A Double-Edged Sword: The Effects of Stressors on Job Crafting and Career Sustainability

Abstract

Prior studies have investigated the relationship between work stressors and career sustainability. However, there is currently a lack of information on this relationship’s underlying mechanisms and boundaries. Delving into the complexities of work stressors and their influence on career sustainability, this research employs the job demands-resources model to examine the intricate relationship. This study used hierarchical regression analysis and PROCESS macro for SPSS to explore the mediating role of job crafting and the moderating role of perceived organizational support based on 358 employees from 28 hotel companies in China. The results show that challenge stressors can enhance career sustainability, while hindrance stressors diminish it. Job crafting has a significant mediating effect between work stressors and career sustainability. In addition, perceived organizational support significantly moderates the relationship between work stressors and job crafting. This study significantly advances the literature on job crafting and career sustainability, highlights the complex impact of work stressors in the hospitality industry, and provides actionable insights for workplace stress management initiatives and employee career sustainability promotion.

Keywords

work stressors perceived organizational support job crafting career sustainability JD-R model

Introduction

The convergence of digital technologies and the uncertainty of the global economy have increased the dynamism and complexity of the professional environment, enabling employees and organizations to grapple with an increasingly severe crisis of career sustainability. In the meantime, the economic catastrophe caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has made the predicament even worse. The resulting uncertainty and increased workload often cause stress or frustration among workers, forcing them to reconsider their working methods, work meaning, values, and time allocation. Career sustainability is a common concern for organizations and individuals, affecting employees’ physical and mental health, job satisfaction, performance, and overall well-being (Chin et al., 2019; Di Fabio, 2017). Organizations must reevaluate job requirements and support their employees to improve their career sustainability. Therefore, finding the antecedent variables and influencing mechanisms of employee career sustainability is of great theoretical and practical significance.

Previous studies have indicated that work stress is one of the most important factors affecting employees’ career sustainability (Chin et al., 2019; Di Fabio, 2017; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018). However, current research has reached inconsistent conclusions: some studies have suggested that work stress can reduce employees’ work motivation and cognitive ability, increase employees’ fatigue and anxiety, and then hurt employees’ work status and happiness (Zhao & Jiang, 2022). In contrast, other studies have proposed that work stress can improve employees’ work engagement, self-efficacy, psychological empowerment, and job satisfaction (M. A. LePine, 2022). However, few scholars have extensively discussed and analyzed these inconsistent findings (Rosen et al., 2020).

This study is an important complement to the current research on career sustainability in several aspects. Firstly, this study investigates the relationships between work stressors, job crafting, and career sustainability among hospitality employees. As a common situational factor, stress arises from the interaction between individuals and their surroundings. Hindrance-challenge stressors are currently the generally accepted two-dimensional classification of stressors (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Most scholars discuss the relationship between work stressors and employees’ career behavior from two perspectives. First, from the resource conservation perspective, work stress leads to the loss or gain of individual psychological resources, thus affecting employees’ psychological well-being, self-efficacy, psychological empowerment, and job performance (Begum et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2015). Second, from the perspective of stress coping, work stressors can lead employees to adopt different stress-coping styles, subsequently influencing their career sustainability (Yang & Li, 2021; Zárate-Santana et al., 2021). These stressors can potentially affect employees’ mental health and job performance (M. A. LePine, 2022). Considering the above analysis, the relationship between different stressors and career sustainability may be inconsistent, and there remains a “black box” in the internal mechanism governing how various stressors affect employees’ career sustainability. Therefore, explaining the relationship between work stressors and employees’ career sustainability is necessary.

Secondly, this study examines the mediating role of job crafting between work stressors and career sustainability. According to the job demands-resources (JD-R) model, proactive individuals can increase job resources by actively participating in work and shaping their job responsibilities, thereby improving their performance in assigned roles (Bakker et al., 2012; W. Zhang et al., 2022; Zito et al., 2019). Job crafting refers to the initiative of people to improve person-job fit and work adaptability by adjusting and changing their work tasks and roles and acquiring job resources to cope with the complex work and professional environment (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In service delivery, hotel employees constantly interact with customers, and in the face of diverse and unpredictable customer needs, reshaping their job role has become particularly important for effective adaptation (Teng, 2019). Employees proactively reshape their job design based on job requirements and available resources (Tims & Bakker, 2010). The outcomes of job crafting mainly include individual subjective feelings, job fit, engagement, passion, and performance (Demerouti et al., 2021; Nissinen et al., 2023; Son & Lee, 2023; Teng, 2019, 2023). Therefore, it is crucial to explore how work stressors affect career sustainability from the job-crafting perspective.

Thirdly, this research analyzes how perceived organizational support (POS) affects the development of career sustainability. POS can help employees participate in job crafting and enhance the sustainability of their careers (Xu et al., 2021). This study emphasizes the POS’s boundary impact in providing practical insights for managing career sustainability by exploring how POS affects the relationship between stressors and job crafting.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Work Stressors

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered stress in various ways, making distinguishing sources of unease or fear difficult. However, among health problems, family concerns, and the strangeness of social alienation, increased work stress is undoubtedly a common consequence of the pandemic (Radic et al., 2020). The factors that influence the work situation of individuals are often different. According to the stress interaction theory, stress arises from interactions between individuals and their surroundings. Researchers emphasized the practical significance of categorizing stressors, revealing substantial differences in the correlation between different stressors and the same outcome variable (Cavanaugh et al., 2000).

The stress dichotomy can be used better to understand the influence of stress in different scenarios, and stressors can be divided into challenge and hindrance stressors according to their intrinsic properties (J. A. LePine et al., 2005). The two-dimensional structure of challenge-hindrance stressors breaks the problem of stress experience evaluation being regarded as a one-dimensional structure in the past. At the same time, this two-dimensional structure breaks through the traditional model based only on “stimulus-response” and has attracted the attention of many scholars. Challenge stressors are job requirements that individuals consider having fulfilling work experiences, such as workload and job complexity (Rosen et al., 2020). These requirements provide opportunities for personal growth and future benefits and are often considered “good” stressors (Widmer et al., 2012). However, hindrance stressors hinder individual career development, such as job uncertainty, organizational politics, and job instability (J. A. LePine et al., 2005; M. A. LePine, 2022). Hindrance stresses can hinder an individual’s ability to accomplish worthwhile objectives and induce distress (M. A. LePine, 2022). The two-dimensional work stressors model provides a framework for explaining career sustainability.

Career Sustainability

Career sustainability refers to the dynamic ability of an individual to continuously gain career development through career experiences that span time and space (De Vos et al., 2020). This concept should be reflected at three levels: personal, environmental, and temporal (De Vos & Van der Heijden, 2017; De Vos et al., 2020). When a career is sustainable, one’s career development is constantly stable and improving rather than regressing or stagnating over time. Career sustainability constitutes a series of professional experiences that endow individuals with meaning through temporal continuity, encompassing various social spaces and embodying individual dynamism.

Career sustainability includes the vertical self-improvement of individuals on their current career path, the horizontal integration of environmental factors, and the ability to continuously adjust to changes in the environment within the continuous career process (De Vos & Van der Heijden, 2017). De Vos et al. (2020) offered a framework for studying career sustainability, proposing three key indicators: health, happiness, and productivity. Health includes both physical and mental well-being. It relates to how well a career matches an individual’s psychological and physical abilities. Happiness is determined by the alignment between one’s work and values, career objectives, and requirements related to work-life balance and personal development (Chin et al., 2022). Productivity includes the ability to accomplish tasks efficiently and effectively and the likelihood of growth and success in one’s career. Newman (2011) initially introduced a framework for studying career sustainability, which was further developed by Chin et al. (2019) into a four-dimensional conceptual model consisting of flexibility, renewability, integration, and resourcefulness. Flexibility refers to the quality of being easy to shape and adjust, versatile, and able to be modified. Renewability refers to supplementing, extending, and maintaining permanent availability. Integration includes wholeness, oneness, consistency of values and behaviors, and interconnectedness. Resourcefulness effectively utilizes one’s available resources to prevent job loss and maintain a current and long-term income (Chin et al., 2022, 2019).

Individuals will have different psychological reactions when facing various pressures. Tims et al. (2015) confirmed that challenging job demands positively impact satisfaction and well-being (Tims et al., 2015). Challenging stressors promote good work attitudes and behaviors, including job satisfaction, employee engagement, job engagement, and creativity, while hindrance stressors do the opposite (Webster et al., 2011; Y. Zhang & Liu, 2024). Challenge stressors promote positive job performance by increasing individuals’ sense of self-efficacy, POS, organizational commitment, and job prosperity while hindering stressors do the opposite (J. A. LePine et al., 2004; Wallace et al., 2009). In addition, when employees face challenging pressure, they perceive it as a test of their abilities, generating positive emotional experiences, passions, and challenges. Increasing demands for difficult work and structural and social job resources positively correlate with career sustainability (Barthauer et al., 2020; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018; Rudolph et al., 2017). Accordingly, we anticipated that challenge stressors would increase employees’ career sustainability, whereas hindrance stressors would have a detrimental impact. Grounded in the theories and findings, we present the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Work stressors have a significant impact on employees’ career sustainability.

H1-1: Challenge stressors have a positive impact on employees’ career sustainability.

H1-2: Hindrance stressors have a negative impact on employees’ career sustainability.

The Mediating Effect of Job Crafting

Job crafting refers to how employees modify their employment to increase its perceived significance (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). The JD-R model is a commonly employed approach to investigate job crafting empirically. It suggests that employees modify their careers by changing the resources and needs associated with their employment (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Job crafting includes three dimensions: task crafting, connection crafting, and cognitive crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Whether task-related or relationship-related, employees expect these carefully crafted behaviors to help build a positive self-image and increase their awareness of the importance of their work to the team, the organization, and their own lives. For this reason, employee job crafting can help individuals improve their abilities (Tims et al., 2013). Cognitive crafting enables employees to constantly reassess the personal significance of their work by changing their cognitive perceptions of it (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). This guarantees that employees can build meaning in their work by connecting personal beliefs and passions to career goals, giving employees a sense of efficacy and impact (Tims et al., 2022).

Job crafting refers to the proactive behavior of individuals who modify job characteristics by effectively managing the responsibilities and resources associated with their job (Ingusci et al., 2021). Earlier studies have shown that job crafting has several antecedents, such as individual differences, job characteristics, and demographic factors (Lee & Song, 2020; Rudolph et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2020). According to the JD-R model, job resources and demands are inherent in all work environments. Job resources are the different support employees can utilize in an organization. These resources include support from supervisors and colleagues, opportunities to participate in the decision-making process, and performance feedback (Demerouti et al., 2001). Researchers have argued that increasing challenging job demands(referred to as “increasing structural resources” or “increasing social resources”) can enhance job crafting (Ingusci et al., 2021; Tims et al., 2022). Individuals choose proactive or problem-solving strategies to manage challenge stressors actively. Harju et al. (2018) found that employees may experience decreased burnout and increased job-crafting activities when faced with challenging tasks (Harju et al., 2018).

