165 Proactive Vitality Management Among Employees with Chronic Liver Disease behavioral responses to high versus low levels of workload. Some individuals may adopt an adaptive and approach-oriented coping style to deal with their job demands, for instance by seeking support, planning ahead, and by proactively managing their physical and mental energy (see also, Bakker & De Vries, 2021). However, high workload may also trigger a more maladaptive and avoidance coping style, in which people act passively or even disengage (Bakker & De Vries, 2021; Roth & Cohen, 1986). Moreover, chronically ill employees often encounter stigmatization and inconsiderate supervisors and colleagues at work (Beatty, 2012; McGonagle & Barnes-Farrell, 2014), which may make it more difficult to engage in proactive vitality management in a way that is favorable and beneficial to them (Op den Kamp et al., 2020). At the same time, instead of being a passive recipient influenced by external resources, individuals may proactively seek to capitalize on available resources by engaging in goal-directed behaviors (Bakker, 2017; Demerouti et al., 2019; Tisu et al., 2021). Indeed, the effective management of physical and mental energy may enable individuals to enact and make optimal use of favorable contextual conditions that may be available to them, such as job autonomy and opportunities for social interaction (Daniels, 2006; Op den Kamp et al., 2020; Tisu et al., 2021). As such, while we focus on changing aspects of the self in contrast to adjusting the job, proactive vitality management may help chronically ill individuals to benefit from available resources and deal with job demands more effectively. Future studies could examine how various job demands and resources – and perhaps related behavioral strategies such as job crafting – interact with proactive vitality management in their impact on occupational health and performance. Even when chronically ill individuals – driven by reason-to and can-do motivation – aim to use proactive vitality management to promote their functional capacity, they may not always succeed and achieve the intended, beneficial effect. Proactive, self-regulatory behaviors are prone to various personal and contextual influences, and sometimes having a certain goal and feeling one is capable of achieving the goal may not suffice in achieving the desired outcome (Parker et al., 2010). Our findings suggest that it may be helpful to be aware of personal needs and preferences in the process, i.e., about when and how to employ which specific strategies to manage physical and mental energy for work. Future research may examine more closely the drivers of proactive vitality management and the potential boundary conditions that 6
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw