{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024336283185840708, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0029498525073746312, 'mean_word_length': 5.224770642201835, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
With great power comes more job demands: The dynamic effects of experienced power on perceived job demands and their discordant effects on employee outcomes.

In this work, we consider the complex and discordant effects that psychological power has on powerholders. To do so, we integrate the situated focus theory of power, which identifies perceptions of job demands as a key outcome of power, with new insights from the challenge-hindrance framework, which acknowledges that job demands may both help and hurt employees. Our model delineates how power-induced job demands may simultaneously benefit (manifested as goal progress and meaningfulness) and harm (manifested as physical discomfort and anxiety) powerholders. By identifying job demands as a key mediator we provide an integrative account of the nuanced effects that power has on powerholders. Additionally, we show that the relationship between feeling powerful and perceiving one's job to be demanding is stronger for employees higher (vs. lower) in neuroticism. We tested our theoretical model in two studies-a field experiment where we tested the full model, and a second experiment where we conceptually replicated the effect of power on perceived job demands. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).