This research links challenge- hindrance appraisals to job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation

The Moderating Role of Scheduling Autonomy in Multiple Team Membership:

A Challenge-Hindrance Perspective Gerrit van der Pas (s3192768)

University of Groningen

Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behaviour Nettelbosje 2, 9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands

E-mail: g.k.van.der.pas@student.rug.nl

Author Note

The present paper is my master’s thesis and is written under the supervision of L. Maxim Laurijssen. Correspondence concerning this thesis should be addressed to G.K. van der Pas,

g.k.van.der.pas@student.rug.nl.

Abstract

An increasing number of employees is working in multiple teams at the same time.

This can lead to both positive and negative outcomes for individuals. This study investigated the moderating role of employees’ autonomy in choosing their teams on the relationship between multiple-team-membership (MTM) and challenge- and hindrance appraisals. This research proposes that MTM is appraised as a challenge by employees particularly under high scheduling autonomy, because scheduling autonomy enables employees to pursue valued goals and interests across the teams that they are part of. This research links challenge- hindrance appraisals to job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. The findings of this paper highlight the importance of autonomy in MTM. Choosing your teams was found to have a positive effect on job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation regardless of MTM. Next to this, it was found that the number of teams may not be the most important predictor of MTMs consequences. Instead, the work-environment within these teams was found to be crucial.

Key words: Multiple Team Membership, Challenge-Hindrance, Scheduling Autonomy, Job Satisfaction, Intrinsic Motivation.

The Moderating Role of Scheduling Autonomy in Multiple Team Membership: A Challenge-Hindrance Perspective

In recent years, scholars focused on how multiple team membership (MTM) affects employees and their work outcomes (cf. Mortensen, Woolley, & O’Leary, 2007; O’Leary et al., 2011). MTM refers to situations where employees are concurrently a member of two or more teams (O’Leary et al., 2011). MTM may exert positive effects – such as increasing learning opportunities and an increased professional network –, and it may exert negative effects – such as increased work stress, work complexity, and role ambiguity (Kwon & Adler, 2014; Mortensen et al., 2007; O’Leary et al., 2011; Van Sell, Brief & Schuler, 1981). Since more than 65% of employees engage in MTM (O’Leary, Mortensen, & Woolley, 2011), it is important to advance our understanding of how and when MTM is linked to important work outcomes. This research proposes that autonomy influences when employees perceive MTM positively or negatively which, in turn, is linked to employees’ job satisfaction and their intrinsic motivation.

Specifically, employees may prefer to work in certain teams over others. Related research on job crafting showed that it can be beneficial for employees to shape the

boundaries of their work environment (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Employees may be more satisfied in their job and more intrinsically motivated when they have the freedom to select the teams they are part of and to decide how much time they spend in each team, which is captured by scheduling autonomy (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Scheduling autonomy refers to the extent to which employees are allowed to make their own decisions regarding the planning and order of their work (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006), which enables employees to pursue valued goals and interests across work tasks (cf. Gagné & Deci, 2005;

Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010; Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016). Within MTM, scheduling autonomy refers to choosing and planning your own teams. This research draws

from the challenge-hindrance framework and proposes that the link between MTM and challenge and hindrance appraisals is moderated by scheduling autonomy (see Figure 1).

The challenge-hindrance framework refers to employees’ perception of job stressors (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). Challenge stressors offer the opportunity for personal growth or gain while hindering stressors conflict with these personal goals. Based on how employees appraise a stressor, they may experience positive or negative consequences from this stressor. Similar to how previous research considered the role of challenges and

hindrances in MTM (e.g., Van de Brake, Walter, Rink, Essens, & Van der Vegt, 2019), this research proposes that challenge and hindrance appraisals mediate the link between MTM and job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Employees may particularly appraise MTM as a challenge under high scheduling autonomy because employees are provided the opportunity to select teams that align with personally valued goals and interests. Employees may appraise MTM as a hindrance under low scheduling autonomy because when employees are assigned to teams, these teams may conflict with these goals and interests. In that sense, MTM reflects the extent to which employees can pursue their true interests and goals across the teams they are part of (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon, 2014), and scheduling autonomy enables employees to be part of teams that align with their personal interests.

Taken together, his paper aims to provide insights on the conflicting effects of MTM found in current literature. The goal is to disentangle under which circumstances MTM leads to the best outcomes for individuals and organizations. This is relevant for managers, because it allows them to best implement MTM in organizations (i.e. make optimal use of the benefits while reducing the negative effects). Additionally, this research aims to add to the theoretical body regarding the challenge-hindrance perspective on MTM. Specifically, it highlights how employee involvement in MTM decisions by allowing them to pick the teams they are part of may enhance MTMs outcomes (cf. LePine, Zhang, Crawford, & Rich, 2016).

Multiple Team Membership as a Challenge and a Hindrance

The present research is embedded in the challenge-hindrance framework (LePine et al., 2005). This theoretical framework revolves around the idea that employees appraise work stressors – work aspects that potentially strain employees – either as challenges or

hindrances. Challenge stressors are job demands that put strain on employees but

simultaneously provide employees with gains (Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, & LePine, 2004).

Hindrance stressors are job demands that lead employees to believe that they cannot cope with these stressors themselves, causing them to invest less effort over time (Abbas & Raja, 2019).

Employees’ appraisal of work stressors determines how work stressors affect

employees. While both types of stressors influence the total amount of strain that employees experience (Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007), challenge stressors such as time urgency and job responsibility (Rodell & Judge, 2009) are related to positive outcomes. For example, challenge stressors were found to improve communication effectiveness (Teng, Zhang, &

Lou, 2020), improve job performance (Pearsall, Ellis, & Stein, 2009) and decrease turnover intentions (Abbas & Raja, 2019). Next to this, Podsakoff and colleagues (2007) found that they positively influence job satisfaction and organizational commitment. On the contrary, hindrance stressors such as red tape and role ambiguity (Rodell & Judge, 2009) were found to increase turnover intentions (Abbas & Raja, 2019) and negatively influence learning

performance, the motivation to learn, organizational commitment and job satisfaction (LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004).

