Extending the Boundaries of Illegitimate Tasks: The Role of Resources

Abstract

We replicate several studies that have shown illegitimate tasks to be related to strain above and beyond job demands, but extend previous work by addressing (i) whether they are when accounting for job demands and resources and (ii) whether resources mitigate strain relationships. We separately examine unreasonable and unnecessary task subdimensions. Using hierarchical regression analyses, results show that unreasonable tasks account for additional variance in anxiety (9.9%) and depressive symptoms (7.3%) beyond both main and multiplicative effects of job demands and resources of control, and support from supervisors and coworkers, in 214 early-career employees. In addition, unreasonable tasks, control, and supervisor support interact, such that task unreasonableness is less strongly tied to depressive symptoms for those perceiving high supervisor support; and high levels of control and supervisory support resources buffer links between unreasonable tasks and both outcomes. Unexpectedly, task unreasonableness is unrelated to anxiety for those perceiving low control and supervisor support, suggesting a possible habituation effect under undesirable workplace conditions. No interactive effects are found for unnecessary tasks or for coworker support. Our findings offer new understanding of the construct domain space and dimensionality of illegitimate tasks, and address several important practical and theoretical implications surrounding the role of resources.

Keywords

Illegitimate tasks stressor-strain demands control support resources

Illegitimate tasks have become an established stressor within occupational stress and well-being research (Apostel, Syrek, & Antoni, 2018; Eatough et al., 2016; Pindek, Demircioğlu, Howard, Eatough, & Spector, 2018; Semmer, Jacobshagen, Meier, & Elfering, 2015). Illegitimate tasks function within the identity focused stress-as-offense-to-self (SOS) framework (Semmer, et al., 2019). Tasks are perceived to be illegitimate (and therefore self-threatening) to the extent to which they violate normative prescriptions about what can be expected in a given role or position. Two types of illegitimate tasks are unreasonable tasks which are those one feels one should not have to do; and unnecessary tasks, which are tasks one feels no one should have to do (Semmer et al., 2019).

A primary point of inquiry has been whether or not illegitimate tasks are unique from other stressors in predicting employee strain. In particular, several recent studies have shown illegitimate tasks to be uniquely related to strain above and beyond other job demand stressors (e.g., Jacobshagen, 2006; Semmer, Jacobshagen, Keller, & Meier, 2019; Semmer et al., 2015). These findings underscore task legitimacy as an important additional consideration for job design, and occupational stress researchers and practitioners beyond existing demand-strain perspectives, because they highlight that threat to workers’ identity is unique to workload, or overload. However, demands represent only one side of the preeminent demands-resources coin in organizational research (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Chiefly, job demands-resources (JD-R) theory postulates that both are important and should be investigated together (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2017). Hundreds of studies have shown the importance of resources in stressor–strain relationships (i.e., through additive and/or multiplicative effects: Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Fila, 2016; Kain & Jex, 2010). However, to date very little is known about the role of resources in illegitimate task-strain relationships. For example, are illegitimate tasks uniquely related to strain when accounting for both job demands and resources? We contend that perceiving task illegitimacy is not the same as perceiving an imbalance between demands and resources because violations to one’s professional identity is distinctive (that is, functions separately) from both demand stressors, and the balance between demands and resources. That is, identity violations of this nature are not resource dependent. Moreover, resources may mitigate (i.e., buffer) relationships between illegitimate tasks and strain, as they do in other job demand–strain relationships (albeit with mixed evidence; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Fila, 2016). This question carries strong implications for job design theorists and applied practitioners who are concerned about its unique impact on strain.

The goal of this study is to broaden understanding of the functionality of illegitimate tasks, and the theoretical lens through which they should be viewed and examined, by addressing these two questions. The JD-R model has broadened the concept of resources from its predecessor, the job demands-control-support (JDC[S]) model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990), and the list of resources is long. However, resources of workplace control and support from supervisor(s) and coworker(s) have been widely shown to be instrumental to healthful workplace functioning (Pfeffer, 2018), and remain central to investigations in the demands-resources domain (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Thus, they represent a parsimonious and applicable starting point to address our research questions. We investigate strain in the form of anxiety and depressive symptoms, two commonly researched markers of psychological strain within the demands-resources framework (Quick & Henderson, 2016; Sulsky & Smith, 2005). We also separately examine the unreasonable and unnecessary task sub-dimensions of illegitimate tasks due to suggestions (Semmer et al., 2015), that there may be meaningful distinctions between these experiences that lead to differential relationships with strain.

Illegitimate tasks and the SOS framework

The concept of illegitimate tasks brings to light a conceptualization of stress that had largely been ignored but is now becoming established in organizational research (Semmer et al., 2015). Illegitimate tasks represent assignments that—in the mind’s eye of a role-occupant—violate normative prescriptions of what can be expected in a given role or position because they are incongruent with an employee’s occupation or professional identity. These normative prescriptions are arguably shaped by more collective norms at the organizational and/or occupational levels (Semmer et al., 2015), such that the violation from illegitimate tasks leaves employees feeling like “I should not have to do this!” (Björk, Bejerot, Jacobshagen, & Härenstam, 2013).

Illegitimate tasks can arise from an organizational level, such as when a team or organization is understaffed, or when an organization’s leadership is running the organization poorly or inappropriately. For example, the more an organization is characterized by competition for resources between units, and by unfair and arbitrary resource allocation and obscure decisional structure, the more likely that managers report illegitimate tasks (Björk et al., 2013). These conditions might lead to chronic illegitimate tasks by way of poorly defined roles and expectations that breed misappropriation of work assignments. Illegitimate tasks might also be assigned by a manager within an organization whose expectations for her/his employees fall outside of normative prescriptions of what can be expected in a given role or position. That is, some managers may treat subordinates without respect for their training, education, or job roles and thus assign a steady stream of requests that are seen as illegitimate by the assignee (Semmer et al., 2019). Furthermore, the concept of chronic illegitimate tasks is not limited to being assigned the same unreasonable or unnecessary task repeatedly, although this could be the case. It could also mean repeatedly being assigned different types of illegitimate task; either by a supervisor whose expectations consistently fall outside of socially derived norms about role expectations, or more broadly within an organization that demands adherence to such expectations, or has poorly designed systems which breed such tasks (e.g. unclear roles, high bureaucracy) (Semmer et al., 2015).

The construct of illegitimate tasks was born out of the SOS theory (Semmer et al., 2015, 2019). The SOS framework is grounded in the notion that people strive to maintain a positive self-image, and that threats to this are often at the core of stressful experiences. There are two pathways by which this may take place. First, an individual may experience psychological damage through perceived personal failure or demonstrations of a lack of competence. This pathway is called “Stress as Insufficiency (SIN).” Alternatively, psychological well-being may be eroded by sensing disrespect from others. For example, inconsideration from others can convey disrespect which may threaten an individual’s sense of self-worth or self-esteem. This pathway is termed “Stress as Disrespect (SAD).” Failure to meet self-prescribed standards for positive self-evaluation, and/or external social cues conveying disrespect from relevant others can threaten one’s sense of worth and self-esteem and ultimately lead to degraded psychological well-being, and strain (Meier, Orth, Denissen, & Kühnel, 2011; Semmer et al., 2019). In particular, identity-relevant stressors are thought to damage psychological well-being based on self-threat.

The prominent role of work in many people’s lives means that professional roles can become an integral part of one’s identity (Haslam & Ellemers, 2005). However, working conditions (including task characteristics) may contain threatening social messages toward an employee (Semmer et al., 2019). Thus, the concept of illegitimate tasks has emanated from SOS theory because such tasks can be interpreted as containing identity-threatening messages which signal a lack of respect towards the employee in question, working through the SAD pathway.

Facets of task illegitimacy

Tasks are illegitimate to the extent that they are seen as being unreasonable or unnecessary. Unreasonable tasks are considered to be inappropriate to ask of person with regard to that person’s specific occupational status, skills, or abilities. For example, asking a paralegal to hold a meeting with a client—something that is actually within an attorney’s role—could be perceived unreasonable as this task above the paralegal’s credentials or training (Eatough et al., 2016). Similarly, tasks that demean or disrespect the level of skill, training, or seniority one has accomplished, such as asking a doctor or senior nurse to empty a patient’s bedpan, may also be viewed as unreasonable. On the other hand, unnecessary tasks are those that an employee believes no-one should have to perform. Such tasks may be viewed as wasting an employee’s time, or posing an obstacle to completion of other, more role-relevant tasks. Examples include filling out excessive amounts of paperwork that have no apparent purpose; having to re-do work which could have been avoided with more foresight from the task assigner; or being held to policies which make no sense, such as archiving documents in a library that is about to be closed down (Björk et al., 2013). Tasks can also be perceived as unnecessary due to organizational inefficiencies, such as having to enter the same data separately on two incompatible computer systems (Semmer et al., 2015).

It is important to note that tasks are not perceived as illegitimate due to their intrinsic qualities. That is, illegitimate tasks may not necessarily be aversive (e.g., “dirty work”), or in many cases even be difficult to carry out. However, illegitimacy may be perceived by the task recipient based on the contextual nature of the demand for a given person, role, time, or situation (Semmer et al., 2019). For example, a college professor may consider opening a door for a student perfectly reasonable if the student is waylaid with books and needs help. However, being expected to hold open the door for all students—as one would a bellhop—may be perceived as unreasonable given the respective roles of professors and students in higher education.

The present study

Task illegitimacy, anxiety, and depressive symptoms

In accordance with the stressor-strain model (Jex, 2002), relationships between illegitimate task stressors and various forms of strain should be expected. Specifically, illegitimate tasks should induce negative affective reactions, especially if exposure to such tasks is deemed by the employee to be frequent or severe, and chronic in nature. For example, emotional state outcomes such as anger and frustration have been found to be tied to daily illegitimate tasks in daily diary studies (Eatough et al., 2016). However, chronic illegitimate tasks have been found to be related to states which require more time to develop, such as burnout (Semmer et al., 2015). Our study is concerned with chronic experiences of illegitimate tasks and their relationships with two negative affective states: anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Anxiety

Anxiety refers to a cloudy, unpleasant emotional condition characterized by concerns, distress, and restlessness (Hamama, Ronen, & Rahav, 2008). It is a response to real physical and/or psychological danger, or the threat of such danger. Conditions of the working environment have long been regarded as linked to employees’ anxiety levels. For example, employees may experience social anxiety based on the fear of negative evaluation (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). We believe that employees experiencing chronic exposure to task illegitimacy in their jobs will experience higher anxiety levels for two reasons. First, anxiety may coincide with high illegitimate task levels due to the persistent social evaluative threat and self-threat inherent in the experience. Individuals facing illegitimate tasks may often question their standing in relation to their peers creating states of anxiety around social acceptance. They may also feel they are being disrespected and/or degraded and ultimately experience tension related to the ability to maintain a positive self-image. Secondly, anxiety may be elevated when illegitimate tasks are chronic, or severe because employees may feel compelled to comply with such tasks, which could threaten their overall work performance by distracting them from their core roles. This may create concern around performance evaluation or performance goal achievement, which may also induce anxiety around the negative consequences for failing to adequately perform within-role work. Therefore, we contend that:

Hypothesis 1: Illegitimate tasks will be positively related to anxiety.

Depressive symptoms

High levels of stress at work have long been related to depressive symptoms (Dormann & Zapf, 1999). Depressed people tend to be less productive on the job (Lerner & Henke, 2008) and are more likely to take time off because of short- and long-term disability (Bültmann et al., 2006). According to the SOS model, negative discrete emotions such as depressive symptoms may be experienced by individuals who perceive social devaluation in the workplace (e.g., Semmer et al., 2019). Thus, employees faced with illegitimate tasks may experience depressive symptoms due to an affective reaction of sadness that follows negative events, especially those associated with failing to be accepted and included socially (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). This is corroborated by Eatough et al. (2016), who found daily perceptions of task illegitimacy to be positively related to evening and next-day depressive mood. Therefore, we expect that:

Hypothesis 2: Illegitimate tasks will be positively related to depressive symptoms.

Unique contribution of task illegitimacy over demands and resources

Occupational stress research is dominated by a two-sided equation of demands as experienced by the individual, and the availability of resources to help meet or fulfill those demands (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Job demands are “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (i.e., cognitive or emotional) effort” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p. 296). That is, job demands are considered stressful if they pose a risk factor that entails an enhanced probability of a stress reaction (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992; Semmer, McGrath & Beehr, 2005). Most conceptualizations of demands are based on how much of a stressor (e.g. time pressure or general workload) one experiences, or how frequently something considered stressful (e.g. interruptions or excessive noise) occurs (Griffin & Clarke, 2011). Key to this is that, unlike illegitimate tasks, job demand stressors typically pose no threat to the recipient’s professional identity. Thus, the identity threatening nature of illegitimate tasks is thought to function as a separate stressor from simply perceiving demands to be too high (Semmer et al., 2015). This is corroborated by previous findings which show that illegitimate tasks account for strain above and beyond job demands (e.g., Jacobshagen, 2006; Semmer et al., 2019; Semmer et al., 2015).

Job resources are defined as possessing at least one of the following characteristics: They are “functional in achieving work goals, reduce job demands and the physiological and psychological costs connected with them, stimulate personal growth, learning, and development” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312). JD-R theory postulates that resources directly reduce strain, as well as attenuate (i.e., buffer) the effects of job demands on these negative outcomes. Although evidence of the latter has been mixed, many findings have confirmed the attenuating role of resources of job demand–strain relationships (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Despite a long list of resources, three which continue to be central to most work stress investigations, and interventions are control over work, support form one’s supervisor, and coworkers support (Fila, 2016; Griffin & Clarke, 2011).

