Next Article in Journal
Psychometric Properties of the Schizophrenia Oral Health Profile: Preliminary Results
Next Article in Special Issue
Healthy Leadership and Workplace Health Promotion as a Pre-Requisite for Organizational Health
Previous Article in Journal
Perspective Developing Successful Collaborative Research Partnerships with AI/AN Communities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Interpersonal Conflicts in the Unit Impact the Service Quality Rated by Customers: The Mediating Role of Work-Unit Well-Being
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 17
10.3390/ijerph18179084
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Cross-Level Moderation Effect of Resource-Providing Leadership on the Demands—Work Ability Relationship

by
Anne Richter
1,*,
Marta Roczniewska
1,2,
Carina Loeb
3,
Christiane R. Stempel
4 and
Thomas Rigotti
5,6
1
Medical Management Center, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden
2
Center of Research on Cognition and Behaviour, Institute of Psychology, Faculty in Sopot, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, 81 745 Sopot, Poland
3
School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Box 883, 721 23 Vasteras, Sweden
4
Department of Work & Organizational Psychology, FernUniversität Hagen, 58097 Hagen, Germany
5
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 55128 Mainz, Germany
6
Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research, 55122 Mainz, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(17), 9084; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18179084
Submission received: 27 May 2021 / Revised: 17 August 2021 / Accepted: 22 August 2021 / Published: 28 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Emerging Issues in Occupational Health Psychology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Employees in female-dominated sectors are exposed to high workloads, emotional job demands, and role ambiguity, and often have insufficient resources to deal with these demands. This imbalance causes strain, threatening employees’ work ability. The aim of this study was to examine whether resource-providing leadership at the workplace level buffers against the negative repercussions of these job demands on work ability. Employees (N = 2383) from 290 work groups across three countries (Germany, Finland, and Sweden) in female-dominated sectors were asked to complete questionnaires in this study. Employees rated their immediate supervisor’s resource-providing leadership and also self-reported their work ability, role ambiguity, workload, and emotional demands. Multilevel modeling was performed to predict individual work ability with job demands as employee-level predictors, and leadership as a group-level predictor. Work ability was poor when employees reported high workloads, high role ambiguity, and high emotional demands. Resource-providing leadership at the group level had a positive impact on employees’ work ability. We observed a cross-level interaction between emotional demands and resource-providing leadership. We conclude that resource-providing leadership buffers against the repercussions of emotional demands for the work ability of employees in female-dominated sectors; however, it is not influential in dealing with workload or role ambiguity.

1. Introduction

Work-related stress, sick leave, and work incapacity due to poor mental health have increased [1,2,3,4] and become a serious societal problem worldwide [2,5]. Risk groups for poor work-related mental health can be found in certain sectors [6,7,8], such as the public sector, where human service occupations (e.g., health care, social services, and education) dominate [9,10,11]. These sectors are often referred to as female-dominated sectors. In these sectors, employees are exposed to increased and more specific job demands [12,13,14]. For example, work overload, a lack of formal rewards, and work-life imbalance were found to be particularly problematic demands for health care staff, especially nurses [15]. Additionally, emotional demands are high in human service occupations, where the main work task is to respond to people’s needs [14]. Moreover, a recent report highlighted that certain work demands involving unclear goals, such as a lack of goal clarity or role ambiguity, as well as workload are more prevalent for working women than for working men [7]. Employees in female-dominated sectors often report a lack of resources, which makes it difficult to handle work demands [13,16].
According to the job demands-resources (JD-R) model [17,18], employees’ well-being is dependent on job resources and job demands in their work environment. Whereas job demands (such as workload or role ambiguity) deplete energy and result in job strain and health complaints, job resources (such as social support or autonomy) play a motivating role by stimulating personal growth and goal achievement. Job demands and resources have independent effects through either the health impairment process (demands that deplete resources over time) or the motivational process (resources that satisfy needs), and demands and resources also interact. According to the JD-R model [17,18], resources buffer against the negative impact of job demands on well-being. Thus, a properly designed work environment requires a balance between demands and resources for employees to deal with those demands. However, the interactions of demands and resources are nuanced [18]. For example, although the negative effects of workloads may be buffered by high autonomy, learning opportunities seem to be less instrumental [19]. Thus, more research is needed to uncover which resources are functional for specific types of demands, which is also emphasized by the compensation principle of the demand-induced strain compensation model [20].
In the workplace, leaders have the ability to shape employees’ work characteristics [21,22,23,24]. Adjusting demands and resources has been identified as one pathway to explain the positive effects of leadership, with other pathways including role modeling and leaders’ capacities to broaden and build the personal resources of their subordinates [25,26,27]. For example, employees with transformational leaders were found to experience fewer job demands and more job resources, which resulted in positive outcomes [28]. However, it is not always possible to limit job demands to achieve a balance between demands and resources; thus, it is important to investigate how resources can be provided to help employees deal with such demands. Research suggests that leaders can be a valuable aid in this regard. For example, in one study, social support, autonomy, and opportunities for growth were specific resources that transformational leaders created and employees utilized to deal with job demands [29,30]. When employees are confronted with increased job strain as a result of taxing job demands, they are more likely to use maladaptive strategies of behavior regulation and cannot escape the loss cycle [31,32]. Therefore, when the job becomes more stressful, stable resources become more important, and positive leadership practices may help employees regulate fatigue and avoid burnout or further losses to their work ability [33].
While transformational leadership has proven to be a valuable leadership style for many employee outcomes, transformational leadership does not specifically focus on creating a resource-oriented work environment. Thus, aligned with the JD-R model, we study resource-providing leadership, which captures the modification of demands and resources as a key leadership task [34,35]. In contrast to general leadership behaviors (e.g., transformational or transactional leadership), resource-providing leadership measures leadership behaviors that are directly focused on improving employees’ health-related job characteristics, such as employee participation or task control. Hence, resource-providing leadership directly operationalizes the notion that leaders affect employee well-being by modifying work characteristics [18,27].
Work ability can be defined as the ability of workers to perform their job taking into account specific work demands on the one hand and resources on the other [36]. Thus, representing the notion of a proper balance between individuals’ perception of their work demands and resources, work ability could be a proximal outcome of leaders’ actions related to demands and resources at the workplace. As an employee’s greatest asset [37], work ability has frequently been studied, particularly in Nordic countries, as a predictor of long-term sickness absence and as a risk factor for early disability pensions [38]. A time-lagged study among employees of two organizations showed that low work engagement was related to low work ability beyond known health behaviors and psychosocial work characteristics [39]. This points to the relevance of job resources for preserving work ability by boosting work engagement. Indeed, a recent study by Boelhouwer and colleagues tested four types of job resources and their roles in work engagement and work ability. Autonomy and supportive leadership (but not colleague support) demonstrated both a direct and buffering role in these two outcomes [40].
The overall aim of the present study is to investigate how specific demands that are prevalent in female-dominated sectors relate to work ability and how resource-providing leadership at the group level affects this relationship (see Figure 1 for an overview of the conceptual model). In line with existing research [7,14,15], this study investigates workload, role ambiguity, and emotional demands, presenting demands that might be particularly relevant for employees in female-dominated sectors. More specifically, the following hypotheses are investigated:
Hypothesis 1a–c.
The individual-level job demands of workload (a), role ambiguity (b), and emotional demands (c) are negatively related to work ability.
Hypothesis 2.
Group-level resource-providing leadership is positively related to work ability.
Hypothesis 3a–c.
Group-level resource-providing leadership moderates the relationships between individual-level predictors (workload (a), role ambiguity (b) and emotional demands (c)) and work ability such that the individual-level relationships weaken as resource-providing leadership at the group level increases.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

The current study was part of a larger research project on leadership and health in Finland, Germany, and Sweden [41]. Participants were approached via the human resources department or executive management of their organizations. In all cases, employee representatives were included in the process of obtaining their consent. Data were collected via online and paper-pencil questionnaires, and participants were assured of the confidential and anonymous treatment of their information. The proximity between leaders and employees (in terms of both location and hierarchy) was an important selection criterion in the sampling strategy. In our sample, leaders always directly supervised their work groups, and work group members reported (directly) only to this manager. In total, 3336 questionnaires were distributed, and usable data (i.e., when employees completed all scales of interest) were obtained from 2383 employees (71% response rate) nested in 290 work groups. Participants were located in three countries: Germany (n = 1363; 57%), Finland (n = 586; 25%), and Sweden (n = 434; 18%). Over half of the study sample was employed in a public sector organization (n = 1352; 57%), and most had a permanent contract (94%). All jobs from the examined sectors—finance (Germany), public administration, healthcare, service, and education (Finland, Germany, and Sweden)—were characterized by high service demands and a customer orientation and required regular interaction and exchange among work group members and their immediate manager. Reflecting the gender structure of the female-dominated sectors that we investigated, the majority of the sample were women (n = 1849; 78%). On average, the study participants were 43.63 years old (SD = 10.64). Their average work tenure at the organization was 14.65 years (SD = 9.90), whereas their average tenure in their work group was 7.31 years (SD = 7.67). Work hours per week ranged from 10 to 65, with an average of 40.

2.2. Measures

For all scales, the distinctiveness of the subscales was previously assessed using confirmatory factor analysis in this sample, and appropriate psychometric properties (including measurement invariance between the three different language versions) were found [41]. In addition to using the scales listed below, we gathered demographic data such as age, gender, and tenure.
Workload. Workload was measured with five items from the Quantitative Workload inventory [42] using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very seldom or never) to 5 (very often or always). Two sample items are “How often does your job require you to work very fast?” and “How often does your job require you to work very hard?” Cronbach’s alpha for reliability was 0.79.
Role ambiguity. Role ambiguity was measured with three items from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ II) [43] using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (to a very small extent) to 5 (to a very large extent). A sample question is “Does your work have clear objectives? [reversed]”. Cronbach’s alpha for reliability was 0.74.
Emotional demands. Emotional demands were measured with four items from the COPSOQ II [43]. Two of the items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very seldom or never) to 5 (very often or always). A sample item is “Does your work put you in emotionally disturbing situations?” The two other items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (to a very small extent) to 5 (to a very large extent). A sample question is “Is your work emotionally demanding?” Cronbach’s alpha for reliability was 0.85.
Resource-providing leadership. Resource-providing leadership was measured with 10 items covering the three areas of task control, participation, and conflict management from the Health- and Development-Promoting Leadership Behavior Questionnaire [34,44]. Subscales from the resource-providing subfactor were chosen, and here, we identified those which fit the demands and context of the female-dominated sector best. Specifically, we aimed at resources that best match the demands we investigated. Providing task control has been shown to mitigate the negative effects of workloads, [45,46], participation seems suitable to negatively affect role ambiguity [47], and conflict management may be especially helpful in dealing with emotional demands [48,49]. Employees rated their immediate manager on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are “My immediate superior allows me to decide for myself how I organize my tasks” (task control), “My immediate superior includes me in decisions that affect my work or workplace environment” (participation), and “My immediate superior searches for solutions to conflicts with those involved” (conflict management). Cronbach’s alpha for reliability was 0.86. This variable was used as a group (i.e., level 2) predictor, and therefore had to be aggregated. Aggregation was justified based on ICC(1) = 0.24 and ICC (2) = 0.72, as well as a mean rwg of 0.83.
Work ability. Work ability was assessed with one item from the Work Ability Index [36,50] measuring perceived work ability in relation to the demands of the job (“What is your work ability like in relation to the demands of your job?”). The item was rated on a 10-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (bad) to 10 (good).

2.3. Analytical Strategy

We applied hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses to test all hypotheses using HLM 7 [51]. The HLM approach was warranted because the structure of the data was nested (employees nested within work groups, work groups nested within countries), which violated assumptions on the non-interdependence of the data, affecting standard error estimations [52]. We calculated ICC(1) at the work group and country levels using a formula presented in Hox et al. [52]. This formula refers to ICC values as the expected correlation of work ability between the observations of two randomly chosen persons in the same work group (work group-level ICC) or country (country-level ICC). The ICC(1) at the work group level was 0.15, and the ICC(1) at the country level was 0.07. These estimates suggested the need to control for the nesting effect and warranted the use of HLM.
To investigate the direction of the cultural differences, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted at the individual level for all variables. Country was used as a factor with three values. Dunnet C-corrected pairwise comparisons showed significantly lower work ability among German (M = 7.60) than Swedish (M = 8.72) or Finnish (M = 8.54) participants, with no differences between the latter two. Moreover, Germans reported significantly lower emotional demands (M = 3.08) than Finnish participants (M = 3.28), who showed lower demands than Swedish employees (M = 3.52). For resource-providing leadership, Germans (M = 3.55) reported significantly lower levels than Finnish or Swedish employees (M = 3.89 and M = 3.85, respectively). No differences regarding role ambiguity and workload were detected.
Moreover, the model comprised the effect of three job demands at the individual level and the cross-level effect of resource-providing leadership at the work group level (for the conceptual model, see Figure 1) and thus required HLM.
We performed five consecutive models following the procedure delineated in Hox et al. [52]. First, in Model 1, we estimated the null model (with no predictors involved) to decompose the total variance of work ability into three terms (employee, work group and country levels) to benchmark the model fit and explained variance. In Model 2, we added Level 1 predictors (workload, role ambiguity, and emotional demands) to estimate the fixed effects at the individual level. Model 2 tested Hypotheses 1a–c. Because age is likely to affect work ability [53], we added this variable in Model 2 as a control. In the third model (intercept-as-outcome), the intercept estimates derived from the Level 1 analysis were regressed on resource-providing leadership to test whether the latter accounted for the between-group variance in work ability. More specifically, this model tested the cross-level effect of resource-providing leadership at the group level on individual work ability (Hypothesis 2). In Model 4, we estimated whether the relationships between job demands and work ability varied between work groups. The slope of workload, role ambiguity, and emotional demands were tested for randomness in separate models to eliminate the number of random parameters tested at once [52]. We report the model where the variance of the slopes was significant, indicating that the slope differed depending on the work group. Finally, the fifth model tested for cross-level moderating effects that would reveal whether the relationships between any of the job demands and work ability at the individual level varied depending on resource-providing leadership at the work group level (slope-as-outcome). Thus, this final model tested Hypotheses 3a–c. To analyze the effects at various values of the moderator, we used the 16th and 84th percentiles of resource-providing leadership, as Hayes [54] recommends probing at percentiles to guarantee that the probed points are always within the observed range of the data when the distribution diverts from normal. If the distribution of the data is normal, the 16th and 84th percentiles correspond to ±1 SD from the mean.
Following Enders and Tofighi [55], we group-mean-centered Level 1 predictors and grand-mean centered the Level 2 predictor. Group-mean centering is recommended for Level 1 predictors when investigating cross-level interactions, as it allows distinguishing cross-level interaction from between-group interaction [56]. Simultaneously, grand-mean centering is a better choice for scaling for Level 2 predictors because it helps reduce the covariance between intercepts and slopes, thereby reducing potential problems associated with multicollinearity.

3. Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the study variables and simple correlations, whereas Table 2 presents the results of the multilevel analysis.
In the intercept-only model (Model 1), the variance components of work ability were significant at both the work group and country levels (ps < 0.001). In Model 2, where we entered group-mean centered Level 1 job demands (role ambiguity, workload, and emotional demands) and controlled for age, the overall model fit improved, that is, deviance decreased: ∆ D (4) = 184.04, p < 0.001. As expected, when we controlled for age, work ability was negatively predicted by workload (γ = −0.35, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001), role ambiguity (γ = –0.52, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001), and emotional demands (γ = –0.35, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001). Supporting Hypothesis 1a, as workload increased, work ability decreased. In line with Hypothesis 1b, employees who experienced more role ambiguity within their group reported poorer work ability. Finally, as predicted by Hypothesis 1c, employees who expressed having more emotional demands reported poorer work ability.
When we added resource-providing leadership as a Level 2 predictor (Model 3), the model fit significantly improved: ∆ D (1) = 36.62, p < 0.001. Resource-providing leadership was positively related to work ability (γ = 0.68, SE = 0.11, p < 0.001). In work groups led by leaders rated as more resource-providing, employees reported better work ability. This result supports Hypothesis 2.
We performed three model 4 versions, where we estimated whether the relationships between each of the job demands and work ability varied between work groups. Only the random slope of emotional demands was significant (Hypothesis 3c), and the other models did not converge under the conventional number of 100 iterations for the random slopes of workload (Hypothesis 3a) and role ambiguity (Hypothesis 3b). Model 4, with the random slope of emotional demands and fixed slopes of workload and role ambiguity, had a significantly better fit than Model 3: ∆ D (2) = 20.95, p < 0.001. The significant variance component of the random slope of emotional demands (p = 0.010) indicated that the negative relation between the level of emotional demands and work ability differed depending on the work group.
Thus, in the final model, we tested whether the randomness of the emotional demands–work ability slope could be explained by resource-providing leadership. Adding this cross-level interaction significantly improved the model fit: ∆ D (1) = 9.61, p = 0.002. Figure 2 demonstrates the buffering role of resource-providing leadership in the link between emotional demands and work ability (γ = 0.39, SE = 0.13, p = 0.002). The lines represent the slopes for low (16th percentile) and high (84th percentile) levels of resource-providing leadership.
Simple slopes analysis revealed that in groups where leaders were low in resource-providing leadership, there was a negative link between emotional demands and work ability (simple slope = −0.48 (0.05), p < 0.001). In those work groups, the greater employees’ emotional demands, the lower their work ability was. For high values of resource-providing leadership, this relationship was reduced (simple slope = −0.14 (0.07), p = 0.051). In work groups led by high resource-providing leaders, emotional demands were not significantly linked with work ability. The difference between high and low resource-providing leadership was most pronounced for high values of emotional demands, where low resource-providing leadership was linked with a substantial reduction in work ability compared to high resource-providing leadership (simple slope = 1.13 (0.18), p < 0.001). When emotional demands were low, the difference was smaller, but the work ability of individual employees was still better in work groups led by high resource-providing leaders than in work groups led by low resource-providing leaders (simple slope = 0.35 (0.17), p = 0.04).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate how workload, role ambiguity, and emotional demands, which all present specific demands that are prevalent in female-dominated sectors [7], decrease work ability and to examine the extent to which group-level resource-providing leadership buffers against these negative effects. In line with the health impairment process proposed by the JD-R model, the findings show that workload, role ambiguity, and emotional demands were negatively associated with work ability. We propose that these factors should be included in the assessment of risk factors in the psychosocial work environment in female-dominated sectors. Additionally, congruent with the motivational process in the JD-R model, team-shared perceptions of resource-providing leadership were positively related to work ability. This result is congruent with recent findings from the population-based prospective MONICA/KORA study, which demonstrated that people who did not feel supported by their supervisor had a significantly higher risk for suboptimal health ten years later than those who did [57].
In this study, we assumed that leaders who lead in a resource-providing way act as a buffer between work-related demands and employee work ability. The results showed that this buffer effect was visible for one of the three risk factors. Specifically, resource-providing leadership protected against the negative effects of emotional demands on work ability. However, we did not observe such effects for workload or role ambiguity. There are several possible reasons for these mixed findings. Resource-providing leadership might be better suited to help employees deal with the repercussions of emotional demands on work ability than to help employees deal with other job demands we investigated. For example, servant leadership at cafés and coffee shops buffers the negative impact of customer mistreatment on employee outcomes [58]. When employees have to handle difficult situations with customers or colleagues, they might perceive their manager’s efforts to provide them with resources as particularly helpful and supportive. Thus, these resources may help them deal with demands from other people. Workload, on the other hand, might be affected by factors that a line manager does not have the power to address. This demand may depend more on contextual factors, such as the number of patients who seek care at a particular time or the contracts that an organization has signed, which set the target for employees. Additionally, positive leadership may be more relevant for workload when tested on a day-to-day basis: a diary study among teachers demonstrated a buffering role of transformational leadership on the link between workload and work engagement [59]. Alternatively, a different type of leadership behavior was shown to be relevant for increasing demands among police officers, such as health-promoting leadership [60]. When leaders show attention and sensitivity to issues of health or health-impairing work conditions (e.g., noticing when employees need a break), this approach has a buffering effect on employee burnout. Thus, workload may require more immediate or different types of behaviors than what is offered by resource-providing leadership. Even though role ambiguity was associated with work ability, employees indicated a low level of role ambiguity in general. Hence, role ambiguity was not perceived as problematic in this sample, in contrast to other literature on role ambiguity [7]. Under these circumstances, a buffering effect might be neither relevant nor easy to find.
This study makes several important contributions. First, we contribute to theory development by showing that resources and demands need to be matched. In this study, resource-providing leadership was found to be a buffer only for emotional demands and not for the other demands under investigation. The results thus point to the need to find a match between demands and resources that are instrumental in coping with these demands. With these results, we answer the call for a more nuanced analysis of the interactions between job demands and job resources [19]. Second, this study makes an important practical contribution by showing that workplace-level factors such as leadership are important and affect individual-level outcomes such as work ability. These findings are in line with current recommendations that organizational interventions that aim to change how work is designed, organized, and/or managed [61] are more effective than individual interventions that aim to address the primary causes of poor health [62,63]. Providing training to leaders can be an example of an effective organizational intervention [64,65,66]. Not only do leaders themselves benefit from these trainings, but most importantly, improved leadership skills affect leaders’ subordinates [67]. Since training leaders are an organizational intervention that can have widespread positive effects, establishing a training program could be a promising way to help leaders address specific work-related needs. In particular, intervention programs that target factors at the team level and are participatory seem promising [66,68,69,70]. Leaders who actively involve their employees in shaping the work conditions could facilitate more sustainable results because the focus is beyond individual interactions. Thus, these findings advance the research on female-dominated sectors in highlighting the importance of shared perceptions of workplace-level resources such as resource-providing leadership to promote sustainable employment.