The characteristics of MTM as a source of challenge have been previously introduced in MTM research. Research indicated that MTM can be both a challenge and a hindrance (O’Leary et al., 2011). It is important that it is possible to cope with the strain that comes from MTM as a stressor. Specifically, Van de Brake and colleagues (2019) concluded that

employees can cope with it, because they can learn how to best work in multiple teams (O’Leary et al., 2011; Van de Brake, Walter, Rink & Essens, 2018). Thus, as employees become more familiar with MTM, they may start to reap the benefits of it. Therefore, MTM can fit within the definition of a challenge stressor. Van de Brake and colleagues (2019) are one of the first to discern under which work conditions MTM is a challenge or a hindrance.

MTM can be perceived as a challenge when it provides employees with learning

opportunities that may stem from new situations (Pluut, Flestea, & Curșeu, 2014). MTM may also be a challenge when employees must become more efficient in their effort to coordinate multiple demands across the many times employees are part of (O’Leary et al., 2011).

However, MTM can also have consequences that may be appraised as a hindrance.

The first ramification of MTM is that it leads to fragmentation of attention, which means that employees can struggle with their personal planning across multiple teams and their

respective responsibilities (O’Leary et al., 2011; Pluut et al., 2014). Moreover, when

employees perceive time-management hard to the extent that they are unable to cope with it, MTM can become a hindrance. Another negative aspect of MTM is the increased work complexity (O’Leary et al., 2011) that results from it. This may lead to work-related stress (Van Sell, Brief & Schuler, 1981), which can in-turn lower performance (Ayaz, Alamgir, &

Kahn, 2017). Next to this, work complexity can lead to role ambiguity. Researching

hindrances in MTM, Van de Brake et al. (2019) found a positive relationship between MTM and role ambiguity. Role ambiguity refers to a lack of clarity regarding what needs to be done to fulfill one’s role (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal, 1964)

Crucially, MTM is only beneficial when it is appraised as a challenge (LePine et al., 2016; O’Leary et al., 2011). Evidence attesting to when MTM is a challenge is scarce (cf.

Van de Brake et al., 2019). This may be because Van de Brake and colleagues (2019) assumed which specific work factors were challenges and which were hindrances. This was

noted as a limitation, and it is recommended that employees are asked to indicate to what extent they perceive the same work factor as a challenge or a hindrance (see also LePine et al., 2016). This is important, because employees may vary whether they appraise the same work aspects or job stressors as a challenge or a hindrance. Only recently have researchers started looking into this (LePine et al., 2016). Furthermore, organizations vary in their implementation of MTM, which may strongly impact whether MTM is perceived as a challenge or a hindrance (O’Leary et al., 2011).

Consequently, recent research regarding challenge-hindrance stressors has

increasingly including cognitive appraisal theory (c.f. LePine et al. 2016). This is focused around how primary and secondary appraisals (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) determine how stressors may cause employee attitudes and behaviors. The primary appraisal is the

assessment that revolves around determining whether a stressor a) is irrelevant for personal growth or gain b) offers opportunities for personal growth or gain or c) is a potential roadblock for personal growth or gain. Next, the secondary appraisal is an assessment of whether actions can be taken to deal with the stressor using different coping mechanisms (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; LePine et al., 2016). This perspective is interesting because it stresses that there can be various explanations regarding why employees may interpret similar stressors differently. For example, LePine and colleagues (2016) found that

charismatic leadership can influence these appraisals. Taken together, and as noted by Van de Brake and colleagues (2019), MTM can be a challenge as well as a hindrance. Therefore, it is proposed that:

Hypothesis 1a: Multiple team membership positively influences the challenge appraisals of employees.

Hypothesis 1b: Multiple team membership positively influences the hindrance appraisals of employees.

Job Satisfaction and Intrinsic Motivation as Outcomes of Multiple Team Membership through Challenge and Hindrance Appraisals

Job Satisfaction

The first work outcome that will be discussed is job satisfaction. This can be defined as the collection of the favorable- and unfavorable feelings and emotions that employees have regarding their work (Newstrom, 2007). This has been used as an important variable in work- related research as a general and important indicator for employee well-being that is related to important other employee-level and organization-level outcomes (c.f. Locke, 1968). For example, a meta-analysis by McShane (2009) showed that higher job satisfaction leads to lower absenteeism. Furthermore, job satisfaction is strongly negatively correlated with the intention to leave an organization (Lu, Lin, Wu, Hsieh, & Chang, 2002).

Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation will be used as the second work outcome. Amabile states:

“individuals are intrinsically motivated when they seek enjoyment, interest, satisfaction of curiosity, self-expression, or personal challenge in the work” (p. 188). As shown by LePine and colleagues (2004), challenge- and hindrance stressors have positive and negative effects respectively on the motivation of learners. This is useful information, because employees that are intrinsically motivated are more likely to share knowledge with their peers (Lin, 2007).

Additionally, intrinsic motivation has a positive effect on the job performance of employees (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014).

The Indirect Effects of Multiple Team Membership

Previous research has shown that MTM can have a strong effect on individual

employees (O’Leary et al., 2011, Van de Brake et al., 2018). As described before, this can be a positive effect caused by for example of learning opportunities (Pluut et al., 2014). On the contrary, it can also be a negative because of the reduced familiarity that employees

experience with other team members (Mortensen et al., 2007). Research has shown that employees experience lower levels of satisfaction and motivation when there are no opportunities for development (Drucker-Godard, Fouque, Gollety, and Le Flanchec, 2015;

Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Next to this, role ambiguity that is caused by MTM (Van de Brake et al., 2019) can in turn lead to lower levels of job satisfaction (Cervoni & DeLucia- Waack, 2011)

As described previously, it is expected that MTM stressors can lead to an increase and decrease of the perceived challenge and hindrance by employees. This is caused by the fact that there is a lot of alignment between the positive effects of MTM and key stimulants of challenge appraisals. An example of this are the learning opportunities that MTM provides (Pluut et al., 2014). Defining challenge stressor of sources of strain that provide opportunity for personal growth or gain (LePine et al., 2005), it seems logical that MTM could be considered as such. This can also be applied to the negative consequences of MTM and hindrance appraisals. Role ambiguity is described as a major downturn of MTM, as well as a major source of the hindrance that employees experience (LePine et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2007). Because of the strong similarities, it is proposed that MTM indirectly influences job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation through the challenge and hindrance that emerged because of MTM.

Generally, challenge appraisals are linked to favorable outcomes, whereas hindrance appraisals are linked to unfavorable outcomes (cf. LePine et al., 2005). LePine and colleagues (2005) showed that challenges improve both motivation to learn and job performance,

whereas hindrances reduce it. Podsakoff and colleagues (2007) showed similar effects for job satisfaction. However, literature remains inconclusive when and how these appraisals link to work outcomes, particularly within MTM. For example, Van de Brake and colleagues (2019) measured the relationship between MTM and performance through work challenges. They

found that only employees with high organizational tenure (23,2 years or more) experienced it as a challenge, suggesting that employees would need considerable experience to reap the benefits of MTM. Lower tenured employees experienced a decline in performance because of MTM and the related role ambiguity. Additionally, they found a relationship between MTM and role ambiguity which was used as a substitute for hindrance because it is highly related to hindrances (LePine et al., 2005). They argue that the main reason for this is the reduced time spent in each team which was shown in previous studies (Mortensen et al. 2007). This results in reduced team member familiarity (Mortensen, 2014) which in turn makes it difficult for employees to prioritize tasks. To better understand how MTM influences individual

outcomes, this research builds on the previous work by Van de Brake and colleagues (2019) using the mediating role of challenge and hindrance appraisals.

Instead of examining behavioral outcomes (absenteeism & performance) as done by Van de Brake and colleagues (2019), this paper looks at the work outcomes job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Following most previous research, it is expected that challenge positively influences job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation and that hindrance reduces them. The above leads to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a/b: Challenge appraisals are positively related to job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.

Hypothesis 3a/b: Hindrance appraisals are negatively related to job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.

Hypothesis 4a/b: Challenge appraisals mediate the link between MTM and job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.

Hypothesis 5a/b: Hindrance appraisals mediate the link between MTM and job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.

When is MTM a Challenge or a Hindrance: The Moderating Role of Scheduling Autonomy

Scheduling autonomy is the extent to which employees are allowed to decide the order in which they carry out their tasks and to plan their work (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Scheduling autonomy is an aspect of job autonomy, which Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) defined as “the extent to which a job allows freedom, independence, and discretion to schedule work, make decisions, and choose the methods used to perform tasks” (p. 1323).

Research on job autonomy showed that it is generally positively linked to job satisfaction and other important work outcomes (Humphrey, Nahrgang & Morgeson, 2007).

Autonomy plays a central role in the job demands-resource model (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Related research on this model showed that autonomy is an important job resource that can help employees to cope with their job demands. Thus, potential negative effects of job stressors may be partly mitigated by providing employees substantial autonomy in their job. Specifically, when people are given autonomy over their work, they will seek to reduce hindrances and increase challenges (Tims & Bakker, 2010). This seems to suggest that autonomy also plays a role in whether employees perceive MTM as a challenge or as a hindrance.

Indeed, one of the key challenges in MTM is coping with multiple demands from the many teams that employees are simultaneously part of, and many of these demands are related to planning and scheduling (O’Leary et al., 2011). One the one hand, these demands may be linked to coordination issues, such as when particular work should be finished, time pressure and deadlines. Providing employees scheduling autonomy enables them to choose teams as they see fit, which may help them cope with MTM demands (cf. Sun & Frese, 2013). On the other hand, some teams may be more interesting than other teams (cf. Shin &

Grant, 2019). Consequently, the interestingness and meaningfulness of work varies

depending on which teams employees are part of, which impacts employees’ intrinsic motivation. Scheduling autonomy may help employees in that regard, by providing them the opportunity to be part of teams that align with employees’ enduring interests and values (see also Sheldon, 2014; Neal, Ballard, & Vancouver, 2017). In short, scheduling autonomy may help employees to reap the benefits of MTM.

Essentially, employees engage in a type of job crafting. This refers to employees shaping the boundaries of their job to create an environment that fits their needs and

capabilities (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). The idea that employees shaping their job may influence the amount of challenge and hindrance that they perceive is not novel. Tims,

Bakker and Derks (2013) researched the effect of job crafting on hindering and challenging demands from the job demands-resources perspective. They did not find a decrease in challenges and hindrances as a result of job crafting. However, they have given multiple explanations for this and reasoned that further research was necessary. For example, they stated that employees may not have the possibility to add challenge or reduce hindrance. The present paper addresses this by investigating how choosing your own teams plays a role in this. Thus, it provides a clear means to add challenge and reduce hindrance. Below, it is explained how scheduling autonomy in MTM can allow employees to increase challenges and reduce hindrances.

Work complexity and time constraints

First, it is known that MTM can put a lot of strain on employees. Moreover, often the negative aspects of MTM tend to overrule the positive (Van de Brake et al., 2018). Therefore, it is important that the employee can assess upfront whether a specific team will introduce hindrances. The main hindrance that stems from MTM is caused by MTM making the work increasingly complex and by introducing time-constraints (O’Leary et al., 2011). Because of this, it is important that MTM is implemented in the right way. Specifically, the strain that

MTM puts on employees should not become unable to cope-with for employees so that it is not a hindrance stressor. This means that adding additional teams and thus time-constraints and complexity, should be done carefully. To reduce work-complexity, employees may engage in complexity-reducing changes such as restructuration of their tasks (Grant &

Ashford, 2008). When employees are selecting their own teams, they can use this as a means to reduce complexity. Although this does not necessarily remove the time-constraints, it ensures that employees are not overwhelmed by them. Therefore, scheduling autonomy can help to reduce the hindrances that stem from MTM.

Interesting team selection

Scheduling autonomy may allow employees to use MTM to create more challenges in their work. As described, MTM can be a challenge for employees. This is a direct result of the challenging consequences of MTM. The primary source of challenge in MTM is the increased learning opportunities (Pluut et al., 2014). MTM can allow employees to choose career paths that they like by joining teams or projects that are relating to the expertise and knowledge that they have or want to acquire (Mortensen et al. 2007). However, this statement it is implicated that employees can choose the teams of their liking. In practice, this may not always be the case in practice. The choice may be limited, or it might not have been the choice of the employee to work in multiple teams. The higher the extent that employees are able to select their teams, the more likely it is that the new teams are indeed challenging for them. This is known from job crafting theory, showing that employees will seek to add challenges if they are given the opportunity to form the work to their preference (Tims et al., 2013). When employees are placed in specific teams as a requirement of the employer, it is less likely that it suits their needs and capabilities. Therefore, scheduling autonomy may help reduce these problems.

This shows a lot of similarities to goal setting theory where Frese and Zapf (1994)

describe the distinct difference between goals set by supervisors and goals set by employees themselves. The extent to which employees are willing to work with assigned goals (and thus possibly assigned teams) depends on the extent to which these goals cause conflict with the goals of the individual (Kanfer, Frese & Johnson, 2017). Thus, this makes it less likely for assigned teams to be a challenge, causing that hindering aspects may prevail. Therefore, the extent of scheduling autonomy may be moderating the amount of learning opportunities that stem from MTM (Mortensen et al., 2007; Pluut et al., 2014).

In short, scheduling autonomy in MTM enables employees to use it to their advantage by creating opportunities for personal growth. Next to this, scheduling autonomy offers the opportunity for employees to address hindrances that stem from MTM. The above leads to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 6: Scheduling autonomy moderates the influence of multiple team membership on challenge appraisals. So that for employees with higher scheduling autonomy, they experience increased challenges.

Hypothesis 7: Scheduling autonomy moderates the influence of multiple team membership on hindrance appraisals. So that for employees with higher scheduling autonomy, they experience decreased hindrances.

All the hypotheses can be combined in the overarching model that proposes a moderated mediation. From this, the following hypotheses are constructed.

Hypothesis 8a/b: The indirect link between MTM and job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation via challenge appraisals is stronger under high compared to low

scheduling autonomy.

Hypothesis 9a/b: The indirect link between MTM and job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation via hindrance appraisals is weaker under high compared to low scheduling autonomy.

Method Respondents and Procedure

Data for this thesis was gathered using the Prolific platform. Both full- and part-time employees qualified for the survey if they were part of multiple teams. However, the minimum required number of hours worked was 21. Using screening questions, Prolific guarantees a high degree of representativeness. All respondents were from the United Kingdom or the United States.

Because Prolific does not allow non-default screening questions, respondents were asked about the number of teams they were part of. If they were a member of just one team, they were asked to close the survey. This led to an exclusion of fifteen (5,6%) of the

respondents. Additionally, nine respondents (3%) were excluded because they worked less than 21 hours per week. This means that from the 295 respondents that filled out the questionnaire, 271 qualified for the final sample. There were 183 (67,5%) female

participants, and 88 (32,5%) male participants. The mean age of this sample is 33.59 (SD = 9.10) and the average number of teams that participants engaged in is 2.55 (SD = .85). The education level varied from high school or equivalent (27,3%), bachelor’s degree (45%), graduate or professional degree (23.6%), Master of Business Administration (2.3%) to doctorate degree (1.8%). The organizational tenure in years ranged from 0 to 30 (M = 4.39, SD = 4.77). Next to this, the average years of work experience for the current employer is 14.5 (SD = 9.2). The data was gathered in one dataset and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26. Some participants provided erroneous responses, which led to the exclusion of an additional three data points (for details, see Appendix A). Only the scores for the invalid data points were deleted, the other answers of the respondent remained in the dataset. Thus, the final analyzed dataset contained N = 271 respondents.

Measures

Multiple Team Membership: In line with previous research (cf. Chan, 2014; Van de

Brake et al., 2019), MTM was measured as the number of teams that an individual was engaged in. Following Van de Brake and colleagues, (2018) teams with less than three members were excluded. The question asked was: “In how many work teams are you concurrently involved in your current job?” This led to the variable MTM (M = 2.55, SD = .85)

Challenge/Hindrance Appraisals: Challenge and Hindrance appraisals were both

measured using items developed by LePine and colleagues (2016). The single items consisted of one item for challenge appraisals and one for hindrance appraisals, both are measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all, 5 = Extremely). The item that was used for challenge appraisals was: “To what extent do you perceive your involvement in team X as a challenge?”

and the item used for hindrance was: “To what extent do you perceive your involvement in teams X as a hindrance?” The questions for both challenge- and hindrance were asked per team. These appraisals were then aggregated to the individual level which resulted in a single variable for challenge appraisals (Bliese, Chan & Ployhart, 2007; O’Leary et al., 2011; M = 2.97, SD = .91) and hindrance appraisals (M = 1.94, SD = .85)

Scheduling Autonomy: The moderating variable scheduling autonomy was measured

with a single item on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = I chose this team, 10 = This team was assigned to me). The question asked for this statement is: “To what extent did you choose for yourself to work in team X?” We used a single item measure, because we did not want to burden employees with filling in a lot of – in their experience – repetitive questions since they are part of multiple teams. This is in line with earlier team and multi-team research (cf.

Stewart, 2006; Van de Brake et al, 2019). The scores were aggregated to the individual level,

meaning that there was one overall scheduling autonomy score, which is the mean of all the scheduling autonomy ratings per team (M = 6.73, SD = 2.61).

Job satisfaction: Job satisfaction was measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1=

Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree) using three items. The scale has been developed by Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablinsky, and Erez (2001). The scale contains the question:

“Thinking specifically about your current job, to what extent do you agree with the

following?” The respondents then answered four statements. An example item of this scale is: “I find real enjoyment in my job.” From these three items the job satisfaction variable was calculated (M = 5.18, SD = 1.34, α = .935). The full questionnaire is added in Appendix B.

Intrinsic Motivation: Intrinsic motivation was measured with four items on a seven-

point Likert scale (1= Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). This scale was previously used by Guay, Vallerand & Blanchard (2000). The scale contains the question “Why are you currently engaged in your current job?” Next, the respondents answer this question by rating four statements, an example item is: “Because I think that my job is interesting.” The four items were combined into a single average intrinsic motivation score (M = 5.03, SD = 1.36, α

= .911). The full questionnaire is added in Appendix C.

Results Preliminary Analyses

For the analyses, seven control variables were used. These are gender, age, education, hours worked per week, tenure, work experience and the years that employees worked under their current supervisor. These control variables did not significantly impact the outcomes of the analyses. Therefore, the analyses are reported without control variables. In Table 1, means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations are presented for all variables used in this study, including control variables. People work in an average of 2.55 teams (SD = .85). It is important to note that employees that worked in only one team were excluded from the

survey prior to analysis. However, this was only 5.6%. Surprisingly, MTM is only very weakly correlated with any of the other variables. The two work outcomes (job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation) are both correlated with challenge, hindrance and scheduling (r’s between -.39 and .38).

