I'm tired': Differential effects of physical and emotional fatigue on workload management strategies

Abstract

This article integrates self-efficacy theory with decision latitude theory to generate a typology of workload management strategies used by knowledge workers working under conditions of high job demands. We then propose that physical and emotional fatigue should differentially influence usage of these workload management strategies based on anticipated differences in their effects on selfefficacy. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of our model with regards to knowledge workers who often face ongoing challenging job demands.

Full text

‘I’m tired’: Differential effects of physical
and emotional fatigue on workload
management strategies
Christopher M. Barnes and Linn Van Dyne
ABSTRACT This article integrates self-efficacy theory with decision latitude
theory to generate a typology of workload management strategies
used by knowledge workers working under conditions of high job
demands. We then propose that physical and emotional fatigue
should differentially influence usage of these workload management
strategies based on anticipated differences in their effects on self-
efficacy. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of our
model with regards to knowledge workers who often face ongoing
challenging job demands.
KEYWORDS burnout

emotional exhaustion

fatigue

job demands

measuring workload management strategies

self-efficacy

workload management strategies
In response to ongoing global competitive pressures, organizations have
implemented horizontal management structures such as work teams
(Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1998), emphasized delegation and empowerment
(Spreitzer, 1996), and generally expect knowledge workers to ‘do more with
less’ (Cappelli, 1997; Van Dyne & Ellis, 2004). Some of these changes have
been associated with positive outcomes for employees, such as high job satis-
faction, work commitment, and job performance (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999;
Siebert et al., 2004). However, a key result of these trends is increased
demands on knowledge workers (Hambrick et al., 2005; Van Yperen &
59
Human Relations
DOI: 10.1177/0018726708099518
Volume 62(1): 59–92
Copyright © 2009
The Tavistock Institute ®
SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi,
Singapore and Washington DC
http://hum.sagepub.com

Hagedoorn, 2003) which often result in physical and emotional fatigue
at work.
These trends have important implications for contemporary organiz-
ations because narrative (Harrison & Horne, 2000a) and quantitative
(Pilcher & Huffcutt, 1996) reviews show physical fatigue has a negative
influence on performance. Data similarly suggest a negative influence of
emotional fatigue on performance (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Wright &
Cropanzano, 1998). In order to understand these negative influences of
physical and emotional fatigue on performance, researchers must understand
the influence of fatigue on more proximal behavior such as how knowledge
workers manage their workloads.
Yet, researchers and managers currently have no theory to guide their
understanding of how physical and emotional fatigue influence strategies that
professionals use to accomplish their work when they feel overloaded. This
is an important gap in the literature because a clearer delineation of the
effects of fatigue on more proximal outcomes, such as workload manage-
ment strategies, should provide insights for how knowledge workers respond
to feeling overloaded. It also should suggest practical interventions that
managers can use in managing these processes.
Accordingly, the main purpose of this article is to develop a con-
ceptual model that explicates ways that physical fatigue and emotional
fatigue differentially influence workload management strategies of knowl-
edge workers. Although many scholars acknowledge increased work
demands faced by employees (Pfeffer, 1994; Rousseau, 1997) and the result-
ing fatigue experienced by employees (Pilcher & Huffcutt, 1996; Wright &
Cropanzano, 1998), the theoretical literature on fatigue is compartmental-
ized because physical and emotional fatigue have generally been considered
in two separate literatures. As a result, we lack an integrated model that
differentiates effects of physical and emotional fatigue in work settings.
In this article, we suggest that fatigue (feeling tired) should have special
relevance to knowledge workers. Knowledge workers are a key to com-
petitive advantage in many organizations because they develop ideas for new
strategies, products, and services (Lewis, 2004). Much of their work is
cognitive and difficult to observe. In addition, since knowledge workers
typically manage their work with little direct supervision (e.g. Uhl-Bien &
Graen, 1998), it is important to enhance our understanding of how
different types of fatigue might influence workload management strategies of
these employees.
As noted by several researchers (e.g. Huey & Wickens, 1993; Reid &
Nygren, 1988; Sperandio, 1978), employees typically do not stop working
when they feel overloaded. Rather, they adopt workload management
Human Relations 62(1)
60

strategies as behavioral coping mechanisms that allow them to take short
cuts. Directly relevant to this idea of overload and short cuts, Hambrick and
colleagues (2005) described a variety of behaviors executives use to reduce
the mental demands of doing their work when they feel overloaded. These
strategies include utilizing familiar responses, shifting demands to others,
imitating others, and pursuing risky options. This is consistent with Fiske
and Taylor’s (1991) view of people as motivated tacticians who choose from
multiple possible strategies based on goals, motives, and needs. In our theory
building, we build on Hambrick and colleagues’ work and propose that
physical and emotional fatigue should have systematically different effects
on workload management strategies.
Our goal is to enhance understanding of how fatigue might influence
the ways knowledge workers respond when they feel overloaded. We do this
through four main steps. First, we build from Hambrick and colleagues
(2005) to propose four specific workload management strategies that we
expect knowledge workers to use when they feel overloaded and experience
time scarcity. Second, we theorize that these workload management
strategies should be a joint function of self-efficacy and decision latitude.
Thus, we propose a typology that integrates ideas from self-efficacy theory
(Bandura, 1997) with perceived decision latitude (Karasek, 1979). Third, we
discuss fatigue and the similarities and differences in physical fatigue and
emotional fatigue, including propositions on how they should be related to
self-efficacy. In this section, we introduce the Sleep, Activity, Fatigue, and
Task Effectiveness (SAFTE) model of physical fatigue (Hursh et al., 2004)
and suggest that parallel processes of depletion should lead to physical
fatigue and emotional fatigue. Fourth, we propose that physical and
emotional fatigue should have differential effects on workload management
strategies based on anticipated differences in their effects on self-efficacy, and
we advance specific propositions that can be tested in future research. We
hope that our initial model provides a conceptual foundation for future
empirical studies of knowledge worker workload management strategies and
we also hope that future research will expand on our model by relaxing our
simplifying assumptions.
Workload management strategies of knowledge workers
Bell (1973) defined knowledge work as activity that is open-ended, creative,
highly demanding, and difficult to standardize or fully plan out in advance.
Nevertheless, planning and plan modification are critical for knowledge
workers who often must manage heavy and changing job demands. For
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
61

example, Blount and Janicik (2001) described situations where members of
organizations face changing deadlines, such that employees must take short
cuts to get the work done in less time than originally planned. In other situ-
ations, knowledge workers underestimate the amount of time required to
complete a particular aspect of a complex project or encounter unexpected
challenges and then must take short cuts in other aspects of their work
(Labianca et al., 2005). Dynamic situations also cause employees to take
short cuts in existing projects to accommodate new projects and changing
priorities. In addition, research shows that downsizing, reorganizations,
flattened hierarchies, and threats of layoffs increase employees’ job insecurity
and sense of time famine, causing them to feel they must do more with less
(Brockner et al. 1986; Cappelli, 1997; Perlow, 1999; Rousseau, 1997).
When situations are dynamic, as described in the preceding paragraph,
effective employees need to change their behavior and use different strategies,
defined as adaptations that serve or appear to serve important functions
in achieving success (Merriam-Webster, 1999). Applied specifically to
professionals, Blount and Janicik (2001) argue that knowledge workers use
various strategies to cope with increases in job demands and time scarcity. In
addition, research shows that individuals use a variety of strategies for making
decisions and performing their work, and they tend to modify the strategies
they use in response to perceived workload (Huey & Wickens, 1993; Payne,
1982; Reid & Nygren, 1988). Building on this research and the idea of feeling
overloaded, we define workload management strategies as short cuts that
employees use to manage high levels of workload when feeling overloaded.
Considering the open-ended nature of work performed by knowledge
workers (Bell, 1973), a wide variety of workload management strategies is
potentially relevant to them when they feel overloaded. Drawing on prior
work of Hambrick and colleagues (2005), however, we suggest that four
specific workload management strategies seem especially important and
relevant to knowledge workers. Thus, we extend Hambrick and colleagues’
(2005) conceptual work on strategies executives use when faced with high
levels of job demands and apply it specifically to knowledge workers.
The first workload management strategy we consider is utilizing
familiar responses. Hambrick and colleagues (2005: 478) noted that execu-
tives facing high job demands ‘will be drawn toward what has worked for
them before, what they find familiar, and what fits their cognitive schema’.
They illustrated this by describing people’s tendencies to rely on habitual
responses characteristic of their functional background – especially when
under pressure, such as when experiencing time scarcity. Applied to knowl-
edge workers, this could include a marketing manager assigned to a cross-
functional project team who under pressure insists that the best short cuts
Human Relations 62(1)
62

involve changes to marketing plans. In this example, the marketing manager
is trying to rely on a personal area of expertise where it will be possible to
apply familiar routines to the situation rather than seeking to develop new
skills or approaches. We suggest this requires relatively low levels of cogni-
tive effort because the marketing manager can apply well-learned knowledge
and solutions that have worked previously.
The second workload management strategy we consider is increasing
demands on others (Hambrick et al., 2005). When executives experience
ongoing high job demands, they can take short cuts and reduce their sense
of time scarcity by delegating tasks to subordinates. Since knowledge
workers may or may not have subordinates, we conceptualize this workload
management strategy more broadly and focus on increasing demands on
others. For knowledge workers, this could include a financial analyst who
feels overloaded from working 10-hour days for two weeks on a new
business plan and asks peers for help. It also could include delegating work
to subordinates.
The third strategy is imitating others (Hambrick et al., 2005).
When confronted with ongoing high job demands, executives also have the
option of observing what other people have done in similar situations and
utilizing these short cuts as their own response. Hambrick and colleagues
differentiated imitating others and utilizing familiar responses based on the
source of the response (others versus self) as the key difference. For knowl-
edge workers, this could include a manufacturing engineer who experiences
time scarcity and adopts strategies previously used by peers to implement
new processes.
The fourth workload management strategy we consider is pursuing
risky options (Hambrick et al., 2005). This includes more extreme behaviors
such as taking short cuts by adopting a novel and untested approach in new
areas. This could include creative attempts to transform procedures even
when they have unknown consequences. It also could include adopting
strategies based on truncated risk analyses. For example, Hambrick and
colleagues (2005) described an executive’s acquisition of yet another firm in
an unrelated market as an extreme and risky response. Applied to knowl-
edge workers, this could include a purchasing agent who under pressure
adopts a novel approach for soliciting bids on a project without detailed
analysis of past practices and existing relationships.
Self-efficacy, decision latitude and workload management strategies
In this section, we build on the conceptual differences in these four workload
management strategies and we suggest that each can be described in terms
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
63

of the joint effects of self-efficacy and decision latitude. Thus, we suggest that
knowledge workers consider their specific capabilities relative to a particu-
lar task as well as their authority within the job context in deciding what
workload management strategy to use at a specific point in time. Accord-
ingly, we combine Bandura’s (1997) work on self-efficacy with Karasek’s
(1979) work on job demands and decision latitude. This should enrich the
conceptualization of workload management strategies by going beyond a
descriptive list, such as delineated by Hambrick and colleagues (2005), and
instead providing a conceptually based framework that facilitates consider-
ation of workload management strategies based on similarities and differ-
ences in specific strategies. Later, we use this logic to introduce a typology
of workload management strategies that provides an organizing framework
that should help researchers develop a more refined understanding of how
workload management strategies relate to situational and individual
characteristics.
Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997: 2) is defined as ‘beliefs in one’s capabili-
ties to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce
given attainments’. Such beliefs are a subjective assessment of one’s own
capabilities (Bandura, 1997). Emphasizing task specific self-efficacy, Bandura
(1997) noted that a high sense of efficacy in one activity domain is not
necessarily accompanied by high self-efficacy in other realms. In this manu-
script, we focus specifically on self-efficacy of knowledge workers in doing
their jobs. This focus on task specific self-efficacy is consistent with Bandura’s
(1997) theoretical framing and with research examining task specific self-
efficacy in the context of high job demands (Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997).
As Bandura (1997) noted, people act on their beliefs about what they can
do, and these beliefs influence their outcome expectancies. Consistent with
expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), we contend that knowledge workers will
use workload management strategies with the most favorable expected
outcomes. These expectancies, in conjunction with beliefs about decision
latitude, should influence the workload management strategies used by
knowledge workers.
A large amount of research has demonstrated that self-efficacy is a
powerful predictor of behavior for many tasks and in many situations (see
Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Bandura (1997), however, noted that other
factors can affect the relationship between self-efficacy and behavior and
recommended research that examines moderators of the efficacy–behavior
relationship. Schaubroeck and Merritt’s (1997) research is one example of
this type of theorizing. Building on Schaubroeck and Merritt, we draw on
Karasek’s work on job demands and decision latitude to theorize that the
joint influence of self-efficacy and decision latitude should have important
Human Relations 62(1)
64

implications for workload management strategies used by knowledge
workers experiencing high levels of job demands.
Karasek (1979) proposed that high job demands result in high levels
of activation. Whether activation is positive or negative depends on beliefs
about decision latitude. When individuals feel job demands are high and
decision latitude is low, they should experience strain. In contrast, experi-
encing high job demands and high decision latitude should produce a positive
sense of activation. Research demonstrates high demands and low decision
latitude are associated with health problems, while high demands and high
decision latitude are associated with positive coping behaviors (Van Yperen
& Hagedoorn, 2003). Moving beyond the traditional focus of this research
(stress and strain), we consider effects on workload management strategies
of knowledge workers.
Perceived decision latitude (also known as job control) is an import-
ant construct in the context of job demands (Karasek, 1979). Shen and Cho
(2005) defined perceived decision latitude as the range of options individuals
feel they have as they strive to perform their jobs. Thus, perceived decision
latitude represents an individual’s appraisal of the objective situation.
Hambrick and colleagues (2005) acknowledge various levels of perceived
decision latitude in their consideration of managerial behaviors under high
job demands. Specifically, they focus on the latitude to shift workload to
other people (e.g. task delegation) and engaging in novel responses or imitat-
ing others. We similarly utilize this focused depiction of decision latitude.
Extending Hambrick and Finkelstein’s (1987) point that executives vary
substantially in their perceptions of decision latitude, we suggest that knowl-
edge workers should also have varying perceptions of decision latitude.
Knowledge workers who believe they have high decision latitude should
feel they have many options. They should have a sense of autonomy and
authority to choose among these options. In contrast, knowledge workers
who believe they have low decision latitude should feel they have few
options. With few options, they should experience limited autonomy and
limited authority.
Having defined and described self-efficacy and decision latitude, we
note that the two concepts are similar because they both represent personal
beliefs. They differ, however, in the target of the belief. Decision latitude is
individual beliefs based on personal appraisal of the objective situation –
what options are within my authority here in this situation to accomplish
my job. In contrast, self-efficacy is individual beliefs about personal
capabilities to execute a given course of action – do I have the capability to
perform my job duties here in this situation? The two constructs also differ
in stability. Decision latitude is the overall breadth of options a knowledge
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
65

worker views as viable in his/her work role. Thus, it is a relatively stable
assessment of authority. Indeed, the majority of the antecedents of decision
latitude (e.g. industry structure, firm size, organizational culture, employee
cognitive complexity, and locus of control) noted by Hambrick and
Finkelstein (1987) are stable over time. In contrast, Bandura (1997) defined
self-efficacy as a malleable construct and empirical research demonstrates
changes in self-efficacy over time (Yeo & Neal, 2006). Thus, we inten-
tionally contrast the dynamic nature of self-efficacy with the relatively more
stable nature of decision latitude. These differences in decision latitude and
self-efficacy become important later in the article when we discuss fatigue
and workload management strategies.
Since we are developing an initial conceptual model of workload
management strategies and need to limit the scope of our theorizing, we
start with three simplifying assumptions. First, for purposes of this theory
building, we assume that self-efficacy and decision latitude are separate and
independent constructs. This assumption is consistent with the approach
taken by Schaubroeck and Merritt (1997) who used the two constructs as
independent predictors. Second, we assume that physical fatigue and
emotional fatigue are separate and independent constructs. To date,
research has yet to focus specifically on the relationship between physical
and emotional fatigue. However, as we note in a later section, these two
types of fatigue have different antecedents, which is consistent with treating
them as independent constructs. Third, we assume that the combinations of
self-efficacy and decision latitude produce a tendency for employees to
emphasize one of the four workload management strategies in our frame-
work more than the others. Thus, our predictions focus on the workload
management strategy that should be emphasized the most in each of the
four cells represented by the combined conditions of self-efficacy and
decision latitude.
As indicated in the introduction, this article focuses on knowledge
workers in situations of ongoing high job demands. Thus, we hold job
demands constant and assume perceived time scarcity as a boundary
condition of our theorizing. We conceptualize perceptions of self-efficacy and
decision latitude as varying from low to high in a continuous manner. To
clarify our arguments, however, we focus on the extremes of these continua
and refer to conditions of low versus high self-efficacy and low versus high
decision latitude. This produces four conditions: low self-efficacy and low
decision latitude; low self-efficacy and high decision latitude; high self-
efficacy and low decision latitude; and high self-efficacy and high decision
latitude. In the following section, we argue that each of these four conditions
should influence employee use of the four workload management strategies
Human Relations 62(1)
66