Strengths and Limitations

There are several strengths to this study. First, we addressed the nested data structure of our sample by applying a multilevel approach. This design allows us to investigate the effects that are beyond individual perceptions. Namely, when individual employee ratings are aggregated to show the group-level perception of leaders’ behaviors, it may be considered a more objective assessment of his or her skills. Furthermore, treating leadership as a group-level variable enabled us to compare how these differences in managers’ behaviors influence processes observed at the individual level (here, links between individual job demands and work ability). Such analyses are vital to discover how processes may depend on organizational contexts. Second, we drew on a large sample from multiple service-oriented organizations in three countries; hence, we found robust results that can be generalized to this sector.
There are several limitations to this study. First, the cross-sectional nature of our sample does not allow for any inferences about causality. It is possible that low work ability resulting from, for example, functional disabilities or health problems results in employees perceiving their job demands as more intense, which would indicate reversed causality. Therefore, future studies should validate our results using longitudinal data on the time-lagged effects for work ability. Second, we investigated leadership as a possible group-level factor that could buffer job demands that are particularly important for female-dominated sectors. Future studies could investigate other factors relevant to these job demands to build strong empirical evidence that can become the basis for organizational interventions in female-dominated sectors. One such factor could be social job resources, such as teamwork, which seems especially relevant in female-dominated environments [71]. Moreover, investigating other sectors requires a conscious choice of demands that might be particularly important in those sectors. Finally, in this study, we focused on resources at the work unit level; however, other hierarchical levels, such as the team or department levels, might also be interesting to investigate, as the decision latitude for job demands and resources varies across levels [72].

