This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
4, October 2001 (© 2001)
Occupational Stress in University Staff
Anthony H. Winefield1,3 and Richard Jarrett2
A survey was conducted of all staff members of an established Australian metropolitan university. The overall response rate for noncasual staff was 72% (77% for general staff and 65% for academic staff ) resulting in a sample of N = 2,040. High levels of psychological stress were observed, despite the fact that trait anxiety and job satisfaction were normal. Psychological distress was highest and job satisfaction lowest among academic staff engaged in both teaching and research. In general, university staff reported high levels of autonomy and social support from colleagues. However those engaged in both teaching and research reported increased pressure arising from funding cuts to universities, resulting in heavier teaching loads and greater difficulty in securing research funds, as well as a decline in facilities and support for both teaching and research. The results are discussed in relation to the Demand–Control and Person–Environment Fit models of job stress.
KEY WORDS: occupational stress; university staff.
INTRODUCTION Although universities have traditionally been regarded as low stress working environments, during the 1990s there have been significant reductions in government funding of public universities, particularly in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. These have resulted in significant changes and increased pressures on staff (Fisher, 1994; Winefield, 2000).
School of Psychology, University of South Australia. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Melbourne. 3 Correspondence should be directed to Tony Winefield, School of Psychology, University of South Australia, City East Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; e-mail: tony. firstname.lastname@example.org. 285
1072-5245/01/1000-0285$19.50/0 © 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
In many western countries. Tenure has been regarded as the only guarantee of academic freedom. Daniels and Guppie (1992). to compare stress levels between different categories of staff as well as to identify the main perceived sources of stress. Mitchell.’ and there has been an increase in contract (as opposed to tenure track) appointments. and unproductive. as acting as social critic. in response to increasing financial pressures. Walsh. Stressful jobs. are those that combine high demands with low control. inter alia. & Dua. Cruise. . Wilke. and Boyd and Wylie (1994) in New Zealand. a large-scale national longitudinal investigation of occupational stress commenced in 17 of the 38 Australian public universities. This research. even when their views are unpopular with the university administration. Critics of tenure have pointed out that it protects the lazy. including the University of Adelaide reported here (Gillespie. academics have traditionally enjoyed high levels of autonomy. These changes have been accompanied by government policies encouraging universities to reduce their dependence on government funding and to seek increased support from the private sector. where appropriate. thereby effectively abolishing job security. During the past 4 or 5 years. sought. and the results of the present study will hopefully provide valuable baseline data for the national study. Several reports have appeared in the research literature of studies of stress in university staff in different countries. part of a broader climate survey commissioned by the vice chancellor. The study reported here was conducted in the mid-1990s (1994–1995). Winefield. and Blix (1994). 2000. or the government. Examples include: Gmelch. and Wilkinson and Joseph (1995) in the UK. just before Australian universities began to implement policies whereby tenured staff (both academic and general) began to be made involuntarily redundant. incompetent. and denies opportunities to talented young scholars. Consequently. Bradley and Eachus (1995). even if the jobs are demanding (jobs characterized by high demands and high control are seen as ‘active. and Richard and Krieshok (1989) in the USA. the scientific establishment. 2000). jobs in which there is a high level of control or autonomy should not be stressful. Molony.286 Winefield and Jarrett In terms of Karasek’s (1979) Demand–Control theory of job stress. although academic work has not been highly paid. according to the theory. Stough. So-called tenured staff can be (and have been) made ‘involuntarily redundant. Dua (1994) in Australia. Abouserie (1996). 2000). and Lovrich (1986). Blix. freedom to publish and to speak openly. academic freedom has been highly valued because the role (and responsibility) of the academic has been seen as the fearless pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and. many Australian universities have abandoned tenure (Coady. More recently.’ but not stressful). All of these studies have found that academic stress has become a cause of concern as a result of increased work pressures.
(1994) in the USA (40%). Materials/Measures The first section of the survey form included demographic questions asking participants about the area or department in which they worked. which resulted in considerable publicity and unrestricted access to university communication channels for distributing reminder notices. yielding a response rate of 57. many of whom were either difficult to contact or. they are higher than in those studies of university staff reported by Dua (1994) in Australia (46%). It included the Warr.2%) and for the full-time. number of years employed. noncasual academic staff from whom 602 survey forms (out of 920 sent out) were received (65. The high response rates obtained in this study compare favorably with those from other recent studies. Ages ranged from 17 to 69. contract. Among the noncasual staff. Eight categories of staff were distinguished. however. This can be attributed to the strong support for the study from both the university administration and the union. The highest response rates were for the full-time. age. ranging from full time to casual (and including various categories of part-time staff). tenurable. The lowest response rate was for the casual general staff from whom 216 survey forms (out of 725 sent out) were received (29. the numbers reported in the following tables were usually less than this. .2%. because they were students. no doubt saw the questionnaire as irrelevant. The second section focused on the work environment. four categories of academic staff and four categories of general staff. casual). the overall response rate was 72. The sample represented an overall response rate of 57. 51% of the respondents were men and 49% were women.040 employees of the University of Adelaide. Because of missing data. and sex. an established Australian metropolitan university.040 (out of 3.1%. The response rate was 77. their job classification.2% among general staff and 65. this figure was depressed by a very low response rate among casual staff.570) survey forms were received. 2.186 sent out) were received (77. For example. type of employment contract (tenured.4% among academic staff (faculty). noncasual general staff from whom 916 survey forms (out of 1.8%). Overall.1%.4%). by Blix et al. and by Daniels and Guppy (1992) in the UK (39%).University Stress 287 METHOD Participants Participants were 2.
(5) Liaison with other areas. and Jacobs. (2) Physical environment. The GHQ-12 has been recommended by Banks et al. The sixth section included the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire. 1983). (4) Decision making. Examples of questions from the trait anxiety scale are: “I feel nervous and restless” and “I lack self confidence” with a 4-point response scale from “almost never” to “almost always. Staff were to express their level of agreement on a 5point rating scale (1 = strongly disagree. 1972). and a short (10-item) version of the Spielberger trait anxiety scale (Spielberger. and attitudes to different areas within it. Procedure The parts of the questionnaire that are reported in this article focused on the levels and perceived causes of stress that were apparent in university staff. There were open-ended questions within each section of the survey form. Vagg. and Wall (1979) 16-item job satisfaction scale (each item being answered on a 7-point rating scale (Table 1) as well as questions relating to the specific work group. (3) Administrative support of the area. The fourth and fifth sections included questions about teaching and research. Lushene. the GHQ-12 (Goldberg. attitudes to the university as a whole. Examples of GHQ-12 questions are: “Have you recently lost much sleep over worry?” and “Have you recently felt constantly under strain?” with possible responses ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (much more than usual). 5 = strongly agree) that major difficulties were caused by each of the 11 variables. Gorsuch. (1980) as a valid indicator of mental ill health (or psychological distress) in occupational studies. In the third section. (8) Recognition for effort. including management style and communications. only members of the academic staff involved in these activities were invited to complete them. (10) Staff conflicts. Payne (1988) has argued that all studies of occupational stress should include a measure of negative affectivity such as trait anxiety (or trait neuroticism). and (11) Computing facilities. (6) Information flow. The 11 potential sources were: (1) Funding of the area. (9) Communication within area.” The final section included questions about the organizational climate/culture. (7) Barriers to promotion/career progression.288 Winefield and Jarrett Cook. The latter questions were developed following extensive discussions and consultations with a steering group (see Procedure). The overall questionnaire was developed as an organizational climate survey that was commissioned by the university vice chancellor (chief executive offi- . all staff were asked to identify which of 11 potential sources of stress they perceived to cause problems in their work area.
” (The scores on the global item were highly correlated with the overall score. In developing the questionnaire.05 was used. global item. extensive preliminary discussions were held with a steering committee of about 12 people.7 over the 15 scale items with a mean of 4. The survey forms were distributed through the university internal mail system. The study was also supported by the main industrial union representing the staff. with r = 0. with several reminder notices after distribution. officers) and nominees suggested by the NTEU designed to provide a representative cross-section of staff across the university. and mean scores less than 4 indicated varying levels of dissatisfaction. . The rating scale ranged from 1 = extremely dissatisfied to 7 = extremely satisfied. the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU). All post hoc tests were conducted using the Fisher LSD (Least Significant Difference) test.76. The covering letter explained that “We have given a guarantee of confidentiality to the University that no attempt will be made to identify individual responses.00.71. ranked in order of rated satisfaction.) Responses to the individual items suggest that the university staff were generally most satisfied with their autonomy (freedom to choose own method of working and amount of responsibility given) and least satisfied with their promotion prospects and the way the university was managed. RESULTS In reporting results of tests of statistical significance. Members of the steering committee comprised representatives of the university management (personnel.” and “The report to senior management will not allow the identification of any individual or group smaller than five people. The total satisfaction rating was 70. are shown in Table 1. Responses to Psychological Scales The overall responses to the job satisfaction scale (means and standard deviations for each of the 16 items). so that mean scores greater than 4 indicated varying levels of satisfaction.University Stress 289 cer). 5. which is only slightly lower than the mean response to the final. This corresponds to the response category “moderately satisfied. an alpha level of .” In order to maximize the response rate. the survey was widely publicized through the university weekly newspaper and through the union newsletter. The final version of the survey form was short enough to be completed within 30 minutes and was anonymous. occupational health and safety.
3 3.3 70.8 17.9 16.3 1. 10.030) Job satisfaction 71. 12.8 GHQ-12 11. 1990) = 5.4 71.8 73.95.4 65.7 70.0 SD 1.3 4. 3.6 1.2 1.0 13. How do you feel about your job as a whole? *Scores ranged from 1 = extremely dissatisfied to 7 = extremely satisfied. All Staff: Responses to Job Satisfaction Scale* (N = 2030) Satisfaction item 1.0 16.5 1. The freedom to choose your own method of working The amount of variety in your job Your fellow workers The amount of responsibility you are given Your immediate supervisor Your hours of work Your opportunity to use your abilities The physical work conditions The recognition you get for good work Your job security Your rate of pay Industrial relations between management and staff The attention to suggestions you make Your chance of promotion/reclassification The way the university is managed Mean 5.0 12.1 70. The classifications differed significantly on job satisfaction. Table 2. 13.2 12.4 1.9 17.7 73.6 11. Post hoc tests showed that Head/Directors and General staff—professional were both significantly higher than Academic—teaching/research and General staff—cleaning/trades.0 73. F (9.0 4.6 1.05. 4.8 13. 15.2 5.0 68.0 71.1 5.8 1.8 12.4 1.1 1.5 11.4 1.4 5. Table 2 shows the mean overall scores on the three psychological scales: job satisfaction.4 3.4 5.1 11.9 12. 9.4 17.290 Winefield and Jarrett Table 1.5 4.4 1.5 4.0 15.4 5. 14.5 17.1 12.9 17.2 Trait anxiety 15.3 4.5 16.8 4.5 5.6 11.8 16.1 . and trait anxiety by job classification and sex. 11.006) Total (N=2.2 1.2 **16.5 18. **This item does not form part of the scale. 5. All Staff: Mean Scores on Three Psychological Scales by Job Classification Classification Dean/Chief Officer (n = 23) Head/Director (n = 64) Academic—teaching/research (n = 445) Academic—research only (n = 109) Academic—teaching only (n = 189) General staff—administrative (n = 479) General staff—technical (n = 317) General staff—professional (n = 208) General staff—cleaning/trades (n = 83) Other (n = 113) Females (n = 985) Males (n = 1.4 1.4 10. 2. 8.3 17.0 70. GHQ-12.1 72. 6. p < .6 1.6 1.6 5. 7.
Post hoc tests showed that trait anxiety was significantly higher in Law and Mathematical Sciences than in Architecture.42). 43.84 (SD = 3. t (1518) = 4. t (1518) = 2. and lower on trait anxiety (means of 16.64. significantly lower on the GHQ (means of 11.05.44 (SD = 3. 1972) = 7. and negative affect (as measured by trait anxiety). binary scoring is used with scores of 0 or 1 being combined and treated as 0. The general staff scored significantly higher on job satisfaction (means of 71. and on the GHQ. Economics. On post hoc tests. Dentistry. Dentistry. p < . However.9 respectively). There were no significant gender differences in the mean levels of job satisfaction.85.05. p < .71. Post hoc tests showed that job satisfaction was higher in Medicine than in any of the other areas and lower in Arts and Performing Arts than in Medicine. Economics. and Agricultural Science. Law. and scores of 2 or 3 combined and treated as 1. Further analyses were conducted in order to compare the academic staff with the general staff. those employed for the shortest period (less .5 respectively).42. stress (as measured by the GHQ). p < . 1441) = 4.8 and 13. Notably.64. the rates varied across areas ranging from a low of 27. but differed significantly on trait anxiety. F (5. 1992) = 3. p > .54) and the mean for the academic staff was even higher. As Table 4 shows. p < . F (5. Table 4 shows mean scores on the three scales as a function of length of service.6% (Finance Branch) to a high of 52.26. t (1518) = 6. Using binary scoring. the groups also differed significantly. F (5. p < . Of the present sample of university staff. The groups differed on job satisfaction. the GHQ12 is also often used to classify potential “cases” (possibly requiring clinical intervention). F (10. The two groups showing the highest levels of distress were the academics engaged in both teaching and research and the Heads/Directors (of academic or administrative units). 2. 1991) = 4. 1973) = 1. Engineering.3 respectively).05. The groups also differed on trait anxiety. and Medicine. F (9.05. Post hoc tests showed that the highest status group (Dean/Chief Officer) and the lowest status group (General staff—cleaning/trades) were significantly lower than all of the other groups except Head/Director and Other.University Stress 291 In terms of psychological distress (as measured by the GHQ-12). Table 3 shows mean scores on the three scales in each of the 11 academic areas. p < . The areas differed significantly in job satisfaction.06. The areas did not differ significantly on the GHQ. the overall mean was 2.05. but not on trait anxiety.9 and 17. p < .6 and 68.33. F (9.05.7% would have been classified as potential cases. these two groups were significantly higher than all of the other groups except for the Academic—research only group. p < . When used for this purpose.05.05. It needs to be noted that the GHQ-12 scores in Table 2 were based on Likert scoring with response categories ranging from 0–3.5% (Arts). 2010) = 7.13.05.
