MODULE1

WORKERSTRESS,
NEGATI
VEEMPLOYEEATTI
TUDESANDBEHAVI
ORS

STRESSOR-i
sanenv
ir
onment
alev
entt
hati
sper
cei
vedbyani
ndi
vi
dual
tobet
hreat
eni
ng.

Workers
tres
sinv
olvesphy
siol
ogi
cal
and/
orps
ychol
ogi
cal
reac
tionst
oanev
entt
hati
sper
cei
vedt
obe
t
hreat
eni
ngortaxi
ng.

Accordi
ngtotheear
lyst
res
sresearcher
,HansSel
ye(1
976),s
tres
sisprimar
il
yaphy
siol
ogicalr
eact
iontocer
tai
n
thr
eateni
ngenvi
ronment
alevent
s.FromSelye’
sper
spect
iv
e,workers
tresswoul
dsi
mplyrefert
othestr
ess
causedbyeventsi
ntheworkenvi
ronment.

Psychologis
tJohnFrenchandhi
scol
leagues(
French,Capl
an,
&Harri
son,1
982;French,
Rogers
,&Cobb, 1
974)
saythatworkerstr
essres
ult
sfr
omalackof“fi
t”betweenaper
son’
sski
ll
sandabi
li
ti
esandthedemandsofthe
j
obandt heworkpl
ace.

I
notherwor ds
,aworkerwhoistot
all
yunqual
i
fi
edforapart
icul
arj
obshouldfeelatremendousamountofst
res
s.
Forex
ampl e,i
magineaworkerwit
hli
tt
lepr
evi
ousexperi
encewithcomputersystemsapplyi
ngforandbei
ng
hi
redasacommuni cati
onspeci
ali
st
,onlyt
ofi
ndoutthatt
hejobrequi
resathoroughk nowl
edgeofvari
ous
computernetwor
ki
ngs yst
ems.

Richar dLazarus(1991;RichardLazarus&Folkman,1984),inhis“t
ransact
ional
”v i
ewofwor kers t
ress,saw
stressasr esul
ti
ngf r
omt hewor ker’
spercept
iont
hatacertainenvir
onmentaleventi
sat hr
eatorachal lenge,
factoringinyourpercepti
onofhowcapabl eyouwi
ll
beatmanagi ngthethr
eat.FromRichardLaz arus
’s
per specti
ve,youandI mightinterpr
etthesameeventverydiff
erentl
y—I mi
ghtfindits
tres
sful
, youmi ghtviewi
t
ast otall
yharmless(orperhapsev enaspleas
antl
ychall
enging!)
.

Alt
houghwemos toftenthi
nkofs t
ressasanunpl
eas antst
ate,i
tcanhavebothnegat
iveandposi
ti
veaspect
s.
Forexampl
e,imaginethaty
ouhav ebeenworkingforseveraly
earsasanassi
stantmanagerf
oral
argecompany
andfi
ndoutthatyouhav ej
ustrecei
vedapromotiontodepartmentmanager,
apos i
ti
onyouhavebeentry
ingto
obtai
nfors
omet i
me. Withyournewpos i
ti
oncomef eeli
ngsofstr
ess.

Someoft hesearenegati
ve,suchast
hes t
resst
hatwi
ll
resul
tfromhav i
ngtowor kmanyoverti
mehourswithout
addi
ti
onal compensat
ion;bei
ngrequi
redtomakefor
malpresentati
onsregul
arl
ytoyourpeersandsuperi
ors(and
havi
ngy ourpres
entati
onscri
ti
call
yev
aluatedbyt
hem);andtakingontheresponsi
bi
li
tytotakethecr
it
ici
smfor
anyproblemsoccurri
nginyourdepar
tment.

Ontheotherhand,therear
emanypos i
ti
vereacti
onsassoci
atedwi
ththepromoti
on,i
ncl
udi
ngfeel
i
ngsof
accompl
i
s hment,anti
cipat
ion,pri
de,
andchallenge.Li
kethenegat
iv
eas pect
s,t
heseposi
ti
ver
espons
esal
so
i
nducephy s
iol
ogicalandps ychol
ogi
cal
reacti
onsinthebody.

Somes t
ressresearchersdisti
nguishthenegati
ves t
ress,t
ermeddist
ress,
fromt hepos i
ti
vek i
ndofstress,cal
led
eus tr
es s
. Wear ealll
i
k elyf
amili
arwiththephysi
ological
reacti
onstostr
ess.Theyincludesignsofarousalsuchas
i
ncr easedhear tandr espir
ator
yrates,elev
atedbloodpressure,
andprofusesweating.Theps ychol
ogical
reactionstos t
ressincludefeeli
nganx i
ety,f
ear,
frust
rati
on,anddespair
,aswellasappr ai
si
ngorev al
uatingthe
stressfuleventandi t
si mpact,t
hinki
ngaboutthes tr
essful
experi
ence,andment al
lyprepari
ngt ot
akes t
epst otr
y
todeal withthes t
ress .

I
nmanyway
s,s
tres
sisaper
cept
ual
proces
s.Anev
entt
hatonei
ndi
vi
dual
per
cei
vest
obes
tres
sful
maynotbe
l
abel
edassuchbysomeoneelse.Forexample,maki
ngaf ormalpresent
ati
oni
nfrontofal
argeaudiencemaybe
per
cei
vedasext
remel
ys t
res
sfulf
ortheaveragecoll
egestudent,butmaybeperceiv
edasenergi
zing(and
per
hapsf
un)byapersonwhoisaccustomedt opubl
icspeaking.

Becaus
estr
essmaycauseavari
etyofr
eacti
onsandfeel
ings
,andbecauseperceptionsofs
tressmayv
aryf
rom
pers
ontoper
son,
str
esshasnotbeenpart
icul
arl
yeas
yt odefi
ne,
anditi
sverydiff
icultt
omeas ur
e.

Compani
esandmanager shav ebecomemor eandmoreconcernedwitht
heef fectsofs
tres
sonworker
sandon
i
mport
ant“bott
om-l
ine”v ar
iables
,suchasproduct
iv
it
y,abs
enteeis
m, andturnover.Whyalloft
hei
nter
esti
n
wor
kerst
ress?Themos tobv i
ousreasoni
sthatt
oomuchs t
resscancauseil
lnes s
.

STRESS-RELATEDILLNESSESincl
ude:ul
cer
s,hypertensi
onandcor
onaryhear
tdi
sease,
migr
aines,
asthma
at
tack
s,andcol
it
is
.Ifwor
kerst
ressl
eadstost
ress
- r
elatedi
ll
ness
es,r
atesofabs
ent
eeis
mcanincrease.

Atthepsychologi
call
evel,s
tresscancaus
emental
str
ain,
feel
i
ngsoff
ati
gue,anxi
ety
, anddepr
ess
iont
hatcan
reduceworkerproducti
vi
tyandquali
tyofwor
k.I
faj
obbecomestoost
ressf
ul,aworkermaybecompel
ledtoqui
t
andfindaless-st
ress
fulposi
tion.

Thus
,work
erst
res
smayinf
luencetur
noveraswel
l.
Manager
sandworker
smayal
sobeconcernedabouts
tres
s
atamor
epers
onall
evel
.Workers
tres
scanbe,inmanyways
,thef
li
psi
deofj
obsat
is
fact
ion.

Whereasjobsati
sfacti
onr
epresent
sthe“
posit
ives”as
s oci
atedwi
thwork,st
ressi
sawayofconcept ual
izi
ngthe
“negati
ves”as
sociatedwi
thj
obs —thepr
essures,
thestrai
ns,t
heconf
li
cts
.Nodoubt, muchoftheinter
esti
n
workerstr
essr
esultsfr
omthefactt
hatmanagers,
businessowner
s,andall
othersor
tsofworkersexperi
ence
str
essonaday -t
o-daybasi
s.

SOURCESOFWORKERSTRESS

General
ly
,stres
scanari
sefromeithert
heenv
ir
onment(
si
tuat
ional
str
ess
)orf
romani
ndi
vi
dual
’
sper
sonal
char
acteri
st
ics(di
spos
it
ionals
tres
s )
.

Si
tuat
ional
str
esscancomef
romal
las
pect
sofourl
i
ves
.

•SI
TUATIONALSTRESS-s
tres
sar
is
ingf
romcer
tai
ncondi
ti
onst
hatex
isti
nthewor
kenv
ir
onment
,ori
nthe
wor
ker
’sper
sonal
li
fe.

Wear esubj
ectedt
oawi derangeofstr
ess
orsathome, atschool,
andinourint
erpersonalr
elat
ions
hips
,aswel
l
asthestr
essor
sweencounteratwork.Nodoubt,al
lthesevari
ouss our
cesofstr
es saccumulat
eandaddtoour
overal
lst
res
slevel
s.Thati
s,str
essathomecanspil
lovertowor ksi
tuat
ionsandviceversa.

Mos tst
res
sresearcher
sreali
zethi
sandemphas i
zethatwhenstudyi
ngstr
ess,i
ti
simpor
tantt
olookatthebr
oad
pi
ctureofani
ndividual
’
stotalst
res
s, r
athert
hanf
ocusingnar
rowlyonst
ressderi
vedf
romwork(Eri
ckson,
Ni
chols,&Rit
ter,2000;Frone,Russel
l,&Cooper
,1991).

STRESSFULOCCUPATI
ONS

I
ti
sgener al
lybeli
evedthatcertainoccupati
ons
, suchasairtr
aff
iccont
rol
l
er,
physi
ci
anorotherhealt
h-care
pr
ovider,poli
ceoffi
cer
, andfi
refi
ghter,ar
epart
icular
lys
tressf
ul.
Therehasbeeni
ncreasedat
tenti
ontopostal
workers
’s t
ress,
foll
owinghighlypubli
cizedcasesofpostalworker
satt
acki
ngandki
lli
ngcoworkers
.Thishas
evenledtotheslangterm“ goingpostal.
”
I
sitt
ruet
hatcer
tai
noccupat
ionsar
epar
ti
cul
arl
yst
res
spr
one?

Thereissomeevidencetosupportthi
s.Forex
ample,st
udiesofairtraf
fi
ccontrol
ler
sindicat
ethatt
heydoindeed
experi
encehi
ghlevelsofwork-r
elat
eds tr
ess,
asdomedi caldoctorsandnurs
es( Leonhardt&Vogt,201
1;
Rutl
edgeetal.
,2009; Spar
ks&Cooper , 1
999).Si
mil
arl
y,studiesofdenti
stssuggestthatdenti
st
ryi
sahigh-
st
ressoccupat
ion(Cooper,Mall
inger,
&Kahn, 1978;
DiMat t
eo, Shugars,
&Hay s
, 1
993) .

High-
levelmanagersandbusinessexecuti
vesar ealsobelievedt
oholdextremelystres
sfulj
obs.Pol
iceof
fi
cer
s’
andfi
ref
ighter
s’j
obsarepart
icular
lys
tressfulbecauseoft hephysi
caldanger si
nvolv
ed( Chamberl
in&Green,
2010;Tehrani&Piper
,2011)
.Wes awt hedanger sassociatedwi
ththesejobsduringandaftert
heSeptember11
,
2001,tr
agedy.Theday -
to-
daydanger sfacingpoliceoff
icersandfi
ref
ight
er sarei
ndeeds tr
essf
ul.

However,
somes t
udi
ess uggestthatrat
herthancaus
ingst
ress
,theex
cit
ementandchal
l
engeofdeal
ingwi
th
phy
sical
dangermayactuall
ybemot i
vat
ingand“enri
chi
ng”tomanypoli
ceof
fi
cersandf
ir
efi
ght
ers(
Jermi
er,
Gai
nes,&McIntos
h,1989; Ri
ggio&Col e,1995).

I
nteres
tingl
y,studi
esofpoli
ceoff
icerssuggestthattheysuf
ferfr
omthes amesourcesofstr
ess,suchas
i
ncreasedresponsibi
li
ti
esandworkloadsanddiffi
cul
tieswit
hc owor
kers
,aspersonsinotheroccupat
ions(Br
own,
Cooper,&Kircaldy
, 1996)
.Ins
um, tryi
ngtodeterminelevel
sofworkerst
ressmerelybyl
ook i
ngataper s
on’s
occupati
onorjobtitl
emaynotbev eryaccurat
e.

