Explore the vast range of titles available.

The challenge-hindrance model of stress proposes that stressors can be divided into two distinct groups: those that challenge employees and those that hinder employees. This critical review seeks to explain the history of the model and its basic tenets, while succinctly summarizing the findings of existing studies based on the model. A thorough search of the stress literature uncovered 32 studies that specifically examined the relationship between challenge and hindrance stressors and important personal/organizational variables. Results were reviewed and analyzed, specifically by describing past meta-analyses on the model, looking at the overall pattern of results from primary studies, and meta-analyzing the relationships presented in those papers. This synthesis suggests that although there are some differential relationships of challenge and hindrance stressors with organizational variables (e.g., performance and engagement), the relationships to other key variables, such as counterproductive work behaviors, psychological strains, and physical health, are consistently negative for both challenge and hindrance stressors. Thus, we propose that stress research move away from the current challenge-hindrance model in favor of other established models and/or a more appraisal-based approach.

There are many ways to categorize work-related stressors, and in recent years, a common distinction in occupational health psychology is between stressors viewed as challenges versus hindrances. Is this a useful conceptualization that provides practical and theoretical implications for IO psychologists? As Kurt Lewin famously prescribed, “there is nothing so practical as a good theory,” and we discuss the challenge–hindrance framework as a developing theory that can be useful for researchers and practitioners. We note that some of the early thinking and development of the challenge–hindrance distinction relied on both resource and appraisal theories of stress. Overall, we find that the challenge–hindrance distinction can be viewed as a framework that is useful by producing interesting, valuable, and innovative research. Simply striving to find meaningful and useful categorizations of stressors can lead us to discover new insights into the occupational stress domain, and the challenge–hindrance categories have already spurred a great deal of research.

Emotional labor (expressing emotions as part of one’s job duties, as in “service with a smile”) can be beneficial for employees, organizations, and customers. Meta-analytical summaries reveal that deep acting (summoning up the appropriate feelings one wants to display) generally has positive outcomes. Unlike surface acting (faking emotions), deep acting does not harm employee well-being, and deep acting is positively related with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance, and customer satisfaction. Emerging research also suggests that a third form of emotional labor, natural and genuine emotional labor, is a frequently used emotional labor strategy that has positive effects for both employees and customers. We examine how identity processes shape how employees experience emotional labor, and we maintain that when employees identify with their roles, emotional labor augments and affirms their identity. Person-job fit is an important moderator that influences whether emotional labor enhances or hinders employee well-being. Emotional labor may also have positive outcomes when organizations grant more autonomy and adopt positive display rules that call for the expression of positive emotions. Recent research also indicates that emotional labor strategies may improve leadership effectiveness. Research opportunities on the bright side of emotional labor are abundant.