| Literature DB >> 31416276 |
Jing Xiu1, Zhenduo Zhang2, Zhigang Li3, Junwei Zheng4.
Abstract
The present study emphasizes the indirect influences of coworker helping behavior on emotional exhaustion through psychological availability and the moderating role of perceived task demands on a daily basis. Using a two-wave experience sampling method with data collected via mobile phones, we collected 345 matched data from 69 samples over five consecutive days in mainland China. We developed a moderated mediation model to test our conceptual model, with the following significant results: (1) Daily coworker helping behavior decreased employee emotional exhaustion; (2) daily psychological availability mediated the influence of coworker helping behavior on employee emotional exhaustion; (3) through psychological availability, perceived task demands moderated the indirect influence of daily coworker helping behavior on emotional exhaustion. The indirect influence of daily coworker helping behavior only emerged with a low perception of job demands. This research explores the mechanism and boundary conditions of the relationship between daily coworker helping behavior and employee emotional exhaustion with the job demands-resources model framework. In practice, leaders should adopt beneficial interventions to enhance team cohesion, to facilitate team members' helping behavior, and to manage task demands.Entities:
Keywords: coworker helping behavior; emotional exhaustion; experience sampling method; psychological availability; task demands
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31416276 PMCID: PMC6720691 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16162919
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Figure 2Flowchart of samples identified and included in studies.
Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
| Models | Variables | χ2 |
| △χ2 | RMSEA | RMR | CFI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Four-Factor | CH, PSYA, EE, PT | 45.30 | 24 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.99 | |
| Alternative Model | |||||||
| Three-Factor | CH+PSYA, EE, PT | 393.33 | 26 | 348.03 ** | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.82 |
| Three-Factor | CH+EE, PSYA, PT | 359.21 | 26 | 313.91 ** | 0.19 | 0.11 | 0.84 |
| Three-Factor | CH, EE+PSYA, PT | 291.12 | 26 | 245.82 ** | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.87 |
Note: CH = coworker helping behavior, PSYA = psychological availability, EE = emotional exhaustion, PT = perceived task demands; ** p < 0.01.
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1. Gender | - | - | - | |||
| 2. Education | - | - | 0.08 | - | ||
| 3. Age | 29.06 | 4.72 | 0.00 | −0.23 * | - | |
| 4. Perceived Task Demands | 3.05 | 0.78 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.05 | (0.88) |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 1. Coworker Helping Behavior | 3.18 | 0.96 | (0.84) | |||
| 2. Psychological Availability | 3.82 | 0.78 | 0.39 ** | (0.91) | ||
| 3. Emotional Exhaustion | 2.64 | 0.91 | −0.39 ** | −0.63 ** | (0.87) |
Note: values in the parenthesis are Cronbach’s alpha. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Results of hierarchical linear model analysis.
| Variable | Psychological Availability | Emotional Exhaustion | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||
| γ | SE | γ | SE | γ | SE | γ | SE | |
| Intercept | 3.90 | 0.35 | 3.95 | 0.37 | 2.90 | 0.53 | 2.71 | 0.43 |
| Between-Person ( | ||||||||
| Gender | −0.15 | 0.14 | −0.17 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.23 | 0.17 |
| Education | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.15 | −0.25 | 0.20 | −0.20 | 0.16 |
| Age | −0.02 | 0.01 | −0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
| PT | 0.27 | 0.17 | −0.40 ** | 0.11 | ||||
| Within-Person ( | ||||||||
| CH | 0.20 ** | 0.07 | 0.20 ** | 0.07 | −0.17 * | 0.08 | −0.12 | 0.08 |
| PSYA | −0.16 ** | 0.06 | ||||||
| Interaction | ||||||||
| CH × PSYA | −0.26 * | 0.12 | −0.01 | 0.12 | ||||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.17 | ||||
| −2LL | 631.29 | 626.34 | 705.81 | 693.01 | ||||
Note: CH = coworker helping behavior, PSYA = psychological availability, EE = emotional exhaustion, PT = perceived task demands; −2LL = −2LogLikelihood * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Figure 3The moderating role of perceived task demands.
Results of the Monte Carlo bootstrapping test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Low Perceived Task Demands | 0.40 | 0.11 | 0.18 | 0.62 |
| High Perceived Task Demands | 0.00 | 0.11 | −0.22 | 0.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Low Perceived Task Demands | −0.06 | 0.03 | −0.13 | −0.01 |
| High Perceived Task Demands | 0.00 | 0.01 | −0.04 | 0.04 |
| Difference | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Coworker Helping Behavior | −0.13 | 0.10 | −0.31 | 0.05 |
| Coworker Helping Behavior | −0.03 | 0.02 | −0.08 | −0.01 |