Researchontheseandotherster
eotypi
call
ystr
essf
uloccupati
onshasbeguntodis
coverexact
lywhythesej
obs
arecharact
eri
zedasstr
essful
.Forins
tance,ai
rtr
aff
iccontr
oll
ers
’ j
obsar
estr
essf
ulbecauseoft
heheavy
workl
oads ,
theconst
antfearofcausi
ngacc i
dent
s,equipmentprobl
ems,andpoorworki
ngenvi
ronments
(Shouksmit
h&Bur r
ough, 1
988) .

Thepri
marysour
cesofdent
ist
s’occupati
onals
tres
scomefromdif
fi
cul
tpat
ient
s,heav
yworkl
oads,andthe
dent
ist
s’ownconcernt
hatt
hei
rpatient
sholdnegati
vev
iewsaboutt
hemandaboutdenti
st
singeneral
(Cost
er,
Cars
tens,&Harr
is,
1987;Di
Matteoetal.
,1993).

Ratherthanfocus
ingonlyonhigh-st
ressoccupations,
itmakessensetoex aminethos
esourcesofwor
kerst
res
s
thatarecommont oall
kindsofjobs
,event hoset
hatarenottypi
call
yconsideredhigh-
str
essjobs
.Suchsour
ces
ofstresscanbedivi
dedintot
wogener alcategor
ies:or
gani
zati
onalandindivi
dual.

•ORGANIZATIONALSOURCESOFSTRESScomefr
omt heworkenvi
ronmentandcanbebr
okendowni
ntot
wo
subcat
egor
ies
:st
res
sder
iv
edfr
omworkt
asksands
tres
sresul
ti
ngfromworkrol
es.

•INDIVIDUALSOURCESOFSTRESSi ncl
udeaper s
on’ shi
storyofexposur
etostr
es saswel
lascert
ainstr
ess-
rel
atedper s
onali
tycharact
eri
st
icsandbehavi
oral
patterns.
Forex ample,t
her
eisevidencet
hatcert
ain
personali
tytr
ait
smak epeoplemorepronetost
ress(ands t
ressrel
atedil
l
nesses
),ands omechar
acter
ist
icsseem
tomak epeoplemor eresi
st
anttostr
essandit
snegativeoutcomes .

ORGANI
ZATI
ONALSOURCESOFWORKSTRESS:
SITUATI
ONALSTRESSORS

Agr eatdealofworkers
tres
siscausedbyst
res
sor
sint
heenvi
ronmentoft
hewor korganizati
on.Someofthi
s
organizati
onalst
res
siscausedbytheworkt
askst
hemsel
ves
—t hephysi
calandpsychologicaldemandsof
performingajob.

Organizat
ional
s t
res
smayalsobecausedbyworkrol
esbecausewor
korgani
zat
ionsarecomplexsoci
alsys
tems
i
nwhi chawor kermusti
nter
actwi
thmanypeopl
e.Theref
ore,
thewor
krel
ati
onshipsofvar
iouski
ndsthatmustbe
cr
eatedandmaintai
nedf
orawork
ert
oper
for
mthej
obadequatel
ycanal
soleadt
ost
ress.
Thesetwotypesof
si
tuat
ional
str
ess—worktas
kandwor
krol
est
res
sor
s—canoftenbeal
lev
iat
edbymanagementact
ions
.

1
)WORKTASKSTRESSORS

a)WORKOVERLOAD-isacommonworktasksour
ceofstr
essisworkover
load,al
soknownasrol
eov
erload,
whi
chres
ult
swhent
hej
obrequi
resex
ces
siveworkspeed,
output,
orconcentr
ati
on(Br
own,Jones,
&Leigh,
2005)
.

Morerecent
ly,at
tent
ionhasbeengivent
otechnol
ogy -
relat
edworkoverl
oad,suchastheincreas
edvolumeof
i
nfor
mat i
on,
leadi
ngtot hi
ngssuchas“e-
mailover
load”(Bell
ott
i,
Ducheneaut,Howard,Smith,&Gri
nter,
2005;
Soucek&Mos er,2010).Workover
loadi
swidel
ybelievedtobeoneofthegreates
tsourcesofworkst
ress.

Res ear
chonwor koverl
oadindicat
esthatiti
srel
at edtophy s
iol
ogical
indi
cator
sofstress
,suchaselevated
serumchol esterolandincreas
edhear tr
ate(Caplan&J ones,1975;Cobb&Ros e,1973);topsychol
ogical
meas uresofstres s(Spect
or,1987;Spector,Dwy er,&J ex
,1988);andtolowerquali
tyofworkandjob
dis
s ati
sfact
ion(Ki r
mey er&Dougher t
y,1988).

I
nfact
,workov erl
oadhasbeenr eport
edasacommons ourceofst
res
sforj
obsasdiv
ers
eascler
ical
worker
s,
s
oldi
ers
, ai
rtraf
fi
ccontrol
l
ers
, court
roomattor
neys
,andhealt
h-car
eworker
s(Bl
ies
e&Halver
son,1996;
Ca r
ayon,
1
994;Iverson,Olekal
ns,&Erwin,1998;Shouksmi
th&Burrough,1
988).

b)UNDERUTI
LIZATI
ON-isasour
ceofs
tres
sres
ult
ingf
romwor
ker
sfeel
i
ngt
hatt
hei
rknowl
edge,
ski
l
ls,
or
ener
gyar
enotbei
ngful
l
yused.

Under
util
i
zationmayal
sooccurwhenwor
kersfeelt
hatt
hejobdoesnotuset
hei
rwork-
relat
edknowl
edge,
ski
l
ls,
orabi
l
it
ies,orwhenj
obsarebori
ngandmonotonous(Mel
amed,Ben-Avi
,Luz
,&Green,1995).

Somecoll
egegraduat
esinl
ow-l
evelcl
eri
calorcustomerser
vicepos
it
ionsmayfeelsomes t
res
sdueto
under
uti
li
zati
onoft
hei
rknowl
edgeands ki
l
ls(French,Capl
an,&Harri
son,1
982).Thereisal
soevi
dencethat
someindi
vidual
smaybemoresuscept
ibl
etos t
ressrel
ati
ngtounder
util
i
zat
iont
hanot hers(
Vodanovi
ch,
2003).

2)WORKROLESTRESSORS

a)J
OBAMBI
GUI
TY-i
sas
our
ceofs
tres
sres
ult
ingf
romal
ackofcl
ear
lydef
inedj
obsand/
orwor
ktas
ks.

Apotent
ial
sourceofworkr
olest
res
sisjobambiguit
y,whichWhenwor
ker
sareunsureoft
heirr
esponsi
bi
li
ti
es
andduti
es,st
resscanr
esul
t(Br
eaugh&Col i
han,1994;Jacks
on&Schul
er,
1985).
J obambigui
tyisal
so
someti
mesrefer
redtoas“j
obuncert
aint
y.”

Howev er
,jobuncer
taintymaybetterref
ertotheuncertaintycausedbyalackofr
egul
arperfor
mancefeedback
concerni
nghowwel lorhowpoorlywor ker
sa r
edoingthei rj
obs.Resear
chsuggest
sthatsuper
vis
orscanplayan
i
mpor t
antparti
nreducingjobuncertai
ntyforsubor
dinatesbyc lar
if
yi
ngjobrol
esandduti
es(Schaubr
oeck,
Ganster,
Sime,&Ditman, 1993).

Findi
ngsthatj
obuncer
taint
ycanhavenegati
veinf
luencesonjobs
ati
sfact
ionhighl
i
ghtt
heimport
anceoft
he
supervi
sor’
srol
einal
l
eviati
nguncer
tai
ntyandi
tsaccompanyingst
res
s( O’
Driscol
l&Beehr
,1994).

Confl
i
ctbet
weenrol
escanalsooccurandcanbecomeanaddi t
ionalsourceofstr
ess(Gr
eenhaus&Beutel
l,
1985).
Fori
nst
ance,aworker
’sj
obmayr equir
eexcessi
veover
ti
met hatconf
li
ctswit
htheworker
’sf
amil
yrol
esof
spous
eandparent
.Or,hav
ingtoplaydi
ff
erentrol
esatwor
ks i
multaneouslycancausest
ress
.
b)LACKOFCONTROL-i
saf
eel
i
ngofhav
ingl
i
ttl
einputoref
fectont
hej
oband/
orwor
kenv
ir
onment
;ty
pical
l
y
res
ult
sins
tres
s.

Anot
herimportantsour
ceofworkstressr
esul
tsfr
omwor kerssensi
ngthatt
heyhaveli
tt
lecont
rol
overt
hework
envi
ronmentandov ert
heirownworkbehavi
or.Str
essresul
ti
ngfromthi
sfeel
ingofl
ackofcont
roli
spar
ti
cul
arl
y
commoninlower -l
evel
jobsori
nhighlyst
ruct
uredorgani
zat
ions.

Jobst
hatar
esoconst
rainedandrule-dr
iventhatemployeesar eunabletohaveanysor
tofi
nputi
nwork
deci
si
onsandpr
oceduresareli
kel
yt obestr
es si
nducing,part
icul
arl
yf ort
hoseworker
swhowanttohaves
ome
i
nput(s
eeDwyer&Gans ter
,1991;Karasek,1
979; Theorell
,Wes ter
lund,Al
fr
edsson,&Oxenst
ier
na,
2005).

Researchindicat
esthatprovi
dingwor ker
swi t
has enseofcontroloverthei
rwor kenvi
ronment,through
techni
quess uchasgivi
ngt hemav oiceindecisi
on-makingproces s
esorallowingthemt oplantheirownwor k
tasks,
reduceswor kstr
essandf ati
gueandincreasesjobsati
sfacti
on( J
acks on,1983;Ji
mmi eson&Ter ry
, 1998;
Sonnentag&Zi j
l
str
a,2006) .
Ont heotherhand,somes tudi
ess uggestthatas enseofalackofcont r
oloverone’
s
j
obmaynotbes tr
essf
ulformanywor kers(seeCarayon,1994).

I
tmaybet hecaset hatdif
fer
enttypesofworker
saremor eorl
essconcernedwi thhavi
ngsenseofcontr
ol ov
er
t
heirj
obs(recal
lourdiscussi
oninChapt er8ontheJobCharacter
is
ti
csModel andindi
vi
dualdi
ff
erencesin
worker
s’desir
eforautonomy )
.Infact,
resear
chhasfoundthatcert
ainpersonali
tychar
act
eri
sti
csmaydet ermine
whetherornotanindivi
duali
sstressedbyaperceiv
edlackofjobcontr
ol(I
v ancevi
ch,Mat
teson,&Preston,
1982).

c)PHYSI
CALWORKCONDI
TIONS

Physi
calcondi
ti
onsintheworkenvi
ronmentareanotherorganiz
ati
onalsour
cecontr
ibut
ingtoworkers
tress
(Fr
ese&Zapf ,
1988).Jobsthatmustbeperf
ormedunderex t
remetemperatur
es,l
oudanddistr
act
ingnoise,or
poorl
ight
ingorvent
il
ati
oncanbequitest
ressf
ul.Dangerousjobsthatpl
aceworker
satri
s kofl
ossofhealt
h,l
ife,
orl
imbareanadditi
onalsour
ceofworkstr
ess(Booth,1986).

Cramped, crowded, andexcessi

velynoi
sywor kenvi
ronmentscanalsocaus estr
ess.Forexample,onestudy
showedt hatnoisel
ev el
sinopen-spaceoffi
ceenvir
onments(off
iceswi t
hparti
ti
onedcubicl
esandopencei l
ings
)
consti
tutedas i
gnif
icantsourceofstr
ess(Evans&Johnson,2000) .Simil
arl
y,worki
nglatenight(“
gravey
ar d”)
shi
ftscandisruptnaturalsl
eepandwak i
ngc ycl
esandmayl eadtoproblemss uchashighstress,f
ati
gue,job
dis
sati
s f
acti
on,andper for
manc eerr
ors(Monk ,
Fokard,&Wedder burn,1996;Smith&Fol k
ar d,
1993).

d)I
NTERPERSONALSTRESS-s
temsf
romdi
ff
icul
ti
esi
ndev
elopi
ngandmai
ntai
ni
ngr
elat
ions
hipswi
thot
her
peopl
eint
hewor
kset
ti
ng.

Oneoft hegreatestsourcesofworkst
ressr
esul
tsfr
omdiff
iculti
esinint
erper
sonalrel
ati
onshipsont hejob.
Havingahar sh,
criti
calbosswithapuni
ti
vemanagementstylewoul dli
kel
ybestressf
ulforj
us taboutanyone.
Withtheriseofvir
tualwork,someworkersf
eelal
ackofsocialconnecti
onsands upportandex peri
encea
st
ressfulsenseofsociali
solat
ion(
Avoli
o&Kahai,2003;
Wi esenfeld,Raghur
am, &Garud, 2001 ).

I
nter
pers
onal s
tresscanals
or esul
twhencoworker
sareplacedi
nsomes or
tofconfl
i
ctsi
tuati
on.I
magi
ne,for
exampl
e,thatt
woempl oyeesarebothbeingconsi
deredforani
mport
antpromoti
on.Agreatdeal
ofst
res
smay
begener
atedifthetwoindi
vidualsmustworkt
ogetherwhil
ebot
harecompetingf
orthesamehonor.

Therei
sal
soev
idencethatorgani
zat
ional
pol
i
ti
csandst
ruggl
esoverpowercanbeimport
ants
our
cesofst
ressi
n
thewor
kpl
ace(
Ferri
s,Fr
ink,Gil
more,&Kacmar,
1994)
.Whateveri
tscaus
es,thei
nabi
li
tyt
ogetal
ongwit
hother
worker
sisoneoft hemostcommons our
cesofs
tres
sintheworkplace(
Mat
teson&I
vancevi
ch,1987).
Anot
her
for
mofinterpers
onalst
ressoccur
sfr
equent
lyi
nservi
ceorgani
zat
ionsandi
nvol
vest
hestr
essofprovi
di
nggood
cust
omers ervi
ce.

Whenoneisdeal
i
ngwi
thi
mpati
entanddi
ff
icultcust
omers,t
hepressur
etomaint
ainone’
scoolandof
fers
erv
ice
wi
thasmil
ecanbequi
tet
axi
ngandstr
ess
ful.Researcher
shaveexaminedt
hisemoti
onal
labor
.

•EMOTIONALLABOR-i sthedemandsofregul
ati
ngandcont
rol
l
ingemot
ionsandemot
ional
dis
play
saspar
tof
ajobr
equi
rement(
Dief
endorf
f&Gos s
erand,2003;Hochs
chil
d,1
983).

Theverycommonstr
esscaus
edbyemoti
onall
aborcancaus
ewor kerst
obecomedi
ssati
sf
iedandcy
nica
labout
thei
rj
obs,r
educej
obsati
sf
act
ion,
per
for
mance,andleadt
ofrequentabs
ent
eeis
mandt ur
nover
.

e)HARASSMENT-al lf
ormsofharassment
,i
ncl
udingsexual
har
assment,harass
mentduet ogr
oupmembers
hip
(e.
g.,
gender,r
ace,s
exualor
ient
ati
on),
andbei
ngsingl
edoutbyanabusi
ves upervi
sororcol
l
eague,ar
eal
l
ext
remel
ys t
ressf
ul(
Malamut&Of f
ermann,
2001;Raver&Nishi
i
,2010;Tepper,Duffy
,&Shaw, 2001)
.

Researchhassuggestedthatv
ict
imsofworkpl
acesex
ualharas
s ment
,aswellasvi
cti
msofmor egeneral
har
ass mentatwork
,incl
udingbul
lyi
ng(s
eeboxOnt heCutt
ingEdge:WorkplaceBull
yi
ng:AnInvi
sibl
e
Epi
demi c?)
,havei
ncreasedoddsofwork-r
elat
edil
l
ness,
inj
ury,orbei
ngassault
ed(Rospenda,Ri
chman,Ehmk
e,
&Zlatoper,
2005).

Ast udyofov er6,000t el

ephonecompanyempl oyeesacrosstheUnitedStat
ess howedt hati
nci
denceofsexual
harass mentincreaseds t
res sanddecreasedjobsati
sfact
ion,butt
hatthecult
ureoftheor gani
zat
ion/
uniti
nter
ms
ofwhet herthecul t
urefosteredandappear edtotol
erateharassmentordi
scourageditplayedaparti
nlevel
sof
empl oyees t
ress(Law, Dollard,Tuck
ey ,&Dormann, 2011;Muell
er,DeCoster
,&Es t
es,2001 )
.Moreover,
ther
eis
evi
dencet hatsexualandot herformsofharassmenttendedt oco-occuri
ncert
ainorganizati
ons,
alongwith
gener al
lyuncivi
lbehavior(Lim&Cor t
ina,2005).

f
)ORGANI
ZATI
ONALCHANGE-acommonor
gani
zat
ional
sour
ceofs
tres
sischange(
Raf
fer
ty&Gr
if
fi
n,2006)
.

Peopletendtogr owaccustomedt ocer

tai
nworkproceduresandcer
tainworkstr
uctur
es,
andtheyresis
tchange.
Mos tofuspreferthi
ngstoremains t
abl
eandpredi
ctabl
e.Suchs t
abi
li
tyinourworki
ngenvi
ronment
ss eems
comf or
ti
ngandr eassuri
ng.Therefor
e,i
tshoul
dnotbes ur
pri
singt
hatmajorchangesinaworkor
ganiz
ationt
end
tocauses t
ress(Dahl,2011
; Lei
ter&Harvi
e,1998)
.

Somecommonchanges i
tuat
ionsthatl
eadtoworkers
tressincl
udecompanyr eor
ganiz
ati
ons,
merger
sofone
companywithanot
heroracquisi
ti
onsofoneorgani
zat
ionbya nother
,changesinworksys
temsandwork
technol
ogy
,changesi
ncompanypol i
cy,
andmanagerialorpers
onnelchanges.

Forexample,r
esearchhasshownt hatphysi
ol
ogicalst
ressres ponsesarestr
ongeri
nnovel
orunfamili
ar
ci
rcumstancesthati
nvol
veathreatorchall
enge(Rose,1987) .Anev entl
ikeacompany-
widereorgani
zat
ion,ora
mergeroracqui
s i
ti
on,woul
dcertainl
ybeperceiv
edast hreateningands t
ressf
ulbymanyemployees.Coping
wit
hthelossofajob,orpot
enti
aljobloss,
isanothermajorstressor

g)WORK–FAMI
LYCONFLI
CT-i
scumul
ati
ves
tres
sthatr
esul
tsf
romdut
iesofwor
kandf
ami
l
yrol
es.

Av er
yimportants
ourceofs
tress,onethatext
endsbey
ondtheboundar
iesoft
heorganizat
ion,
iswork–f
amil
y
confl
ict
,whichres
ult
sfromeffor
tstobalancet
heoft
encompeti
ngdemandsofworkrolesandrequi
rementsand
thoseoffamil
yandnonworki
nglif
e.
Agreatdeal ofat
tent
ionhasbeendev ot
edt ores
earchonwor k–f
amil
yconf l
ictandeff
ort
stoachiev
ebalance
betweent heworl
dofwor kandthewor l
doffamil
y(Halpern&Mur phy
, 2005; Kossek&Lamber t
,2005).
I
mpor tantl
y,work–f
amil
yconfl
ictisasourceofst
ressthati
scommoni nternati
onal
lyandisontheri
sebecauseof
theincreaseddemandsofwork( Poel
mans ,2005;Rantanen,
Mauno, Kinnunen,&Rantanen,2011)
.

CHARACTERI
STI
CSOFJ
OBTHATCAUSESWORKSTRESS:

(
a)heav
ywor
kl
oad(
e.g.
,ti
mepr
ess
uresandt
oomuchwor
k); (
i)or
gani
zat
ional
change
(
b)poorwor
ki
ngcondi
ti
ons
; (
j)wor
k–f
ami
l
yconf
li
ct
(
c)deal
i
ngwi
thdi
ff
icul
tcl
i
ent
sandcowor
ker
s (
k)l
ackofcont
rol
overt
hewor
ksi
tuat
ion
(
d)i
nter
per
sonal
conf
li
ct (
l)deci
si
onmak
ing
(
e)under
uti
l
izat
ionofwor
kerk
nowl
edge,
ski
l
ls,
abi
l
it
y,orener
gy (
m)di
ff
icul
torcompl
exwor
ktas
ks
(
f)r
espons
ibi
l
it
yfort
heheal
thandwel
l
-bei
ngofot
her
s (
n)phy
sical
danger
s;
(
g)l
ackofs
uppor
tfr
oms
uper
vi
sor
sorcowor
ker
s
(
h)per
sonal
fact
ors(
e.g.
,ty
peAbehav
iorors
tres
s-pr
oneper
sonal
i
ty)

I
NDI
VIDUALSOURCESOFWORKSTRESS:
DISPOSI
TIONALSTRESSORS

Alt
houghagreatdealofwor
kerstr
essiscreat
edbyfact
orsi
ntheor gani
zat
ionorbyfeatur
esofjobsandwork
tas
ks,someiscausedbycharact
eri
st
icsoftheworker
sthemsel
ves .Wewil
l consi
dert
wos uchindi
vi
dualsour
ces
ofworkst
res
s :
theTypeAbeha vi
orpatter
nandsuscepti
bi
li
tyt
os t
ressandtos tr
essef
fect
s.Iti
stheindi
vi
dual
worker
—notmanagement —whomus tworktoal
l
eviat
ethesesourcesofst
res s.

1)TYPEABEHAVIORPATTERN-isapersonal
i
tychar
acter
iz
edbyexcessi
vedri
ve,
compet
it
iv
enes
s,i
mpat
ience,
andhost
il
i
tyt
hathasbeenl
i
nkedt
ogreat
erinci
denceofcor
onar
yheartdi
seas
e.

Whenmanypeopl et
hinkofindivi
dual
swhoar eextremelystr
essedint heworkpl
ace,t
heyimmedi
atel
ypictur
e
thester
eoty
picalhar
d-dri
vi
ng, competi
ti
veexecutivewhos eeksajobwi thaheavyworkl
oadandmany
responsi
bi
li
ti
es—aper sonwhot akesontoomuchwor kandnev erseemst ohaveenoughti
metodoit
.Isthere
anytrut
htothischar
acter
izati
on?Researchevidenceindi
-catesthattherei
s.Resear
chershav
euncoveredthe
TypeAbehav i
orpatt
ern,orTy peApersonal
it
y.

Thisbehav i
orpatter
nispar
ti
cular
lysi
gni
fi
cantbecausether
eisevi
dencethatpersonswhopos sesstheTypeA
personali
tyaresli
ghtl
ymorepronetodevel
ops t
ress-
rel
atedcor
onaryheartdis
ease,i
ncl
udingfatalhear
tatt
ack
s,
thanpersonswhodonothav ethebehav
iorpat
tern,t
ermedTypeBs( Al
l
an, 2011;
Booth-Kewley&Fr i
edman,
1987; Schaubroeck,Ganst
er,&Kemmerer,1994).

Animport
antques
ti
oni
showdoest
heTy
peAbehav
iorpat
ter
nrel
atet
ost
res
sandt
ost
res
s-r
elat
edhear
t
di
sease?

Earl
yresearchonTypeAbehav i
orhypothesi
zedthatitwastheTy peA’shardworking,competi
ti
vedri
vethat
causeds t
ressandsubsequentheartprobl
ems(Ros enmanetal.,
1 964).Lat
erresearch,however
,suggest
edthat
theTypeA’ sunder
lyi
nghos t
il
i
ty,andthelackofappropri
ateexpressi
onofthathostil
it
y,i
salsopar
tl
yresponsi
bl
e
fori
ncreasedstr
essreact
ionsinTypeA’ s.

