Content uploaded by Andreas Krause
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andreas Krause on Nov 28, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
HAUPTBEITRÄGE
DOI 10.1007/s11612-017-0377-3
Gr Interakt Org
Endangering one’s health to improve performance?
How indirect control triggers social momentum in organizations
Michaela Knecht1· Gregory Meier2· Andreas Krause1
© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017
Abstract Background: Companies are increasingly apply-
ing both goal- and performance-oriented leadership prac-
tices. For employees, such indirect control practices make
higher self-regulatory demands: They become responsible
for their work outcomes and have to bear the consequences
of failure just like the self-employed. The current study fo-
cuses on the concept of “self-endangering work behaviors”
as representing a possible negative effect of indirect control
and a possible mediator between work demands and neg-
ative outcomes. Method: An online survey was conducted
with 607 employees, who reported to work in an indirect
control setting. It assessed extension of working hours, in-
tensification of working hours, sickness presenteeism, and
faking as possible self-endangeringwork behaviors together
with exhaustion as a subjective well-being measure. The
lavaan package was used to test the mediation hypothe-
sis with a structural equation model. Results: Results sup-
ported the assumption that self-endangering work behaviors
might partly explain the association between work demands
and exhaustion. A mediation effect was found for exten-
sion of working hours, intensification of working hours,
and for faking. However, sickness presenteeism delivered
no statistically significant mediation effect in the associa-
tion between work demands and exhaustion. Discussion: As
Dr. sc. ETH Michaela Knecht
michaela.knecht@fhnw.ch
1Institute Humans in Complex Systems (MikS), School of
Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences and Arts
Northwestern Switzerland, Riggenbachstrasse 16, 4600 Olten,
Switzerland
2Institute for Research and Development of Collaborative
Processes (ifk), School of Applied Psychology, University of
Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Olten,
Switzerland
a mechanism for coping with high work demands, the new
concept of self-endangering work behaviors offers one pos-
sible explanation for the negative association between high
work demands and both subjective well-being and health.
The concept needs to be addressed in occupational health
prevention initiatives. Such interventions should balance the
negative and positive effects of indirect control and take
self-endangering work behavior into account.
Keywords Self-endangering work behavior · Exhaustion ·
Work demands · Indirect control
Die eigene Gesundheit gefährden, um die Leistung
zu steigern
Soziale Eigendynamik als Folge indirekter Steuerung
Zusammenfassung Hintergrund: In Betrieben werden ver-
mehrt ziel- bzw. ergebnisorientierte Führungspraktiken ein-
gesetzt. Für die Angestellten führen die Praktiken indirek-
ter Steuerung zu höheren Selbstregulationsanforderungen:
Sie werden verantwortlich für die Resultate ihrer Arbeit
und tragen die Konsequenzen von (Miss-)Erfolgen ähnlich
wie selbstständig Erwerbende. Die vorliegende Studie be-
fasst sich mit dem Konzept der interessierten Selbstgefähr-
dung als Resultat einer negativen Ausgestaltung indirek-
ter Steuerung. Die Annahme lautet, dass selbstgefährden-
de Verhaltensweisen als Mediatoren zwischen Arbeitsbelas-
tungen und negativen gesundheitlichen Konsequenzen wir-
ken. Methode: Die Daten wurden mittels Online-Befragung
bei einer Stichprobe von 607 Erwerbstätigen, die indirekt
gesteuert wurden, erhoben. Als selbstgefährdende Verhal-
tensweisen bei der Arbeit wurden Ausdehnung der Arbeits-
zeit, Intensivierung der Arbeit, Präsentismus und Vortäu-
schen berücksichtigt. Ausserdem wurde Erschöpfung als
K
M.Knechtetal.
Mass subjektiven Wohlbefindens erfasst. Die Mediations-
analysen wurden mittels Strukturgleichungsmodellen in der
Software Lavaan gerechnet. Resultate: Die Resultate unter-
stützen die Annahme, dass Selbstgefährdung bei der Arbeit
teilweise den Zusammenhang zwischen Arbeitsbelastungen
und Erschöpfung erklärt. Ein Mediationseffekt wurde für
Ausdehnung der Arbeitszeit, Intensivierung der Arbeit und
für Vortäuschen gefunden. Präsentismus zeigte hingegen
keinen signifikanten Mediationseffekt für den Zusammen-
hang zwischen Arbeitsbelastungen und Erschöpfung. Dis-
kussion: Das Konzept der interessierten Selbstgefährdung
als Coping-Strategie bei hoher Arbeitsbelastung liefert eine
mögliche Erklärung für die negativen Zusammenhänge zwi-
schen hohen Arbeitsbelastungen einerseits und subjektivem
Wohlbefinden und Gesundheit andererseits. Interventionen
zur betrieblichen Gesundheitsförderung sollten die ambiva-
lenten Auswirkungen indirekter Steuerung berücksichtigen,
wenn selbstgefährdende Verhaltensweisen im Betrieb auf-
treten.
