Higher Education Research & Development

Vol. 24, No. 1, February 2005, pp. 41–61

Occupational stress in UK higher

education institutions: a comparative
study of all staff categories
M. Y. Tytherleigh*a, C. Webba, C. L. Cooperb and C. Rickettsa
aUniversity of Plymouth, UK; bLancaster University, UK
10Executive
M.
00000February
Y.Tytherleigh
Taylor
Higher
10.1080/0729436052000318569
CHER240103.sgm
0729-4360
Original
24
HERDSA
2005 andEditor,
Education
Article 2005
Journal
Ltd of&Advanced
(print)/1469-8366
Francis Research (online) Nursing, Professor of Health StudiesUniversity of PlymouthDrake CircusPlymouthPL4 8AAc/webb@plymouth.ac.uk
Development

The higher education sector in the UK continues to experience significant change. This includes
restructuring, use of short-term contracts, external scrutiny and accountability, and major reduc-
tions in funding. In line with this, reports of stress at work in higher education institutions have also
increased. The study reported here was carried out using a stratified random sample of all categories
of staff (academic and non-academic) from 14 UK universities and colleges. Levels of occupational
stress were measured using the ASSET model. The results showed that the most significant source
of stress for all higher education staff (irrespective of category of employee) was job insecurity. In
comparison to the normative data, staff also reported significantly higher levels of stress relating to
work relationships, control, and resources and communication, and significantly lower levels of
commitment both from and to their organization. However, they also reported significantly lower
levels of stress relating to work-life balance, overload and job overall, and lower levels of physical ill-
health. Significant differences were identified between staff working at Old versus New universities
and by category of employee. These results support the growing evidence that universities no longer
provide the low stress working environments they once did.

Background
According to a summary recently released by the Guardian newspaper in the UK,
academic staff are ‘underpaid, stressed out, demoralised and demotivated’ (Smithers,
2003). These were the results of a survey carried out for the UK-based Association
of University Teachers (AUT, 2003), which found that 93% of its members (repre-
senting almost 160 000 academic staff) suffered from work-related stress and 62%
from ‘excessive’ strain (Smithers, 2003). Approximately 27% of respondents
reported ‘fairly seriously’ considering a career change, 46% said their morale had

*Corresponding author. Faculty of Health and Social Work, University of Plymouth, Earl Richards
Road North, Exeter, Devon EX2 6AS, UK. Email: mtytherleigh@plymouth.ac.uk

ISSN 0729–4360 (print)/ISSN 1469–8366 (online)/04/040041–21

© 2005 HERDSA
DOI: 10.1080/0729436052000318569
42 M. Y. Tytherleigh et al.

worsened in the past two years, 72% were dissatisfied with pay and 86% felt their
workload was too heavy.
The survey results are not surprising and are matched by other international studies
(Blampied & Wallace, 2001; Fish & Fraser, 2001; Forlin, 2001; Gillespie et al., 2001;
Kinman, 2001; Paulik, 2001; Schonfeld, 2001; Taris et al., 2001; van Dick &
Wagner, 2001; Winefield, 2001; Winefield & Jarrett, 2001; Winter & Sarros, 2002,
Winefield et al., 2003). Psychological stress now appears to be a feature of occupa-
tional life for university staff (Fisher, 1994) and working during evenings and week-
ends is commonplace (Kinman, 1998).
Excessive working hours, on average between 50–55 hours per week (Court, 1996),
and heavy workloads (Cross & Carroll, 1990; Danies & Guppy, 1994a, b; Early,
1994; Jackson & Hayday, 1997; Doyle, 1998; Doyle & Hind, 1998) are frequently
reported by academic staff in both UK and overseas universities. Excessive adminis-
trative work (Kinman, 1998), lack of promotion opportunities (Kinman, 1996);
inadequate salaries (Daniels & Guppy, 1994a, b); role ambiguity (Winter & Sarros,
2002); diminishing resources, increased teaching loads and student:staff ratios;
pressure to attract external funds, job insecurity; poor management; and lack of
recognition and reward (Winefield et al., 2003) have also been reported. Non-
academic general university staff also reported job insecurity and lack of promotion
opportunities.
Differences in occupational stress have also been identified according to category
of employee, functional role and university type. In their study of 17 Australian
universities, Winefield et al. (2003) investigated the effects of occupational stress in
five categories of academic staff (research only; teaching only; teaching and
research; Heads of Department; and Deans or above) and four categories of
‘general’ staff (professionals—e.g. accountants, clerical/administrative and technical,
and service—e.g. cleaners, security and hospitality). A comparison of the mean
scores for 11 work measures and negative affectivity by category of employee found
that job satisfaction was low in academic staff (relative to other occupational
groups), but at average levels for general staff. Moreover, while most academic staff
reported being dissatisfied with university management, hours of work, industrial
relations, chance of promotion and rates of pay, most general staff were only
dissatisfied with lack of promotion opportunities. Winefield et al. also found differ-
ences according to functional role between academic and general categories. In
particular, academics and professionals reported higher levels of work pressure and
work–home conflict compared to clerical/administrative, technical and service staff.
However, academics and professionals also reported significantly higher levels of job
satisfaction compared to technical and service staff. In contrast, service and techni-
cal staff reported higher levels of job insecurity compared to professionals and cleri-
cal/administrative staff.
Winefield et al. further divided the universities into four main categories to compare
mean scores by university type. Old universities were those established between 1853
and 1911, Middle universities were those established between 1954 and 1974, New
universities comprised former Colleges of Advanced Education established between
 HE institutions and occupational stress 43