we described above (utilizing familiar responses, imitating others, shifting
demands to others, and pursuing risky options). To examine these relation-
ships, we draw from self-efficacy theory and job control theory (Bandura,
1997; Karasek, 1979; Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997) and note previous
empirical research that is consistent with these expectations. We begin by
considering low self-efficacy and low decision latitude.
Low self-efficacy and low perceived decision latitude
When individuals experience low self-efficacy (the personal sense of limited
capabilities) and low decision latitude (the situational sense of few options),
they believe they do not have the capabilities to do their work at a particu-
lar point in time and they also believe the situation allows them few
options for accomplishing their work. For example, an inexperienced junior
accountant who is still learning the job and who is working on several new
audits must follow a large number of procedures that limit perceived decision
latitude. Thus, this accountant most likely has low self-efficacy and low
perceived decision latitude.
Of the workload management strategies identified by Hambrick and
colleagues (2005), we anticipate that utilizing familiar responses will have
the most favorable outcome expectancies to this accountant and other
knowledge workers who feel overloaded and are low in self-efficacy and low
in perceived decision latitude. Since familiar response short cuts have been
previously implemented, past experience provides evidence of capability,
even for those with low self-efficacy. In contrast, employees should have
higher uncertainty about responses they have not previously implemented.
Thus, those with low self-efficacy should be more likely to believe that they
can successfully implement a response they have already implemented in the
past than a new response which they have never tried. Likewise, prior use
provides evidence that this workload management strategy is within the
knowledge worker’s perceived decision latitude, even for those who are
feeling constrained. Although using familiar responses could often include
following standard operating procedures, it is possible that knowledge
workers with low self-efficacy would view the full set of standard operating
procedures as beyond their capabilities, leading them to rely on a smaller set
of familiar responses. Overall, familiar responses should be the most
comfortable of the workload management strategies for these employees.
Thus, we suggest that knowledge workers with this combination of beliefs
about self-efficacy and decision latitude should avoid new or risky options
and instead should take the ‘safer’ approach of relying on previously used,
familiar short cuts for which they have favorable outcome expectancies.
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
67

Using familiar responses should allow them to bypass additional cognitive
processing and reduce their overall sense of overload.
Thus, we suggest that knowledge workers who do not feel capable of
doing their work and also feel they generally have limited decision latitude
should utilize familiar response short cuts as their preferred workload
management strategy when they feel overloaded. This is consistent with
Korman’s (1976) contention that highly structured work environments
inhibit creative work. It is also consistent with field research of Ohly et al.
(2006) which demonstrated low creativity and innovation for those with low
self-efficacy and low decision latitude. In sum, we suggest that knowledge
workers who feel overloaded and believe they lack the capability to do the
work but believe they have limited options should see the workload manage-
ment strategy of utilizing familiar responses as having the most favorable
outcome expectancy.
Proposition 1: Knowledge workers who are low in self-efficacy and low
in perceived decision latitude should be more likely to ‘utilize familiar
responses’ as a workload management strategy than to engage in other
workload management strategies.
Low self-efficacy and high perceived decision latitude
When knowledge workers experience low self-efficacy but feel they have high
decision latitude, they believe that the job allows them the authority to use
a broad range of options to accomplish their work. Their current circum-
stances, however, cause them to feel they lack the capability to do the work
at this point in time. For example, a chemist recently promoted to the new
role of project manager would not have a sense of mastery for the best way
to complete paperwork required by central administration.
Of the workload management strategies identified by Hambrick and
colleagues (2005), we suggest that increasing demands on others should have
the most favorable outcome expectancies for knowledge workers who feel
overloaded and are low in self-efficacy and high perceived decision latitude.
When knowledge workers feel they have the authority to use a broad range
of options, this will often include delegating work and asking others to help
with the work. At the same time, individuals who are low in self-efficacy
often believe that others have better capabilities than they have for
accomplishing a given task. Combining these arguments, we suggest that
when knowledge workers feel their job allows them a broad range of options
but the current circumstances cause them to lack confidence in their own
capabilities, they should use their authority to increase demands on others
Human Relations 62(1)
68

whom they deem more capable. This could include formal delegation,
requests for assistance, or informal reallocation of workload. To the degree
that there are capable co-workers available, increasing demands on others
should allow them to reduce their sense of overload by involving others in
their work and shifting some of their cognitive processing requirements to
other individuals. Thus, we propose that knowledge workers who feel
they are currently not capable of doing the work and who also feel they
generally have high decision latitude should utilize increasing demands on
others as their preferred workload management strategy.
Previous research and theory support this prediction. For example,
Huey and Wickens (1993) argued that people often ask others for assistance
as a strategy for coping with excessive task demands. Barnes and colleagues
(2008) provide an empirical example and demonstrated that individuals
passed work on to others when their own workload became unbearable. This
seems especially relevant to those with high decision latitude and low self-
efficacy because this allows them to reduce their sense of overload. Thus, we
propose that for knowledge workers who feel overloaded and believe they
lack the capability to do their work but have a broad range of authority to
get their work done, the workload management strategy of increasing
demands on others should have the most favorable outcome expectancy.
Proposition 2: Knowledge workers low in self-efficacy and high in
perceived decision latitude should be more likely to ‘increase demands
on others’ as a workload management strategy than to engage in other
workload management strategies.
High self-efficacy and low perceived decision latitude
The third combination is high self-efficacy and low decision latitude. This
occurs when knowledge workers believe they have the capability to do their
work, but simultaneously believe they lack the authority to implement a
broad range of responses. For example, an advertising account manager
with a consistently strong performance record recently assigned to a high
potential general manager trainee program would have a strong sense of
efficacy and yet have limited decision latitude as a trainee.
We suggest that Hambrick and colleagues’ (2005) strategy of imitat-
ing others should have the highest outcome expectancies for knowledge
workers who feel overloaded and have high self-efficacy and low decision
latitude. When knowledge workers believe their authority is constrained,
even though they have high self-efficacy and believe that they can do what
it takes to get the job done, this combination of beliefs should influence
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
69

their workload management strategies. When faced with feelings of
overload, those with high self-efficacy should be more likely than those
with low self-efficacy to believe that they can successfully implement the
responses used by others. Moreover, prior actions of peers in the situation
should provide vicarious evidence that the option is viable and within the
authority of those in this role. As a result, we suggest that these knowledge
workers with high self-efficacy should be most likely to implement responses
used by others as their preferred workload management strategy. Im-
plementing responses used by others allows them to lower their cognitive
demands through substitution – by using the ideas of others instead of
their own cognitive processing. Involving others in their work, thus, reduces
their sense of overload.
Greve (1996) provides indirect support for this prediction, indicating
that organizations engage in mimetic adoption when faced with high un-
certainty and high information processing demands. Similarly, Lieberman
and Asaba (2006) demonstrated that managers tend to imitate managers in
other firms when faced with severe time pressures. Hence, we suggest that
for knowledge workers who feel overloaded and believe they have the
capability to do their work but also believe they have limited authority and
few options, the workload management strategy of imitating others should
have the most favorable outcome expectancy.
Proposition 3: Knowledge workers high in self-efficacy and low in
perceived decision latitude should be more likely to ‘imitate others’ as
a workload management strategy than to engage in other workload
management strategies.
High self-efficacy and high perceived decision latitude
As noted above, when individuals feel they have high decision latitude, they
believe their jobs provide them with the authority to use a wide range of
options. In contrast, high self-efficacy is the sense of personal capability at a
particular point in time. Combined, high self-efficacy and high decision
latitude provide the most expansive set of beliefs. An example would be a
senior systems analyst who has successfully solved major information
systems technical challenges and also earned the trust and respect of the
department manager.
Of the workload management strategies identified by Hambrick and
colleagues (2005), we suggest that pursuing risky options should have
especially favorable outcome expectancies for individuals who feel over-
loaded and have high self-efficacy and high decision latitude. Knowledge
Human Relations 62(1)
70

workers with high self-efficacy typically believe they are more capable than
others. Thus, in comparison to those with low self-efficacy, they should be
more likely to rely on their own actions and less likely to increase demands
on others. Furthermore, when they feel they have high decision latitude, they
should believe they are not limited to traditional approaches. In comparison
to those with low decision latitude, they thus should be less likely to
implement familiar responses or imitate others. Instead, they should believe
they have the capability and the authority to pursue risky options. Combined
beliefs in personal efficacy and authority to use a wide range of options
should allow these knowledge workers to reduce their sense of overload and
time scarcity by using abridged processing – making decisions and taking
action without thorough analysis. Thus, they should be decisive and should
take action, even without detailed cost–benefit analysis.
This prediction is consistent with previous research. For example,
Bandura (1997) argued that those with high self-efficacy sometimes fail to
acknowledge possible difficulties and risks associated with their actions. This
can be viewed as comparable to the Chuck Yeager Effect, where people with
high self-efficacy do not admit that job demands exceed their capabilities
(Zeitlin, 1995). Similarly, Judge et al. (1999) demonstrated that those with
high self-efficacy are more tolerant of taking risks, suggesting that they are
more likely to pursue risky options. In sum, we suggest that for knowledge
workers who feel overloaded and believe they have the capability to do their
work as well as many options for accomplishing their work, the workload
management strategy of pursuing risky options should have the most
favorable outcome expectancy.
Proposition 4: Knowledge workers high in self-efficacy and high in
perceived decision latitude should be more likely to ‘pursue risky
options’ as a workload management strategy than to engage in other
workload management strategies.
Typology of workload management strategies
Integrating these arguments and propositions, which we developed based on
Bandura’s (1997) work on self-efficacy and Karasek’s (1979) work on job
demands and decision latitude, produces a two-by-two typology of workload
management strategies. Figure 1 illustrates this typology which has perceived
decision latitude on the horizontal axis and self-efficacy on the vertical axis.
To summarize, knowledge workers with low self-efficacy and low decision
latitude should bypass processing by engaging in familiar responses. Those
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
71

