STRESS AT WORK
Although it is difficult to estimate the cost of work-related stress, many studies report that it has enormous impact in terms of both economic costs and human suffering. For example, recent survey research estimated that about half a million people in the UK believe they are suffering from work-related stress, depression or anxiety ( Jones et al., 2003) and that, in 2001, 13.4 million working days were lost in the UK due to stress, depression and anxiety. Another survey estimated that five million people in the UK feel ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ stressed by their work (Smith et al., 2000).
Based on 1995/96 prices, the Health and Safety Executive estimated that the financial cost of work-related stress to employers was about £353 to £381 million and to society about £3.7 to £3.8 billion per year. Since these calculations were made, the estimated number of working days lost due to stress has more than doubled ( Jones et al., 2003).
The costs of stress stem not only from absenteeism and lost productivity, but also from compensation claims, health insurance and medical expenses. In the USA, annual mental stressinsurance claims in the California workers’ compensation system have been estimated to be approximately $383 million (Beehr, 1995). Figure 20.5 presents a framework for thinking about work-place stress.
Kinds of stress
The word ‘stress’ is used in a number of ways (see also chapter 19). For example, ‘I’ve got such a headache. It must be the stress over this big project’; ‘I feel stressed when my boss is around’; ‘I feel tense and my concentration goes when I am under stress’. There are numerous stressors in the work environment that can result in distinctive physiological, psychological and behavioural responses.
Physical stressors can lead to both physical and mental health problems. They might include the noise in a heavy construction manufacturing site or at an aluminium smelting
plant, or the dirty and hot physical environment of a coal mine or steel plant. Dangers in the work environment also cause stress – think of the jobs of police officers or nurses in accident and emergency departments of hospitals; both of these sets of workers are often subject to violent attacks. n Work load can be quantitative (too much work to do) and qualitative, where work is too difficult for the individual (French & Caplan, 1972). Work underload can also act as a stressor (Cox, 1980) – again this can be quantitative (not enough work to do) and/or qualitative (repetitive, routine, under-stimulating).
The person’s role in the organization can also lead to pressures in the form of role conflict and ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964). Role conflict occurs when we have to deal with conflicting job demands. It is not unusual for an individual to be caught between two
groups of people expecting different behaviours. This might occur when a non-management employee is promoted to a supervisory role and then has to balance the expectations of previous colleagues with the new demands of management. Role ambiguity occurs when we are unsure about our work requirements, responsibilities and coworkers’ expectations.
Stress can also arise from career development issues, such as fear of redundancy, failure to achieve promotion, or promotion into a role we are not prepared for.
Social stressors include poor relationships with supervisors, peers and subordinates (characterized by, for example, low trust and supportiveness).
Finally, many studies have shown that the timing of work (such as long hours or shift work) affects stress levels.Reactions to stress Although you and I may be subject to similar work stressors, our responses and the amount of strain each of us feels can be very different, depending on how we appraise the situation and what coping strategies we use (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus & Launier, 1978; see also chapters 6, 14 and 19). So the outcome of stress is a function of the interaction of the individual and the environment.
The resources that we bring to a work situation can also affect the way each of us responds to stress. Job knowledge and experience, social support, control over our work, and personality characteristics are the kinds of resources that determine whether someone finds a situation stressful. Some of the most relevant factors are:
Knowledge – People who have considerable job knowledge and experience are more likely to be able to cope with stressful situations. This is because they are less likely to experience quantitative or qualitative work overload, and they are likely to have more control over a situation than someone with little experience or knowledge (see below).
Social support – Whilst poor relationships at work can be a major source of stress, social support from colleagues and supervisors can buffer the impact of stress, mitigating the negative effects (e.g. Cummins, 1990; Manning, Jackson & Fusilier, 1996). Social support may also come from outside the job, from family and from friends.
Control – There is a widely held misperception that managers have more stressful jobs than others. While they do tend to have heavy workloads, deadlines, responsibility for complex decisions, and many relationships to manage, stressrelated diseases are much less common in managers than in blue-collar workers (Fletcher, 1988; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). One important reason for this appears to be that managers have greater control (autonomy) over theirwork. Karasek (1979) showed that the most damaging jobs have a combination of high demands (volume and pace of work) with low control.
Personality characteristics – Neurotic people are more likely to see stimuli as threatening than are hardy characters. Hardiness encompasses three personality traits: (i) commitment, (ii) an internal locus of control ( believing that you have control over your own life) and (iii) a sense of welcoming challenge (Maddi & Kobasa, 1984; see also chapters 14 and 19). Those who are high in hardiness tend to view events as less stressful than do others, and they are less likely to be overwhelmed by challenging situations.
Prevention of stress
Stress management programmes have multiplied since the 1970s (Payne, 1995). Many of these programmes help participants to perceive a situation as challenging rather than stressful. They each coping strategies and advise on diet, exercise, alcohol and substance abuse. Some programmes use techniques such as selfhelp groups, relaxation and meditation. Unfortunately, systematic evaluations of stress management programmes have shown them to be of limited effectiveness (Briner & Reynolds, 1999). Employers will sometimes try to reduce stress through changes in the workplace, such as job redesign, or to increase individuals’ resources through social support or increased control ( by increasing job responsibilities and/or participation in decision making). And, of course, stressors can also be tackled directly, for example by reducing noise or working hours.
