Management Decision

An empirical investigation of the relationship between workload and performance

Alexander Bruggen
Article information:
To cite this document:
Alexander Bruggen , (2015),"An empirical investigation of the relationship between workload and performance",
Management Decision, Vol. 53 Iss 10 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2015-0063
Downloaded on: 13 October 2015, At: 23:53 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10 times since 2015*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:123705 []
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Introduction

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of workload on performance of

individuals and to investigate the relationship between workload and the quantity and quality

of output. The concept that employees are a company's best asset is put forward by many

firms and management is interested in high productivity and quality. Employee job

performance is therefore one of the most relevant variables which have been examined in the

past decades in management theory and in research (Jex, 1998; Lepine, et al., 2005; Kahya,
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

2007). Combinations of diverse predictor variables such as gender and age (Waldman and

Avolio, 1986), personality (Day and Silverman, 1989), working hours (Shepard and Clifton,

2000), contract status (Chu and Hsu, 2011) or working conditions (Kahya, 2007) influencing

job performance have been investigated in performance evaluation literature. Results of this

literature are mixed and there is still no clear evidence on the relationship between workload

and performance. Further, firms and employees are often confronted with the tradeoff of

increasing output or focusing more on quality, as these two dimensions are typically

substitutes of effort, i.e., providing more output as employee reduces the time available to

spend on increasing the quality of the output.

Based on a unique dataset with production workers this study examines in detail the

relationship between workload on employee job performance, measured both in terms of

quantitative output and output quality. Daily performance observations of 27 employees over

a period between January 2011 and August 2013 are used, resulting in more than 9000

observations.

Results of the analysis show that there is an inverted-U relationship between workload

and performance, that is, output per employee increases with increases in workload up to a

certain level of workload after which output per employee decreases significantly. Further,

the relative number of quality problems is lowest under moderate levels of workload, but

1
 high at low and high levels of workload, suggesting an inverted-U relationship between

workload and output quality. That is, high quantitative output is associated with high quality

performance.

This study contributes to the literature in several ways. Unlike most preceding studies

on the relationship between job stress and performance this study analyses field data. Results

add to the body of literature in the field of goal-setting and performance pressure and can

help to clarify the so far mixed evidence on the relationship between performance pressure
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

and performance. Further, there is also an inverted-U relationship between quantity and

quality of output, suggesting that it is necessary to have a certain level of workload in order to

stimulate optimal performance. Results of this study have also direct managerial implications.

Very busy periods as well as quite periods can mean lower efficiencies.

The remainder of this study is as follows. The next section reviews the literature and develops

the testable hypotheses. After that the research method, sample selection and research

measures are described. That section is followed by the analysis. A discussion and conclusion

are the final section of this study.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Job performance is due to its importance to businesses probably one of the most

relevant variables investigated in management in the past decades (Jex, 1998; Lepine, et al.,

2005; Kahya, 2007; Eatough, et al., 2011). It is usually described as “actions and behaviors

that are under the control of the individual that contribute to the goal of the organization”

(Rotundo and Sackett, 2002). Performance of employees is a crucial factor associated with

company outcomes and success. In this context, an often raised question is the impact of

workload on employee performance. In particular, how do employees respond to low or high

levels of workload? A considerable stream of literature examines the relationship between

goals and performance.

2
 Workload, however, is conceptually different from goal-setting. Goals are typically

very explicit, whereas workload is often just characterized by “being very busy” without a

direct reference to a specific target. In particular, in absence of an explicit target, a goal

becomes rather a “do-your-best” goal.

Many studies associate a high workload with stress (Frankenhaeuser, 1986) evoked by

either the quantity of tasks confronted with or by the difficulty of a task (Shaw and Weekley,

1985). The number of tasks (quantitative) or the difficulty of tasks (qualitative) can be
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

increased to increment the workload and therefore to increment the level of employee job

stress. The relationship between workload or job stress and job performance has been

examined in many studies. Positive and negative effects of stress have been detected in the

past decades of research, but a results are mixed.

In a positive relationship between workload and performance it is assumed that

individuals need a certain level of stress or challenge, to be activated and to perform at their

best (Merelman, 1997). Individual’s performance is low at a low level of workload, at

medium level at a moderate workload, and highest at a high level of workload (Jamal, 2007).

Only few laboratory studies support this form of relationship (Arsenault and Dolan, 1983;

Kahn and Long, 1988). In Muse’s et al. (2003) literature review only 13% of empirical

studies support a positive relationship between workload and job stress and job performance.

By contrast, numerous studies provide support for the negative relationship between

workload and performance. Workload and a possibly resulting stress can be dysfunctional for

the individual and the organization (Bhagat, et al., 1985; Long, et al., 1992; Siu, 2003;

Westman and Eden, 1991; Westman and Eden, 1996; Vinokur-Kaplan, 1991). A workload

that is too high is viewed as barrier and distracts employees from their work, an increase for

example in workload may lead to a reduction in job performance. Long, Kahn and Schulz

(1992) figured out that individuals have emotional and defensive coping mechanisms for

3
 situations with high workload, rather than problem-solving behavior which lead to a

decrement of task performance. Friedman and Mann (1993) found out that under conditions

of stress, employees tend to suffer from narrowed thinking and performance rigidity. Further,

a reduction in the ability to analyze complicated situations can be observed (Larsen, 2001).

Jamal (1984; 1985; 2005) has conducted a study to test all abovementioned explanations by

taking a random sample of 227 managerial workers and 283 blue-collar workers from a

Canadian organization. Workers originated from collectivistic cultures, Pakistan and

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

Malaysia and were surveyed on aspects such as job stress and organizational commitment.

Job performance data was taken from company records for the analysis. Results revealed

support for the negative linear relationship between job stress and job performance because

whenever workers reported high stress, their performance was mainly low, and whenever

they reported low stress, their performance was rather high. This, however, does not provide

evidence of the causal linkages between stress and performance.

However, not only the negative relationship between workload and job performance

has found support in the literature, but also the inverted-U relationship. An acquainted

motivation theory which supports the inverted-U relationship between workload and

performance is the so called Activation Theory or Arousal Theory (Berlyne, 1949; Scott,

1966). This theory originated from the Yerkes-Dodson Law (Yerkes and Dodson, 1908) and

describes how an individual’s psychological activation is required to be sufficiently

motivated for an effective and efficient performance and to achieve goals. Without this

activation the individual is likely to fail the work. Yet, there is an upper limit to activation

beyond that the individual gets overworked and over stressed with the result of a performance

reduction. This is exactly what Yerkes and Dodson (1908) propose: a curvilinear (or inverted-

U) relationship between workload and job performance implying that performance increases

with an increased workload, however, only up to a certain point. Once the workload becomes

4
 too high performance decreases. So the performance is best at a moderate level of workload

(Johns and Xie, 1995; Sullivan and Bhagat, 1992; Jex, 1998). At moderate levels of stress

and workload, performance may be improved due to the presence of sufficient stimulation of

the individual to perform tasks effectively, but not too much to shift the individual’s focus

from the task away. At low levels of stress activation may be too low to encourage effective

performance, while at high levels of stress arousal is too high to be beneficial for an effective

task performance.
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

Previous research thus provides different explanations for the relationship between

workload and job performance. The above discussion leads to the following first hypothesis

in null form:

H1. There is no relation between workload and task performance.