Schlüsselwörter Interessierte Selbstgefährdung ·
Erschöpfung · Arbeitsbelastung
In recent decades, management by objectives (MbO) – in-
troduced by the economist Peter Drucker in 1954 –hasbe-
come more and more prevalent in companies (Ahlers 2010).
There is good reason for this: MbO shows a clear posi-
tive impact on company productivity (Rodgers and Hunter
1991). MbO (or Management by Results) is appropriate for
and fostering a complex-dynamic organisation and lead-
ership approach. For employees such goal-oriented lead-
ership practices result in higher self-regulatory demands in
terms of, for example, planning and decision making (Höge
2011). As a result, self-motivation and shared responsibil-
ity increase. For a better understanding of the impact on the
employees, it is important to reflect the ambivalent forces.
Ordonez et al. (2009) criticize the overstatement of goals
and show several examples of negative side effects. More-
over, this kind of leadership also has a social impact in
companies. Different approaches described such social dy-
namics (see for instance Kotter 2000). In the current pa-
per we focus on an approach by Peters (2011) to explain
these dynamics. The approach of indirect control by Pe-
ters (2011) goes one step further than other approaches by
describing the implications of the social dynamics for oc-
cupational health management. This is what we will focus
on: Research has shown that employees will often try to
meet their work goals by all available means, even when
this may involve risks to their health (Kratzer and Dunkel
2013;Krauseetal.2012). However, they do not do this
just for their own benefit, but also to avoid letting down
their colleagues. In addition, MbO settings operate with
benchmarking and key performance indicators. This can
lead employees to compare their performance and com-
pete with others. We would argue that those negative con-
sequences of goal-oriented leadership could be explained
by self-endangering work-behaviors. Higher demands and
requirement due to new working conditions do not neces-
sary lead to worse health outcome. There are conflicting
assumptions about it (e. g. Badura et al. 2012). The specific
behaviors employees use to cope with the demands seem
to be detrimental (Kaur et al. 2010). The present study fo-
cuses on the concept of self-endangering work behaviors
as one possible maladaptive coping mechanism under goal-
oriented and performance-oriented leadership practices and
as a possible mediator between work demands and negative
outcomes.
Our first aim is to analyze whether self-endangering
work behaviors might partially explain the association be-
tween work demands and exhaustion in the context of goal-
and performance-oriented leadership; and second, to deter-
mine which kinds of self-endangering work behavior are
relevant in this context.
1 Indirect control
The usual practice is for managers and staff to agree on
specific goals that employees have to reach within a certain
timeframe. Success (or failure) in achieving these goals then
has consequences for the employees (e. g., in terms of finan-
cial rewards or job security). In line with the philosopher
Klaus Peters (2011), we call this kind of leadership practice
indirect control.
Indirect control changes work conditions for employees.
It requires a major degree of autonomy, high self-regula-
tory demands, and great flexibility. Managers or other su-
periors no longer give clear directives on how to do a task,
and employees are free to decide on how exactly they will
achieve their goals. They can plan and act autonomously.
They “only” have to attain the set goal. Although more au-
tonomy is usually associated with better subjective well-
being (Deci and Ryan 2000), this is not always the case,
and employees might also be subject to too much auton-
omy (Kubicek et al. 2014). Indirect control granting em-
ployees high autonomy is also accompanied by a strong
exposure to market requirements and competition (Kratzer
and Dunkel 2013). Organizational problems and pressures
become the employees’ individual problems (Kratzer and
Dunkel 2013), making their working conditions similar to
those of the self-employed. Indirect control settings make
economic aspects of one’s work more important: As well
as doing one’s job correctly, one also needs to take an
economic perspective and both calculate and prove one’s
profitability for the company. This often requires achieving
success on key performance indicators showing that one
K
Self-endangering work behavior
is better than internal or external competitors are. Some
characteristics make work under indirect control especially
taxing. It is often accompanied by such demands as goal
spirals, invisible work, and obstructive process instructions
that hinder personal productivity (Krause and Dorsemagen
2017).