Although it is difficult to estimate the cost of work-related stress, many studies report that it has enormous impact in terms of both economic costs and human suffering. For example, recent survey research estimated that about half a million people in the UK believe they are suffering from work-related stress, depression or anxiety ( Jones et al., 2003) and that, in 2001, 13.4 million working days were lost in the UK due to stress, depression and anxiety. Another survey estimated that five million people in the UK feel ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ stressed by their work (Smith et al., 2000).
Based on 1995/96 prices, the Health and Safety Executive estimated that the financial cost of work-related stress to employers was about £353 to £381 million and to society about £3.7 to £3.8 billion per year. Since these calculations were made, the estimated number of working days lost due to stress has more than doubled ( Jones et al., 2003).
The costs of stress stem not only from absenteeism and lost productivity, but also from compensation claims, health insurance and medical expenses. In the USA, annual mental stressinsurance claims in the California workers’ compensation system have been estimated to be approximately $383 million (Beehr, 1995). Figure 20.5 presents a framework for thinking about work-place stress.
Kinds of stress
The word ‘stress’ is used in a number of ways (see also chapter 19). For example, ‘I’ve got such a headache. It must be the stress over this big project’; ‘I feel stressed when my boss is around’; ‘I feel tense and my concentration goes when I am under stress’. There are numerous stressors in the work environment that can result in distinctive physiological, psychological and behavioural responses.
Physical stressors can lead to both physical and mental health problems. They might include the noise in a heavy construction manufacturing site or at an aluminium smelting
plant, or the dirty and hot physical environment of a coal mine or steel plant. Dangers in the work environment also cause stress – think of the jobs of police officers or nurses in accident and emergency departments of hospitals; both of these sets of workers are often subject to violent attacks. n Work load can be quantitative (too much work to do) and qualitative, where work is too difficult for the individual (French & Caplan, 1972). Work underload can also act as a stressor (Cox, 1980) – again this can be quantitative (not enough work to do) and/or qualitative (repetitive, routine, under-stimulating).
The person’s role in the organization can also lead to pressures in the form of role conflict and ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964). Role conflict occurs when we have to deal with conflicting job demands. It is not unusual for an individual to be caught between two
groups of people expecting different behaviours. This might occur when a non-management employee is promoted to a supervisory role and then has to balance the expectations of previous colleagues with the new demands of management. Role ambiguity occurs when we are unsure about our work requirements, responsibilities and coworkers’ expectations.
Stress can also arise from career development issues, such as fear of redundancy, failure to achieve promotion, or promotion into a role we are not prepared for.
Social stressors include poor relationships with supervisors, peers and subordinates (characterized by, for example, low trust and supportiveness).
Finally, many studies have shown that the timing of work (such as long hours or shift work) affects stress levels.Reactions to stress Although you and I may be subject to similar work stressors, our responses and the amount of strain each of us feels can be very different, depending on how we appraise the situation and what coping strategies we use (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus & Launier, 1978; see also chapters 6, 14 and 19). So the outcome of stress is a function of the interaction of the individual and the environment.
The resources that we bring to a work situation can also affect the way each of us responds to stress. Job knowledge and experience, social support, control over our work, and personality characteristics are the kinds of resources that determine whether someone finds a situation stressful. Some of the most relevant factors are:
Knowledge – People who have considerable job knowledge and experience are more likely to be able to cope with stressful situations. This is because they are less likely to experience quantitative or qualitative work overload, and they are likely to have more control over a situation than someone with little experience or knowledge (see below).
Social support – Whilst poor relationships at work can be a major source of stress, social support from colleagues and supervisors can buffer the impact of stress, mitigating the negative effects (e.g. Cummins, 1990; Manning, Jackson & Fusilier, 1996). Social support may also come from outside the job, from family and from friends.
Control – There is a widely held misperception that managers have more stressful jobs than others. While they do tend to have heavy workloads, deadlines, responsibility for complex decisions, and many relationships to manage, stressrelated diseases are much less common in managers than in blue-collar workers (Fletcher, 1988; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). One important reason for this appears to be that managers have greater control (autonomy) over theirwork. Karasek (1979) showed that the most damaging jobs have a combination of high demands (volume and pace of work) with low control.
Personality characteristics – Neurotic people are more likely to see stimuli as threatening than are hardy characters. Hardiness encompasses three personality traits: (i) commitment, (ii) an internal locus of control ( believing that you have control over your own life) and (iii) a sense of welcoming challenge (Maddi & Kobasa, 1984; see also chapters 14 and 19). Those who are high in hardiness tend to view events as less stressful than do others, and they are less likely to be overwhelmed by challenging situations.
Prevention of stress
Stress management programmes have multiplied since the 1970s (Payne, 1995). Many of these programmes help participants to perceive a situation as challenging rather than stressful. They each coping strategies and advise on diet, exercise, alcohol and substance abuse. Some programmes use techniques such as selfhelp groups, relaxation and meditation. Unfortunately, systematic evaluations of stress management programmes have shown them to be of limited effectiveness (Briner & Reynolds, 1999). Employers will sometimes try to reduce stress through changes in the workplace, such as job redesign, or to increase individuals’ resources through social support or increased control ( by increasing job responsibilities and/or participation in decision making). And, of course, stressors can also be tackled directly, for example by reducing noise or working hours.
No comments:
Post a Comment