Hargrove, M.B., Nelson, D.L., and Cooper, C.L. (2013) Generating eustress by challenging employees: Helping people savor their work. Organizational Dynamics. 42, 61-69.

Full text

Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/256979203
Hargrove,M.B.,Nelson,D.L.,andCooper,C.L.
(2013)Generatingeustressbychallenging
employees:Helpingpeoplesavortheirwork.
OrganizationalDynamics.42,61-69.
ARTICLEinORGANIZATIONALDYNAMICS·JANUARY2013
ImpactFactor:0.79·DOI:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.12.008
READS
745
3AUTHORS:
M.BlakeHargrove
ShippensburgUniversity,JohnL.GroveCol…
9PUBLICATIONS10CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
DebraL.Nelson
OklahomaStateUniversity-Stillwater
65PUBLICATIONS1,483CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
CaryL.Cooper
TheUniversityofManchester
676PUBLICATIONS13,555CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
Availablefrom:CaryL.Cooper
Retrievedon:03November2015

Generating
eustress
by
challenging
employees:
Helping
people
savor
their
work
Matthew
Blake
Hargrove,
Debra
L.
Nelson,
Cary
L.
Cooper
Top
managers
understand
that
the
wellness
and
wellbeing
of
their
employees
is
of
prime
importance.
John
Casey,
the
director
of
international
benefits
at
Google,
says
as
a
part
of
Google’s
big
vision
they
are
setting
out
to
have
the
‘‘healthiest
and
happiest
workforce
on
the
planet.’’
Why
should
Google
care
about
the
health
and
happiness
of
its
people?
Because
healthier
and
happier
people
perform
bet-
ter,
stay
longer,
and
cost
less
than
sick
and
unhappy
people.
There
is
overwhelming
evidence
that
work-based
anxiety
and
burnout
cause
detrimental
physical
and
psychological
disease.
Wise
managers
ignore
this
evidence
at
their
peril.
A
2012
survey
published
by
the
Society
of
Human
Resource
Management
indicates
that
employers
are
increasingly
inter-
ested
in
offering
wellness
programs
—
63
percent
of
compa-
nies
now
offer
programs,
up
from
47
percent
in
2005.
The
Googleplex,
with
its
many
gyms,
running
tracks,
bicycle
paths,
and
onsite
yoga
instructors,
sets
a
bar
for
wellness
that
few
organizations
can
match.
Fortunately,
managers
need
not
have
access
to
the
resources
of
one
of
the
world’s
largest
firms
to
strive
to
create
a
workplace
in
which
their
employees
can
physically
and
psychologically
thrive.
The
purpose
of
this
article
is
to
offer
one
specific
strategy
for
managers
wishing
to
achieve
this
goal.
Specifically,
we
con-
tend
that
managers
who
wish
to
build
healthy
and
happy
organizations
must
learn
to
differentiate
between
the
types
of
demands
they
place
upon
their
people
and
focus
primarily
on
placing
demands
that
employees
can
view
as
task-related
and
linked
to
their
own
personal
development.
FedEx
is
one
of
the
world’s
largest
logistics
companies.
They
provide
overnight
shipping
across
the
globe
and
have
expanded
extensively
into
the
U.S.
ground
freight
market.
One
manager
who
deals
with
a
demanding
workplace
is
John
Dunavant,
who
serves
as
FedEx’s
vice
president
of
the
World-
HUB
in
Memphis,
Tennessee.
During
the
Christmas
retail
season,
worldwide
shipping
volume
ramps
up
to
double
their
typical
daily
load.
According
to
Dunavant,
FedEx
had
its
busiest
day
to
date
on
December
12,
2011,
shipping
more
than
17
million
packages.
FedEx
ships
around
8.5
million
packages
on
an
average
business
day.
FedEx
workers
are
faced
with
processing
millions
of
tasks,
all
under
extreme
time
pressure.
Each
FedEx
operations
employee
is
constantly
driven
by
the
ticking
of
thousands
of
countdown
clocks
commensurate
with
a
worldwide
logistics
operation.
Despite
this
pressure,
FedEx
workers
largely
succeed
at
their
tasks
and
get
the
job
done.
FedEx
places
big
demands
on
its
employees,
yet
they
rise
to
meet
the
challenge.
This
paper’s
purpose
is
fourfold.
First,
we
introduce
the
idea
of
eustress
and
its
brief
history
in
management
research.
Second,
we
present
two
frameworks
that
inform
our
under-
standing
of
eustress,
the
Challenge
Hindrance
Framework
and
the
Holistic
Stress
Model.
Based
on
the
intersection
of
these
two
frameworks,
we
introduce
a
model
for
managers
who
wish
to
build
healthy
and
happy
organizations
by
gen-
erating
positive
forms
of
stress.
In
the
fourth
section,
we
suggest
methods
for
managers
to
help
their
people
savor
eustress
at
work
and
explore
the
positive
possibilities
of
eustress
in
the
workplace.
WHAT
IS
EUSTRESS?
Working
people
know
all
too
well
the
negative
side
of
stress,
which
is
distress.
Less
often
discussed
is
the
positive
side
of
stress,
or
eustress.
Jim
and
Jonathan
Quick,
based
on
the
foundational
work
of
Selye,
included
eustress
in
their
pre-
ventive
stress
management
approach,
describing
eustress
as
the
healthy,
constructive
outcome
of
stressful
events
and
the
stress
response.
Bret
Simmons
and
Debra
Nelson
further
refined
the
definition
of
eustress
as
the
positive
psychological
response
to
a
stressor,
indicated
by
the
presence
of
positive
psychological
states.
Individuals
experiencing
eustress
describe
the
experience
as
being
totally
focused
in
a
mindful
state
of
challenge,
a
healthy
state
of
aroused
attention
on
the
task,
exhilaration,
and
being
fully
present.
Nurses,
for
Organizational
Dynamics
(2013)
42,
61—69
Available
online
at
www.sciencedirect.com
jo
u
rn
al
h
om
ep
ag
e:
ww
w.els
evier.c
o
m/lo
c
ate/o
rg
d
yn
0090-2616/$
—
see
front
matter
#
2012
Elsevier
Inc.
All
rights
reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.12.008

example,
who
have
very
demanding
jobs,
report
eustress
as
indicated
by
hope
and
active
engagement
in
their
work,
which
contribute
to
feelings
of
wellbeing.
Among
nurses
dealing
with
the
death
of
patients,
those
who
found
meaning
in
work
and
were
highly
engaged
still
experienced
eustress
and
its
benefits.
Athletes
refer
to
eustress
as
being
at
the
top
of
their
game,
and
performance
artists
like
opera
singers
describe
the
feeling
as
being
completely
in
synch
with
the
audience,
immersed
in
the
performance.
In
short,
eustress
is
related
to
health
and
wellbeing,
and
in
turn
to
work
perfor-
mance.
Given
these
promising
benefits,
how
can
leaders
draw
upon
the
research
on
eustress
to
create
‘‘eustressful’’
workplaces?
We
address
the
question
by
drawing
upon
two
streams
of
research
on
positive
stress:
the
Challenge
Hindrance
Frame-
work
and
the
Holistic
Stress
Model.
The
result
of
this
inte-
gration
is
a
set
of
recommendations
for
managers
who
want
to
generate
positive
stress
in
their
organizations.
CHALLENGE
HINDRANCE
FRAMEWORK
The
idea
of
challenging
employees
in
the
workplace
is
not
a
new
one.
Smart
managers
have
long
understood
that
chal-
lenging
people
to
push
their
capabilities
often
brings
great
reward
to
their
organizations.
Having
said
this,
we
under-
stand
that
today’s
managers
are
increasingly
concerned
with
building
healthy
organizations
that
do
not
place
inap-
propriate
demands
on
their
people.
The
Challenge
Hin-
drance
Framework
(CHF)
is
one
novel
theoretical
model
that
has
the
potential
to
provide
guidance
for
management
professionals.
The
CHF
was
first
introduced
by
Marcie
Cavanaugh
and
three
other
collaborators
from
Cornell
University.
This
research
team
conducted
a
study
of
1,900
high
level
executives.
The
results
indicated
that
certain
types
of
stressors
were
perceived
by
many
of
the
executives
to
be
challenge-related
and
positive,
while
other
types
of
stressors
were
perceived
to
be
hindrance-related
and
negative.
For
example,
most
of
the
executives
found
work
deadlines
to
be
challenging
and
administrative
red
tape
to
be
hindering.
As
with
any
emerging
conceptual
framework,
the
CHF
has
received
attention
from
numerous
researchers
and
con-
tinues
to
develop
theoretically.
Subsequent
contributors
have
begun
to
build
upon
Cavanaugh’s
work
to
carefully
define
challenge
stressors
and
hindrance
stressors.
Gener-
ally,
these
researchers
have
tended
to
focus
on
the
percep-
tual
nature
of
all
stressors.
In
other
words,
within
the
CHF,
individual
perceptions
of
a
stressor
tend
to
predominate.
One
theoretical
approach
to
the
definition
of
these
concepts
was
accomplished
by
Nathan
Podsakoff,
at
the
time
a
researcher
at
the
University
of
Florida.
Podsakoff
defines
the
terms
as
follows:
challenge
stressors
are
‘‘demands
in
the
workplace
that
tend
to
be
appraised
as
promoting
the
accomplishment
of
job
tasks
and
the
personal
development
of
the
individual,’’
and
hindrance
stressors
are
‘‘demands
in
the
workplace
that
tend
to
be
appraised
as
barriers
or
obstacles
to
the
accomplishment
of
job
tasks
and
personal
development
of
the
individual.’’
Empirical
findings
have
generally
provided
evidence
to
support
differential
outcomes
based
upon
the
presence
of
challenge
or
hindrance
stressors.
In
general,
these
findings
have
supported
the
notion
that
challenge
stressors
are
posi-
tively
associated
with
desirable
behaviors
and
outcomes
and
negatively
associated
with
undesirable
behaviors
and
out-
comes.
Studies
also
indicate
that
hindrance
stressors
tend
to
be
positively
related
to
the
undesirable
and
negatively
related
to
the
desirable.
Challenge
stressors
promote
positive
attitudes
and
other
desirable
organizational
outcomes.
One
recent
finding
among
a
sample
of
governmental
workers
in
New
Zealand
indicated
that
challenge
stressors
predict
employee
loyalty.
This
find-
ing
suggests
that
challenge
stressors
may
lead
to
a
sense
of
commitment
to
the
organization.
In
addition
to
loyalty,
challenge
stressors
have
also
been
found
to
be
positively
correlated
with
motivation
to
learn,
supervisor
support,
and
organizational
support.
These
findings
suggest
that
challen-
ging
workers
produces
desirable
attitudes
and
builds
align-
ment
between
organizational
and
individual
goals.
Another
pathway
through
which
challenge
stressors
seem
to
benefit
organizations
is
through
their
negative
relationship
with
undesirable
behavior.
To
date,
studies
have
found
a
negative
relationship
between
challenge
stressors
and
job
withdra-
wal,
job
search
behaviors,
and
intention
to
quit.
All
of
these
findings
support
the
idea
that
people
who
experience
chal-
lenge
stressors
are
less
apt
to
disengage
with
the
organiza-
tions
in
which
they
work.
The
first
meta-analytic
studies
have
been
generally
sup-
portive
of
the
differential
outcomes
hypothesis
embedded
within
the
CHF
and
the
positive
potential
of
challenge
stres-
sors.
A
University
of
Florida
based
research
team,
including
Marcie
and
Jeffery
LePine
and
Nathan
Podsakoff,
have
been
systematically
studying
the
findings
related
to
challenge
and
hindrance
stressors
across
the
management
and
psychology
literature.
In
their
first
published
meta-analysis,
they
found
that
challenge
stressors
had
a
direct
positive
effect
on
performance.
This
study
also
found
indirect
effects
on
per-
formance
via
strain
and
motivation.
Challenge
stressors
were
negatively
correlated
with
strain
and
positively
associated
with
motivation;
hindrance
stressors
had
the
opposite
cor-
relations.
In
this
research
team’s
second
meta-analysis,
they
also
found
evidence
that
supported
the
hypotheses
that
challenge
stressors
are
associated
with
positive
outcomes.
The
outcome
variables
tested
in
this
second
study
included
job
satisfaction,
organizational
commitment,
turnover
inten-
tions,
and
turnover.
Thus,
a
broad
view
of
existing
data
gathered
to
test
the
CHF
has
found
that
challenge
stressors
are
associated
with
positive
attitudes
and
behaviors,
and
that
challenge
stressors
are
negatively
associated
with
unde-
sirable
attitudes
and
behaviors.
Though
most
published
research
supports
the
contentions
of
the
CHF,
several
findings
call
into
question
the
differential
outcomes
hypothesis.
For
example,
both
challenge
stressors
and
hindrance
stressors
have
been
demonstrated
to
be
posi-
tively
correlated
to
psychological
strain
or
burnout.
Similarly,
there
is
evidence
to
support
that
both
challenge
and
hin-
drance
stressors
are
positively
associated
with
exhaustion.
Both
of
these
findings
suggest
that
even
good
stressors
can
lead
to
bad
stress.
Previous
to
the
development
of
the
CHF,
many
stress
researchers
had
demonstrated
that
the
quantity
of
stressors
faced
by
an
individual
affected
the
response.
It
seems
likely
that
challenge
stressors
are
subject
to
quanti-
tative
limits.
In
other
words,
challenge
stressors
may
be
like
62
M.B.
Hargrove
et
al.