A related question deals with the tradeoff between quantity and quality. One

expectation could be that quality decreases monotonically with increasing quantity. The

general assumption is that effort on quality and effort on quantity are substitute efforts and

increasing effort on quantity reduces the effort available for quality (Holmström and Milgrom

1991), a typical problem of multi-tasking. Working on multiple dimensions of a task, such as

quantity and quality can be cognitively demanding. There are psychological reasons for

restricting multitasking in general and even in absence of any incentives (Lee and Taatgen,

2002). Extant psychological research indicates that the ability of an individual to engage in

simultaneous tasks is, at best, limited (Fisch, 2000; Lang, 2001), and at worst, impossible

(James, 1890; Woodsworth, 1921; Broadbent, 1958). For example, research evidence shows

that an individual requires 25 minutes to recover from interruptions such as phone calls or

email. The problem of such dual task interference is estimated to have cost the US economy

650 billion dollars in 2007 (Lohr, 2007). Therefore, tasks with multiple and unrelated

dimensions are also likely have a higher level of overall cognitive overload. When incentive

5
 compensation is attached to one of the task dimensions, such as quantity, it is cognitively

easier for the individual to focus on only one task. The individual can justify such effort

misallocation by rationalizing that if the firm was interested in other dimensions of

performance, then it would have attached a bonus to these other dimensions. In organizations

where quantity is rewarded and all that matters in performance evaluation and incentives is

the quantity, qualitative aspects will suffer even though an incentive scheme based on

quantity considers only “good” output. The focus on quantity leads to a mindset that tends to
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

ignore the quality dimension of a task as the strong attention to deliver quantity often comes

along with a certain level of “sloppiness” on other dimensions. This argument is in line with

cognitive research that suggests that individuals simplify multidimensional objectives, such

as quantity and quality, and typically prioritize one dimension over another one (Payne,

Bettman, and Johnson, 1993). Based on this literature that is not entirely clear in the

directional effect of quantity and quality, the second hypothesis in null form is stated as

follows:

H2. There is no relationship between the quality of output and the quantity of output.

Research Method

Archival data of a company is collected from a period of three years and eight months

from January 2010 until August 2013. In order to avoid the usage of falsified and subjective

data for the analysis, no self-reported data is used, but objective data recorded by a computer

system. Workload, time as well as performance will be measured by considering solely

objective measures, such as productivity, amount of complaints, working hours, age, and

employment type. In addition, employees are exposed to real and natural working situations,

which decrease the chance for bias in contrast to laboratory settings which tend to be biased

due to the participants’ knowledge of the study.

6
 To test the hypothesis, changes in employee performance need to be identified. Data

are obtained from one single department of a company and from only one task performed by

the employees. Working conditions remain the same for all sample employees throughout the

sample period. This ensures a high accuracy, comparability, and reliability of the study.

Sample Company

Data was collected from employees working in the logistics department of a mid-size

grocery B2B supplier. The company has been founded 15 years ago and is located in
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

Germany. One of the core competencies and principles of the company is besides its

excellent service and quality, a fast delivery service of grocery products to its clients in

Germany and Benelux.

The grocery industry is an ideal setting because high fluctuations in workload occur

throughout a year. Peak times for high amounts of orders can be recorded especially before

Christmas and Eastern. So such a setting in a fluctuating industry makes it possible to identify

changes in the amount of workload and the corresponding effects on job performance of

employees.

Productivity data (quantitative performance) of each employee is recorded

automatically in detail, as well as customer complaints data which can be traced back to each

employee responsible for a particular order (qualitative performance). Such detailed

recording on employee level allows identifying changes in their performances.

Furthermore, the logistics departments represent in this case a of physical and mental

work. Some work is done physically, however most of the work is considered to be mental

work. Forklifts are used to transport and position boxes and pallets in the warehouse in order

to store them in the right locations or place them for delivery into trucks. Only the scanning

and checking of products is done manually by employees, which requires physical work.

7
 The tasks which need to be fulfilled remain constant all the time. During peak periods

the only aspect which changes, is the amount of boxes the employees need to process,

however, the nature of the task to process the boxes does not change. Thus, it constitutes an

appropriate setting to really identify changes in job performance during different order

amount periods and make them comparable. If task nature was changed enormously it would

be difficult to identify employee performance changes and it would be even more difficult to

compare outcomes.
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

Sample Characteristics

The sample which has been taken for the analysis consists of N=9210 cases from 27

employees between the age 21 and 55, whereas the main sample portion (46.2%) is between

the ages of 30 and 40 years. 35% of the employees are 40 to 50 years old, 12% are 20 to 30

years, and 7 % are above 50 years. All employees from this logistics department are male and

are experienced workers as they have been working for the company for at least 5 years,

except for those who entered the company during the sample period. The job and tasks to be

fulfilled in this logistics department are the same for all employees working there. A

computer randomly chooses which employee receives which order to process, so that the luck

of draw decides which employee receives the bigger orders which may be faster to process.