Hypothesis Testing

In all analyses, the variables that define interactions were mean-centered prior to respective analysis. All hypotheses were analyzed using the PROCESS v3.5 SPSS extension (Hayes & Little, 2018).

Two analyses were used for hypotheses 1-5. Both analyses used PROCESS model four with MTM as independent variable and both challenge- and hindrance appraisals as mediating variables. Depending on the hypothesis, either job satisfaction or intrinsic motivation has been used as the dependent variable.

Hypotheses 1a and 1b refer to the expected positive influence of multiple team membership on challenge and hindrance appraisals. For MTM and challenge appraisals (hypothesis 1a), no significant association was found (b = -.065, SEb = .066, t(271) = -.998 p

= .319). This means that hypothesis 1a is rejected. Analyzing hypothesis 1b, MTM was also not significantly linked to hindrance appraisals (b = .118, SEb = .061, t(271) = 1.948 p = .053). Strictly, hypothesis 1b is not supported, but there was a clear trend. Based on this study, MTM does influence hindrance appraisals (b = .118) more than challenge appraisals (b

= -.065).

Hypotheses 2a and 2b considered the expected positive relationship between challenge appraisals and the work outcomes job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation, respectively. The first analysis used job satisfaction as dependent variable and the second analysis used intrinsic motivation as dependent variable. Hypothesis 2a was confirmed (b = .462, SEb = .079, t(271) = 5.852 p < .000), this is also the case for hypothesis 2b (b = .362,

SEb = .084, t(271) = 4.337 p < .000). This means that employees that appraise their work stressors as challenges experience higher job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation

On the contrary, hypothesis 3a and 3b expected a negative relationship between hindrance appraisals and job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. The results showed that both hypothesis 3a (b = -.645, SEb = .086, t(271) = -7.534 p < .000) and 3b (b = -.579, SEb = .091, t(271) = -6.394 p < .000) were supported. In practice, this shows that employees that appraise their work stressors as hindrances experience lower levels of job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.

Hypothesis 4a and 4b considered the mediating link that challenge appraisals have between MTM work outcomes job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. First, the results showed that MTM was related with job satisfaction (b = .209, SEb = .085, t(271) = 2.459, p = .015) and that there was a trend between MTM and intrinsic motivation (b = .176, SEb = .09, t(271) = 1.953 p = .051). Next to this, bootstrapping revealed that challenge appraisals did not mediate this link for both job satisfaction (estimate: -.09; BCa CI: [-.105, .031]) and intrinsic motivation (estimate: -.024; BCa CI: [-.085, .024]). In short, hypothesis 4a and 4b are rejected. This means that challenge appraisals do not mediate the effect of MTM on both job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.

Where hypotheses 4a and 4b considered challenge appraisals as a mediator,

hypotheses 5a and 5b suggested hindrance appraisals as a mediator between MTM and the work outcomes job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. The bootstrapping results showed that both hypothesis 5a [-0.17, 0.01] and 5b (estimate: -.068; BCa CI: [-.155, .009]) were not supported. This means that hindrance appraisals do not mediate MTMs effect on job

satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.

Hypothesis 6 was analyzed using PROCESS model one. Hypothesis 6 stated that scheduling moderates the link between MTM and challenge appraisals, expecting that under

high scheduling challenge appraisals are higher. The analysis used MTM as independent variable, scheduling autonomy as moderating variable, challenge appraisals as dependent variable, and hindrance appraisals as control variable. MTM and challenge appraisals were not linked (b = -.062, SEb = .066, t(270) = -.939, p = .349). Scheduling and challenge appraisals were also not significantly linked (b = -.023, SEb = .022, t(270) = -1.051, p = .294). Lastly, the interaction term showed that the moderating effect of scheduling on the relationship between MTM and challenge appraisals was not significant (b = -.049, SEb = .028, t(270) = -1.726, p = .0856). For lower levels of scheduling autonomy (1 SD below the mean), MTM and challenge appraisals were still unrelated (b = .065, SEb = .104, t(270) = - .617, p = .537). However, under high (+ 1 SD) scheduling autonomy conditions, MTM does have a significant effect on the amount of challenge that is appraised (b = -.188, SEb = .093, t(270) = -2.033, p = .04). Hypothesis 6 expected that under high scheduling autonomy, higher MTM would result in higher challenge appraisal. Thus, the finding is the direct opposite of this expectation.

Hypothesis 7 considered the moderating effect of scheduling on MTM and hindrance appraisals. Identical to hypothesis 6, PROCESS model one was used to analyze this

hypothesis. In this analysis, MTM was the independent variable, scheduling autonomy the moderator, and hindrance appraisals the dependent variable. Additionally, challenge appraisals was used as a control variable. MTM and hindrance appraisals were marginally significantly linked (b = .119, SEb = .061, t(270) = 1.949, p = .052). Scheduling and hindrance appraisals were significantly linked (b = .024, SEb = .020, t(270) = 1.193, p = .234). Lastly, the interaction term revealed that there was no moderating effect of scheduling on the link between MTM and hindrance appraisals (b = .002, SEb = .026, t(270) = .084, p = .93).

Finally, hypotheses 8a, 8b, 9a and 9b proposed a moderated mediation. All four analyses were done with PROCESS model seven. Hypothesis 8a proposed that the indirect link between MTM and job satisfaction via challenge appraisals is stronger under high compared to low scheduling autonomy. For this analysis, MTM was the independent variable, scheduling autonomy the moderating variable, challenge appraisals the mediating variable and job satisfaction the dependent variable. Based on the results (estimate: .019; BCa CI: [-.051, .005]), this hypothesis is rejected.

Hypothesis 8b considered the indirect link between MTM and intrinsic motivation via challenge appraisals is stronger under high compared to low scheduling autonomy. In this analysis, MTM was the independent variable, scheduling autonomy the moderating variable, challenge appraisals the mediating variable, and intrinsic motivation the dependent variable.

The results show there is no moderated mediation (estimate: -,015; BCa CI: [-.040, .003]).

Hypothesis 9a referred to the indirect link between MTM and job satisfaction via hindrance appraisals is stronger under high compared to low scheduling autonomy. For this analysis, MTM was used as the independent variable, scheduling autonomy as the

moderating variable, hindrance appraisals as the mediating variable, and job satisfaction as the dependent variable. The results show that this hypothesis is rejected (estimate: .002; BCa CI: [-.035, .033]).

Hypothesis 9b stated that the indirect link between MTM and job satisfaction via hindrance appraisals is stronger under high compared to low scheduling autonomy. For this analysis, MTM was the independent variable, scheduling autonomy the moderating variable, hindrance appraisals the mediating variable, and intrinsic motivation the dependent variable.

The findings indicate that there is no moderated mediation (estimate: .002; BCa CI: [-.032, .031]).

The findings of hypotheses 8a, 8b, 9a and 9b show that there is no moderated

mediation. In practice, this means that the indirect effect that MTM has on job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation via challenge and hindrance appraisals is not moderated by the amount of scheduling autonomy that employees perceive.

Additional analyses

The hypotheses focused on employee autonomy to choose the teams that they work in. The analyses revealed that MTM is only linked to job satisfaction, but that challenge- and hindrance appraisals do not mediate this relationship. Additionally, the correlation table showed that there was no strong relationship between MTM and other variables. Because of these unexpected results, it was decided to further investigate the effect of MTM and

autonomy. Specifically, we decided to analyze whether MTM influences the relationship of an employees’ autonomy within the teams on challenge- and hindrance appraisals, job

satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Scholars have displayed the effect of autonomy on these variables (cf. Boswell et al., 2004; Ohly & Fritz, 2010; Zangaro & Soeken, 2007). Therefore, it is interesting to investigate whether the number of teams that employees work in impacts these relationships.

These additional analyses were possible, because this research is part of an

overarching research project and more data was available. The added autonomy variable that was used has been developed by Morgeson & Humphrey (2006). The extent to which

employees are autonomous within their teams was measured with the following item: “In this team, I am allowed to make my own decisions about how to schedule my work.” Employees answered these questions per team they were part of and used a Likert-type rating scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). The scores were aggregated to the individual level and the variable that resulted from this is within-team autonomy (M = 4.89, SD = 1.12)

Thus, based on the previous results and by recommendation from the supervisor, additional analyses have been done with the variable within-team autonomy. Specifically,

two moderated mediation analyses were done using PROCESS model 7. Both analyses used within-team autonomy as independent variable, MTM as moderator and challenge- and hindrance appraisals as mediators. One analysis used job satisfaction as dependent variable, and one used intrinsic motivation. This allows to test the indirect effects of within-team autonomy on job satisfaction through challenge and hindrance appraisals.

Results showed that, indeed, within-team autonomy is positively linked to job satisfaction (b = .032, SEb = .065, t(271) = 5.008, p < .000) and intrinsic motivation (b = .033, SEb = .069, t(271) = 4.903, p < .000), regardless of MTM. Additionally, within-team autonomy was found to significantly increase challenge appraisals (b = .121, SEb = .049, t(271) = 2.446, p = .015) and reduce hindrance appraisals(b = -.197, SEb = .045, t(271) = - 4.440, p < .000). Next, the interaction terms revealed that MTM was not moderating this link for both challenge appraisals (b = .034, SEb = .056, t(271) = .600, p = .550) and hindrance appraisals (b = .006, SEb = .051, t(271) = .112, p = .910). Interestingly, challenge appraisals did mediate the link between within-team autonomy and both job satisfaction (estimate: .046;

BCa CI: [.005, .097]) and intrinsic motivation (estimate: .034; BCa CI: [.002, .081]).

Hindrance appraisals did mediate this link as well, for both job satisfaction (estimate: .098;

BCa CI: [.043, .165]) and intrinsic motivation (estimate: .085; BCa CI: [.033, .147]). Thus, within-team autonomy is linked to job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation, and this link is mediated by challenge- and hindrance appraisals.

Further investigating the effect of MTM, two moderation analyses were done with PROCESS model 1 to determine whether MTM moderates the link between within-team autonomy and job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. The analyses used within-team autonomy as independent variable, MTM as moderator, and either job satisfaction or intrinsic motivation as dependent variable. The interaction terms revealed that this was not the case for

both job satisfaction (b = .104, SEb = .076, t(271) = 1.362, p = .174) and intrinsic motivation (b = .093, SEb = .078, t(271) = 1.206, p = .229).

To summarize, within-team autonomy was found to lead to more job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation through both challenge- and hindrance appraisals. While relationships were found between within-team autonomy and all these variables, MTM did not moderate any of these effects.

Lastly, a linear regression between scheduling autonomy and the work outcomes has been done. The analyses used scheduling autonomy as independent variable and either job satisfaction or intrinsic motivation as dependent variable. This showed that scheduling autonomy did significantly influence both job satisfaction (b = -.082, SEb = .031, t(268) = - 2.641, p = .009) and intrinsic motivation (b = -.072, SEb = .031, t(268) = -2.281, p = .023).

Contrary to expectation, the higher the extent to which employees are choosing their own teams, the lower the extent to which they are satisfied and intrinsically motivated.

Discussion

This paper set out to investigate how choosing your own teams moderates the link between MTM and challenge- and hindrance appraisals. It was expected that employees having more freedom to choose their own teams would have more challenge and reduced hindrance compared to people that were engaging in MTM as a requirement of the employer. The first part of the model expected MTM to influence the challenge- and hindrance appraisals of employees. This was not significantly supported for both, although hindrance appraisals showed a trend. Next, support was found for hindrance appraisals negatively influencing job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. On the contrary, challenge appraisals were found to positively influence both outcomes. No support was found for challenge- and hindrance appraisals as a mediator between MTM and both job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.

Lastly, no support was found for scheduling as a moderator on the link between MTM and

either challenge- or hindrance appraisals. Interestingly, additional analyses showed that choosing your own team led to lower job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Next to this, the additional analyses revealed how within-team autonomy plays a role in employees’ work outcomes in an MTM setting.

Theoretical Implications

The core idea of this paper revolved around employee autonomy in MTM.