1.1 Work demands under indirect control
Goal spirals. Goals are often described as being dynamic
and rising from year to year. If you attain a high goal in one
year, your goal for the next year is even higher. As a result,
your own success may become a threat to you (Chevalier
and Kaluza 2015).
Invisible work. Invisible work is tasks that have to be
done in any case to reach the goal but cannot be debited
to any project. A good example is administrative routines.
These sometimes time-consuming tasks are often not fac-
tored into indirect control settings. If a substantial part of
their work seems to be invisible, employees might perceive
this as not being appreciated by their managers or the com-
pany (Krause and Dorsemagen 2017).
Obstructive process instructions Even under indirect
control settings, the former leadership strategies of con-
trolling, standardizing, and providing guidelines often still
continue. Employees have to meet goals while simulta-
neously complying with tight regulations and guidelines
(Krause and Dorsemagen 2017).
1.2 Self-endangering work behaviors
What do employees do when confronted with such work
demands? They try to cope. Dettmers et al. (2016)have
described several self-endangering work behaviors that em-
ployees exhibit under such circumstances. They conceptual-
ize these self-endangering work behaviors as a maladaptive
active coping strategy. “Whereas self-endangering work be-
havior is directed toward goal attainment and may even suc-
ceed in achieving that, this success is built on detrimental
behaviors that may impair well-being and health” (Dettmers
et al. 2016,p.43).
Such self-endangering work behavior in employees can
take many forms. Krause et al. (2015a) have described eight
different forms here: extension of working hours, intensi-
fication of working hours, sickness presenteeism, faking,
substance abuse to recuperate, substance abuse to perform,
reduction of quality, and bypassing safety standards. The
current study focuses on the first four forms.
Extension of working hours. This behavior describes ex-
tending working time to the disadvantage of private and
family time as well as of recovery and leisure time. Another
aspect of this behavior is being permanently reachable for
work issues (Dettmers et al. 2016).
Intensification of working hours. This means increasing
the intensity and pace of one’s work while simultaneously
decreasing social interactions and taking fewer breaks (Ko-
runka and Kubicek 2013).
Sickness presenteeism. There are two different concep-
tualizations of this form: first, the behavior of going to work
despite illness (Aronsson et al. 2000); second, a drop in the
productivity of an organization due to employees failing
to attain the common performance level through their poor
health (Pauly et al. 2008). The present study focuses on the
first conceptualization and therefore on the behavioral com-
ponent of sickness presenteeism (Baeriswyl et al. 2016).
Faking. Faking describes the behavior of presenting
wrong information or hiding relevant information on ones’
performance or goal progress in order to reduce pressure
in the short term (Krause and Dorsemagen 2017).
1.3 Consequences of self-endangering work behaviors
Recent decades have seen a marked increase in mental ill-
nesses in the workforce that has led to more work absences
(Schuler et al. 2016). How can this be explained? We ar-
gue that new forms of leadership might play a role. Recent
studies have shown that MbO might be a precursor of lower
subjective well-being and more stress. In the long run, it
might even lead to reduced performance (e.g., Krause et al.
2012). We argue that these negative consequences of goal-
oriented leadership can be explained by self-endangering
work behaviors. First studies have shown a mediating effect
of self-endangering work behaviors in the association be-
tween working conditions and subjective well-being (e. g.,
Dettmers et al. 2016).
The current study addresses two research questions in
this context.
Research question 1: Do self-endangering work behav-
iors partially explain the association between work demands
and exhaustion?
Research question 2: Which self-endangering work be-
haviors may partially explain the association between work
demands and exhaustion?
K
M.Knechtetal.
2Method
2.1 Design
The online survey was conducted in spring 2016 with a con-
venience sample recruited mainly through an alumni net-
work of Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW).
2.2 Sample
All members of the sample were working at least partially
in an indirect control setting. This was operationalized with
responses to the question: “I work in a management by ob-
jectives work setting” on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(does not apply)to5(applies completely). Only partici-
pants who answered with 3 or higher were included in the
sample. This reduced the original sample from 838 to 670
participants. Due to missing values, data from only 607 par-
ticipants were entered into the structural equation analyses.
A total of 35.9% of the participants were female. In
terms of age, 35.9% were 35 years old or younger, 22.6%
were between 36 and 45 years old, 27.4% were between 46
and 55 years old, and 14.1% were older than 55 years. The
majority of the sample worked full-time (76.8%) with only
4.2% working less than 20h a week. More than one-half
(55.8%) held a managerial function. Participants worked in
very different industrial sectors, such as health and social
services (18.5%), finance and insurance services (14.3%),
and manufactory industry/energy supply (14.1%). Due to
the recruitment strategy over the alumni network of the
ZHAW, 94.9% held a university degree. This is not repre-
sentative for Swiss population.
