Incorporating Job Demand Variability Into Job Demands Theory: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

A rich history of research on job demands suggests that employees’ demands at work are related to their strain and engagement. This research often considers job demands to be fixed and stable over the course of workers’ experiences, despite the existing research showing that some employees experience high levels of job demands one day and low levels the next. We seek to extend research on job demands by introducing the idea that different employees experience different levels of job demand variability (i.e., variability in job demands over workers’ daily experiences). Relying on arousal theory, we posit that job demand variability moderates the between-person effects of overall job demand levels on employee strain and engagement. To test our theory, we conduct a meta-analytic path analysis of the existing experience sampling methodology research on challenge and hindrance job demands. Results show that the between-person effects of challenge (on strain and engagement) and hindrance demands (on engagement only) are stronger in studies where those demands have higher levels of daily within-person variability. Unexpectedly, the relationship between hindrance demands and strain was similarly strong across lower and higher degrees of variability. Our study suggests a need for more nuanced theory that explains how job demand variability plays a role in employee outcomes. Further, we conducted a simulation study to validate our methodology, offering utility to the broader management literature applying meta-analysis to study within-person variability. We discuss theoretical and practical implications as well as several directions for theory in this new line of reasoning.