5. Conclusions

In summary, we find that resource-providing leadership is a way to help employees from the female-dominated sector dealing with certain job demands. While we studied three sector-relevant demands (i.e., workload, role ambiguity and emotional demands) and all three as well as resource-providing leadership were relevant for employees’ work ability, resource-providing leadership buffered only against the repercussions of emotional demands. Our study makes important contributions to the literature on resources and demands and particularly the matching of these to foster occupational health. Moreover, our results also indicate that leadership development focusing on resource-providing leadership might be a relevant avenue for the future organizational interventions. Furthermore, future research should investigate other demands and resources at different organizational levels to further our understanding of the match between demands and resources and to provide a basis for evidence-based organizational interventions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.R. and M.R.; methodology, C.L., C.R.S. and T.R.; formal analysis, M.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R., M.R., C.L. and C.R.S.; writing—review and editing, A.R., M.R., C.L., C.R.S. and T.R.; funding acquisition, A.R. and T.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by FORTE, grant number 2016–07182, by the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, grant number F2199 and Swedish AFA Insurance, grant number 160070.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The project was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Federation of German Psychologists Association’s Code of Ethics. Additionally, the application of the research project was vetted by the founding organization within the European framework of “New and Emerging Risks in Occupational Safety and Health”.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting these findings can be provided upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. OECD. Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers. A Synthesis of Findings across OECD Countries; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. OECD/EU. Health at a Glance: Europe 2018: State of Health in the EU Cycle; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. BAuA. Stressreport Deutschland 2: Psychische Anforderungen, Ressourcen und Befinden [Stress Report Germany 2019: Mental Demands, Resources and Well-Being]; Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin: Dortmund, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Eurofound and EU-OSHA. Psychosocial Risks in Europe—Prevalence and Strategies for Prevention; EU: Luxenbourg, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  5. EU-OSHA. OSH in Figures: Stress at Work—Facts and Figures; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxenbourg, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  6. Eurofound. Work-Related Stress; Eurofound: Luxenbourg, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  7. Swedish Work Environment Authority. Knowledge Compilation 2016:8 Healthy Workplaces for Women and Men of All Ages; Swedish Work Environment Authority: Arbetesmiljöverket, Swedish, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  8. Aagestad, C.; Tyssen, R.; Sterud, T. Do work-related factors contribute to differences in doctor-certified sick leave? A prospective study comparing women in health and social occupations with women in the general working population. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. EU-OSHA. New Risks and Trends in the Safety and Health of Women at Work European Risk Observatory Literature Review; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2013; Volume 55. [Google Scholar]
  10. EU-OSHA. Risks and Trends in the Safety and Health of Women at Work; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  11. Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare (FORTE). Work Environment in Female Dominated Sectors [Arbetsmiljön i Kvinnodominerade Sektorer]; FORTE: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016.
  12. Keisu, B.-I.; Brodin, H.; Tafvelin, S. Gendered Norms at Work: New Perspectives on Work Environment and Health; Keisu, B.-I., Tafvelin, S., Brodin, H., Eds.; Springer Nature Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  13. Härenstam, A.; Marklund, S.; Berntson, E.; Bolin, M.; Ylander, J. Understanding the Organisational Impact on Working Conditions and Health; National Institute for Working Life: Stockholm, Sweden, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  14. SOU. Hela Lönen, Hela Tiden: Utmaningar för ett Jämställt Arbetsliv [The Whole Salary, All the Time: Challenges for a Gender Equal Working Life]. Slutbetänkande av Delegationen för Jämställdhet i Arbetslivet [Final Report of the Delegation for Gender Equality]; Fritze: Stockholm, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  15. Broetje, S.; Jenny, G.J.; Bauer, G.F. The Key Job Demands and Resources of Nursing Staff: An Integrative Review of Reviews. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kjellsson, S.; Magnusson, C.; Tåhlin, M. Arbete, Hälsa Och Genus: Betydelsen av Yrkets Könssammansättning för Kvinnors Och Mäns Villkor i Arbetslivet [Work, Health and Gender: The Importance of gender Composition for Women’s and Men’s Conditions in Working Life]. In Jämställt Arbete? Organisatoriska ramar och villkor i arbetslivet; Fritze: Stockholm, Sweden, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job Demands–Resources theory. In Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide; Cooper, C., Chen, P., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2014; pp. 37–64. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2017, 22, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bakker, A.B.; van Veldhoven, M.; Xanthopoulou, D. Beyond the Demand-Control Model: Thriving on High Job Demands and Resources. J. Pers. Psychol. 2010, 9, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. De Jonge, J.; Dormann, C. The DISC model: Demand-induced strain compensation mechanisms in job stress. In Occupational Stress in the Service Professions; Dollard, M.F., Winefield, A.H., Winefield, H.R., Eds.; CRC Press: London, UK, 2003; pp. 43–74. [Google Scholar]
