“Does social support and work-life conflict moderate the influence of job stress on job performance? (A study at Syiah Kuala University)”

The performance of employees within an organization is intricately linked to various psychological factors they encounter. Job stress, social support, and work-life conflict emerge as pivotal elements in enhancing job performance. This study endeavors to examine the impact of job stress on job performance, taking into account social support and work-life conflict as moderating factors. Data were gathered through questionnaires distributed to a sample of 275 administrative employees at Syiah Kuala University, Indonesia. Analysis was conducted using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) via Partial Least Squares (PLS) statistical software. The findings indicate that job stress did not significantly affect job performance ( p = 0.382 > α = 0.05), whereas social support emerged as a significant moderator ( p = 0.001 < α = 0.05). However, work-life conflict did not demonstrate significance as a moderator in the relationship between job stress and job performance ( p = 0.866 > α = 0.05). In conclusion, the study suggests that job stress indeed influences job performance, whereas the moderating effect of work-life conflict on the relationship between job stress and job performance remains unproven. Conversely, social support is confirmed as a significant moderating factor in the influence of job stress on job performance.


INTRODUCTION
In the modern era of globalization, the employment landscape has experienced a notable surge in technological innovation and increased work intensity, leading to a positive impact.However, this phenomenon has also resulted in adverse effects, most notably a rise in workrelated pressures, especially within the dynamic realm of today's business environment.The prevalence of job stress emerges as a significant and influential factor contributing to a decline in job performance, as numerous studies have substantiated the correlation between heightened stress levels and reduced workplace productivity.
Since the 1980s, professionals in human resources, occupational health, and management across diverse organizational structures have devoted significant attention to job stress due to its detrimental consequences on employee productivity.The consensus among these experts underscores the critical importance of addressing and mitigating job stress, given its potential to undermine job performance within the office setting.
Job stress is a highly relevant aspect to consider when enhancing job performance.A thorough understanding of the factors contributing to job stress can assist organizations in identifying and mitigating potential issues that may impede productivity.It is crucial to conduct a comprehensive study on the impact of job stress on employee well-being and motivation.
Proactively addressing the root causes of stress enables organizations to cultivate a healthier and more supportive work environment.This, in turn, can positively impact job performance while reducing the risks of burnout and detrimental absenteeism.Consequently, research on job stress is not only an investment in employee well-being but also a strategic approach to enhancing organizational efficiency and effectiveness.
Social support is recognized as a protective factor against the repercussions of job stress.When individuals perceive support from colleagues, supervisors, or friends, it can mitigate stress levels and enhance psychological well-being.Furthermore, social support has the potential to influence job performance positively.A workplace that fosters support creates an environment conducive to concentration and effective work.
Work-life conflict serves as an additional stressor for employees.An imbalance between professional and personal life can generate tension, adversely affecting psychological well-being.Unresolved worklife conflicts may disrupt concentration and focus, ultimately affecting job performance.
Adequate social support plays a crucial role in helping individuals manage job stress and mitigating its adverse effects on performance.Recognizing and addressing work-life conflict is essential in enhancing employees' well-being and overall performance.
By incorporating social support and work-life conflict considerations into research or assessments related to job stress, organizations can develop comprehensive strategies and policies to promote employees' well-being and, consequently, enhance their performance.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Job performance holds a crucial position within organizational dynamics owing to its substantial impact on the overall performance of the organization.To attain their strategic objectives and remain competitive, businesses rely on employees who consistently exhibit high job performance (Akgunduz, 2015).According to Smith and Goddard (2002), high job performance is contingent upon a thorough analysis of workloads, work schedules, and cost-effectiveness.The literature on job performance underscores two pivotal aspects: the importance of maintaining sustained high job performance among employees and the identification of effective strategies to improve job performance.Job performance encompasses the activities and behaviors of employees that contribute to organizational objectives, acknowledged as integral to their role and under their own control (Ieong & Lam, 2016).It is viewed as a desirable outcome due to its correlation with disciplinary measures and incentives ( Goodwin et al., 2011).In the field of service industry, job performance involves the provision of intangible services (such as emotional expression and interpersonal behavior) and the delivery of tangible services (Bitner et al., 1990).Both aspects of job performance are significant in the context of customer service, as customers perceive employees' attitudes and actions as crucial to their perception of the organization's service quality (Goodwin et al., 2011).Job performance profoundly influences the customer service experience and correlates with positive appraisals of an organization (Tsai & Huang, 2002).Consequently, an employee's job performance is contingent upon meeting customer service expectations, as employee conduct can substantially impact desired customer outcomes (Kim et al., 2019).
Job performance is a critical element in organizational success.Research on job performance is crucial to comprehend the factors that impact individual performance, such as job stress, work-life conflict, and social support.This understanding enables organizations to craft more effective strategies to enhance job performance and attain organizational objectives.
Job stress is commonly described in the literature as the emotional strain experienced by employees due to various factors such as violence, tension, anxiety, frustration, worry, emotional exhaustion, and job-related pressure (Armstrong, 2009).In simpler terms, when individuals interpret work-related variables (job stressors) in a certain way (cognitive interpretation), it can lead to stress (Wu, 2011).Therefore, stressors represent the intensity or external circumstances that impact individuals -these are objective events.On the other hand, stress represents the distortion or change that occurs in individuals as a result of these external forces -it is the subjective experience of these events (Liu, 2019).Job stress is said to occur when employees feel unable to cope with job demands and organizational pressures (Hart & Cooper, 2001).Although job stress can be triggered by many reasons, these reasons can generally be divided into two categories: personal and organizational factors ( A. Takahashi & S. Takahashi, 2010).Personal factors include, but are not limited to, individual coping abilities, locus of control (Paoline & Gau, 2017), Type A behavior (Jackson & Frame, 2018), personality traits (Kim et al., 2007), and self-esteem (Lee et al., 2013).Organizational factors include working conditions (Schreyer & Krause, 2016), job demands and job control (Chiang et al., 2010), supervisory support (Hon et al., 2013), and others.
The interplay between job stress and job performance is intricate ( Jackson & Frame, 2018).Theoretical frameworks have portrayed it as eustress, a bell curve phenomenon signifying an optimal stress level, with various stressors (e.g., obstacles and challenges) yielding distinct outcomes (Perez-Floriano & Gonzalez, 2019).In this context, job stress can exert both positive and negative effects, such as diminished well-being and heightened job performance, and recognize that these effects hinge on individual traits (e.g., personality, coping mechanisms) and organizational elements (e.g., job resources, cultural aspects) ( Paoline & Gau, 2017).Anxiety and stress stemming from occupational hazards can serve both functional (Burke et al., 2011) and dysfunctional (A.Takahashi & S. Takahashi, 2010;Liu, 2019).
The understanding that job stress can significantly impact organizational outcomes has become widely acknowledged.Given this, heightened awareness of job stress is crucial for the overall well-being of both employees and organizations.A review of the research literature on job stress indicates that it is an active research topic because it has the potential to endanger personal health and organizational effectiveness.
Social support is more than just a shoulder to lean on; it is the lifeline that connects individuals in navigating life uncertainties.According to Albrecht and Adelman (1987), it encompasses the vital communication between those seeking aid and those offering it, aiming to alleviate doubts about situations, oneself, others, or relationships.Moreover, Leavy (1983) suggests that social support takes a tangible form through interpersonal connections, providing much-needed assistance tailored to individual needs.Cohen and Wills (1985) delve deeper, emphasizing its profound impact on well-being.They argue that social support acts as a direct influencer, enhancing one's sense of control and overall happiness.Research backs this claim, indicating that being socially integrated and connected strengthens health and personal influence, even in times of calm.In essence, social support is not just about companionship; it is about empowerment and resilience.It equips individuals with the tools to navigate challenges and adapt to new environments, as highlighted by Kraimer et al. (2001), who note its role in mitigating stress in unfamiliar work settings.Meanwhile, Fernandes and Tewari (2012) shed light on the concept of social support, describing it as an individual's fundamental belief that they are valued, kept informed, actively communicated with, emotionally nurtured, and an integral part of a network or community.Despite this understanding, the exploration of social support and its correlation with workplace stress remains a largely unexplored realm (Pridgeon & Whitehead, 2013).