Otherst
udiessuggestt
hatthemor egl
obalconst
ructof“negat
iveaf
fect
ivi
ty
,”ort
heex
pres
sionofnegat
iv
e
emoti
ons,s
uchasanger ,
hos t
il
i
ty,
anx i
ety
,impati
ence,andaggressi
on,i
swhatcombi
neswit
haTy peA
per
sonal
it
ytoincreas
estres
s -
rel
atedhealt
hris
ks.
DoTy
peA’
sex
per
iencemor
est
res
sthanot
her
s?

Resear
chint
othisquest
ionhasproducedmixedresul
ts.
Forex ample,somestudi
esindicatet
hatTypeA’sar
e
moreli
kel
ytoexperi
enceorreporthi
ghstr
essthanareotherpersonal
i
tytypesunderthes amework
load
(Ki
rmeyer&Dougherty,
1 988;Payne,
Jabri
,&Pearson,1988).

Others tudiess howt hatTypeA’sdonotreportorex peri

encegr eat
erst
res s
, butsi
mplyhavest
ronger
phy siol
ogicalstressreacti
onstostr
essf
ulsit
uat i
ons(Gans t
er,1986).Perhapst hesubj
ecti
veexper
ienceofstr
ess
hasl essnegat i
v einfl
uenceonhealt
hthanthephy si
ologi
calresponses.I
not herwords,TypeA’smayhav e
strongers t
ress- i
nducedphy si
ologi
calr
espons esthattheyarenotneces sari
lyawareof,andi
ti
sthesestrong
phy siol
ogicalrespons esovert
imethatl
eadtoi ncreasedhealthrisk
s.I
fthisisthecase,TypeA’smays i
mplynot
reali
z et
hatt heirlong,int
enseworksty
leiscreati
ngwearandt earontheirbodies.

Alt
hought her
eareobvi
ouss tr
ess-rel
atedc ost
stotheTypeAbehav i
orpattern,
therearealsosomegai ns.
Studiescons i
st
entl
yshowt hatTypeA’st endtoworkharder(
Byrne&Rei nhardt
,1989),wor kwell
inhigh-vari
ety
j
obs( Lee,Earl
ey,&Hans on,1988),andhav ehigherposi
ti
onsandsal
ariesthanTypeB’ s(Boyd,1984; Chesney
&Ros enman,1980;Payneetal.,
1 988).ThisaspectofTypeAbehaviorisconceptual
l
yr el
atedtostr
ong
achiev ementori
ent
ati
onor“ workahol
ism”di s
cussedinthemoti
vati
onchapt er(
seeChapt er8,UpClos e).

Animpor tantques t
ioniswhethert
heTy peAbehavi
orpatter
nissomethi
ngrelat
edtoWester
norU.S.work
cul
ture,orwhet herTy peA’soccuri
nothercount
ri
esandcultur
es.Al
thoughtherei
ssomeevi
dencethatot
her
cul
tureshav eTy peAandTy peBworkers(e.
g.,J
amal,1999;Li&Shen,2009) ,
ther
earemostcer
tai
nl
y
di
ff
er encesa cr
os scultur
esandcountr
iesint
hepreval
enceandratesoftheTypeAbehavi
orpatt
ern(
Al-
Mas haan, 2003).

2)SUSCEPTI
BILI
TY/
RESI
STANCETOSTRESS

Anotherdi
sposi
ti
onal
sourceofstr
essmays t
emfromt hef actt
hatsomepersonsaresimplymoresuscept
ibl
eto
str
ess,wher
easother
shav es
tress
resi
stant
,har
dypers onali
ti
es.Theconceptofhardi
nesswasoutl
inedby
psychol
ogis
tSuzanneKobasa(1982;Maddi&Kobas a, 1
984) ,whoarguedthathar
dypersonal
it
ytypesar
e
resi
st
anttothehar
mfulef
fect
sofs t
res
sbecauseoftheirstyleofdeal
i
ngwi t
hs t
ress
fulev
ents.

•HARDI
NESS-i
sthenot
iont
hats
omepeopl
emaybemor
eres
ist
antt
otheheal
th-
damagi
ngef
fect
sofs
tres
s.

Amet a-anal
ysi
sshowsthathar
dyindi
vi
dual
sexper
iencel
esss t
res
sandar ebet
teratcopingwit
hs t
resst
hannon
-hardyindi
vi
dual
s(Eschl
eman,Bowli
ng,&Alar
con,
201 0)
.Rathert
hanv i
ewingastressf
ulsi
tuat
ionasathr
eat
,
hardytypesvi
ewitasachall
engeandder
ivemeani
ngfromthesechal
lengingex
periences(Bri
tt
,Adler
,&Bart
one,
2001 )
.

Mor eover
, t
heyalsobeli
ev ethatt heycancontrolandi nfl
uencethecour seoft heirli
ves(recall
thatasenseoflack
ofcontrolcancontri
butetostres s)andarec ommi t
tedt othei
rjobs.Conv ersel
y ,alackofhar di
nessisassociat
ed
withhigherlevel
sofs el
f-
perceiv eds t
ress
,andt hereisev i
dencethats uch“ unhar dy”or“ di
sease-pr
one”
personsmaybemor es usceptibletos t
ress-
relat
edi l
lnessesanddepr es s
ion(Friedman&Boot h-Kewl
ey,1 987;
Kobas a&Puccet t
i,1983).Thus , i
tappearsthatcertaintypesofworker saremor e“ stressprone.
”Thatis,they
aremor eli
kelytosuf
ferstres
s -relatedphysi
cal i
l
lnessandps y
chologi
cal sympt oms( depressi
on,anxi
ety
, etc.
)
thanaremor ehardywor kers
.

Ther
ehavebeenat
temptst
oincr
easehardi
nes
sthroughwhathasbeencal
l
edHardi
Trai
ni
ng.(
Khoshaba&
Maddi,
2001)
.Ines
sence,t
rai
ni
ngforhar
-di
nessactual
l
yinv
olvest
hedevel
opmentofwor
ker
s’copi
ngski
l
ls,
and
acombinati
onofrelax
ationtr
aini
ng,apr
ogramofdi etandex erci
se,anddevel
opi
ngs uppor
ti
venetworkstohel
p
reducest
ress(Maddi&Khos haba,2003).
Mor erecently,
har di
nesstrai
ni
ngwasfoundtobes ucces
sfuli
n
helpi
ngcoll
egestudentsdealwit
hthest
ressesofcollegeli
fe.

3)SELF-EFFICACY-isanindi
vi
dual
’sbel
i
efsi
nhi
sorherabi
l
it
iest
oengagei
ncour
sesofact
iont
hatwi
l
lleadt
o
desi
redoutcomes(Bandur
a,1997)
.

Researchha sals
oidenti
fi
edanothercharacteris
ti
cthatseemst oi
ncreaseresi
stancetostress:sel
f-eff
icacy.In
otherwor ds,s
elf
-ef
fi
cacyisrel
atedtoone’ss enseofcompet enceandeffect
iveness.Sel
f-eff
icacyisav ery
i
mpor tantconceptt
hatnotonlyrel
atestoone’ sabi
li
tytocopewi t
hstress
fulsi
tuati
ons(i.
e.,t
hepos sess i
onof
copings elf
-ef
fi
cacy)
,butiti
salsoanimportantfactorr
elat
ingtoawor ker
’sabi
lit
ytoperformhi sorherjob( j
ob-
rel
ateds elf
-ef
fi
cacy)
,tol
eadawor kt eam(leadershipsel
f-
effi
cacy),
andt odealeff
ectiv
elywithrelati
onshipsat
work(relati
onshi
pself
-ef
ficacy
).

Thereisevi
dencethatas enseofsel
f-
effi
cacycanhav epos i
ti
veef
fect
sinreduci
ngstr
essi
nthewor
kpl
ace(
Jex
&Bliese,1
999;Rennes und&Sak svi
k,2010; Saks,1994;VanYperen,1
998) .
Inonest
udy,i
twasf
oundt
hat
havi
ngas enseofcontr
ol overast
ressf
ulworks it
uat
iononlydecr
easedstr
essift
heemploy
eeshadahi
ghsens
e
ofself
-ef
fi
cacyabouttheirabil
i
ti
estodotheirjobsunderstr
essandstr
ain(
J i
mmieson,
2000).

MEASUREMENTOFWORKERSTRESS

Becaus est
ressi
ssuchacompl exphenomenonandbecaus es t
ressresearcherscannotagr
eeonas i
ngl
e
defi
niti
onofstr
ess,youmightsuspectt
hatthemeas ur
ementofs tr
essisextremelydi
ffi
cul
t.
Forthemostpa
rt,
meas urementofs
tressingener
al,andofworkers
tressi
npart
icular,i
sproblemati
c.Therehavebeenanumberof
approachestomeas ur
ingstr
ess.

1
)PHYSI
OLOGI
CALMEASURES

Ashasbeens tated,thestr
essresponseinvolvesphysiologi
calreact
ionsaswel l
asps ychol
ogicalandemotional
res
pons es.
Therefore,onestr
ategyformea suri
ngs tr
esshasf ocusedonmeas ur
ings i
gnsofphy s
iologi
cala
rousal
andstrai
nthataccompanys t
ress.Thi
sincl
udesbl oodpr ess
uremoni tori
ng,el
ectrocar
diogr
am( EKG)f or
monitori
ngheartrat
e, orbl
oodtestsformonitori
nglevelsofcertai
nhor mones,suchast hest
ress-l
inkedhormone,
cort
is
ol,andcholest
er oli
nthebloodstr
eam.

Onepr oblemwit
hus i
ngsuchphysi
ol
ogi
cali
ndi
cator
sofstr
essi
stheamountofvari
ati
onthatcanoccurf
rom
hourtohour,daytoday,orper
sont
operson(
Herd,1988)
.Anot
herdrawbackt
ot heuseofsuchstr
esstest
sis
therequir
ementfort
rai
nedmedical
pers
onnel
,aswellast
heass
ociat
edcostsf
orequipmentandanalysi
s
procedures.

2)SELF-
REPORTASSESSMENTS

Anot herapproachtomeasuri
ngstr
es s
,onet hati
sfavoredbypsychol
ogists
, i
stoaskpeopledir
ect
lytorepor
ton
theirownper cei
vedst
ressthr
oughv ar
iousrati
ngscales.Mostsel
f-r
eportassessmentsfal
li
ntooneoftwomajor
categories:
report
saboutorgani
zat
ionalconditi
onsorrepor
tsaboutpsychologi
caland/orphy
s i
cal
stat
es.

Repor t
sonorganiz
ati
onalcondit
ionstypi
cal
lycontai
nitemsthataskaboutfacet
softhej
obsuchasautonomy,
feedback,ta
skidenti
ty
, t
asksi
gnifi
cance,ski
ll
vari
ety,complexi
ty,
deali
ngwi t
hother
s,ambi
guit
y,andworkl
oad
(Spector,
1992).Forexample,quest
ionsdeali
ngwi t
hwor k
loadmighti
ncludethefol
l
owing(
Matteson&
I
v ancevi
ch,1987):
•Numberofpr
oject
s/as
signment
syouhav
e
•Amountoft
imes
penti
nmeet
ings
•Amountoft
imes
pentatwor
k
•Numberofphonecal
l
sandv
isi
tor
syouhav
edur
ingt
heday
.

Therear
es ever
alst
andardi
zedsel
f-r
eportmeasur
esofpsychol
ogi
calandphysi
ologi
cal
s t
ressands t
rai
n,such
astheStr
es sDi
agnosti
cSurvey(
SDS; I
vancevi
ch&Mat t
eson,1
980),theOccupati
onal
StressIndi
cator(
OSI;
Cooper,
Sloan,&Wi l
l
iams,1988),
andtheJ obStr
essSur
vey(JSS;Spi
elber
ger&Reheiser
, 1
994) .

Forexample,
theSDSmeas uresworkers
’percepti
onsofstressi
n1 5work -r
elat
edareas,i
ncludingti
mepressur
e,
workl
oad,rol
eambi gui
ty
,ands uper
visor
ys t
yle.
TheJ SSisa30- i
temi ns
trumentthatmeas uresthesever
it
yand
fr
equencywithwhichworkersexperi
encecertai
nstress
fulworki
ngcondi t
ions.Theseins
trument shavebeen
usedinres
earchorbyorganizati
onstoquickl
ygaugeempl oyees’str
esslevels.

•SOCI ALREADJ USTMENTRATI NGSCALE-i sacheck

lis
twher ei
ndi
vidual
stotal
thenumeri
cal"st
ress
severi
ty”scoresass
ociat
edwithsigni
fi
cantl
if
eeventsexperi
encedint
hepas tyear
.Resear
chsugges t
sthat
personswithhighpers
onalst
ressindexesper
formmorepoorly,hav
ehigherabsenteei
sm,andchangejobsmor
e
fr
equently(Bhagat
,1983).

3)MEASUREMENTOFSTRESSFULLI
FEEVENTS

Aswasment i
onedearl
i
er,s
ituat
ionals
tressi
noneareaofanindivi
dual
’sl
if
e,s
uchast
hehomeors
chool
,ca
n
af
fectstr
essl
evel
satwork(Levi
, Fr
ankenhaeus
er,&Gardel
l,
1 986;Marti
n&Scher
merhor
n,1
983)
.Par
ti
cul
arl
y
i
mpor t
antist
heworker
’sexperi
enceoftraumat
icorst
res
sful
lifeevent
s.

•STRESSFULLIFEEVENTS-s i
gni
fi
canteventsinaperson’srecenthi
st
orythatcancauses t
resssuchasthe
deat
hofas pous
eorl
ovedone,di
vorceorseparati
on,majoril
lness
,andfi
nancial
orlegal
troubles,
aswellas
posi
ti
veeventss
uchasmarr
iage,t
hebir
thofachi l
d,andv acati
ons.

Thisappr oachtomeas uri

ngs t
ressassumest hatsuchev ent
scanbr i
ngons t
ress-r
elatedil
l
nes sandmayi mpai
r
j
obper formance. Onemeas ureisacheck l
i
s twher eindiv
idual
st ot
alt
henumer i
cal“str
es ss
ev eri
ty
”scores
associ
at edwi t
hthes i
gni
fi
cantlif
eeventsthatt heyhav eexpe-ri
encedinthepas tyear( Hol
mes&Rahe, 1967).
Thisprov i
desaper sonall
i
feeventsstres
si ndex .Halfofthe10mos tstr
essfull
if
eev entsaredirect
lyr
elat
edto
work(Hobs on&Del unas,2001).Resear
chs ugges t
sthatpersonswithhighper s
onal str
essindexest
endt o
perfor
mmor epoorl
y,havehigherabsenteeism, andchangej obsmoref r
equent l
ythanper sonswhoex peri
ence
fewerstressfull
if
eev ent
s(Bhagat,1983; Wei ss,I
lgen,&Shar baugh,1982).

Mor eover,
thereiss omeevi
dencethatstr
essf
ull
if
eeventshaveagr eat
ers
tressimpactony oungerasopposed
toolderpersonsbas edonthenoti
onthatyoungpeopl
edonothav easwel
l-devel
opedcopingmechani sms
(Jackson&Fi nney ,
2002).Yet,
therehasbeenagreatdealofcr
it
icis
mofthes t
res s
ful
li
feeventsapproacht
o
assessingstr
ess( e.
g.,Hur
rel
l,
Mur phy,Saut
er,
&Cooper ,1
988).Muchoft hecrit
ici
smisthatthi
sapproachi
stoo
general.

Certainli
feevent
smayaffectpeopl
everydif
fer
entl
y.Forex
ample,ithasbeens uggest
edthatasimpleaddit
iv
e
weightingoftheSoci
alReadj
ustmentRati
ngScaledoesnotaccur
atelyassesstheeff
ectofanaddit
ional
st
ress f
uleventwhenanindiv
iduali
sal
readyexper
ienci
ngotherst
ressful
events(Bir
nbaum&Sot oodeh, 1
991).I
n
additi
on,assessmentofst
ressf
ull
if
eeventsmaynotreveal
theimpactofday- t
o-daystr
essor
sinfl
uencingthe
i
ndividual.
4)MEASUREMENTOFPERSON–ENVI
RONMENTFI
T

•PERSON–ENVI RONMENT(P–E)fi
tref
erstothemat
chbet
weenawor
ker
’sabi
l
it
ies
,needs
,andv
alues
,and
organi
zat
ional
demands
,rewar
ds,andvalues.

P–Efithasbeenf oundtohaveapos i
ti
vecorrel
ati
onwi t
horgani
zat
ionalcommi t
ment,wel
l-bei
ng,andanegati
ve
cor
relati
onwithturnover(
Hult
,2005; Os t
rof
f,1
993b; Verquer
,Beehr,&Wagner ,2003;Yang,Che,&Spector
,
2008) .Accor
dingt ot
heP–Efitapproach,amismatchbetweenthewor kerandtheworkorgani
zati
on/
envi
ronmentisbel i
evedtobeapr i
marycauseofwor kerstr
ess.

Forexample,imagineaworkerwhohasahi ghneedforjobclar
ifi
cati
on, j
obstructure,andfeedbackandwho
acceptsajobwithas mal
l,
fast-gr
owingcompanywher ejobsareneitherwelldefi
nednors t
ruct
ured,andwhere
supervi
sorshaveli
ttl
eti
meforfeedbackduetoconstantproducti
ondemands .Ins uchacas e,t
herewouldbea
poorperson–envi
ronmentfi
t.Typi
cal
ly,measur
ementofper son–env i
ronmentf i
ti
nv ol
v esmeasuri
ngs ome
charact
eri
sti
csoftheworker,suchasworkerski
l
lsand/orabil
it
ies,andas ses
singt hewor kenvi
ronmentandjob
demands .

Thediscr
epancybetweenthes et
wos et
sofmeas uresi
sthencalculat
edasanindexoffit(e.g.,
Edwards&
Cooper,1990).
Itcanbeargued,however,thattheconceptofperson–envir
onmentfi
tisov erl
ybroad,andt
hat
measuresthatspeci
fi
cal
l
ylookat“subcategories”ofP–Efi
t—suchasper s
on–organi
zati
onf it
,pers
on–jobf
it
,
andtheex t
entt
owhichapar t
icul
arj
obfit
sani ndivi
dual’
smotivat
ionalneeds(s
eeChapt er8) —areneeded(see
Kri
st
off,1
996; Medcof&Haus dorf
,1995; Sutherl
and,Fogar
ty,&Pithers,1
995).

EFFECTSOFWORKERSTRESS

Muchoft
hegrowi
ngint
erestinwor
kers
tres
s( i
ti
soneoft
hemos ts
tudi
edareasofI/
Ops y
chology
)isduetothe
ver
ypower
ful
impactt
hatitcanhav
eonwor ker
sandworkbehav
ior
,and,mostdramati
cal
ly,
onemployeehealt
h.

1
)STRESSRELATEDI
LLNESS

I
tisbeli
evedthatmoret
hanonehalfofal
lPHYSICALILLNESSESar
est
ressrel
ated.Somecommons t
res
s-
rel
atedi
ll
nessesareul
cer
s,col
i
ti
s,highbl
oodpressur
e,hear
tdis
eas
e,r
espi
rator
yill
ness
es,andmi
grai
ne
headaches.

Mor eover,
stresscanworsencommoncolds,fl
us,andinfecti
ons,maki
ngrecover
yti
melonger.I
ti
sesti
mated
thattheseil
l
nes ses,
att
ri
butedi
npartt
owor kstr
ess,costbil
li
onsofdol
lar
sannual
lyi
nhealt
h-car
ecostsandin
empl oyeeabs ent
eei
smandt ur
nov
er(Beehr&Bhagat ,1985; Cl
ark,
2005;Hart&Cooper,2001).
Import
antl
y,
poll
sofwor kersshowthatthemaj
ori
tybel
ievesthatj
obs tr
esscausest
hempr obl
ems(Clar
k,2005).

Wor kerstr
es scanal
sohaveanadverseimpactonempl oyees’PSYCHOLOGI CALSTATES. Highlev el
sofst
ress
areassociatedwithdepr
essi
on,anxi
ety,andchroni
cfati
gue.Stressmayalsocontri
but
etoalcoholis
manddr ug
abuseinwor ker
sandmayinfl
uenceaccidentr
atesonthejob(Frone,2008; Wolf
,1986).
Emot ionalexhaust
ion,
detachmentf romcoworker
s,negat
iveself
-eval
uati
ons,andlowereds el
f-
esteemareals
oass ociat
edwi thworker
st
ress( Cordes&Dougher t
y,1993)
.Asy oumightimagine,st
resscanhav eaneff
ectonimportantwor k
outcomes .

Str
essisbel
ievedtocausedecr easedworkperf
ormanceandincreasedabsent
eei
s mandtur
nov
er.
Howev er
,the
rel
ati
onshi
psbetweenwor kstressandthesekeybott
om- l
i
nev ari
abl
esarequit
ecomplex.
Forex
ample,
ithas
beensuggestedthattherel
ati
ons hi
pbetweenstr
essandperf
or mancemayof t
entaket
hefor
mofaninver
tedU,
rat
herthanbeingdir
ectandli
near ,wi
thgrea
terst
res
sleadi
ngtopoor erper
for
mance.
I
notherwords,verylowl evelsofstr
ess(ornos tr
ess )andv eryhi
ghl evelsofst
res
sareassociatedwit
hpoorwor
k
perf
ormance,whereasl owt omoder at
elevelsofstresss eemt oberelatedtobett
erper
formance( Cohen,
1980;
Muse,Harri
s,&Field,2003) .Thismak essense,becaus ev eryhighlevelsofst
resswi
ll
int
erferewithj
ob
perf
ormance.Fori
ns tance,thereisevi
denc ethatsev er
e, acutestr
es sr
es ul
tsi
npoorperf
ormancebecaus e
st
ressint
erf
ereswithwor kers’mentalprocessing(Elli
s,2006) .

Ont heotherend,havi
nglit
tl
eornostr
es sli
kel
ymeanst hatworker
sarenotbeingchall
engedormoti
vat
ed
(LePine,Podsakof
f,&LePine,2005)
.Ins hor
t,al
it
tl
ebitofstr
essmightnotbeabadt hi
ng.Ofcour
se,bot
hstr
ess
andjobper f
ormanceareex t
remel
ycompl exvari
abl
es,andthisi
nvert
edUr el
ati
onshi
pmaynotholdforal
lt
ypes
ofstress
orsorforal
laspectsofj
obperformance(Beehr,1985).

Theeff
ectsofwor kst
ressonj
obperfor
manceMI GHTALSOBEAFFECTEDBYOTHERVARI ABLES.For
example,
ones tudyshowedthatt
heeff
ectofst
ressonthej
obperf
ormanceofnur
seswasmediat
edbyf eel
ings
ofdepr
ession.Thati
s,workst
resscaus
edthenursestobedepr
essed,
andthedepress
ionl
edtodecreased
qual
it
yofpatientcar
eandproblemswit
hrel
ati
onshipswi
thcowor
kers(
Motowidl
o,Packar
d,&Manning,1986).

I
fs t
ressiscausedbyaninabil
i
tytogetalongwi t
hacertai
ncowork er,anemployeemaytrytocopewiththi
s
sit
uati
onbyav oidi
ngal
li
nteract
ionswit
ht heindi
v i
dual
.Thi
sav oi
dances tr
ategymayimpairt
heemploy ee’
sjob
perfor
mancei ft
hecoworkerhass omevaluableinf
ormati
onthattheempl oyeeneedstoperf
ormhisorherjob.
In
thi
scas e,i
ti
snotthest
ressthatiscaus
ingpoorj obperf
ormance, butthecopingst
rat
egy!

Agr eatdeal
ofevidencesugges t
sthatworkst
resscanleadtoi
ncreas
edt ur
noverandabs
enteei
sm(Boswel
l&
Olson-Buchanan,2004;Cav anaugh,Boswel
l,Roehl
ing,&Boudreau,2000;Mayes&Gans t
er,1
988).Gupt
aand
Beehr( 1
979)foundthist
obet rueforavar
iet
yofoccupationsi
nfi
veorganiz
ati
ons.

Anotherstudyconcludedthatitwasacombi nationofhighlevelsofworkstr
essandlowlevelsoforgani
zat
ional
commi t
mentt hatpredi
ctedv ol
untar
yturnov
err atesforworkersinafoodprocessi
ngcompany( Parasur
aman&
Alutt
o,1984).Further,
ifst
resslevel
saretoblamef orcertai
nil
lnesses,i
ti
sagiventhats
tressmus tbe
responsi
bleforsomeabs enteei
s mands omet urnovercausedbydi sabl
i
ngil
lness
.

2)JOBBURNOUT-i sas
yndr
omer
esul
ti
ngf
rompr
olongedex
pos
uret
owor
kst
res
sthatl
eadst
owi
thdr
awal
fr
omtheor
gani
zat
ion.

Empl oy
eesex posedtos uchthi
ngsasunresolvedint
erpersonal
confl
ict
s,l
ackofcl
ear
lydef
inedworktas
ksand
responsi
bil
it
ies,ext
remeov erwork,l
ackofappropri
aterewards,
orpresenceofi
nappr
opri
atepuni
shmentmay
becomev ict
imsofbur nout,aprocessbywhichtheybecomel esscommi t
tedt
othei
rj
obsandbegintowithdr
aw
fromwor k
.

Theprocessofwithdrawalmayincludes uchreacti
onsasincreasedtardi
nessandabsent
eeismanddecrea
sed
workperf
ormanceandwor kqual
it
y( Gaines&J ermier,
1983; Suther
land&Cooper,1988;Ybema,Smulders,
&
Bongers,
201 0).
Mor eover
,work-relat
edbur noutcanspil
lovertoanindivi
dual
’sf
amil
ylif
e,aswesawwithstr
ess
ear
li
er(Maslach,2005; Masl
ach,Schauf el
i,
&Lei t
er,2001).

Bur
noutus
ual
l
yoccur
sint
hree(
3)phas
es.

(
1)Thef
ir
stphas
eisEMOTI
ONALEXHAUSTI
ONcaus
edbyex
ces
siv
edemandspl
acedont
hewor
ker
.

(2)Thesecondphas
eisDEPERSONALIZATI
ON,ort
hedev
elopmentofacy
nical
,i
nsens
it
iv
eat
ti
tudet
owar
d
people(
otherwor
kersorcus
tomer
s)i
nthewor
ksi
te.
(3)Thethirdphas eismar kedbyFEELI
NGSOFLOW PERSONALACCOMPLI SHMENT. Heretheburned-out
workersfeelas enseoffrustr
ati
onandhelples
s ness.Theybegintobel
ievethatthei
rworkeff
ortsf
ail
toproduce
thedesir
edr esults,
andt heymayquitt
rying(Jack s
on, Schwab,&Schuler
,1986; Lee&As hf
orth,
1990).
Mas l
achBur noutInventoryHumanServicesSur vey(MBI ;Masl
ach&Jack s
on, 1
986) ,
aninst
rumentthat
assessesthethr eehypothesiz
edcomponent sofbur nout.

Res earchhass hownt hatburnoutises pecial

lyhighinhumans erviceprofessi
onsthatinvol
vehel
pingothers,
suchasheal th-car eprov
iders(physici
ans ,nurses,counsel
ors)
,teachers,soci
alworkers,andpol
icemen( Bur
ke,
1997; Car l
son&Thomps on,1995;Cher ni
ss,1980) .
As t
udyofnur sesfoundthatburnoutledtodecreased
organizationalcommi t
mentandi ncreas ednegat i
veinter
acti
onswi thsupervi
sors(
Leiter&Mas l
ach,1988).
Similar
ly ,
theef fectsofburnoutont eachersincludeinsensi
ti
vit
ytowar dstudents,
lowertoler
ancefordis
rupti
on
i
nt hecl assroom, inadequatepreparati
onf orclasses,andthefeel
ingthattheyarenol ongerabl
etohelps t
udent
s
l
ear n(By r
ne, 1993) .

Alongitudi
nal studyofsocialwelfar
ewor kersf
oundt hatt heemotional ex haust
ioncomponentofMas l
ach’s
BurnoutInv entorywasrelatedtobothvoluntar
yt ur
nov eranddeclinesi nj obperformanceov era1 -yearper i
od
(Wright&Cr opanzano,1998) .Al
thoughmuchoft heres earchonbur noutf ocusesont he“helpingpr ofessions
,”
ther
ei sevidencet hatbur
noutcanoccuri nmanydi f
ferentoccupations( Lei
ter&Schauf el
i,1
996; Sonnent ag,
Brodbeck ,Heinbok el
,&St olt
e,1994).Clearl
y,howev er,theemotional laborofpr ovi
di
ngs er
v icestoclient
s ,
customer s
, andpat i
ents,
pl aysabigpartincausi
ngbur nout( Br
otherridge&Gr andey ,2002; Zapf,Seifert
,
Schmut te,Mer ti
ni,&Holz,2001 )
.

I
tisimportanttonotethatther
ei ssomedebat eamongr esearchersaboutthedefi
ni
ti
onandt hecomplexi
tyoft
he
burnoutphenomenon. Forinstance, r
esearchershavedisagreedaboutt henumberofcomponentsthatcompri
se
theburnoutsyndrome( Demer outi
,Bak ker,
Nachr ei
ner,
&Schauf el
i,2001;Evans&Fischer
,1993;Schaufel
i&
VanDi er
endonck ,1
993) .Yet,burnoutisas er
iousprobl
emandi l
lust
ratessomeofthelong-t
ermps y
chologi
cal
andbehav ior
aleff
ectsofwor k
- r
elatedstress.

COPI
NGWI
THWORKERSTRESS

Thet r
emendousvari
et yofstr
ategi
esandt echni
quesdesignedtocopewi t
hworks tr
esscanall
becat egor
ized
i
ntotwogeneralapproaches:indi
vi
dual s
trat
egiesandor
gani z
ati
onals
trategi
es.I
ndivi
dualst
rat
egiesarethose
thatcanbeusedbyindi v
idualemployeestotrytor
educeorelimi
natepersonals
tress.Organi
zati
onalstr
ategi
es
aretechni
quesandpr ogramsthatorgani
zati
onscanimplementtotryt
or educestres
slevel
sforgroupsof
workersorf
ortheorganizati
onasawhol e.

1)I
NDIVI
DUALCOPI NGSTRATEGIES-arebehav
ioral
orcognit
iveef
for
tsmadeinanatt
emptt
omanageint
ernal
demandsandconfl
i
ctsthathav
eex
ceededani
ndi
v i
dual
’susualcopi
ngres
ources(
Lazar
us&Launi
er,
1978;
Set
hi&Schuler
,1984).

(a)Themos tobvi
ousofsuchtechni
quesareprogramsdev el
opedt oimprovetheindiv
idual
’sphys
icalcondi
ti
on,
suchasEXERCI SEandDIETPLANS. Thepr i
maryrati
onalebehinds uchheal
thprogramsistomaket hebody
mor er
esis
tanttost
res
s-r
elatedil
l
nesses.Someclaimthatexercis
ei ts
elfmaydir
ectl
yreducetheanxiety
associ
atedwithst
ress
,orthati
tmayhav eacertai
ntranquil
i
zingeffectonstr
essedindivi
dual
s(Jet
te,1984).

Howev er,i
tisuncl
earwhetheri
tist
heexerci
sethatdi
rect
lyal
lev
iat
esthephysiol
ogicals
y mptomsofs t
ressor
si
mpl ythatanindi
vi
dual“feel
sgood”aft
erexer
cisi
ngbecauseofposi
ti
vepsychological
factors
. Forinst
ance,
becauseex erci
si
ngandk eepi
ngphysi
call
yfi
tareval
uedhighl
ybyourcult
ure,i
tmaybet hatphy si
cal
lyacti
ve
personsfeelbett
eraboutthemsel
vesandthuspsychol
ogical
l
yreduceper
ceivedstress.Morerigorous
ev
aluat
ioni
sneededtodeter
minet
hepr
eci
sephy
siol
ogi
cal
andps
ychol
ogi
cal
inf
luencesofex
erci
seanddi
et
pr
ogramsinal
l
eviat
ings
tress
.

(b)Anotheri
ndiv
idual
copingst
rat
egyistheINDUCEMENTOFSTATESOFRELAXATI ONt or
educethenegat
iv
e
arousal
ands t
rai
nthataccompanystr
ess.Avari
etyoft
echni
queshavebeenus
edt
oachi
evet
his
,incl
udi
ng
systemati
crel
axati
ontr
aini
ng,medi
tati
on,andbi
ofeedback(
Stei
n,2001)
.

•I
nSYSTEMATICRELAXATIONTRAINI
NG,
indi
vi
dual
sar
etaughthowt
orel
axal
lt
hemus
clesoft
hebody
sy
stemat
ical
l
y,f
romt
hefeett
othef
ace.

•MEDITATI
ONi sadeeprel
axedst
atethati
susual
lybroughtonbyint
enseconcentr
ati
ononasi
ngl
eword,
idea,
orobj
ect
.Supposedl
y,medi
tati
ves
tatesare“f
reeofanxi
ety,t
ensi
on,ordi
st
ress”(Set
hi,1
984a,
p.145)
.

•BIOFEEDBACKus ess omemeas ur

eofphys
iol
ogicalact
ivi
ty,
typi
call
ybr ai
nwav esormusclet
ensi
on,t
ha ti
s
associ
atedwit
hrelaxeds tat
es.
Whent heper
sonisinthestat
eofrel
axation,themeasurementmachi
nery
provi
dessomes ortoffeedback,s
uchasatone.Theindiv
idualt
henlearnsthroughpract
icehowtoent
erintothe
rel
axed,st
res
s-freestate.

Alt
houghrelaxat
ion, meditat
ion,andbiofeedbackar ei nt
endedpr i
ncipallytoreducethephysi
ol
ogicalarousal
associ
atedwithstress,theymayal soinducepos i
ti
veps ychologicalreact i
onstostr
ess.Thesevari
ousmet hods
ofcopi
ngwit hst
res sthroughrelaxat
ionproc es
s esar ewidelytouted, buttherehasbeenv er
yli
tt
lesystematic
i
nvesti
gati
onofthei reff
ectiv
enes s.I
nfact,somef indingsindicatethats uchpr ogr
amsarenotveryeff
ect i
veatal
l
(Ganst
er,May es
, Sime,&Thar p,1
982; Sall
i
s ,Johns on,Trevorrow, Hov ell
,&Kaplan,1985).

Onepos si
blereasonwhys ystemati
crelaxati
oncopings
trat
egi
esmaynotbeeffecti
vei sthatmostofthe
rel
axat
iontechniquesrequi
requiteabitofdedica-
ti
onandpract
icet
obeusedef f
ecti
v ely
. Notal
lpersonsfi
ndi
t
easytoinduceadeepl yrel
axedstate;
othersmaynotbeabletoadher
etoaregularprogramofs ystemati
c
rel
axat
ionormedi tati
on.Al
so,manyoft heseprogr
amslastonl
yafewhour
s,whichmaynotbeenought i
meto
teachsomeonedi ffi
cul
trel
axati
ontechniques.

Thet i
mingoftherel
axati
ontechni
queisanotherpr obl
em. Manypeopl ewoul
dfinditdif
fi
cult(andperhaps
i
nappr opr
iat
e)tomeditat
eatwork,andrel
ax i
ngbef oreorafterworkmayormaynots igni
ficantl
yreduces t
ress
whileatwork.Thesamear gumentcanbemadef orex er
cis
epr ograms—thebenefi
tswillonlyoccurifpeopl
e
adheretothei
rexerci
seregimens(seeErf
urt,Foote,&Hei r
ich,1992).I
nshor
t,al
thoughanyandal lofthese
techni
quesmaybegoodi ntheor
y,theyma ynotfunctionwel l
inpract
ice.

(c)Ot herindi
vidualcopings tr
ategiesincludeav ari
etyoftechniquestot r
ytof endof fwor kstresst hr
oughbet ter
,
mor eef f
ici
entwor kmet hods .
Cour sesi nTIMEMANAGEMENTar eoftenadv erti
sedasmet hodsofr educing
str
es scaus edbyov erwor kandi neff
iciency(Schuler&Set hi
,1984; Wr at
cher&J ones, 1986) .Forex ample,
l
earni ngtoappr oachwor kt askss ystemat i
call
ybybudget i
ngandas si
gningpar celsoft i
met ospeci f
ictas
k sand
bypl anningaheadt oav oidl astminut edeadlinesmaybequi teeffect
iveinhelpingr educes tr
essf orsome
work ers.Again,howev er,thes es t
rategiesdependont hei
ndivi
dual’scommi tmentt ot het echniqueand
will
i
ngnes sandabi l
i
tytous ei tregularly(Shahani,
Wei ner,&Streit
,1993) .(
SeeAppl yi
ngI /OPs ychologyfor
guidel i
nesonhowor ganizat i
onss houl dimplements t
ressmanagementpr ograms .)

(d)I
ndivi
dualsmayal sotrytocopewithst
ressbyREMOVI NGTHEMSELVES, TEMPORARI LYOR
PERMANENTLYf romt hestress
fulwor
ksi
tuati
on.Iti
snotuncommonf orwork
erstoexchangeastr
ess
ful
jobfor
onethati
slesss t
ressful(al
thoughmanydos eekmor echal
lengi
ngandmorestres
sfulj
obs).
Alt
houghavacat
ion
maytempor ari
l
yeliminatewor kstr
ess,
cer
tai
nt r
ips
, s
uchasi nt
enset
oursofei
ghtEuropeancount
ri
esi
nseven
day
s,maycr
eat
eadi
ff
erentk
indofs
tres
sthems
elv
es(
Louns
bur
y&Hoopes
,1986)
.

Researchindicatesthatalt
houghv acat
ionsdoi ndeedreducewor ks tr
es sandfeeli
ngsofburnout,
theef f
ectsar e
temporary.I
nf act,
levelsofstr
es sandbur noutarereducedimmedi atelybefore,duri
ng,andimmedi at
elyafterthe
vacati
on,butmaygobackt oor i
ginall
evelsaf ewweek saft
erthev acation(Etzi
on,2003; Westman&Eden,
1997).Iti
sinterest
ingtonot ethatwor k
ersmi ghtuseabsencef r
omwor k—v olunt
ari
lyt
akingadayof f—asa
copings t
rat
egy .I
fabsencei susedasanat tempttocopewi t
hapar ti
cularl
ystress
fulj
ob,thenthelostworkt i
me
mus tbebalancedagai nstthepos sibl
egainsintermsoftheempl oy ee’slong-t
ermper f
ormanceandwel l-being
(Hackett&By cio,1996) .

(e)Finall
y,cogni
ti
veef fort
stocopemayi ncludeCOGNI TI
VERESTRUCTURI NG,whi chentail
schangi ngtheway
onet hi
nk saboutstr
ess ors(Lazarus,1991;Lowe&Bennet t,
2003) .Forex ample,
insteadoft hinkingnegat i
ve
thought swhenfacedwi t
has tressor,t
heindivi
dualpracti
cest hi
nkingneut ral
orpos i
ti
vethought s(e.g.,
“thi
sis
notimpor tant
,”“t
hisisreall
yachal lenge”
). St
udiesofteachersandnur seswhous edcogniti
v eres t
ructuri
ng
foundt hatitr
educedtheirper cepti
onsofs t
ressands tr
ess-relat
edi l
lnesses(Begley,1998; Gar dner,Ros e,
Mas on, Tyler
,&Cus hway ,2005; Schonfeld,1990).Cogniti
v erest
ruct ur
ingisoft
enus edtot reatpos t-t
raumati
c
str
essdi sorderi
nwor kersandot herswhohav eexperi
enceds ever
et rauma( Mueser,Rosenber g, &Ros enberg,
2009) .

I
ndivi
dualcopi
ngs t
rategiesmaybeef f
ecti
veincombati
ngs t
res
siftheyi
ncreas
eanindi
vi
dual
’ssel
f-ef
fi
cacyf
or
copi
ngwiths t
ress.
Res earchshowsthatSELF-EFFICACYcanhelpcopewithworkdemands,s
uchaswor k
over
load,
butonlyiftheper s
onhastheresourcestohel
preducethejobdemands(Jex
,Bl
ies
e,Buzzell
,&
Pri
meau,2001 ).

2)ORGANIZATI
ONALCOPI
NGSTRATEGI
ES-t
echni
quest
hator
gani
zat
ionscanus
etor
educes
tres
sforal
lor
mostempl
oyees
.

I
ndi
vidualcopingstr
ategiesar est
epsthatwor k
ersthems elv
escantaketoall
eviat
epers
onalst
ress,and
or
ganizat
ionalcopi
ngs tr
at egi
esarestepst hatorgani
zati
onscant aket
otrytoreducest
ressl
evelsi
nt he
or
ganizat
ionforall
,ormos t,employees(Bur ke,1993).Becaus ewor
kstr
esscancomef romav ari
etyof
or
ganizat
ionalsour
ces ,t
her earemanyt hingsthatorgani
z at
ionscandotoreducesit
uat
ional
stress
orsinthe
work
place.Thes estr
ategiesincl
udethef oll
owing:

(
a)I
MPROVETHEPERSON–J
OBFI
T

Wehav ealr
eadyseenthatworkstr
esscommonl yari
seswhenworkersareinjobstheydisl
i
keorjobsforwhi
ch
theyarei
ll
suit
ed(Fr
ench&Capl an,1972).
Ami smatchbet
weenawor ker’
sint
erest
sorskil
lsandjob
requi
rementscanbeverystr
essf
ul.Bymaximi
zingthepers
on–jobfi
tthroughthecareful
screeni
ng,sel
ecti
on,
andplacementofemployees,
organiz
ati
onscanall
eviat
eagreatdealofthi
ss t
ress
.

(
b)I
MPROVEEMPLOYEETRAI
NINGANDORI
ENTATI
ONPROGRAMS

Perhapsthemos tstr
essedgroupsofwor ker
sinanyorgani
zat
ionar enewemploy ees.
Althoughtheyareusual
l
y
hi
ghl ymoti
vatedandwantt omakeagoodi mpres
siononthei
rnewbos s
esbys howingthattheyarehardwor
king
andcompet ent,t
heirl
ackofcert
ainjob-r
elatedsk
il
lsandknowledgemeanst hatnewempl oyeesareoft
en
unabletoperf
ormt hei
rjobsaswellastheywouldli
ke.Thi
smismat chbetweenex pect
ati
onsandout comescan
bev eryst
ressf
ulfornewwor k
ers.

Mor
eov
er,
theyf
eel
agr
eatdeal
ofs
tres
ssi
mpl
ybecaus
etheyar
einanewandunf
ami
l
iarenv
ir
onmenti
nwhi
ch
therei
smuchimpor tantinf
ormati
ont
obel earned.
Compani escanhelpeli
minat
es omeofthi
sstr
essbyens
uri
ng
thatnewworkersreceiveproperj
obtr
aini
ngandor i
entat
iontotheorgani
zat
ion.Notonl
ydoesthi
sleadt
oamore
capableandproductiv
enewwor k
for
ce,butital
sohelpstoreducethestr
ess-i
nducedtur
noverofnewempl
oyees
.

(
c)I
NCREASEEMPLOYEES’
SENSEOFCONTROL

Wehav eseenthatthelackofas ens eofcontroloverone’sjobcanbev eryst

ressful.
Bygi vi
ngwor ker
sagreater
f
eeli
ngofcontrolt
hroughpar ti
ci
pationinwor k
- r
elateddecisions,moreresponsibi
li
ty,orincreasedaut
onomyand
i
ndependence,organizati
onscanalleviat
es omeoft hisstr
ess( Caplan,Cobb,French, Harri
son,&Pinneau,1
980;
Ganst
er,Fox,&Dwy er, 2001;Ji
mmi eson&Ter r
y ,1
993; Schaubr oeck,Jones,&Xi e,2001 )
.Programssuchas
j
obenri
chment ,par
tici
pativedeci
sionmak ing,ands ystemsofdel egati
ngauthorit
yallhelpincreaseemploy
ees ’
sens
eofcontrolovertheirj
obsandt hewor kenv i
ronment .

(
d)ELI
MINATEPUNI
TIVEMANAGEMENT

I
tiswellk
nownt hathumansr eactstr
onglywhentheyar epunishedorharassed,part
icular
lyi
fthepunis
hmentor
harass
mentisbeli
ev edtobeunf ai
randundeserved.Thev eryactofbei
ngthreatenedorpunishedatwor kcanbe
veryst
ressf
ul.
Iforganizat
ionstakestepst
oeli
minatecompanypol i
ci
esthatareperceivedtobet hr
eat
eningor
punit
iv
e,amajorsour ceofworks t
resswil
lal
sobeeli
mi nated.Trai
ni
ngsuperv i
sorst
omi nimiz
et heuseof
punis
hmentasamanager ialt
echniquewil
lal
sohelpcont r
olthi
scommons ourceofstress.

(
e)REMOVEHAZARDOUSORDANGEROUSWORKCONDI
TIONS

I
nsomeoccupati
onsstr
essresul
tsf
romex posur
etohazardouswor kcondit
ions,s
uchasmechani
cal
dangerof
l
ossofl
imborl
if
e,heal
th-har
mingchemicals,
excess
ivefati
gue,orex t
remetemperat
ures
.Theel
imi
nati
onor
r
educti
onoft
hesesit
uati
onsisanot
herwayofcopingwit
hor gani
zationals
tress
.

(
f)PROVI
DEASUPPORTI
VE,
TEAM-
ORI
ENTEDWORKENVI
RONMENT

Ther
eiscons i
der
abl
er esear
chevidencethathavi
ngs uppor
ti
vecoll
eagues
—peoplewhocanhelpdealwi
th
st
res
sfulworksit
uat
ions—canhelpr educeworkerst
ress(Fenl
ason&Beehr,1
994;House,
1981;Li
m, 1
996).
Thi
sispart
icul
arl
ytr
uef orwork
ersinvol
vedintheemot i
onall
aborofser
vi
cework(
Korcz
ynski
,2003).

Met a-anal
ysess uggestthatsoci
al supportinthework
placereducespercepti
onsofthreat,l
essenstheperceiv
ed
str
engt hofthestressor
s,andhel psincopingwi thwor
k-rel
ateds t
ress(
Viswesvaran,Sanchez,&Fisher,
1 999).
Themor eorganizati
onscanfostergoodi nterper
sonal
rel
ati
ons hi
psamongcowor k er
sandani ntegr
ated,highl
y
functi
oningwor kteam, t
hemor elikelyt
hatwor kerswi
l
lbeabl etoprovi
desupportforoneanotherinti
mesof
str
es s(Heaney,Pr i
ce,&Raffert
y, 1
995; Unden, 1996).

(
g)I
MPROVECOMMUNI
CATI
ON

Muchoft hestr
essatworkder
iv
esfr
omdiffi
cul
ti
esini
nter
pers
onalrelat
ionswit
hsupervi
sorsandcoworkers
.The
bett
erthecommunicati
onamongworkers
,thel
owerthestr
esscreatedbecauseofmisunderst
andings
.In
addi
tion,st
res
soccurswhenworker
sfeel
cutofff
romoruninf
ormedaboutor gani
zat
ional
processesand
operati
ons.

I
nones t
udy,merelyprov
idi
ngmor ejob-rel
atedinf
ormat
ionhel
pedinreduci
ngstr
esscausedbytaskover
load
(
Jimmieson&Ter r
y,1999).Properor
ganizat
ionalcommunicat
ioncanprev
entworker
sfr
omex peri
enci
ngs t
res
s
f
romjobuncert
aintyandfeel
ingsofisol
ati
on.
NEGATI
VEEMPLOYEEATTI
TUDESANDBEHAVI
ORS

I
nChapt er9wes awhowindi
vi
dualdi
ff
erencesinpos
it
iveaf
fect
ivi
tyhadafavorabl
eimpactonjobsat
isf
act
ion
andotherworkoutcomesandt
hatworkerswit
hnegati
veaff
ecti
vi
tytendedtohavelowlev
elsofsat
isf
act
ion
(Connol
ly&Viswev ar
an,
2000).

Whatar
ether
elat
ions
hipsbet
weennegat
iv
eaf
fect
iv
it
y,wor
kers
tres
s,andundes
ir
abl
ewor
kout
comes
?

Thereismixedev i
denceabouthownegat i
veaff
ecti
vit
yinfl
uencesper cei
v eds tr
es s;however
,i
tseemst hat
i
ndivi
dualspronetonegativeemotionsdoindeedperceivethattheyhav emor es tressonthei
rj
obs( Cass ar&
Tatt
ersall
,1998;Spector,
Chen, &O’ Connell
,2000).Howev er,
thetruer elat
ions hi
pmaybecompl ex.For
example,ther
eisev i
dencethatnegativ
eaffecti
vi
tyi
nteract
swi t
hotherv ariables,suchaspercept
ionsofbei ng
tr
eatedinequit
ablyorunj
ustly
—wi thpersonspronetowardnegat i
veemot i
onal i
tyreacti
ngmorestr
ongl ytobeing
tr
eatedunfair
ly(Aqui
no,Lewis,&Br adfi
el
d,1999).

Workerswithhighnegat
iveaf f
ecti
vit
ywereal
somor el
ikel
ytol
eaveworkearl
y,bef
orethescheduledendofthe
workday(Iv
erson&Deery, 2001 )
.Inaddi
ti
on,t
hereissomeevi
dencethatwor
kershighinnegat
iveaff
ecti
vi
ty
maynotr espondaswell
tof eedbackfromsuper
vi
s or
sabouthowtoimprovet
heirworkperf
ormance(Lam,Yik,
&
Schaubroeck,2002).

Beyondtherol
eofnegat
iv
eemot
ions
,whatar
esomenegat
iv
eempl
oyeebehav
ior
sthatar
eofmaj
orconcer
nto
or
ganizat
ions?

I
/Ops
ychol
ogi
st
shav
einv
est
igat
edcount
erpr
oduct
iv
ewor
kbehav
ior
s(CWBs
).

•COUNTERPRODUCTIVEWORKBEHAVI ORS(CWBS)-aredevi
antbehavi
orst
hatarehar
mful
toan
empl
oyee’
sor
gani
zat
ionandi
tsmember
s(Bennet
t&Robi
nson,2000;Spect
or&Fox ,
2005).

Counterpr
oducti
vewor kbehav i
orsincl
udes uchthi
ngsass t
eal
i
ngf r
omempl oyers,vandal
i
sm,sabot age,
harassmentofcoworkers,deli
beratel
ymissi
ngwor k,andusi
ngdrugsoralcohol onthejob.Res
ear chhasshown
thatCWBsc anresul
tfroms tr
ess, f
rust
rat
ionatwor k
,orfeel
i
ngsofinequi
ty,caus i
ngattemptst
or etal
iat
eagai
nst
theemployerandseekr evenge,orevenfromj eal
ousy(Aqui
no,Tr
ipp,&Bies, 2001;Fox&Spect or,1999;
Jensen,Opland,&Ryan, 2010;Vecchio,2000) .

Meta- analy
s essuggestthatCWBsar emor eprevalenti
ny oungeremployeesandt hosewit
hlowerjob
sati
sfacti
on( Lau,Au,&Ho, 2003) .Counterproductiveworkbehav i
ors
,andev enwor kpl
aceaggressi
onand
viol
ence, ar
eal sol
inkedtotrai
tnegati
v eaff
ectivi
ty,anger,andotherpers
onalit
yv ar
iabl
es(Douglas&Mar t
inko,
2001 ;Spector,1997b).Int
erest
ingl
y ,
amet a-
analys i
sshowedt hatt
heincidenceofCWBsi snegat i
vel
yrel
atedto
(r=–0. 32)theincidenceoforganiz
ationalcit
izenshipbehavior
s(Dalal
,2005) ,buttheyar
edist
inctconst
ructs
(Spector,Bauer,&Fox ,2010).

Researcherssuggestthatorganizat
ionss houldengageinprogramstot
ryt
oall
evi
atesour
cesofstr
essand
provi
des t
rategi
estogivewor kersgreatercontrolov
erthei
rjobs,asawaytor
educeCWBs .Ther
eisevi
dence
thatCWBsa renotj
ustindi
v i
duall
ymot i
v ated(“badapples
”),butcanal
sobei
nfl
uencedbythenormsandval
ues
ofthegroupandor ganizat
ion(“badbar rel
s ”
;O’Boyle,
Forsyth,
&O’ Boy
le,
2011.
)

Also,
mak i
ngsurethatemployeesar
et reatedf
air
ly,
provi
dingreas
onableworkl
oads,cl
earl
ydefi
ni
ngjobs,
and
havi
ngsuperv
isor
strai
nedtomedi at
eint er
pers
onaldis
putesamongwor ker
s,ar
eotherstr
ategi
estopr
event
count
erpr
oducti
vebehaviorandworkplacev i
ol
ence(Atwater&Elki
ns,
2009; Spect
or,2001).
ALCOHOLANDDRUGUSEI
NTHEWORKPLACE

Aproblemt hatisofgreatconcer
nt obusi
nessesandtoindust
ri
al
/or
gani
zati
onalpsy
chologis
tsi
sempl oy
ee’
sus
e
andabus eofalcoholanddr ugs(
Frone,2011).Nodoubtagreatmanyi
ndustr
ial
acci
dentsoccurbecauseof
workerint
ox i
cati
on.Thecombi nat
ionofalcoholordr
ugsandheavymachiner
yormot orvehi
cl
esisdeadl
y.

Drugandal c
oholabuseisalsodir
ect
lyresponsi
blefordecr
easedproducti
vi
tyandincreasedabsent
eei
smand
t
urnover,nottomenti
onalltheprobl
emst hati
tcancauseinthehomelivesofwork
er s
. Thecost
sofall
oft
hisar
e
st
aggering.Aconservat
iveesti
mateist
hats ubst
anceabusecostsU.S.employer
smor et han$1
00bill
i
ondoll
ars
ayear
, andsubstanceabuseisaworldwideproblem.

As t
udyofy oungwor kersf
oundt hatworkerswhor epor tedpr oblemswi thal coholanddr ugshadgr eaterj
ob
i
nstabi
li
tyandr educedj obs at
is
facti
onincompar isont othei rpeerswhodi dnotabus edrugs( Galai
f,Newcomb,
&Car mona, 2001 )
.Mor eover,t
hisisl
ikel
yacy cli
cal proces s.Studiessugges tt
hatwor kerswhoar eunders ev
ere
str
ess,suchasheav yjobdemandsort hestr
essofj obl oss,ma yturntoalcohol ordrugs( Begley,1998; Fr
one,
2008; Murphy ,Beaton,Pike,&Johns on,1999).This ,i
nt urn,leadst oproblemsont hejob, andthecy cle
conti
nues.Therei ssomeev i
dencethatorgani
z at
ional polici
est hatbans ubs tanceabus eint hewor kpl
acea nd
advocateagains ti
ll
i
citdrugusereduceempl oyees ’useofdr ugsbot honandof ft
hej ob(Car penter,2007).A
numberofpr ogramshav ebeenus edtotrytodeterdr ugus ebyempl oyees( Ghods e,2005) .

I
naneffor
ttocombatsubs
tanceabus
e,manycompani
eshav
eempl
oyeeas
sis
tancepr
ogr
ams(
EAPs
),pr
ogr
ams
t
hatof
fercounsel
i
ngforavar
iet
yofempl
oyeeprobl
ems.

•EMPLOYEEASSISTANCEPROGRAMS(
EAPS)-couns
eli
ngpr
ovi
dedf
orav
ari
etyofwor
kerpr
obl
ems
,
par
ti
cul
arl
ydr
ugandalcohol
abus
e.

Ofpart
icul
arconcerniscouns eli
ngfordrugandalcohol abuse,althoughEAPsal sohelpempl oyeestodea lwit
h
workst
ressandper sonalproblemsthatmayadv ersel
yaf fectt
heirperformanceandwel l
-being( Cai
ro,1983;
Cooper,Dewe,&O’ Driscol
l,201 1
).Al
thoughemploy eecouns el
inghasl ongbeenof fer
edbycompani es,onlyin
thepast20yearshav ecompr ehensiv
eEAPsbecomecommonpl aceinlargeorganiz
ati
ons.Thisincreaseisli
kely
duetothegrowingconcer nov ert
hedev ast
ati
ngcons equencesofs ubstanceabuseinter
msofhar mingwor ker
heal
thandorganizat
ionalproductivi
ty
. Themajor
it
yofl argeAmer icancompani estodayhaves omet ypeof
for
mali
zedempl oyeeass i
stanceprogram.

Alt
houghindus
tri
al
/organi
zat
ionalpsychol
ogi
stsaregreatl
yconcernedabouttheadversei
mpactofsubstance
abuseandworkstr
es sonemployeeproducti
vi
tyandwel l
-being,cl
i
nicalandcounsel
i
ngps y
chologi
st
s,social
workers
,anddrugrehabil
i
tat
ioncounselor
s,r
atherthanI
/Ops ychol
ogists,t
ypi
call
yst
affEAPs.
Howev er
,I/O
psychol
ogis
tsmayhav eahandint hedesi
gn,i
mpl ementat
ion,andevaluati
onofEAPs.

Employeeassi
stanceprogramsusuall
yt akeoneoft woforms.Ext
ernalprogramsar ethoseinwhichthecompany
contr
actswit
hanout s
ideagencytopr ovidecounseli
ngs er
vi
cesforit
sempl oy ees.Int
ernalEAPsofferser
vi
cesat
theworksi
te.Theadvantageofaninternalprogr
ami sit
sconveniencefortheempl oyees,al
thoughtheyare
expensi
vetomaintai
n.Usuall
yonl
ylargeor ganizat
ionscanaff
ordinter
nal EAPs .Themai nadv ant
agesof
exter
nalpr
ogramsarethelowercostsandt heincreasedemployeeconfidentiali
ty.

Despitethei
ncreasingpopular
it
yofemployeeas s
istanceprograms ,
therehasbeensurpri
si
ngl
ylit
tl
eresearchon
thei
reffect
iv
eness( Weiss,
1987; Ki
rk&Brown,2003) .
Thepr obl
emr esult
spartl
yfr
omt hedi
ff
icul
tyofeval
uati
ng
anycouns el
i
ngpr ogram,becauseiti
snotal
way sclearwhichv ar
iabl
eswillbes
tdeter
mineaprogram’s
“success”(Mio&Goi shi
,1988).Forexample,
somepr ogr
amsmeas uresuccessbythenumberofwor ker
s
tr
eat
ed,
whereasother
smayusesomest
andardofr
ecover
yor“
cure.
”Furt
her
more,i
ti
sdi
ff
icul
ttodet
ermi
ne
howEAPcounsel
i
ngaffect
sbot
tom-l
i
nevar
iabl
essuchasempl
oyeeper
for
mance.

I
tisalsodiff
icul
tt odeterminetheeffecti
venessofEAPsbecaus ethelargenumberofex ternalagenciesthatoff
er
couns el
i
ngs ervi
cesf orbusinessesusuall
yc onductt
heirownevaluat
ions,anditisunclearhowobj ecti
veand
accuratetheses elf
-assessmentsare. Al
thoughtherearequesti
onsaboutt heeff
ect i
venes sofempl oyee
assis
tancepr ogramsi ngeneral,
iti
slikel
ythatevenaf ewcasesofempl oyeerecov er
ywoul dl
eadanempl oyerto
l
abel anEAPas ucces sbecauseofthes everit
yofdrugandalcoholaddict
ion.Mor eover,thereissomeev i
dence
thatEAPsdohel preducelong- t
ermheal t
h-carecostsforempl
oyees( Cummi ngs&Fol lette,1976).

Onecr it
icofs ubst
anceabus eEAPsarguest hattheyfocuspri
maril
yont reati
ngalcohol anddrugprobl
emsafter
theyhav er eachedt heproblems t
age,
butgiv eli
tt
leattent
iont
otheirprevention(Nathan, 1983)
.Despi
tet
he
uncertai
nt yoft heeffect
ivenessofemployeeassistanceprogr
ams ,
itisli
kelythattheywi l
lbecomeamainstayin
mos twor kor ganiz
ationsandanotherserv
icethatwi l
lbeconsi
deredanes senti
alpartofanyemployeebenefi
t
package.