Occupational Stress

A BRIEF HISTORY

 Walter Cannon (1914)

o Relationship between emotions and physiological response. Coined the term
homeostasis.
o Stressful conditions of job are typically perceived as aversive events. They
require adaptive response designed to return to employee to normal
functioning.
 “Father of stress” Hans Selye (1956)
o The first actual scientific investigations of stress.
o Selye, an endocrinologist, was conducting research on reproductive
hormones in animals.
o During the course of this research, he was required to expose these animals
to a number of aversive stimuli, such as temperature extremes and radiation.
While doing this, Selye observed a great deal of predictability in these
animals’ efforts to adapt to the aversive stimuli.
o From this, Selye reasoned that humans do much the same in their efforts to
cope with the challenges of everyday life, and he developed the general
adaptation syndrome to describe this process.
o The general adaptation syndrome consists of three distinct stages: alarm,
resistance, and exhaustion. In the alarm stage, the physiological resources of
the body are mobilized, in wholesale fashion, to deal with an impending
threat. In the resistance stage, the body recognizes that not all of its
resources may be needed, and thus continues to mobilize only those that are
necessary. Finally, in the exhaustion stage, the body realizes that its
physiological resources are depleted and, as a result, makes another attempt
to mobilize. If this second attempt at mobilizing physiological resources does
not neutralize the threat, this may lead to permanent damage to the
organism, or what Selye termed diseases of adaptation.
 o While the general adaptation syndrome tends to be accepted as a general
framework by stress researchers, it has not been submitted to extensive
empirical tests in humans. Furthermore, it has recently been argued that this
response is more appropriate for males than it is for females (Taylor et al.,
2000).
o Selye’s work was undoubtedly pioneering, but it must be remembered that
he focused primarily on physiological reactions to aversive physical stimuli.
He was not focusing specifically on stress in the workplace.
 University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (1960s)
o The first large-scale program of research focusing specifically on stress in the
workplace.
o focus was on psychosocial factors in the workplace that may be stressful to
employees. Psychosocial factors represent aspects of the work environment
having to do with interactions with other people. In particular, the Michigan
researchers focused much of their attention on what they termed role
stressors which are aversive working conditions associated with behaviors
expected of each employee in an organization (e.g., Caplan, Cobb, French,
Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964).
o Despite the contributions of the University of Michigan research program,
occupational stress did not attract a lot of interest among organizational
psychologists in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
 Journal of Personnel Psychology The Beehr and Newman compilation (1978)
o an important scholarly work led to steep increase in the volume of
occupational stress research after its publication (Beehr, 1995, 1998).

APPROACHES AND TERMINOLOGY

 Beehr and Franz (1987) proposed that occupational stress can be approached from
four different perspectives: (1) medical, (2) clinical/counseling, (3) engineering
psychology, and (4) organizational psychology.
 Medical approach to occupational stress focuses on the contribution of stress in the
workplace to employee health and illness. Stressful aspects of the work environment
may be considered pathogenic agents that contribute to disease conditions.
 The clinical/counseling approach to occupational stress emphasizes the impact of
stressful working conditions on mental health outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety).
Beehr and Franz (1987) also point out that, compared to the others, this approach
tends to focus more on treatment than on research. That is, rather than focusing on
why stressful work conditions lead to problems, adherents of this approach tend to
focus on developing methods to relieve stress-related symptomatology (e.g., Beehr,
Jex, & Ghosh, 2001). As one would expect, the clinical/counseling approach is
dominated by those trained in clinical or counseling psychology.
 The engineering psychology approach to occupational stress focuses on sources of
stress that originate from the physical work environment. Examples of these might
include work schedules, pace of work, or perhaps the design of employees’
workstations. Another distinctive feature of this approach, according to Beehr and
Franz (1987), is that it emphasizes the performance-related implications of stress in
the workplace.
 The organizational psychology approach tends to focus on psychosocial sources of
stress in the workplace.
o This implies two things. First, this approach tends to focus heavily on
cognitive appraisal, or the process by which employees perceive the work
environment and decide whether it is stressful.
o Second, as was pointed out earlier, this approach tends to focus on sources
of stress that emanate from interactions with others (i.e., they are social in
nature).
o researchers tend to be interested in the impact of occupational stress on
employee outcomes that directly impact organizational effectiveness.
 In recent years, these four approaches have largely converged under one umbrella
known as occupational health psychology (OHP; Barling & Griffiths 2011).
 o OHP is essentially an interdisciplinary field that is concerned with using the
theories and methods of psychology (and closely related fields) to enhance
the health, safety, and well-being of employees.

Stress Terminologies

 A stimulus definition implies that stress is some type of force acting upon the
individual.
 A response definition implies that stress is synonymous with the way in which
employees react to stressful job conditions.
 A stimulus response definition
o the term stress is used merely to refer to the overall process by which the
work environment may negatively impact employees.
o Stressors are used to represent aspects of the work environment that may
require some adaptive response on the part of employees.
o Strain refers to a multitude of maladaptive ways employees may react to
stressors.
 Occupational stress researchers typically classify strains in three
categories: psychological, physical, and behavioral.
 Psychological strains include affective or emotional responses to
stressors. Common examples of these from the occupational stress
literature include anxiety and frustration (Spector, Dwyer, & Jex,
1988), hostility (Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986), and
depression (Heinisch & Jex, 1997). Physical strains include responses
that are related to employees’ physical health and well-being. The
most common method of measuring physical strain has been self-
reported physical symptoms (e.g., Frese, 1985; Spector & Jex, 1998).
Other methods that can be found in the occupational stress literature
include the assessment of physiological indexes (e.g., blood pressure,
heart rate; Fried, Rowland, & Ferris, 1984; Schaubroeck & Merritt,
1997), and diagnosed disease conditions (Sales & House, 1971). One
important physical strain examined recently in the study of
occupational stress is immune system functioning.
  Bellingrath, Rohleder, and Kudielka (2010) examined how
healthy school teachers responded to a laboratory stressor
called the Trier Social Stress Test. In this test the teachers had
to give free-formed speech and perform mental arithmetic
exercises in front of a group of people while supposedly being
videotaped. The authors took blood samples to assess immune
system functioning before the speech and at different time
periods after the speech. The researchers found that teachers
who felt they were putting more into their job than they were
getting out of it experienced lower levels of natural killer
immune system cells in response to the laboratory stressor in
comparison to teachers who believed their rewards were
consistent with the effort they put into their job. The authors
hypothesized that reduced immune system functioning
following stressors could explain why some employees
experience stress-related illnesses.
 Behavioral strains have been explored the least in occupational stress
research. This is likely due to the difficulties associated with obtaining
behavioral indexes, as well as a lack of understanding of the many
forms of behavior in organizations (e.g., Campbell, 1990). Perhaps the
most relevant form of behavioral strain in organizations is impaired
job performance. The majority of occupational stress studies that
have examined the impact of stressors on job performance have
measured it through the use of supervisory ratings (Jex, 1998). Other
behavioral strains that have been examined, with varying degrees of
success, include absenteeism, turnover, and substance abuse. Despite
the multitude of strains that have been studied over the years, it is
important to keep in mind that not all reactions to stressors are
negative. A tight deadline may be seen as challenging, or perhaps a
vaguely defined role may provide employees the opportunity to carve
out their niche in an organization. In fact, in recent years,
psychologists have begun to systematically study the more positive
 effects of many types of stressors (Britt, Adler, & Bartone, 2001;
Nelson & Simmons, 2011).

OCCUPATIONAL STRESS MODELS

Institute for Social Research (ISR) Model

One of the earliest occupational stress models came out of the previously mentioned
program of research at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (French &
Kahn, 1962; Katz & Kahn, 1978.

Demands-Control Model

 proposed by Robert Karasek in the late 1970s

 posits that the most stressful situations in the workplace are those in which
employees face heavy job demands but, at the same time, are given little control
over their work.
 (Karasek [1979] used the term Job Decision Latitude to denote control.) Most
research using the Demands Control model as a theoretical framework has examined
health and physiological outcomes (e.g., Fox, Dwyer, & Ganster, 1993; Karasek,
Baker, Marxer, Ahlbom, & Theorell, 1981; Perrewe & Ganster, 1989).
 Some research has also shown that the proposed Demands-Control interaction may
be less likely to occur among employees who have high levels of social support
(Jonsson, Rosengren, Dotevall, Lappas, & och Wilhelmsen, Tucker, Jimmieson, and
Oei (2013) found that having job control offset the effects of high workload on the
outcomes of anxiety and job satisfaction, but only if employees were part of a
workgroup that was high in collective efficacy.
 Recently Häusser, Mojzisch, and Schulz-Hardt (2011) conducted an experiment
where they manipulated job demands by having individuals perform a high or low
amount of work, and manipulated job control having the workload self-paced or
paced by a computer. The authors then measured subjective well-being and
assessed salivary cortisol as an indicator of stress. Supporting the Demands-Control
model, salivary cortisol increased in the condition where participants did not have
control over their work, but did not increase when participants could control the
pace of their work. Job-Demands Resources Model In recent years, Bakker and
Demerouti (2007) have expanded upon the Job Demands-Control model to develop
the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model. The basic premise of the Demands-
Resources model is essentially the same as the Demands-Control model, but with a
couple of exceptions. First, most research assessing the Job Demands-Control model
defines job demands as high levels of workload. The JD-R model recognizes there are
a variety of demands besides workload, and investigates the effects of these
demands on well-being and motivation. Second, Bakker and Demerouti (2007)
proposed that job control is one of many resources that employees can use to meet
the demands of their jobs. According to these authors, resources can be external to
the employee (e.g., organizational support, participation in decision making,
rewards) or internal (e.g., an employee’s mental approach to his or her job
demands). Although the Demands-Resources model has not been around as long as
the Demands-Control model, it has generally had stronger levels of research support.
The main reason for this is that although job control may be helpful in many
instances, there may be some cases where it is not. Researchers who have tested the
Demands-Resources model have done a good job matching the job demands with
the corresponding resources on the employee side (Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola,
2008; van den Broeck et al., 2010). The following example illustrates this point. If
employees are having trouble balancing the demands of work and family domains,
being able to control how their job tasks are completed is probably not going to
help. On the other hand, what probably would help in this situation would be for
employees to have more control over their work schedule. One strength of research
examining the JD-R model is the use of longitudinal designs to tease apart the extent
to which job demands and resources contribute to changes in well-being and
employee health over time. A number of recent studies have provided support for
the hypotheses that changes in job demands and job resources are associated with
changes in indices of well-being (e.g., burnout), as well as changes in organizational
attitudes and turnover intentions (Brauchli, Schaufeli, Jenny, Füllemann, & Bauer,
2013; Hakanen et al., 2008; Rodriguez-Munoz, Sanz-Vergel, Demerouti, & Bakker,
2012; Schaufeli, Bakker, & van Rhenen, 2009). However, as was the case with the
Demands-Control model, evidence supporting the existence of interactions between
job demands and job resources predicting outcomes is more sporadic (Brough et al.,
 2013). One lesson to be learned from research attempting to find interactions
between job demands and job resources is to ensure that the resource examined
helps offset the particular demand being examined.

Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory

 Steven Hobfoll (2001) developed his influential COR theory to better understand
what causes individuals to experience stress and what determines whether the
continual experience of stress contributes to burnout at work.
 One primary proposition of this model is that people are motivated to build their
pool of resources over time, and the actual or threatened loss of resources creates
stress for individuals.
 A second component of the model is that people experience more intense negative
emotional reactions when resources are lost, compared to positive reactions when
resources are gained. Individuals are especially attuned to negative or threatening
stimuli, as opposed to positive or appealing stimuli, probably because an orientation
to danger was adaptive in allowing our ancestors to survive long ago (Baumeister,
Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, Vohs, 2001). This principle helps explain why the experience
of different work stressors can at times have rather immediate effects on employees,
whereas positive events at work can remain in the background. Finally, the model
contends that if individuals continue to experience a loss of resources without
replenishing them, “loss spirals” will occur, which can eventually result in burnout.

Person–Environment Fit Model

 According to this approach, an employee perceives the work environment as

stressful when there is a lack of fit (Caplan, 1987; French, Caplan, & Harrison,
1982). The general notion of P–E Fit is rather simple but there are many ways in
which fit (and misfit) between an employee and the work environment can
occur.
 According to Kristof (1996), fit (and misfit) may indicate the degree to which
employees’ skills and abilities match the requirements of the job they are
performing. An employee who lacks the skills and abilities necessary to perform a
job may feel overwhelmed and inadequate. Conversely, when job requirements
 are well below an employee’s capabilities, the results may be boredom,
frustration, and dissatisfaction. In either case, it is very likely that such an
employee will perceive the job as stressful.
 The concept of P–E Fit (and misfit) may also occur at a more “macro” level of
analysis. More specifically, one can speak of the degree of fit between
characteristics of the employee and characteristics of the organization. For
example, suppose an employee who places a very high value on individual
accomplishment goes to work for an organization that places a very high value
on teamwork. This would obviously be a poor fit and it is likely that such an
individual would ultimately find working in such an environment stressful.
Occupational Stress and Employee Health and Well-B The P–E Fit approach has
proven to be quite useful to occupational stress researchers. Over the years,
considerable refinements have been made both in conceptualizing fit (e.g.,
Edwards, 1994; Kristof, 1996) and in the statistical analysis of P–E Fit data
(Edwards & Parry, 1993).
 Perhaps the major limitation of the P–E Fit approach is that, compared to the
Environment component, we seem to be much further ahead in the
measurement of the Person component of the model. That is, psychologists have
devoted considerable time and energy to conceptualizing and measuring
individual characteristics such as abilities, skills, and personality. Far less
attention has been given to conceptualizing and measuring unique characteristics
of organizations.

Effort-Reward Imbalance

 This model has been developed fairly recently, and has become quite influential in
guiding occupational stress research in Europe.
 The model was developed by Johannes Siegrist in Germany, who proposed that the
most stressful situations are those in which employees’ efforts are out of proportion
with the rewards that their job is providing them (Siegrist, 2002); put differently,
employees are putting more into the job than they are getting out of it. One can
think of many occupations in our society that would likely fit this “high effort–low
reward” profile (e.g., teaching, social work, nursing).
 Siegrist also proposed that people who demonstrate overcommitment (OC) to work
are most likely to experience this imbalance because it is unlikely that the rewards
they receive will ever match their efforts. In general, research supports the primary
tenets of the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model.
 Employees experiencing high Effort-Reward Imbalance are the most susceptible to
symptoms of poor health (Lehr, Koch, & Hillert, 2010; Peter, Geissler, & Siegrist,
1998; Siegrist, 1996; Siegrist et al., 2004).
 In an interesting longitudinal study spanning 4 years, Feldt et al. (2013) also found
that managers characterized by a profile of being high in ERI and OC were the most
likely to report burnout as well as poorer recovery experiences from work (e.g.,
detaching and relaxing following work). Finally, Feuerhahn, Kuhnel, and Kudielka
(2012) found that ERI and OC interacted with one another to predict both self-
reported emotional exhaustion, and supervisor-rated performance. ERI was related
to both exhaustion and poor performance, and this effect was magnified for
employees also reporting OC.

Challenge-Hindrance Distinction

 Although not necessarily a model, one of the most important developments in

recent years in the field of occupational stress and employee health is the
distinction between the effects of challenge versus hindrance stressors.
 Challenge stressors are work demands that can potentially be reduced through
motivated action by the employee, such as heavy workloads, impending
deadlines, a temporary crisis, or taking over a work unit that is having difficulties.
To be sure, these are clearly situations that may be perceived as stressful, yet
they may also potentially challenge and engage us.
 Hindrance stressors, on the other hand, are those that people tend to appraise as
obstacles to successful performance that cannot be overcome through increased
effort. In organizational settings the most common examples of hindrance
stressors are things such as organizational politics, unclear performance
expectations, situational constraints or other forms of “red tape,” lack of job
security, and lack of career progression.
  Note that compared to the examples of challenge stressors described above, the
examples of hindrance stressors all reflect (1) a high level of uncertainty for the
employee, (2) relatively low levels of control, and (3) a good deal of frustration.
 Recent research suggests that challenge and hindrance stressors have different
relationships with important health and organizational outcomes. For example,
challenge stressors are positively associated with motivation and performance,
whereas hindrance stressors are negatively associated with these outcomes.
However, both challenge and hindrance stressors tend to be associated with low
well-being and greater physical symptoms (LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004;
LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). Importantly, Wallace, Edwards, Arnold,
Frazier, and Finch (2009) found that the perception of challenge stressors was
related to higher levels of performance primarily for those employees who felt
they were supported by their organization.
 Most researchers believe that challenge versus hindrance stressors exert their
differential effects as a function of employees appraising challenging stressors in
more positive ways, and hindrance stressors in more negative ways (Webster,
Beehr, & Love, 2011).

Holistic Stress model

 Nelson and Simmons (2011) borrowed the term eustress from Hans Selye to indicate
the positive responses employees may have to demanding work conditions (e.g.,
vigor, energy, meaning). Nelson and Simmons (2011) argue that demands at work
can be appraised in ways that either generate distress or eustress, and that
personality factors such as optimism, hardiness, and self-efficacy determine the type
of response an employee has to stressful conditions.
 Hargrove, Nelson, and Cooper (2013) have recently noted that the just-discussed
challenge-hindrance framework highlights the positive effects that challenge
stressors have for motivation and performance, and that organizations should not
eliminate work demands that challenge employees to perform better ( Sonnentag &
Frese, 2013).
 Britt, Adler, and Bartone (2001) found that military personnel reported positive
responses to being deployed in support of a peacekeeping operation, and soldiers
 from the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have also reported benefits
associated with performing well under incredibly difficult situations (Wood, Britt,
Thomas, Klocko, & Bliese, 2011).
 Britt and Jex (2014) note that research is only beginning to examine the conditions
under which work demands result in positive outcomes for employees, and that
future research is needed to better understand the conditions under which positive
outcomes can occur.

Comparison of Occupational Stress Models

 However, over the years, the ISR model and the model proposed by Beehr and
Newman (1978) have guided the bulk Occupational Stress and Employee Health
and Well-Being of occupational stress research. This suggests that both models
have served as road maps to guide occupational stress researchers’ efforts. It is
relatively easy to use each of these models to guide a specific research
investigation or to clarify the focus of a stress-related organizational
intervention.
 Demands-Control model (Karasek, 1979) has clearly received the most empirical
scrutiny, and the results have been mixed (e.g., Fox et al., 1993; Perrewe &
Ganster, 1989; Spector, 1987a). As was stated earlier, this may be due to the fact
that the conditions under which demands and control interact are more complex
than those Karasek originally proposed (e.g., Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997).
Although the Job Demands-Resources model has been developed more recently,
this model builds on the Demands-Control model, and appears to be more
flexible at addressing a greater range of demands and resources.
 The Conservation of Resources model of organizational stress has also received
support, but it’s predications tend to be similar to that of the Job Demands-
Control model.
 The P–E Fit approach has also received a fair amount of empirical testing (see
Kristof, 1996), though not all of this testing has been in the context of
occupational stress research (but see Ford, 2012).
  The Effort-Reward Imbalance model has generated a fair amount of research that
has been supportive of the model, but has not been as prolific as the Job
Demands-Resources model.

WORKPLACE STRESSORS

A stressor represents anything in the job or organizational environment that requires

some adaptive response on the part of the employee.

The stressors covered in this section represent two general types:

 those that have been commonly studied or have received considerable attention
in the occupational stress literature
 2 those that have received less attention but have more recently become the
focus of attention.

Commonly Studied Stressors

 Role Stressors
 Work load
 Interpersonal conflict
 Organizational constraints
 Perceived Control

EFFECTS OF STRESS

Constant exposure to stress leads to increased healthcare costs, higher rates of absenteeism
and turnover, more on the job accidents and reduced productivity. Can lead to Depression
and burnout. Effects Employee health and their Social personal life.