2.3 Measures
Work demands. These were assessed with the three
scales goal spirals, invisible work,andobstructive process
instructions (Schraner 2015). Goal spirals were assessed
with two items (e.g., “My working environment is charac-
Tab l e 1 Means (M), standard deviations (SD), correlations, and Cronbach’s alpha
Scale M(SD)12345678
1. Goal spirals 3.16 0.90 (0.61) – – – – – – –
2. Invisible work 2.44 0.84 0.39** (0.70)––––––
3. Obstructive process instructions 2.36 0.98 0.24** 0.29** (0.86)–––––
4. Extension of working hours 2.95 0.91 0.29** 0.21** 0.09*(0.86)––––
5. Intensification of working hours 2.63 1.06 0.33** 0.30** 0.21** 0.57** (0.94) – – –
6. Sickness presenteeism 1.74 0.85 0.25** 0.28** 0.09*0.41** 0.39** (0.92) – –
7. Faking 1.59 0.70 0.26** 0.33** 0.23** 0.35** 0.43** 0.42** (0.77) –
8. Exhaustion 2.21 0.54 0.32** 0.38** 0.25** 0.37** 0.66** 0.31** 0.47** (0.84)
N= 607. Reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) are shown in parentheses on the diagonal
*p< 0.05, **p< 0.01. Correlations higher than 0.30 (p< 0.001) are highlighted in bold
terized by constantly rising performance and profit goals.”);
invisible work, with three items (e. g., “A substantial part of
my everyday work is not considered in the evaluation of my
performance.”); and obstructive process instructions, with
two items (e. g., “Standardized processes are hindering my
everyday work.”). All items were rated on 5-point scales
ranging from 1 (does not apply)to5(applies completely).
Self-endangering work behavior. Four different kind of
self-endangering work behaviors were assessed: extension
of working hours, intensification of working hours, sickness
presenteeism,andfaking (Krause et al. 2015a). All items
started by asking “In the last three months, how often has
it occurred that ...” They were rated on 5-point scales rang-
ing from 1 (very seldom/never)to5(very often). Extension
of working hours was assessed with six items (e. g., “In
the last three months, how often have you refrained from
compensating leisure activities in favor of your work?”);
intensification of working hours, with three items (e. g., “In
the last three months, how often have you worked at a pace
that you could not maintain in the long run?”); sickness pre-
senteeism, with four items (e. g., “In the last three months,
how often have you worked a full day/a full shift despite
sickness?”); and faking, with three items (e. g., “In the last
three months, how often have you whitewashed information
[e. g., in reporting] to reduce pressure in the short term?”).
Exhaustion. We measured exhaustion with the validated
seven-item subscale from Demerouti’s (1999) burnout
scale. A sample item reads: “After work I usually feel
weary and drawn.” Responses were given on a 4-point
scale ranging from 1 (absolutely inapplicable)to4(abso-
lutely applicable).
Table 1reports means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s
alpha, and intercorrelations.
K
Self-endangering work behavior
Self-endangering
work behaviors
Work demands
Goal spirals
Invisible work
Obstructive
process
instructions ess
Faking
Sickness
presenteeism
Intensification
of working
hours
Extension of
working hours
Exhaustion
Item 2
Item 1
Item 3
Item 4
Item 5
Item 6
Item 7
Fig. 1 Tested mediation model for self-endangering work behavior (as latent factor) in the association between work stress and exhaustion
2.4 Data analyses
Data analyses were conducted in lavaan (Rosseel 2012).
This is an R package for analyzing structural equitation
models. The research questions were addressed with me-
diation analyses. Fig. 1presents the proposed model. One
model was estimated with self-endangering work behaviors
as a latent factor consisting of extension of working hours,
intensification of working hours, sickness presenteeism, and
faking. Four further separate models were estimated for
each of the self-endangering work behaviors. These four
separate models included the self-endangering work behav-
iors as latent variables composed of between two and six
items each. All models included work demands as a la-
tent factor consisting of the mean scores on goal spirals,
invisible work,andobstructive procedural guidelines.Ex-
haustion was also included as a latent factor composed of
seven items. We tested for significance with bootstrapped
standard errors.
