Occupational stress: Recent findings and new directions (original) (raw)

Constructions of Occupational Stress: Nuisances, Nuances or Novelties?

Research Companion to Organizational Health Psychology, 2005

we should make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein) Overview The concept of stress is as elusive as it is pervasive. Discourses of stress in general and occupational stress in particular are so powerful that they are 'seemingly written into and all over our daily lives' (Newton, 1995, p. 1). But what is stress? Is it a stimulus or a response? Is it an objective, quantifiable, environmental demand or a subjective cognitive appraisal of environmental conditions? Is stress universal or personal? Does stress need 'managing' and, if so, is it a public responsibility or a private concern? In order to answer some of these questions, it is necessary to deconstruct the concept and find its core. This is no easy matter. Heisenberg (1958) reminds us that even 'natural science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves; it describes nature as exposed to our method of questioning'. A construct like occupational stress has been shaped not only by our method of questioning, but by powerful political, cultural, social and economic forces in which work occurs and in which people respond to their work experiences. In this chapter, we will briefly review the major ways of constructing occupational stress, with particular focus on emergent issues, problematic areas, and less used paradigms, before attempting a synthesis of this difficult and complex field. Occupational stress was initially explained and managed within a psychomedical model. This model focused on personal attributes such as personality traits (Type A behavior pattern, neuroticism, negative affectivity, extraversion, introversion, hardiness, locus of control) and coping styles (active, passive, problem or emotion focused and so on) rather than job and organizational characteristics. This construction of work stress made it a 'personal trouble' rather than a 'public concern' and several professions (medicine, psychology, psychiatry, human resource management) have greatly benefited from such an approach. In this model personality deficits or vulnerabilities were considered to be causal, or at least precursors to the experience of occupational stress. On the other hand, the stressor and strain approach attributed the cause of psychological and behavioral strain to work stressors. This view of occupational stress was adopted by the Scandinavian school (see for, example, Levi, 1999). It focuses primarily on work characteristics and the epidemiology of occupational health. Rather than treating the individual, the focus of intervention is work reform. Research into the role of organizational factors in the etiology of occupational stress has followed a similar trajectory to the psychomedical model. Ever lengthening lists of putative factors have been identified. In two early reviews of occupational stress, Cooper (1983; 1985) summarized and categorized six groups of organizational variables, outlined below, that may cause stress in the workplace: 20

The Influence of Occupational stress

Occupational stress is increasing worldwide in all organizations, professions, employees, employers, families and the society. The goal of this research is to investigate the individual’s differences in the perception of occupational stress among employees in relation to their individual differences such as age, gender, marital status, parenthood, number of children, hierarchical level, department, and working hours with a special focus on employees in a large private company in Macedonia, as well as to investigate the levels of perceived stress among the employees in different departments within the company. It also includes an elaboration of a concept of occupational stress emphasizing differences and similarities in academic understanding of the term occupational stress. The results suggests that the greatest level of stress is experienced in the first group of ages or the employees who are between 30 and 39 years old, who work more than 9 hours per day, who are parents of one child and those employed in technical area, at lower department levels. The study also highlights the practical implications based on the results and enables a better understanding of the demographic and work factors that lead to occupational stress. Keywords: occupational stress, sources of occupational stress, individual differences, employee

Constructions of occupational stress: Nuance or novelty?

we should make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein) Overview The concept of stress is as elusive as it is pervasive. Discourses of stress in general and occupational stress in particular are so powerful that they are 'seemingly written into and all over our daily lives' (Newton, 1995, p. 1). But what is stress? Is it a stimulus or a response? Is it an objective, quantifiable, environmental demand or a subjective cognitive appraisal of environmental conditions? Is stress universal or personal? Does stress need 'managing' and, if so, is it a public responsibility or a private concern? In order to answer some of these questions, it is necessary to deconstruct the concept and find its core. This is no easy matter. Heisenberg (1958) reminds us that even 'natural science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves; it describes nature as exposed to our method of questioning'. A construct like occupational stress has been shaped not only by our method of questioning, but by powerful political, cultural, social and economic forces in which work occurs and in which people respond to their work experiences. In this chapter, we will briefly review the major ways of constructing occupational stress, with particular focus on emergent issues, problematic areas, and less used paradigms, before attempting a synthesis of this difficult and complex field. Occupational stress was initially explained and managed within a psychomedical model. This model focused on personal attributes such as personality traits (Type A behavior pattern, neuroticism, negative affectivity, extraversion, introversion, hardiness, locus of control) and coping styles (active, passive, problem or emotion focused and so on) rather than job and organizational characteristics. This construction of work stress made it a 'personal trouble' rather than a 'public concern' and several professions (medicine, psychology, psychiatry, human resource management) have greatly benefited from such an approach. In this model personality deficits or vulnerabilities were considered to be causal, or at least precursors to the experience of occupational stress. On the other hand, the stressor and strain approach attributed the cause of psychological and behavioral strain to work stressors. This view of occupational stress was adopted by the Scandinavian school (see for, example, Levi, 1999). It focuses primarily on work characteristics and the epidemiology of occupational health. Rather than treating the individual, the focus of intervention is work reform. Research into the role of organizational factors in the etiology of occupational stress has followed a similar trajectory to the psychomedical model. Ever lengthening lists of putative factors have been identified. In two early reviews of occupational stress, Cooper (1983; 1985) summarized and categorized six groups of organizational variables, outlined below, that may cause stress in the workplace: 20

Occupational Stress: A Review on Conceptualisations, Causes and Cure

Economic Insights – Trends and Challenges, 2013

Given the complex nature of the concept - occupational stress (also known as work or job stress), it appears a daunting task reaching a unified definition of work stress because of the acknowledged fact that a singular approach may not be able to encompass the breadth of the phenomenon. To this end, the purpose of this paper is to provide a general review of some of the challenges surrounding the conceptuality of occupational stress in literature. Subsequently, the established knowledge regarding the nature and causes of occupational stress were examined in light of the conceptual typology of Murphy (1995) and Michie (2002) that portrays various sources of workplace stress which has been categorized as emanating from the context and content of work. These stress sources are consequentially known to produce dire organisational and extra-organisational outcomes such as low morale, poor performance, career uncertainty, absenteeism, health problems, work-life conflict, turnover and other reverses that undermine competitive objectives of business. As solutions, stress curative measures are discussed to assist managers to understand the significance of providing effective stress management interventions that can enhance employee well-being and organisational productivity.

Occupational Stress: Towards an Integrated Model

COERC 2011, 2011

Occupational stress impacts employees' physical and mental health, as well as productivity and performance. This literature review provides an overview of occupational stress, highlighting two major models. The relationship between supervisory behavior and occupational stress is explored.