In situations of high demand and high resources, employees perceive high demand as a “challenge” to their ability to perform their work, motivating them to make the most of their resources. As a result, this strengthens their motivation, increases their level of involvement in their tasks, and fosters a greater willingness to experience new approaches (Lin et al., 2015; Wingerden & Poell, 2017). However, in a high-demand and low-resource work environment, employees lack sufficient resources to handle excessive demands, leading to emotional burnout and lower job satisfaction. In response, they may choose a negative coping strategy driven by psychological security, resting on their laurels, refusing to consume their resources, and crafting the job (F. Zhang & Parker, 2019). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Work stressors have a significant impact on employees’ job crafting.

H2-1: Challenge stressors have a positive impact on employees’ job crafting.

H2-2: Hindrance stressors have a positive impact on employees’ job crafting.

Job crafting is a strategy that enables individuals to adapt to organizational change (Ingusci et al., 2021). Previous research has delved into the positive effects of job crafting on individual performance, including changes in employees job engagement (Oprea et al., 2019), well-being (Wang et al., 2020), and creativity (Tian et al., 2021). Challenge stressors satisfy individuals’ basic psychological needs, thus stimulating their motivation to shape their job actively (Rosen et al., 2020; Widmer et al., 2012). When individuals are presented with a challenging work environment, they can tap into untapped potential and improve their abilities, thus increasing innovation and being more likely to achieve their goals. When dealing with challenging stressors, individuals have greater autonomy in decision-making and task completion, which meets their autonomy needs. Challenge stressors create expectations of future benefits as individuals believe they can perform better after actively responding to challenges (Lin et al., 2015). When faced with challenging stressors such as high job scope and responsibilities, employees can cope with stress and gain career development through their efforts (Webster et al., 2011).

Earlier studies explored the mediating role of job crafting in different work environments. W. Zhang et al. (2022) found that work-family conflict leads to sustainable creative performance through the mediating role of job crafting. Other studies have shown that job crafting mediates job autonomy and career commitment (Chang et al., 2021). Based on the JD-R model, the acquisition of work resources serves as a mediator. Specifically, individuals gain work-related resources through intrinsic or extrinsic motivators that enable employees to achieve personal goals. Job crafting may enhance employees’ self-determined motivation to maintain their career paths and reach their career objectives (Chang et al., 2021). Therefore, we believe that when faced with challenging stressors, individuals can show better job performance and feel joy and happiness through proactive job crafting behaviors, contributing to career sustainability. Conversely, job burnout may occur when employees face hindrance stressors such as unclear job responsibilities, job insecurity, and lack of the necessary skills to handle high job demands. They may react negatively to job demands, lack enthusiasm, and avoid taking on additional tasks or improving their job performance due to uncertainty and stress. This further leads to a decline in job performance and happiness. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Job crafting is significantly associated with career sustainability.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Job crafting mediates the relationship between work stressors and career sustainability.

H4-1: Job crafting mediates the positive relationship between challenge stressors and career sustainability.

H4-2: Job crafting mediates the negative relationship between hindrance stressors and career sustainability.

The Moderating Effect of POS

Perceived Organizational Support (POS) refers to an employee’s subjective evaluation of how much the organization values their contributions and prioritizes their emotional and physical well-being (Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). POS is a vital resource that gives employees confidence in their ability to manage job demands (De Vos et al., 2020).

Researchers have discussed the effects of POS on job crafting, well-being, and career satisfaction, proposing that it can hinder or enhance these outcomes at different levels (Fiaz & Qureshi, 2021; Wingerden & Poell, 2017). The positive effect of challenge stressors on job crafting is enhanced by a high level of POS (Oubibi et al., 2022). This enhancement occurs because individuals who perceive high levels of POS are more inclined to acquire additional resources, thus increasing their resource reserves and promoting job-crafting behavior. In addition, individuals who face challenging stressors and perceive high POS have more interpersonal resources and are prone to developing pride. This pride motivates them to participate actively in job crafting, believing they can achieve better job performance and satisfaction.

Similarly, POS mitigates the adverse effect of hindering stressors on job crafting. External stressors can negatively affect employees’ behavior and lead to lower performance. POS includes planning, information, and resources for current and future developments that can help facilitate job crafting and enhance career sustainability (Xu et al., 2021). POS can relieve stress and work-related outcomes (Cheng & O-Yang, 2018; De Vos et al., 2020). Cheng and O-Yang (2018) proved that POS affects the relationships between job crafting, job burnout, and job satisfaction. Therefore, we hypothesize that POS can be used as an asset to facilitate job crafting.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). POS moderates the relationship between challenge stressors and job crafting, with the positive relationship stronger for employees with higher levels of POS.

Hypothesis 6 (H6). POS moderates the relationship between hindrance stressors and job crafting, such that the negative relationship is less pronounced for employees with higher levels of POS.

To streamline this process, we introduce a research framework (Figure 1) that expands upon existing theoretical frameworks.

Figure 1.

Research framework.

Materials and Methods

Sample and Procedure

This study utilized a self-administered questionnaire survey method for data collection. The sample included 28 hospitality companies in Beijing, Shanghai, Qingdao, and other developed cities in China. Most of these hotels are above three-star and have more than 50 employees. These hotels emphasize high-quality service and are likelier to empower employees with career sustainability. The questionnaires were distributed from May to June 2022. During this period, all 31 provinces on the Chinese mainland advised citizens to travel to high-risk areas of COVID-19 only when necessary. Long-haul travel is tightly regulated, and group trips abroad have been suspended due to laws that contain the outbreak, dealing a heavy blow to the tourism and hospitality industries. As the coronavirus epidemic spreads in China, many businesses are not welcoming visitors during the pandemic. We contacted the human resources departments of these companies through alum records and MBA students, explaining the purpose of the research and information about the data collection. With their help, the questionnaires were distributed through an online survey platform.