  21. Xanthopoulou, D.; Demerouti, E.; Schaufeli, W. The Role of Personal Resources in the Job Demands-Resources Model. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2007, 14, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Euwema, M. Job Resources Buffer the Impact of Job Demands on Burnout. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2005, 10, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Schaufeli, W.B. Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career Dev. Int. 2015, 20, 446–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Drzewiecka, M.; Roczniewska, M. The relationship between perceived leadership styles and organisational constraints: An empirical study in Goleman’s typology. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2018, 68, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vincent-Höper, S.; Gregersen, S.; Nienhaus, A. Do Work Characteristics Mediate the Negative Effect of Transformational Leadership on Impaired Well-Being? Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organ. A&O 2017, 61, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Arnold, K.A.; Turner, N.; Barling, J.; Kelloway, E.K.; McKee, M.C. Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Arnold, K. Transformational Leadership and Employee Psychological Well-Being: A Review and Directions for Future Research. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2017, 22, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fernet, C.; Trépanier, S.-G.; Austin, S.; Gagné, M.; Forest, J. Transformational leadership and optimal functioning at work: On the mediating role of employees’ perceived job characteristics and motivation. Work Stress 2015, 29, 11–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Breevaart, K.; Hetland, J.; Demerouti, E.; Olsen, O.; Espevik, R. Daily Transactional and Transformational Leadership and Daily Employee Engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2013, 87, 138–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Breevaart, K.; Demerouti, E.; Sleebos, D.; Maduro, V. Uncovering the Underlying Relationship between Transformational Leaders and Followers’ Task Performance. J. Pers. Psychol. 2014, 13, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Roczniewska, M.; Bakker, A.B. Burnout and self-regulation failure: A diary study of self-undermining and job crafting among nurses. J. Adv. Nurs. 2021, 77, 3424–3435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Bakker, A.B.; Costa, P.L. Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: A theoretical analysis. Burn. Res. 2014, 1, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Bakker, A.B.; de Vries, J.D. Job Demands–Resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety Stress. Coping 2021, 34, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vincent-Höper, S.; Stein, M. The Role of Leaders in Designing Employees’ Work Characteristics: Validation of the Health- and Development-Promoting Leadership Behavior Questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gilbert, M.-H.; Dagenais-Desmarais, V.; St-Hilaire, F. Transformational leadership and autonomy support management behaviors: The role of specificity in predicting employees? Psychological health. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2017, 38, 320–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ilmarinen, J. The Work Ability Index (WAI). Occup. Med. 2006, 57, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Ilmarinen, J. Work ability—A comprehensive concept for occupational health research and prevention. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2009, 35, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lundin, A.; Leijon, O.; Vaez, M.; Hallgren, M.; Torgén, M. Predictive validity of the Work Ability Index and its individual items in the general population. Scand. J. Public Health 2017, 45, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rongen, A.; Robroek, S.J.W.; Schaufeli, W.; Burdorf, A. The Contribution of Work Engagement to Self-Perceived Health, Work Ability, and Sickness Absence Beyond Health Behaviors and Work-Related Factors. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2014, 56, 892–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Boelhouwer, I.G.; Vermeer, W.; van Vuuren, T. Work Ability, Burnout Complaints, and Work Engagement among Employees With Chronic Diseases: Job Resources as Targets for Intervention? Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rigotti, T.; Holstad, T.; Mohr, G.; Stempel, C.; Hansen, E.; Loeb, E.; Isaksson, K.; Otto, K.; Kinnunen, U.; Perko, K.; et al. Rewarding and Sustainable Health-Promoting Leadership; Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Dortmund, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  42. Spector, P.E.; Jex, S.M. Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1998, 3, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Pejtersen, J.H.; Kristensen, T.S.; Borg, V.; Bjorner, J.B. The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scand. J. Public Health 2010, 38, 8–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Vincent, S. Survey instrument for health- and development-promoting leadership behavior: A validation study [Analyseinstrument für gesundheits- und entwicklungsförderliches Führungsverhalten: Eine Validierungsstudie]. Zeitschrift für Arbetswiss. 2012, 66, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Portoghese, I.; Galletta, M.; Coppola, R.C.; Finco, G.; Campagna, M. Burnout and Workload Among Health Care Workers: The Moderating Role of Job Control. Saf. Health Work 2014, 5, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Bal, P.M.; Hofmans, J.; Polat, T. Breaking Psychological Contracts with the Burden of Workload: A Weekly Study of Job Resources as Moderators. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 66, 143–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Jackson, S.E. Participation in decision making as a strategy for reducing job-related strain. J. Appl. Psychol. 1983, 68, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zahlquist, L.; Hetland, J.; Skogstad, A.; Bakker, A.B.; Einarsen, S.V. Job Demands as Risk Factors of Exposure to Bullying at Work: The Moderating Role of Team-Level Conflict Management Climate. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. De Dreu, C.K.W.; van Dierendonck, D.; Dijkstra, M.T.M. Conflict at work and individual well-being. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2004, 15, 6–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tuomi, K.; Ilmarinen, J.; Jahkola, A.; Katajarinne, L.; Tulkki, A. Work Ability Index; Finnish Institute of Occupational Health: Helsinki, Finland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  51. Bryk, A.S.; Raudenbush, S.W.; Congdon, R.T. HLM 7.01 for Windows 2013; Scientific Software International, Inc.: Skokie, IL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hox, J.; Moerbeek, M.; van de Schoot, R. Multilevel Analysis; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN 9780203852279. [Google Scholar]
  53. El Fassi, M.; Bocquet, V.; Majery, N.; Lair, M.L.; Couffignal, S.; Mairiaux, P. Work ability assessment in a worker population: Comparison and determinants of Work Ability Index and Work Ability score. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. A Regression-Based Approach; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 9781609182304. [Google Scholar]
  55. Enders, C.K.; Tofighi, D. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychol. Methods 2007, 12, 121–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Hofmann, D.A.; Gavin, M.B. Centering Decisions in Hierarchical Linear Models: Implications for Research in Organizations. J. Manag. 1998, 24, 623–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Schmidt, B.; Herr, R.M.; Jarczok, M.N.; Baumert, J.; Lukaschek, K.; Emeny, R.T.; Ladwig, K.-H. Lack of supportive leadership behavior predicts suboptimal self-rated health independent of job strain after 10 years of follow-up: Findings from the population-based MONICA/KORA study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2018, 91, 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Ahmed, I.; Islam, T.; Ahmad, S.; Kaleem, A. A COVID-19 contextual study of customers’ mistreatment and counterproductive work behavior at coffee cafés. Br. Food J. 2021. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Breevaart, K.; Bakker, A.B. Daily job demands and employee work engagement: The role of daily transformational leadership behavior. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2018, 23, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Santa Maria, A.; Wolter, C.; Gusy, B.; Kleiber, D.; Renneberg, B. Reducing work-related burnout among police officers: The impact of job rewards and health-oriented leadership. Police J. 2020, 0032258X20946805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Härenstam, A. Organizational approach to studies of job demands, control and health. SJWEH Suppl. 2008, 6, 144–149. [Google Scholar]
