Daily Use of Energy Management Strategies and Occupational Well-being: The Moderating Role of Job Demands

psyg-08-01477 Augus 29, 2017 Time: 16:52 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 31 Augus 2017 doi: 10.3389/ psyg.2017.01477 Edi ed by: Pa los A. Vlachos, ALBA G adua e Business School, G eece Re iewed by: Fab izio Sc ima, Uni e si y o Rouen, F ance Emanuela Ingusci, Uni e si y o Salen o, I aly *Co espondence: Hannes Zache [email p o ec ed] Special y sec ion: This a icle was submi ed o O ganiza ional Psychology, a sec ion o he jou nal F on ie s in Psychology Recei ed: 29 May 2017 Accep ed: 16 Augus 2017 Published: 31 Augus 2017 Ci a ion: Pa ke SL, Zache H, de Bloom J, Ve on TM and Len ink CR (2017) Daily Use o Ene gy Managemen S a egies and Occupa ional Well-being: The Mode a ing Role o Job Demands. F on . Psychol. 8:1477. doi: 10.3389/ psyg.2017.01477 Daily Use o Ene gy Managemen S a egies and Occupa ional Well-being: The Mode a ing Role o Job Demands S acey L. Pa ke 1, Hannes Zache 2,3*, Jessica de Bloom4, Thomas M. Ve on5and Co ine R. Len ink5 1School o Psychology, Uni e si y o Queensland, B isbane, QLD, Aus alia, 2Ins i u e o Psychology, Leipzig Uni e si y, Leipzig, Ge many, 3School o Managemen , Queensland Uni e si y o Technology, B isbane, QLD, Aus alia, 4Ins i u e o Ad anced Social Resea ch, Uni e si y o Tampe e, Tampe e, Finland, 5Depa men o Psychology, Uni e si y o G oningen, G oningen, Ne he lands We examine he ela ionships among employees’ use o ene gy managemen s a egies and wo occupa ional well-being ou comes: job sa is ac ion and emo ional exhaus ion. Based on conse a ion o esou ces heo y, i was hypo hesized ha employees wi h high job demands would bene i mo e om using ene gy managemen s a egies (i.e., including p osocial, o ganizing, and meaning- ela ed s a egies), compa ed o employees wi h low job demands. We es ed his p oposi ion using a quan i a i e dia y s udy. Fi y- ou employees p o ided da a wice daily ac oss one wo k week (on a e age, 7 daily en ies). Suppo ing he hypo heses, p osocial ene gy managemen was posi i ely ela ed o job sa is ac ion. Mo eo e , employees wi h high job demands we e less emo ionally exhaus ed when using p osocial s a egies. Con a y o p edic ions, when using o ganizing s a egies, employees wi h low job demands had highe job sa is ac ion and lowe emo ional exhaus ion. Unde high job demands, g ea e use o o ganizing s a egies was associa ed wi h lowe job sa is ac ion and highe emo ional exhaus ion. Finally, use o meaning- ela ed s a egies was associa ed wi h highe emo ional exhaus ion when job demands we e low. Wi h his esea ch, we posi ion ene gy managemen as pa o a esou ce in es men p ocess aimed a main aining and imp o ing occupa ional well-being. Ou indings show ha his esou ce in es men will be mo e o less e ec i e depending on he ype o s a egy used and he exis ing d ain on esou ces (i.e., job demands). This is he i s s udy o examine momen a y e ec s o dis inc ypes o wo k- ela ed ene gy managemen s a egies on occupa ional well-being. Keywo ds: ene gy managemen , emo ional exhaus ion, job sa is ac ion, momen a y eco e y, job demands, p osocial beha io , o ganizing beha io , meaning making INTRODUCTION A wo k, employees engage in a a ie y o s a egies o help es o e deple ed ene gy, main ain ene gy expendi u e, o ac i a e ene gy ese es, in o de o con inue wi h wo k asks and o p o ec o enhance hei well-being. Ene gy managemen s a egies e e o conc e e ac i i ies which employees delibe a ely engage in o keep hei ene gy le els high h oughou he wo king F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 1Augus 2017 | Volume 8 | A icle 1477 psyg-08-01477 Augus 29, 2017 Time: 16:52 # 2 Pa ke e al. Ene gy Managemen S a egies day (F i z e al., 2011). Resea che s in es iga ing human ene gy a wo k ha e examined a ange o indica o s o “ene gy,” which ypically include indica o s o occupa ional well-being, such as highe posi i e a ec , i ali y, and a ec i e wo k engagemen , as well as lowe a igue, emo ional exhaus ion, and heal h complain s (Quinn e al., 2012). Al hough he e is g owing suppo o he use ulness o some o ms o ene gy managemen (e.g., mic o b eaks o well-being), o he ypes o s a egies ha e ecei ed scan empi ical a en ion. Thus, he i s goal o he cu en s udy is o in es iga e how daily use o di e en ypes o wo k- ela ed ene gy managemen s a egies a e associa ed wi h daily indica o s o occupa ional well-being (i.e., job sa is ac ion and emo ional exhaus ion). Job sa is ac ion has been de ined as a posi i e a ec i e s a e ha is linked o employees’ app aisals o hei job expe iences as enjoyable and pleasan (Locke, 1976). In con as , emo ional exhaus ion is a nega i e a ec i e s a e associa ed wi h eelings o deple ion and a igue due o he p essu es o wo k (Maslach e al., 2001). Daily assessmen s o job sa is ac ion and emo ional exhaus ion can be ca ego ized as “emo ional ene gy” o “ene ge ic ac i a ion” (o he lack he eo , in he case o exhaus ion; (Quinn e al., 2012). The second goal o his s udy is o in es iga e employees’ ch onic le el o job demands as a bounda y condi ion o he e ec i eness o ene gy managemen . P io esea ch on ene gy managemen has la gely ailed o examine bounda y condi ions o he ela ionships be ween he daily use o ene gy managemen s a egies and occupa ional well-being ou comes. The e ec i eness o ene gy managemen s a egies should be dependen on he le el o s ess employees a e al eady ope a ing wi hin. D awing on conse a ion o esou ces (COR) heo y (Hob oll, 2011), we a gue ha i is unde high job demands ha ene gy managemen is essen ial o he main enance and/o imp o emen o day- o-day occupa ional well-being. Ou concep ual model is depic ed in Figu e 1. Ene gy Managemen and Occupa ional Well-being Acco ding o T ougakos and Hideg (2009), momen a y eco e y can occu in wo ways: ei he by s opping a ask ha deple es egula o y esou ces o by engaging in a p e e ed beha io ha is enjoyable and he e o e ene gizing. O he classi ica ions o ene gy managemen desc ibe wo dis inc classes o s a egies: aking mic o b eaks and using wo k- ela ed s a egies (see F i z e al., 2011;Zache e al., 2014). Based on w i ings by Loeh and Schwa z (2003),F i z e al. (2011) sugges ed ha ene gy managemen can be ca ego ized based on ou di e en hemes; including physical (e.g., sus enance), ela ional (e.g., p osocial helping), men al (e.g., planning and o ganizing), o spi i ual (e.g., e lec ing on meaning). Each heme ep esen s a o m o “ene gy.” Howe e , Quinn e al. a gue agains hese hemes (o o ms) o ene gy, speci ying ha human ene gy is physical and/o emo ional. Acco ding o his concep ualiza ion, ene ge ic ac i a ion (also called emo ional ene gy) is he “ene gy” cons uc , and only he esou ces we pu o use o p o ec o enhance ene gy, ha being he s a egies we implemen , ake concep ually dis inc o ms (see Quinn e al., 2012). Thus, we conside ha ene gy managemen s a egies a ge one’s subjec i e sense o well-being a wo k, ha being hei ene ge ic ac i a ion (e.g., enhanced job sa is ac ion and educed emo ional exhaus ion) and ha he s a egies hemsel es can be b oadly classi ied in o wo classes o s a egies: mic o-b eaks s. wo k- ela ed s a egies. The i s class o s a egies, aking mic o b eaks (e.g., ha ing a snack, going o a b ie walk, su ing he web, alking o a colleague), enables momen a y de achmen om wo k and hen ene gy eco e y h ough his b ie espi e. This pe spec i e assumes, based on ego deple ion heo y (Mu a en and Baumeis e , 2000) and COR heo y (Hob oll, 1989), ha ene gy is a limi ed esou ce and ha wo k deple es his esou ce (Meijman and Mulde , 1998;T ougakos and Hideg, 2009;Quinn e al., 2012). The second class o s a egies a e wo k- ela ed s a egies (e.g., swi ching wo k asks, e lec ing on he meaning o wo k, helping a colleague wi h hei wo k), which in ol e swi ching up one’s ac ics associa ed wi h how o do wo k o wha o make o wo k. These s a egies do no necessa ily assume ha ene gy is a limi ed esou ce. Ra he , based on b oaden and build heo y (F ed ickson, 2001) and sel -de e mina ion heo y (Ryan and Deci, 2000), he e, ene gy can be gene a ed h ough a a ie y o ac ics which migh include engagemen in pleasan ac i i ies ha enhance in insic mo i a ion, bu also h ough engagemen wi h wo k in a way ha sa is ies basic psychological needs (see also Quinn e al., 2012, o a e iew). The e is g owing empi ical e idence suppo ing he impo ance o b eaks du ing he wo k day o imp o ing one’s ene gy. Fo example, esea che s usually ind “ene gy gains” on measu es o occupa ional well-being when employees ake a a ie y o mic o b eaks h oughou he day (Zache e al., 2014), ake elaxing lunch b eaks (T ougakos e al., 2008, 2014; K ajewski e al., 2010;Sianoja e al., 2017), ake b eaks ea ly in he day ha in ol e p e e ed ac i i ies (Hun e and Wu, 2016), ake sma phone b eaks (i.e., b owse he in e ne o use social media) o ha e a cha wi h a colleague (Rhee and Kim, 2016). In con as , he e is con lic ing e idence on he u ili y o wo k- ela ed s a egies as a o m o ene gy managemen a wo k. This could be due o limi ed in es iga ion in o he e icacy o di e en ypes o wo k- ela ed s a egies o es o ing, main aining, o enhancing ene gy. I also could be due o he esea ch me hodologies used in he ew s udies conduc ed o da e. Fo ins ance, Zache e al. (2014), in an expe ience sampling s udy, ound no bene i o momen a y use o wo k- ela ed s a egies o imp o ing hou ly epo s on i ali y and a igue. Howe e , using c oss sec ional su ey designs, esea che s do ind bene i s o use o wo k- ela ed s a egies. Fo example, highe i ali y (Zache e al., 2014), and also be e a ings o heal h, wo k engagemen , and pe o mance (de Bloom e al., 2015), especially when wo k- ela ed s a egies a e used in combina ion wi h mic o b eaks (Kinnunen e al., 2015). F i z e al. (2011) epo ed he i s in es iga ion in o hese wo classes o ene gy managemen s a egies (i.e., mic o b eaks and wo k- ela ed s a egies) using a c oss-sec ional su ey o knowledge wo ke s, and ound ha a ew speci ic wo k- ela ed s a egies (e.g., ela ed o being p osocial, inding meaning, and F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 2Augus 2017 | Volume 8 | A icle 1477 psyg-08-01477 Augus 29, 2017 Time: 16:52 # 3 Pa ke e al. Ene gy Managemen S a egies FIGURE 1 | Hypo hesized ela ionships be ween use o ene gy managemen s a egies and occupa ional well-being ou comes mode a ed by job demands. lea ning) we e associa ed posi i ely wi h i ali y. We belie e u he sys ema ic esea ch using expe ience sampling designs is needed o p o ide a mo e comple e pic u e o how wo k- ela ed s a egies migh be mos e ec i ely u ilized o ene gy es o a ion o gain. I is impo an o measu e he use o s a egies in he momen (i.e., as i happens), so ha we can cap u e he na u al base a es (i.e., equency o use) and empo al a ia ion in ene gy managemen day- o-day. This way, he immedia e e ec s o s a egy use on indica o s o occupa ional well-being can be assessed. So a , esea che s ha e examined he e ec s o wo k- ela ed s a egies using an o e all composi e o all known/common s a egies (see Zache e al., 2014;de Bloom e al., 2015; Kinnunen e al., 2015) o as 20 single i ems (see F i z e al., 2011). These app oaches a e p oblema ic, as hey may lead o inconsis en indings wi hin he li e a u e ela ed o he e icacy o wo k- ela ed s a egies. In he only expe ience sampling s udy conduc ed o da e, an o e all composi e o wo k- ela ed s a egies p oduced no “ene gy gains” (o losses) on indica o s o occupa ional well-being (Zache e al., 2014). Howe e , i we examine he momen a y e ec s o dis inc ypes o wo k- ela ed ene gy managemen s a egies, i is possible ha such bene icial e ec s could be e ealed. This de ailed analysis o wo k- ela ed s a egies would allow o obse a ion o he unique posi i e (o e en nega i e) e ec s o ce ain s a egies (wi hou a e aging ou unique e ec s in he analysis). He e, by measu ing dis inc s a egies, we aim o be e “unpack” wo k- ela ed s a egies as a o m o daily ene gy managemen a wo k. In de e mining which ypes o wo k- ela ed ene gy managemen s a egies o in es iga e, we ocused on common and p oac i e s a egies iden i ied h ough he explo a o y wo k o F i z e al. (2011) and Zache e al. (2014). P osocial s a egies en ail p osocial in e ac ions wi h o he people a wo k, such as helping a co-wo ke . O ganizing s a egies e e o u u e-o ien ed beha io s, such as making o-do lis s and se ing new goals. Finally, meaning- ela ed s a egies include beha io s ha help employees see he b oade meaning o hei wo k, such as e lec ing on one’s wo k asks (F i z e al., 2011). Thus, in his s udy we ocus on managing ene gy by engaging wi h wo k in a di e en way; by helping o he s (i.e., p osocial s a egies), planning and o ganizing i (i.e., o ganizing s a egies), o e lec ing on i s meaning and impo ance (i.e., meaning- ela ed s a egies). In selec ing hese s a egies, we also ha e esponded o calls o mo e esea ch on ene gy managemen s a egies ela ed o in e pe sonal p ocesses a wo k, planning, and e lec ion (Schippe s and Hogenes, 2011). In he nex sec ion, we ou line how and when hese wo k- ela ed ene gy managemen s a egies will enhance occupa ional well-being, guided by COR heo y. A Conse a ion o Resou ces App oach o Ene gy Managemen Acco ding o COR heo y, indi iduals seek o c ea e a wo ld ha p o ides hem wi h pleasu e and success, and hey do his by ac ing o enhance he likelihood o main aining and inc easing hei esou ces (Hob oll and Leibe man, 1987;Hob oll, 1989, 2001;Wes man e al., 2005;Hob oll, 2011). Resou ces a e b oadly de ined as objec s, s a es, condi ions, and o he hings indi iduals alue (Hob oll, 1989;Halbesleben e al., 2014). Mo e ecen e iew and in eg a ion o he COR li e a u e has posi ioned ime away om wo k and eco e y expe iences as ene gy esou ces (Halbesleben e al., 2014). We a gue ha wi hin-day ene gy managemen s a egies would also all unde his ene gy esou ce ca ego y. Howe e , such s a egies a e only an ene gy esou ce when “pu o use” e ec i ely (Quinn e al., 2012). In his way, ene gy managemen is pa o a p ocess o esou ce in es men aimed a imp o ing one’s occupa ional well-being. To gain esou ces (i.e., occupa ional well-being) one needs o in es esou ces (i.e., by implemen ing ene gy managemen s a egies). F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 3Augus 2017 | Volume 8 | A icle 1477 psyg-08-01477 Augus 29, 2017 Time: 16:52 # 4 Pa ke e al. Ene gy Managemen S a egies As such, using ene gy managemen s a egies cons i u es a esou ce in es men p ocess ha should ha e posi i e sho - e m e ec s on occupa ional well-being, because hese s a egies may s op he deple ion o esou ces and also ha e he po en ial o ene gizing e ec s (T ougakos and Hideg, 2009;Schmi e al., 2012). Each o he ypes o wo k- ela ed s a egies we in es iga e (i.e., p osocial, o ganizing, and meaning- ela ed) has he po en ial o es o e and/o enhance ene gy, as each in ol es a change o wo k asks (T ougakos and Hideg, 2009), ei he objec i ely o subjec i ely. Fo ins ance, use o o ganizing s a egies could imp o e occupa ional well-being by helping one o be e manage hei ime and di ec hei e o , he eby enhancing mo i a ion and s opping he deple ion o esou ces (T ougakos and Hideg, 2009). Use o meaning- ela ed s a egies migh emind one o how impo an he wo k is (Schippe s and Hogenes, 2011), he eby p o iding he mo i a ion o e-engage wi h i in a posi i e way ha is ene gizing and no deple ing. Finally, use o p osocial s a egies can also be mo i a ing, he eby imp o ing he well-being no jus o he ecipien bu also he helpe (Weins ein and Ryan, 2010). The e o e, we expec ha use o each o he h ee wo k- ela ed s a egies is posi i ely ela ed o employees’ daily job sa is ac ion and nega i ely ela ed o hei daily emo ional exhaus ion. Hypo hesis 1: The daily use o (a) p osocial, (b) o ganizing, and (c) meaning- ela ed s a egies is posi i ely ela ed o daily job sa is ac ion. Hypo hesis 2: The daily use o (a) p osocial, (b) o ganizing, and (c) meaning- ela ed s a egies is nega i ely ela ed o daily emo ional exhaus ion. Swi ching up how o do wo k o wha o make o wo k has he po en ial o ac i a e one’s ene gy, bu his depends on e ec i ely pu ing esou ces o use (Quinn e al., 2012). As such, we also d aw on COR heo y o explain how “ene gy gains” o occupa ional well-being (i.e., enhanced sa is ac ion and educed exhaus ion) du ing he wo k day will depend on he le el o job demands employees al eady ope a e unde . In li e, we a e o en aced wi h si ua ions ha ha e he po en ial o lead us o gain o lose esou ces. Quan i a i e job demands desc ibes he ex en o which employees ha e o comple e a lo o wo k asks wi hin a sho pe iod o ime (Spec o and Jex, 1998). Wo king unde ch onically high job demands is one o hose si ua ions, which has been ound o e ode job sa is ac ion and cause emo ional exhaus ion (Ö q is and Wincen , 2006). Indi iduals alloca e o in es hei esou ces (e.g., h ough ene gy managemen ) in o de o p o ec cu en esou ces and acqui e new esou ces (e.g., occupa ional well-being; Quinn e al., 2012). The bounda y condi ions o his p ocess a e bes desc ibed h ough h ee main p inciples o COR heo y (Wes man e al., 2005;Hob oll, 2011;Halbesleben e al., 2014). The i s p inciple is he p imacy o esou ce loss. Acco ding o his p inciple, esou ce loss is highly salien and has dele e ious consequences o one’s well-being. The second p inciple is ha o he mo i a ion o esou ce in es men . To gain esou ces, p o ec esou ces, o o eco e om esou ce loss, indi iduals ecognize hey mus in es esou ces. Howe e , one ela ed co olla y o his p inciple is ha hose wi h g ea e esou ces a e less ulne able o esou ce loss and mo e capable o esou ce gains. Finally, he hi d p inciple is he pa adoxical in eg a ion o p inciples one and wo, in ha al hough esou ce loss is mo e salien han esou ce gain, he mo i a ion o in es esou ces in o de o gain esou ces inc eases unde si ua ions o esou ce loss (Hob oll, 2011). As such, unde condi ions o g ea s ess o challenge, indi iduals a e mo i a ed o employ o he esou ces o o se o minimize he esou ce losses hey migh incu , and i is in hese si ua ions in which hey migh possibly eap he mos bene i s. This aspec o he heo y also ela es o he subs i u ion hypo hesis (also e e ed o as esou ce compensa ion), whe eby when a esou ce is lacking o h ea ened an indi idual migh be able o compensa e by le e aging hei access o ano he esou ce (Hob oll and Leibe man, 1987). In his way, we a gue ha use o ene gy managemen s a egies unde high job demands is aimed a le e aging one’s momen a y ene gy esou ces o mi iga e u he losses o occupa ional well-being (and/o o gene a e gains o occupa ional well-being). In his way, we belie e ha ch onic job demand is expe ienced as an in ense and salien h ea o esou ce loss, and as such i is unde hese condi ions ha use o ene gy managemen s a egies a e needed he mos and ha e he po en ial o p o ide he mos bene i o occupa ional well-being. Many heo ies o human ene gy (and mo i a ion) sugges ha ene ge ic ac i a ion will only occu when he si ua ion is “jus igh ” o conduci e enough (Quinn e al., 2012). As such, we expec ha when employees who a e ope a ing unde high ch onic job demands pu hei ene gy managemen s a egies o use, i is in his si ua ion ha gains o occupa ional well-being should be obse ed, as his is he employee g oup ha has he mos a s ake and eally needs o manage hei ene gy e ec i ely. Thus, we expec ha he use o ene gy managemen s a egies is mo e bene icial o occupa ional well-being when job demands a e high. Hypo hesis 3: The posi i e ela ionships o he daily use o (a) p osocial, (b) o ganizing, and (c) meaning- ela ed s a egies wi h daily job sa is ac ion a e s onge among employees wi h high compa ed o low job demands. Hypo hesis 4: The nega i e ela ionships o he daily use o (a) p osocial, (b) o ganizing, and (c) meaning- ela ed s a egies wi h daily emo ional exhaus ion a e s onge among employees wi h high compa ed o low job demands. MATERIALS AND METHODS Pa icipan s and P ocedu e To es ou hypo heses, we conduc ed a 1-week quan i a i e dia y s udy whe e employees comple ed wice daily assessmen s o hei momen a y ene gy managemen s a egies and occupa ional well-being. Pa icipan s in his quan i a i e daily dia y s udy we e 54 adminis a i e and academic employees o a uni e si y in he Ne he lands. This sample size is adequa e o de ec ing small o medium e ec sizes in mul ile el analyses, including es ing o c oss-le el mode a ion (Sche baum and F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 4Augus 2017 | Volume 8 | A icle 1477 psyg-08-01477 Augus 29, 2017 Time: 16:52 # 5 Pa ke e al. Ene gy Managemen S a egies Fe e e , 2009). O he pa icipan s, 43 we e emale and 11 we e male. Pa icipan s ages anged om 23 o 63 yea s, wi h a mean age o 36.53 yea s (SD =13.37). The majo i y o pa icipan s held a uni e si y deg ee (61.1%). Job enu e anged om a ew mon hs o 22 yea s, wi h a mean o 4.25 yea s (SD =4.92). Pa icipan s we e ec ui ed in pe son by walking in o o ices and in i ing employees o pa icipa e in a daily dia y s udy on hei wo k expe iences. Employees (N=105) who ini ially ag eed o ake pa in he s udy ecei ed an email he nex day wi h a link o a baseline su ey ha included measu es o job demands and demog aphic cha ac e is ics. In he ollowing week beginning on a Monday, employees ecei ed emails e e y day a 11 a.m. and a 3 p.m. wi h a link o a digi al su ey on ene gy managemen s a egies and occupa ional well-being, o be comple ed be o e lunch and be o e he end o he wo k day, espec i ely. Only esponses ecei ed wi hin 2 h a e he emails we e sen we e included in he analyses. The da a collec ion pe iod ended on F iday. We included only employees who comple ed he baseline su ey and a leas h ee daily su eys. The inal sample o 54 employees comple ed 386 daily su eys (on a e age, 7.15 comple ed daily su eys, wi h a minimum o h ee and a maximum o 10 daily su eys), which is a ypical le el o compliance wi h he esea ch p ocedu e o his ype o esea ch design (Ohly e al., 2010). Da a o his s udy was collec ed as pa o a la ge esea ch p ojec and one a icle wi h a comple ely di e en esea ch ques ion han he cu en a icle has al eady been published (Zache , 2015). None o he a iables ha a e included in he cu en s udy we e also included in he published a icle. This s udy was e iewed and app o ed by he E hical Commi ee Psychology a he Uni e si y o G oningen (Ne he lands1). All pa icipan s ga e w i en in o med consen in acco dance wi h he Decla a ion o Helsinki. Measu es All i ems and ac o loadings om a mul ile el con i ma o y ac o analysis (see S a is ical Analyses) a e shown in Table 1. Ene gy Managemen S a egies Use o p osocial, o ganizing, and meaning- ela ed ene gy managemen s a egies was measu ed in he daily su eys wi h i ems om F i z e al. (2011) and Zache e al. (2014) ha we e adap ed o he daily le el (“This mo ning/a e noon a wo k, I managed my ene gy by. . .”). Pa icipan s indica ed how equen ly hey had made use o each s a egy on a 5-poin scale, anging om 1 (ne e ) o 5 ( e y o en). C onbach’s alphas we e 0.84, 0.89, and 0.91 o p osocial, o ganizing, and meaning- ela ed s a egy use, espec i ely. Job Sa is ac ion Job sa is ac ion was measu ed in he daily su eys wi h i e i ems adap ed om a widely used, well- alida ed scale by Judge e al. (1998; see Table 1). I ems we e answe ed on 5-poin Like scales, anging om 1 (s ongly disag ee) o 5 (s ongly ag ee). C onbach’s alpha was 0.86. 1h p://www. ug.nl/ esea ch/heymans-ins i u e/o ganiza ion/ecp/?lang=en Emo ional Exhaus ion Emo ional exhaus ion was measu ed wi h h ee i ems adap ed om a widely used and well- alida ed scale om Maslach and Jackson (1981; see Table 1). I ems we e answe ed on 5-poin Like scales, anging om 1 (s ongly disag ee) o 5 (s ongly ag ee). C onbach’s alpha was 0.93. P e ious esea ch a he wi hin-pe son le el has shown ha hese wo indica o s o occupa ional well-being (i.e., job sa is ac ion and emo ional exhaus ion) luc ua e subs an ially wi hin-pe sons o e ime (Ilies and Judge, 2004;G ech e al., 2009;Schmi e al., 2012), and a e he e o e sui ed o in es iga ion wi h an expe ience sampling esea ch design. Job Demands Quan i a i e job demands we e measu ed in he baseline su ey wi h h ee i ems om a scale de eloped and alida ed by Spec o and Jex (1998; see Table 1). The esponse scale anged om 1 (ne e ) o7(daily). C onbach’s alpha was 0.88. TABLE 1 | I ems and ac o loadings. I em Va iable Fac o loading Making ime o show g a i ude o someone I wo k wi h. P osocial s a egies 0.67 Doing some hing ha will make a colleague happy. P osocial s a egies 0.87 O e ing help o someone a wo k. P osocial s a egies 0.73 Checking and upda ing schedule. O ganizing s a egies 0.88 Making a o-do lis . O ganizing s a egies 0.92 Se ing a new goal. O ganizing s a egies 0.77 Re lec ing on he meaning o my wo k. Meaning- ela ed s a egies 0.93 Re lec ing on how I make a di e ence a wo k. Meaning- ela ed s a egies 0.96 Focusing on wha gi es me joy a wo k. Meaning- ela ed s a egies 0.75 I eel ai ly well sa is ied wi h my job. Job sa is ac ion 0.86 I am en husias ic abou my wo k. Job sa is ac ion 0.90 This wo k day seems like i will ne e end. ( e e sed) Job sa is ac ion 0.55 I ind eal enjoymen in my wo k. Job sa is ac ion 0.92 I conside my job a he unpleasan . ( e e sed) Job sa is ac ion 0.54 I eel emo ionally d ained om my wo k. Emo ional exhaus ion 0.92 I eel used up due o my wo k. Emo ional exhaus ion 0.92 I eel bu ned ou om my wo k. Emo ional exhaus ion 0.87 How o en does you job equi e you o wo k e y as ? Job demands 0.80 How o en does you job equi e you o wo k e y ha d? Job demands 0.97 How o en is he e a g ea deal o be done? Job demands 0.70 Ene gy managemen i ems we e adap ed om F i z e al. (2011), job sa is ac ion i ems we e adap ed om Judge e al. (1998), emo ional exhaus ion i ems we e adap ed om Maslach and Jackson (1981), and job demands i ems we e adap ed om Spec o and Jex (1998). F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 5Augus 2017 | Volume 8 | A icle 1477 psyg-08-01477 Augus 29, 2017 Time: 16:52 # 6 Pa ke e al. Ene gy Managemen S a egies S a is ical Analyses As he da a collec ed o his s udy had a mul ile el s uc u e, we used hie a chical linea modeling (HLM) so wa e o analyze i (Raudenbush and B yk, 2002). The be ween-pe son a iable (job demands) was cen e ed a he g and (o sample) mean, and he wi hin-pe son p edic o s (ene gy managemen s a egies) we e cen e ed a each pa icipan ’s mean (Ohly e al., 2010; Aguinis e al., 2013). We p obed signi ican in e ac ion e ec s using he me hods se ou by P eache e al. (2006). We examined he ac o s uc u e o all i ems by compu ing mul ile el con i ma o y ac o analyses. A model wi h i e ac o s on he wi hin-pe son le el ( h ee ene gy managemen s a egies, job sa is ac ion, and emo ional exhaus ion) and one ac o a he be ween-pe son le el (job demands) had a e y good i wi h he da a [χ2(109) =187.542, p<0.001; CFI =0.971; TLI =0.963; RMSEA =0.043; SRMSwi hin =0.057]. In con as , a one- ac o model did no i he da a well [χ2(90) =2208.582, p<0.001; CFI =0.160; TLI = −0.008; RMSEA =0.247; SRMRwi hin =0.263]. RESULTS Desc ip i e s a is ics and co ela ions a e shown in Table 2. Resul s o null models showed ha 46% o he a iance in job sa is ac ion and 50% o he a iance in emo ional exhaus ion esided a he wi hin-pe son le el. Simila ly, he p opo ions o wi hin-pe son a iance o he ene gy managemen s a egies anged om 43% (o ganizing s a egy use) o 59% (p osocial s a egy use; see Table 2). Acco ding o Hypo hesis 1, he daily use o (a) p osocial, (b) o ganizing, and (c) meaning- ela ed s a egies is posi i ely ela ed o daily job sa is ac ion. Hypo hesis 2 s a es ha he daily use o (a) p osocial, (b) o ganizing, and (c) meaning- ela ed s a egies is nega i ely ela ed o daily emo ional exhaus ion. Table 3 shows he esul s o wo mul ile el analyses p edic ing he occupa ional well-being ou comes: job sa is ac ion and emo ional exhaus ion. Only p osocial s a egy use had a posi i e and signi ican main e ec on job sa is ac ion (γ=0.09, p=0.012). The mo e equen ly pa icipan s used p osocial ene gy managemen s a egies, he highe hei le els o job sa is ac ion. None o he o he s a egies signi ican ly p edic ed job sa is ac ion. In addi ion, and con a y o expec a ions, he e we e no signi ican main e ec s o wo k- ela ed ene gy managemen s a egies on emo ional exhaus ion. Thus, Hypo hesis 1 was only pa ially suppo ed, and Hypo hesis 2 was no suppo ed. Acco ding o Hypo hesis 3, he posi i e ela ionships o he daily use o (a) p osocial, (b) o ganizing, and (c) meaning- ela ed s a egies wi h daily job sa is ac ion a e s onge among employees wi h high compa ed o low job demands. Hypo hesis 4 s a es ha he nega i e ela ionships o he daily use o (a) p osocial, (b) o ganizing, and (c) meaning- ela ed s a egies wi h daily emo ional exhaus ion a e s onge among employees wi h high compa ed o low job demands. As shown in Table 3, job demands mode a ed he ela ionship be ween p osocial s a egy use and emo ional exhaus ion. We eg essed emo ional exhaus ion on p osocial s a egy use a low (i.e., one s anda d de ia ion below he mean) and high (i.e., one s anda d de ia ion abo e he mean) le els o job demands. These simple slope analyses showed ha he ela ionship was weak and non-signi ican a low (γ=0.004, p=0.950) and nega i e a high job demands (γ= −0.18, p=0.005; Figu e 2A). In line wi h ou hypo heses and COR heo y, his means ha p osocial s a egy use dec eased exhaus ion among employees wi h high job demands. Job demands u he mode a ed he ela ionships be ween o ganizing s a egy use and bo h job sa is ac ion and emo ional exhaus ion (see Table 3). The ela ionship be ween o ganizing s a egy use and job sa is ac ion was posi i e a low (γ=0.15, p=0.003) and nega i e a high job demands (γ= −0.15, p=0.002; Figu e 2B), meaning ha o ganizing s a egy use heigh en job sa is ac ion among employees wi h low job demands and lowe ed job sa is ac ion among employees wi h high job demands. Simila ly, he ela ionship be ween o ganizing s a egy use and emo ional exhaus ion was nega i e a low (γ= −0.16, p=0.025) and posi i e a high job demands (γ=0.19, p=0.003; Figu e 2C). This sugges s ha o ganizing s a egy use lowe ed exhaus ion among employees wi h low job demands and inc eased exhaus ion among employees wi h high job demands. Finally, job demands mode a ed he ela ionship be ween meaning- ela ed s a egy use and emo ional exhaus ion, such ha he ela ionship was posi i e a low (γ=0.17, p=0.064) TABLE 2 | Desc ip i e s a is ics and co ela ions o a iables. Va iable M SD 1-ICC 1 2 3 4 5 6 Be ween-pe son a iable (1) Job demands 4.73 1.31 – (0.88) Wi hin-pe son a iables (2) P osocial s a egy use 1.92 0.85 0.59 −0.11 (0.84) 0.03 0.27∗ ∗ 0.15∗ ∗ −0.09 (3) O ganizing s a egy use 2.03 1.01 0.43 −0.03 0.43∗ ∗ (0.89) 0.15∗ ∗ 0.01 0.04 (4) Meaning- ela ed s a egy use 1.71 0.91 0.44 0.16 0.36∗ ∗ 0.37∗ ∗ (0.91) 0.11∗−0.02 (5) Job sa is ac ion 3.99 0.64 0.46 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.24 (0.86) −0.57∗ ∗ (6) Emo ional exhaus ion 1.80 0.80 0.50 0.06 −0.05 −0.15 −0.08 −0.61∗ ∗ (0.93) Co ela ions abo e he diagonal ep esen wi hin-pe son (le el 1) ela ionships o pe son-mean cen e ed a iables (N =386), and co ela ions below he diagonal ep esen be ween-pe son (le el 2) ela ionships o be ween-pe son a iables and agg ega ed daily a iables (N =54). 1-ICC =p opo ion o wi hin-pe son a iance. Reliabili y es ima es (α) a e shown in pa en heses along he diagonal. ∗p<0.05, ∗ ∗ p<0.01. F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 6Augus 2017 | Volume 8 | A icle 1477 psyg-08-01477 Augus 29, 2017 Time: 16:52 # 7 Pa ke e al. Ene gy Managemen S a egies and weak and non-signi ican a high job demands (γ= −0.09, p=0.148; Figu e 2D). O e all, hese indings indica e ha Hypo hesis 4 was suppo ed o p osocial s a egy use only, because only p osocial s a egy use was nega i ely associa ed wi h exhaus ion when job demands we e high. Hypo hesis 3 was no suppo ed as he empi ical in e ac ion pa e ns we e di e en om hose hypo hesized. DISCUSSION The i s goal o s udy was o examine momen a y ela ionships be ween h ee ypes o wo k- ela ed ene gy managemen s a egies (i.e., p osocial, o ganizing, and meaning- ela ed) and occupa ional well-being (i.e., job sa is ac ion and emo ional exhaus ion). The second goal was o in es iga e employees’ ch onic job demands as a bounda y condi ion o hese ela ionships. We expec ed ha use o ene gy managemen s a egies would be associa ed wi h highe job sa is ac ion and lowe emo ional exhaus ion, and his would be especially so o employees wo king unde high job demands (who should bene i om ene gy managemen he mos ). We es ed hese ideas using a 1-week quan i a i e dia y s udy wi h employees, so we could ap daily a ia ions in ene gy managemen s a egy use and he immedia e (o momen a y) e ec s o s a egy use on ou indica o s o occupa ional well- being. Indeed, esul s showed subs an ial wi hin-pe son a ia ion in s a egy use and well-being ou comes (be ween 43 and 61% o he o al a iance), sugges ing he e was subs an ial a ia ion in daily well-being ha could po en ially be explained by s a egy use. Howe e , we ound weak suppo o he main e ec s o TABLE 3 | Resul s o hie a chical linea modeling analyses p edic ing occupa ional well-being. Job sa is ac ion Emo ional exhaus ion γ(SE)γ(SE) In e cep 3.98 (0.07)∗ ∗ 1.81 (0.08)∗ ∗ Be ween-pe son p edic o Job demands 0.01 (0.05) 0.03 (0.06) Wi hin-pe son p edic o s P osocial s a egy use 0.09 (0.04)∗−0.09 (0.05) O ganizing s a egy use 0.00 (0.04) 0.02 (0.05) Meaning- ela ed s a egy use 0.04 (0.04) 0.04 (0.06) C oss-le el in e ac ions P osocial s a egy use ×Job demands 0.04 (0.03) −0.07 (0.04)∗ O ganizing s a egy use ×Job demands −0.11 (0.03)∗ ∗ 0.13 (0.03)∗ ∗ Meaning- ela ed s a egy use ×Job demands 0.04 (0.03) −0.10 (0.04)∗ N=386 daily su ey esponses nes ed wi hin 54 pa icipan s. Uns anda dized mul ile el modeling coe icien s (γ) wi h s anda d e o s (SE) a e shown. ∗p<0.05, ∗ ∗ p<0.01. FIGURE 2 | Rela ionships be ween use o ene gy managemen s a egies and occupa ional well-being ou comes mode a ed by job demands (†p<0.075, ∗p<0.05, ∗ ∗ p<0.01). ene gy managemen s a egy use on o ou daily assessmen s o occupa ional well-being. Ins ead, in e es ing in e ac i e esul s we e e ealed ega ding he e icacy o di e en wo k- ela ed F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 7Augus 2017 | Volume 8 | A icle 1477 psyg-08-01477 Augus 29, 2017 Time: 16:52 # 8 Pa ke e al. Ene gy Managemen S a egies ene gy managemen s a egies, depending on employees’ le el o ch onic job demands. Bene i s o P osocial S a egies In line wi h COR heo y, and consis en wi h p e ious esea ch on wo k- ela ed ene gy managemen s a egies (F i z e al., 2011; Zache e al., 2014), p osocial s a egy use was posi i ely ela ed o job sa is ac ion wi hin he wo k day. In he ini ial F i z e al. (2011) s udy, i was he single i ems “do some hing ha will make a colleague happy” and “make ime o show g a i ude o someone I wo k wi h” ha we e posi i ely ela ed o subjec i e i ali y (bu no nega i ely ela ed o a igue). Indeed, consis en wi h hese indings, Zache e al.’s (2014) expe ience sampling s udy ound ha when hese wo i ems we e combined pos hoc o o m a “p osocial” scale, his was he only indica o o wo k- ela ed ene gy managemen ha p edic ed momen a y i ali y (i.e., in he hou subsequen o s a egy use, a e con olling o ime o day and i ali y in he p e ious hou ). Thus, o e all, p osocial s a egies, such as helping o he s and showing compassion a wo k, appea o imp o e employees’ “ene ge ic ac i a ion” (i.e., i ali y and sa is ac ion) a wo k, bo h in gene al, when measu ed h ough c oss-sec ional su eys (F i z e al., 2011; Zache e al., 2014), as well as in he momen , when collec ed using expe ience sampling me hodologies (i.e., bo h hou ly, Zache e al., 2014; and wi h a daily app oach as obse ed in his s udy). In his s udy, no only was he e a posi i e main e ec o p osocial s a egy use on daily epo s o job sa is ac ion, in suppo o ou mode a ion hypo heses he e was also an in e ac i e e ec , whe eby emo ional exhaus ion was educed among employees wi h high job demands who used his s a egy. In line wi h COR heo y (Hob oll, 1989, 2001, 2011) and human ene gy heo y (Quinn e al., 2012), his inding suppo s he idea ha indi iduals unde high job demands (o high h ea o hei alued esou ces) bene i when hey pu hei esou ces o use, o o pu i ano he way, bene i when hey make a esou ce in es men in he o m o p osocial ene gy managemen . Acco ding o COR heo y, i is unde high h ea si ua ions ha indi iduals po en ially eap he mos gains. In his ins ance, h ough he use o p osocial ene gy managemen hey expe ience less emo ional exhaus ion, despi e hei high job demands. These indings a e also in line wi h esea ch mo e b oadly demons a ing ha helping o he s imp o es one’s own well-being, and ha his associa ion is because al uis ic ac s sa is y basic psychological needs and imp o e au onomous mo i a ion (Weins ein and Ryan, 2010). These indings also a e in o med by ecen wo k on he e ec s o o ganiza ional ci izenship beha io . Fo example, esea che s ha e ound ha employees who a e al eady ch onically emo ionally exhaus ed and also engaging in deple ing su ace ac ing a e less likely o engage in o ganiza ional ci izenship beha io s (T ougakos e al., 2015). O he s ha e shown ha helping o he s a wo k is deple ing and inc eases sel -se ing beha io s, especially o hose who ha e a p e en ion egula o y ocus (Gab iel e al., 2017). He e, he idea is ha oo much ‘wo k p essu e’ deple es one’s esou ces and he eby hei abili y o engage in p osocial helping. We did no ind his o be he case in ou s udy, ins ead inding ha hose wi h ch onically high job demands who used p osocial s a egies on a daily basis epo ed lowe daily le els o emo ional exhaus ion. The e is an ongoing deba e in he o ganiza ional ci izenship li e a u e as o whe he ci izenship beha io s a e d aining o en iching o people’s esou ces. The p e ailing pe spec i e is ha engaging in helping has he po en ial o deple e willpowe and o he pe sonal and ene gy esou ces (see Lanaj e al., 2016). Howe e , in a ecen expe ience sampling s udy, i was e ealed ha ‘high pe o me s’ who engaged in o ganiza ional ci izenship beha io s expe ienced g ea e igo ( h ough enhanced meaning ulness o wo k; see Fu Lam e al., 2016). Consis en wi h Fu Lam e al. (2016) ou indings wi h p osocial helping as an ene gy managemen s a egy suppo an en ichmen pe spec i e, and also sugges ha pe sonal and ene gy esou ces a e abundan . As such, engaging in al uis ic ac s (i.e., helping o he s a wo k) can imp o e one’s own well-being because hese beha io s a e in and o hemsel es (o upon e lec ion; see Lanaj e al., 2016) ene gizing o eplenishing. Indeed, he e is such g owing in e es in his en ichmen pe spec i e o ci izenship beha io , ha schola s ha e begun o examine new ene gy cons uc s, hese being ela ional ene gy (Owens e al., 2016) o collec i e ene gy (Cole e al., 2012), which a e desc ibed as o ms o ene gy ga ne ed om posi i e in e ac ions wi h leade s and/o eam ma es. Guided by Quinn e al. (2012), we cau ion esea che s in ega d o he p oli e a ion o di e en ene gy cons uc s. We conside ha examina ion o di e en ela ional o collec i e o ms o ene gy migh con la e cause (e.g., posi i e in e ac ions wi h a leade ) and e ec (e.g., ene ge ic ac i a ion om hose in e ac ions). Ou quan i a i e daily dia y s udy also e ealed eme gen indings in ol ing he o he ene gy managemen s a egies in es iga ed. When o Use O ganizing S a egies Con a y o hypo heses, he e we e no main e ec s o o ganizing s a egies on indica o s o occupa ional well-being. I is ha d o de e mine, gi en p io esea ch on use o his s a egy, whe he his lack o main e ec s is eliable o no . In he F i z e al. (2011) s udy, mos o he single i ems ela ed o o ganizing did no co ela e wi h i ali y o a igue, only he i em “se ing a new goal” was posi i ely associa ed wi h i ali y, which we included in ou measu e o o ganizing. In o he esea ch ha has used hese o iginal i ems om F i z e al. (2011) i ems we e g ouped oge he as “wo k- ela ed s a egies,” including bo h i ems o do wi h se ing goals wi h i ems o do wi h p osocial helping o colleagues (e.g., de Bloom e al., 2015), o i ems o do wi h making lis s and se ing goals wi h i ems o do wi h e lec ing on he meaning o wo k (e.g., Kinnunen e al., 2015). This makes i di icul o asce ain he unique e ec s o o ganizing s a egies (as compa ed o o he wo k- ela ed s a egies). In o he esea ch, whe e ollow-up analyses eased s a egies apa pos hoc, o ganizing s a egies had no o e all e ec on i ali y o a igue, only a ew single i ems had bene icial momen a y e ec s, including making lis s, which bo h dec eased a igue and inc eased i ali y, and upda ing one’s schedule, which inc eased i ali y (Zache e al., 2014). F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 8Augus 2017 | Volume 8 | A icle 1477 psyg-08-01477 Augus 29, 2017 Time: 16:52 # 9 Pa ke e al. Ene gy Managemen S a egies Ou in e ac i e e ec s in ol ing o ganizing as an ene gy managemen s a egy e ealed ha using such s a egies, like making o-do lis s, swi ching asks, and se ing new goals, was only bene icial among employees wi h low job demands. In con as , o ganizing s a egies appea ed o educe occupa ional well-being among employees wi h high job demands. These indings a e con a y o he main p inciples o COR heo y, howe e , do speak o a ela ed co olla y o hese p inciples, ha being ha hose who lack esou ces a e mo e ulne able o u he esou ce loss (Hob oll, 1989, 2001, 2011). Mo eo e , hese indings a e consis en wi h ela ed esea ch, and sugges ha he u ili y o o ganizing s a egies would be highly dependen on con ex . In cogni i e psychology, o example, expe imen al esea ch on ask-swi ching has e ealed ha equen ask swi ching can impai ask pe o mance h ough momen a y p ospec i e memo y ailu e, because his beha io is e o ul and d aining on memo y esou ces (Fins ad e al., 2006). Fo employees wi h high job demands, upda ing a schedule and making a o-do-lis may ac ually inc ease hei al eady high-pe cei ed job demand (i.e., is s ess a ousing), because hese ac ions emind hem in he momen ha hey ha e oo much wo k o do. This is qui e in e es ing, when one conside s ha o ganizing s a egies could be akin o p oblem- ocused coping e o s. In e es ingly, p oblem- ocused coping has been ound o be coun e -p oduc i e when aced wi h high demands, because such beha io o e s no de achmen om he sou ce o s ess (Ko ne e al., 2012). Acco ding o Quinn e al. (2012) ene gy managemen s a egies ha a e amilia should no be d aining, as one has p ac ice a using hem. Howe e , schola s also ha e easoned ha wo k- ela ed s a egies, like o ganizing, migh in ol e a con inued expendi u e o esou ces h ough li le o no espi e om wo k (T ougakos and Hideg, 2009), which, in u n, leads o lowe momen a y well-being. Al e na i ely, ha o ganizing s a egies migh un old hei bene icial e ec s in he longe - e m because he bene i s ake a longe amoun o ime o be ealized (e.g., ac oss days o weeks; Zache e al., 2014). I migh no be ha he s a egy i sel ha is d aining o ene gizing, bu as pe ou indings, a he i depends on he p e-exis ing le el o job demands. As such, we can e y en a i ely conclude ha employees ope a ing unde low job demands, who a e expe iencing less p essu e, may be bes posi ioned o bene i om he challenging ye po en ially ene gizing e ec s o o ganizing as an ene gy managemen s a egy. Howe e , u he esea ch is needed o de e mine exac ly when and how such s a egies can be used o main ain and imp o e ene gy (especially o e he longe e m). Po en ial Cos s o Meaning-Rela ed S a egies We ound no main e ec s o meaning- ela ed s a egy use on ou indica o s o occupa ional well-being. In hei sample o knowledge wo ke s, F i z e al. (2011) ound he single i ems o “ ocus on wha gi es me joy a wo k,” “ e lec on how I make a di e ence a wo k,” and “ e lec on he meaning o my wo k,” each posi i ely ela ed o subjec i e i ali y. We in eg a ed hese i ems in o ou daily measu emen o meaning- ela ed ene gy managemen , so we e su p ised no o see a di ec e ec . Howe e , hese s a egies migh no ha e immedia e momen a y bene i s. Indeed, in he Zache e al. (2014) expe ience sampling s udy, only one o hese i ems posi i ely ela ed o hou ly epo s on i ali y (e.g., ocus on wha gi es me joy a wo k); whe eas, a composi e o he h ee i ems called e lec ion, when measu ed in a gene al su ey, co ela ed posi i ely wi h gene al i ali y [as obse ed in F i z e al. (2011) who also used a c oss- sec ional esea ch design], bu did no co ela e wi h well-being in he hou ly assessmen s. This lack o immedia e e ec in dia y s udy esea ch on ene gy managemen is consis en wi h ecen esea ch on posi i e wo k expe iences and posi i e wo k e lec ion (Meie e al., 2016). I migh be ha meaning- ela ed ene gy managemen s a egies ha e a delayed e ec o ha hese s a egies a e mo e e ec i e when pu in o use in he e enings a e wo k (no du ing wo k). Mo eo e , schola s calling o mo e esea ch on he ole o e lec ion in ene gy managemen ha e sugges ed ha i is e lec ion on long- e m goals ( a he han momen a y o sho - e m goals) ha migh ha e he mos impac on ene gy (Schippe s and Hogenes, 2011). Unpacking he empo al p ocesses in ol ed in meaning- ela ed s a egies would be a wo hwhile di ec ion o u u e esea ch, including in es iga ing he use o meaning- ela ed (o e lec ion) ene gy managemen s a egies ou side o wo k ime. Theo e ical and P ac ical Implica ions Ou esea ch con ibu es o COR heo y and ene gy managemen heo y. He e, in line wi h COR heo y (Hob oll, 2011; Halbesleben e al., 2014), we ha e posi ioned ene gy managemen s a egy use as pa o a esou ce in es men p ocess aimed a main aining and imp o ing occupa ional well-being. This esou ce in es men will be mo e o less e ec i e depending on he ype o s a egy used and he exis ing d ain on esou ces (i.e., job demands). Ou indings a e also consis en wi h ecen heo e ical a gumen s abou he ecip ocal and dynamic na u e o human ene gy a wo k (Quinn e al., 2012), hese a gumen s being ha i is he disc epancy be ween job demands and use o esou ces o mee hose demands ha d i es ene ge ic ac i a ion (i.e., g ea e job sa is ac ion and less emo ional exhaus ion). We ound ha no all s a egies a e c ea ed equal and he e ec i eness o ce ain wo k- ela ed ene gy managemen s a egies depends on he con ex , ha is, he employees’ job demands. We ound ha p osocial s a egies can lessen exhaus ion o hose wi h high demands. In con as , o ganizing s a egies a e only bene icial, o bo h sa is ac ion and exhaus ion, in jobs wi h low demands (and de imen al in jobs wi h high demands). Also, e lec ing on he meaning o one’s wo k migh ha e a po en ially back i ing e ec o hose wi hou much job p essu e. T ougakos and Hideg (2009) heo ized ha is he na u e o momen a y eco e y ha has he po en ial o imp o e a ec i e and egula o y esou ces, and subsequen ly well-being and wo k ask pe o mance. Acco dingly, o be e ec i ely pu o use, wo k- ela ed ene gy managemen s a egies need o bo h inc ease in insic mo i a ion and dec ease wo k in ensi y (lessen he momen a y d ain on egula o y esou ces and he e o e he F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 9Augus 2017 | Volume 8 | A icle 1477