To mitigate the impact of social expectations, before the questionnaire, participants were told that the survey would be anonymous, that the data would be used only for scientific research, and that all information would be completely confidential (Xintian & Peng, 2023). We distributed 500 electronic questionnaires and recovered 358 questionnaires with a recovery rate of 71.6%. The sample size was determined using the sample size to free parameter ratio (Bentler & Chou, 1987), which must be less than or equal to 5 to ensure the reliability of parameter estimation. Based on this, this study’s sample size meets the data analysis requirements. The demographic structure of the respondents is as follows: Regarding gender, 132 males accounted for 36.9%, and 226 females accounted for 61.3%. Regarding age, 13.4% were under 20, 30.7% were between 21 and 30, 50.8% were between 31 and 40, and 5.0% were over 40. Regarding educational background, 10.6% have a high school degree or below, 40.2% are university graduates, 27.7% have a bachelor’s degree, and 21.5% have a master’s degree or above.

Measures

To ensure the reliability and validity of the measurement, this paper adopts the validated scale widely used in the literature, ensuring the accuracy of the English scales to the maximum extent through translation and back translation. The scales are presented in Likert 5 format, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” with a corresponding 1 to 5 scale.

Work Stressors

The assessment of work stressors is derived from the challenge hindrance stressor scale created by Cavanaugh et al. (2000). This scale encompasses two distinct dimensions: challenge stressors, consisting of 6 items such as “the workload or task load I undertake,” and Hindrance stressors, comprising five items including “organizational stressors” and “Political factors influence organizational decision-making rather than job performance.” The Cronbach’s alpha values for the two-dimensional measurement subscales were .818 and .832, respectively.

Career Sustainability

We used the career sustainability measure devised by Chin et al. (2022) to measure career sustainability across four dimensions: Resourcefulness, including items like “My career has enabled me to have a good standard of living”; Flexibility, including statements such as “there is the possibility of leaving or transitioning from my job” and “helping me to find new career opportunities”; Renewability, with an item like “allowing me to reevaluate my abilities”; and Integrative, featuring an item like “requires me to evaluate the knowledge I have gained from different sources.” In this study, career sustainability is investigated as one dimension. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the overall scale was .852.

Job Crafting

This paper explores the overarching role of job crafting, focusing on its general impact rather than the specific effects of individual types of job crafting. Job crafting was examined as a single dimension in this study. We used the 10-item scale Tims and Bakker (2010) developed to measure job crafting. An example item from the scale is “I am trying to learn new things on the job.” The overall scale exhibited strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .895.

POS

We used the 8-item scale developed by Kurtessis et al. (2017), which included items such as “The organization cares about my goals and values” and “The organization helps me when I am in trouble.” In this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .886.

Control Variables

In this study, we controlled for background factors influencing employee behavior, including age, gender, education, and years of experience.

Statistical Analysis Strategy

In this paper, we employed SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 26.0 software for variable reliability analysis, descriptive analysis, and CFA to assess discriminant validity among variables. Baron’s hierarchical regression procedure with the PROCESS procedure was utilized to examine the mediating effect of career crafting and the moderating effect of POS.

Result

Descriptive and Correlations

Table 1 shows the study variables’ means, standard deviations, and correlations. The mean scores for challenge stressors, hindrance stressors, job crafting, POS, and career sustainability were 3.89, 3.52, 3.27, 3.39, and 3.95, respectively. The correlation analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between challenge stressors and career sustainability (r = .29, p < .01), and challenge stressors were positively correlated with job crafting (r = .35, p < .01). In contrast, hindrance stressors were negatively correlated with career sustainability (r = −.41, p < .01), and hindrance stressors were negatively correlated with job crafting (r = −.21, p < .01). In addition, there was a significant positive correlation between job crafting and career sustainability (r = .45, p < .01). These results offer preliminary evidence supporting our hypotheses.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Gender	0.57	0.68	1
2. Age	32.65	7.92	0.08	1
3. Educational level	2.52	0.61	0.11	0.10	1
4. Tenure	2.76	0.92	0.09	0.07	0.07	1
5. C-stressor	3.89	0.63	0.17	0.18	0.12	0.31	1
6. H-stressor	3.52	0.57	0.09	0.02	−0.11	0.03	−0.23**	1
7. JC	3.27	0.59	0.07	0.03	0.07	0.35	0.35**	−0.21**	1
8. POS	3.39	1.05	0.13	0.14*	0.22	0.13	0.21**	−0.15*	0.22**	1
9. CS	3.95	0.62	0.18	0.02	0.17	0.19*	0.29**	−0.41**	0.45**	0.28**	1

Note. C-stressor = challenge stressor; H-stressor = hindrance stressor; JC = job crafting; POS = perceived organizational support; CS = career sustainability. Gender (0 = female, 1 = male); educational level (1 = high school and below, 2 = college, 3 = bachelor’s, 4 = master’s); Organizational tenure (1 = 5 years and below, 2 = 5–10 years, 3 = 10–20 years, 4 = 20 years above); N = 358.