Specifically, it was expected that as employees work in more teams, increasing strain, employees that are choosing teams themselves can use this to increase the challenges and reduce the hindrances. This was not supported. On the contrary, the results showed that challenge- and hindrance appraisals mediate the link between within-team autonomy and both job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. This is interesting, because it shows that employees are using their autonomy within teams to create more challenge and reduce hindrance, which in-turn leads to positive outcomes for job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Previous research regarding employees shaping their job to increase challenge and reduce hindrance has been done by Tims and colleagues (2013). They investigated the effect of employees crafting their jobs on challenge- and hindrance appraisals but did not find a relationship for both variables.

There may be different explanations for the conflicting findings. In the present paper, it was reasoned that when employees choose their own teams, they can select teams that fit their interests and needs. However, even when employees are allowed to choose the teams themselves, the available options may be limited and lack options that fit with the interests of the employee. MTMs hindering consequences revolve around increased time-constraints and fragmentation of attention between teams (O’Leary et al., 2011). Therefore, even when employees select teams that align with their interests and goals, fragmentation of attention and increased time-constraint remain. Thus, it may be difficult to address the negative effects

of MTM by selecting your own teams. On the contrary, when employees are autonomous within their teams, they are able to address these negative consequences, which was shown by the results of the data.

In contrast to expectations, an additional analysis showed that employees that were able to choose their own teams were less satisfied and less intrinsically motivated than employees that were assigned to their teams. When the autonomy in team selection was high, it also negatively moderated the link between MTM and challenge. This can potentially be explained by looking at how expectations can influence attitudes. Korte, Brunhaver &

Sheppard (2015), showed that when graduates enter the workplace, they often have great expectations. However, often these great expectations are not met. This misinterpretation then causes the newcomers to be dissatisfied with their job. It is possible that this expectancy component is also explaining the findings of this paper. When employees choose teams that appear very interesting to them, they may have great expectations of these teams. In turn, these expectations cause them to be disappointed when the teams do not match the (unrealistic) expectations.

In this paper, MTM has been described as a potential source of challenge and hindrance. This perspective was previously taken by Van de Brake and colleagues (2019).

Identical to this paper, they also did not find a relationship between MTM and challenge.

Next to this, they found a relationship for MTM and role ambiguity, which they used as a substitute for hindrance. In this study, MTM and hindrance were also found to be marginally significant (p = .053). While more research needs to be done to determine in detail how MTM interacts with the challenge-hindrance framework, this paper combined with the paper by Van de Brake and colleagues (2019) indicate that MTMs consequences are more

appraised as hindering than challenging.

The influence of MTM has been analyzed in different ways. Among others, it has been tested as the direct predictor of challenge, hindrance, job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation and as a moderator for the relationships between within-team autonomy and these work outcomes. Overall, the findings showed that MTM did not play a crucial role in most relationships. The effects that were found persisted, regardless of the number of teams that employees were part of. This seems to suggest that the number of teams is not the most important factor in MTM research. Instead, the additional analyses revealed that whether employees have autonomy within teams was found to be a crucial predictor of the

aforementioned outcomes under both high and low MTM. This finding represents a new perspective on the conditions under which MTM can be beneficial.

Practical Implications

For managers, this paper is useful because it can help them understand how to reap the benefits of MTM. This is especially important because a lot of employees are engaging in MTM (O’Leary et al., 2011). Where possible, managers should stimulate MTM, as this will lead to more satisfied and motivated employees. Next to this, the importance of autonomy that employees have within teams is stressed by this paper. As previously stated by Tims and colleagues (2013), employees use this to add challenge and reduce hindrance in their work.

Thus, giving employees autonomy within their teams allows them to deal with the negative consequences, such as time constraints. The positive influence that this autonomy has on the satisfaction and motivation exists regardless of MTM. However, employees may have difficulties with planning in a strong MTM setting (O’Leary et al., 2011). Therefore, autonomy could in this case be detrimental. It is known that companies are very different regarding the implementation of MTM (O’Leary et al., 2011). Managers could make use of a central planning or support the employees specifically with their planning to solve this issue.

Strength and Limitations

Interesting findings have been done by this paper which may be a result of the methodical and theoretical strengths of this paper. First, most of the instruments that were used to measure the concepts in the study have been used before and are reliable, increasing the validity of the findings. This is especially crucial for challenge and hindrance, which is known to be susceptible to variance based on the measurement instrument (Searle & Auton, 2015). Next to this, the respondents were also gathered from a research platform which guaranteed a representative sample.

On the contrary, Also, MTM was measured solely on the number of teams that employees worked in. O’Leary and colleagues (2011) describe another characteristic of MTM called variety. This refers to the extent to which the teams people work in are different from each other. This dimension would have been interesting for this study as MTM with high variety between teams is related to increased complexity. As work complexity relates to hindrances, it may have influenced the findings of this paper.

Furthermore, although it is relatively straightforward, the scale that was used for scheduling autonomy (To what extent did you choose for yourself to work in team X?) was new. Moreover, the operationalization that was applied to this concept is significant. Thus, using autonomy in choosing the teams you work in as a derivative of scheduling autonomy like it has been defined by Morgeson & Humphrey (2006), is a limitation of this paper and reduces its validity.

Next to this, the sample size (N = 271) is relatively small which limits the

generalizability of the findings. The respondents of the sample also originated solely from the United Kingdom and the United States. This means that the generalizability of the results is limited.

Additionally, all the variables were measured using a survey that was filled out by the respondent. Therefore, it is possible that common method bias occurred in this study

(Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Because this study was part of an overarching research project, some questions may have seemed repetitive to the respondent. In turn, this may have caused pressure on the respondents to give consistent answers, increasing the common method bias (Chang, Van Witteloostuijn, & Eden, 2010).

Directions for Future Research

The findings in this paper raise new questions regarding how autonomy within teams and autonomy regarding team selection play a role in MTM. Moreover, the findings of this paper indicate that not just the number of teams is important in MTM, but that the work environment within the teams is an important factor. This perspective has not been taken in previous MTM research. Future MTM research could use this perspective to advance our knowledge about how the work environment within teams influences when MTM leads to positive and negative consequences.

As described in the previous paragraph as a limitation, even when employees have autonomy in choosing their teams, there may not be suitable options that align with the goals and interests of the employee. Future research could look at whether when the range of teams that employees can choose from, and thus the available opportunities for growth, the effect of choosing your own teams becomes more prevalent.

Furthermore, this paper showed that challenge and hindrance appraisals mediate the link between the autonomy that employees have within teams and both job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. This is an interesting finding, because it highlights that employees can add improvements to their work in teams when they are given the autonomy to do so. Future research should further investigate the interaction between different types of autonomy and these variables.

Conclusion

This paper set out to discover the influence of choosing your own teams in an MTM setting on the work outcomes for employees. When employees choose their own teams, they are more satisfied and motivated. MTM also was found to be more strongly related to hindrances than challenges, but hindrance did not mediate the link between MTM and employee work outcomes. Finally, additional analyses of this paper showed the importance of autonomy within teams, leading to important theoretical implications for MTM related research.

References

Abbas, M., & Raja, U. (2019). Challenge-hindrance stressors and job outcomes: the moderating role of conscientiousness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9535-z

Ayaz, S., Alamgir, S., & Kahn, M. S. A., (2017). Job Stress and Work Performance of Marketing Professionals. Management, Social Sciences & Economics, 15(1), 1-14.

https://doi.org/10.31384/jisrmsse/2017.15.1.1

Bakker, A. B., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2013). Weekly work engagement and flourishing: the role of hindrance and challenge job demands. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 83(3), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.008

Bliese, P. D., Chan, D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007). Multilevel methods: future directions in measurement, longitudinal analyses, and nonnormal outcomes. Organizational Research Methods, 10(4), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107301102 Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & LePine, M. A. (2004). Relations between stress and work outcomes: the role of felt challenge, job control, and psychological strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 165–181.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00049-6

Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661

Cervoni, A., & DeLucia-Waack, J. (2011). Role conflict and ambiguity as predictors of job satisfaction in high school counselors. Journal of School Counseling, 9(1). Retrieved from http://jsc.montana.edu/articles/v9n1.pdf

Chan, K.Y., (2014). Multiple project team membership and performance: empirical evidence from engineering project teams. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 17(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v17i1.875

Chang, S.J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.88

Drucker-Godard, C., Fouque, T., Gollety, M., & Le Flanchec, A. (2015). Career plateauing, job satisfaction and commitment of scholars in french universities. Public

Organization Review: A Global Journal, 15(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s111 15-014-0280-0

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnettee, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology 2(4): 271–340. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press

Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation: self- determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002 Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the situational motivation scale (sims).

Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 175–213.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005614228250 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

Hayes, A. F., & Little, T. D. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach (Second, Ser. Methodology in the social sciences). Guilford Press.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964).

Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: a century of progress. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 338–355.

https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000133

Korte, R., Brunhaver, S., & Sheppard, S. (2015). (mis)interpretations of organizational socialization: the expectations and experiences of newcomers and managers.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(2), 185–208.

https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21206

Kwon, S. W., & Adler, P. S. 2014. Social capital: Maturation of a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 39(4): 412-422.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Pub.

LePine, J., LePine, M., & Jackson, C. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883-891. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883

LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P. and 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

LePine, M. A., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. L. (2016). Turning their pain to gain:

charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1036–1059.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0778

Lin, H.-F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 135-149.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506068174

Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(4), 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0

Lu, K.-Y., Lin, P.-L., Wu, C.-M., Hsieh, Y.-L., & Chang, Y.-Y. (2002). The relationships among turnover intentions, professional commitment, and job satisfaction of hospital nurses. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(4), 214–219.

https://doi.org/10.1053/jpnu.2002.127573

McShane, S. L. (2009). Job satisfaction and absenteeism: a meta-analytic re-examination.

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L'administration, 1(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.1984.tb00721.x

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069391

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (wdq):

developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–39.

https://doi.org/10.1037/t01810-000

Mortensen, M. (2014). Constructing the team: the antecedents and effects of membership model divergence. Organization Science, 25(3), 909–931.

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0881

Mortensen, M., Woolley, A. W., O'Leary, M. (2007). Conditions enabling effective multiple team membership. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication

Technology, 236, 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73025-7_16

Naseer, S., Donia, M. B. L., Syed, F., & Bashir, F. (2020). Too much of a good thing: the interactive effects of cultural values and core job characteristics on hindrance stressors and employee performance outcomes. Human Resource Management, 59(3), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21993

Neal, A., Ballard, T., & Vancouver, J. B. (2017). Dynamic self-regulation and multiple-goal pursuit. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational

Behavior, 4(1), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113156

Newstrom, D. (2007). Organisation behaviour. Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co Ltd.

Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and

proactive behavior: a multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 543–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.633

O’Leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: a theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and

teams. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 461–478.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0275

Pearsall, M., Ellis, A., & Stein, J. (2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 18-28.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.02.002

Pluut, H., Flestea, A. M., & Curseu, P. L. (2014). Multiple team membership: a demand or resource for employees? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 18(4), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000016

Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor- hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 438–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438

Rodell, J., & Judge, T. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? the mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1438-1451.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016752

Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: a theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30(C), 91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Sheldon, K. M. (2014). Becoming oneself: the central role of self-concordant goal selection. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(4), 349–365.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538549

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well- being: the self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 76(3), 482–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482

Shin, J., & Grant, A. M. (2019). Bored by interest: how intrinsic motivation in one task can reduce performance on other tasks. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 415–

436. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0735

Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32(1), 29–55.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277792

Sun, S. H., & Frese, M. (2013). Multiple goal pursuit. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (p. 177–194).

Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Teng, E., Zhang, L., & Lou, M. (2020). I am talking but are you listening? the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on effective communication. Human

Performance, 1-17, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2020.1724111

Tims, M., & 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/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230–

40. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032141

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. & Derks, D. (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.

Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person- job fit and meaningfulness: a three-wave study. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 92(February), 44–53.

Van de Brake, H. J., Walter, F., Rink, F. A., & Essens, P. J. M. D. (2018). The dynamic relationship between multiple team membership and individual job performance in knowledge‐intensive work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(9): 1219-1231.

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2260

Van de Brake, H. J., Walter, F., Rink, F., Essens, P., & Vegt, V. 2019. Benefits and

disadvantages of individuals’ multiple team membership: The moderating role of organizational tenure. Journal of Management Studies, 34(1).

https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12539

Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981). Role conflict and role ambiguity:

integration of the literature and directions for future research. Human Relations, 34(1), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678103400104

Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. (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

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011

Zangaro, G. A., & Soeken, K. L. (2007). A meta-analysis of studies of nurses' job satisfaction. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 445–458.

https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20202

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of the Proposed Variables and Relations