In addition to a salary a variable payment of 0.06 € is paid per processed box to the employee

who has processed the box. Thus, an employee who processed 100 boxes, receives 100 × .06

€ = 6.00 € variable pay. A box is defined as a package of a grocery product. It may be a

package containing 6 bottles of wine, but it also may be a package containing 20 frozen bags

of vegetables or a package containing 50 bags of instant soup. Thus, size and weight of boxes

may vary, however variable payment always remains identical. Further, processing of boxes

is not limited to constraints of a supply chain. Boxes that are ordered can always be

processed. This is a necessary condition for this study as the performance might be affected

8
 then by limitations of the work processes and not the human physical and cognitive

limitations.

Measures

It was possible to obtain company record data from the period January 2010 until

August 2013 (all data recorded on daily basis) containing the following information:

Employee names, employee age, per employee: boxes processed per day, per employee:

working hours per day, customer complaints received that can be traced back to the employee
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

who was responsible for the order and the processed boxes, amount of orders received per

day (demand).

Performance

In this study, job performance is defined as quantitative and qualitative performance.

Quality of performance includes the fact how well the job has been done, and quantity

includes the volume of the output produced by the individual (Viswesvaran, et al., 2002).

This can be measured and analyzed with the obtained company data. The quantitative

performance can be measured by analyzing the amount of boxes processed per time unit per

employee (daily boxes processed by employee / daily hours worked in sample department),

which is an efficiency measure indicating the number of boxes processed given a certain

period of time. Quality of job performance is measured by the daily amount of customer

complaints received per employee per box processed.

Workload and Time

In order to identify the effects of quantitative workload on job performance, periods

will be classified by weekly order amount. From the study conducted by Banker et al. (2001)

it is known, that performance decreases or increases gradually and not immediately. Thus,

longer periods need to be classified to identify changes in performance due to workload

differences. Small daily changes in performance may be due to the luck of draw, as one

9
 employee might be lucky to receive a bigger order size. Such small changes may also be due

to the fact that box sizes vary. An employee may be lucky to receive orders with only small

boxes which are easier to process, whereas another employee may only receive orders with

big boxes on a certain day. To overcome these issues, longer periods need to be classified. A

decrease or increase of performance during a longer period may be more likely to be due to

workload demands and not due to the luck of draw.

The classification has been made on weekly basis based on input from the field site:
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

with less than 40.000 ordered boxes in a week, the period has been designated as low order

amount period; with 40.001 up to 50.000 boxes, the period is designated as medium order

amount period; and during a week with more than 50.000 ordered boxes, the designation is

high order amount period.

For the analysis, working hours and employee age are included in the data obtained

directly from company records.

Results

Descriptive statistics

The sample consists of 9,210 cases from 27 employees. 62% of cases belong to the

medium order amount period, whereby only 12% to low and 25% to high. Of all cases there

are 73% complaints-free, 27% show 1 – 5 complaints. Descriptive statistics are described in

table 1.

-table 1 here-

Models

Hypotheses are tested with two models. Given that the data is longitudinal data, the

models are tested with a clustered regression analysis. Clustered regression analysis takes

into account multiple observations over time and the possible correlation of individual

observations (for a discussion see Petersen 2009). In line with prior research using time-series

10
 data, clustered regression analysis is an adequate technique for the analysis of this data

(Petersen, 2009). The first model (Model 1) is a clustered regression containing boxes/hour as

dependent variable:

Boxes/hour = α0 + α1 dLow + α2 dMedium + α3 Age + α4 Workhrs + ε (Model 1)

where Boxes/hour is the number of boxes processed per hour by an employee, dLow is a

dummy variable that equals one for a low-order period and zero otherwise, dMedium is a

dummy variable that equals one for a medium-order period and zero otherwise, Age is the
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

employee age in years, and Workhrs is the total number of hours an employee is working in

the job on that day. The reason for these two control variables is that age could possibly

influence the productivity of employees, so that results could be driven more by age than by

job workload. Further, short or long days can have an influence on the efficiency of the

employee’s output. For reasons of clarity, the model is also tested without the two control

variables, and results are reported untabulated in the next section.