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

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Using Harman’s single-factor test method, this study’s analysis for common method bias revealed that the unrotated first factor accounted for 23.21% of the variance. Since this value is below the 40% threshold, it indicates no significant common method bias present. Furthermore, this study conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the variables. The measurement model includes five potential variables: challenge stressors, hindrance stressors, job crafting, POS, and career sustainability. We also compared and tested one four-factor model(challenge stressors and hindrance stressors combined into one factor), one three-factor model (challenge stressors + hindrance stressors and job crafting + career sustainability), and a two-factor model (challenge stressors + hindrance stressors and job crafting + career sustainability + POS), the results show that the five-factor model fits better than the other alternative models (see Table 2, χ²/df = 1.557, χ² = 325.384, df = 209, GFI = , AGFI = , CFI = 0.917, TLI = 0.921, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR = 0.041). The superior fit of the five-factor model over the other models suggests that the variables in this study exhibit robust discriminant validity.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results.

Model	χ²	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
5-factor model¹	325.384	1.557	0.917	0.921	0.052
4-factor model²	453.872	2.141	0.877	0.882	0.069
4-factor model³	467.121	2.203	0.869	0.875	0.072
2-factor model⁴	565.727	2.643	0.785	0.795	0.095
One factor model⁵	675.917	3.144	0.691	0.617	0.159

Note. ¹In the five factor models, the variable measures are independent of each other.

Combining challenge stressors and hindrance stressors into a potential factor.

Combining challenge stressors and hindrance stressors into a potential factor and combining job crafting and career sustainability into a potential factor.

Combining challenge and hindrance stressors into a potential factor and merging job crafting, perceived organizational support, and career sustainability into a potential factor.

Combining all variables into a single factor.

The suitability of the study sample was evaluated using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (K-S test). The results indicated that the dependent variables follow the normal distribution (p > .05). A multicollinearity test revealed that all variables’ coefficient of variance inflation (VIF) is less than 2, and the tolerance between variables is greater than 0.5. These findings suggest that the core variables in this study do not exhibit significant multicollinearity issues (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Hypothesis Testing

Baron’s hierarchical regression test step and PROCESS program were employed to examine the relationships among the study variables. The results are shown in Table 3. The results showed that challenge stressors have significant positive effects on both job crafting (model 2, β = .33, p < .01) and career sustainability (model 6, β = .29, p < .01) after accounting for control variables, thus supporting Hypothesis 1-1 and Hypothesis 2-1. Similarly, hindrance stressors exhibited significant negative effects on both job crafting (model 2, β = −.21, p < .01) and career sustainability (model 6, β = −.33, p < .01). Hypothesis 1-2 and Hypothesis 2-2 were supported. Moreover, the predicted relationship between job crafting and career sustainability was supported, as job crafting significantly positively influenced career sustainability (model 7, β = .45, p < .01), aligning with Hypothesis 3.

Table 3.

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis.

Variables	Job crafting				Career sustainability
Variables	Model1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model5	Model6	Model7	Model 8
Intercept	3.15**	3.46**	2.19**	2.27**	2.19**	2.19**	2.78**	3.11**
Gender	0.12*	0.04	0.06	−0.03	0.15*	−0.02	0.04	0.02
Age	0.04	−0.05	−0.03	−0.06	−0.03	−0.00	−0.06	−0.05
Educational level	0.10	−0.03	−0.05	0.01	−0.06	−0.01	0.02	0.03
Tenure	0.05	0.04	0.02	0.08	0.05	0.03	0.09	0.04
C-stressor		0.33**	0.27**	0.12*		0.29**		0.16*
H-stressor		−0.21**	−0.15**	−0.19		−0.33**		−0.15*
POS			0.12*	0.07
C-stressor × POS				0.11*
H-stressor × POS				0.08*
JC							0.45**	0.36**
R ²	.08	.34	.37	.41	.14	.19	.22	.26
ΔR²	—	.27	.04	.03	—	.05	.03	.03
F	5.78**	29.87**	31.75**	35.27**	11.51**	32.16**	42.15**	49.56**

Note. C-stressor = challenge stressor; H-stressor = hindrance stressor; JC = job crafting; POS = perceived organizational support.

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

Hypothesis 4 proposed that job crafting mediates the relationship between work stressors and career sustainability. As indicated in Table 3, model 6 showed that both challenge and hindrance stressors were significant direct predictors of career sustainability. When job crafting was added to the model, the regression coefficient for challenge stressors decreased significantly but remained significant (model 8: β = .16, p < .05). This suggests that job crafting partially mediates the effect of challenge stressors on career sustainability, supporting Hypothesis 4-1. Likewise, the regression coefficient for hindrance stressors on career sustainability dropped from β = −.33 (p < .01) to β = −.15 (p < .05) with the inclusion of job crafting in the model, indicating that job crafting partially mediates the effect of hindrance stressors on career sustainability, thus supporting Hypothesis 4-2.

The theoretical model of this study proposes that POS regulates the influence of work stressors on job crafting. As shown in model 4, the interaction term (challenge stressors × POS) had a coefficient of (β = .11, p < .05), indicating that POS moderates the relationship between challenge stressors and job crafting, thereby supporting Hypothesis 5. Similarly, the interaction term (hindrance stressors × POS) had a coefficient of (β = .08, p < .05), suggesting that POS mitigates the relationship between hindrance stressors and job crafting, which supports Hypothesis 6. These results indicate that the positive relationship between challenge stressors and job crafting is more substantial for employees with higher levels of POS. In comparison, the negative relationship between hindrance stressors and job crafting is weaker for those with higher POS.

This study includes relevant figures for a visual explanation to provide a more intuitive illustration of the moderating effect, as presented in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 depicts the interaction effect of POS between challenge stressors and job crafting, plotting the relationship between challenge stressors and job crafting separately for low and high POS. Figure 3 depicts the interaction effect of POS between hindrance stressors and job crafting, plotting the relationship between hindrance stressors and job crafting separately for low and high POS.

