Introduction Judd (2005) argues that it is necessary first to clarify what is meant by the construct 'stress' and secondly to define 'workplace'. In the broadest sense the initial assumption of the author is that 'stress' refers to a particular kind of negative experience, as yet undefined, that any human organism may experience as a result of interacting with his or her environment. As to 'workplace' it is acknowledged that this term can encompass many different environments and situations, such as the unpaid carer in the home, self-employed persons, those working in manufacturing, public or private sector service organizations, the IT-based virtual organisation, to list but a few. Thus, we need first to review the stress literature to ascertain if the initial assumptions about stress are valid. Secondly we need to learn more about the work environment and thirdly we need to understand how different situations at work might be related to the experience of stress. 1. Definitions and perspectives Definitions of stress include stimulus-based, a simple stress-strain relationship that in the workplace would mean exceeding a worker's capacity to cope with his or her workload. Response-based definitions focus more on the reaction of workers to their situation, identified usually as a physiological response pattern that disrupts normal homeostatic functioning. Fontana's (ibid) model described above proposes a fusion of stimulus and response definitions. Such interactional definitions consider the person-environment (PE) fit, proposing that a mismatch can result in a person experiencing stress. Interactional definitions could be said to allow for the fact that some individuals respond positively to an increased workload, for example drawing upon inner reserves as performance is raised whereas with others performance may deteriorate. However, the more sophisticated 'Transactional' model Bartlett (ibid) suggests is process-orientated and takes into account the dynamic nature of the stress relationship between the person and the environment (p.7). Thus different definitions of stress give rise to different ways of conceptualising stress. Bartlett (ibid) outlines the Evolutionary perspective that identifies inappropriate reactions to modern stressors. Lars Groth (1999) discusses at length the human-computer interaction. He argues information technology can help process information outside of the human mind, improve our information storage capabilities and coordinative power, as well as improve communication - but not personal communication. He argues there are iron constraints that apply to human communication and that our emotions are still with us and that there may be a serious conflict with some of the properties of computer based systems. (p.14) Such conflicts it could be argued from the 'adaptive' perspective may result in stress. Human beings may intrinsically lack the capability to adapt to some aspects of the IT world yet are powerless to stop its advance in the workplace. Other perspectives encompass Behaviourist principles that propose individual organisms can learn to moderate the stress response. The Discursive perspective on the other hand seeks to take into account personal experience, to understand individuals' interpretations and perceptions of stressful events. Harre & Stearns (1995) introducing 'the new cognitivism' argue for a psychology that sees the major topics of the discipline as examples of skilled actions that we should try to identify and give explicit expression to the 'norms, rules and conventions that are immanent.' They further argue that '…the grounding of skills in bodily states and processes does not collapse psychology into a branch of the neurosciences, since the bodily organs with which we think and act are to be interpreted as among the tools we put to use in realizing our plans and intentions' (p.8). Bartlett (ibid) argues that this 'cutting edge' approach necessitates moving away from hypothetico-deductive quantitative methods although Edgerton (1995) provides (by means of a study of discursive norms for Northern Ireland 'troubles' victims), an example of how quantitative methods can reveal '…discursive norms which constrain the interpretations that people give' (p.192). It could be argued that the concept "stress" is one such discursive norm. A number of definitions and perspectives on stress have been discussed and, perhaps as Briner (1994) argues, encompass such a diverse array of phenomena that the concept of stress has become a worthless 'Modern Myth'. Also the question as to how the psychology of the person can trigger illness and disease has not been answered. Bartlett (ibid) argues for adopting a holistic biopsychosocial approach based upon general systems theory. Evidence from research in psychoneuroimmuniology is cited as one example. Both major and minor stressors, such as bereavement and 'daily hassles', are said to have a suppressive effect on the immune system increasing the risk of illness. (p.34) Back to Top 2. Experience of the working environment The Bristol Stress and Health at Work Study From a discursive perspective we might be interested to learn how people perceive their experience at work. Reviewing the Bristol Stress and Health at Work Study Smith (2001) reports that there has been no clear definition of perceived stress at work yet single one-off measures of stress continue to be used. It is also noted that previous research has failed to distinguish between stress at work and stress elsewhere. To overcome these shortcomings Smith et al (1998a, 1998b, 19999a, 1999b) conducted a survey to estimate the scale of perceived stress at work by means of a questionnaire administered to a random community sample. 