The aim of this study is to investigate the moderating effect of matching job resources as well as matching off-job recovery (i.e., detachment from work) on the relation between corresponding job demands and psychological outcomes. Using the Demand-Induced Strain Compensation (DISC) Model as a theoretical framework, we conducted a cross-sectional survey study with 399 employees from three Dutch organizations. Results showed that (1) cognitive demands, resources, and lack of detachment are predictors of cognitive outcomes (i.e., active learning and creativity), (2) emotional demands and lack of detachment are predictors of emotional outcomes (i.e., emotional exhaustion), and (3) physical demands, lack of detachment, and lack of resources are predictors of physical outcomes (i.e., physical health complaints). Specifically, cognitive detachment from work might have negative effects on learning and creativity, whereas emotional and physical detachment from work might have positive effects on employees' health, and even on creativity. In conclusion, in order to cope with specific job demands, employees need corresponding job resources and detachment from work to balance health and performance-related outcomes.

Background Supportive studies of the demand–control (DC) model were more likely to measure specific demands combined with a corresponding aspect of control. Purpose A longitudinal test of Karasek’s (Adm Sci Q. 24:285–308, 1) job strain hypothesis including specific measures of job demands and job control, and both self-report and objectively recorded well-being. Method Job strain hypothesis was tested among 267 health care employees from a two-wave Dutch panel survey with a 2-year time lag. Results Significant demand/control interactions were found for mental and emotional demands, but not for physical demands. The association between job demands and job satisfaction was positive in case of high job control, whereas this association was negative in case of low job control. In addition, the relation between job demands and psychosomatic health symptoms/sickness absence was negative in case of high job control and positive in case of low control. Conclusion Longitudinal support was found for the core assumption of the DC model with specific measures of job demands and job control as well as self-report and objectively recorded well-being.

Vitality at work is an important factor for organizations to build a healthier, more engaged, sustainable, and productive workforce. The organizational and societal relevance of vitality at work is high, particularly with regard to an aging and more diverse workforce. This Special Issue focusses on what might be called sustainable performance at work: Maximizing work performance as well as worker health and well-being through employee vitality. Currently, there are still many gaps of knowledge with regard to the relationship between employee vitality and sustainable performance at work. Examples of knowledge gaps are concerned with potential determinants of vitality at work for different occupational groups (such as older workers, ethnic minority workers, and handicapped workers), pathways linking vitality to sustainable performance, or health effects of interventions targeting employee vitality and/or sustainable performance at work. With this Special Issue, we hope to provide readers with solid new findings extending the current state of knowledge about employee vitality and sustainable work performance.

Although the concept of employee sustainable performance has received considerable attention in the practitioner literature, academic research still lacks a clear conceptualization and empirical operationalization of this concept. Defining employee sustainable performance as a regulatory process in which an individual worker enduringly and efficiently achieves particular desired work goals while maintaining a satisfactory level of well-being, this paper describes a corresponding instrument called E-SuPer, and examines its psychometric properties. The E-SuPer instrument was tested and cross-validated using two cross-sectional survey studies (n = 153 and n = 160), focusing on factorial validity, internal consistency, and discriminant and concurrent validity. Psychometric findings across the two samples revealed that the E-SuPer instrument consists of one general factor of ten items with good internal consistency. Discriminant validity and concurrent validity with other relevant constructs (task performance, counterproductive work behavior, and employee vitality) were also confirmed, showing promising results. Finally, theoretical and practical implications, as well as suggestions for future research, are outlined.