3Results
3.1 Self-endangering work behaviors as latent factor
Fig. 2depicts the results of the mediation analyses. First,
work demands correlated positively with self-endangering
work behaviors. Second, self-endangering work behaviors
were associated positively with exhaustion. Third, self-en-
dangering work behavior partially mediated the association
between work demands and exhaustion. Indicators for the
Exhaustion
Self-endangering
work behaviors
Work demands
0.119
(CI: 0.000 - 0.217)
0.686
(CI: 0.513 - 0.852)
0.386
(CI: 0.269 - 0.537)
Fig. 2 Self-endangering work behaviors (as latent factor) as a me-
diator in the association between work demands and exhaustion. Di-
rect effect: 0.119 (90% CI [0.000, 0.217]), indirect effect: 0.265 (90%
CI [0.179, 0.379]), total effect: 0.383 (90% CI [0.267, 0.502]); good-
ness-of-fit indices: χ2= 295.690, df = 74, p= 0.000, χ2/df = 3.996,
RMSEA = 0.070 (90% CI [0.062, 0.079]), CFI = 0.912, SRMR = 0.047
K
M.Knechtetal.
model fit are reported in the caption to Fig. 2. The model
fit was acceptable.
3.2 Separate models for all self-endangering work
behaviors
Figs. 3,4,5and 6depict the mediation findings for the
separate analyses with one figure covering each self-endan-
gering work behavior. Estimates for the direct, indirect, and
total effect are listed in the caption to the respective fig-
ure. All self-endangering work behaviors except sickness
presenteeism showed a mediation effect in the association
between work demands and exhaustion. In other words,
the self-endangering work behaviors extension of working
hours, intensification of working hours,andfaking partially
explained the association between work demands and ex-
haustion. The goodness-of-fit indices (reported in the cap-
tion to the respective figure) showed an acceptable fit for the
models extension of working hours and faking and a good
fit for intensification of working hours and sickness presen-
teeism.
Exhaustion
Extension of
working hours
Work demands
0.320
(CI: 0.199 - 0.439)
0.629
(CI: 0.436 - 0.874)
0.089
(CI: 0.037 - 0.145)
Fig. 3 Extension of working hours as a mediator in the association
between work demands and exhaustion. Direct effect: 0.320 (90% CI
[0.199, 0.439]), indirect effect: 0.056 (90% CI [0.030, 0.097]), total
effect: 0.376 (90% CI [0.251, 0.491]); goodness-of-fit indices: χ2=
380.510, df = 101, p= 0.000, χ2/df = 3.767, RMSEA = 0.068 (90% CI
[0.060, 0.075]), CFI = 0.912, SRMR = 0.060
Exhaustion
Intensification
of working
hours
Work demands
0.209
(CI: 0.111 - 0.294)
0.909
(CI: 0.675 - 0.182)
0.201
(CI: 0.153 - 0.264)
Fig. 4 Intensification of working hours as a mediator in the associa-
tion between work demands and exhaustion. Direct effect: 0.209 (90%
CI [0.111, 0.294]), indirect effect: 0.182 (90% CI [0.131, 0.254]), to-
tal effect: 0.391 (90% CI [0.257, 0.500]); goodness-of-fit indices: χ2=
170.162, df = 62, p= 0.000, χ2/df = 2.754, RMSEA = 0.054 (90% CI
[0.044, 0.063]), CFI = 0.968, SRMR = 0.036
4 Discussion
Our study shows that self-endangering work behavior par-
tially explains the association between work demands and
exhaustion. If employees report higher work demands, they
also report higher scores on self-endangering work behav-
iors such as extension of working hours, intensification of
working hours, sickness presenteeism, and faking. The re-
sults support our assumption that self-endangering work
behaviors might serve as a maladaptive coping mechanism
and partially explain the association between specific work
demands and exhaustion. The work demands examined here
(goal spirals, invisible work, and obstructive process in-
structions) are typical for indirect control settings. The sep-
arate analyses revealed which self-endangering work behav-
iors are involved. These revealed that all investigated self-
endangering work behaviors except sickness presenteeism
mediate between work demands and exhaustion.
We argue that self-endangering work behaviors might ex-
plain the increases in health problems under indirect control
conditions. Indirect control is not a problem per se; what
seems to be potentially detrimental is the specific work de-
mands that go along with it.