'The pilot studies showed strong associations between levels of perceived stress at work and exposure to potentially stressful work characteristics… The main study also found evidence of such associations' (p.77). Attempting to distinguish between effects specifically associated with stress at work and 'life-stress' they found that reported levels of life stress were lower than the stress-at-work ratings. Also, only 17 per cent of those who reported high levels of stress at work also reported high levels of stress outside the workplace. However they note that one of the major effects of stress is on the work/home interface, such that those with high levels of perceived stress at work being unable to stop thinking about work when they got home. Reporting on workplace stress and health Smith (ibid) notes that overall the sample was in good health. However, 23 per cent reported that they had experienced an illness caused by or made worse by work in the last twelve months. It was also found that high levels of perceived stress at work were also associated with negative health-related behaviour. In conclusion it was reported that nearly 20 percent of the sample reported high levels of stress at work and also reported more frequent exposure to potentially stressful (demanding) working conditions. The most significant findings are revealed in Table 8, Cross-tabulation of work stress by number of 'highest' stress sub-groups reported (p.81). The results show that the proportion in the 'highest-reported stress' category increased as a linear function of the number of features reported. The characteristics are shown in Table 1 below and the number of factors reported by 'highest' stress sub-groups is shown in Table 2. Back to Top Marital status Divorced/separated/widowed Age 41-50 Full time/part time Full time Education To degree level Socio-economic group Group II Salary 20,000+ Occupation/place of work Professional, teaching, nursing, other education and welfare, managerial, security and road transport Table 1. Stress factors identified Smith (2001) Back to Top Work stress Number of stress factors reported 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High stress 4.3% 11.9% 13.9% 18.7% 24.9% 34.5% 39.6% 63.6% (13) (92) (111) (115) (155) (136) (65) (7) Those with no missing data: n = 3,680 Chi-square = 128.2 d.f. 7 p < 0.0001 Table 2. Cross-tabulation of work stress by number of 'highest' stress sub-groups reported Table 2. Cross-tabulation of work stress by number of 'highest' stress sub-groups reported Smith (2001) Back to Top Smith (ibid) notes that analyses combining the variables showed that the effects are independent and additive. Further in the group with six of the potentially stress-related characteristics the proportion of high-stress workers is 39.6%, more than twice the average of 20%. It is conceded that high-reported levels of stress at work are not a consequence of certain demographic and job characteristics. Nor can it be said whether it is the nature of the job that causes stress or the characteristics of individuals who do certain jobs that is crucial, suggesting further research. However, Smith notes that the results of this study do suggest that teachers, nurses and managers perceive stress at work as a major problem. It could be argued that one feature of these roles is more intense human relationships. The cross-tabulation of work-stress by marital status level of 24.7% for 'Divorced/separated/widowed' is considerably higher compared to an average of 18% for the 'Single' and 'Married/cohabitating' groups. Hence there may be an interaction between life-stress and work-stress. Cross-tabulation of work stress by education level also shows that the highest education level group, (which would probably include teachers, nurses and managers), experienced highest stress levels. These findings at least suggest that demographic factors are not irrelevant and should be taken into account. However, Smith (ibid) states that high reported levels of stress at work are not an automatic consequence of certain demographic and job characteristics suggesting that appraisal of stress cannot be ignored and that coping strategies must be considered. Evidence from the field of Management Psychology might throw more light on this aspect. Back to Top 3. The work environment and the experience of stress Boss stress "Boss stress" is said to strongly affect use of cognitive resources as it can divert the individual's intellectual focus from a task to oneself or difficult relationships. Fiedler (2001) focuses on the leader's experience of stress and its effect on the contribution of intelligence and experience to performance. Intelligence can be defined as the ability to apply what one knows to the solution of new problems; experience as learned routines for dealing with recurring emergencies and crises, important when there is not enough time to think of alternative solutions or when stress or anxiety make it difficult to focus on the task. Fiedler's (ibid) conclusion is that uncertainty and stress cause individuals to "regress", to fall back on previously learned and less mature behaviour. The suggestion is that intelligence and experience predict in opposite directions in low and high stress conditions because the ability to think logically, analytically, and creatively is acquired at a relatively late stage of development and well after a child learns from experience. It is assumed people with high intelligence tend to trust their problem-solving abilities and distrust hunch and intuition. The hypothesis postulated is that leader intelligence and experience interfere with one another because we cannot simultaneously think of new solutions for solving problems while automatically responding on the basis of past experience. Back to Top The nature of work control The nature of control at work Troup and Dewe (2002) set out to explore the nature of control in a work setting from a Transactional perspective. They were concerned to use a measure specifically designed to capture the nature of control and its focus, distinguishing between the level of control individuals perceived they had and what is important to the individual to give a sense of control. They argue that control is a multidimensional construct and that the dimensions of control are better expressed in terms of primary and secondary control and the level of control versus the desire for control. Primary self-control refers mainly to anticipating and controlling outcomes in the workplace and secondary control is more about control over emotions, preparing for negative outcomes etcetera. The results of their research confirmed that people could maintain a sense of control even when they were unable to change the situation. It is argued that a sense of control is most powerful when it is internally focussed as it was reported that 'predictability' and 'self-control' were more important to a sense of control rather than having control over 'work tasks' (p.352). Troupe and Dewe (ibid) also report, in relation to measures of appraisal, stress and coping, the importance of having a sense of control. The more important the sense of having control the more frequent use of both emotion and problem-focussed coping was observed. They suggest these results emphasize the point that coping is contextual and 'self-control' may well contribute to feelings of being empowered and hence the opportunity to exercise different forms of emotional coping when no other forms of coping are available (p.352). Thus "Boss stress" emphasises the dominant role of either appraisal and problem-solving or emotional coping and skilled-based strategies, dependent upon intelligence and demand. The study of "control" suggests that both are present when the desire for control is high. Back to Top Summary The first aim of this paper was to ascertain what stress is. The different definitions and perspectives reviewed suggest that there is no single straightforward definition of the term "stress". The evidence points towards physical strain and psychological resources, but perhaps stress is more of a discursive norm, a restrictive term, in a positive sense, that facilitates expression of a complex first person experience such that from a third person perspective any other person understands the significance of the term without actually knowing what the other person's experience is really like. The workplace creates its own unique environment. Understanding what aspects of the work environment might relate to the experience of stress was the second aim of this paper. The evidence reviewed suggests that certain more demanding roles, such as nurse, teacher or manager, are associated with the highest reported stress levels. It also appears to be the case that life stress in general may be reported as low even though work stress might be reported high, further suggesting that unique aspects of the work environment can contribute to the experience of stress. The third aim was to gain some insight into what it is about the experience of work that might be linked to perceived high stress levels. The evidence does not suggest that work environment alone can account for the experience of stress; the psychology of the person appears to be equally important. Whilst particular types of personality might be associated with stress more recent research suggests that control is an important factor with regards stress at work. However, distinguishing between primary control of work tasks and secondary self-control is important. It would seem that even if a person lacks control over work tasks a sense of control remains if there is self-control over personal feelings and the potential to predict and manage negative outcomes. Such perceptions appear to be significant as to whether a situation is experienced as stressful or not. Back to Top Conclusion What 'Boss stress' and the 'sense of having self-control' suggest is that the relationship between emotional coping and intellectual problem solving is significant when considering stress in the workplace. Bartlett (ibid) argues that general systems theory can underpin a biopsychosocial approach to understanding stress in the workplace. Whether emotions or intellect are 'in control of the situation' would seem to be an issue; but is this about one system or another being dominant or more to do with what emerges depending on how these systems interact? Kalimo et al. (2003, citing Antonovsky 1987a) in a study of burnout at work argue that a sense of coherence (SOC) appears to be significant. They suggest that 'SOC is interpreted as a stress resistance resource, a key factor in maintaining health and preventing breakdown.' Might this suggest that if a person feels positive about and understands an ongoing situation then there is a sense of coherence such that, even if stressful, the situation is manageable, acceptable and even enjoyable. In such circumstances SOC can be understood in an existentialist sense, as a way of being-in-the-World (Dreyfus 1997), which the person might not even be conscious of, but if it breaks down fears, anxieties and doubts are revealed that were not previously conscious and which in turn might initiate negative emotional and intellectual interpretations of the situation. It is a fact that the work environment is not so easily escaped, most people have to work and cannot just walk away from difficult situations. Recalling Cannon's 'fight-or-flight' hypothesis, neither fight nor flight is an option. Political correctness, social norms, financial commitment and career ambition may negate any intentional action. If negative psychological states, autonomic arousal, a lack of SOC and a sense of inertness are prolonged a syndrome that could be described as "stress" which impacts upon well-being in the workplace would seem a strong possibility. © Linton Judd 2005 Back to Top