ASSIGNMENT 3

STUDENT: CHU NAM HOANG (S3754238)

LECTURER: DO THI HA LAN
DATE: 24/05/2020

CONTEMPORARY MANAGEMENT
Contents

Intro.................................................................................................................................. 1

Primary issue................................................................................................................... 1

Heavy workload & Work-life conflict.......................................................................2

Job security & Toxic workplace..................................................................................3

Administrative harassment........................................................................................4

Recommendations..........................................................................................................5

I. Minimize stressors by altering working conditions.............................................6

II. Equip employees with the skills needed to cope with stress............................7

Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 7

Reference List:................................................................................................................. 7
Intro
Amazon is regarded as one of the largest web services companies in the world and a massive retailer. In

its drive for excellence, however, it imposes strict standards and high demands on its employees. This, as

the case study had revealed, has led to Amazon having one of the highest turnover rates among the

Forbes 500. Unreasonably long work hours (both official and mandatory overclock), constant fear of

losing their jobs, and occasional administrative harassment, has led to undue for many of the company’s

employees stress –according to the case study, one ex-employee has witnessed many of their cohort

literally crying at their desks from pressure – and creating what can only be created as a toxic

environment. Amazon needs to overcome this challenge, lest it loses profits, and talented employees

Primary issue
Workplace stress is arguably one of the greatest challenges faced by modern companies – and, indeed,

Amazon itself.

Dyck (2001) estimated that organisations lose as much as 10% profit due to employee workplace stress,

and Hassard et al. (2014) claims that failure to address psychosocial risks (which include work-related

stress) can prove costlier to the employees, employers, and society at large.

Cox (1993) and Colligan & Higgins (2005) argue that repeated exposure to excessive workload and work

pace, job uncertainty, poor interpersonal relationships, work-life conflicts are some of the stressors that

can cause health problems for employees, reduce their productivity, and lead to increased absenteeism.
 Stressors Examples

Long work hours "80-plus-hour workweeks, 24/7 connectivity, no real vacations or holidays"
"White-collar employees participate in routine “business review” meetings, for which
Heavy workload they need to prepare, read, and absorb 50 to 60 pages of reports amounting to
thousands of data points"
"little room for taking a breather or backing off, even if you have to take care of an
No work-life interface
ailing parent, or need to receive treatment for cancer"
"Amazon also uses a 'rank and yank' performance management system. Employees
Low job security
are ranked by their managers, and those near the bottom are terminated every year."
"For instance, it is common for employees to hoard ideas, because sharing becomes a
personal loss for the sharer and a gain for somebody else. Moreover, other’s ideas are
Toxic work environment
not just scrutinised; they are undermined. Groups of employees often conspire against
others on the peer feedback system to get ahead (or to put somebody else behind)."

"During <...> review meetings employees are often quizzed on particular numbers by
Abusive Supervision their managers, and it is not uncommon to hear managers say that responses are
'stupid' or tell workers to 'just stop it.'"

Table 1

The stressor mentioned in the case study are listed in table 1. All of them contribute to Amazon workers’

decreased work satisfaction, mental and physical health, and productivity.

Heavy workload & Work-life conflict

A heavy workload contributes to stress directly (Tetrick & Winslow 2015) and indirectly through

inducing time-strained work-family conflict. Greenhaus & Beutell (1985) define time-based work-family

conflict as a conflict experienced when commitments to one role impede participation in another. Bayazik

(2004) argues that work-family conflict is strongly correlated to work-stress.

Figure 1

Tetrick & Winslow (2015) include a framework for employee well-being in figure 1. Disrupted work-life

balance, especially time-strained one, reduces or outright removes social support one gains from their

friends and family – especially the latter, with whom pressures are likely to mount quicker. Thus, time-

strained work-family conflict not only causes stress, dissatisfaction, and lowered productivity, it also

impedes recovery.

Additionally, the case study mentions workers being penalised for taking time off work for family or

health issues, further disrupting the work-life-balance and sowing resentment at unfair treatment. The

implications of a heavy workload and a lack of work-life balance is clear in form of increased employee

stress and thus, reduced health and productivity.

Job security & Toxic workplace

The company has institutionalized regular, systematic lay-off quotas, with the bottom performers

(relative to the other workers, not the industry standard) getting the sack. This destroys any semblance of

job security for workers, who know that if they slip up even a little bit, or if their colleagues perform too

well, they will lose their job. Additionally, the case study reports many employees fearing being replaced.

Thus, enormous pressure is applied on the employees (Siegrist 1996; Bayazik 2004; Tetrick & Winslow

2015).
The policy is likely trying to motivate employees to continuously improve their output or be left behind,

in a facsimile of Darwinism. However, in nature, the animal at the top of the food-chain will not

necessarily survive; instead, it is the most adaptive ones make the cut. Likewise, the “rank-and-yank”

policy will leave not necessarily the most productive workers, but the ones most willing to do whatever it

takes to survive. The employees’ goals are negatively interdependent; Deutsch (2006) defines them as

goals where probability of success of one threatens the other.

The implication, is that, when combined with the lowered perceived cost of action from the anonymity

afforded to the peer-review system, the lay-off quota incentivises active plotting against and sabotage of

others, engendering mutual distrust and making it hard for employees to cooperate, as well as creating

potential for miscommunication, failure in delegation, empowerment, reducing stability and performance

(Owen 1996). An example brought up in the case study is the hoarding of ideas, as cooperation “becomes

a permanent loss for the sharer and a gain for everybody else”.

Macklem (2005) characterises ‘toxic’ workplaces by unyielding demands, extreme pressure, and cutthroat

ruthlessness. The description delineates Amazon’s culture and environment. Colligan & Higgins (2005)

argue that toxic workplaces cause an enormous amount of stress on the employees, plunging them in a

perpetual state of fear, paranoia, and anxiety. Backbreaking work demands and toxic environments have

been found to be most often stress producing (Karasek & Theorell, 1990)

Administrative harassment
Another issue found is administrative harassment – or abusive supervision. Managers were reported to

have routinely engaged in petty name-calling and humiliating their subordinates in a public setting (the

“business reviews”). Arguably, at least some of them are thus “bully bosses”, who Gledinning (2001)

defines as managers who employs an aggressive management style that causes psychological damage to

others.

Scholars have long established a long list of negative consequences of abusive supervision on the

employees, including lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment, aggressive and/or deviant

behaviour, lower work performance, psychological distress, and lower self-esteem (Burton, Hoobler &

Scheur 2012). Gledinning (2001) adds that a "bully boss" can increase employee turnover rate, harm the

organisation's reputation, and hinder its recruitment efforts, and reduce employee productivity,

creativity, risk-taking, and potentially even lawsuits from scorned exes. Additionally, he mentions that
abusive managers also squash out potential for mentoring and professional development of promising

subordinates, complicating their replacement.

The topping on the cake, Amazon’s policies have warped at least some of their managers into “bullies”.

The case study mentions that, just like their subordinates, the managers have to portray themselves in the

best light while choosing who to sacrifice. Additionally, with the picture painted by the case study, it is

not a stretch to assume that many employees are resentful of their bosses. Human are social creatures

who crave acceptance; working a thankless job no doubt stresses some of the managers out. Burton,

Hoobler & Scheuer (2012) and Gledinning (2001) both argue that supervisor stress is an antecedent to

abusive behaviour. That does not of course, excuse the “bully bosses”, who are ultimately free agents; but

it yet another reason for Amazon to relent on its unceasing pressure.

Recommendations
Stress management intervention can be classified as primary, secondary, and tertiary (Tetrick & Quick

2011). Primary interventions are proactive and focus on all employees, and LaMontagne et al. (2007) claims

that, in general, the intervention types are ranked by effectiveness; they also argue that a system-oriented

approach are more effective than an individual one. According to Tetrick & Winslow (2015), the latter

typically combine multiple types of intervention, causing a greater drain on the patient’s resources to

absorb the information, at least compared to the former.

Tetrick & Winslow (2015) also agree that primary interventions may be the most effective in workplaces,

as “allowing all employees to participate may be the only feasible way to implement the intervention”.

However, one of the challenges for most intervention programs is getting employees to participate. No

doubt, the stigma against mental therapy plays a role in the phenomenon. The authors suggest including

incentives, carefully matching program components to employees’ interests, top leadership support, and

encouraging a culture for health to increase participation.

Colligan & Higgins (2005) suggest three strategies to reduce stress levels in the organisation: to remove or

at least minimize the sources of stress, to equip the employees with the skills needed to better cope with

stress, and to help the employees identify and reduce the tensions in their various relationships. The third

is arguably a sub-case of the first strategy.

I. Minimize stressors by altering working conditions (Colligan & Higgins 2005)
This strategy is primary, though one can argue it’s also tertiary as Amazon’s employees already suffer

from mass-scale work-stress.

The ability to recover from job demands over the weekend, or even overnight, has been shown to be

related to greater levels of performance, general well-being, positive mood and low fatigue (Burton,

Hoobler & Scheuer 2012). Amazon should thus implement more breaks and require less overtime; that

will increase employee productivity, health, and satisfaction.

Amazon should remove their lay-off quota. It is clearly not accomplishing its intended goal, and the side-

effects have proven detrimental to the employees' mental health and productivity, the company culture,

and talent retention. And one could argue that the measure increased worker commitment, the opposite

can also be true: after all, why work hard for a company that you know is likely to fire you soon.

Additionally, Amazon should also deal with abusive supervisors. The first step is to identify abuses of

power. One method is to look out for spikes in transfer requests or voluntary resignation; however, as

Glendinning (2001) aptly puts it, this is merely closing the barn after the horses have bolted (or worse, the

pigs, who would proceed to multiply and wreck the ecological system). He, in his literary review,

suggests establishing safe, anonymous channels for employees to air their grievances while recognising

that employees could be attempting to mask their deficiencies behind allegations of bullying.

The next step is to put a stop to the managers’ bullying and employee bullying (caused by the lay-off

quota). It is recommended to steer conversation away from employees reporting bullying behaviour and

to instead highlight how, due to changing market conditions, the “bully’s” management style has to

change (Glendinning 2001). This applies not just to abusive supervisors, but also to scheming employees.

With the latter, due to their relative lack of power, a less tact (but still within reason) is required. Harsher

reprimands can be issued to try to show the commitment to rooting out problematic behaviour.

Then, the supervisors (and problematic employees) should be provided training and rehabilitation

opportunities. Should they fail to change, then their contract may need to be terminated.

However, that is curing the symptom, not the illness. In order for any permanent changes to take place,

the company needs to make it clear that it is, and forever will be, a "bully-free zone" (Glendinning 2001).

More careful screening of new hires as well as appropriate sanctioning of offenders is recommended.
II. Equip employees with the skills needed to cope with stress (Colligan &

Higgins 2005)
Amazon should provide the employee with services such as an employee assistance program, links to

stress management resources, or therapy, offer courses that teach skills such as implementing a new diet,

meditation and relaxation techniques in order to relieve the physical and psychological effects of stress

(Colligan & Higgins 2005).

Cognitive-behavioural interventions are argued to be more effective than relaxation techniques (Tetrick &

Winslow 2015). Cognitive-behavioural interventions aim to change patterns of thinking or behaviour that

are behind people’s difficulties, and so change the way they feel. However, in the case of Amazon, it can

be argued that it is the company’s unreasonable demands and norms that cause stress; thus, imparting

relaxation onto the employees may prove more effective.

Ultimately for Amazon, implementing this particular strategy is just a stopgap: so long as the roots

remain, the weed that is employee stress and dissatisfaction will not be gone.

Conclusion
Amazon has achieved great heights over the last few decades, but on the backs of its overworked

employees. Long work hours, low job security, a toxic environment, and abusive supervisors have

exerted an enormous amount of pressure on the workers, generating stress. The consequences include

loss of profits, high turnover rates, and potential lawsuits.

To overcome the issue, Amazon is recommended to reduce work hours and institute more breaks,

remove lay-off quotas, deal with abusive supervisors and employees, and arm their employees with

relevant relaxation techniques to help cope with stress.

Reference List:
 Hammer, TH, Saksvik, PØ, Nytrø, K, Torvatn, H & Bayazit, M 2004, ‘Expanding the Psychosocial

Work Environment: Workplace Norms and Work–Family Conflict as Correlates of Stress and

Health’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, vol.9, no.1, pp.83–97, viewed 3 August 2020,

<https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.83>

 Burton, J, Hoobler, J & Scheuer, M 2012, ‘Supervisor Workplace Stress and Abusive Supervision:

The Buffering Effect of Exercise’, Journal of Business and Psychology, vol.27, pp.271–279
 Colligan, T & Higgins, E 2005, ‘Workplace Stress: Etiology and Consequences’, Journal of

Workplace Behavioral Health, vol.21, iss.2, pp.89-97

 Cox, T., ‘Stress research and stress management: putting theory to work’, HSE contract research

report no 61/1993, Sudbury, HSE Books, 1993.

 Erdem, F, Ozen, J & Atsan, N 2003, ‘The relationship between trust and team performance’, Work

Study, vol.52, no.7, pp.337-340

 Glendinning, P 2001, ‘Workplace bullying: Curing the cancer of the American workplace’, Public

Personnel Management, vol.30, no.3, pp.269-286

 Greenhaus, J & Beutell, N, ‘Sources of Conflict Between Work and Family Roles’, Academy of

Management Review, vol.10, no.1, pp.76-88.

 Hassard J, Teoh K, Cox T, Dewe P, Cosmar M, Gründler R, Flemming, D, Cosemans, B & Van de

Broek, K 2014, Calculating the costs of work-related stress and psychosocial risks, European Agency for

Safety and Health at Work, Luxembourg, Luxembourg😊

 Karasek, R & Theorell, T 1990, Health work: stress, productivity, and the reconstruction, Basic Books,

NY, US

 Mishra, J & Crampton, S 1998, ‘Employee monitoring: Privacy in the workplace?’, S.A.M.

Advanced Management Journal, vol.63, no.3, pp.4-11

 Owen, H 1996, ‘Building teams on a display of trust’, People Management, vol.2, no.6, pp.34-37

 Rafferty, A, Restubog, S & Jimmieson, N 2010, ‘Losing sleep: Examining the cascading effects of

supervisors' experience of injustice on subordinates' psychological health’, Work & Stress, vol.24,

no.1, pp.36-55

 Siegrist, J 1996, ‘Adverse health effects of high-effort/low reward conditions’, Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, vol.1, pp.27–41

 Tetrick LE & Quick JC 2011, ‘Overview of occupational health psychology: public health in

occupational settings’, in Quick, JC & Tetrick, LE (eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health

Psychology, American Psychological Association, Washington DC, pp. 3–20

 Tetrick, L & Winslow, C 2015, ‘Workplace Stress Management Interventions and Health

Promotion’, The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, vol.2,

pp.583-603

 Deutsh, M 2006, ‘Chapter 1: Cooperation and Competition’, in Deutsch, M, Coleman, P &

Marcus, E (eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, Theory and Practice, 2nd edn, Jossey-Bass, San-

Francisco, California, US, pp. 23-42