问题解决要求对工作投入的作用机制—基于压力认知评价理论视角

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2025.03.017

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究基于压力认知评价理论探讨问题解决要求影响工作投入的中介机制，并尝试从个体应对策略以及领导行为两方面揭示其中的调节机制。采用问题解决要求、压力认知评价、工作投入、SOC策略、教练型领导量表对某国企职员进行两时点施测，有效匹配227份。结果表明：(1)问题解决要求通过挑战性评价对工作投入产生正向间接影响，通过阻碍性评价对工作投入产生负向间接影响；(2)SOC策略强化问题解决要求通过挑战性评价对工作投入的间接正向影响，当SOC策略水平较高时，会增强员工对问题解决要求的挑战性评价，进而增强对工作投入的正向影响；(3)教练型领导缓解问题解决要求通过阻碍性评价对工作投入的负向间接影响，当教练型领导水平较高时，会缓解员工对问题解决要求的阻碍性评价，进而缓解对工作投入的负向影响。

关键词: 问题解决要求, 认知评价, 工作投入, SOC策略, 教练型领导

Abstract:

Based on the cognitive appraisal theory of stress, this study explored the mediating mechanism of problem solving demands on work engagement and attempted to reveal the moderating mechanism from the aspects of individual coping strategies and leadership behaviors. The staff of a state-owned enterprise were tested at two time points using the scales of problem solving demands, stress cognitive appraisal, selection, optimization, and compensation strategy, coaching leadership and work engagement. There were 227 samples that were effectively matched. The results showed that: 1) Problem-solving demands had a positive indirect effect on work engagement through challenge appraisal and a negative indirect effect through hindrance appraisal. 2) The SOC strategies enhanced the positive indirect effect of problem-solving demands on work engagement through challenge appraisal. When the level of SOC strategies was high, it increased employees’ challenge appraisals of problem-solving demands, thereby enhanced the positive impact on work engagement. 3) Coaching leadership alleviated the negative indirect effect of problem-solving demands on work engagement through hindrance appraisal. When the level of coaching leadership was high, it alleviated employees’ hindrance appraisals of problem-solving demands, thereby reduced the negative impact on work engagement.

Key words: problem solving demands, cognitive appraisal, work engagement, SOC strategy, coaching leadership

马露露, 王悦, 马红宇, 涂艳, 孙琛, 战祥平. 问题解决要求对工作投入的作用机制—基于压力认知评价理论视角[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(3): 415-422.

Lulu MA, Yue WANG, Hongyu MA, Yan TU, Chen SUN, Xiangping ZHAN. The Mechanism of Problem Solving Demands on Work Engagement: Based on the Perspective of Cognitive Appraisal Theory of Stress[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2025, 23(3): 415-422.