Exhaustion
Sickness
presenteeism
Work demands
0.348
(CI: 0.224 - 0.487)
0.695
(CI: 0.467 - 0.961)
0.044
(CI: -0.013 - 0.084)
Fig. 5 Sickness presenteeism as a mediator in the association between
work demands and exhaustion; direct effect: 0.348 (90% CI [0.224,
0.487]), indirect effect 0.031 (90% CI [–0.008, 0.059]), total effect:
0.379 (90% CI [0.247, 0.502]); goodness-of-fit indices: χ2= 154.250,
df = 74, p= 0.000, χ2/df = 2.084, RMSEA = 0.042 (90% CI [0.033,
0.052]), CFI = 0.976, SRMR = 0.033
Exhaustion
Faking
Work demands
0.280
(CI: 0.153 -0.429)
0.689
(CI: 0.457 -0.911)
0.170
(CI: 0.054 -0.276)
Fig. 6 Faking as a mediator in the association between work de-
mands and exhaustion; direct effect: 0.280 (90% CI [0.153, 0.429]),
indirect effect: 0.117 (90% CI [0.040, 0.186]), total effect: 0.396 (90%
CI [0.266, 0.516]); goodness-of-fit indices: χ2= 204.204, df = 62, p=
0.000, χ2/df = 3.294, RMSEA = 0.061 (90% CI [0.052, 0.071]), CFI =
0.936, SRMR = 0.044
K
Self-endangering work behavior
4.1 Strengths and limitations
Being cross-sectional, the present study was unable to in-
vestigate the respective association longitudinally, and we
cannot draw any conclusions on causality. The suggested
effects might well take the opposite direction. We cannot
rule out the assumption that exhaustion leads to higher self-
endangering work behavior. However, it would seem im-
plausible to conceptualize work demands as an effect of
exhaustion and/or self-endangering work behaviors.
Another limitation is the common method source of our
data. We cannot rule out the possibility that some associ-
ations in our results were due at least in part to common
method bias. Nonetheless, several studies have shown that
a common method source is not an unconditional prob-
lem (e. g., Meade et al. 2007). Furthermore, we do not see
any other efficient way of measuring subjective constructs
such as exhaustion and self-endangering work behaviors
and work demands that could serve as an alternative to ask-
ing participants.
Another limitation is the self-selection of our study par-
ticipants. The majority of the sample has an academic back-
ground. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized to the
entire Swiss working population. Furthermore, we cannot
rule out the possibility that people who experience very
high work demands would not have taken part in our study
because of their lack of time.
4.2 Conclusion and transfer
Indirect control is not harmful per se. It grants high auton-
omy to employees and offers them opportunities for growth
and development. This might provide many beneficial out-
comes for employees (Krause et al. 2015b).However,how
can such indirect control simultaneously increase employee
exhaustion? Whether indirect control is beneficial or harm-
ful depends on how companies implement it. In benefi-
cial indirect control settings, employees can negotiate their
goals. Furthermore, these goals can be adjusted if circum-
stances change. In addition, companies offer support in goal
pursuit if needed. And last but not least, effort is rewarded
and appreciated. In contrast, harmful indirect control set-
tings do not value effort but only success. In indirect control
settings, leadership functions not only through goal setting
but also by providing a general framework and by formu-
lating guidelines with which to comply. These rules define
specific aspects such as how and what counts as direct work
and which tasks are designed for internal posting. If these
regulations are very strict, they might become an obstacle
in everyday work and hinder the goal pursuit process. On
top of reaching their goals, employees also have to deal
with obstructive process instructions and time-consuming
controls. Harmful indirect control settings are also charac-
terized by goal spirals and by a competitive climate.
As pointed out in the introduction, indirect control im-
poses higher self-regulatory demands on employees. It also
increases individual responsibility for the success of one’s
work outcomes, and employees have to bear the conse-
quences of failure just like the self-employed. We argue that
indirect control not only impacts on the individuals but also
triggers social processes. Key performance indicators and
benchmarking foster comparisons between colleagues and
teams – especially if these indicators are transparent on the
individual level. When employees work extra hard to meet
their goals, they do not do this just for themselves, but also
in order to avoid leaving their colleagues in the lurch.Partic-
ularly when teams aspire to meet common goals, colleagues
pay attention to how much their colleagues are having to
struggle. This leads to high expectations toward oneself and
toward one’s colleagues.
Employees feel guilty about staying at home even when
they are sick: They know that if they do not work due
to illness, their colleagues will have even more to do. As
a result, they still come to work even when they are not
feeling well.
Employees feel guilty about not working at weekends:
they are particularly disturbed when they know that their
colleagues are having to do so in order to meet the team
goals.