with low self-efficacy and high decision latitude should shift processing by
increasing demands on others. Those with high self-efficacy and low decision
latitude should substitute other people’s processing by imitating others.
Finally, those with high self-efficacy and high decision latitude should abridge
processing by pursuing risky options.
We suggest that this typology provides a conceptual basis for clarify-
ing similarities and differences in the workload management strategies
described by Hambrick and colleagues (2005). Another key contribution is
the organizing structure provided by the typology that clarifies the theoreti-
cal rationale for why knowledge workers should use specific workload
management strategies when they feel that job demands require them to take
shortcuts to alleviate their sense of time scarcity. We acknowledge that both
self-efficacy and decision latitude are continuous constructs that vary from
low to high rather than dichotomous ones. Thus, the purpose of the typology
is to enhance understanding of contrasts represented by the two-by-two
framework and serve as a useful model that can aid in understanding the
propositions put forth in this article.
Fatigue
A primary purpose of this article is to consider the differential effects that
physical and emotional fatigue should have on workload management
strategies. In this section, we compare and contrast physical and emotional
fatigue. Then, in the next section, we return to workload management
strategies by theorizing that physical and emotional fatigue should have
Human Relations 62(1)
72
Decision latitude
Low High
Utilize familiar
responses:
Increase demands on
others:
Low
Bypass processing Shift processing
Self-
efficacy
Imitate others: Pursue risky options:
High Substitute for
processing
Abridged processing
Figure 1 A typology of workload management strategies

differential effects on workload management strategies via the mediating
mechanism of self-efficacy.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary (1999: 424) defines fatigue as a state
of ‘weariness or exhaustion from labor, exertion, or stress’. Employees in
contemporary organizations are subject to two primary sources of fatigue:
physical (e.g. Hursh et al., 2004) and emotional (e.g. Cropanzano et al.,
2003). Physical fatigue is caused by physical demands and can be offset by
adequate sleep. However, members of organizations often must deal with
going a night without sleep (Harrison & Horne, 1999), 24/7 operations
(Rogers et al., 2004), extended work hours (National Institute of Occu-
pational Safety and Health, 2004), and/or frequent travel across multiple
time zones (Waterhouse et al., 2003), each of which can prevent adequate
sleep. Emotional fatigue can be caused by downsizing, job expansion,
empowerment, and interpersonal conflict (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Lee &
Ashforth, 1996; LePine et al., 2004; Maslach et al., 2001). As we note below,
emotional demands are especially important in determining emotional
fatigue. In particular, research indicates that emotionally demanding inter-
actions with other people, such as are common in customer service contexts
(see Bakker et al., 2001; Grandey et al., 2005), can take their toll and leave
people feeling drained.
The physiological sensations of physical fatigue and emotional fatigue
are similar in many ways. In both cases, individuals experience a sense of
depletion such that they feel drained (Desmond & Matthews, 1997; Wright
& Cropanzano, 1998). In addition, both types of fatigue are associated with
depression (Caldwell et al., 2004; Leiter & Durup, 1994), irritability (Gaines
& Jermier, 1983; Horne, 1993), and frustration (Baranski et al., 1998;
Gaines & Jermier, 1983). Moreover, research shows that both types of
fatigue have negative effects on performance (Cropanzano et al., 2003;
Pilcher & Huffcutt, 1996; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). As we describe in
the following sections, both types of fatigue involve the depletion of a
resource reservoir, albeit two different types of reservoirs. In both cases,
demands deplete the reservoir, resulting in the experience of fatigue, with
subsequent negative effects on mood, behavior, and performance. However,
as we describe below, key differences between antecedents of physical and
emotional fatigue should have important implications for employee
responses to demanding work situations.
Physical fatigue
Working in the field of physiology, Hursh and colleagues (2004) developed
the SAFTE reservoir model of physical fatigue based on empirical data
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
73

generated during a week-long laboratory study of human behavior and
performance under sleep deprivation. The SAFTE model depicts a self-
regulating homeostatic process focused on the sleep reservoir which is filled
during sleep and drained by physical demands. Of particular importance in
this model is sleep deprivation, which prevents the replenishment of the sleep
reservoir. This is especially problematic when physical demands drain the
sleep reservoir. The top half of Figure 2 illustrates the sleep reservoir. Physical
demands deplete the sleep reservoir, which in turn results in physical fatigue.
This is consistent with our definition of physical fatigue as the state of feeling
physically drained (Hursh et al., 2004).
A large body of empirical research is consistent with the SAFTE model
of physical fatigue, demonstrating that the sleep reservoir is depleted by
physical demands and refilled by sleep (see Saper et al., 2005). Although
physical exercise increases arousal and can temporarily lower symptoms of
physical fatigue, physical activity depletes the sleep reservoir. Consistent with
this, LeDuc et al. (2000) demonstrated that exercise initially lowered feelings
of fatigue but enhanced physical fatigue 50 minutes later (compared to those
who did not exercise). Thus, physical activity lowers the sleep reservoir,
causing individuals to experience physical fatigue.
Empirical research has also supported the contention that sleep depri-
vation prevents sleep reservoir recovery. In an experience sample field study
Human Relations 62(1)
74
Physical fatigue reservoir model
Sleep
reservoir
+
Inflows:
Sleep quality
Sleep quantity
-
Emotion
reservoir
Outflows:
Emotional demands
+
Inflows:
Recovery quality
Recovery quantity
-
Outflows:
Physical demands
Physical
fatigue
Emotional
fatigue
Emotional fatigue reservoir model
Figure 2 Reservoir models of fatigue

of nurses, Totterdell et al. (1995) demonstrated that nurses were less alert
and performed worse on cognitive tests after they worked night shifts. This
suggests that following the physical demands that drained their sleep reser-
voir, disruption to their sleep hindered the recovery that normally occurs
during sleep. Other research indicates that sleep replenishes the sleep reser-
voir up until a threshold point where the reservoir is within the ‘full’ range.
Groeger et al.’s (2004) nationally representative sample of British residents
demonstrated that sleep (up to nine hours per night) enhanced energy.
Research documents negative effects of sleep reservoir depletion on
well-being, attitudes, and behavior. Dinges and colleagues (1997) conducted
a repeated measures laboratory study that restricted sleep of healthy adults
33 percent below habitual levels to an average of 4.98 hours of sleep per
night for seven consecutive nights. Compared to the baseline, participants
experienced more tension, confusion, mood deterioration, and fatigue. They
also performed more slowly and made more performance errors on cogni-
tive vigilance and memory tests. Integrating results from 19 studies on over
1900 subjects, Pilcher and Huffcutt (1996) showed sleep deprivation strongly
impairs functioning – with negative effects on mood, motor performance,
and cognitive performance. These negative effects are disturbingly powerful
because participants with less than five hours of sleep in 24 hours performed
an average of two standard deviations below control groups on tests of
cognitive performance.
Emotional fatigue
Returning to the reservoir image, we note that physical fatigue and emotional
fatigue similarly focus on the state of feeling drained. This is consistent with
Maslach’s (1982: 3) definition of emotional fatigue as the state of feeling
‘overwhelmed, drained, and used up’ based on emotional demands imposed
by others. Management, applied psychology, and clinical psychology
researchers use a variety of terms for the concept of emotional fatigue –
including exhaustion (LePine et al., 2004), emotional exhaustion (e.g.
Cropanzano et al., 2003; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998), and fatigue
(e.g. Van Yperen & Hagedoorn, 2003). Another related construct is burnout
(see Maslach et al., 2001 for a review) which has three subdimensions:
diminished personal accomplishment, depersonalization, and emotional
exhaustion (Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Maslach, 1982). We acknowledge
research on exhaustion, emotional exhaustion, fatigue, and burnout as
relevant to what we refer to as emotional fatigue. For consistency, we use
the term emotional fatigue to parallel physical fatigue and to allow us to
highlight similarities in the two depletion processes. The bottom half of
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
75

Figure 2 depicts our extension of the SAFTE model of sleep reservoir
depletion, as we apply it to emotional fatigue.
Here, we introduce the concept of emotion reservoir. As with Hursh
and colleagues’ (2004) reservoir model of physical fatigue, we propose that
emotional demands and recovery are key inputs to the emotion reservoir.
Thus, our model of emotional fatigue is a depletion model, like the SAFTE
model, where emotional demands and inadequate recovery drain the emotion
reservoir, causing individuals to experience emotional fatigue. This is consist-
ent with Wright and Cropanzano’s (1998) conception of emotional fatigue
as feelings of being emotionally overextended. Likewise, Cropanzano and
colleagues (2003) explicitly used the term ‘emotional depletion’ in their
description of emotional fatigue. Moreover, Fritz and Sonnentag (2006) and
Sonnentag (2003) note the importance of recovery in the context of work
demands. We take this a step further by proposing that the emotion reser-
voir is a mechanism through which depletion and lack of recovery lead to
emotional fatigue.
Research provides indirect support for a reservoir model of emotional
fatigue. Bussing and Glaser’s (2000) field study of nurses demonstrated
that more emotionally demanding environments caused greater emotional
fatigue. Cordes and Dougherty (1993) noted a link between personal
demands (i.e. frequent intense or emotionally charged face-to-face inter-
actions) and emotional fatigue. Leiter and Maslach (1988) demonstrated that
the emotional demands of unpleasant supervisor contact increased emotional
fatigue. Bakker et al. (2000) reported that physicians with more demanding
patients had higher emotional fatigue. In sum, this research supports the idea
that emotional demands deplete the emotional reservoir in a manner that
parallels the depletion process where physical demands deplete the sleep
reservoir.
Just as sleep influences the level of the sleep reservoir, we propose that
emotional recovery should influence replenishment of the emotion reservoir.
Recovery activities include recreation, vacation, and time away from
emotionally demanding contexts. For example, Kreiner et al. (2006: 1048)
noted that temporarily getting away from high emotional demands allowed
employees to recharge their ‘occupational batteries’. Eden’s (1990) study of
employees involved in the stressful experience of installing a new computer
system demonstrated that vacation time reduced stress. Etzion et al.’s (1998)
burnout study of military reservists positioned reserve service as a respite (a
break) because reservists who spent two weeks geographically separated
from the emotional demands of work and family reported lower burnout and
fewer emotional demands. Westman and Eden’s (1997) study of clerical
Human Relations 62(1)
76

employees demonstrated lower burnout during vacation, especially for those
who were satisfied with their vacations.
Similarities and differences in types of fatigue
To summarize, we have proposed parallel definitions of physical and
emotional fatigue and parallel models of depletion and recovery. Just as
physical demands and sleep recovery influence the level of the sleep reservoir,
emotional demands and emotional recovery should influence the level of the
emotion reservoir. When either reservoir is drained below the tolerance level
of the ‘full’ range, individuals experience fatigue, such that greater depletion
increases fatigue. Overall, reservoir depletion is a continuous process, where
small amounts of depletion have commensurately small influences and larger
amounts have larger effects. We recognize that human tolerance for fatigue
is finite and that extremely high levels of fatigue prevent functioning. Our
model, however, focuses on the more typical range of demands at work
where fatigued employees do not stop working.
Although researchers note similarities between the two types of fatigue
(e.g. Maslach, 1982) and both types of fatigue involve similar feelings of
being drained, researchers also note differences in the two types of fatigue
(e.g. Melamed et al., 2006). Developing this idea below, a primary contention
of our article is that the two types of fatigue should have differential effects
on self-efficacy and therefore should have differential effects on workload
management strategies.
Fatigue and self-efficacy
Researchers note that self-efficacy varies both between people as well as
within people over time (Yeo & Neal, 2006). Going beyond this, we draw
on existing theory and empirical research to propose that although both
types of fatigue have similar negative effects on performance, physical and
emotional fatigue should have differential effects on personal beliefs about
self-efficacy. As we describe below, this should have important implications
for the preferred workload management strategies of knowledge workers.
Research generally demonstrates that although physical fatigue reduces
actual performance (Pilcher & Huffcutt, 1996), it has a much weaker effect
on self-efficacy beliefs. For example, although Baranski and colleagues
(1998) showed that physically fatigued individuals had some awareness of
diminished capability, other research shows that individuals underestimate
the negative effects of physical fatigue on their performance. Bard et al.’s
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
77

(1996) laboratory experiment involving military subjects engaged in a navi-
gation task demonstrated that fatigued subjects were especially prone to
overestimating their own capabilities. Harrison and Horne (2000b) demon-
strated that physically fatigued college students were more confident about
the accuracy of their memory (compared to non-fatigued subjects) and they
were especially more confident when they were wrong.
Overall, this research indicates a weak relationship between physical
fatigue and self-efficacy. One potential explanation for this is that physically
fatigued individuals do not recognize the drop in their performance, much
as an individual impaired by alcohol does not recognize a drop in driving
ability. As a practical example, many people believe that they can drive their
cars safely even when sleep deprived and sometimes they fall asleep at the
wheel or find they are unable to respond quickly enough to the unexpected
actions of others or to the sudden appearance of a deer on the road.
In contrast, theory and empirical research show that emotional fatigue
has a stronger effect on self-efficacy beliefs (Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Leiter,
1991) than physical fatigue. For example, Maslach (1982: 3) described
emotionally fatigued individuals as having a diminished sense of personal
accomplishment and a ‘gnawing sense of inadequacy’. A recent narrative
review by Maslach and colleagues (2001) and a recent meta-analytic review
by Lee and Ashforth (1996) both support this relationship. In addition,
Bakker and colleagues (2000) demonstrated that emotional fatigue led to
lower estimates of personal competence (see also Leiter, 1991). Lee and
Ashforth’s (1993) longitudinal study of supervisors and managers demon-
strated that emotional fatigue at Time 1 led to feelings of helplessness at
Time 2, indicating that emotional fatigue significantly reduced beliefs about
personal capabilities. Integrating self-efficacy theory and the above empiri-
cal research on the two types of fatigue, we propose that employees who are
emotionally fatigued should experience a greater drop in beliefs about
personal capabilities (self-efficacy) than employees who are physically
fatigued.
Proposition 5: The negative influence of emotional fatigue on self-
efficacy should be stronger than the negative influence of physical
fatigue on self-efficacy.
Fatigue and perceived decision latitude
In their seminal examination of perceived decision latitude, Hambrick and
Finkelstein (1987) noted three types of antecedents: task environment,
internal organization, and personal characteristics. Task environment
Human Relations 62(1)
78

includes product differentiability, market growth, industry structure, demand
instability, and powerful outside forces. Internal organization includes
inertial forces, resource availability, and powerful inside forces. Personal
characteristics include tolerance for ambiguity, cognitive complexity, internal
locus of control, power base, and political acumen.
Two of these general types of antecedents (task environment and
internal organization) are determined by macro-organizational forces
beyond the influence of knowledge workers. Moreover, the specific personal
characteristics identified by Hambrick and Finkelstein (1987) are relatively
stable, trait-like individual differences. Accordingly, we do not expect that a
knowledge worker’s level of fatigue (a state at a specific point in time) should
influence the personal characteristics noted by Hambrick and Finkelstein. As
a result, we do not expect or predict a relationship between fatigue and
perceived decision latitude; and since this would represent a null hypothesis,
we do not include it as a proposition.
In the next section, we build on the differences in physical and
emotional fatigue described above to highlight how their differential effects
on self-efficacy should influence workload management strategies used by
knowledge workers. In other words, we propose that physical and emotional
fatigue should be connected to workload management strategies through the
mediating mechanism of self-efficacy.
Fatigue and workload management strategies
Now that we have delineated a typology of workload management strategies
based on self-efficacy and decision latitude beliefs, we consider the antici-
pated differential influence of physical and emotional fatigue on workload
management strategies. As noted above, we expect no noticeable effect of
fatigue on perceived decision latitude. Consistent with Proposition 5,
however, we expect fatigue should be directly relevant to self-efficacy. There-
fore, in this section we link Proposition 5 (the differential effects of physical
and emotional fatigue on self-efficacy) with Propositions 1–4 (the joint effects
of self-efficacy and decision latitude on workload management strategies).
We start by focusing on knowledge workers with low decision latitude
beliefs.
As previously argued, knowledge workers who believe they have low
decision latitude feel they have limited authority and options. This should
cause them to have unfavorable outcome expectancies for the workload
management strategies of increasing demands on others and pursuing risky
options which require high decision latitude. Instead, knowledge workers
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
79

who believe they have low decision latitude should view utilizing familiar
responses and imitating others as having more favorable outcome expect-
ancies for them. As noted above, empirical research demonstrates that both
types of fatigue reduce actual performance, but the negative relationship
between fatigue and self-efficacy is stronger for emotional fatigue than
physical fatigue.
Accordingly, we suggest that type of fatigue should influence whether
the preferred workload management strategy for knowledge workers with
low decision latitude is utilizing familiar responses or imitating others.
Restated, research indicates generally higher levels of self-efficacy for those
who are physically fatigued compared to those who are emotionally fatigued.
Thus, knowledge workers who feel physically fatigued should have relatively
higher efficacy beliefs than knowledge workers who feel emotionally
fatigued. Accordingly, physically fatigued knowledge workers should believe
they can successfully implement short cuts used by others. In contrast,
emotionally fatigued knowledge workers should have lower estimates of
their own capabilities and should have generally lower self-efficacy beliefs,
leading them to be less likely to believe they can successfully imitate others.
Thus, we suggest that under conditions of low decision latitude, knowledge
workers who are physically fatigued should be more likely than those who
are emotionally fatigued to use imitating others as their preferred workload
management strategy when they feel overloaded.
Proposition 6: When knowledge workers believe they have low
decision latitude, those who are physically fatigued should be more
likely than those who are emotionally fatigued to engage in the
workload management strategy of imitating others.
An extension of this reasoning suggests that in the context of low
perceived decision latitude, the relatively lower self-efficacy beliefs of
emotionally fatigued knowledge workers (Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Leiter,
1991) should cause them to view utilizing familiar responses as the workload
management strategy with the highest outcome expectancies for them.
Holding low decision latitude constant, Proposition 5 indicates that those
who are emotionally fatigued should be more likely to be in the low decision
latitude/low self-efficacy condition than those who are physically fatigued.
As indicated by Proposition 1, those with low self-efficacy and low decision
latitude should believe they have neither the capability to perform the work
nor the autonomy and authority to use a range of options to accomplish the
work. As a result, they should feel limited to utilizing familiar responses.
Thus, they should take the shortcut of bypassing cognitive processing and
use their habitual routines when they feel overloaded.
Human Relations 62(1)
80