1988 and 1992 and ATN universities comprised the Institutes of Technology forming
part of the Australian Technology Network. Small but significant differences were
found according to university type for levels of: psychological stress—highest for New
and ATN universities; job satisfaction and organizational commitment—lowest for
ATN universities; work pressure and work–home conflict—highest for Middle and
ATN universities; job insecurity—highest for ATN universities; and autonomy—
highest for Old universities.
Differences were also found according to university type by functional role. In
particular, academic staff job satisfaction was higher at older rather than newer
universities, whereas general staff job satisfaction was unrelated to university
type.
While many of the stressors reported by university staff are also reported in most
types of employment, for example, time pressures, excessive workload, lack of
resources and role overload (Narayanan et al., 1999), others, such as carrying out
research, writing for publication and teaching students, are more job-specific. Indeed,
in comparison to other professions, academic work is ‘somewhat unusual’ (Kinman,
2001) and factors which in other occupational groups have been associated with high
levels of stress and/or job dissatisfaction have not shown the same effects in academ-
ics. For example, 75% of university workers (N = 638), who reported long working
hours, work overload and lack of support, still claimed to be satisfied or very satisfied
with their jobs (Watts et al., 1991). Doyle and Hind (1998) also found that 40% of
university lecturers (N = 233), in their sample, who reported long working hours and
high levels of burnout still found their work intrinsically motivating, enjoyable and
potentially rewarding.
Previous research suggests that academics are intrinsically motivated by their disci-
plines and related teaching and research tasks (McInnis, 1996, 2000; Lacy &
Sheehan, 1997), but extrinsically demotivated by work context factors such as insuf-
ficient funding and resources, and poor management practices (Makin, 1999;
Gillespie et al., 2001; Winter & Sarros, 2001, 2002) Following a recent study of moti-
vation in staff (N = 2609) in Australian universities, Winter and Sarros (2002)
suggest that academics are more likely to express positive work attitudes towards their
jobs and universities when roles are clear and achievable; job tasks are challenging;
supervisors ‘exercise supportive styles of leadership’; and the organizational structure
permits them to influence decision-making. For perceiving that they have organiza-
tional support explains academics’ emotional commitment to their universities
(Meyer & Allen, 1997). In contrast, Winter and Sarros (2002) found, academics are
‘more likely to express weak levels of motivation when their roles are unclear and/or
overloaded, tasks are narrow and unchanging, their supervisors show them little
support or consideration, and the university structures limit their participation and
decision making’ (p. 243).
The role of academics is also often associated with a considerable degree of
control, flexibility and autonomy. Individuals who perceive that they can control
their environment are less likely to suffer stress (Makin et al., 1996), and strong
‘protective’ associations have also been found between job control and job
44 M. Y. Tytherleigh et al.

satisfaction, psychological and physical health, and low levels of perceived pressure
(e.g. Daniels & Guppy, 1994b; Guppy & Rick, 1996).
However, since 1982, ‘British Higher Education has undergone a more profound
re-orientation than any other system in industrial societies’ (Trow, 1994, p. 11), and
Kinman and Jones (2003) states that this trend has continued. Employees are now
faced with demands for greater accountability, value for money, efficiency and qual-
ity, and an increase in remote and autocratic management styles (e.g. AUT, 1990).
Thus, factors such as autonomy and control, which once appeared to motivate and
‘buffer’ staff from high levels of stress, are being eroded. There has also been gradual
erosion in pay and job security, with increasing numbers of staff appointed on fixed-
term contracts. Indeed, many academic staff felt that job insecurity, particularly that
related to short-term contracts, is their primary source of work-related stress
(Kinman, 1998).
This change in conditions is now being reflected in levels of job satisfaction
and commitment levels. For example, in a follow-up to a survey by Cross &
Carroll (1990), Kinman (1998) found that, compared to 48% eight years
previously, 73% of academics were dissatisfied in their jobs. Moreover, those
who reported reduced levels of job satisfaction and commitment also reported
higher levels of job-related stressors and strains. Organizational commitment is
a well-established indicator of motivation at work (Mayer & Schoorman, 1992;
Brown, 1996) and moderator of stress (Begley & Cazjka, 1993; Siu, 2002),
particularly during periods of organizational change. Highly committed employ-
ees also have higher productivity and are willing to assume responsibility
(Chow, 1990).
A negative impact from ongoing changes in universities is now being reported in
relation to academics’ productivity, as well as their health, well-being, and levels of
stress and tension (Abouserie, 1996; Borg & Arpa, 2000). For example, increased
numbers and diversity of students, new teaching modalities and unrealistic deadlines
have left many staff feeling disconnected from their institutions and unwilling to exert
extra effort on their behalf (e.g. Winter & Sarros, 2001).
Most of the information derived from studies of occupational stress in university
and teaching staff in the UK has been based on small-scale projects conducted in
single institutions. Moreover, while one larger-scale study of occupational stress in
university staff from seven universities throughout the UK has been carried out
(Cross & Carroll, 1990), most of what is currently known about academic stress on a
larger scale comes from studies carried out in the USA, New Zealand and Australia
(Gmelch et al., 1984; Blix et al., 1994; Boyd & Wylie, 1994; Dua, 1994; Chalmers,
1998; McConville & Allport, 2000; Wallace, 2000; Blampied & Wallace, 2001; Fish
& Fraser, 2001; Gillespie et al., 2001; Winefield et al., 2003). In addition, while some
large-scale studies have looked at the effects of occupational stress on general as well
as academic university staff (e.g. Winefield et al., 2003), most have focused solely on
academic staff.
Studies have used different instruments to measure occupational stress. For
example, Winefield et al. (2003) used Warr et al.’s 15-item scale to measure job
 HE institutions and occupational stress 45

satisfaction (Warr et al., 1979), whereas Kinman (1998) used a series of self-report
questionnaires designed specifically for her study. The use of different instruments
to investigate occupational stress makes reliable comparisons impossible. Also,
most questionnaires used in previous studies did not have a wide range of norma-
tive data.

Aims
In view of the fact that most previous studies have been small scale, have solely
focused on academic staff and have not used instruments with established norms, the
aims of this study were: (1) to recruit a large sample from both Old (i.e. pre-1992)
and New (i.e. post-1992) universities; (2) to identify levels of workplace stress for all
categories of employee; and (3) to compare these scores with normative data. This
work was completed in October 2002.

Sample
Fourteen UK higher education institutions (HEIs) were sampled. Thirteen held
university status, comprising eight Old and five New universities. The sample also
included one higher education college. For confidentiality and anonymity
purposes, the individual results for this non-university status HEI will not be
reported here.
Sample size calculations were based on there being 12 generic categories of
employee and two main types of HEI (i.e. Old and New). Two decisions were
made: first, to have approximately equal numbers of employees within each cate-
gory and, second, to have approximately equal numbers in each category from Old
versus New universities. While this meant that some larger employee categories
(i.e. Academic & Research (A&R)) seemed to be under-represented, the total
numbers of questionnaires sent out to A&R staff were large and, therefore,
provided sufficient representation. Age, gender, ethnicity and salary scale were not
controlled for during sampling; however, these details were obtained as part of the
questionnaire.

Category of employee
Based on information provided by each collaborating HEI, the 12 generic categories
of employee were combined into four main categories: Academic & Research
(academic non-clinical, academic-clinical and academic-related); Administrative &
Clerical (administrative, secretarial and clerical); Academic-support (technical,
computing and library); and Facility-support (estates/craftworkers, catering, clean-
ing, manual and security). Thirty-five per cent of respondents were Academic &
Research (A&R) staff, 29% Administrative & Clerical (A&C), 25% Academic-
support, and 10% Facility-support staff. One per cent of respondents chose not to
provide their employee details.
46 M. Y. Tytherleigh et al.

Figure 1. The ASSET model

Methods
Instrument: the ASSET model
The instrument used was the ASSET organizational screening tool (Cartwright &
Cooper, 2002), in which respondents indicate the degree to which they are troubled
by each stressor using a 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) Likert rating scale.
The ASSET model is illustrated in Figure 1.
According to this model, the sources of stress commonly reported in the literature
Figure 1. The ASSET model

can be classified in terms of eight different stressor categories: work relationships;

work–life balance; overload; job security; control; resources and communication; pay
and benefits; and job overall. The model also recognizes that factors such as overall
job satisfaction and organizational commitment, usually conceptualized as outcomes
of stress, can be a source of stress in themselves.
The ASSET comprises four main questionnaires: Perceptions of your job: 37 items
scored from 1 (strongly disagree about being troubled) to 6 (strongly agree about being
troubled) by the statement; Attitudes towards your organization: nine items scored from
1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree); Your health: 19 items on two subscales—
Physical health and Psychological well-being—four items scored from 1 (never expe-
rienced the ill-health symptom or change of behaviour over the last three months) to
4 (often experienced the ill-health symptom or change of behaviour over the past
three months); Supplementary information: 24 customized items to obtain biographical
and demographical information specific to HEIs. (For further information on the
ASSET model and a definition of the constructs, see Cartwright & Cooper, 2002.)
 HE institutions and occupational stress 47

ASSET normative data. One reason for using the ASSET model was that it has
established norms from a database of responses from 9188 workers in public and
private sector organizations in the UK, including a primary healthcare trust, hospital,
police service and several departments in a county council.

Reliability and validity of the ASSET. Full details of the reliability and validity of the
ASSET model have been published elsewhere (see Cartwright & Cooper, 2002).
These show good convergent reliability between ASSET’s ‘Psychological well-being’
subscale and the General health questionnaire—GHQ12 (Goldberg & Williams,
1988), i.e. r = 0.579, p<0.001 (Johnson & Cooper, 2003). They also show good
convergent validity of the ‘Your job’ subscale with the Warr’s Job satisfaction scale
(Warr et al., 1979), i.e. r = −0.606, p<0.01; this negative relationship was expected
because the ASSET subscale responses are reversed compared to the Warr scale.

Power calculation
Taking the above factors into consideration, and based on a 50% response rate, it was
predicted that the sample sizes used would allow us to detect a statistically significant
difference (at a 5% significance level) of only 0.4 between the highest and lowest
mean stress scores. In other words, if the lowest mean stress score was 3.3 and the
highest mean stress score was 3.7, this difference would be classed as statistically
significant. This is equivalent to an effect size (expected variance between means
divided by expected within-group variance) of 0.006.

Procedure
Approximately three months prior to sending out the questionnaires, a letter was sent
out to all employees in the 14 participating HEIs to inform them about the study and
that a random sample would receive a copy of the ASSET model. This letter gave
assurances of confidentiality and anonymity to participants.
In order to maintain confidentiality and anonymity, and also increase the chance of
capturing employees who might be absent or on holiday, where possible question-
naires were sent to employees’ home addresses. As the UK Data Protection Act
restricts access to personal data, questionnaires had to be sent by the individual HEIs
using detailed instructions for randomized participant selection. Questionnaires were
accompanied by information sheets asking respondents to return completed ques-
tionnaires directly to the researchers within four weeks using the enclosed stamped
addressed envelope.
A total 10 090 anonymous questionnaires (representing 23% of the sample popu-
lation) were sent to a stratified random sample of full- and part-time staff in a conve-
nience sample of 14 English HEIs. Fifty-four per cent were sent to employees in Old
universities, 40% to those in New universities, and the remaining 6% to the one non-
university status HEI.
48 M. Y. Tytherleigh et al.

Statistical analysis
As the study used a stratified random sample, all mean scores were weighted by the
different population sizes for each category of employee in each HEI. The purpose of
this was to put the appropriate emphasis on the size of the occupational group in the
study population. Because we did not have the raw data for the normative samples, a
series of Student t-tests was used to compare mean scores from our study with mean
scores (unweighted) from the normative sample. The significance level was adjusted
using Bonferroni correction to take into account number of comparisons being made.
For internal comparisons in our sample, a weighted ANOVA was used with Tukey’s
HSD (Tukey, 1977) to identify specific differences. Correlations and Principal
Component Analysis were carried out, where appropriate, using SPSS 11.0.1 (Statis-
tical Package for Social Sciences).

Results
Response rate
The overall response rate was 38%, with 3808 usable questionnaires being returned.
Fifty-one per cent of responses came from staff working in Old universities, 42%
came from New universities and 7% from the non-university college. This compares
favourably with the 39% response rate to a questionnaire survey of occupational stress
in teachers reported by the AUT (Kinman, 1998) and the 25% response rate from a
more recent questionnaire survey of higher education workplace stress in all catego-
ries of employees working in 17 Australian universities (Winefield et al., 2003). The
response rate across the 14 HEIs ranged from 28% to 50%, and the numbers of
respondents ranged from 125 to 400. Response rates for category of employee were:
A&R 35% (N = 1329), A&C 30% (N = 1114), Academic-support 25% (N = 940)
and Facility-support 10% (N = 38). Eighty-three per cent of respondents were
employed on permanent, full-time contracts. Fifty-seven per cent had worked in their
current HEI for at least five years, 67% had not worked in any other HEI and 65%
had been in their current job for at least six years.

Reliability of the ASSET model with this sample

A series of Cronbach’s alphas were calculated for each of the questions for the 12
subscales to identify the reliability of the ASSET with these data. As shown in
Table 1, all but two factors returned coefficients in excess of 0.70.
Extraction by principal component analysis (PCA) showed that only two items in
the ‘Job overall’ subscale explained at least 45% of the variance: My work is dull and
repetitive and I do not enjoy my job. Together these accounted for almost 45% of the
variance in the total score for job overall. Extraction by PCA also showed that only
two items in the ‘Job security’ subscale—My job is insecure and My job is not
permanent—explained at least 72% of the variance, and together accounted for just
over 72% of the variance in the total score for job security.
 Table 1. Correlation matrix (R-matrix) and Cronbach alphas for each of the 12 ASSET subscales

Cronbach
Variable alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Work relationships .84 1.00

2. Work–life balance .64 .36 1.00
3. Overload .82 .52 .57 1.00
4. Job security .84 .34 .19 .23 1.00
5. Control .61 .70 .29 .45 .37 1.00
6. Resources & communication .73 .70 .34 .53 .35 .72 1.00
7. Job overall .74 .60 .35 .46 .25 .62 .55 1.00
8. Pay & benefits – .34 .23 .29 .26 .33 .34 .29 1.00
9. Commitment from .82 −.49 −.20 −.27 −.29 −.56 −.53 −.46 −.25 1.00
organization
10. Commit to organization .75 −.30 .01* −.08 −.17 −.38 −.33 −.33 −.15 .71 1.00
11. Physical health .82 .33 .22 .31 .17 .31 .27 .37 .18 −.24 −.12 1.00
12. Psychological health .75 .46 .32 .45 .22 .41 .41 .43 .19 −.34 −.19 .66 1.00

*The subscales were significantly correlated with each other at p<0.001 (one-tailed), apart from the correlation between the subscales for work–life balance and
commitment to the organization. This was non-significant at p = 0.315.
HE institutions and occupational stress 49
50 M. Y. Tytherleigh et al.

Participants
Ninety-eight per cent of respondents gave details of their gender; 41% (N = 1535)
were male and 59% (N = 2196) female. Fifty-three per cent (N = 689) of A&R staff,
15% (N = 167) of A&C staff, 51% (N = 468) of Academic-support staff and 53%
(N = 198) of Facility-support staff were male. For A&R staff only, 59% of men were
employed full-time and 28% part-time. Moreover, 70% of male A&R staff
compared to 35% of women reported earning at least £31 000 p.a. These data are
comparable with other reports of UK academic staff in terms of levels of seniority
(Sorcinelli, 1994; AUT, 1999), and for full-time versus part-time staff by gender
(HESA, 2003). No such comparative data are available for the other three catego-
ries of employee. Irrespective of category of employee, 74% of respondents were
aged at least 36 years, 88% were of White British ethnicity and 5% reported having
a long-term illness, health problem or disability which limited their daily activities or
work capabilities.
The majority of respondents reported working between 31 and 40 office hours per
week. By category of employee, 71% of A&C staff, 72% of Academic-support staff
and 63% of Facility-support staff worked 31–40 hours in a typical week. In contrast,
the majority of A&R staff (38%) worked 41–50 hours in a typical week, with a further
40% working from 51–61 or more hours.

Relationship between hours worked and ASSET subscales

The relationship between hours worked in a typical week and each of the 12 ASSET
subscales showed statistically significant positive relationships with levels of stress
relating to work relationships, work–life balance, overload, resources and communi-
cation, pay and benefits (all at p<0.0001), and control (p = 0.027). Thus, higher
levels of stress were associated with working more hours. A statistically significant
positive relationship with levels of psychological well-being (p<0.0001) was found,
showing that higher levels of adverse psychological symptoms were associated with
working more hours. A statistically significant positive relationship with levels of
commitment to the organization (p<0.0001) suggested that working more hours was
associated with higher levels of commitment. There were, however, no significant
relationships between hours worked per week and job security, perceived commit-
ment from the organization and levels of physical ill-health.

Comparison of normative data with all HEIs, Old universities and New universities
Table 2 shows a comparison of the weighted mean scores (weighted by actual popu-
lation size) for the sample of all employees (irrespective of category) from all 14 HEIs,
Old universities and New universities with the normative data (mean scores for the
latter were not weighted). High scores for the eight sources of stress and two
outcomes of stress should be interpreted negatively, and high scores for the two levels
of commitment positively.
 Table 2. Comparison of unweighted mean scores for the normative data versus weighted mean scores for all HEIs, and the weighted mean
scores for Old universities versus New universities

Normative data N All HEIs Old universities New universities

= 9210 N = 3808 N =1940 N =1640

Asset subscale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Work relationships 19.23 6.80 20.73 * 7.31 20.80 7.24 20.46 7.38
Work–life balance 12.49 4.77 11.92 * 4.93 12.13 * 4.38 11.39 4.15
Overload 12.88 4.55 11.97 * 4.35 12.05 4.34 11.76 4.32
Job security 10.73 3.25 12.16 * 3.95 12.32 * 3.98 11.75 3.88
Control 12.70 4.31 13.02 * 4.62 12.93 4.55 13.18 4.76
Resources/communication 12.29 4.18 12.82 * 4.27 12.84 4.23 12.71 4.32
Job overall 25.64 6.31 22.82 * 5.87 22.51 * 5.69 23.46 6.21
Pay and benefits 03.45 1.67 03.50 1.70 03.51 1.70 03.46 1.69
Commitment from organization 20.19 4.94 18.57 * 5.24 18.77 * 5.24 18.15 5.19
Commitment to organization 17.50 3.66 16.65 * 3.97 16.72 3.95 16.49 3.97
Physical health 14.16 4.07 13.22 * 4.00 12.92 * 3.98 13.86 4.04
Psychological well-being 23.95 7.52 23.64 7.37 23.56 7.40 23.74 7.31

*Indicating a significant difference between the two.

HE institutions and occupational stress 51
52 M. Y. Tytherleigh et al.

Normative data versus all 14 HEIs

The results show that, compared to the normative data, staff working in HEIs
reported statistically significantly higher levels of stress relating to: (poor) work rela-
tionships (p<0.004); (lack of) control (p<0.004); job (in)security (p<0.004); and
(lack of) resources and communication (p<0.004). They also reported statistically
significantly lower levels of perceived commitment from (p<0.004) and commitment
to (p<0.004) their organization. In contrast, however, compared to the normative
data, staff working in HEIs reported statistically significant lower levels of stress relat-
ing to work–life balance (p<0.004), overload (p<0.004) and job overall (p<0.004).
They also reported statistically significantly lower levels of physical outcomes of stress
(p<0.004).

Old versus New universities

Table 2 also shows that, compared to New universities, staff in Old universities
reported statistically significantly higher levels of stress relating to work–life balance
(p<0.004) and job security (p<0.004). In contrast, they reported statistically signifi-
cantly lower levels relating to job overall (p<0.004). Those in New universities also
reported statistically significantly lower levels of perceived commitment from
(p<0.004) but not to their organization, and statistically significantly higher levels of
physical outcomes of stress (p<0.004).

Category of employee
Table 3 shows the mean scores for each of the 12 ASSET subscales by category of
employee. A comparison of these weighted mean scores showed significant group
differences for all subscales (p≤0.0001) apart from ‘Psychological well-being’
(NS).
Moreover, a series of post-hoc analyses using Tukey’s Honestly significantly differ-
ent (HSD) test showed that A&R staff were the most stressed category overall,
reporting the highest levels of stress relating to work–life balance and overload.
Second, Academic-support and A&R staff reported the highest levels of stress
relating to work relationships, job security, resources and communication, and pay
and benefits. They also reported the highest levels relating to (lack of) control,
along with Facility-support staff. Third, Facility-support staff, either as a single
category or with others, reported the highest levels of stress relating to work-
relationships, (lack of) control and job overall. Thus, A&C staff were the least
stressed category. The latter, along with Facility-support staff, did, however,
report the lowest levels of perceived commitment from their organization. Facility-
support and Academic-support staff reported the lowest levels of commitment to
their organization. Finally, A&C staff reported the highest levels of physical
outcomes of stress. All post hoc analyses results were statistically significant at the
5% level.
 Table 3. Weighted mean scores for each of 12 ASSET subscales, by category of employee

Category of Employee

Academic & Administrative &

Research Clerical Academic-support Facility-support

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Work relationships 20.99 7.17 19.16 7.24 21.57 7.43 21.33 8.78
Work–life balance 14.31 4.67 09.18 3.71 10.47 4.02 10.58 4.94
Overload 13.39 4.63 10.97 4.46 11.52 4.39 09.57 4.11
Job security 12.74 4.22 11.33 3.73 12.81 3.80 10.85 4.28
Control 12.77 4.62 12.58 4.73 13.85 4.67 13.83 5.33
Resources/communication 13.18 4.08 11.70 4.30 13.56 4.52 12.70 5.19
Job overall 22.01 5.78 22.49 5.96 24.25 5.94 26.15 7.49
Pay & benefits 03.63 1.74 03.31 1.64 03.64 1.62 03.10 1.77
Commitment from organization 18.15 5.54 19.39 5.19 17.39 5.56 18.97 5.22
Commitment to organization 16.96 3.80 17.03 3.90 15.82 3.96 15.79 4.47
Physical health 13.05 4.10 14.16 3.94 13.47 3.99 13.96 4.10
Psychological health 23.91 7.38 23.65 7.20 23.53 7.15 22.98 7.74
HE institutions and occupational stress 53
54 M. Y. Tytherleigh et al.

Discussion

This was the first UK study to include all categories of HEI staff from a wide range
of institutional types and to compare the findings to established normative data. The
results reveal that the source of stress by which respondents were most troubled was
job security, in particular, that their jobs would change in the future. Levels for HEI
staff were significantly higher than the normative data and represented very high
stress levels.
Compared to the normative data, HEI staff were also more stressed by work rela-
tionships (in particular, other people not pulling their weight); lack of control (not
being involved in decisions affecting their jobs); and resources and communication
(not being kept informed about what was going on in their organizations). They were
also stressed by work–life balance (work interfering with home and personal life);
work overload (insufficient time to do their jobs as well as they would like); job overall
(possibility of doing the same job for the next 5–10 years and constant changes in
their organizations); and the fact that their pay and benefits were not as good as those
of others doing the same job. However, the stress levels reported for these latter stres-
sors were significantly lower than the normative data.
Perceived levels of commitment, both from and towards their organizations, were
also a concern. Compared to the normative data, commitment levels were signifi-
cantly lower, with HEI staff particularly concerned by the lack of value and trust they
perceived from their organizations.
Taken together, therefore, while no direct comparisons with previous studies of
occupational stress in universities and colleges can be made because different
measures were used, the results indicate that occupational stress in university staff is
widespread and lend further support to the growing evidence that universities no
longer provide the low-stress working environments they once did. Furthermore,
these results support the findings of a national survey of Britain’s professional work-
force carried out in 1996, which found that university and college lecturers and
researchers reported lower levels of job security, and lower levels of satisfaction and
perceived commitment from their organization, compared to 20 other occupational
groups (Millward-Brown, 1996).
Having measured the outcomes as well as sources of stress, however, it is particu-
larly surprising that, even though HEI staff (irrespective of category of employee)
showed significantly higher levels of stress relating to work relationships, control and
resources and communication compared to the normative data, the overall effects on
physical and psychological outcomes were not higher. Rather, our results show that
HEI staff had lower levels of physical outcomes of stress and normative levels of
psychological well-being.
One plausible explanation for this surprising result relates to the average number
of hours worked by university staff and how this differs by category of employee.
The largest number of respondents (irrespective of category of employee) reported
working between 31 and 40 hours. However, most A&R staff do not have
contracted hours and, generally, work much longer compared to other occupational
 HE institutions and occupational stress 55

groups (e.g. 50–55 hours per week; AUT, 1990). Indeed, 38% of A&R staff in our
sample reported working between 41 and 50 hours in a typical week, and a further
40% reported working at least 51 hours. Further analysis by category of employee,
however, showed that A&C staff reported the highest levels of physical (p<0.05)
outcomes of stress; there were no differences between the four categories of
employee for psychological outcomes of stress.
Thus, our results are important, in that they do not lend further support to the rela-
tionship between long working hours and physical or psychological ill-health (Stevens
et al., 1998). They also highlight the significant effect of category of employee when
investigating occupational stress in HEIs, and suggest a weakness of our design in
comparing all HEI staff (irrespective of category of employee) with the normative
data. Indeed, our results suggest that any future benchmarking exercises for HEIs
should provide separate benchmarks for academic and general staff.
However, the results by category of employee still do not explain why the psycho-
logical outcomes of stress for HEI staff were not higher than the normative data. For
example, Winefield et al. (2003) found, in their study, that approximately 50% of
Australian university staff were at risk of psychological illness compared to only 19%
of the Australian population. In a national survey of British working conditions,
university lecturers reported the lowest levels of self-reported psychological health
compared to 19 other occupational groups (Millward-Brown, 1996). A potential
explanation for this concerns the ASSET ‘Psychological well-being’ subscale, the
Cronbach alpha coefficient for which in our study was only 0.612, indicating low reli-
ability. However, the high levels of psychological illness identified by Winefield et al.
(2003) were measured using the GHQ-12 (Goldberg & Williams, 1988), and
Johnson and Cooper (2003) found good convergent validity between the ASSET
subscale for ‘Psychological well-being’ and the GHQ-12.
A third plausible (but at this stage, speculative) explanation for the surprising
results for physical and psychological outcomes of stress may simply be that, because
our sample showed higher levels of stress in some areas but not in others, having lower
levels of stress in some subscales compared to the normative data had a moderating
effect on stress outcomes. That is, if we had shown higher than normative levels of
stress for all subscales, the effects on the outcomes might have also been higher.
Our results also show differences in stress levels according to university type. In
particular, compared to staff working in post-1992 (i.e. New) universities, those
working in pre-1992 (i.e. Old) universities are more troubled by work–life balance
and job security issues. In contrast, compared to New universities, staff in Old univer-
sities are less troubled by their job overall. They also perceive higher levels of commit-
ment both from and to their universities, and appear to be physically healthier
(reporting lower levels of physical outcomes of stress). Winefield et al. (2003) also
reported differences in stress according to university type, with newer universities
staff also reporting higher levels of job insecurity and work–home conflict, and lower
levels of organizational commitment compared to those in older universities. Thus,
while the measures and definitions of Old and New universities in Australia were
slightly different, university type does have an effect. Further research now needs to
56 M. Y. Tytherleigh et al.

identify why these differences occur. For example, it could be that the higher levels
of stress relating to job security reported by staff in Old universities, particularly
academic staff, are related to the abolition of tenure and increase in numbers of staff
employed on fixed-term and temporary contracts.
As described previously, work–life imbalance and excessive overload are among the
most frequently reported stressors for university staff, particularly for academics
(cf. AUT, 2003). Winefield et al. (2003) found that 87% of academics, compared to
58% of general staff, reported conflict between work and home commitments, and
that academic staff reported statistically significantly higher levels of stress relating to
work–home conflict compared to general staff. Similarly, Doyle and Hind (1998)
identified high levels of stress in academics relating to excessive overload, and our
results showed that A&R staff reported statistically significantly higher levels of stress
relating to work–life balance and overload. Thus, our results emphasize the impor-
tance of taking category of employee and/or functional role into account in this type
of research.
In addition to work–life balance and overload, job overall was the third area in
which, compared to the normative data, HEI staff were less troubled. Indeed, 65% of
respondents were not troubled by their job overall. The job overall subscale includes
a number of items relating to different aspects of the job (e.g. working conditions, risk
of physical violence, having to deal with difficult customers/clients), and not simply
job satisfaction items. Indeed, a comparison of the items for job overall with those
included in the Warr’s Job satisfaction scale (Warr et al., 1979) shows strong links
between some items (i.e. my physical working conditions are unpleasant, my organi-
zation is constantly changing for change’s sake and my work is dull and repetitive),
but weak or absent links with others. Moreover, the Cronbach alpha coefficient for
this subscale in our study was only 0.638, indicating low reliability. Thus, our results
might be the effect of an unreliable ASSET subscale for our sample.
Perceived commitment levels, both from and towards the organization, were signif-
icantly lower than the normative data in our study and could result in reduced levels
of productivity and unwillingness to assume responsibility (Chow, 1990). Organiza-
tional commitment is also an established indicator of motivation (Mayer &
Schoorman, 1992; Brown, 1996) and moderator of stress (Begley & Cazjka, 1993; Siu,
2002), particularly during periods of organizational change. Half of our respondents
were troubled by their organization ‘changing for change’s sake’, which suggests that
HEIs need to address this. Also, the relationship between the two types of commitment
would be an interesting area for further research. At first glance, our results by category
of employee showed that Academic-support staff were among those reporting the
lowest levels of perceived commitment from their organization and the highest levels
of commitment to their organization. Thus, this suggests there is an influential rela-
tionship between the two, although the direction of effect is not clear. In contrast,
however, while A&R staff were among those who reported the lowest levels of perceived
commitment from their organization, they were not among those reporting the highest
levels of commitment to their organization. Moreover, while Facility-support staff were
among those who reported the lowest levels of commitment to their organization, they
 HE institutions and occupational stress 57

were not among those who reported the lowest levels of perceived commitment from
their organization. Thus, this suggests that there is no influential relationship between
the two.
Job security was the highest concern for HEI staff, and was the highest concern for
Academic-support staff. ‘Academic-support staff’ included technical staff in our
study, and Winefield et al. (2003) also found that technical staff were among those
reporting the highest levels of stress relating to job insecurity. In addition, Winefield
et al. found that service staff (e.g. cleaners, security and hospitality) reported the high-
est levels, but this was not the case in our study. With 57% of our respondents having
worked in their current HEI for at least five years, 67% having not worked in any
other HEI and 65% having been in their current job for at least six years, there is no
apparent reason why they should feel troubled by job security issues.
While objective data may suggest that job insecurity should not be a major concern,
it is perception of job insecurity that correlates negatively with employee health and
well-being (Sparks et al., 2001). For example, a study of over 2000 employees in
Switzerland found that psychosocial stress induced by perceived job insecurity had
negative effects on 10 different self-reported indicators of health and health-related
behaviours (Domenighetti et al., 2000). Job insecurity is also an inherent problem
with short-term contracts in the UK (Kinman, 1998). However, 83% of our respon-
dents were employed on full-time, permanent contracts. Thus, this explanation does
not seem to apply here.
In terms of the effects of job insecurity on HEIs, previous research has shown that
organizations can suffer financially because of increased absenteeism and sickness
resulting from lowered employee well-being. For example, a longitudinal study of
government workers in Finland found a significant relationship between degree of
organizational downsizing and long-term sickness absence (Vahtera et al., 1997). As
the majority of HEIs in our sample did not keep centralized figures, levels of absen-
teeism were based on self-report, 39% of respondents reporting that at least one
working day off sick during the past three months. Other studies have also shown that
perceived job insecurity can lead to lowered commitment, morale and motivation.
For example, King found that white-collar workers who reported high levels of job
insecurity were also less supportive of organizational goals, gave less effort to the qual-
ity of their work and were more actively seeking alternative employment (King,
2000). The levels of commitment reported by our sample were significantly lower
than the normative data. Thus, if not only to improve the health and well-being of
their staff, HEIs need to consider the costs associated with employee reluctance to
work in jobs perceived to be insecure (Sparks et al., 2001).

Conclusion
In summary, we used a standardized instrument to identify stress levels in all catego-
ries of employee in a sample of English HEIs and compared these with normative data
based on non-HEI respondents. We have shown that HEI employees are, in general,
more highly stressed than other workers, and reinforced theoretical propositions that
58 M. Y. Tytherleigh et al.

perceptions of stress are more important than objective factors in its generation.
Multivariate analyses (including variables such as category of employee, gender, etc.)
will be presented in follow-up papers.
In terms of the broader implications, as previously identified by Winefield et al.
(2002), our findings offer an important challenge to the HE sector. As HEI staff in
the UK, like those in overseas universities, are experiencing high levels of stress and
lower levels of commitment, the wider aspects of our study involve developing stress
management interventions in participating HEIs as an essential path to tackling work-
related stress. The effectiveness of any such interventions, however, depends heavily
on the commitment of employers, as well as employees, and, as argued by Giga et al.
(2003):
Senior management is more likely to support interventions if issues such as expected
outcomes, resources, costs, and cost-effectiveness could be clearly identified. Similarly,
the viability and success of an intervention is dependent on senior managers sending clear
signals demonstrating their intent and long-term support. (p. 291)

In conclusion, like Winfield et al. (2002), we also urge the HE sector and its unions
to use these results as a foundation for developing and implementing interventions to
address occupational stress. As many of these interventions can only be achieved at
the level of individual HEIs, this means that each must take on responsibility for ensur-
ing a healthy work environment. However, as government cuts to HE funding are likely
to have a deleterious effect on any such interventions, HEIs and the government need
to work alongside each other to develop an integrated approach to HE staff stress.

Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. We
would also like to thank Pam Jacobs and David Harrison for their contributions
towards this paper.

References
Abouserie, R. (1996). Stress, coping strategies and job satisfaction in university academic staff.
Educational Psychology, 16(1), 49–56.
AUT. (1990). Goodwill under stress: Morale in UK universities. London: Association of University
Teachers.
AUT. (1999). Pay gap and casual jobs: an analysis of the gender, pay and employment of UK academic
staff. Available online at: http://www.aut/org.uk/campaigns/pay/paygaps.pdf (accessed
6 March 2004).
AUT. (2003). Survey of members. London: AUT.
Begley, T. M., & Cazjka, J. M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects of commitment on
job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organisational change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(4), 552–556.
Blampied, N. M., & Wallace, A. (2001). Weathering the storm: Stress and coping in university staff:
Paper presented at the Tertiary Education Health and Safety Conference, University of
Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
 HE institutions and occupational stress 59

Blix, A. G., Cruise, R. J., Mitchell, B. M., & Blix, G. G. (1994). Occupational stress among
university teachers. Educational Research, 36(2), 157–169.
Borg, M. G., & Arpa, S. (2000). The job stress and satisfaction of university academic staff. Paper
presented at 27th International Congress of Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden, July.
Boyd, S., & Wylie, C. (1994). Workload and stress in New Zealand universities. Wellington: New
Zealand Council for Educational Research/Association of University Staff of New Zealand.
Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organisational research on job involvement.
Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 235–255.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). ASSET: An organizational stress screening tool—the manage-
ment guide. Manchester: RCL.
Chalmers, A. (1998). Workload and stress in New Zealand universities: A follow-up to the 1994 study.
Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research/Association of University Staff of
New Zealand.
Chow, I. H. S. (1990). An empirical assessment of organisational commitment among local
employees. Human Resources Journal, 6(1), 32–38.
Court, S. (1996). The use of time by academic and related staff. Higher Education Quarterly, 50,
237–260.
Cross, G., & Carroll, D. (1990). Goodwill under stress: Morale in UK universities. London: Associa-
tion of University Teachers.
Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994a). An exploratory study of stress in a British university. Higher
Education Quarterly, 48, 135–144.
Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994b). Occupational stress, social support, job control, and psycho-
logical well-being. Human Relations, 47, 1523–1544.
Domenighetti, G., D’Avanzo, B., & Bisig, B. (2000). Health effects of job insecurity among employ-
ees in the Swiss general population. International Journal of Health Services, 30, 477–490.
Doyle, C. (1998). The work experience of senior academic women: Stress, coping, career progression.
Paper presented at 1st International Work Psychology Conference, Institute of Work Psychol-
ogy, University of Sheffield, UK, July.
Doyle, C., & Hind, P. (1998). Occupational stress, burnout and job status in female academics.
Gender, Work and Organisation, 5, 67–82.
Dua, J. K. (1994). Job stressors and their effects on physical health, emotional health, and job
satisfaction in a university. Journal of Educational Administration, 32, 59–78.
Earley, P. (1994). Lecturers’ workload and factors affecting stress levels. Slough: NFER.
Fish, T. A., & Fraser, I. H. (2001). Exposing the iceberg of teaching anxiety: A survey of
faculty at three New Brunswick universities. American Association of Behavioral and Social
Sciences, 4. Available online at: http://employees.csbsjv.edu/jmakepeace/perspectives2001/
Fish 2001.jmm.html. (Accessed 5 November 2002).
Fisher, S. (1994). Stress in academic life: The mental assembly line. Buckingham: SHRE/Open
University Press.
Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. Educational
Research, 43(3), 235–245.
Giga, S. I., Noblet, A. J., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The UK perspective: A review
of research on organisational stress management interventions. Australian Psychologist, 38(2),
1–7.
Gillespie, N. A., Walsh, M., Winefield, A. H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001). Occupational stress
in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress. Work
and Stress, 15(1), 53–72.
Gmelch, W. H., Lovrich, N. P., & Wilke, P. K. (1984). Sources of stress in academe: A national
perspective. Research in Higher Education, 20(4), 477–490.
Goldberg, D. P., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to the GHQ. London: NFER-NELSON.
Guppy, A., & Rick, J. (1996). The influences of gender and grade on perceived work stress and job
satisfaction in white-collar employees. Work and Stress, 24(4), 154–164.
60 M. Y. Tytherleigh et al.

HESA. (2003). Resources of higher education institutions 2001/03. London: Higher Education
Statistics Agency.
Jackson, C., & Hayday, S. (1997). Staff attitudes at the University of Central Lancashire. Brighton:
Institute for Employment Studies.
Johnson, S. & Cooper, C. (2003). The construct validity of the ASSET stress measure. Stress and
Health, 19(3), 181–185.
King, J. E. (2000). White-collar reactions to job insecurity and the role of the psychological
contract: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 39,
79–91.
Kinman, G. (1996). Occupational stress and health among lecturers working in further and higher
education. London: National Association for Teachers in Further and Higher Education.
Kinman, G. (1998). Pressure points: A survey into the causes and consequences of occupational stress in
UK academic and related staff. London: Association of University Teachers.
Kinman, G. (2001). Pressure points: A review of stressors and strains in UK academics. Educa-
tional Psychology, 21(4), 474–492.
Kinman, G. & Jones, F. (2003). Running up the down escalator: stressors and Avains in UK
academics. Quaility in Higher Education, 9(1), 22–38.
Lacy, F. J., & Sheehan, B. A. (1997). Job satisfaction among academic staff: An international
perspective. Higher Education, 34, 305–322.
Makin, P. J., Cooper, C., & Cox, C. J. (1996). Organizations and the psychological contract. Manag-
ing people of work. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Martin, E. (1999). Changing academic work: Developing the learning university. Buckingham: SHRE/
Open University Press.
Mayer, R. C., & Schoorman, D. F. (1992). Predicting participant and production outcomes
through a two-dimensional model of organisational commitment. Academy of Management
Journal, 35(3), 671–684.
McConville, G., & Allport, C. (2000). Unhealthy places of learning: Working in Australian universi-
ties. Melbourne: National Tertiary Education Union.
McInnis, C. (1996). Change and diversity in the work patterns of Australian academics. Higher
Education Management, 8(2), 105–117.
McInnis, C. (2000). The work roles of academics in Australian universities. Canberra: Australian
Government Printing Service.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application.
Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Millward-Brown. (1996). Powerful people: A survey of Britain’s professional workforce. London:
Guardian Publishing.
Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). Stress in the workplace: A comparison of
gender and occupations. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20, 63–73.
Paulik, K. (2001). Hardiness, optimism, self-confidence and occupational stress among university
teachers. Studia Psychologica, 43(2), 91–100.
Schonfeld, I. S. (2001). Stress in 1st-year women teachers: The context of social support and
coping. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 127(2), 133–168.
Siu, O.-L. (2002). Occupational stressors and well-being among Chinese employees: The role of
organisational commitment. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(4), 527–544.
Smithers, R. (2003). Third of academics want to quit. The Guardian. Available online at: http://
education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0, 9830, 911 076, 00. html. (accessed 1 December
2004).
Sorcinelli, M. D. (1994). Effective approaches to new faculty development. Journal of Counselling
and Development, 72, 474–479.
Sparks, K., Cooper, C., Fried, Y., & Shirom, A. (1997). The effects of hours of work on
health: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 70(4),
391–408.
 HE institutions and occupational stress 61

Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Well-being and occupational health in the 21st
century workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 489–509.
Stevens, G., Faragher, E. B., & Sparks, K. (1998). The relationship between working hours and health
in an international sample of managers. Presented at the Ist International Work Psychology
Conference Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield, July 1998.
Taris, T. W., Schreurs, P. J. G., & Van Leersel-Van Silfhout, I. J. (2001). Job stress, job strain,
and psychological withdrawal among Dutch university staff: towards a dual-process model for
the effects of occupational stress. Work and Stress, 15(4), 283–296.
Trow, M. (1994). Managerialism and the academic profession: The case of England. Higher
Education Policy, 7(2), 11–18.
Tukey, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Vahtera, J., Kivimaki, M., & Pentti, J. (1997). Effect of organizational downsizing on health of
employees. The Lancet, 350, 1124–1128.
van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2001). Stress and strain in teaching: A structural equation approach.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 243–259.
Wallace, A. (2000). Stress and coping strategies among academic staff at the University of Canterbury.
Unpublished MSc project, Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Warr, P. B., Cook, J., & Wall, T. D. (1979). Scales for the measurement of work attitudes and
aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occcupational Psychology, 52, 129–148.
Watts, W. D., Cox, L., Wright, L. S., Garrison, J., Herkimer, A., & Howze, H. H. (1991). Corre-
lates of drinking and drug use by higher education faculty and staff: Implications for preven-
tion. Journal of Drug Education, 21, 43–64.
Winefield, A. H. (2001). The higher education workplace stress survey. Adelaide: University of South
Australia.
Winefield, A. H., Gillespie, N. A., Stough, C., Dua, J., Hapuarachchi, J., & Boyd, C. (2003).
Occupational stress in Australian university staff: Results from a national survey. International
Journal of Stress Management, 10, 51–63.
Winefield, A. H., & Jarrett, R. (2001). Occupational stress in university staff. International Journal
of Stress Management, 8(4), 285–298.
Winter, R., & Sarros, J. (2001). Corporate reforms to Australian universities: Views from the academic
heartland. Paper presented at the 2nd International Critical Management Studies Conference,
University of Manchester and UMIST, Manchester, UK, July.
Winter, R., & Sarros, J. (2002). The academic work environment in Australian universities: A
motivating place to work? Higher Education Research and Development, 21(3), 243–258.