chocolate
—
too
much
of
almost
any
good
thing
can
lead
to
negative
consequences.
An
important
unpublished
manuscript
relevant
to
the
discussion
of
the
CHF
is
Nathan
Podsakoff’s
2007
dissertation.
In
this
dissertation,
Podsakoff
rigorously
develops
improved
scales
with
which
to
measure
challenge
and
hindrance
stres-
sors.
Prior
to
performing
comprehensive
psychometric
vali-
dation
studies,
Podsakoff
reconceptualizes
the
CHF
to
include
eleven
dimensions
(four
challenge
dimensions
and
seven
hindrance
dimensions).
The
four
dimensions
of
chal-
lenge
stressors
identified
by
Podsakoff
are:
Work
Load,
Work
Pace,
Job
Complexity,
and
Job
Responsibility.
We
will
discuss
each
of
these
dimensions
in
further
detail
in
a
subsequent
section
of
this
article.
In
summary,
the
CHF
framework’s
contributions
most
relevant
to
this
work
include
identifying
the
stressors
that
many
individuals
perceive
as
positive,
and
elaborating
on
the
outcomes
to
be
gained
when
employees
perceive
stressors
as
challenges
rather
than
hindrances.
Challenge
stressors
offer
an
intriguing
avenue
to
explore
eustress
within
organiza-
tions.
We
next
turn
to
a
discussion
of
a
theoretical
model
that
offers
an
explanation
of
how
eustress
may
lead
to
desirable
outcomes.
HOLISTIC
STRESS
MODEL
The
Holistic
Stress
Model
(HSM)
was
proposed
by
Simmons
and
Nelson
with
the
goal
of
offering
a
more
complete
and
com-
prehensive
view
of
the
individual’s
experience
of
work
stress.
A
broad
version
of
the
model
is
offered
in
Fig.
1.
For
the
purposes
of
this
article,
we
will
concentrate
only
on
the
parts
of
the
model
(in
solid
lines)
that
pertain
to
eustress.
To
capture
the
essence
of
the
HSM,
it
is
important
to
understand
some
of
the
central
tenets
of
the
model
that
specifically
address
eustress.

Stressors
are
inherently
neutral.

The
cognitive
appraisal
of
any
given
demand
or
stressor
produces
a
simultaneous
positive
and
negative
response.
It
is
the
response
to
demands
that
has
positive
and/or
negative
valence
and
thus
the
response
is
of
utmost
importance.

Individual
differences
affect
the
way
in
which
demands
are
appraised.

Positive
and
negative
responses
are
complex
and
mixed.
Degrees
of
both
positive
and
negative
indicators
of
re-
sponse
can
be
present
for
any
given
demand.

Individuals
select
strategies
to
either
eliminate
or
allevi-
ate
their
negative
responses
to
stressors,
or
to
accentuate
or
potentially
dampen
their
positive
responses.
These
strategies
can
be
focused
either
on
the
perceived
stressors
or
on
the
perceived
responses.

Positive
and
negative
responses
differentially
affect
val-
ued
outcomes
at
work.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
HSM
places
heavy
emphasis
on
the
role
of
cognitive
appraisal
in
the
stress
process.
The
individual’s
appraisal
is
the
defining
characteristic
of
a
re-
sponse
that
is
positive.
In
other
words,
individuals
may
experience
eustress
if
they
appraise
a
stressor
as
benefitting
the
individual
or
his/her
wellbeing.
Following
the
work
of
Jeff
Edwards
and
Cary
Cooper,
Simmons
and
Nelson
proposed
that
the
indicators
of
eustress
are
hope,
positive
affect,
vigor,
meaningfulness,
and
man-
ageability.
These
positive
psychological
states
all
represent
aspects
of
engagement.
Positive
affect
indicates
pleasurable
engagement
in
work,
and
feelings
of
enthusiasm,
alertness,
and
activity.
Hope
at
work
is
a
belief
that
one
has
both
the
will
and
the
way
to
accomplish
work
goals.
Vigor
is
a
positive
psychological
state
at
work
that
has
three
dimensions:
phy-
sical
strength,
emotional
energy,
and
cognitive
liveliness.
Figure
1
Holistic
Stress
Model
Generating
eustress
by
challenging
employees
63