Figure 2.

POS as a moderator of challenge stressors and job crafting.

Figure 3.

POS as a moderator of hindrance stressors and job crafting.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore the impact of hindrance-challenge stressors on employee career sustainability and determine whether job crafting plays a mediating role in this relationship. The findings suggest that job crafting predominantly mediates the relationship between hindrance-challenge stressors and career sustainability. In addition, there are significant differences in job crafting paths in the hindrance-challenge stressors scenario. Challenge stressors positively promote job crafting, while hindrance stressors have the opposite effect. In addition, we identified the moderating effect of POS on the relationship between hindrance-challenge stressors and job crafting. The findings suggest that employees who perceive organizational support are likelier to engage in job crafting behaviors that ultimately enhance career sustainability.

Theoretical Implications

These findings provide a substantial contribution to the current literature. Firstly, we introduce a double-edged sword perspective to examine the dual effects of work stressors on job crafting. This finding is consistent with previous research that observed how challenging stressors enhance employees’ job crafting (Yu et al., 2023). The increase in resources can help employees successfully carry out job crafting and thus successfully complete work tasks (van Wingerden & Niks, 2017; Wingerden & Poell, 2017). Previous research has attempted to identify the beneficial and detrimental impacts of work stressors (Yu et al., 2023; Zhao & Jiang, 2022). However, most of the existing research focuses on one aspect of the results (Di Fabio, 2017; Yu et al., 2023; Zhao & Jiang, 2022). These findings extend our understanding of the impact of stressors on employee job crafting by revealing the double-edged sword effect. This study explains the inconsistent relationship between work stressors and job crafting in the service industry.

Secondly, this study explored the influence mechanism of work stressors on career sustainability, which provides a valuable complement to previous studies. Previous studies have highlighted the impact of work stress on career sustainability and validated the critical role of job crafting in improving performance and job engagement but have not validated specific effect paths (Ge et al., 2023; Petrou et al., 2015; Tims et al., 2015; Wrzesniewski et al., 2013). To fill this gap, this study introduced and validated the mediating role of job crafting between work stressors and career sustainability, opening the “black box” of the relationship between work stressors and career sustainability. This study enriches the literature on work stressors and career sustainability and expands the scope of the application of JD-R theory.

Thirdly, this study found that POS is an essential situational variable for job crafting, which can enhance career sustainability by increasing the positive impact of challenging stressors on job crafting and reducing the negative effect of hindering stressors on job crafting, thus filling the gap of situational support factors in previous studies on job crafting (Li et al., 2023; Lu et al., 2016). While prior studies have emphasized POS as an essential resource that can give employees confidence in handling job demands (De Vos et al., 2020), there is still a lack of empirical evidence to support this assertion (Rudolph et al., 2017; Teng, 2019; Wrzesniewski et al., 2013). This study complements previous research by exploring the potential explanation mechanisms of POS for the relationship between work stressors and job crafting. This study validates POS as a valuable resource that can help adjust job crafting and improve career sustainability.

Practical Implications

Career sustainability is essential for exploring employees’ career needs and promoting their positive performance and well-being. It is also an innovative way for enterprises to organize human resource management according to “people-oriented management.” The practical significance of this study can be summarized as follows.

Firstly, work stress has proved to be a “double-edged sword.” Managers should pay attention to the classification of stress management and accurately identify different stressors. Providing employees with challenging stressors, such as high-level job responsibilities and time pressure, can motivate them to reshape their work and promote career sustainability. At the same time, try to avoid factors that create hindrance stressors for employees, such as organizational politics and job insecurity. Hindrance stressors drain employees’ resources, cause physical and mental exhaustion, hinder job crafting, and can lead to unsustainable careers.

Secondly, job crafting plays a pivotal role in the career sustainability of hospitality employees. Organizations should encourage employees to own their careers and adopt a proactive approach to career management. Managers can facilitate job crafting by providing training, coaching employees to improve work methods, strengthening interpersonal relationships, and reshaping their thoughts about work.

Thirdly, managers should prioritize effective communication with employees to let them understand their stress status, cultivate a sense of organizational support, and guide them to transform work stress into motivation for job crafting. An inclusive and open work atmosphere encourages innovation, reduces group cognitive dissonance, minimizes resistance to job crafting, and promotes career sustainability.

Limitations and Future Directions

The study has several limitations. Firstly, the study sample was composed of employees from various hotel companies in China, so the generality of the findings is limited. This raises the question of whether these findings can be equally applied to other service industries in China and the rest of the world. To overcome this limitation, future studies could employ more diverse sampling methods aimed at samples across sectors and borders while appropriately increasing sample sizes. This broader scope will enhance the persuasiveness and generalizability of the findings.

The second limitation is that we ignore individual differences that may affect the perception of stress. For instance, optimistic employees are more likely to view stress as challenging, resulting in less negative attitudes and behaviors toward work. By calculating the unique attributes of individuals in the workplace, researchers can provide insights that contribute to a more nuanced understanding of stress and its impact on employees. Future research may specifically explore how individual differences, such as personality, resilience, and conscientiousness, affect the interpretation and response to stressors of challenges and hindrances.

Finally, while our findings highlight the moderating role of POS in employee job crafting and career sustainability, future research could delve into the influence of other situational factors (e.g., leadership style, organizational climate) and individual factors (e.g., motivation, personality). These investigations will help to identify the boundary conditions under which job crafting occurs from different theoretical perspectives, contribute to a more nuanced theoretical framework, and provide practical insights for organizations keen to foster a culture of job crafting and career sustainability.