Hence, on one hand, indirect control increases the pres-
sure on individuals to reach their goals. On the other hand,
it evokes social processes that trigger even more self-en-
dangering behavior. Therefore, we would argue that under
conditions with indirect control but high work demands
and low work resources, detrimental social processes may
impact on employees by fostering self-endangering work
behavior. In the long run, this may well lead to employee
exhaustion.
4.3 Implications for occupational health management
The tasks and role of occupational health management
change continuously. Employees do not wait for their oc-
cupational health manager to introduce measures to reduce
working hours or to set the maximum number of working
hours per day. Employees would not see such measures as
an aid but as more of a hindrance in pursuing their goals.
They are not obliged to extend their working hours or work
more intensely, but they want to do so. They either want
to attain their goals or they feel a pressure to attain them.
They do not harm their health consciously, but accept the
risk. We would advise management to focus on reducing
any detrimental work conditions that might arise under
indirect control. For instance, abolishing goal spirals would
greatly reduce the pressure on employees. In line with
K
M.Knechtetal.
Keupp (2016)andIwers(2017), we wish to emphasize the
importance of breaking the cycle of gains and focusing
on beneficial working conditions and self-care in order to
deliver sustainable work place health promotion.
References
Ahlers, E. (2010). Arbeitsbedingungen von Beschäftigten in Betrieben
mit ergebnisorientiert gesteuerten Arbeitsformen. WSI-Mitteilun-
gen,7, 350–356.
Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K., & Dallner, M. (2000). Sick but yet at
work: an empirical study of sickness presenteeism. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health,54, 502–509.
Badura, B., Ducki, A., Schröder, H., Klose, J., & Meyer, M. (2012).
Fehlzeiten-Report 2012. Gesundheit in der flexiblen Arbeitswelt:
Chancen nutzen – Risiken minimieren. Berlin: Springer.
Baeriswyl, S., Krause, A., Elfering, A., & Berset, M. (2016). How
workload and coworker support relate to emotional exhaustion:
the mediating role of sickness presenteeism. International Jour-
nal of Stress Management doi:10.1037/str0000018.
Chevalier, A., & Kaluza, G. (2015). Psychosozialer Stress am Ar-
beitsplatz: Indirekte Unternehmenssteuerung, selbstgefährdendes
Verhalten und die Folgen für die Gesundheit. In J. Böcken,
B. Braun & R. Meierjürgen (Eds.), Gesundheitsmonitor 2015
(pp. 228–253). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what ” and “why” of goal pur-
suits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psy-
chological Inquiry,11(4), 227–268.
Demerouti, E. (1999). Burnout: Eine Folge konkreter Arbeitsbedingun-
gen bei Dienstleistungs- und Produktionstätigkeiten. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Dettmers, J., Deci, N., Baeriswyl, S., Berset, M., & Krause, A. (2016).
Self-endangering work behavior. In M. Wiencke, S. Fischer & M.
Cacace (Eds.), Healthy at work – Interdisciplinary perspectives
(pp. 37–51). Heidelberg: Springer.
Drucker, P.F. (1954). Thepracticeofmanagement.NewYork:Harper
&Brothers.
Höge, T. (2011). Perceived flexibility requirements at work and the en-
treployee-work-orientation: concept and measurement. Psychol-
ogy of Everyday Activity,4(1), 3–21.
Iwers, T.A. (2017). Achtsamkeit in Organisationen. Gruppe. Interak-
tion. Organisation.,48(1), 79–82.
Kaur, S., Kremer, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2010). Self-control and the
development of work arrangements. American Economic Review,
100, 624–628.
Keupp, H. (2016). Ambivalenzen spätmoderner Identitäten: Vom pro-
teischen Selbst in den neuen Arbeitswelten. Gruppe. Interaktion.
Organisation.,47(1), 23–30.
Korunka, C., & Kubicek, B. (2013). Beschleunigung im Arbeitsleben:
Neue Anforderungen und deren Folgen. In M. Morschhäuser &
G. Junghanns (Eds.), Immer schneller, immer mehr – Psychische
Belastungen bei Wissens- und Dienstleistungsarbeit (pp. 17–39).
Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Kotter, J. P. (2000). What leaders really do. The Bottom Line,13(1),
23–34.
Kratzer, N., & Dunkel, W. (2013). Neue Steuerungsformen bei
Dienstleistungsarbeit – Folgen für Arbeit und Gesundheit. In M.
Morschhäuser & G. Junghanns (Eds.), Immer schneller, immer
mehr: Psychische Belastung bei Wissens- und Dienstleistungsar-
beit (pp. 41–61). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Krause, A., Baeriswyl, S., Berset, M., Deci, N., Dettmers, J., Dorsema-
gen, C., Meier, W., Schraner, S., Stetter, B., & Straub, M. (2015a).
