Make it your Break! Benefits of Person-Break Fit for Post-Break Affect

Abstract

In this study, we examined lunch breaks from a person-environment fit perspective and hypothesized that employees who perceive high general person-break fit report lower negative and higher positive post-break affect than employees with low person-break fit. Further, we hypothesized that lunch break autonomy positively predicts perceived person-break fit and that chronic exhaustion moderates the relationship between person-break fit and post-break affect, such that the relationship is stronger when chronic exhaustion is high. Data from 227 participants surveyed at two measurement points showed that person-break fit was negatively related to post-break negative affect, with this relationship being stronger for participants experiencing high chronic exhaustion. Person-break fit was only positively associated with post-break positive affect for employees low on exhaustion. Break autonomy positively predicted employees’ perception of person-break fit. This study contributes to literature on well-being at work by highlighting the importance of fit between an employee’s general break-related needs and his or her actual breaks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bakker, A. B., & Costa, P. L. (2014). Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: A theoretical analysis. Burnout Research, 1, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2014.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 36–59. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2007.24286163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bosch, C., Sonnentag, S., & Pinck, A. S. (2018). What makes for a good break? A diary study on recovery experiences during lunch break. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91, 134–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brislin, W. B. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

  6. Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Sujective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 63–74). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810143005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (1999). Work and family stress and well-being: An examination of person-environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 85–129. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2813.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 209–258). New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802–827. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fritz, C., Ellis, A., Demsky, C., Lin, B., & Guros, F. (2013). Embracing work breaks: Recovering from work stress. Organizational Dynamics, 42, 274–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gabriel, A. S., Diefendorff, J. M., Chandler, M. M., Moran, C. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2014). The dynamic relationships of work affect and job satisfaction with perceptions of fit. Personnel Psychology, 67, 389–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hunter, E. M., & Wu, C. (2016). Give me a better break: Choosing workday break activities to maximize resource recovery. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 302–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaplan, S. (1983). A model of person-environment compatibility. Environment and Behavior, 15, 311–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916583153003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim, S., Park, Y., & Niu, Q. (2017). Micro-break activities at work to recover from daily work demands. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim, S., Park, Y., & Headrick, L. (2018). Daily micro-breaks and job performance: General work engagement as a cross-level moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 772–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kreiner, G. E. (2006). Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: A person-environment fit perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lottrup, L., Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2013). Workplace greenery and perceived level of stress: Benefits of access to a green outdoor environment at the workplace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 110, 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(87)90043-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

  29. Neal, D. T., Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2006). Habits - a repeat performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00435.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Oerlemans, W. G. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Burnout and daily recovery: A day reconstruction study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Oerlemans, W. G. M., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). How feeling happy during off-job activities helps successful recovery from work: A day reconstruction study. Work and Stress, 28, 198–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.901993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Park, Y. A., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2011). Relationships between work-home segmentation and psychological detachment from work: The role of communication technology use at home. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023594s.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 395–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00913.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Shirom, A., & Melamed, S. (2006). A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures in two groups of professionals. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 176–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.13.2.176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sianoja, M., Syrek, C. J., de Bloom, J., Korpela, K., & Kinnunen, U. (2018). Enhancing daily well-being at work through lunchtime park walks and relaxation exercises: Recovery experiences as mediators. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23, 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000083.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sonnentag, S., Arbeus, H., Mahn, C., & Fritz, C. (2014). Exhaustion and lack of psychological detachment from work during off-job time: Moderator effects of time pressure and leisure experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035760.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sonnentag, S., Venz, L., & Casper, A. (2017). Advances in recovery research: What have we learned? What should be done next? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22, 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Stride, C. B., Gardner, S. E., Catley, N., & Thomas, F. (2015). Mplus code for mediation, moderation and moderated mediation models. Retrieved June 11, 2018, from http://www.offbeat.group.shef.ac.uk/FIO/models_and_index.pdf.

  43. Trougakos, J. P., & Hideg, I. (2009). Momentary work recovery: The role of within-day work breaks. In S. Sonnentag, P. L. Perrewé, & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Current perspectives on job-stress recovery (Vol. 7, pp. 37–84). Bingley: JAI Press/Emerald Group Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Green, S. G., & Weiss, H. M. (2008). Making the break count: An episodic examination of recovery activities, emotional experiences, and positive affective displays. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 131–146. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.30764063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Trougakos, J. P., Hideg, I., Cheng, B. H., & Beal, D. J. (2014). Lunch breaks unpacked: The role of autonomy as a moderator of recovery during lunch. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 405–421. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Venz, L., & Sonnentag, S. (2015). Being engaged when resources are low: A multi-source study of selective optimization with compensation at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Vleugels, W., De Cooman, R., Verbruggen, M., & Solinger, O. (2018). Understanding dynamic change in perceptions of person–environment fit: An exploration of competing theoretical perspectives. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2294.

  48. von Dreden, C., & Binnewies, C. (2017). Choose your lunch companion wisely: The relationships between lunch break companionship, psychological detachment, and daily vigour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1301428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wheeler, A. R., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Shanine, K. (2013). Exploring the middle range of person-environment fit theories through a conservation of resources perspective. In A. L. Kristof-Brown & J. Billsberry (Eds.), Organizational fit: Key issues and new directions (pp. 170–194). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118320853.ch8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Yu, K. Y. T. (2009). Affective influences in person-environment fit theory: Exploring the role of affect as both cause and outcome of P-E fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1210–1226. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Wilken Wehrt for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper and Yvonne Dörn, Jula Grünewald, Christina Hahn, Saskia Klein, and Belinda Merkle for their support during data collection.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Venz.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Laura Venz and Christine Bosch shared first authorship

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Venz, L., Bosch, C., Pinck, A.S. et al. Make it your Break! Benefits of Person-Break Fit for Post-Break Affect. Occup Health Sci 3, 167–186 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-019-00036-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Lunch break
  • Fit
  • Affect
  • Autonomy
  • Exhaustion