3 16.9 69. 1981) = 6.2 12. 1964) = 4.7 12. p < .6 70.83. and on trait anxiety.8 17. 1972) = 6.8 GHQ-12 12.6 12. 1966) = 1.1 66.5 12. F (5.2 68.2 17. The groups differed significantly on job satisfaction.9 16. Post hoc tests revealed that the two youngest groups were significantly higher than each of the three oldest groups.1 12.4 17. on the GHQ.7 GHQ-12 10.292 Winefield and Jarrett Table 3. F (5. 1964) = 4. although there was a significant difference on trait anxiety. All Staff: Mean Scores on Psychological Scales by Academic Area Area Agricultural Science (n = 241) Architecture (n = 17) Arts (Humanities/Social Sciences) (n = 199) Dentistry (n = 89) Economics (n = 72) Engineering (n = 117) Law (n = 40) Mathematical Sciences (n = 84) Medicine (n = 221) Performing Arts (n = 71) Science (n = 304) Total (for entire sample N = 1.7 71.7 70.5 17. p < .6 12.6 10. Table 6 shows mean scores on the three scales as a function of type of employment contract.455) Job satisfaction 71.82.9 69.3 16.05.9 16.9 11.999) Job satisfaction 75.68. p < .1 . 1987) = 1.05.05. Post hoc tests showed that those employed for less than 1 year were significantly higher on job satisfaction and significantly lower on the GHQ than each of the other groups.7 69. Table 5 shows mean scores on the three scales as a function of age.05.7 69. with the exception of those employed for 1–2 years (from whom they did not differ significantly).6 17.9 72.2 74.05.2 than a year) showed the highest job satisfaction and the least distress.3 11. F (5. F (5.8 16.7 16.8 12.1 11.87.0 72.5 70.4 18.7 17.5 12.1 72.05.8 12.9 12.2 11. p < .31.8 70.6 70.2 Trait anxiety 17. F (5. There were no statistically significant differences between the six age groups on job satisfaction.95.5 16.0 12. or on the GHQ.6 17. p > .8 13. Table 4.5 71. p > .2 Trait anxiety 17.5 16. F (5.8 18. All Staff: Mean Scores on Psychological Scales by Length of Service Length of service Under 1 Year (n = 240) 1–2 Years (n = 212) 2–5 Years (n = 493) 5–10 Years (n = 413) 10–20 Years (n = 375) Over 20 Years (n = 266) Total (N = 1.
8 GHQ-12 12. and on trait anxiety. and Casual groups.8 17.8 17. 634) = 3.05. F (3.0 70.2 17. p < .05.1 72. All Staff: Mean Scores on Three Psychological Scales for Staff with Different Employment Contracts Current contract with university Tenured/Permanent (n = 923) Tenurable (n = 63) Continuing (n = 100) Contract—up to 1 year (n = 382) Contract—over 1 year (n = 210) Casual (n = 302) Total (N = 1. Table 6.996) Job satisfaction 71.6 70.0 17.8 74.8 14. The highest status group was significantly lower on the GHQ than each of the intermediate status groups (although not significantly different from the lowest status group).7 69. Post hoc tests showed that the two higher status groups (combined) were significantly higher on job satisfaction than the two lower status groups (combined).2 . 636) = 2.6 15.74. p < .7 14.8 12.2 293 Trait anxiety 18. All Staff: Mean Scores on Psychological Scales by Age Age Under 29 (n = 466) 30–39 (n = 504) 40–49 (n = 570) 50–59 (n = 376) 60–65 (n = 65) Over 65 (n = 15) Total (N = 1.1 71.92.9 17.6 12.2 12.1 Post hoc tests showed that the Casual and Continuing staff (combined) expressed significantly greater job satisfaction and were significantly lower on the GHQ than the other four groups combined. Table 7 shows mean scores on the three psychological scales as a function of academic seniority.9 12.7 10. There were no significant differences on job satisfaction or psychological distress between the men and women or between the different age categories.8 16. Contract.0 71.5 16. p < . the Tenurable group was significantly higher on the GHQ than the Continuing.1 10.8 17.0 70. Also. on the GHQ-12.980) Job satisfaction 69.7 12.4 12.70.05.2 Trait anxiety 16.9 70. 634) = 8. the Continuing group was significantly lower on trait anxiety than the Tenurable group and each of the Contract groups. Finally. F (3.7 70. The four groups differed on job satisfaction.8 GHQ-12 11.5 10.0 12.3 69.9 12. F (3.University Stress Table 5.4 15.3 70.9 17.