Conclusions

Based on the JD-R model, this paper explores the impact mechanism of challenge-hindrance stressors on career sustainability, focusing on the mediating role of job crafting and the moderating role of POS. The main conclusions of this study are summarized as follows. Firstly, challenging stressors positively impact career sustainability by introducing high job demands and creating job resources. Conversely, hindrance stressors can lead to a loss of job resources, which negatively affects career sustainability. Secondly, job crafting, as a behavioral response to work stressors, mediates both challenging and hindrance stressors, thus affecting the sustainability of employees’ careers. These mediating effects identified in this study provide valuable insights for organizations in fostering supportive environments and interventions to enhance employee well-being and long-term career success.

In addition, empirical test results show that POS also has a significant moderating role. It positively affects the relationship between challenge stressors and job crafting and negatively affects the relationship between hindrance stressors and job crafting. POS emphasizes the importance of a supportive organizational environment in both scenarios as a facilitator of challenging stressors and a buffer of hindrance stressors. These results provide valuable insights into the complex role of POS as a moderator in the relationships between stressors and job crafting.

In conclusion, this study provides actionable insights for organizational strategies in service-oriented industries to help them understand and address the impact of different stressors on employee career sustainability.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by National Key Research and Development Program of China, grant number 2019YFD1100800.

ORCID iDs

Xintian Li

Peng Peng

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Bakker

A. B.

Tims

Derks

(2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359–1378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712453471

Barthauer

Kaucher

Spurk

Kauffeld

(2020). Burnout and career (un)sustainability: Looking into the Blackbox of burnout triggered career turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 117, 103334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103334

Begum

Xia

Mehmood

Iftikhar

(2020). The impact of CEOs’ transformational leadership on sustainable organizational innovation in SMEs: A three-wave mediating role of organizational learning and psychological empowerment. Sustainability, 12(20), 8620. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8620

Bentler

P. M.

Chou

C.-P.

(1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004

Cavanaugh

M. A.

Boswell

W. R.

Roehling

M. V.

Boudreau

J. W.

(2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65

Chang

P.-C.

Rui

(2021). Job autonomy and career commitment: A moderated mediation model of job crafting and sense of calling. SAGE Open, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211004167

Cheng

J.-C.

O-Yang

(2018). Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction: The moderating role of perceived organizational support. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 72, 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.005

Chin

Jawahar

I. M.

(2022). Development and validation of a career sustainability scale. Journal of Career Development, 49(4), 769–787. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845321993234

Chin

Jiao

Addo

Jawahar

I. M.

(2019). Career sustainability during manufacturing innovation. Career Development International, 24(6), 509–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-02-2019-0034

10.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499.

11.

Demerouti

Soyer

L. M. A.

Vakola

Xanthopoulou

(2021). The effects of a job crafting intervention on the success of an organizational change effort in a blue-collar work environment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(2), 374–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12330

12.

De Vos

Van der Heijden

B. I

. (2017). Current thinking on contemporary careers: The key roles of sustainable HRM and sustainability of careers. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 28, 41–50.

13.

De Vos

Van der Heijden

B. I. J. M.

Akkermans

. (2020). Sustainable careers: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 117, 103196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.011

14.

Di Fabio

. (2017). The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations [perspective]. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, e01534. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01534

15.

Di Fabio

Peiró

J. M. A

. (2018). Human capital sustainability leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: A new scale. Sustainability, 10(7), 2413. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2413

16.

Fiaz

Qureshi

M. A.

(2021). How perceived organizational politics cause work-to-family conflict? Scoping and systematic review of literature. Future Business Journal, 7(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00046-5

17.

Zhang

Song

Liu

(2023). Self-goal setting as a way to career sustainability: Exploring the roles of career crafting and perceived organizational goal clarity. Career Development International, 28(6/7), 756–771. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-05-2023-0154

18.

Harju

L. K.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Hakanen

J. J.

(2018). A multilevel study on servant leadership, job boredom and job crafting. Journal of managerial psychology, 33(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-08-2016-0237

19.

Ingusci

Signore

Giancaspro

M. L.

Manuti

Molino

Russo

Zito

Cortese

C. G.

(2021). Workload, techno overload, and behavioral stress during COVID-19 emergency: The role of job crafting in remote workers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, e655148. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655148

20.

Kurtessis

J. N.

Eisenberger

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.

21.

Lee

J. W.

Song

(2020). Promoting employee job crafting at work: The roles of motivation and team context. Personnel Review, 49(3), 689–708. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2018-0261

22.

LePine

J. A.

LePine

M. A.

Jackson

C. L.

(2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883.

23.

LePine

J. A.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Lepine

M. A.

(2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803921

24.

LePine

M. A.

(2022). The challenge-hindrance stressor framework: An integrative conceptual review and path forward. Group & Organization Management, 47(2), 223–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221079970

25.

(2023). How time pressure is associated with knowledge sharing: A dual-path mechanism study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(7), 1765–1786. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2022-0256

26.

Lin

Wang

(2015). A double-edged sword: The moderating role of conscientiousness in the relationships between work stressors, psychological strain, and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1949

27.

C.-Q.

D.-Y.

X.-M.

(2016). What differentiates employees’ job performance under stressful situations: The role of general self-efficacy. The Journal of Psychology, 150(7), 837–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1203277

28.

Newman

K. L.

(2011). Sustainable careers: Lifecycle engagement in work. Organizational Dynamics, 40(2), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.01.008

29.

Nissinen

T. S.

Upadyaya

Lammassaari

Lonka

(2023). How do job crafting profiles manifest employees’ work engagement, workaholism, and epistemic approach? Vocations and Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-023-09334-x

30.

Oprea

B. T.

Barzin

Vîrgă

Iliescu

Rusu

(2019). Effectiveness of job crafting interventions: A meta-analysis and utility analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(6), 723–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1646728

31.

Oubibi

Fute

Xiao

Sun

Zhou

(2022). Perceived organizational support and career satisfaction among Chinese teachers: The mediation effects of job crafting and work engagement during COVID-19. Sustainability, 14(2), 623. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/623

32.

Petrou

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2015). Job crafting in changing organizations: Antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039003

33.

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.

34.

Radic

Arjona-Fuentes

J. M.

Ariza-Montes

Han

Law

(2020). Job demands–job resources (JD-R) model, work engagement, and well-being of cruise ship employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88, 102518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102518

35.

Rosen

C. C.

Dimotakis

Cole

M. S.

Taylor

S. G.

Simon

L. S.

Smith

T. A.

Reina

C. S.

(2020). When challenges hinder: An investigation of when and how challenge stressors impact employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10), 1181.

36.

Rudolph

C. W.

Katz

I. M.

Lavigne

K. N.

Zacher

(2017). Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008

37.

Shanock

L. R.

Eisenberger

(2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689.

38.

Son

Lee

J. Y.

(2023). When humble leaders enhance employee job crafting: The role of gender and trust in leaders. SAGE Open, 13(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231184862

39.

Teng

H.-Y.

(2019). Job crafting and customer service behaviors in the hospitality industry: Mediating effect of job passion. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 81, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.03.013

40.

Teng

H.-Y.

(2023). Job crafting, leisure crafting, and well-being among hospitality employees: The roles of work–leisure facilitation and conflict. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 111, 103460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103460

41.

Tian

Wang

Rispens

(2021). How and when job crafting relates to employee creativity: The important roles of work engagement and perceived work group status diversity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 291. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/1/291

42.

Tims

Bakker

A. B.

(2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/doi:10.10520/EJC89228

43.

Tims

Bakker

A. B.

Derks

(2015). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914–928. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245

44.

Tims

Bakker

A. B.

Derks

van Rhenen

(2013). Job crafting at the team and individual level: Implications for work engagement and performance. Group & Organization Management, 38(4), 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113492421

45.

Tims

Twemlow

Fong

C. Y. M.

(2022). A state-of-the-art overview of job-crafting research: Current trends and future research directions. Career Development International, 27(1), 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2021-0216

46.

van Wingerden

Niks

I. M. W

. (2017). Construction and validation of the perceived opportunity to craft scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, e00573. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00573

47.

Wallace

J. C.

Edwards

B. D.

Arnold

Frazier

M. L.

Finch

D. M.

(2009). Work stressors, role-based performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 254.

48.

Wang

Chen

(2020). The impact of social factors on job crafting: A meta-analysis and review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 8016. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/8016

49.

Webster

J. R.

Beehr

T. A.

Love

(2011). Extending the challenge-hindrance model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.02.001

50.

Widmer

P. S.

Semmer

N. K.

Kälin

Jacobshagen

Meier

L. L.

(2012). The ambivalence of challenge stressors: Time pressure associated with both negative and positive well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 422–433.

51.

Wingerden

J. V.

Poell

R. F.

(2017). Employees’ perceived opportunities to craft and in-role performance: The mediating role of job crafting and work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, e01876. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01876

52.

Wrzesniewski

Dutton

J. E.

(2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of management review, 26(2), 179–201.

53.

Wrzesniewski

LoBuglio

Dutton

J. E.

Berg

J. M.

(2013). Job crafting and cultivating positive meaning and identity in work. In Bakker

A. B.

(Ed.), Advances in positive organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 281–302). Emerald Group. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2046-410X(2013)0000001015

54.

Xintian

Peng

(2023). Does inclusive leadership foster employee psychological resilience? The role of perceived insider status and supportive organizational climate. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, e1127780. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1127780

55.

Zhang

(2021). The effect of perceived organizational support on the work engagement of Chinese nurses during the COVID-19: The mediating role of psychological safety. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 27(2), 481–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2021.1946107

56.

Yang

(2021). The impact of challenge and hindrance stressors on thriving at work double mediation based on affect and motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, e613871. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.613871

57.

Liu

Lin

Chi

(2023). The relationship between stressors and Chinese employees’ innovative work behavior: The role of task crafting and psychological detachment. European Journal of Innovation Management, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-08-2022-0417

58.

Zárate-Santana

Z.-J.

Patino-Alonso

M.-C.

Sánchez-García

A.-B.

Galindo-Villardón

(2021). Learning approaches and coping with academic stress for sustainability teaching: Connections through canonical correspondence analysis. Sustainability, 13(2), 852. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/852

59.

Zhang

Parker

S. K.

(2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2332

60.

Zhang

Yan

Wang

Qian

(2022). Perceived overqualification and job crafting: The mediating role of workplace anxiety and moderating role of reappraisal. SAGE Open, 12(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221103522

61.

Zhang

Liu

(2024.) Examining the double-edged nature of PSM on burnout: The mediating role of challenge stress and hindrance stress. Public Personnel Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260231196569

62.

Zhao

Jiang

(2022). Role stress, emotional exhaustion, and knowledge hiding: The joint moderating effects of network centrality and structural holes. Current Psychology, 41(12), 8829–8841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01348-9

63.

Zito

Cortese

C. G.

Colombo

(2019). The role of resources and flow at work in well-being. SAGE Open, 9(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019849732