Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
So far, so good
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
So far, so good
Do you wish to request the book?
So far, so good
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
So far, so good
2019
Overview
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.