图/表 6

参考文献 0

	姜福斌, 王震. 压力认知评价理论在管理心理学中的应用: 场景、方式与迷思. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30 (12): 2825- 2845. DOI
	汤丹丹, 温忠麟. 共同方法偏差检验: 问题与建议. 心理科学, 2020, 43 (1): 215- 223.
	Bajor, J. K., & Baltes, B. B. The relationship between selection optimization with compensation, conscientiousness, motivation, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2003, 63 (3): 347- 367. DOI
	Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2007, 1 (1): 115- 128. DOI
	Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2010, 95 (5): 834- 848. DOI
	Cullinane, S. J., Bosak, J., Flood, P. C., & Demerouti, E. Job design under lean manufacturing and the quality of working life: A job demands and resources perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2014, 25 (21): 2996- 3015. DOI
	Daniels, K., Wimalasiri, V., Beesley, N., & Cheyne, A. Affective well-being and within-day beliefs about job demands’ influence on work performance: An experience sampling study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2012, 85 (4): 666- 674. DOI
	Di Fabio, A., & Bucci, O. Green positive guidance and green positive life counseling for decent work and decent lives: Some empirical results. Frontiers in Psychology, 2016, 7, 261.
	Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Bachrach, D. G., Wang, Y. L., & Elmadağ Baş, A. B. Organizational investments in social capital, managerial coaching, and employee work-related performance. Management Learning, 2011, 42 (1): 67- 85. DOI
	Espedido, A., & Searle, B. J. (2020). Daily proactive problem-solving and next day stress appraisals: The moderating role of behavioral activation. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 33(4), 416–428.
	Espedido, A., & Searle, B. J. Proactivity, stress appraisals, and problem-solving: A cross-level moderated mediation model. Work & Stress, 2021, 35 (2): 132- 152.
	Espedido, A., Searle, B. J., & Griffin, B. Peers, proactivity, and problem-solving: A multilevel study of team impacts on stress appraisals of problem-solving demands. Work & Stress, 2020, 34 (3): 219- 237.
	Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. Life-management strategies of selection, optimization and compensation: Measurement by self-report and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002, 82 (4): 642- 662. DOI
	Grant, A. M. Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 2012, 55 (2): 458- 476. DOI
	Gutnick, D., Walter, F., Nijstad, B. A., & de Dreu, C. K. W. Creative performance under pressure: An integrative conceptual framework. Organizational Psychology Review, 2012, 2 (3): 189- 207. DOI
	Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 16 (2): 250- 279. DOI
	Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
	Huo, M. L., & Boxall, P. Are all aspects of lean production bad for workers? An analysis of how problem-solving demands affect employee well-being. Human Resource Management Journal, 2018, 28 (4): 569- 584. DOI
	Kim, B. J. The influence of coaching leadership on safety behavior: The mediating effect of psychological safety and moderating effect of perspective taking. Journal of Digital Convergence, 2022, 20 (5): 443- 451.
	Kim, S., Egan, T. M., Kim, W., & Kim, J. The impact of managerial coaching behavior on employee work-related reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2013, 28 (3): 315- 330. DOI
	Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
	LePine, M. A., Zhang, Y. W., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. L. Turning their pain to gain: Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 2016, 59 (3): 1036- 1059. DOI
	Lian, H. W., Yam, K. C., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. Self-control at work. The Academy of Management Annals, 2017, 11 (2): 703- 732. DOI
	Ma, J., Peng, Y. S., & Wu, B. Challenging or hindering? The roles of goal orientation and cognitive appraisal in stressor-performance relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2021, 42 (3): 388- 406. DOI
	Ma, L. L., Ma, H. Y., Zhan, X. P., & Wang, Y. How do problem-solving demands influence employees’ thriving at work: An explanation based on cognitive appraisal. Sustainability, 2023, 15 (20): 14879. DOI
	Madrid, H. P., Patterson, M. G., & Leiva, P. I. Negative core affect and employee silence: How differences in activation, cognitive rumination, and problem-solving demands matter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2015, 100 (6): 1887- 1898. DOI
	Malinowska, D., & Tokarz, A. The moderating role of self determination theory’s general causality orientations in the relationship between the job resources and work engagement of outsourcing sector employees. Personality and Individual Differences, 2020, 153, 109638. DOI
	Mitchell, M. S., Greenbaum, R. L., Vogel, R. M., Mawritz, M. B., & Keating, D. J. Can you handle the pressure? The effect of performance pressure on stress appraisals, self-regulation, and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 2019, 62 (2): 531- 552. DOI
	Moghimi, D., Zacher, H., Scheibe, S., & van Yperen, N. W. The selection, optimization, and compensation model in the work context: A systematic review and meta-analysis of two decades of research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2017, 38 (2): 247- 275. DOI
	Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006, 91 (6): 1321- 1339. DOI
	Peng, Z. L., Gao, B., & Zhao, H. D. Coaching leadership and subordinates’ career success: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 2019, 47 (11): 1- 8.
	Petrou, A. P., Hadjielias, E., Thanos, I. C., & Dimitratos, P. Strategic decision-making processes, international environmental munificence and the accelerated internationalization of SMEs. International Business Review, 2020, 29 (5): 101735. DOI
	Romão, S., Ribeiro, N., Gomes, D. R., & Singh, S. The impact of leaders’ coaching skills on employees’ happiness and turnover intention. Administrative Sciences, 2022, 12 (3): 84. DOI
	Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2006, 66 (4): 701- 716. DOI
	Schmitt, A., Zacher, H., & Frese, M. The buffering effect of selection, optimization, and compensation strategy use on the relationship between problem solving demands and occupational well-being: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2012, 17 (2): 139- 149. DOI
	Searle, B. J., & Auton, J. C. (2015). The merits of measuring challenge and hindrance appraisals. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 28(2), 121–143.
	Wall, T. D., Corbett, J. M., Clegg, C. W., Jackson, P. R., & Martin, R. Advanced manufacturing technology and work design: Towards a theoretical framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1990, 11 (3): 201- 219. DOI
	Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Mullarkey, S. Further evidence on some new measures of job control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1995, 16 (5): 431- 455. DOI
	Wang, X. H., Wang, M., & Xu, F. From problem-solving demands to employee creativity: Bidirectional support. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 2022, 50 (7): 1- 13.
	Zacher, H., & Frese, M. Maintaining a focus on opportunities at work: The interplay between age, job complexity, and the use of selection, optimization, and compensation strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2011, 32 (2): 291- 318. DOI
	Zhou, Q., Hirst, G., & Shipton, H. Promoting creativity at work: The role of problem-solving demand. Applied Psychology, 2012, 61 (1): 56- 80. DOI