Vigor
is,
in
essence,
an
energy
resource,
related
to
motiva-
tion
and
sustained
behavior.
Meaningfulness
is
a
sense
of
purpose
or
personal
connection
with
work.
Manageability
is
the
feeling
that
one
has
the
resources
to
meet
the
demands
of
the
work
situation,
and
leads
to
perceptions
of
control
over
the
work
setting.
The
authors
note
that
these
are
not
the
only
indicators
of
eustress,
because
other
positive
psycholo-
gical
states
could
also
be
indicators,
and
future
research
should
focus
on
identifying
additional
indicators.
The
idea
of
savoring
is
unique
to
the
HSM.
In
models
of
distress,
the
related
concept
is
coping
with
distress.
Savor-
ing
eustress
is
enjoying
it
with
anticipation
or
dwelling
on
it
with
delight
and
satisfaction.
Individuals
often
try
to
perpe-
tuate
positive
emotions
by
making
them
last.
At
work,
individuals
may
try
to
experience
the
positive,
productive
state
of
eustress
more
frequently
or
for
longer
periods
of
time.
This
may
occur
when
individuals
enhance
their
expo-
sure
to
stressors
they
see
as
having
the
potential
to
be
positively
stressful.
Although
the
HSM
model
has
not
been
examined
in
its
entirety,
several
studies
have
demonstrated
support
for
the
eustress
components
of
the
model.
Specifically,
support
has
been
found
for
the
indicators
of
eustress,
and
for
the
rela-
tionship
between
eustress
and
health,
wellbeing,
and
job
performance.
The
next
section
in
this
article
will
use
the
lessons
from
the
HSM
and
CHF
to
offer
professionals
in
the
field
of
management
some
concrete
advice
with
regard
to
generating
positive
stress
in
the
organizations
they
lead.
GENERATING
GOOD
STRESS
In
this
section
we
offer
an
unconventional
suggestion
to
managers.
We
suggest
that
managers
generate
healthy
stress
among
their
employees.
Our
recommendations
are
captured
in
Fig.
2
which
is
a
managerial
summary
gleaned
from
the
HSM
and
CHF
models
of
stress.
First,
managers
can
identify
which
aspects
of
work
employees
see
as
most
engaging,
and
identify
why
the
work
is
so
eustressful.
Then
managers
can
design
ways
to
enhance
the
positive
aspects
of
work.
Based
upon
the
work
of
CHF
researchers,
four
specific
dimensions
of
stressors
have
been
identified
as
challenging,
and
therefore
generally
positive
for
employees:
Work
Load,
Work
Pace,
Job
Complexity,
and
Job
Responsibility.
Managers
who
wish
to
build
healthy
and
happy
workplaces
are
advised
to
concentrate
their
demands
into
these
four
dimensions
rather
than
those
demands
that
are
perceived
as
obstacles.
In
the
subsequent
paragraphs,
we
will
discuss
the
pathways
by
which
positive
stress
can
improve
organizational
function
and
the
methods
that
managers
may
use
to
help
their
employees
savor
the
positive
stress
to
which
they
are
exposed.
In
addition,
we
will
discuss
the
four
types
of
challenges
that
are
most
likely
to
result
in
eustress.
The
reader
will
remember
that
challenge
stressors
are
defined
as
‘‘demands
in
the
workplace
that
tend
to
be
appraised
as
promoting
the
accomplishment
of
job
tasks
and
the
personal
development
of
the
individual.’’
This
defi-
nition
contains
four
essential
elements:
appraisal,
related-
ness,
task
accomplishment,
and
personal
development.
The
first
element,
appraisal,
can
be
narrowly
understood
to
be
either
a
cognitive
step,
or
more
broadly,
as
a
psycho-phy-
siological
response.
When
understood
as
a
cognitive
process,
an
individual
appraises
a
stimulus
by
thinking
about
it.
In
the
more
holistic
understanding
of
appraisal,
an
individual
reacts
to
a
stimulus
by
thinking,
feeling,
and
through
physiological
changes.
Whether
the
narrow
or
broad
understanding
of
appraisal
is
employed,
the
important
thing
is
an
individual’s
response
to
a
stressor
is
based
upon
a
reaction.
Managers
wishing
to
promote
positive
stress
should
take
every
effort
to
ensure
that
the
initial
reaction
to
a
stressor
be
as
positive
as
Figure
2
A
Managerial
Model
for
Eustress
Generation
in
Organizations
64
M.B.
Hargrove
et
al.