Social support holds profound significance across various organizational settings.Particularly, the endorsement from both leaders and peers profoundly influences well-being; employees who perceive support tend to experience diminished stress levels and harbor a sense of fair recognition for their contributions (Demerouti et al., 2014).Indeed, fostering social support emerges as a pivotal aspect of workplace dynamics, fostering positive relationships among colleagues and between staff and management alike (Chandra, 2012).Providing social support is a crucial strategy for boosting psychological health and counteracting the adverse effects of job stress (Fernandes & Tewari, 2012;Jamal, 2013).Social support encompasses a robust social network that employees can tap into, including colleagues, managers, friends, and employee assistance programs, to navigate workplace stress (Walinga & Rowe, 2013).Employees who enjoy robust social support at work are more adept at handling job stress and are more effective in stress management (Leung et al., 2011).
The social support organizations provide to employees has a significant positive impact.It enhances well-being and job satisfaction while reducing stress and fatigue.Thus, employees are more productive, contribute more, and have lower turnover rates.
Work-life conflict can lead to a cascade of negative outcomes, including internal strife, disruption, and adverse effects (Carlson et al., 2011).The crux of the work-life conflict is that fulfilling demands in one domain can impede the fulfillment of obligations in another (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).Achieving equilibrium between professional and personal life is crucial; when work encroaches on an individual's private sphere, stress levels soar, and productivity plummets (Evers et al., 2014).While the terms work-life conflict, work-life bal-ance, and family-work conflict are often used interchangeably, the spotlight here is on work-life conflict.This particular conflict underscores the potential tension and trade-offs inherent in juggling work and personal commitments.
The primary facets of work-life conflict that merit attention include the allocation of time between work and extracurricular activities, the gratification derived from both professional and personal pursuits, and the mental engagement in these spheres (Demerouti et al., 2014).It is crucial for employees to navigate these three domains skillfully to mitigate stress and safeguard their wellbeing.Notably, work-related conflicts tend to exert a more pronounced adverse effect on job satisfaction compared to non-work-related issues, and vice versa (Amstad et al., 2011).Neither employees nor employers stand to gain from such circumstances.The analysis of work-life conflict extends to evaluating employees' adeptness in managing the multifaceted aspects of their lives (Demerouti et al., 2014).
In recent decades, Indonesia has grappled with a significant issue: aligning work and family commitments amidst the backdrop of globalization, rapid technological advancements, an aging population, and concerns about labor market participation and declining fertility.While the struggle to balance these commitments is not new, it has become increasingly pressing.Work-life conflict, as a measure of quality of life, has the potential to detrimentally affect job performance (Ibrahim et al., 2022).In recent years, Indonesia has faced the challenge of balancing work and family responsibilities, influenced by globalization, technology, an aging population, and labor market concerns.This struggle, while not new, has become more urgent.Work-life conflict can negatively impact job performance, highlighting the importance of addressing this issue for the well-being of workers and the productivity of the workforce.
In addition to the aforementioned explanations of concepts and theories regarding variables, this study also delineates a research model, as illustrated in Figure 1.This model assists in arranging crucial concepts, relationships, and variables that are pertinent to a specific research question or objective.
The following hypotheses were built from the above explanation: H1: Work stress affects job performance.
H2: Social support moderates the influence of job stress on job performance.
H3: Work-life conflict moderates the impact of job stress on job performance.

