/job.116
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.
Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.5465/256789
Steger, M. F., & Dik, B. J. (2010). Work as meaning: Individual and organizational
benefits of engaging in meaningful work. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea
(Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work
(pp. 131–142). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780195335446.013.0011.
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work
and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160
Truss, K., Soane, E., Edwards, C. Y. L., Wisdom, K., Croll, A., & Burnett, J. (2006).
Working life: Employee attitudes and engagement 2006. Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development.
Vallejo, M. A., Vallejo-Slocker, L., Fernández-Abascal, E. G., & Mañanes, G. (2018).
Determining factors for stress perception assessed with the perceived stress scale
(PSS-4) in Spanish and other European samples. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 37.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00037
Vermeulen, M., & Mustard, C. (2000). Gender differences in job strain, social support at
work, and psychological distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(4),
428. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.4.428
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the
process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2),
314–334. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1661
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. L. (1997). Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 10(1), 82–111. https://doi.org/10.5465/257021
Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding positive meaning in work. In K. S. Cameron,
J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a
new discipline (296-308). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and
callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(1),
21–33. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162