practical.
When
exposing
employees
to
potentially
stressful
stimuli,
managers
should
attempt
to
frame
the
stimuli
using
positive
terms,
in
a
positive
emotional
state,
and
in
as
pleasant
an
environment
as
possible.
Steve
Jobs
had
the
reputation
of
being
an
incredibly
demanding
boss.
He
reg-
ularly
asked
his
teams
to
do
things
that
they
simply
did
not
believe
were
possible.
The
late
Apple
executive
believed
that
the
key
to
challenging
employees
included
the
necessity
to
sell
a
positive
vision
or
dream.
He
believed
that
employees
needed
a
hero
or
goal
that
they
could
emotionally
rally
around.
Jobs
understood
that
to
effectively
challenge
employees,
he
needed
to
manage
their
emotional
reaction
to
the
challenge.
The
second
element
is
relatedness.
Relatedness
is
based
upon
the
term
‘‘promoting’’
found
in
the
definition
of
chal-
lenge
stressors.
In
order
for
a
stressor
to
be
regarded
as
promoting,
it
must
be
appraised
as
being
related
to
either
task
accomplishment
or
personal
development.
How
do
man-
agers
relate
a
stimulus
to
outcomes
salient
to
employees?
Good
managers
demonstrate
the
meaningfulness
of
the
demands
they
place
upon
their
workers.
Good
managers
take
the
time
to
explain
how
these
demands
are
connected
and
related
to
significant
outcomes.
Good
managers
orient
their
employees
within
the
broad
context
of
the
organization’s
mission.
Good
managers
invest
the
resources
and
effort
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
work
demands
have
a
broader
purpose
of
value
to
both
the
organization
and
the
individual.
The
third
and
fourth
elements,
task
accomplishment
and
personal
development,
tie
a
stressor
to
outcomes
important
to
individuals.
One
basic
definition
of
a
healthy
organization
is
a
group
of
individuals
joined
together
to
achieve
a
common
purpose
while
achieving
their
own
individual
goals.
To
one
extent
or
another,
every
healthy
organization
pro-
vides
a
context
for
constituent
members
to
achieve
perso-
nal
goals.
In
general,
the
relationship
between
an
individual
and
an
organization
breaks
down
and
eventually
ends
when
individuals
cannot
both
benefit
from
and
contribute
to
an
organization.
This
symbiotic
relationship
is
at
the
heart
of
good
management
practices.
Managers
understand
that
their
organizations
must
allow
for
personal
development
and
goal
attainment.
Workers
understand
that
they
must
contribute
to
an
organization
in
order
to
achieve
their
own
personal
goals.
Given
the
nature
of
the
underlying
bargain
between
individuals
and
organizations,
healthy
stressors
should
be
tied
to
either
a
path
of
organizational
task
accomplishment
or
a
path
of
personal
development.
Managers
accomplish
this
by
explicitly
tying
stressors
to
organizational
objectives
and
by
maintaining
systems
through
which
individuals
achieve
personal
development
within
their
organizations.
Most
con-
structive
managerial
practices
already
are
related
to
these
two
pathways.
For
example,
many
organizations
already
have
systems
in
place
such
as
compensation
structures,
employee
evaluation
systems,
employee
assistance
pro-
grams,
wellness
programs,
and
retirement
benefits
that
are
specifically
designed
to
align
organizational
and
indivi-
dual
interests.
The
task
of
managers
wishing
to
promote
positive
organizational
stress
is
to
systematically
relate
stres-
sors
to
task
accomplishment
and
personal
development.
Does
the
employee
want
to
earn
a
bonus
so
that
she
can
take
her
family
to
Hawaii?
Then
the
job
has
to
get
done
on
time
and
to
specifications.
Does
the
employee
want
to
have
the
money
to
send
his
daughter
to
the
private
university
of
her
choice?
Then,
the
employee
needs
to
deliver
the
quality
of
service
expected
by
the
organization’s
client
consistently
over
a
sustained
period
of
time.
Successful
managers
know
their
employees
well
enough
to
tie
personal
achievement,
orga-
nizational
achievement,
and
specific
stressors
together;
suc-
cessful
managers
challenge
their
employees
to
create
win-
win
situations
for
the
organization
and
their
workers.
At
this
point,
we
offer
some
advice
about
the
kind
of
challenges
management
professionals
should
present
to
their
associates.
The
reader
will
recall
that
Nathan
Podsakoff
identified
four
specific
categories
of
challenge
stressors:
work
load,
work
pace,
job
responsibility,
and
job
complexity.
In
the
following
paragraphs
we
will
provide
some
practical
examples
of
how
managers
can
present
these
types
of
chal-
lenges
to
their
employees.
Managers
challenge
their
employees
by
giving
them
demanding
workloads.
The
reader
will
recall
that
workload
demands
are
principally
concerned
with
the
qualitative
nature
of
work
tasks.
One
significant
achievement
of
the
discipline
of
management
in
the
20th
century
was
to
recog-
nize
that
humans
are
not
machines,
nor
should
they
be
treated
as
mere
means
to
an
end.
Managers
can
help
their
employees
savor
their
work
by
assigning
work
that
neither
under
stimulates
nor
overextends
their
capabilities.
Asking
a
master
carpenter
to
cut
only
one-foot
boards
or
asking
a
registered
nurse
only
to
take
vital
signs
will
result
in
an
understimulated
worker.
Master
carpenters
must
be
given
tasks
to
which
they
can
apply
their
broad
range
of
skills;
registered
nurses
must
be
allowed
to
employ
their
profes-
sional
expertise
in
order
to
remain
engaged
in
their
work.
In
fact,
the
most
productive
and
engaged
carpenters
and
nurses
will
be
those
whose
skills
are
being
tested
by
the
work
they
are
performing.
The
stress
resulting
from
having
one’s
capabilities
pushed,
but
not
overwhelmed,
has
long
been
recognized
as
an
important
predictor
of
success.
Man-
agers
can
help
their
employees
savor
their
workloads
by
knowing
their
employees’
capabilities
and
by
assigning
them
work
that
stretches
their
capabilities.
Perhaps
the
most
prevalent
challenge
stressors
presented
to
workers
involves
pace.
To
one
extent
or
another,
all
for-
profit
organizations
have
productivity
requirements.
By
defi-
nition,
productivity
involves
time.
Almost
all
work
involves
some
rate
calculation:
units
per
hour,
patients
per
day,
sales
per
quarter,
transactions
per
year,
etc.
For
many
workers,
the
clock
is
always
ticking.
Remember
those
FedEx
workers
fight-
ing
the
clock?
They
are
constantly
challenged
by
time,
yet
they
consistently
rise
to
the
challenge
even
as
demands
increase.
Managers
can
help
their
employees
achieve
eus-
tress
by
following
two
crucial
steps.
First,
managers
need
to
communicate
the
rationale
behind
time
requirements.
Peo-
ple
understand
the
importance
of
scheduling
and
the
value
of
time.
After
all,
they
deal
with
deadlines
and
time
stress
in
their
personal
lives
away
from
work.
In
general,
workers
are
prepared
to
accept
the
necessity
of
time
constraints
as
long
as
they
understand
that
those
time
constraints
are
not
arbitrary.
The
factory
manager
should
explain
to
the
piece-rate
worker
how
the
profit
margin
on
the
work
being
accomplished
is
affected
by
time;
the
hospital
administrator
must
explain
the
costs
of
the
surgical
theater,
nurses,
and
technicians
required
by
a
particular
procedure.
The
second
step
managers
should
employ
to
help
their
workers
savor
Generating
eustress
by
challenging
employees
65