The second model (Model 2) is a clustered logistic regression model with Complaints

as dependent variable, where one equals at least one complaint for a particular day for an

employee and zero no complaint on a particular day for an employee:

Complaints = α0 + α1 Boxes/hour + α2 Age + α3 Workhrs + ε (Model 2)

where variables are specified as in Model 1. If the coefficient for the variable Boxes/hour is

significant, hypothesis 2 has to be rejected. Here as well, the two control variables could

possibly affect the dependent variable. Similar to model 1, the model is tested also without

these control variables and results are reported in the next section.

Hypotheses Testing

Results of the models are provided in Table 2. The relationship between the order

period and the dependent variable of Model 1 are shown in Figure 1. As can be seen in the

11
 figure, the relationship looks like an inverted U-shape, suggesting a low performance in high

order periods and low order periods, but peak performance at medium order periods.

-Figure 1 about here-

Table 2, Panel A, shows the results for the first model (Model 1) with quantitative

performance (box/hour) as dependent variable. Results confirm statistically the shape of the

relationship between workload and quantitative performance (Figure 1). In particular, the

coefficients of the variables dLow and dMedium are positive and significant (α1 = 16.95,
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

p<0.01; α2 = 30.18, p<0.01). Based on this, the hypothesis of no relationship between

workload and (quantitative) performance must be rejected. In particular, quantitative

performance is significantly larger at low levels of workload, peaks at medium levels, and is

lowest in periods of high workload. There is thus a pattern of an inverted U-shape of the

relationship between job workload and quantitative output. Results are robust to a model

specification without control variables, specified as: Boxes/hour = α0 + α1 dLow + α2

dMedium + ε.1

Figure 2 shows the relationship between the number of boxes per hour and the

number of complaints per box processed. The relationship is negative, which is first evidence

against H2.

Results for Model 2 are shown in Table 2, Panel B. Whereas in Figure 2 shows a

continuous variable of output quality (number of complaints per box), the model to test the

relationship between quantity and quality uses a dummy variable in order to see effects of the

independent variable better.2 Statistical results of the logistics regression indicate that higher

output, measured as boxes processed per employee per hour is negatively associated with

customer complaints (α1 = -0.08, p<0.01). That is, more boxes processed per hour are

associated with a significantly lower likelihood of a customer complaint on a day. Even

1
Analysis of this model provides coefficients of α1 = 15.64, p<0.01, and of α2 = 28.71, p<0.01. Results are thus
robust to a model specification without control variables.
2
Results are also robust when the dependent variable is a continuous variable.

12
 though the coefficient is small, it is economically significant as the dependent variable is a

dummy variable and the independent variable varies sufficiently high. Based on these results,

H2 can thus be rejected. Results are robust to a model specification without control variables:

Complaints = α0 + α1 Boxes/hour + ε3.

Based on the finding that quantitative output is highest under medium levels of

workload, and lower under low and high levels of workload, the quality of output is thus also

highest under medium levels of workload.

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

-Figure 2 about here-

Discussion and Conclusion

This paper examines the relationship between workload on quantitative and

qualitative employee task performance and provides evidence of the general shape of this

relationship. Results reveal that there is an inverted U-shape relationship between workload

and quantitative task performance. The performance of employees is highest when workload

is moderate, but decreases when workload is low and high (Jex, 1998; Johns and Xie, 1995;

Sullivan and Bhagat, 1992). The qualitative performance is linearly associated with

quantitative performance. In particular, increasing the quantitative performance (per hour)

increases also the quality of output. This sheds light on the tradeoff between quantity and

quality of output and provides evidence that the tradeoff is in fact less of a tradeoff then often

predicted. Given that the two aspects of performance, i.e., quantity and quality, are related,

output quality is highest under moderate levels of workload where quantitative output is at a

peak. At low and high levels of workload where quantity of output is also lower, quality of

output is also lower. This study adds to the existing literature by examining workload and

performance in a highly controlled field setting. This study examines this relationship in a

3
Analysis of model 2 without control variables provides a coefficient of α1 = -0.06, p<0.01.

13
 real company setting and therefore adds to the empirical literature. Combined with prior

research, results offer several implications for managers. One of the most important

implications refers to job design. Managers should try to find a balanced workload for their

employees in order to maximize the quantitative performance and to keep quality problems

low. Too high and too low workload leads to decreases in quantitative performance. A well-

established HR controlling system might help to balance the workload. To handle workload

careful scheduling of work flow is necessary as well as technological innovations to allow

Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

workers to handle time-pressured high order amount periods (Shaw and Weekley, 1985).

This study is subject to certain limitations. The first limitation of this study is the

restricted sample. Another limitation is the simplification of various aspects considered in

this study. Job performance is defined as task performance measured by quality and quantity

whereby task performance has been reduced to one single task in the logistics department to

enable comparisons and identify changes. In reality, performance is a multidimensional

construct whereby many other crucial factors may play a significant role. As for instance

Kahn and Byosiere (1992) or Kahya (2007) state, absenteeism might also play a role, as well

as injuries or environmental conditions in the company. Thus, changes in employee

performance might not only be caused by the variables presented in this current study, but

also by other factors, which have not been considered here. Performance changes might also

occur due to intra-group relations. The performance of one employee may influence the

performance of other employees in the group. So, stressors at the individual level may be

linked to group-level or group-level factors influence individual-level. Therefore, for future

studies it may be recommended to consider performance as a more complex construct. Such

factors as intra-group relations may be of interest in terms of the effect on performance for

future research. Further, different personalities of workers are not considered (Anderson,

1976). Each single employee might have a different reaction to workload and might feel more

14
 or less stressed by a given level of workload. This might be taken into account for future

research.
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

15
 References

• Anderson, C. R., 1976. Coping behaviors as intervening mechanisms in the

inverted-U stress-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology 61, pp.
30-34.
• Arsenault, A. & Dolan, S., 1983. The role of personality, occupation and
organization in understanding the relationship between job Stress, performance
and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational Psychology 56, pp. 227-240.
• Banker, R., Lee, S., Potter, G. & Srinivasan, D., 2001. An empirical analysis of
continuing improvements following the implementation of a performance-based
compensation plan. Journal of Accounting and Economics, pp. 315-250.
• Berlyne, D., 1949. Interest as a Psychological Concept. British Journal of
Psychology. General Section. Volume 39.4, pp. 184-195.
• Bhagat, R., McQuaid, S., Lindholm, H. & Segovis, J., 1985. Total Life Stress: A
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

multimethod validation of the constrct and its effects on organizational valued

outcomes and withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 70, pp. 203-
214.
• Broadbent, D. 1958. Perception and Communication. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Chu, C. & Hsu, Y., 2011. Hospital Nurse Job Attitudes and Performance: The
Impact of Employment Status. Journal of Nursing Research 19, pp. 53-60.
• Day, D. & Silverman, S., 1989. Personality and Job Performance: Evidence of
incremental Validity. Personnel Psychology, pp. 25-36.
• Eatough, E., Chang, C., Miloslavic, S. & Johnson, R., 2011. Relationship of role
stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology 96, pp. 619-632.
• Fisch, S.M. 2000. A capacity model of children’s comprehension of educational
content on television. Media Psychology 2, 63-91.
• Frankenhaeuser, M., 1986. A Psychobiological Framework for Research on
Human Stress and Coping. Dynamics of Stress - The Plenum Series on Stress and
Coping, pp. 101-116.
• Friedman, I. & Mann, L., 1993. Coping Patterns in Adolescent Decision-making:
An Israeli-Australian Comparison. Journal of Adolescence 16, pp. 187-199.
• Holmström, B., and P. Milgrom. 1991. Multi-task principal-agent analyses:
Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics,
and Organizations (7, special issue): 24–52.
• Jamal, M., 1984. Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical
assessment.. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, pp. 1-21.
• Jamal, M., 1985. Relationship of job stress to job performance: A study of
managers and blue-collar workers. Human Relations, pp. 409-424.
• Jamal, M., 1986. Moonlighting: Personal, Social and Organizational
Consequences. Human Relations, pp. 977-990.
• Jamal, M., 2005. Burnout among Canadian and Chinese employees: A cross-
cultural study.. European Management Review, pp. 224-230.
• Jamal, M., 2007. Job Stress and Job Performance Controversy Revisited: An
empirical Examination in Two Countries. International Journal of Stress
Management, pp. 175-187.
• James, W. 1890. The Principles of Psychology. Vol. 1. New York: Henry Hold &
Co.

16
 • Jex, S., 1998. Stress and Job Performance: Theory, research and implications for
managerial practice. California: Sage Publications.
• Johns, G. & Xie, J., 1995. Job scope and stress: can scope be too high? Academy
of Management Journal 38, pp. 1288-1309.
• Kahn, R. & Byosiere, P., 1992. Stress in organizations. Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
• Kahn, S. & Long, B., 1988. Work related Stress, self-efficacy and well-being of
female clerical workers. Counseling Psychology Quarterly 1, pp. 145-153.
• Kahya, E., 2007. The effects of job characteristics and working conditions on job
performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, pp. 515-523.
• Lang, A. 2001. The limited capacity model of mediated message processing.
Journal of Communication, 46-70.
• Larsen, R., 2001. Decision-Making by Military Students Under Extreme Stress.
Military Psychology 13.2, pp. 89-91.
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

• Lee, F.J. and Taatgen, N.A. 2002. Multi-tasking as Skill Acquisition. Proceedings
of the twenty-fourth annual conference of the cognitive science society, 572-577
• Lepine, J., Podsakoff, N. & Lepine, M., 2005. A meta-analytic rest of the
challenge stressor - hindrance stressor framework: An explanation of the
inconsistent relationship among stressors and performance. Academy of
Management Journal, pp. 764-773.
• Lohr S. 2007. Correction Appended. New York Times online, March 25
• Long, B. C., Kahn, S. E. & Schutz, R. W., 1992. Causal model of stress and
coping: women in management. Journal of Counselling Psychology Vol. 39. No.
2, 227-239..
• Merelman, D., 1997. Stressed. Forbes 159, pp. 20-21.
• Miller, H. & Terborg, J., 1979. Job Attitudes of Part-time and Full-time
Employees. Journal of Applied Psychology 4, pp. 380-386.
• Muse, L., Harris, S. & Feild, H., 2003. Has the Inverted-U Theory of Stress and
Job Performance Had a Fair Test? Human Performance, pp. 350-365.
• Neiss, R., 1988. Reconceptualizing arousal: Psychobiological states in motor
performance. Psychological Bulletin 103, pp. 345-366.
• Petersen, M.A., 2009. Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets:
comparing approaches. The Review of Financial Studies 22 (1), pp. 435-480.
• Rotundo, M. & Sackett, P., 2002. The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy
capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 66-80.
• Scott, W., 1966. Activation Theory and Task Design. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance 1, pp. 3-30.
• Shaw, J. & Weekley, J., 1985. The effects of objective work-load variations of
psychological strain and post work-load performance. Journal of Management,
pp. 87-99.
• Shepard, E. & Clifton, T., 2000. Are Longer Working Hours Reducing
Productivity in Manufacturing? International Journal of Manpower 21, pp. 540-
553.
• Siu, O., 2003. Stress and Job Performance among employees in Hong Kong: The
role of Chinese work values and organizational commitment. International
Journal of Psychology 38, pp. 337-347.

17
 • Sullivan, S. E. & Bhagat, R. S., 1992. Organizational stress, job satisfaction and
job performance: Where do we go from here? Journal of Management 18, pp.
353-374.
• Vinokur-Kaplan, J. X., 1991. Job Satisfaction among Social Workers in Public
and Voluntary Child Welfare Agencies. Child Welfare 155, pp. 81-89.
• Waldman, D. & Avolio, B., 1986. A Meta-Analysis of Age Differences in Job
Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, pp. 33-38.
• Westman, M. & Eden, D., 1991. Implicit Stress Theory: The spurious effects of
stress on performance ratings. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, pp.
131-170.
• Westman, M. & Eden, D., 1996. The inverted-U relationship between stress on
performance: A field study. Work and Stress, pp. 165-173.
• Williamson, A., Feyer, A. & Friswell, R., 1996. The impact of work practices on
fatigue in long distance truck drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, pp. 709-
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

719.
• Woodworth, R.S. 1921. Psychology: a study of mental life. New York: Henry
Holt & Co.
• Yerkes, R. & Dodson, J., 1908. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of
habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurological Psychology, pp. 459-482.

18
 Short Biography
Alexander Brüggen is Associate Professor Management Accounting at Maastricht University.
His research interests are in the area of capital budgeting, incentive design, performance
measures, and budgeting, using experimental research designs as well as archival and field
studies. Alexander’s work has been published in Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Journal of Management Accounting Research, Contemporary Accounting Research and
Economics Letters. His research has been awarded with several prizes. His study on the U.S.
automotive industry entitled “Drivers and Consequences of Short-Term Production
Decisions: Evidence from the Auto Industry” and published in Contemporary Accounting
Research received the “Highest Impact on Practice” Award of the American Accounting
Association, another study was awarded the “Best Paper Award” of the Journal of
Management Accounting Research, and his dissertation won the Runner-Up of the Best
Dissertation Award of the American Accounting Association.
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

1
 Fig. 1: Relationship beween Workload and
Quantitative Performance
150
145
140
Boxes processed per hour

135
130
125
120
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

115
110
105
100
low medium high
Workload

Figure 1 – Relationship between workload and quantitative performance

Fig. 2: Relationship between Quantity and

Quality
0.006

0.005
Complaints per Box

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0
50 100 150
Boxes handled per hour

Figure 2 – Relationship between Quantity and Quality

2
 TABLE 1: Descriptive Statistics

Category Mean Mean Frequency

amount period boxes/hour complaints cases
Low order period 133 0.36 1,131
Medium order period 146 0.36 5,751
High order period 118 0.36 2,328
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

3
 TABLE 2

PANEL A: Clustered regression of workload on quantitative performance

(Boxes/hour)
(n=9210 in 27 clusters)

Independent Variable Estimate t-value p-value

Intercept α0 112.81 21.24 0.00
dLow α1 16.95 13.71 0.00 -

dMedium α2 30.18 28.88 0.00

Age α3 -0.09 -0.68 0.50
Workhrs α4 1.02 3.87 0.00
Downloaded by Central Michigan University At 23:53 13 October 2015 (PT)

R-squared = 0.57
PANEL B: Clustered logistics regression of workload on qualitative performance
(complaints)
(n=9210 in 27 clusters)

Independent Variable Estimate χ2 p-value

Intercept α0 -3.01 69.75 0.00
Boxes/hour α1 -0.08 150.62 0.00 -

Age α2 -0.02 4.96 0.03

Workhrs α3 0.34 331.57 0.00

R-squared = 0.44

Boxes/hour are the number of boxes processed by an employee per hour.

Complaints is a dummy variable that equals one if an employee received a complaint
on a day and zero otherwise.
dLow is a dummy variable that equals one for a low-order period and zero otherwise.
dMedium is a dummy variable that equals one for a medium-order period and zero
otherwise.
Age is the employee age in years.
Workhrs is the total number of hours an employee is working in the job on that day.