Proposition 7: When knowledge workers believe they have low
decision latitude, those who are emotionally fatigued should be more
likely than those who are physically fatigued to engage in the workload
management strategy of utilizing familiar responses.
We now consider knowledge workers with high decision latitude
beliefs. Consistent with Figure 1, these individuals should have favorable
outcome expectancies for the workload management strategies of increasing
demands on others and pursuing risky options. We propose that which of
these two workload management strategies has the most favorable outcome
expectancies should depend on self-efficacy of the knowledge worker.
Because emotional fatigue has a stronger negative effect on self-efficacy
than does physical fatigue, emotionally fatigued knowledge workers should
have generally lower self-efficacy than those who are physically fatigued.
Thus, emotionally fatigued individuals with high decision latitude should
have more favorable outcome expectancies (compared to those who are
physically fatigued) for the workload management strategy of increasing
demands on others. This is consistent with research indicating that indi-
viduals often shift work to others when faced with heavy job demands
(Barnes et al., 2008). Accordingly, we propose that in conditions of high
perceived decision latitude, emotionally fatigued knowledge workers should
be more likely than physically fatigued knowledge workers to engage in the
workload management strategy of increasing demands on others when they
feel overloaded.
Proposition 8: When knowledge workers believe they have high
decision latitude, those who are emotionally fatigued should be more
likely than those who are physically fatigued to engage in the workload
management strategy of increasing demands on others.
Using parallel logic, we suggest that in the context of high perceived
decision latitude, the relatively higher self-efficacy beliefs of physically
fatigued knowledge workers (compared to those who are emotionally
fatigued) should cause them to view pursuing risky options as high in
outcome expectancies. This is consistent with research indicating that self-
efficacy is positively related to risk tolerance (Judge et al., 1999) as well as
with Harrison and Horne’s (2000b) finding that physical fatigue did not
decrease people’s confidence in their own responses. This is because the
combination of high self-efficacy and high decision latitude should lead
people to believe they have the capability and authority to use a range of
options to accomplish their work. Thus, pursuing risky options should have
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
81

the highest outcome expectancies for them, and they accordingly should use
abridged cognitive processing when they feel overloaded.
Proposition 9: When knowledge workers believe they have high
decision latitude, those who are physically fatigued should be more
likely than those who are emotionally fatigued to engage in the
workload management strategy of pursuing risky options.
Operationalization of workload management strategies
Previous research includes scales to measure self-efficacy, decision latitude,
physical fatigue, and emotional fatigue (see Babkoff et al., 1991; Karasek,
1979; Pines & Aronson, 1988; Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997; Schaufeli &
Vandierendonck, 1993). However, we are unaware of any scales for measur-
ing the four workload management strategies highlighted in this article. To
facilitate future empirical work, we developed initial operationalizations for
the workload management strategies.
We started by having three subject matter experts each generate 10
items for each of the four workload management strategies. Each expert then
worked individually to sort all items into the four categories and eliminate
redundant ideas. A sample of 251 undergraduates completed questionnaires
after thinking about times when they had too much to do and not enough
time to do it, by indicating the extent (1–5) to which they used specific behav-
iors to manage their workload. Based on our a priori conceptual framework,
we assessed items with CFA and retained the highest loading four items for
each workload management strategy. Coefficient alphas were acceptable: 1)
utilize familiar options α = .786, 2) increase demands on others α = .871, 3)
imitate others α = .891, and 4) pursue risky options α = .816. The largest
intercorrelation among the scales was .252. The appendix lists each of these
items.
Discussion
Competitive pressures in contemporary organizations often cause knowledge
workers to experience work overload and feel they must do ‘more with less’
(Cappelli, 1997; Perlow, 1999; Rousseau, 1997; Van Dyne & Ellis, 2004).
Accordingly, physical fatigue and emotional fatigue are important research
topics. To date, although we know that fatigue generally has negative effects
on performance, our conceptual models of fatigues have been relatively
under-developed and generally do not differentiate the effects of physical and
emotional fatigue.
Human Relations 62(1)
82

Responding to the realities of ongoing heavy job demands faced by
many knowledge workers, this article aimed to make three primary contri-
butions. First, drawing on job demands theory and research (Hambrick
et al., 2005; Karasek, 1979; Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997), we considered
the combined effects of self-efficacy and perceived decision latitude as the
basis of our typology of workload management strategies. Second, we
explicated similarities in physical and emotional fatigue and introduced the
concept of the emotional reservoir, which parallels prior work on the sleep
reservoir (Hursh et al., 2004). Third, integrating prior fatigue research with
self-efficacy theory, we highlighted differences between physical fatigue and
emotional fatigue and their implications for specific workload management
strategies. To our knowledge, this is the first article to develop a systematic
approach to workload management strategies, integrate theory on physical
and emotional fatigue, and posit differential effects of fatigue on specific
workload management strategies.
Theoretical implications
Some of the most obvious theoretical implications of our theory building are
for the job demands literature. To date, theoretical work on job demands has
focused primarily on how job demands influence health, well-being, and
stress of organizational members (Fox et al., 1993; Karasek, 1979;
Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997; Van Yperen & Hagedoorn, 2003). Although
this research is important, it is also critically important to theorize about the
work strategies that employees use to deal with such ongoing heavy job
demands. One key contribution our work makes to the job demands litera-
ture is providing a systematic and conceptually based typology that high-
lights similarities and differences in strategies that knowledge workers most
likely use to take short cuts and reduce the mental demands of doing their
work when they feel overloaded. Thus, we move from focusing on physio-
logical reactions to emphasizing work behaviors of knowledge workers. In
addition, our work explicates ways knowledge worker’s beliefs about their
capabilities (self-efficacy) and authority (decision latitude) most likely influ-
ence their strategies for dealing with job demands and sense of time scarcity.
Another set of theoretical implications applies to the previously frac-
tured literatures on physical fatigue and emotional fatigue. To date, research
on physical fatigue and emotional fatigue has developed independently, in
part, because the research is done primarily in different fields. Physical
fatigue has been examined primarily by physiologists and human factors
engineers, and emotional fatigue has been examined primarily by clinical and
applied psychologists. Thus, despite important theoretical and empirical
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
83

advances in research on each type of fatigue, the literature has lacked
integration of the two types of fatigue.
Practical implications
These propositions also have important practical implications. First, because
physical fatigue and emotional fatigue have different antecedents and conse-
quences, knowledge workers should carefully differentiate the two types of
fatigue. From a self-management perspective, an important practical impli-
cation is that knowledge workers should think carefully about what they
mean when they say ‘I’m tired’. They should reflect on the causes of feeling
tired and determine if fatigue is primarily a function of physical fatigue or
emotional fatigue. This should provide them with insight into the type of
workload management strategy that their fatigued state may naturally drive
them toward. Awareness of the typology may also help knowledge workers
become more conscious of factors that influence their selection of workload
management strategies. This should expand knowledge workers’ sense of
control by giving them a better understanding of strategies for coping with
heavy work demands and a sense of time scarcity.
Second, since the model depicts anticipated differential effects of
physical and emotional fatigue on workload management strategies, the
typology should help managers understand and anticipate characteristic
responses of knowledge workers who are emotionally versus physically
fatigued. For example, anticipating that physically fatigued knowledge
workers low in decision latitude should tend to imitate others and emotion-
ally fatigued knowledge workers high in decision latitude should tend to
increase demands on others can help managers understand ways knowledge
workers may influence each other’s work since both of these strategies
involve relying on others. A manager may want to pair such employees with
strong performers. The other two workload management strategies – utiliz-
ing familiar responses and pursuing risky options – also have managerial
implications. Being aware that physically fatigued knowledge workers high
in decision latitude should tend to pursue risky options, and that emotion-
ally fatigued knowledge workers low in decision latitude should tend to stick
with their own familiar responses can allow managers to anticipate employee
responses to feeling overloaded.
Future research
Our model has focused on factors that should influence knowledge
worker use of workload management strategies. Thus, we have advanced a
Human Relations 62(1)
84

conceptual model that needs to be tested empirically. For example, it would
be useful to ascertain if the four workload management strategies occur with
similar frequency or if some are used significantly more than others. In
addition, since we have developed an initial model, it is necessarily incom-
plete and we adopted some simplifying assumptions that should be relaxed
in future theory building. These assumptions include the distinction between
self-efficacy and decision latitude, the distinction between physical fatigue
and emotional fatigue, and our predictions which focus on the most likely
workload management strategy used in each of the self-efficacy/decision
latitude conditions.
Since we have presented an initial model, we encourage future research
that tests our predictions and relaxes our simplifying assumptions. For
example, future research may suggest that workload management strategies
are more complex than our model depicts. Knowledge workers may employ
multiple workload management strategies at the same time and may employ
multiple workload management strategies over time. Given that we empha-
sized high decision latitude as perceptions of the ability to shift workload to
others in the form of delegation or asking for help, following Hambrick and
colleagues (2005), future research might also consider a broader conceptu-
alization of decision latitude including perceived ability to use financial
resources. Future research may also identify additional workload manage-
ment strategies, such as outsourcing certain tasks and may consider contexts
where people experience both types of fatigue simultaneously. Extension of
our model to include such contexts provides rich avenues for future research.
Finally, we focused on four particular workload management strategies
and two depletion processes. We encourage future research on other
workload management strategies, such as Hambrick and colleagues’ (2005)
description of executives putting forth an exaggerated impression of their
work demands in order to avoid further assignments, and other depletion
processes, such as ego depletion (Baumeister et al., 1998), that may also be
relevant to knowledge workers. The interplay among different types of
fatigue and depletion will likely reveal interesting and important findings for
managers and members of organizations.
A final simplification of our model that should be considered in future
research is our two-by-two matrix depiction of workload management
strategies. As we noted earlier, both self-efficacy and decision latitude are
continuous constructs and are not dichotomous. Thus, our two-by-two
depiction is a simplifying heuristic intended to aid the understanding of our
model that does not imply categorical or dichotomous constructs. Accord-
ingly, empirical research should consider these constructs as continuous and
test our predictions about the likelihood that one strategy will be most
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
85

common in each of the four cells. In addition, we note the possibility of
finding non-monotonic functions in the tendencies to engage in specific
workload management strategies.
In our theorizing, we focused explicitly on knowledge workers because
competitive pressures, downsizing, and reorganizations have generally
increased work demands for these employees while simultaneously empha-
sizing the critical importance of their work contributions. Thus, we argued
that fatigue and its effects on workload management strategies should be
especially salient to knowledge workers. Other types of employees, however,
are also subject to fatigue. Perhaps different workload management strategies
apply to employees who are engaged in less human capital intensive work.
For example, they may adopt familiar options and imitate others more than
increasing demands on others or pursuing risky options. Alternatively, they
may focus primarily on strategies that minimize physical effort. We recom-
mend future research on these issues. Finally, as theoretical and empirical
research on physical and emotional fatigue continues to grow in the manage-
ment and applied psychology literatures, researchers should continue to inves-
tigate the differential effects of physical and emotional fatigue. One such area
of research that may prove valuable is the examination of fatigue at the
group or team level of analysis. Researchers have taken initial steps in such
examination, but have examined physical and emotional fatigue of groups in
separate literatures (see Bakker & Schaufeli, 2000; Barnes & Hollenbeck, in
press). Thus additional integration would be useful.
In conclusion, this article noted similarities in physical fatigue and
emotional fatigue but emphasized differences in the anticipated causes and
effects of the two types of fatigue. Our model begins to explicate these differ-
ences by specifying inflows and outflows to the sleep and emotional reser-
voirs and by predicting differences in the preferred workload management
strategies that most likely are used by those with physical versus emotional
fatigue. In sum, the comment ‘I’m tired’ has multiple meanings, suggesting
it is important to understand why someone feels drained in order to under-
stand, predict, and manage the effects of fatigue.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to give special thanks to Nikos Dimotakis for help in
generating the workload management strategies scales, and to Daniel R. Ilgen
and Michael D. Johnson for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this
article. This research was supported in part by the Consortium Research Fellows
Program in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory. Although
support for this work is gratefully acknowledged, the ideas expressed herein are
those of the authors and not necessarily endorsed by these agencies.
Human Relations 62(1)
86

References
Babkoff, H., Caspy, T. & Mikulincer, M. Subjective sleepiness ratings: The effects of sleep-
deprivation, circadian rhythmicity and cognitive performance. Sleep, 1991, 14, 534–9.
Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W.B. Burnout contagion processes among teachers. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 2000, 30, 2289–308.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Sixma, H.J. & Bosveld, W. Burnout contagion among general
practitioners. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2001, 20, 82–98.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Sixma, H.J., Bosveld, W. & Van Dierendonck, D. Patient
demands, lack of reciprocity, and burnout: A five-year longitudinal study among general
practitioners. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2000, 21, 425–41.
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman, 1997.
Baranski, J.V., Cian, C., Esquivie, D., Pigeau, R.A. & Raphel, C. Modafinil during 64 hours
of sleep deprivation: Dose-related effects on fatigue, alertness, and cognitive perform-
ance. Military Psychology, 1998, 10, 173–93.
Bard, E.G., Sotillo, C., Anderson, A.H., Thompson, H.S. & Taylor, M.M. The DCIEM
map task corpus: Spontaneous dialogue under sleep deprivation and drug treatment.
Speech Communication, 1996, 20, 71–84.
Barnes, C.M. & Hollenbeck, J.R. Sleep deprivation and decision-making teams: Burning
the midnight oil or playing with fire? Academy of Management Review, in press.
Barnes, C.M., Hollenbeck, J.R., Wagner, D.T., DeRue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D. & Schwind,
K.M. Harmful help: The costs of backing up behavior in teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 2008, 93, 529–39.
Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M. & Tice, D.M. Ego depletion: Is the active
self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1998, 74,
1252–65.
Bell, D. The coming of post industrial society. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
Blount, S. & Janicik, G.A. When plans change: Examining how people evaluate timing
changes in work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 2001, 26, 566–85.
Brockner, J., Greenberg, J., Brockner, A., Bortz, J., Davy, J. & Carter, C. Layoffs, equity
theory, and work performance: Further evidence of the impact of survivor guilt.
Academy of Management Journal, 1986, 29, 373–85.
Bussing, A. & Glaser, J. Four-stage process model of the core factors of burnout: The role
of work stressors and work-related resources. Work and Stress, 2000, 14, 329–46.
Caldwell, J.A., Caldwell, J.L., Brown, D.L. & Smith, J.K. The effects of 37 hours of
continuous wakefulness on the physiological arousal, cognitive performance, self-
reported mood, and simulator flight performance of F-117a pilots. Military Psy-
chology, 2004, 16, 163–81.
Cappelli, P. The changing nature of work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 1997.
Cordes, C.L. & Dougherty, T.W. A review and an integration of research on job burnout.
Academy of Management Review, 1993, 18, 621–56.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E. & Byrne, Z.S. The relationship of emotional exhaustion to
work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 2003, 88, 160–9.
Desmond, P.A. & Matthews, G. Implications of task-induced fatigue effects for in-vehicle
countermeasures to driver fatigue. Accident Analysis and Prevention
, 1997, 29, 515–23.
Dinges, D.F., Pack, F., Williams, K., Gillen, K.A., Powell, J.W., Ott, G.E., Aptowicz, C. &
Pack, A.I. Cumulative sleepiness, mood disturbance, and psychomotor vigilance
performance decrements during a week of sleep restricted to 4–5 hours per night. Sleep,
1997, 20, 267–77.
Eden, D. Acute and chronic job stress, strain, and vacation relief. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 1990, 45, 175–93.
Etzion, D., Eden, D. & Lapidot, Y. Relief from job stressors and burnout: Reserve service
as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998, 83, 577–85.
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
87

Fiske, S.T. & Taylor, S.E. Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
Fox, M.L., Dwyer, D.J. & Ganster, D.C. Effects of stressful job demands and control on
physiological and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting. Academy of Management
Journal, 1993, 36, 289–318.
Fritz, C. & Sonnentag, S. Recovery, well-being, and performance-related outcomes: The
role of workload and vacation experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006, 91,
936–45.
Gaines, J. & Jermier, J.M. Emotional exhaustion in a high stress organization. Academy
of Management Journal, 1983, 26, 567–86.
Grandey, A.A., Fisk, G.M. & Steiner, D.D. Must ‘service with a smile’ be stressful? The
moderating role of personal control for American and French employees. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 2005, 90, 893–904.
Greve, H.R. Patterns of competition: The diffusion of a market position in radio broad-
casting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1996, 41, 29–60.
Groeger, J.A., Zijlstra, F.R.H. & Dijk, D.J. Sleep quantity, sleep difficulties and their
perceived consequences in a representative sample of some 2000 British adults. Journal
of Sleep Research, 2004, 13, 359–71.
Hambrick, D.C. & Finkelstein, S. Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of
organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1987, 9, 369–406.
Hambrick, D.C., Finkelstein, S. & Mooney, A.C. Executive job demands: New insights for
explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review,
2005, 30, 472–91.
Harrison, Y. & Horne, J.A. One night of sleep loss impairs innovative thinking and flexible
decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1999, 78,
128–45.
Harrison, Y. & Horne, J.A. The impact of sleep deprivation on decision making: A review.
Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, 2000a, 6, 236–49.
Harrison, Y. & Horne, J.A. Sleep loss and temporal memory. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology Section A-Human Experimental Psychology, 2000b, 53,
271–9.
Horne, J.A. Human sleep, sleep loss and behavior: Implications for the prefrontal cortex
and psychiatric-disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1993, 162, 413–19.
Huey, B.M. & Wickens, C.D. Workload transition. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 1993.
Hursh, S.R., Redmond, D.P., Johnson, M.L., Thorne, D.R., Belenky, G., Balkin, T.J., Storm,
W.F., Miller, J.C. & Eddy, D.R. Fatigue models for applied research in warfighting.
Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 2004, 75, A44–A53.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V. & Welbourne, T.M. Managerial coping with organiz-
ational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999, 84,
107–22.
Karasek, R.A. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1979,
24, 285–308.
Kirkman, B.L. & Rosen, B. Beyond self management: Antecedents and consequences of
team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 1999, 42, 58–74.
Korman, A.K. Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of
Management Review, 1976, 1, 50–63.
Kreiner, G.E., Hollensbe, E.C. & Sheep, M.L. Where is the ‘me’ among the ‘we’? Identity
work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 2006, 49,
1031–57.
Labianca, G., Moon, H. & Watt, I. When is an hour not 60 minutes? Deadlines, temporal
schemata, and individual and task group performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 2005, 48, 677–94.
LeDuc, P.A., Caldwell, J.A. & Ruyak, P.S. The effects of exercise as a countermeasure for
fatigue in sleep-deprived aviators. Military Psychology, 2000, 12, 249–66.
Human Relations 62(1)
88

Lee, R.T. & Ashforth, B.E. A longitudinal-study of burnout among supervisors and
managers: Comparisons between the Leiter and Maslach (1988) and Golembiewski
et al. (1986) models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1993,
54, 369–98.
Lee, R.T. & Ashforth, B.E. A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three
dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996, 81, 123–33.
Leiter, M.P. Coping patterns as predictors of burnout: The function of control and escapist
coping patterns. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1991, 12, 123–44.
Leiter, M.P. & Durup, J. The discriminant validity of burnout and depression: A confir-
matory factor-analytic study. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 1994, 7, 357–73.
Leiter, M.P. & Maslach, C. The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout
and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1988, 9,
297–308.
LePine, J.A., LePine, M.A. & Jackson, C.L. Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships
with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 2004, 89, 883–91.
Lewis, K. Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study
of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 2004, 50, 1519–33.
Lieberman, M.B. & Asaba, S. Why do firms imitate each other? Academy of Management
Review, 2006, 31, 366–85.
Maslach, C. Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. & Leiter, M.P. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology,
2001, 52, 397–422.
Melamed, S., Shirom, A., Toker, S., Berliner, S. & Shapira, I. Burnout and risk of cardio-
vascular disease: Evidence, possible causal paths, and promising research directions.
Psychological Bulletin, 2006, 132, 327–53.
Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary, 10th edn. Springfield, MA:
Merriam-Webster, 1999.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Overtime and extended work shifts:
Recent findings on illnesses, injuries, and health behaviors (No. 2004–143). Cincinnati,
OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2004.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S. & Pluntke, F. Routinization, work characteristics and their relation-
ships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2006,
27, 257–79.
Payne, J.W. Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1982, 92, 382–402.
Perlow, L.A. The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1999, 44, 57–81.
Pfeffer, J. Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the work force.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1994.
Pilcher, J.J. & Huffcutt, A.I. Effects of sleep deprivation on performance: A meta-analysis.
Sleep, 1996, 19, 318–26.
Pines, A.M. & Aronson, E. Career burnout: Causes and cures. New York: Free Press, 1988.
Reid, G.B. & Nygren, T.E. The subjective workload assessment technique: A scaling
procedure for measuring mental workload. In P.A.H.N. Meshkati (Ed.), Human mental
workload. New York: Elsevier Science, 1988, pp. 185–218.
Rogers, A.E., Hwang, W.T., Scott, L.D., Aiken, L.H. & Dinges, D.F. The working hours
of hospital staff nurses and patient safety. Health Affairs, 2004, 23, 202–12.
Rousseau, D.M. Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual Review of
Psychology, 1997, 48, 515–46.
Saper, C.B., Scammell, T.E. & Lu, J. Hypothalamic regulation of sleep and circadian
rhythms. Nature, 2005, 437(7063), 1257–63.
Schaubroeck, J. & Merritt, D.E. Divergent effects of job control on coping with work
stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 1997, 40,
738–54.
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
89

Schaufeli, W.B. & Vandierendonck, D. The construct-validity of 2 burnout measures.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1993, 14, 631–47.
Shen, W. & Cho, T.S. Exploring involuntary executive turnover through a managerial
discretion framework. Academy of Management Review, 2005, 30, 843–54.
Siebert, S.E., Silver, S.R. & Randolph, W.A. Taking empowerment to the next level: A
multiple level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 2004, 47, 332–49.
Sonnentag, S. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the
interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88,
518–28.
Sperandio, J.C. Regulation of working methods as a function of work-load among air-
traffic controllers. Ergonomics, 1978, 21, 195–202.
Spreitzer, G.M. Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy
of Management Journal, 1996, 39, 483–504.
Stajkovic, A.D. & Luthans, F. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 1998, 124, 240–61.
Totterdell, P., Spelten, E., Smith, L., Barton, J. & Folkard, S. Recovery from work shifts:
How long does it take? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1995, 80, 43–57.
Uhl-Bien, M. & Graen, G.B. Individual self-management: Analysis of professionals’ self-
managing activities in functional and cross-functional work teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 1998, 41, 340–50.
Van Dyne, L. & Ellis, J.B. Job creep: A reactance theory perspective on organizational
citizenship behavior as over-fulfillment of obligations. In J.A.M. Coyle-Shapiro, L.M.
Shore, M.S. Taylor & L.E. Tetrick (Eds), The employment relationship: Examining
psychological and contextual perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004,
pp. 181–205.
Van Yperen, N.W. & Hagedoorn, M. Do high job demands increase intrinsic motivation
or fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 2003, 46, 339–48.
Vroom, V. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Waterhouse, J., Nevill, A., Edwards, B., Godfrey, R. & Reilly, T. The relationship between
assessments of jet lag and some of its symptoms. Chronobiology International, 2003,
20, 1061–73.
Westman, M. & Eden, D. Effects of a respite from work on burnout: Vacation relief and
fade-out. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, 82, 516–27.
Wright, T.A. & Cropanzano, R. Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance
and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998, 83, 486–93.
Yeo, G.B. & Neal, A. An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-efficacy
and performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 2006, 91, 1088–101.
Zeitlin, L.R. Estimates of driver mental workload: A long-term field trial of two subsidiary
tasks. Human Factors, 1995, 37
, 611–21.
Appendix: Workload Management Strategies Scales
Utilize familiar responses:
1. I used an approach that felt familiar to me based on my past
experiences.
2. I used habits that I have developed over time.
Human Relations 62(1)
90

3. I applied responses that I knew well.
4. I used a familiar approach that was comfortable to me.
Increase demands on others:
1. I asked others to share the load.
2. I recruited the efforts of others.
3. I looked for others who could take on some of the tasks.
4. I asked others to provide their help.
Imitate others:
1. I observed what others had done in similar situations and implemented
those behaviors.
2. I utilized the same responses that I had seen others use.
3. I took an action that had worked for someone else.
4. I implemented a response that was previously successful for another
person.
Pursue risky options:
1. I quickly pushed through uncertainty to take a course of action.
2. I shortened my analysis by using some educated guesswork.
3. I went with my gut and acted, despite the complexity of the situation.
4. I responded decisively in the face of uncertainty.
Christopher M. Barnes, doctoral candidate, Michigan State University,
has three primary research interests: 1) fatigue in organizations, 2) team
performance, and 3) leadership. He has published articles in Academy of
Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Human Performance and
Human Relations. Prior to his doctoral program, he served four years as
an officer in the United States Air Force.
[E-mail: barnes@bus.msu.edu]
Linn Van Dyne, Professor at Michigan State University (PhD, University
of Minnesota), has two major research programs: proactive employee
behaviors involving initiative and cultural intelligence. She is Associate
Editor of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and on the
editorial boards of Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Academy
of Management Perspectives, Human Relations and Management and Organiz-
ation Review. She is a fellow in the Society of Organizational Behavior and
Barnes & Van Dyne Effects of fatigue on workload management strategies
91

has published in Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management
Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Research in Organizational Behavior, Human Relations and
other outlets. Prior to becoming an academic, she held a variety of mana-
gerial positions (including Director of World-Wide Human Resources;
Director of Compensation, Benefits, and International Personnel) in for-
profit manufacturing firms and not-for-profit service organizations.
[E-mail: vandyne@msu.edu]
Human Relations 62(1)
92