their
pace
of
work
is
setting
reasonable
and
achievable
time
restrictions
on
work.
Theories
of
motivation
concur
that
workers
who
do
not
believe
goals
can
be
attained
will
be
demotivated
to
pursue
those
goals.
Managers
who
place
unrealistic
time
stressors
on
their
employees
will
not
chal-
lenge
these
employees,
but
demoralize
them.
On
the
other
hand,
managers
who
place
time
demands
on
their
employees
that
challenge
their
abilities,
similar
to
workload
demands,
are
likely
to
be
pleased
with
the
results.
Employ-
ees
are
likely
to
positively
respond
to
difficult
but
attainable
time
pressure.
Job
complexity
is
a
third
dimension
of
challenge
stressors.
Job
complexity
is
similar
to,
but
more
comprehensive
than,
workload.
While
workload
focuses
on
the
particular
tasks
a
person
is
called
to
perform,
job
complexity
refers
to
the
more
comprehensive
nature
of
the
job
as
a
whole.
To
discuss
this
dimension
of
challenge
stress,
let
us
return
to
our
example
of
the
master
carpenter.
The
workload
of
a
master
carpenter
may
be
challenging
or
not
challenging
over
any
given
period
of
time.
The
job
complexity
of
a
master
carpenter
depends
upon
the
overall
design
of
the
master
carpenter’s
position.
A
master
carpenter’s
position
must
be
suitably
complex
based
upon
the
knowledge,
skills
and
abilities
of
the
carpenter.
A
master
carpenter
who,
by
the
nature
of
a
job
description,
is
never
required
to
draw
upon
the
full
range
of
capabilities
will
not
be
challenged.
Such
an
employee
is
likely
to
become
disengaged
and
is
unlikely
to
remain
a
productive
member
of
the
organization.
Similarly,
a
master
carpenter
who,
by
the
nature
of
a
job
description,
is
consistently
asked
to
perform
tasks
at
which
there
is
insufficient
expertise
will
not
magi-
cally
rise
to
the
occasion,
rather
will
find
the
job
to
be
too
complex
and
therefore
negatively
stressful.
Managers
wishing
to
help
their
employees
achieve
eustress
need
to
take
a
great
deal
of
care
with
regard
to
some
specific
human
resources
practices.
First,
jobs
should
be
designed
with
utmost
care.
Job
descriptions
should
accurately
reflect
the
range
of
essential
functions
within
the
position.
Secondly,
persons
recruited
and
selected
for
particular
positions
should
have
sufficient
capabilities
to
perform
required
duties.
Man-
agers
help
employees
savor
complexity
when
they
push
or
extend
a
person’s
capabilities
within
a
job;
managers
do
their
organizations
and
employees
no
favor
by
hiring
under
or
overqualified
individuals
for
a
position.
Finally,
managers
wishing
to
help
their
employees
savor
job
complexity
should
strive
to
build
training
and
professional
development
pro-
grams
that
will
help
employees
develop
new
knowledge
and
skills.
Job
complexity
serves
as
a
constructive
source
of
stress
when
employees’
overall
capabilities
are
stretched,
but
not
exceeded,
within
a
position.
Job
responsibility
is
closely
related
to
job
complexity.
Where
job
complexity
concerns
the
qualitative
nature
of
the
work,
job
responsibility
concerns
the
subjective
level
of
responsibility
required
by
the
work.
Certain
jobs
contain
more
responsibility
than
others.
Generally
speaking,
job
responsibility
increases
along
two
axes.
The
first
axis
is
hierarchical
position
within
the
organization.
In
general,
line
workers
have
less
responsibility
than
supervisors,
who
have
less
than
middle
managers,
who
have
less
than
executives.
The
higher
one
goes
in
an
organization,
the
more
responsi-
bility
one
acquires
with
regard
to
resources,
production,
and
profits.
The
other
axis
involves
technical
or
professional
expertise.
In
general,
jobs
requiring
high
levels
of
technical
or
professional
expertise
involve
higher
degrees
of
job
responsibility.
For
example,
an
X-ray
technologist
is
respon-
sible
for
properly
generating
an
image,
while
a
radiologist
is
responsible
for
interpreting
that
image.
If
the
radiation
tech
fails
to
take
a
good
image,
the
usual
consequence
is
a
repetition
of
the
X-ray
of
a
patient.
If
the
radiologist
fails
to
interpret
the
X-ray
properly,
the
consequence
might
even
include
death
of
a
patient.
The
two
axes
interact
with
one
another
in
different
organizations.
For
example,
a
charge
nurse
who
has
less
technical
expertise
than
a
surgeon
may
supervise
30
or
40
staff
members
on
a
hospital
floor
caring
for
dozens
of
patients,
while
a
surgeon
on
the
same
floor
has
responsibility
for
one
patient
and
for
giving
orders
concerning
that
patient.
Similarly,
a
newly
minted
M.B.A.
project
man-
ager
may
have
responsibility
for
coordinating
numerous
che-
mical
engineers
and
biomedical
researchers
on
a
drug
development
team,
while
the
highly
experienced
chemical
engineer
only
has
responsibility
for
one
discreet
contribution
to
the
new
drug.
Managers
can
help
employees
achieve
eustress
by
knowing
their
employees
and
by
assigning
responsibility
commensu-
rate
with
the
capabilities
of
their
workers.
Wise
managers
do
not
place
responsibility
on
employees
who
lack
the
sufficient
training
to
be
responsible
for
an
outcome.
It
is
no
surprise
that
24
year-old
first
lieutenants
do
not
manage
entire
military
campaigns.
Their
relative
inexperience
and
relative
low
standing
within
a
military
organization
make
such
a
responsibility
ill
advised.
Conversely,
it
makes
no
sense
to
give
a
general
officer
the
command
of
a
small
detachment
to
accomplish
a
routine
mission.
Responsibilities
should
fit
the
individual.
One
final
note
to
managers
about
introducing
challenge
stressors:
Don’t
overdo
it.
As
we
mentioned
before,
too
much
of
a
good
thing
can
turn
bad.
Few
workers
can
maintain
peak
performance
indefinitely.
People
need
time
to
recoup
and
recover.
Managers
need
to
recognize
that
using
challenge
stressors
is
not
a
license
to
overburden
their
people.
Our
management
model
suggests
that
overburdening
employees
with
challenges
will
result
in
burnout.
Managers
should
be
judicial
in
their
introduction
of
stress
into
their
workplace,
even
when
the
stress
is
of
a
challenging
nature.
Now
that
we
have
offered
some
specific
strategies
by
which
managers
can
generate
positive
stress,
we
are
pre-
pared
to
discuss
some
of
the
potential
positive
ramifications
of
introducing
good
stress
into
organizations.
In
the
final
section
of
this
article
we
will
discuss
savoring
and
the
positive
potential
of
eustress
on
the
individuals
working
in
an
orga-
nizational
setting.
SAVORING
In
their
recent
article,
Debra
Nelson
and
Bret
Simmons
suggest
that
employees
positively
experience
stress
through
a
process
of
savoring.
Savoring,
in
contrast
to
coping
or
avoiding,
means
that
people
are
prepared
not
simply
to
deal
with
stress,
but
may
in
fact
enjoy
and
relish
certain
types
of
eustressful
stimuli.
For
example,
successful
Olympic
athletes
enjoy,
not
just
tolerate,
the
grueling
physical
and
mental
demands
placed
upon
them
during
competition.
An
Olympic
swimmer
spends
literally
months
in
a
pool
for
every
minute
of
world-class
competition.
It
is
inconceivable
that
a
champion
66
M.B.
Hargrove
et
al.

such
as
Michael
Phelps
merely
endures
training
for
the
sake
of
the
competition.
Michael
Phelps
savors
each
race
and
the
multiple
times
of
standing
on
the
podium.
How
can
managers
help
employees
savor
eustress?
We
suggest
three
avenues:
through
meaningfulness,
mindful-
ness,
and
energy
management.
As
an
indicator
of
eustress,
meaningfulness
holds
promise
for
eustress
generation
and
savoring.
Deeply
meaningful
work
aligns
with
an
individual’s
values
and
beliefs.
Tony
Hsieh,
CEO
of
Zappos,
grew
the
company
by
delivering
happiness
in
that
corporate
setting.
He
created
a
culture
that
encourages
happiness
at
work
as
a
part
of
Zappos’
business
strategy.
Happy
employees
lead
to
happy
customers.
Hsieh
describes
three
types
of
happiness,
with
one
being
the
most
resilient
and
sustainable:
higher
purpose.
Daniel
Pink,
who
proposed
a
framework
for
intrinsic
motivation,
claims
that
purpose
is
one
of
three
key
intrinsic
motivators,
fulfilling
individuals’
desire
to
perform
work
in
service
of
something
larger
than
themselves.
Work
that
has
purpose
touches
several
of
the
indicators
of
eustress,
includ-
ing
hope,
positive
affect,
and
meaningfulness.
In
order
to
become
in
tune
with
the
positive
emotions
brought
about
by
eustress,
mindfulness
is
key.
Mindfulness
is
paying
attention
on
purpose,
in
the
present
moment,
and
non-judgmentally.
Google
uses
a
program
called
‘‘Search
inside
yourself’’
that
teaches
mindfulness
at
work.
The
pro-
gram
has
three
phases:
attention
training,
self-knowledge
and
self-mastery,
and
creating
useful
mental
habits.
Parti-
cipants
in
the
program
learn
to
develop
a
state
of
mind
that
is
relaxed
and
alert
at
the
same
time.
They
also
learn
how
to
develop
meta-attention,
which
is
the
ability
to
recognize
when
attention
has
wandered.
Mindfulness
improves
focus,
which
is
key
to
experiencing
eustress.
Mindfulness
can
encou-
rage
positive
affect,
manageability,
and
vigor
at
work,
all
of
which
are
key
indicators
of
eustress.
To
savor
eustress,
individuals
must
understand
their
capa-
city
to
meet
challenge
stressors.
One
pathway
to
achieving
this
is
through
effectively
managing
energy.
Tony
Schwartz
has
written
extensively
about
workplace
practices
for
energy
management.
At
Sony
Pictures
Entertainment,
an
energy
management
program
was
implemented
that
helped
boost
the
company’s
performance
through
better
energy
manage-
ment
on
the
part
of
employees.
Tw o
major
shifts
were
made
at
Sony.
The
first
was
to
acknowledge
that
humans
work
best
when
they
alternate
between
periods
of
intense
focus
and
renewal.
The
second
was
to
move
from
a
philosophy
of
getting
more
out
of
employees
to
a
focus
on
meeting
employees’
needs
for
physical
health,
emotional
wellbeing,
mental
clarity,
and
spiritual
significance.
Sony
employed
simple
rituals
such
as
encouraging
employees
to
take
walks
for
emotional
breathers,
and
turning
off
e-mail
so
they
could
concentrate
better.
In
addition
to
encouraging
employees
to
understand
their
capa-
city
and
manage
energy
more
effectively,
managers
must
play
an
active
role
in
monitoring
and
managing
the
demands/ability
match.
Managers
can
adjust
demands
to
fit
the
individual’s
skills,
or
adjust
the
individual’s
skills,
through
training
or
coaching,
to
meet
demands.
Managing
energy
relates
to
the
vigor
and
manageability
indicators
of
eustress.
Giving
employees
meaningful
work,
encouraging
and
developing
mindfulness
in
the
workplace,
and
implementing
energy
management
practices
are
ways
that
leaders
can
encourage
eustress
and
savoring.
We
believe,
in
addition,
that
there
are
ultimate
benefits
of
eustress
at
work.
The
Positive
Possibilities
of
Good
Stress
Combining
the
research
from
the
Challenge
Hindrance
Fra-
mework
and
the
Holistic
Stress
Model,
we
see
that
the
positive
outcomes
of
eustress
at
work
are
many.
Health
and
wellbeing,
job
performance,
organizational
citizenship
behavior,
and
organizational
commitment
are
outcomes
that
all
organizations
seek
to
maximize.
We
assert
that
the
multi-
plier
of
these
outcomes
for
organizations
may
be
flow,
as
conceptualized
by
Czikszentmihalyi.
Flow
is
the
zone
of
positive
stress
and
peak
performance
in
which
time
suspends,
individuals
lose
themselves
in
activity,
and
they
perceive
a
great
sense
of
control
over
work.
In
essence,
flow
is
the
ultimate
eustress
experience
—
the
epitome
of
eustress.
Positive
emotions
are
channeled
exclusively
in
the
energetic
pursuit
of
the
task
at
hand.
Daniel
Goleman
suggested
that
brain
scans
conducted
on
individuals
during
flow
would
show
extreme
activation
of
the
left
prefrontal
area,
which
con-
tains
the
circuitry
that
lights
up
when
positive
emotions
like
enthusiasm
and
engagement
are
active.
He
also
suggests
that
during
flow,
brain
chemistry
would
show
higher
levels
of
dopamine,
which
enhances
both
mood
and
performance.
We
propose
that
eustress
leads
to
savoring,
which
in
turn
can
lead
to
flow.
In
flow,
there
is
a
merging
of
action
and
awareness
such
that
self-reflection
is
absent.
In
other
words,
demands
and
skills
are
in
balance,
so
that
self-reflection
is
suspended,
because
all
resources
are
focused
on
the
task
at
hand.
The
work
may
seem
effortless,
because
effort
can
only
be
assessed
through
self-reflection.
On
the
website
whole-
living.com,
Olympic
Champion
Allyson
Felix
described
the
difference
between
the
stress
of
practice
and
the
flow
of
competition
by
saying
‘‘When
I’m
at
my
fastest,
it
feels
peaceful,
almost
effortless,
not
like
the
crazy
fatigue
and
pain
of
practice.’’
She
must
have
experienced
flow
in
winning
three
gold
medals
at
the
2012
Olympiad.
Through
enhancing
employees’
experience
of
eustress
and
encouraging
them
to
savor
it,
managers
can
strive
for
the
multiplying
effect
of
flow
among
their
employees.
And,
we
recommend
that
managers
serve
as
role
models
of
savoring
eustress
and
its
benefits.
Generating
eustress
by
challenging
employees
67

SELECTED
BIBLIOGRAPHY
In
the
writing
of
this
article
we
drew
upon
publically
available
videos,
interviews,
articles,
and
other
sources
to
provide
the
reader
with
examples.
The
information
about
Google
was
drawn
from
a
video
interview
with
John
Casey
at
the
4th
World
Medical
Tourism
&
Global
Healthcare
Congress
found
on
www.yotube.com.
We
found
information
about
FedEx
and
John
Dunavant
on
a
FedEx
corporate
blog.
Steve
Jobs’
gui-
dance
for
challenging
employees
with
new
ideas
was
pre-
sented
by
Business
Wee k
columnist
Carmen
Gallo
and
found
on
the
www.fuelingnewbusiness.com
website.
When
research-
ing
Tony
Schwartz’s
experiences
at
Sony,
we
turned
to
his
June,
2010
article
in
the
Harvard
Business
Review
entitled
‘‘The
Productivity
Paradox.’’
The
Allyson
Felix
quote
was
found
in
an
interview
presented
on
the
website
www.wholeliving.com/
178882/five-olympic-hopefuls.
The
statistics
regarding
wellness
programs
were
taken
from
the
‘‘2012
National
Study
of
Employers’’
by
Kenneth
Matos
and
Ellen
Galinsky.
This
comprehensive
study
spon-
sored
by
the
Society
of
Human
Resources
Management
can
found
at
the
following
publicly
accessible
website
(http://
familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/NSE_2012.pdf).
The
authors
recommend
several
works
by
James
Campbell
Quick,
the
editor
of
this
special
issue,
and
his
collaborators
for
those
readers
wishing
to
explore
eustress
and
workplace
wellbeing.
First,
we
recommend
The
Theory
of
Preventive
Stress
Management
in
Organizations
(Washington,
DC:
Amer-
ican
Psychological
Association,
2007).
We
also
recommend
‘‘Healthy,
Happy,
Productive
Work:
A
Leadership
Challenge’’
by
Quick
and
his
brother
Jonathan
D.
Quick,
M.D.,
Organiza-
tional
Dynamics,
2004,
33(4),
329—337.
For
more
background
on
eustress,
the
reader
is
directed
to
H.
Selye’s
‘‘Confusion
and
Controversy
in
the
Stress
Field,’’
1975,
Journal
of
Human
Stress,
1975,
(1),
37—44.
Readers
interested
in
fully
exploring
the
Holistic
Stress
Model
as
presented
by
Debra
L.
Nelson
and
Bret
Simmons
should
read
their
excellent
2011
chapter
‘‘Savoring
Eustress
While
Coping
with
Distress:
A
Holistic
Model
of
Stress,’’
in
the
Handbook
of
Occupational
Health
edited
by
J.
C.
Quick
and
L.
E.
Tetrick
(Washington
DC:
American
Psychological
Associa-
tion).
Another
chapter
of
interest
‘‘Eustress
at
Work:
Extend-
ing
the
Holistic
Stress
Model’’
is
found
in
the
2007
book
Positive
Organizational
Behavior
edited
by
Cary
L.
Cooper
and
Debra
L.
Nelson
(London:
Sage,
40—54).
For
readers
interested
in
a
more
complete
discussion
of
the
Challenge
Hindrance
Framework,
the
authors
recom-
mend
several
articles.
The
initial
article
by
M.
A.
Cavanaugh,
W.
R.
Boswell,
M.
V.
Roehling,
and
J.
W.
Boudreau
introduced
the
CHF
and
is
entitled
‘‘An
Empirical
Examination
of
Self-
Reported
Work
Stress
Among
U.S.
Managers,’’
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
2000,
85(1),
65—74.
Other
important
theoretical
contributions
to
the
theory
surrounding
the
CHF
can
be
found
in
Nathan
Podsakoff’s
2007
dissertation,
‘‘Challenge
and
Hindrance
Stressors
in
the
Workplace:
Tests
of
Linear,
Curvilinear,
and
Moderated
Relationships
with
Employee
Strains,
Satisfaction,
and
Performance’’
(Univer-
sity
of
Florida).
The
authors
also
recommend
a
number
of
articles
that
test
hypotheses
related
to
the
CHF.
J.M.
Harr
presents
some
interesting
findings
regarding
the
relationship
between
chal-
lenge
stressors
and
positive
attitudes
and
undesirable
beha-
viors
in
the
article
‘‘Challenge
and
Hindrance
Stressors
in
New
Zealand:
Exploring
Social
Exchange
Theory
Outcomes,’’
which
can
be
found
in
The
International
Journal
of
Human
Resource
Management,
2006,
17(11),
1942—1950.
Boswell,
J.
B.
Olson-Buchanan,
and
Marcie
LePine
presented
evidence
of
the
effect
of
challenge
stressors
on
job
control
and
strain
in
their
2004
article
‘‘Relations
Between
Stress
and
Work
Out-
comes:
The
Role
of
Felt
Challenge,
Job
Control,
and
Psycho-
logical
Strain,’’
Journal
of
Vocational
Behavior,
64,
165—181.
Podsakoff,
Jeffrey
LePine,
and
Marcie
LePine
collaborated
on
a
series
of
meta-analyses
designed
to
test
the
effect
of
challenge
and
hindrance
stressors
on
organizational
vari-
ables.
Their
first
article,
‘‘A
Meta-Analytic
Test
of
the
Challenge
Stressor-Hindrance
Stressor
Framework:
An
Expla-
nation
for
Inconsistent
Relationships
Among
Stressors
and
Performance,’’
appeared
in
the
Academy
of
Management
Journal
and
explored
the
important
variable
of
performance
(48(5),
764—775).
Podsakoff,
LePine,
and
LePine
continued
their
meta-analytic
studies
with
‘‘Differential
Challenge
Stressor—Hindrance
Stressor
Relationships
with
Job
Atti-
tudes,
Turnover
Intentions,
Turnover,
and
Withdrawal
Beha-
vior:
A
Meta-Analysis’’
published
in
the
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
92(2),
438—454.
Finally,
the
authors
direct
the
reader
to
‘‘Challenge
and
Hindrance
Stress:
Relationships
with
Exhaustion,
Motivation
to
Learn,
and
Learning
Perfor-
mance,’’
by
LePine,
LePine,
and
C.
L.
Jackson,
also
appearing
in
the
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
89(5),
883—891.
For
readers
interested
in
further
exploration
of
savoring,
the
authors
direct
you