2 17.05. F (4. Main Sources of Stress With respect to the third section of the survey.9 12.7 (computing facilities) to 3. Post hoc tests showed that the lowest status group (HEO 1) was significantly lower than the three highest status groups.86.3 (information flow. or in trait anxiety.3 Trait anxiety 15.6 67. General Staff: Mean Scores on Three Psychological Scales by Seniority HEO* level HEO 8 or 9 (n = 73) HEO 6 or 7 (n = 205) HEO 4 or 5 (n = 357) HEO 2 or 3 (n = 399) HEO 1 (n = 38) Total (N = 1.3 16.0 18. F (4. .1 68.1.8 16. Funding was perceived as a greater problem in the academic areas than in the nonacademic areas.3 70.5 13. p < .1 12.05.9 *Higher Education Officer (HEO 9 is highest level).072) Job satisfaction 72. 1045) = 1. For example.0 18.0 70. p > .6 71.8 Trait anxiety 16.05.1 16. the five general staff groups did not differ on the GHQ.7 68.8 73.3 11. overall.06.5 17. The exception was funding. p < . ranging from 2. p > . the two highest status groups were each lower in trait anxiety than each of the lowest status groups.5 68. The groups differed in terms of job satisfaction.27.9 16.9 16. χ2 (1) = 6. only 2 of the 11 academic areas (Economics and Medicine) gave it a mean rating of less than 4. in which 11 potential sources of stress were identified.3 11.294 Winefield and Jarrett Table 7. 10 of the means were around 3 (the midpoint of the scale). F (4.05.3 11. 1062) = 2. However. Table 8.1 72. 1066) = 2.0 14.5 Finally.37. barriers to promotion).0 13.6 GHQ-12 12. for which the mean was 4.2 11. Academic Staff: Mean Scores on Three Psychological Scales by Seniority Position Dean/Chief Officer (n = 23) Professors/Associate Professors (n = 127) Lecturers/Senior Lecturers (n = 315) Postdocs/Junior Lecturers (n = 172) Total (N = 637) Job satisfaction 71. Table 8 shows mean scores on the three psychological scales as a function of seniority for general staff.9 GHQ-12 11. unlike the academic groups. whereas only two of the nine nonacademic areas (Library and Finance Branch) gave it a mean rating of 4 or more.
. which were comparable to the normative data reported by Spielberger et al.98) in a sample of academic (faculty) members. Daniels and Guppy (1992). Byrne. psychological distress was lower in the most senior and most junior levels than in the intermediate levels.. which was significantly lower than the corresponding mean of 12. Richard & Krieshok. displaying two or more symptoms). job satisfaction increased and trait anxiety decreased with academic seniority although.91) in the present study. 1989). It seems unlikely that the high levels of psychological stress observed in this study can be attributed to internal rather than environmental factors.0 for females and 16. 1994. Wilkinson and Joseph (1995) reported a mean of 2. 1996.3 for males).University Stress 295 DISCUSSION The overall level of psychological distress as measured by the GHQ-12 was very high.84 (SD = 3. using Likert scoring. Some studies of academic stress have shown that stress is higher in more junior than in more senior staff (Abouserie. with more than 40% of the sample having scores of 2 or more (i.9 reported by Clegg and Wall (1981) in a sample of employees in an engineering company. p < . Gmelch et al. .g. & Adcock.05. 1986. There seems no obvious explanation for these conflicting findings.30 (SD = 4. Boyd & Wylie. An interesting aspect of the findings was that despite the high levels of psychological distress..e.05.15 (SD = 2.8 for males (Table 2). For example.. Henderson.42) in the present study.40) in a sample of both academic and support staff. reported a mean of 11. Most other Australian studies have found potential case rates of around 20–30% using the same measure (e. (1983) (18. For example. Scott. 1979).. including the present ones (see Table 2).20. 1986).00. particularly when binary scoring was applied. the mean of 70.5 for females and 16. Using binary scoring. Gmelch et al. It is also high by comparison with GHQ-12 scores reported by two British studies of university staff. As the means from the four levels of academic staff shown in Table 7 indicate. This is very high by Australian standards. 1994). The present study found that stress levels were higher in more junior academic staff. t (2180) = 2. 1996.97. although other investigators. t (846) = 1. found no difference between men and women (Abouserie. Several studies of academic stress have found that women report higher stress levels than men (Blix et al. somewhat surprisingly. the mean levels of trait anxiety were 17. which was significantly lower than the corresponding mean of 2. Moreover. p < . although others have found no difference (Richard & Krieshok. job satisfaction was relatively high. Duncan-Jones. which is well above the midpoint of the 7-point rating scale (Table 1) and reflects a moderate amount of job satisfaction. 1989).8 was similar to the mean of 71. 1994. Sharpley. the mean rating for the global satisfaction item was 5.20 (SD = 5.
296 Winefield and Jarrett As other studies have found. Interestingly. poor performance is hard to conceal. and research) is readily identified: For example. 442) An additional job demand that has been increasing in recent years has been the expectation that academics should attract external funding through research grants or research consultancies. job stress can be a consequence of two kinds of mismatch: a mismatch between the requirements of the job and the ability of . could produce first class research without needing large research grants. (Winefield. Winefield (2000) has drawn attention to some of the increased demands on academic staff and speculated that poor performance in any of the three main areas of academic work (undergraduate teaching. the academic area in which job satisfaction was lowest and psychological distress was highest. which includes the Humanities. p. Student evaluations of teaching are expected to be included in ‘teaching portfolios’ that are taken into account by tenure and promotions committees. and lecturers are routinely subjected to student evaluations of their teaching. or whose theses are failed by examiners. and whose publications (if any) are never cited are clearly not performing satisfactorily. Finally. Universities in Australia (and no doubt other countries too) have experienced major organizational changes in recent years with academic decision making becoming less collegial and more managerial and autocratic (Coady. Caplan. was the Arts area. even though there was overall satisfaction with hours of work (Table 1). This is particularly true in the Humanities. 2000. according to which high stress jobs are defined as those combining high demands with low control or autonomy. Academics who fail to attract postgraduate students. At the same time. are clearly poor performers. 2000). who never attract external funding for their research. This has meant that control has shifted from academics to university senior managers. These changes might be expected to result in increased levels of stress in faculty and decreased stress in administrative staff (particularly senior administrative staff). poor research performance is easily identified. In the case of postgraduate supervision. many respondents identified increased workloads resulting from funding cuts as the main cause of their job stress. Academics who never publish. Traditionally academics were not expected to generate external income and thus may not necessarily possess the kind of entrepreneurial skills that are required to do so. 2000. where outstanding scholars in disciplines such as History or Philosophy for example. 1984). demands have increased as a result of pressures brought about through decreased funding and increased demands for accountability. Molony. Winefield (2000) has argued that increased levels of academic stress would be predicted by Karasek’s Demand–Control theory. or whose postgraduate students drop out. & van Harrison. According to the Person–Environment Fit model of job stress (French. There can be few occupations in which performance is so open to public scrutiny. postgraduate thesis supervision. undergraduate lectures can be attended by colleagues.
2. G.. (1994). REFERENCES Abouserie. Bradley. J. 36... Jackson. T. & Wall. this study was conducted just before Australian universities started to implement policies of making tenured university staff (both academic/faculty and general/administrative staff) involuntarily redundant. 145–158. P. The use of the General Health Questionnaire as an indicator of mental health in occupational studies. W. 187–194. G. R. thereby effectively abolishing tenure. Stress. H. M. . & Wylie.K. In general. International Journal of Stress Management. Higher Education Institution.University Stress 297 the worker to meet those requirements. G. most of the differences in job satisfaction and psychological distress were unrelated to differences in trait anxiety. 49–56. Occupational stress within a U. J. R. (1996). C. Banks. J. As can be seen from Table 7. Stafford. Mitchell. On the other hand. Clegg. M. Boyd.. (1994)... New Zealand Council for Educational Research and the Association of University Staff of New Zealand.. A. P. referred to earlier. (1995). S.. R. Educational Psychology. This could mean that individuals who are low in trait anxiety are more likely to be successful in their academic careers and that academic seniority or low trait anxiety (or both) contribute to job satisfaction. & Eachus. coping strategies and job satisfaction in university academic staff. 2000).. 16. Workload and stress in New Zealand universities. The only exception was in relation to academic seniority. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 157–169. Cruise. D. The changing nature of academic work suggests that both kinds of mismatch may be increasing for those academics who entered their profession some time ago. and a mismatch between the worker’s expectation of what the job involves and what it actually involves. & Blix. The effect of this should become apparent when the data reported here are compared with similar data collected in the national longitudinal study of occupational stress in Australian universities commencing in 2000 (Gillespie et al. B. the two most senior groups were the lowest in trait anxiety as well as the highest in job satisfaction. Educational Research. Kemp. C. Occupational stress among university teachers. E. Finally. younger academics may find that the new job demands fit their expectations and entrepreneurial skills and may choose to enter a profession that recognizes and rewards them.. Blix. M. 53. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to thank the University of Adelaide and its staff for their cooperation and assistance in undertaking this study. then we might expect to find an increasing difference in stress levels between older academics and those recruited in more recent times. If this is so. (1980). N..
(1995). & van Harrison. 4–7. 6.. Goldberg. Cook. 27. T. 117–132. In T.. Dimensions of stress among university faculty: Factor-analytic results from a national study. T. S. Daniels. N. A. Stough. 266– 286. Note on some new scales for measuring aspects of psychological well-being. C. 347–353.. Caplan. Lushene.. Winefield. Coady (Ed. P. S. Gmelch. R. A. & Williams. P. Spielberger. C. J. Occupational stress within Australian universities: Staff perceptions of the determinants.. H. 285–308. H. Sharpley.. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. G. 24. Jr. Work and Stress. 24. & Dua. Report of a survey of stress and health at Monash University. & J. (2000). R. Administrative Science Quarterly. A. K. job decision latitude. D. Occupational stress. D. P. J. & Krieshok. Why universities matter (pp. Kenny. J.. 72–84). Wilkinson. 3–25). (1989). (1992). Richard. Australian universities today. consequences and moderators of work stress. S. Duncan-Jones.. Gillespie. (2000). G. Control. (1984). (1979). & Guppy. D. S.. Gorsuch.. (1994). 355–374. K.). L.. Molony. Research in Higher Education. J. Melbourne: Centre for Stress Management and Research. C. information-seeking preferences. McGuigan. 52. Stress in academic life. M. D. Carlson. In T.. Human Relations. Universities and the ideals of inquiry. Sloan. Walsh. NSW: Allen & Unwin. A. Occupational stress indicator: Management guide. Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. (1983). B. T. & Wall. J. London: Oxford University Press. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. The mechanisms of job stress and strain. C. (1979). R. 119–138. (2000). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. (1981). Palo Alto. (1994). NSW: Allen & Unwin. T. Job demands. 59–78. H.. J. 35th Annual Conference of the Australian Psychological Society. R. P. N. D. Henderson. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. St Leonards.. (2000). S.. 60. Job stressors and their effects on physical health..). Scott. V. emotional health.. R. (1988). L. P.. F. Vagg. Stress and health (pp. 41.. K. Coady (Ed.. S. Monash University. (1988).. & Lovrich. Warr. UK: NFER-Nelson. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. Why universities matter (pp. P. New York: Wiley. P. Byrne. Fisher. Journal of Educational Administration. J.. Karasek. Buckingham. R. R.). L. R.298 Winefield and Jarrett Clegg. C. K. K. (1979). (1986). Dua. Stress in academe: Some recent research findings. A longitudinal study of the psychological well-being of unemployed men and the mediating effect of neuroticism. occupational stressors and psychological well-being. (1994). strain and coping strategies in university faculty. W. Wilke. French. UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. & Adcock. W. Coady. Canberra. R. Journal of Occupational Psychology. & Wall. (1972). Faculty of Education. T. D. and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. J. F. & Joseph. G. J. and job satisfaction in a university. Burnout in university teaching staff. A. The Occupational Psychologist. S. G. J. 437–446). Cooper. 34. Windsor. 129–148.. . A. Sheppard (Eds.. Winefield. Psychiatric disorder in Canberra: A standardised study of prevalence. & Jacobs. 32. St Leonards. L. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 221–225. In D. Payne. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. 52.