The work environment, stress and well-being (original) (raw)
Related papers
Work & Stress, 2002
This cross-sectional questionnaire study presents a multi-level analysis on 2565 workers in 188 departments in 36 organizations in the Netherlands. A three-level model is used in which individual workers are nested within departments, which in turn are nested within organizations. Research questions concern (1) the amount and distribution of variance in job-related stress explained for the three levels in the study (individuals, departments, organizations), and (2) the speci® city of relationships between psychosocial job demands and job-related stress in the three-level model. Well-being showed slightly more raw variance to be explained at supra-individual levels than strain. The full regression model explained about 35% of the total variance in both work-related strain and well-being. Psychosocial job conditions did not exceed the expected amount of 10 to 15% contribution to this explained variance. These results do not diVer from comparable studies that do not use multi-level analysis. The variance distribution in the full model, however, showed unexplained variance to be located at the individual level for both strain and well-being, and at the departmental level only for well-being. This last ® nding shows a direction for possible improvement of work stress models. Speci® city of relationships was also shown: psychological job demands were more strongly related to strain, whereas job content variables (i.e. job variety, job control) were more strongly related to well-being. Results also suggested that social support was more strongly associated with well-being than with strain. Well-being appeared to have a more widely varying range of predictors than strain.
Examining and Exploring the Shifting Nature of Occupational Stress and Well-Being
Emerald Publishing Limited eBooks, 2021
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters' suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. His work addresses three broad and overlapping questions: (1) How do life experiences impact personality? (2) What are the processes by which personality impacts important life outcomes? and (3) What is the optimal way to assess personality?
5 Health Psychology and Work Stress: A More
I'm stressed out'' is the refrain of many workers. They know too well the experience of distress or strain that can accompany work. They also know, however, that there are times when they operate "in the zone" at work. Time is suspended, there is a feeling of engagement, intense task focus, and pleasurable emotions. Yet it seems easier for workers to describe the negative experience of stress than the positive experience of stress. Although many have heard the term distress, few are familiar with eustress. The purpose of this chapter is to propose a more positive, holistic approach for understanding work stress by incorporating eustress, the positive stress response, along with its positive indicators and associated positive outcomes.
Individual Differences on Job Stress and Related Ill Health
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 2014
Citation: Stefanovska Petkovska M, Velik Stefanovska V, Bojadziev M. Individual Differences on Job Stress and Related Ill Health. Maced J Med Sci. 2014 Mar 15; 7(1):147-153. http://dx.
Predictive Influence of Job Stress on Mental Health and Work
2016
People react to stress in different ways, some coping much better than others and suffering fewer of the harmful effects in their behaviour and wellbeing. Just as stress differs as a function of the individual, it also differs as a function of one’s type of occupation. Some occupations are, of course, inherently more stressful than others. All of the stress-strain-health relationships have an obvious impact on the organization and industry. Occupational stress is becoming increasingly globalized and affects all countries, all professions and all categories of workers, as well as families and society in general. Job stressed has made the quality of service delivery of workers to reduce drastically and as such many rich people with high socio-economic status end up moving their family abroad when they are unhealthy. The poor men with low socio-economic status end up exposing themselves to low quality of service delivery in the hospitals. These always lead to the increment in the mater...
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
Industrial Health, 2014
This study aimed to investigate the reliability and construct validity of a new version of the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (New BJSQ), which measures an extended set of psychosocial factors at work by adding new scales/items to the current version of the BJSQ. Additional scales/items were extensively collected from theoretical job stress models and similar questionnaires in several countries. Scales/items were field-tested and refined through a pilot internet survey. Finally, an 84-item questionnaire (141 items in total when combined with the current BJSQ) was developed. A nationally representative survey was administered to employees in Japan (n=1,633) to examine the reliability and construct validity. Most scales showed acceptable levels of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Principal component analyses showed that the first factor explained 50% or greater proportion of the variance in most scales. A scale factor analysis and a correlation analysis showed that these scales fit the theoretical expectations. These findings provided a piece of evidence that the New BJSQ scales are reliable and valid. Although more detailed content and construct validity should be examined in future study, the New BJSQ is a useful instrument to evaluate psychosocial work environment and positive mental health outcomes in the current workplace.