Control constitutes one’s belief in his/her ability to affect change on their work, be it through autonomy or decision making authority to restructure the methods in which tasks are accomplished, as well as pacing and timing, and chronological order of completion (Ganster & Fusilier, 1989). This ability to intervene and change work processes is thought to reduce stressful cognitions about being able to successfully manage and complete demands (Hobfoll, 2001). Support refers to helpful workplace relationships regarding job-related matters (Price, 1997). Central to this is the idea of social capital at work, whereby relationships with supervisors and colleagues are valuable for acquiring information or assistance regarding a task, as well as social companionship (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). The distinction between these support bases is that coworkers’ closer structural proximity—and on average greater frequency of exposure to the individual in question—can be more helpful for task accomplishment, and growth of social ties within worker networks (Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002). Conversely, supervisors’ often greater experience can be more useful for direct task assistance, as well as feedback and advice (Harris, Winskowski, & Engdahl, 2007).

Semmer et al. (2015) contended that carrying out an illegitimate task is conceptually different from experiencing resource insufficiency, because the identity threatening messages conveyed by their extrinsic contexts are not resource dependent. For example, receiving illegitimate task assignments may to some degree reflect a lack of autonomy or decision-making ability over one’s own work (and thus be reflective of low control resources). However, the degrading social messages of such tasks are actually thought to function independently of this and to be a key distinguishing aspect of the illegitimate task experience. Similarly, being assigned illegitimate tasks may in many cases also imply a lack of support from supervisory figures, because such tasks are seen as thoughtless and careless (Semmer et al., 2019). However, illegitimate task assignments are more than just a lack of support. They are a display of behavior which is inappropriate to the role of the worker; conveying not low support, but a potential lack of concern for—or even knowledge of—the role one plays in the organization. We therefore expect illegitimate tasks to predict anxiety and depressive symptoms above and beyond both the main and multiplicative effects of job demands, control over work, supervisory support, and support from coworkers, as espoused by JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).

Hypothesis 3: Illegitimate tasks will account for unique variance in (i) anxiety, and (ii) depressive symptoms when accounting for the main and multiplicative effects of job demands, and control and workplace support resources.

Possible mitigating effects of control and support

Expecting that illegitimate tasks are indeed demonstrating a predictive distinction from job demands and resources, we also apply demands-resources theory to the experience of illegitimate tasks; specifically examining how control over work, supervisory support, and coworker support interact with illegitimate tasks in predicting anxiety and depressive symptoms. That is, we ask: does the self-threatening illegitimate task experience (as described in the SOS model) function like a job demand whereby resources buffer illegitimate task–strain relationships? To examine this, we position illegitimate tasks as the job demand stressor, and control over work, as well as supervisory and coworker support resources as possible mitigators of strain, while accounting for job demands.

Autonomous employees can control how work is conducted, and autonomy at work can signal trust (Ganster & Fusilier, 1989). Thus, affording employees a sense of control may buffer the severity of illegitimate tasks, because autonomy may allow choice about when and how demands, including illegitimate tasks, are carried out. Control could also directly negate the impact of an illegitimate task by allowing the employee to perhaps redelegate or even dismiss the request. This, in turn, could preserve the employee’s sense of work identity by allowing the employee decision power over the execution of their role (Goffman, 1967). Put alternatively, control offers a sense both of recognition of an employee’s professional identity and of trust in their ability to be autonomous. The positive social signal of being afforded autonomy may partially counteract the negative social signals that accompany illegitimate tasks because these signals are incongruent with each other. That is, an illegitimate task signals disrespect of one’s role but autonomy or control signals trust to execute one’s role which may assuage some of the self-relevant strain. Thus, we contend that:

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between illegitimate tasks and strain will be mitigated by control such that higher levels control will weaken the relationship between illegitimate tasks and both (a) anxiety, and (b) depressive symptoms.

In addition, high levels of support from supervisors inherently conveys caring, concern, and consideration (e.g., Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975). Supportive supervisors are also more likely to offer instrumental and task-related assistance, or advice (Hobfoll, 2001), such as by providing more resources to execute the task. These positive signals may directly compete with negative signals of inconsideration, disrespect, and thoughtlessness that accompany illegitimate task assignments (e.g., Semmer et al., 2015); buffering strain levels that may otherwise be associated with illegitimate tasks. For example, if a faculty member is asked to comply with excessive, repetitive questions from the institutional review board (IRB) about their research and produce excessive verification of participant payment and receipts, he/she may feel this is an unnecessary task which is disrespectful of their time and role as a researcher; he/she is not a bookkeeper. Stress is experienced but the faculty member complains to their supervisor, or department chair. The department chair is supportive, reassuring that they are a valued and respected faculty member, and offers to bring this up with the Dean to see if a better process can be implemented. The faculty member feels better, more valued, and stress is normalized. The effect of the illegitimate task is mitigated due to the support from the chair. In other words, the positive social signals from a supportive supervisor (e.g., “even though you are having to do this work that you feel is unreasonable/unfair/a waste of your time, I want you to know that you are important and valued by me and/or the organization”) contradict the message, which may buffer to strain from illegitimate tasks.

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between illegitimate tasks and strain will be mitigated by supervisor support such that higher levels supervisor support will weaken the relationship between illegitimate tasks and both (a) anxiety, and (b) depressive symptoms.

Finally, supportive coworker environments often result in mobilization of networks of help, allowing employees to call upon their coworkers for instrumental task assistance and positive social relationships (Bolino et al., 2002; Hobfoll, 2001; Settoon & Mossholder, 2002), even if the tasks themselves are perceived to be illegitimate. For example, in a busy restaurant that is temporarily understaffed with servers, a host might be required to wait tables. The host may view this as an unreasonable task, and stress may be experienced, because the skills required of a server (e.g., to take food and beverage orders accurately and to provide efficient and personalized service to multiple tables simultaneously) fall outside of those required of a host (e.g., greeting customers and organizing table allocations). However, in a supportive coworker environment, the host may receive help and guidance from others servers, through encouragement of their ability to complete tasks and/or instrumental help the tasks themselves. The host-come-server’s stress is normalized, and the effect of the illegitimate task is mitigated due to having a supportive network of coworkers. That is, positive social signals from supportive coworkers (e.g., “you can do this”, and/or “I’ll keep an eye on your tables, too, in case you are struggling”) contradict the negative social signals of being assigned the illegitimate task, which may buffer to strain.

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between illegitimate tasks and strain will be mitigated by coworker support such that higher levels coworker support will weaken the relationship between illegitimate tasks and both (a) anxiety, and (b) depressive symptoms.

Apart from these expectations, we also expect the premises of JD-R theory (Bakker et al., 2007) to unfold with illegitimate tasks where high levels of both control and support resources will result in the most profound buffering of the illegitimate tasks–strain relationships. Thus, we contend that:

Hypothesis 7: A three-way interaction will occur such that high levels of both control and support simultaneously will result in the most profound buffering of the (a) illegitimate tasks-anxiety and (b) illegitimate tasks-depressive symptoms relationships.

Exploring differences between unreasonable and unnecessary tasks

As previously mentioned, illegitimate tasks are comprised of unreasonable and unnecessary tasks. Both are likely to be highly stressful by functioning through a SAD pathway. However, there may be meaningful distinctions between these experiences that lead to differential relationships with strain. Specifically, unreasonable tasks are thought to pose a more direct threat to the employee’s identity and self-worth than unnecessary tasks, which are less person specific and more likely to be assigned at random (Semmer et al., 2015). Thus, unnecessary tasks may be less self-relevant. This assertion was recently supported by Pindek et al. (2018). However, further investigations are required to explore meaningful distinctions between, and differential effects of unreasonable and unnecessary tasks. Therefore, our study offers separate measurement and consideration of each.¹

Research Question: Will unreasonable and unnecessary tasks function differently to predict strain?

Methods

Participants and procedure

Participants were 214 employees in various, predominantly entry-level, occupations. Advertisements for participation were placed on regulated university research systems of three US higher education institutions. The age range of participants was from 18 to 36 years, with a mean age of 20.9 years, and a standard deviation of 1.9 years. Sex was evenly split (49% women) and most were Caucasian (84.1%). Participants worked for an average of 18.6 hours per week, with an average tenure of 1 year, 7 months. Surveys were administered either through an anonymous online data collection server or through anonymous paper and pencil completion, and confidentially was ensured to all participants. IRB approval was obtained for this study. Participants mostly reported being in positions with a few well-defined tasks (e.g., retail or service industry jobs). Thus, this sample might be particularly affected by illegitimate tasks.

Measures

For all scales, response options for each item were on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Illegitimate tasks

Illegitimate tasks were assessed with the 8-item Bern Illegitimate Task Scale (Semmer et al., 2015). This was delineated into four items each for unreasonable tasks (α = .84) and unnecessary tasks (α = .85). A sample item for unreasonable tasks was: “Do you have work tasks to take care of, which you believe should be done by someone else?” A sample item for unnecessary tasks was: “Do you have work tasks to take care of, which keep you wondering if they would not exist (or could be done with less effort), if things were organized differently?”

Job demands

Job demands were measured using Karasek’s (1979) seven-item scale for role overload (α = .82). Karasek (1979) originally conceived of role-based “demands” as role overload, and role overload scales have been used in numerous subsequent studies (Fila, 2016; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). A sample item was: “To what extent does your job require a great deal of work to be done?”

Control

Control was measured using Dwyer and Ganster’s (1991) four-item scale of control over work demands (α = .87). A sample item was: “How much control do you personally have over your job demands?”

Supervisor support

Social support from supervisor(s) was measured using Caplan et al.’s (1975) four-item scale of supervisor support (α = .88). A sample item was: “My supervisor goes out of his/her way to make my work life easier for me.”

Coworker support

Social support from coworkers was measured using Caplan et al.’s (1975) four-item scale of coworker support (α = .86). A sample item was: “My coworkers go out of their ways to make my work life easier for me.”

Anxiety

Anxiety was measured using Parker and Decotiis’ (1983) five-item scale (α = .75). A sample item was: “I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job.”

Depressive symptoms

Depressive symptoms was measured using Derogatis’ (1975) six-item Brief Symptom Inventory (α = .86). In response to the question: “In the past week, how did you feel in general at work?” A sample item was: “I felt depressed.”

Analysis

Analyses were conducted in SPSS 23. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested with bivariate correlations. Hypothesis 3 was tested by four standardized hierarchical linear regression analyses; we assessed whether illegitimate tasks (unreasonable and unnecessary tasks) uniquely predicted anxiety and depressive symptoms, when accounting for main and interactive effects of job demands, control, supervisor support, and coworker support. Variables were mean-centered in accordance with Enders and Tofighi’s (2007). Hypotheses 4 to 7 were tested through four further standardized hierarchical linear regression analyses. We held job demands constant and assessed possible multiplicative effects of illegitimate tasks (unreasonable and unnecessary tasks), with control, supervisor support, and coworker support on anxiety and depressive symptoms. Variance inflation factor (VIF) statistics indicated no multicollinearity effects in any of the regression models (all VIF statistics were below 1.7 for main effect independent variables, and below 2.5 for significant interaction terms), supporting the use of regression (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & William, 1992; O’Brien, 2007).

Results

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, bivariate correlations, and internal reliabilities of study variables. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported in that unreasonable tasks were positively related to anxiety (r = .47, p < .01), and depressive symptoms (r = .40, p < .01), and unnecessary tasks were positively related to anxiety (r = .27, p < .01), and depressive symptoms (r = .17, p < .05; see Table 1).

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, Cronbach alphas, and correlations of study variables.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Age	20.89	1.93	—
2. Gender	1.49	0.50	−.23**	—
3. Hours worked	18.58	13.52	−.16*	−.07	—
4. Job tenure (years)	1.62	1.74	.34**	−.09	−.05	—
5. Role-related demands	2.40	0.95	.13^†	.05	.14^†	.13^†	(.82)
6. Control	3.06	0.97	.15^†	−.01	−.17*	−.03	<.01	(.87)
7. Supervisor support	3.30	1.00	−.08	−.08	.05	−.04	−.19**	.23**	(.88)
8. Coworker support	3.63	0.80	−.12^†	.10	−.07	−.13^†	.12	.11	.36**	(.86)
9. Unreasonable tasks	2.57	0.86	−.08	−.01	−.05	.07	.26**	−.05	−.25**	−.17*	(.84)
10. Unnecessary tasks	2.92	0.95	.04	.01	−.02	.15*	.27**	−.06	−.16*	−.10	.51**	(.85)
11. Anxiety	2.32	0.84	.11	.02	−.01	03	.39**	.02	−.34**	−.15*	.47**	.27**	(.75)
12. Depressive symptoms	2.20	0.75	.03	−.07	−.07	.07	.26**	.01	−.36**	−.30**	.40**	.17*	.57**	(.86)

Note: N = 190–214. Coefficient alphas are in parentheses on the diagonal. Correlations below diagonal. Hours worked: hours worked per week.

Gender: 0 = not specified, 1 = male, 2 = female.

†

p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01.

Tables 2 and 3 show the results of our four regression analyses, in respect to Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 was fully supported. Unreasonable tasks were positively related to anxiety (b = 0.34, p < .01), and depressive symptoms (b = 0.25, p < .01), when accounting for demographic variables, as well as main and multiplicative effects of job demands, control, and supervisor and coworker support. Furthermore, unreasonable tasks accounted for 9.9% of unique variance in anxiety, and 7.3% of variance in depressive symptoms beyond the effects of these variables (see Table 2). Unnecessary tasks were also positively related to anxiety (b = 0.14, p < .05), and depressive symptoms (b = 0.10, p < .10), when accounting for demographic variables, job demand stressors, and control and support resources; with unnecessary tasks accounting for 2% of unique variance in anxiety, and 1.4% of variance in depressive symptoms beyond the effects of these variables (see Table 3).

Table 2.

Regression models for unreasonable tasks predicting anxiety and depressive symptoms.

	Anxiety				Depressive Symptoms
	B	SE B	β	ΔR²	B	SE B	β	ΔR²
Step 1				.048				.025
Gender^a	.057	.122	.034		−.149	.109	−.103
Age	.026	.034	.060		−.020	.030	−.055
Ethnicity^b	.143	.055	.205**		.049	.047	.083
Hours worked^c	.002	.005	.028		−.004	.004	−.071
Job tenure^d	−.015	.036	−.032		.016	.032	.038
Step 2				.224**				.247**
Demands	.434	.081	.339**		.230	.072	.216**
Control	.074	.065	.075		.088	.058	.104
Supervisor support	−.240	.060	−.281**		−.244	.055	−.331**
Coworker support	−.029	.072	−.028		−.172	.063	−.194**
Step 3				.009				.040
D×C	−.036	.108	−.025		−.070	.094	−.058
D×Sup. Support	.018	.074	.017		−.105	.066	−.108
D×Cow. Support	−.012	.099	−.008		.053	.087	.104
C×Sup. Support	.067	.069	.077		−.121	.060	−.164*
C×Cow. Support	−.025	.081	−.024		.189	.070	.212**
Step 4				.013				.017
D×C×Sup. Support	.109	.083	.109		−.045	.073	−.053
D×C×Cow. Support	−.167	.102	−.135		−.147	.089	−.141
Step 5				.099**				.073**
Unreasonable tasks	.341	.063	.344**		.253	.056	.298**

Note: N = 211, N = 196. D×C: Demands×Control; D×Sup. Support: Demands×Supervisor Support; D×Cow. Support: Demands×Coworker Support; C×Sup. Support: Control×Supervisor Support; C×Cow. Support: Control×Coworker Support; D×C×Sup. Support: Demands×Control×Supervisor Support; D×C×Cow. Support: Demands×Control×Coworker Support.

0 = not specified, 1 = male, 2 = female.

1 = Caucasian, 2 = African American, 3 = Asian, 4 = Native American, 5 = Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander, 6 = Hispanic or Latino, 7 = Other.

Hours worked per week.

Job tenure in years.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 3.

Regression models for unnecessary tasks predicting anxiety and depressive symptoms.

	Anxiety				Depressive Symptoms
	B	SE B	β	ΔR²	B	SE B	β	ΔR²
Step 1				.048				.026
Gender^a	.053	.122	.032		−.156	.109	−.108
Age	.026	.034	.061		−.019	.030	−.053
Ethnicity^b	.144	.053	.206**		.050	.047	.085
Hours worked^c	.002	.005	.030		−.004	.004	−.066
Job tenure^d	−.015	.036	−.031		.016	.032	.039
Step 2				.222**				.234**
Demands	.440	.081	.355**		.246	.073	.230**
Control	.073	.065	.074		.084	.054	.099
Supervisor support	−.235	.060	−.276**		−.230	.055	.314**
Coworker support	−.024	.071	−.023		−.161	.064	−.183*
Step 3				.007				.043
D×C	−.031	.107	−.021		−.057	.095	−.047
D×Sup. Support	.009	.073	.009		−.125	.065	−.131
D×Cow. Support	−.022	.098	−.016		.030	.087	.025
C×Sup. Support	.069	.068	.079		−.116	.060	−.157
C×Cow. Support	−.026	.081	−.025		.187	.071	.208**
Step 4				.013				.021
D×C×Sup. Support	−.106	.083	.105		−.053	.072	−.062
D×C×Cow. Support	−.173	.101	−.139		−.159	.089	−.153
Step 5				.020*				.014
Unnecessary Tasks	.140	.060	.157*		.100	.053	.129

Note: N = 211, N = 196.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Tables 4 and 5 show the results of our four regression analyses, in respect to Hypotheses 4–7. With regard to buffering effects, control alone did not function as a buffer for unreasonable tasks (anxiety, b = 0.04, ns; depressive symptoms, b = 0.05, ns) or unnecessary tasks (anxiety, b = 0.04, ns; depressive symptoms, b = 0.01, ns), thus failing to support hypothesis 4. One buffering effect of supervisor support was found, on the unreasonable tasks to depressive symptoms link (b = −0.15, p < .01), providing partial support for hypothesis 5. That is, for those who perceived high support, depressive symptoms remained constant regardless of task unreasonableness; whereas for those perceiving low levels of support from supervisors, depressive symptoms increased with higher task unreasonableness (see Figure 1). However, a buffering effect was not found for unreasonable tasks and anxiety (b = 0.11, ns) nor for unnecessary tasks (anxiety, b = 0.01, ns; depressive symptoms, b = 0.05, ns). Further, coworker support alone did not function as a buffer for unreasonable tasks (anxiety, b = −0.06, ns; depressive symptoms, b = 0.05, ns) or unnecessary tasks (anxiety, b = −0.10, ns; depressive symptoms, b = 0.02, ns), thus failing to support hypothesis 6.

Table 4.

Regression models for unreasonable tasks as the job demand in a test of the JDC(S) model.

	Anxiety				Depressive Symptoms
	B	SE B	β	ΔR²	B	SE B	β	ΔR²
Step 1				.193**				.101**
Gender^a	−.015	.113	−.009		−.195	.106	−.136
Age	−.008	.031	−.018		−.034	.028	−.095
Ethnicity^b	.132	.049	.190**		.042	.045	.072
Hours worked^c	−.003	.004	−.042		−.007	.004	−.121
Job tenure^d	−.033	.033	−.068		.008	.031	.020
Job demands	.489	.083	.393**		.305	.077	.286**
Step 2				.170**				.239**
Unreasonable tasks	.325	.061	.328**		.239	.056	.282**
Control	.076	.060	.076		.089	.055	.105
Supervisor support	−.192	.057	−.225**		−.205	.053	−.279**
Coworker support	−.002	.067	−.001		−.166	.060	−.168**
Step 3				.011				.048*
Unr×C	.049	.072	.048		.052	.063	.060
Unr×Sup. Support	.010	.065	.011		−.151	.058	−.196*
Unr×Cow. Support	−.065	.077	−.061		.050	.069	.056
C×Sup. Support	.084	.060	.096		−.090	.053	−.122
C×Cow. Support	−.083	.073	−.079		.142	.065	.159*
Step 4				.027*				.035**
Unr×C×Sup. Supp	−.212	.076	−.250**		−.161	.066	−.228*
Unr×C×Cow. Supp	.094	.083	.341		−.017	.073	−.073

Note: N = 211, N = 196. Unr×C: Unreasonable Tasks×Control; Unr×Sup. Support: Unreasonable Tasks×Supervisor Support; Unr×Cow. Support: Unreasonable Tasks×Coworker Support; C×Sup. Support: Control×Supervisor Support; C×Cow. Support: Control×Coworker Supp; Unr×C×Sup. Support: Unreasonable Tasks×Control×Supervisor Support; Unr×C×Cow. Supp: Unreasonable Tasks×Control×Coworker Support; JDC(S): job demands-control-support.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 5.

Regression models for unnecessary tasks as the job demand in a test of the JDC(S) model.

	Anxiety				Depressive Symptoms
	B	SE B	β	ΔR²	B	SE B	β	ΔR²
Step 1				.194**				.105**
Gender^a	−.015	.113	−.009		−.202	.105	−.140
Age	−.008	.031	−.018		−.034	.028	−.094
Ethnicity^b	.132	.049	.190**		.043	.045	.073
Hours worked^c	−.003	.004	−.042		−.006	.004	−.118
Job tenure^d	−.033	.030	−.068		.008	.031	.020
Job demands	.490	.082	.395**		.311	.077	.291**
Step 2				.095**				.170**
Unnecessary tasks	.142	.057	.160*		.099	.052	.129
Control	.085	.064	.087		.092	.058	.108
Supervisor support	−.224	.059	−.263**		−.221	.054	−.301**
Coworker support	−.010	.070	−.009		−.160	.063	−.181*
Step 3				.025				.024
Unn×C	.044	.066	.047		.006	.059	.008
Unn×Sup. Support	.112	.061	.139		−.048	.059	−.068
Unn×Cow. Support	−.107	.074	−.107		.018	.071	.021
C×Sup. Support	.113	.063	.129		−.100	.057	−.135
C×Cow. Support	−.078	.077	−.074		.151	.070	.168*
Step 4				.004				<.001
Unn×C×Sup. Supp	−.012	.062	−.044		.002	.059	.007
Unn×C×Cow. Supp	.081	.082	.858		−.006	.079	−.074

Note: N = 211, N = 196. Unn×C: Unnecessary Tasks×Control; Unn×Sup. Support: Unnecessary Tasks×Supervisor Support; Unn×Cow. Support: Unnecessary Tasks×Coworker Support; C×Sup. Support: Control×Supervisor Support; C×Cow. Support: Control×Coworker Support; Unn×C×Sup. Supp: Unnecessary Tasks×Control×Supervisor Support; Unn×C×Cow. Supp: Unnecessary Tasks×Control×Coworker Support.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Figure 1.

Interaction between unreasonable tasks and supervisor support on depressive symptoms.

Finally, two triple-order interactions were found which support Hypothesis 7. First, unreasonable tasks, control, and supervisor support interacted to predict anxiety (b = −0.21, p < .01). Specifically, as predicted, for those experiencing high control and high supervisor support, the relationship between unreasonable tasks and anxiety was mitigated (buffering effect, see Figure 2). Unexpectedly, a buffering effect was also evident with low control and low supervisor support. Secondly, unreasonable tasks, control, and supervisor support interacted to predict depressive symptoms (b = −0.16 p < .01). Again, as expected, a buffering effect for depressive symptom levels was evident for those reporting high control and high supervisory support, but depressive symptoms increased with perceptions of greater task unreasonableness for all other combinations (see Figure 3).

Figure 2.

Three-way interaction between unreasonable tasks, control, and supervisor support on anxiety.

Figure 3.

Three-way interaction between unreasonable tasks, control, and supervisor support on depressive symptoms.

Discussion

Our findings showed that illegitimate tasks—both unreasonable and unnecessary tasks—were positively related to anxiety and depressive symptoms. Results also captured additional variance in these strain outcomes when accounting for the main and multiplicative effects of job demands, control, and both supervisory and coworker support. This additional variance is sizable in the case of unreasonable tasks, with the percentage of variance accounted for changing from .23 to .33 for anxiety, and from .27 to .34 for depressive symptoms. These findings suggest that the psychological strain associated with both unreasonable and unnecessary tasks is likely due to more than the practical demands of illegitimate tasks (thus corroborating Jacobshagen, 2006, Semmer et al., 2019; & Semmer et al., 2015). Moreover, it indicates that relationships with psychological strain are underpinned by something other than low resources: specifically, a low degree of autonomy in the job or a lack of social support from supervisors and coworkers. This supports Semmer et al.’s (2015) contention that the extrinsic nature of illegitimate tasks is not resource dependent. Furthermore, the larger amount of variance accounted for by unreasonable versus unnecessary tasks—along with Pindek et al.’s (2018) findings—adds weight to the premise that unreasonable tasks may reflect a more severe role-violation due to being more self-relevant and person-specific than unnecessary tasks.

Several interactive effects of resources emerged. First, for those who perceived high supervisor support, task unreasonableness was less strongly tied to depressive symptoms, suggesting that high levels of supervisor support may serve as a preventative measure against increased depressive symptoms if tasks are perceived to be unreasonable. Second, high levels of control and supervisory support resources buffered the link between unreasonable tasks and anxiety as well as depressive symptoms. Aligned with expectations and JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), high levels of these resources, at least in combination, appear to protect employees from degraded psychological states.

Interestingly, if only one resource is present (either high control or high support), we did not find consistent buffering effect evidence. For example, neither control nor coworker support alone functioned as a buffer. Supervisor support did but only for unreasonable tasks on depressive symptoms. Thus, supervisors (vs. coworkers) may be particularly well positioned to protect employees from depressive symptoms linked with unreasonable tasks, perhaps because they can better offer support which counters feelings of worthlessness or rejection (e.g. expressing an employee is valued by the organization) that coworkers cannot. Beyond that, it may be that multiple resources are necessary to combat the egregious nature of unreasonable tasks. In particular, when exploring the three-way interactive effects, both resources (control and supervisor support) were necessary to observe a buffering effect. This may be because control may only be functional (e.g. able to be exercised) when a supervisor is supportive and perhaps encouraging employees’ independence to manage and make decisions regarding their job demands.