METHODS
This study was conducted at a university-level educational institution, involving a sample of 275 employees who were selected using stratified random sampling techniques.The respondents were given online questionnaires to fill out.To assess the respondents' perception levels, a 5-point Likert scale was employed, with level 1 indicating strongly disagree, level 2 indicating disagree, level 3 indicating neutral, level 4 indicating agree, and level 5 indicating strongly agree.The data were subsequently subjected to validity and reliability analysis, as well as hypothesis testing utilizing Structural Equation Modeling-Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS).The measurements used in this study were adopted from the previous study.A scale developed by Parker and DeCotiis (1983) was used for job stress items.Meanwhile, job performance items were adopted from a self-reported performance item by Donald et al. (2005) to measure employees' productivity in the last three months.A scale developed by Tsui et al. (1997) was used for social support from the supervisor, and the Family Support Inventory for Workers (FSIW) was used for social support from family measurement.Finally, a scale developed by Netemeyer et al. (1996) was used for work-life conflict measurement.The complete details can be found in Appendix A (Table A1).

RESULTS
The initial model for Partial Least Squares (PLS) analysis is a statistical method used to examine the association between independent variables and dependent variables within a model.Figure 2  One notable advantage of this method is its capability to handle multicollinearity, and it facilitates the modeling of non-linear relationships between variables.PLS is extensively used across diverse fields, including social sciences, economics, and life sciences.
Table 2 shows the evaluation results of outer indicators for each variable.Data analysis using Partial Least Squares (PLS) is a multivariate statistical method often used in structural equation modeling.The outer loading test is an important step in PLS analysis, which aims to evaluate the extent to which each indicator represents the construct it measures.Table 5 shows the result of a comparison test between R-squared and F-squared; the aim is to determine whether the model has balance.A good model must have a balance between quality (measured by R-squared) and significance (measured by F-squared).A model can have a high R-squared but not be statistically significant, or vice versa.
The analysis results in Table 5 show that the job performance variable exhibits an R-squared value of 0.319, indicating that job stress, social support, and work-life conflict collectively account for 31.9% of the variations in job performance data.
Among the measurement models, the social support and job performance relationship stands out with an F-squared value exceeding 0.35, suggesting that social support significantly influences job performance, demonstrating strong influencing power.The F-squared for the interaction between job stress and social support on job performance is 0.063, indicating that the moderated effect of job stress, when moderated by social support, moderately influences job performance.In contrast, F-squared values for other variables are small, suggesting a lack of strong mutual influence between the construct variables.
Figure 3 and Table 6 show hypotheses testing results using PLS analysis equipment.In the first hypothesis, the focus is on the relationship between job stress and job performance.Job stress can significantly affect employee well-being and performance.PLS is used to measure the extent to which job stress variables can predict or influence job performance.
The second hypothesis discusses the role of social support as a moderating factor in the relationship between job stress and job performance.Social support can be a variable that can reduce the negative impact of job stress on job performance.PLS was used to test the extent to which social support moderates the relationship between job stress and job performance.
In the third hypothesis, the focus is on work-life conflict as a moderating factor in the relationship between job stress and job performance.PLS is used to evaluate the extent to which work-life conflict can modify the relationship between job stress and job performance.
Table 6 shows no significant influence of the job stress variable on job performance (p = 0.382 > α = 0.05).Furthermore, social support moderates the influence of job stress on job performance at a significance level (p = 0.001 < α = 0.05).Specifically, a one-unit increase in social support enhances job performance by 0.199 units in the context of job stress.Then, finally, the hypothesis states that work-life conflict moderates the effect of job stress on job performance.The results of the analysis shown in Table 6 show that work-life conflict does not play a significant role in influencing the relationship between job stress and job performance (p = 0.866 > α = 0.05).

DISCUSSION
The results of no significant impact of job stress on job performance can be valuable and important information in the context of human resource management and organizational psychology.These research findings may indicate that there are other factors beyond job stress that are more dominant in determining job performance.This can serve as a basis for organizations to pay more attention to other factors, such as motivation, job satisfaction, or technical skills in improving job performance (Lee et al., 2024).These findings do not imply that stress management becomes irrelevant.On the contrary, stress management remains crucial for employee well-being and long-term productivity sustainability.Organizations need to ensure that job stress is still well managed even though it does not directly impact job performance.
These research findings also serve as a reminder that the influence of stress on performance may vary depending on the context, type of work, or individual.A holistic and contextual approach to managing job performance and well-being is becoming increasingly important (Valizadeh et al., 2023).Further research may deepen the understanding of the dynamics between job stress and performance, for example, identifying mediating or moderating factors that can explain the relationship between these two variables.The Challenge vs. Threat Paradigm from the stress theory model by Richard Lazarus distinguishes between stress perceived as a challenge, which can increase performance, and stress perceived as a threat, which may result in decreased performance.The Long-Term Effects Perspective posits that while long-term or chronic stress can negatively impact health and job performance, temporary or episodic stress may not have a significant impact (Fernando et al., 2006;Nien-Te et al., 2024).
For managers and organizational leaders, these findings can influence the policies and management practices that are implemented.It is important to consider a more holistic approach to managing employee well-being and ensure that efforts to reduce stress are also aligned with the goal of improving performance.Therefore, the finding that job stress does not directly affect job performance can be a starting point for further reflection and action in managing human resources and improving overall working conditions.Additionally, it is essential to explore whether these findings are specific to a particular industry or context.Some results may be more applicable in one industry than another, and the interpretation of these results should take into account the specific context (Sun et al., 2014).Moreover, are there other factors that could influence the relationship between job stress and job performance?It is possible that additional variables need to be considered in explaining this relationship (Sun et al., 2014).

CONCLUSION
This study conducted at a university-level educational institution involving a sample of 275 employees aimed to investigate the impact of job stress on job performance, considering social support and work-life conflict as moderating factors.Three hypotheses were posited, yet data analysis yielded unexpected findings.
The findings imply that, contrary to widespread expectations, job stress does not have a significant negative impact on job performance.This suggests that other factors may play a more dominant role in influencing job performance, or there may be other variables that need to be considered in explaining the relationship between job stress and job performance.This underscores the need for further research to better understand the factors that may affect job performance more effectively.In conclusion, the study challenged common assumptions by not finding a direct impact of job stress on job performance.It underscored the complexity of the relationship, emphasizing the role of optimal stress, individual differences, and controllable sources of stress.
This study also found that not only the element of job stress does not affect job performance, but also the element of work-life conflict does not act as a moderator between job stress and job performance.These results indicate that other factors may be more dominant in influencing job performance, while work-life conflict does not have a significant impact on altering the relationship between job stress and job performance within the context of this investigation.
Additionally, the results of the study indicate that the influence of job stress on job performance may vary depending on the level of social support received by individuals.This suggests that the presence of social support can moderate the relationship between job stress and job performance.In other words, when individuals perceive high levels of social support, the negative impact of job stress on their performance may be mitigated or even overcome.Therefore, it is important to consider the role of social support factors in understanding how job stress affects job performance.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Research model Outer loading measures how well each measurement variable (indicator) can represent the construct measured by the latent factors in the model.The main purpose of the outer loading test is to ensure that each indicator significantly contributes to the measurement of the latent factor it represents (Ghozali, 2011).There are 19 indicators with outer loading values below 0.7, specifically indicators M1.1, M1.3, M1.5, M1.6, M1.7, M1.8, M1.9, M1.10, and M1.11 from the mediator social support variable; indicators M2.1, M2.3, and M2.6 from the mediator work-life conflict variable; indicators X1, X2, X3, and X7 from the job stress variable; and indicators Y2, Y3, and Y5 from the job performance variable.Consequently, these 19 indicators are eliminated.

Table 2 .
Outer loading results

Table 3
Based on the results of the cross-loading test in Table3, all indicators in an observed variable have a higher cross loading value than other variables in the model.This means that the model formed meets the assumptions of discriminant validity.

Table 4 .
Reliability test results

Table 5 .
Comparison of R-squared and F-squared research variables

Table 6 .
(Gupta & Srivastava, 2021)The choice of research methods can significantly affect the results and the validity of the findings(Gupta & Srivastava, 2021).