Selbstgefährdung als Indikator für Mängel bei der Gestaltung
mobil-flexibler Arbeit: Zur Entwicklung eines Erhebungsinstru-
ments. Wirtschaftspsychologie,17(1), 49–59.
Krause, A., Berset, M., & Peters, K. (2015b). Interessierte Selbst-
gefährdung – von der direkten zur indirekten Steuerung. Ar-
beitsmedizin Sozialmedizin Umweltmedizin,50, 164–170.
Krause, A., & Dorsemagen, C. (2017). Herausforderungen für die
betriebliche Gesundheitsförderung durch indirekte Steuerung
und interessierte Selbstgefährdung. In G. Faller (Ed.), Lehrbuch
Betriebliche Gesundheitsförderung (pp. 153–164). Göttingen:
Hogrefe.
Krause, A., Dorsemagen, C., Stadlinger, J., & Baeriswyl, S. (2012).
Indirekte Steuerung und interessierte Selbstgefährdung: Ergeb-
nisse aus Befragungen und Fallstudien. Konsequenzen für das Be-
triebliche Gesundheitsmanagement. In B. Badura, A. Ducki, H.
Schröder, J. Klose & M. Meyer (Eds.), Fehlzeiten-Report 2012
(pp. 191–202). Berlin: Springer.
Kubicek, B., Korunka, C., & Tement, S. (2014). Too much job con-
trol? Two studies on curvilinear relations between job control and
eldercare workers’ well-being. International Journal of Nursing
Studies,51(12), 1644–1653.
Meade, A. W., Watson, A. M., & Kroustal is, C. M. (2007). Assessing
common methods bias in organizational research. http://www4.
ncsu.edu/~awmeade/Links/Papers/Methods_Bias(SIOP07).pdf
Accessed 24 Mar 2017. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual
Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, New York.
Ordonez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M . H.
(2009). Goals gone wild: the systematic side effects of over-pre-
scribing goal setting. Academy of Management Perspectives,23,
6–16.
Pauly, M.V., Nicholson, S., Polsky, D., Berger, M. L., & Sharda, C.
(2008). Valuing reductions in on-the-job illness: “presenteeism”
from managerial and economic perspectives. Health Economics,
17, 469–485.
Peters, K. (2011). Indirekte Steuerung und interessierte Selbstge-
fährdung: eine 180-Grad-Wende bei der betrieblichen Gesund-
heitsförderung. In N. Kratzer, W. Dunkel, K. Becker & S. Hinrichs
(Eds.), Arbeit und Gesundheit im Konflikt: Analysen und Ansätze
für ein partizipatives Gesundheitsmanagement (pp. 105–122).
Berlin: Edition Sigma.
Rodgers, R., & Hunter, J. E. (1991). Impact of management by objec-
tives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy,76, 322–336.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation mod-
eling. Journal of Statistical Software,48, 1–36.
Schraner, S. (2015). Indirekte Steuerung: Entwicklung eines Instru-
ments und Überprüfung von Zusammenhängen mit Beanspru-
chungsfolgen. Unpublished master’s thesis, Olten, Switzerland:
Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz.
Schuler, D., Tuch, A., Buscher, N., & Camenzind, P. (2016). Psy-
chische Gesundheit in der Schweiz. Monitoring 2016. Neuchâtel:
Schweizerisches Gesundheitsobservatorium.
K
Self-endangering work behavior
Dr. sc. ETH Michaela Knecht is
psychologist and works at the Insti-
tute Humans in Complex Systems at
the University of Applied Sciences
and Arts Northwestern Switzerland.
She is active in research and teach-
ing in the area of work and health.
Before, she worked at the Univer-
sity of Zurich both at the Epidemi-
ology, Biostatistics, and Prevention
Institute and at the Department of
Psychology.
Gregory Meier is research fellow
at the Institute for Research and
Development of Collaborative Pro-
cesses at the University of Applied
Sciences and Arts Northwestern
Switzerland. He does research on
flexible workplace design and the
association with work and health.
Prior, he worked at the Zurich Uni-
versity of Applied Sciences.
Prof. Dr. Andreas Krause is psy-
chologist and lecturer for work and
health at the Institute Humans in
Complex Systems at the Univer-
sity of Applied Sciences and Arts
Northwestern Switzerland. Before,
he worked at the Universities of
Freiburg, Flensburg and Osnabruck.
K