However, one unexpected finding was that for those perceiving low levels of both control and supervisor support, task unreasonableness was unrelated to anxiety (a buffering effect). To further investigate this unexpected buffering finding, we performed a median split for control and supervisor support to compare forty-nine cases where both resources were below the median, with all cases. The zero-order correlations between unreasonable tasks and anxiety were almost identical for these 49 selected cases (r = .46, p < . 01), versus for all cases (r = .47, p < . 01). Descriptive statistics were also similar for these selected cases (Unreasonable Tasks, M = 2.57, SD = 0.86; Anxiety, M = 2.38, SD = 0.85) versus all cases (Unreasonable Tasks, M = 2.63, SD = 0.91; Anxiety, M = 2.32, SD = 0.84). One possible explanation for this is that low resources could be a marker of a poor working environment to which the employee may be habituated. That is, if employees are accustomed to a lack of control or supervisory support resources at work, unreasonable tasks may also be expected or commonplace. In a study of Danish construction workers, Ajslev, Lund, Møller, Persson, and Andersen (2013) termed this phenomenon a conditional orientation; whereby certain workers come to accept their working conditions (in this case, high-pace repetitive productive working rhythms with little or no intervention from management to help reduce physical strain) as unavoidable. Moreover, these workers perceive having a mutual understanding with management about the unavoidability of poor working conditions, which subtly removes responsibility for those conditions from managers in the eyes of these workers. Thus, in our study, anxiety may not be sensitive to unreasonable tasks in this case because the employee is accustomed to dealing with adverse conditions, or because such tasks are less self-relevant given they are enmeshed in a generally unfavorable environment. Either way, this unexpected finding suggests that our data may be reflective of the bounds of JD-R theory (Bakker et al., 2017) in predicting certain outcomes under the conditions of low support and low control when unreasonable tasks are at hand.

Interestingly, no interactions were found between unnecessary tasks and resources. One possible implication is that unnecessary tasks are less sensitive to contextual job conditions than are unreasonable tasks. This could be because unreasonable tasks are contextually dependent (an unreasonable task is unreasonable to the extent that it is a mismatch with the specific role occupant in a given organization) whereas unnecessary tasks are not context dependent (no one should have to do them, regardless of one’s specific role or organization, e.g. do work twice). Thus, unreasonable tasks leave open more opportunity for reappraisal, reframing, and interpretation, than unnecessary tasks. They also may be more viable for revision through exercise of control. If so, unreasonable tasks may be better combated and amenable to mitigation through workplace resources.

Theoretical implications

Our findings align with the main tenet of SOS theory that self-threat from the identity violation inherent in illegitimate tasks is harmful (Semmer et al., 2019). That illegitimate tasks account for unique variance in strain above and beyond job demands, and resources of control over work, supervisor support, and coworker support is important because it shows that illegitimate tasks are distinct not only from perceptions of how demanding work is but from resources that are central to JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) and work stress research. Our findings also suggest that coworker support is not an effective buffer of illegitimate tasks on strain. In addition, in the most unfavorable working conditions (in this case, those characterized by low control and low supervisor support), unreasonable tasks may not appear to be any more unreasonable than under somewhat less unfavorable working conditions, and may in fact be seen as unavoidable; thus possibly undermining relationships with certain strain outcomes.

Buffering effects of other resources on illegitimate task relationships with strain can be explored. Although very little attention has yet been given to this line of inquiry, one recent example is Apostel et al. (2018) who found a moderating role of appreciative leadership on the relationship between illegitimate tasks and turnover intention. Appreciative leadership appears to directly counter signals of a lack of appreciation and respect in the mind’s eye of an employees who have been assigned illegitimate tasks (based on SOS theory, Semmer et al., 2019). However, we express two points of caution in the context of the present study. First, although appreciation is rarely disputed, it is typically investigated as a subcomponent of larger constructs, such as social support (Apostel et al., 2018; Thoits, 1982). Our study begins to address these larger constructs. Second, we do not yet know whether appreciative leadership would buffer effects of task illegitimacy if other central resources to JD-R theory (e.g., job control, and coworker support) are low; or whether or not these buffering effects would be prevalent is one or more of these other resources are high. Further research would be beneficial to develop better understanding of what resources may directly buffer illegitimate task–strain relationships, and/or may have buffering effects in conjunction with other resources (i.e., control), which do not appear to buffer the relationships in the absence of other resources.

Practical implications

In many cases, organizational or pragmatic restraints may mean that organizations cannot eliminate illegitimate tasks entirely. That is, they may be unavoidable in certain situations, or for certain periods of time; such as when management of a downsizing organization feels forced to assign new or additional tasks to employees until an alternative set of role boundaries have been defined. As such, it is important to begin to identify how organizations can create a contextual environment that reduces the negative outcomes associated with illegitimate tasks. Failure to do so may result in a continuation or exacerbation of negative outcomes such as anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Our findings suggest that unreasonable and unnecessary tasks should be treated differently in designing such interventions. For example, increasing supervisory support may be beneficial but only for certain types of illegitimate tasks (i.e., unreasonable). In addition, for unreasonable tasks, affording more control over job demands to employees could be useful when supervisors are supportive. Notably, however, our data do not imply intervention to increase coworker support would be an effective strategy. Future work may be served well to explore other resources that might serve as effective buffers and thus points of entry for interventions such as personal resources like self-efficacy or optimism. We also suggest additional research explore the value of organizational redesign, job redesign, system revisions/audits, and better feedback loops to try to identify buffers of unnecessary tasks.

Limitations

We acknowledge limitations of our study. First, our analyses were cross-sectional, which limits inferences. Cross-sectional studies have been widely criticized in organizational literature because they are unable to address possibilities of reverse- or reciprocal-causation (Spector, 2006). For example, impaired psychological well-being can impact an individual’s perception of the environment (cf. Dalgard et al., 2009). Although this cannot be ruled out in this study, theory aligns with our presumed direction of effects and other work has provided some evidence for illegitimate tasks influencing negative emotions (Ahmed, Eatough, & Ford, 2018). Future research will benefit from using longitudinal or experience sampling designs. A second limitation is that all measurements were self-reported thus raising a concern of common method variance. In this case, self-report is arguably the most appropriate source for measuring illegitimate tasks, resources, and strain, as they each are rooted in individual perception, and thus largely inaccessible to an outside observer. Furthermore, the problem of common method variance may be overstated (Spector, 2006).

Conclusion

This study adds to current understanding of illegitimate tasks. In particular, our findings offer several implications: (1) illegitimate tasks are likely a form of occupational stress predictive of strains independent of both job demands and resources of control and supervisory and coworker support; (2) unreasonable tasks may be more violating than unnecessary tasks; (3) supervisor support may be a more viable buffering resource against unreasonable tasks than control or coworker support; and (4) a combination of resources (control and supervisor support) appears to be the superior condition to ameliorate unreasonable tasks, at least with regard to anxiety and depressive symptoms. Research on illegitimate tasks is no longer in its infancy. Momentum is gathering to more fully understand the construct domain space and dimensionality of this egregious stressor, and this work contributes to that effort. Future work should now begin to examine with more scrutiny how these processes unfold.

Footnotes

Article Notes

Note

References

Ahmed

S. F.

Eatough

E. M.

Ford

M. T.

(2018). Relationships between illegitimate tasks and change in work-family outcomes via interactional justice and negative emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104, 14–30.

Ajslev

J. Z.

Lund

H. L.

Møller

J. L.

Persson

Andersen

L. L.

(2013). Habituating pain: Questioning pain and physical strain as inextricable conditions in the construction industry. Old Site of Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 3(3), 195–218.

Apostel

Syrek

C. J.

Antoni

C. H.

(2018). Turnover intention as a response to illegitimate tasks: The moderating role of appreciative leadership. International Journal of Stress Management, 25(3), 234.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Björk

Bejerot

Jacobshagen

Härenstam

(2013). I shouldn't have to do this: Illegitimate tasks as a stressor in relation to organizational control and resource deficits. Work & Stress, 27(3), 262–277. doi:10.1080/02678373.2013.818291

Bolino

M. C.

Turnley

W. H.

Bloodgood

J. M.

(2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505–522.

Bültmann

Rugulies

Lund

Christensen

K. B.

Labriola

Burr

(2006). Depressive symptoms and the risk of long-term sickness absence. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41(11), 875–880. doi:10.1007/s00127-006-0110

10.

Caplan

R. D.

Cobb

French

J. R. P.

Van Harrison

Pinneau

S. R.

(1975). Job demands and worker health. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.278

11.

Dalgard

O. S.

Sorensen

Sandanger

Nygard

J. F.

Svensson

Reas

D. L.

(2009). Job demands, job control, and mental health in an 11-years follow-up study: Normal and reversed relationships. Work & Stress, 23, 284–296. doi:10.1080/02678370903250953

12.

Derogatis

L. R.

(1975). Brief symptom inventory. Baltimore, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.

13.

Dormann

Zapf

(1999). Social support, social stressors at work, and depressive symptoms: Testing for main and moderating effects with structural equations in a three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 874–884.

14.

Dwyer

D. J.

Ganster

D. C.

(1991). The effects of job demands and control on employee attendance and satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(7), 595–608.

15.

Eatough

E. M.

Meier

L. L.

Igic

Elfering

Spector

P. E.

Semmer

N. K.

(2016). You want me to do what? Two daily diary studies of illegitimate tasks and employee well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 108–127. doi:10.1002/job

16.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

(2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138.

17.

Fila

M. J.

(2016). The job demands, control, support model: Where are we now?. TKM International Journal for Research in Management, 1(1), 15–44.

18.

Ganster

D. C.

Fusilier

M. R.

(1989). Control in the workplace. In Cooper

C. L.

Robertson

(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 235–280). Chichester, England: Wiley.

19.

Griffin

M. A.

Clarke

(2011). Stress and well-being at work. In Zedeck

(Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 3, pp. 359–397). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12171-010

20.

Goffman

(1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York, NY: Random House.

21.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

William

C. B.

(1992). Multivariate data analysis with readings. New York, NY: Macmillan.

22.

Hamama

Ronen

Rahav

(2008). Self-control, self-efficacy, role overload, and stress responses among siblings of children with cancer. Health & Social Work, 33(2), 121–132.

23.

Harris

I. J.

Winskowski

Engdahl

B. E.

(2007). Types of workplace social support in the prediction of job satisfaction. The Career Development Quarterly, 56, 150–156.

24.

Haslam

S. A.

Ellemers

(2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational psychology: Concepts, controversies and contributions. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 39–118. doi:10.1002/job.1895

25.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50, 337–370.

26.

Jacobshagen

(2006). Illegitimate tasks, illegitimate stressors: Testing a new stressor-strain concept (Doctoral dissertation). University of Bern, Switzerland.

27.

Jex

S. M.

(2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist practitioner approach. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/job.249

28.

Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 571-650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

29.

Kain, K., & Jex, S. (2010). Karasek's (1979) job demands-control model: A summary of current issues and recommendations for future research. In P. L. Perrewe, & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), New developments in theoretical and conceptual approaches to job stress (pp. 237--268). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

30.

Karasek

R. A.

(1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.

31.

Karasek

R. A.

Theorell

(1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

32.

Leary

M. R.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1–62.

33.

Lerner

Henke

R. M.

(2008). What does research tell us about depression, job performance, and work productivity? Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 50(4), 401–410. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31816bae50

34.

Meier

L. L.

Orth

Denissen

J. J.

Kühnel

(2011). Age differences in instability, contingency, and level of self-esteem across the life span. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(6), 604–612. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.08.008

35.

Nahapiet

Ghoshal

(1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

36.

O’Brien

R. M.

(2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6

37.

Parker

D. F.

Decotiis

T. A.

(1983). Organizational determinants of job stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 160–177.

38.

Pfeffer

(2018). Dying for a paycheck: How modern management harms employee health and company performance—And what we can do about it. New York, NY: Harper Business.

39.

Pindek

Demircioğlu

Howard

D. J.

Eatough

E. M.

Spector

P. E.

(2018). Illegitimate tasks are not created equal: Examining the effects of attributions on unreasonable and unnecessary tasks. Work & Stress, 33, 231–246.

40.

Price

J. L.

(1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International Journal of Manpower, 18(4-6), 303–558. doi:10.1108/01437729710182260

41.

Quick

Henderson

(2016). Occupational stress: Preventing suffering, enhancing wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(5), 459.

42.

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: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(3), 293--315. doi.org/10.1002/job.248

43.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Taris

T. W.

(2014). A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In G. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43–68). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

44.

Semmer, N. K., Tschan, F., Jacobshagen, N., Beehr, T. A., Elfering, A., Kälin, W., & Meier, L. L. (2019). Stress as offense to self: A promising approach comes of age. Occupational Health Science, in press. doi: 10.1007/s41542-019-00041-5

45.

Semmer

Jacobshagen

Meier

Elfering

(2015). Illegitimate tasks as a source of stress . Work & Stress, 29(1), 32–56. doi:10.1080/02678373.2014.1003996

46.

Semmer

Jacobshagen

Keller

A. C.

Meier

(2019). Adding insult to injury: Illegitimate stressors and their association with situational well-being, social self-esteem, and desire for revenge. Manuscript submitted for publication.

47.

Semmer, N. K., McGrath, J. E., & Beehr, T. A. (2005). Conceptual issues in research on stress and health. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of stress medicine and health (2nd ed., pp. 1--43). London: CRC Press.

48.

Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person-and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 255--267. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.255

49.

Spector

P. E.

(2006). Method variance in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. doi:10.1177/1094428105284955

50.

Sulsky

L. M.

Smith

C. S.

(2005). Workstress. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

51.

Thoits, P. A. (1982). Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical problems in studying social support as a buffer against life stress. Journal of Health and Social behavior, 145--159. doi: 10.2307/2136511