模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
无方法潜因子(六因子)	1305.00	687	1.90	0.85	0.84	0.06	0.08
有方法潜因子(六因子+方法因子)	1196.00	683	1.75	0.88	0.87	0.06	0.07

模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
无方法潜因子(六因子)	1305.00	687	1.90	0.85	0.84	0.06	0.08
有方法潜因子(六因子+方法因子)	1196.00	683	1.75	0.88	0.87	0.06	0.07

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1.问题解决要求	3.57	0.65
2.挑战性评价	4.19	0.61	0.26**
3.阻碍性评价	2.56	1.17	0.27**	−0.26**
4.工作投入	3.81	0.87	0.25**	0.57**	−0.23**
5.SOC策略	4.02	0.48	0.50**	0.63**	−0.01	0.52**
6.教练型领导	4.14	0.61	0.30**	0.63**	−0.22**	0.61**	0.61**
7.性别	65.64^a		0.02	−0.16*	0.02	−0.21**	−0.13*	−0.21**
8.年龄	25.30	3.86	0.06	0.20**	−0.13	0.29**	0.22**	0.21**	−0.20**
9.教育水平	2.64	0.53	0.07	0.18**	−0.16*	0.42**	0.20**	0.26**	−0.28**	0.32**
10.组织任期	17.84	17.32	0.14*	0.30**	0.03	0.38**	0.31**	0.27**	−0.01	0.50**	0.19**
11.工作时长	52.23	13.25	0.09	−0.23**	0.29**	−0.16*	−0.05	−0.14*	−0.01	0.00	−0.13	−0.02

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1.问题解决要求	3.57	0.65
2.挑战性评价	4.19	0.61	0.26**
3.阻碍性评价	2.56	1.17	0.27**	−0.26**
4.工作投入	3.81	0.87	0.25**	0.57**	−0.23**
5.SOC策略	4.02	0.48	0.50**	0.63**	−0.01	0.52**
6.教练型领导	4.14	0.61	0.30**	0.63**	−0.22**	0.61**	0.61**
7.性别	65.64^a		0.02	−0.16*	0.02	−0.21**	−0.13*	−0.21**
8.年龄	25.30	3.86	0.06	0.20**	−0.13	0.29**	0.22**	0.21**	−0.20**
9.教育水平	2.64	0.53	0.07	0.18**	−0.16*	0.42**	0.20**	0.26**	−0.28**	0.32**
10.组织任期	17.84	17.32	0.14*	0.30**	0.03	0.38**	0.31**	0.27**	−0.01	0.50**	0.19**
11.工作时长	52.23	13.25	0.09	−0.23**	0.29**	−0.16*	−0.05	−0.14*	−0.01	0.00	−0.13	−0.02

效应关系		效应值	LLCI	ULCI
总效应		0.28	0.13	0.42
PSD→工作投入		0.21	0.06	0.35
间接效应
PSD→挑战性评价→工作投入		0.12	0.05	0.20
PSD→阻碍性评价→工作投入		−0.05	−0.10	−0.01
SOC策略的调节效应
PSD→挑战性评价	SOC策略(M+1SD)	0.10	0.01	0.25
PSD→挑战性评价	SOC策略(M−1SD)	−0.20	−0.22	−0.02
PSD→挑战性评价→工作投入	SOC策略(M+1SD)	0.06	0.01	0.14
PSD→挑战性评价→工作投入	SOC策略(M−1SD)	−0.06	−0.14	−0.07
教练型领导的调节效应
PSD→阻碍性评价	教练型领导(M+1SD)	0.29	−0.06	0.64
PSD→阻碍性评价	教练型领导(M−1SD)	1.10	0.63	1.58
PSD→阻碍性评价→工作投入	教练型领导(M+1SD)	−0.06	−0.14	0.03
PSD→阻碍性评价→工作投入	教练型领导(M−1SD)	−0.21	−0.37	−0.11