  62. Health And Safety Executive. Managing the Causes of Work-Related Stress: A Step-by-Step Approach Using the Management Standards; HSE Books: Norwich, UK, 2007.
  63. WHO. Global Strategy on Occupational Health for All: The Way to Health at Work; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  64. Jacobsen, C.B.; Andersen, L.B.; Bøllingtoft, A.; Eriksen, T.L.M. Can Leadership Training Improve Organizational Effectiveness? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment on Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Public Adm. Rev. 2021, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kelloway, E.K.; Barling, J. Leadership development as an intervention in occupational health psychology. Work Stress 2010, 24, 260–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Watson, D.; Tregaskis, O.; Gedikli, C.; Vaughn, O.; Semkina, A. Well-being through learning: A systematic review of learning interventions in the workplace and their impact on well-being. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2018, 27, 247–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Karanika-Murray, M.; Hasson, H.; von Thiele Schwarz, U.; Richter, A. Improving Employee Wellbeing through Leadership Development; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 9781315665979. [Google Scholar]
  68. Knight, C.; Patterson, M.; Dawson, J. Building work engagement: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 792–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Nielsen, K.; Christensen, M. Positive Participatory Organizational Interventions: A Multilevel Approach for Creating Healthy Workplaces. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nielsen, K.; Taris, T.W. Leading well: Challenges to researching leadership in occupational health psychology–and some ways forward. Work Stress 2019, 33, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Roczniewska, M.; Richter, A.; Hasson, H.; Schwarz, U. von T. Predicting Sustainable Employability in Swedish Healthcare: The Complexity of Social Job Resources. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Lundmark, R.; Nielsen, K.; Hasson, H.; von Thiele Schwarz, U.; Tafvelin, S. No leader is an island: Contextual antecedents to line managers’ constructive and destructive leadership during an organizational intervention. Int. J. Work. Health Manag. 2020, 13, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Ijerph 18 09084 g001 550
Figure 1. The conceptual model of employee-level job demands and work group-level resource-providing leadership predicting work ability.
Figure 1. The conceptual model of employee-level job demands and work group-level resource-providing leadership predicting work ability.
Ijerph 18 09084 g001
Ijerph 18 09084 g002 550
Figure 2. Prediction of work ability by emotional demands (Level 1 and group−mean centered) as a function of resource−providing leadership (Level 2).
Figure 2. Prediction of work ability by emotional demands (Level 1 and group−mean centered) as a function of resource−providing leadership (Level 2).
Ijerph 18 09084 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the study variables and sample with 95% CI.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the study variables and sample with 95% CI.
M
(SD) 		WARAWEDRPL
Work ability (WA)8.04
(1.80)		—−0.08 ***
[−0.12; −0.04]		−0.22 ***
[−0.26; −0.18]		−0.16 ***
[−0.20; −0.12]		0.23 ***
[0.19; 0.27]
Role ambiguity (RA)1.92
(0.63)		0.15 *
[0.03; 0.26]		—−0.12 ***
[−0.16; −0.08]		−0.15 ***
[−0.19; −0.11]		−0.07 ***
[−0.11; −0.03]
Workload (W)3.62
(0.65)		−0.33 ***
[−0.43; −0.22]		−0.27 ***
[−0.37; −0.15]		—0.38 ***
[0.34; 0.41]		−0.04 *
[−0.08; −0.00]
Emotional demands (ED)3.21
(0.93)		−0.24 ***
[−0.25; −0.13]		−0.34 ***
[−0.44; −0.24]		0.44 ***
[0.34; 0.53]		—0.12 ***
[0.08; 0.16]
Resource-providing leadership (RPL)3.69
(0.34)		0.44 ***
[0.34; 0.53]		−0.12 *
[−0.23; −0.00]		−0.04
[−0.15; 0.08]		0.13 *
[0.01; 0.24]		—
Notes: Correlations at the employee level (N = 2383) are displayed above the diagonal. Correlations at the work unit level (N = 290) are displayed below the diagonal. The correlational analyses do not account for the nested structure of the data. *** p <.001, * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Multilevel analysis predicting work ability from job demands (Level 1) and resource-providing leadership (Level 2), controlling for country-level variance (Level 3).
Table 2. Multilevel analysis predicting work ability from job demands (Level 1) and resource-providing leadership (Level 2), controlling for country-level variance (Level 3).
ModelModelModelModelModel
12345
Fixed partEst.SEEst.SEEst.SEEst.SEEst.SE
Intercept 8.30 **0.298.30 **0.298.260.238.220.208.220.20
Level 1−Employee
Age –0.01 **0.00–0.01 **0.00–0.01 **0.00–0.01 **0.00
Role ambiguity (RA) –0.52 ***0.06–0.52 ***0.06–0.52 ***0.06–0.51 ***0.06
Workload (W) –0.35 ***0.06–0.35 ***0.06–0.36 ***0.06–0.36 ***0.06
Emotional demands (ED) –0.35 ***0.05–0.35 ***0.05–0.36 ***0.05–0.34 ***0.06
Level 2−Work group
Resource-providing leadership (RPL) 0.68 ***0.110.65 ***0.110.72 ***0.11
Cross-level interaction
ED × RPL 0.39 **0.13
Random part
Variance decomposition
Employee 2.77 2.54 2.53 2.44 2.44
Work group 0.23 0.26 0.20 0.22 0.22
Country 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.11 0.12
Random slope of ED 0.16 0.13
Model fit
Deviance (D) 9345.39 9161.35 9124.73 9103.78 9094.17
Number of estimated parameters 4 8 9 11 12
∆ D (Mn−1) 184.04 *** 36.62 *** 20.95 *** 9.61 ***
∆ parameters (Mn−1) 4 1 2 1
Notes: Nemployees = 2383, Nwork groups = 290. Est. = parameter estimate. Mn = model number. Age, role ambiguity, workload, and emotional demands are group-mean centered. Resource-providing leadership is grand-mean centered. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Richter, A.; Roczniewska, M.; Loeb, C.; Stempel, C.R.; Rigotti, T. The Cross-Level Moderation Effect of Resource-Providing Leadership on the Demands—Work Ability Relationship. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9084. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18179084

AMA Style

Richter A, Roczniewska M, Loeb C, Stempel CR, Rigotti T. The Cross-Level Moderation Effect of Resource-Providing Leadership on the Demands—Work Ability Relationship. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(17):9084. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18179084

Chicago/Turabian Style

Richter, Anne, Marta Roczniewska, Carina Loeb, Christiane R. Stempel, and Thomas Rigotti. 2021. "The Cross-Level Moderation Effect of Resource-Providing Leadership on the Demands—Work Ability Relationship" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 17: 9084. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18179084

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop