+ All Categories
Home > Documents > MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

Date post: 06-Apr-2018
Category:
Upload: nicoleta-rosca
View: 248 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend

of 22

Transcript
  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    1/22

    Parcurgeti articolul si realizati un reaction paper (comentariu). Pentrurealizarea acestui comentariu se va lua parcurge si suportul de curs careva va oferi posibilitatea sa integrati informatia din cadrul articolului.Comentariul va reflecta opinia dvs referitoare la cercetarea intreprinsa incadrul articolului si la rezultatele obtinute, precum si eventualele limite

    ale metodei de cercetare utilizata. Comentariul trebuie sa fie redactatutilizand un limbaj stiinfitic (se va utiliza formularea impersonala) si nutrebuie sa depaseasca 1 pagina A4 (caractere de 12, Times NewRoman, scris la 1 rand). Trimiterea articolului se va face prin intermediuloptiunii Trimite referat.

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    2/22

    Lay representations of workplace stress: What do people

    really mean when they say they are stressed?

    GAIL KINMAN1, & FIONA JONES2

    1Department of Psychology, University of Luton, Luton, UK & 2School of Psychology, University of

    Leeds, Leeds, UK

    AbstractAn individuals beliefs in relation to stress are likely to affect their perceptions, and hence their work-

    related actions (such as absenteeism). In this paper, lay representations of work stress wereinvestigated utilising semi-structured interviews with 45 individuals from a range of occupations.The meaning of occupational stress, its antecedents and outcomes, and ways by which it may bemanaged were examined. Dominant factors were established through the use of thematic contentanalysis. Similarities and differences were found between lay and professional discourses on workstress. Results indicate that lay representations of occupational stress are multi-faceted. Littleconsensus was found in how participants interpreted the concept: a diverse range of personal,environmental, and societal factors was highlighted. A different (and arguably more complex) range ofdefinitions of job stress and the manner in which it impacts on individuals was revealed than has beenreported in previous studies. The causes of stress at work were perceived as being predominantlyorganisational, but the impact of stress on the employee was more salient than organisationaloutcomes. Paradoxically, secondary and tertiary stress management techniques were thought to bemore effective than interventions designed to prevent stress at work. Interviewees with line

    management responsibility were more likely to emphasise individual responsibility for managingstress, most others maintained that the individual and the organisation are equally responsible. Thepotential value of examining lay representations of job stress to the discipline of Occupational HealthPsychology is discussed and suggestions for future research are made.

    Keywords: lay representations, work stress, stress management, stress outcome, content analysis

    Introduction

    The non-specificity of the stress concept

    A substantial body of research has accumulated on occupational stress. It is now generallyacknowledged that stress is the product of an imbalance between appraisals of environ-

    mental demands and individual resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; MacKay, Cousins,

    Kelly, Lee & Caig, 2004) and that stressors (i.e. environmental demands) should be

    operationally differentiated from strains (i.e. responses to these demands) (Jones & Bright,

    2001). Nevertheless, stress is still subject to numerous explanations from diverse academic

    perspectives, and a clear distinction between stressors and strains is not always made. The

    lack of consensus amongst researchers in the field is illustrated by the findings of a study

    Correspondence: Gail Kinman, Department of Psychology, University of Luton, Luton, Bedfordshire LU1 3JU,UK. E-mail: [email protected]

    Work & Stress, April /June 2005; 19(2): 101 /120

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    3/22

    conducted by Jex, Beehr and Roberts (1992) who analysed articles published in six eminent

    journals in the field of organisational behaviour over a period of several years. Jex et al.

    indicate that stress was defined in several ways: as a stimulus from the environment, as a

    response to environmental stimuli, and as a stimulus-response relationship. In 14 per cent

    of articles reviewed, however, the terms stress or stressful were either not defined or

    could not be fitted into any recognisable theoretical framework. Owing to the lack of clarity

    that continues to surround the meaning of stress, the continued usefulness of the constructhas been questioned (e.g. Briner, 1996; Briner, Harris & Daniels, 2004). Nonetheless,

    research activity in the field has continued to grow (Jones & Bright, 2001). It could be

    argued that the lack of specificity of the stress concept might be attractive to researchers, as

    diverse definitions and approaches can be adopted and a wide range of potential stressors,

    strains and intervening variables operationalised under its heading.

    The concept of stress is not only of academic interest: its increasing salience in modern

    Western society as a metaphor for human misfortune, dissatisfaction and suffering has been

    documented (Helman, 1997; Mulhall, 1996). Barley and Knight (1992) argue that the rise

    in popularity of stress amongst the general public is largely attributable to its broad-based

    explanatory value, as it can be invoked to account for a variety of negative environmentalfactors, feeling states, physical sensations and cognitions. Although stress has now become

    part of the everyday language of the workplace, little is known about lay representations of

    the concept. What do people actually mean when they say that they are stressed by their

    jobs? To what extent do lay theories of work stress overlap with the dominant models and

    theories utilised by academics? This study aims to examine lay representations of the nature

    of occupational stress, its antecedents and outcomes, and ways by which work stress can be

    effectively managed. Knowledge of these issues has potential utility in the field of

    occupational health psychology by providing insight into how people make sense of their

    work-related wellbeing and, therefore, guiding the measurement and management of job

    stress.

    Lay representations of stress

    Lay theories are conceptualised by Furnham (1988) as the common sense explanations

    people provide for aspects of social behaviour. Their function is to establish cause-and-

    effect relationships which enables one to apportion blame, praise or responsibility (p. 9).

    Research that has examined lay representations of miscellaneous psychological phenomena

    suggests that they are not nave and deterministic beliefs but complex and multi-

    dimensional (Furnham, 1988).

    It has been argued that insight into lay representations of health and illness is potentiallyvaluable (see Helman, 1985), but knowledge of how individuals interpret the concept of

    stress has particular utility in the field of health psychology. There is evidence to suggest that

    stress has become an important lay construct for explaining the aetiology of ailments ranging

    from fatigue and menopausal symptoms to hypertension and coronary heart disease (e.g.

    Aaronson & Pallikkathayil, 2003; Conboy, Domar and OConnell, 2001; French, Marteau,

    Senior & Weinman, 2002; Parker, Finkel & Indice, 1993). The salience of stress as a

    perceived cause of illness is emphasised in an interview study conducted by Blaxter (1997)

    where participants considered it to be a more important predictor of health than healthy

    behaviours (p. 752). The literature on health beliefs suggests that lay theories of health-

    related concepts predict help-seeking, compliance with medical advice and other healthbehaviours. Petrie and Weinman (1997) maintain that stress is now so widely accepted as a

    102 G. Kinman & F. Jones

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    4/22

    cause of disease that the mere perception of the presence of a psychosocial stressor can

    affect the interpretation of symptoms and the decision to seek health care (p. 38).

    From the studies reviewed above, the tendency to attribute illness to stress appears to

    have become commonplace: the implications of these attributions for health and disease are

    considerable. Some studies suggest highlighting similarities and differences between lay and

    professional discourses on stress (e.g. Clark, 2003). It is acknowledged, however, that to

    some extent these theories are mutually reinforcing (Pollock, 1988). There is some evidencethat the lack of consensus amongst stress researchers as to the precise meaning of the stress

    concept is also found in lay representations of the phenomenon. An analysis of data

    obtained from three interview studies that explored lay conceptualisations of life stress and

    illness reveals considerable variation in how the concept is understood. Participants utilised

    a number of varied and creative metaphors when describing stress: such as, a heavy weight

    pressing down on the individual; a state of tension such as a wire that is taut and could

    suddenly snap; a speeding up of physiological processes that leads to physical breakdown;

    a malfunctioning of the body as a machine; the body being under siege; a gradual wearing

    out of the bodys defence systems; the depletion of essential internal resources or

    reserves; and the build up of pressure that needs to be released in some manner(Helman, 1985; Hodgetts & Chamberlain, 2000; Pollock, 1988). Interviewees tended to

    highlight the stressful nature of contemporary life as an explanation for ill health. More

    specifically, Pollocks interviewees generally believed that stress had increased (and would

    continue to do so) in response to a pathogenic society, a faster pace of life, greater pressure

    to achieve, more materialism and the erosion of social support networks. The majority

    maintained that stress was unavoidable and, consequently, little could be done to reduce or

    manage it. Work was considered to be a significant source of stress, but certain sectors were

    thought to be particularly at risk from stress-related illness: most notably, the paradigm

    heart-attack case was the pressurised executive (p. 382). The pervasiveness of this

    belief, and its implications for health, is illustrated in a more recent study conducted by

    Clark (2003). Interviews conducted with patients who had recently experienced mycardial

    infarction revealed that stress (especially work stress) was considered as having a more

    influential causal role than other factors such as smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise.

    Lay representations of occupational stress

    Research suggests that people are more likely to attribute the stress or strain that they

    experience to the work environment than other life domains (McCormick, 1997; Warr &

    Payne, 1983). Considerably more insight has, however, been gained into individuals

    explanatory models of life stress and health than lay representations of occupational stress.

    As research reviewed in this paper suggests that representations of stress held by individualsinform their attitudes and actions, an investigation of lay theories of work stress and its

    relationship with employee wellbeing has the potential to inform policy and practice relating

    to how stress is managed in organisations.

    Employees are likely to draw on a number of sources when forming their opinions about

    work stress, including organisational policies and practices, the trade union movement and

    the media. Many organisations now provide secondary and tertiary interventions of

    different kinds that aim to counsel stressed individuals and/or educate employees

    about stress and how best to manage it. In general, such programmes conceptualise stress

    as an individual problem that must be dealt with by the employee rather than the

    organisation (Wainwright & Calnan, 2002). Alternatively, trade unions have created adiscourse of stress as an occupational hazard that is structural and not attributable to

    Lay representations of workplace stress 103

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    5/22

    personal incapacity (Hepburn & Brown, 2001). As Barley and Knight (1992) argue, stress

    claims are especially useful in the labour movement as a way of gaining public support by

    carefully articulating rhetorics of deprivation in the fight for better terms and conditions

    for its members (p. 19). Primary stress management interventions are, therefore, advocated

    by this sector.

    The media is also responsible for popularising the concept of work stress and promoting

    dominant stereotypes (Harkness et al., 2005). Self-help books on managing stress haveproliferated and are widely read by the lay public. Whereas these texts focus almost

    exclusively on the individual as the agent of change, a diverse range of stress management

    strategies is endorsed, for example: enhancing organisational and goal setting skills,

    acquiring stress resilience, transforming a negative perspective on work into a more

    positive and fulfilling attitude, and maximising work-life balance. Studies that examine

    how health issues are portrayed in popular culture suggest that opinion is commonly

    blended with facts derived from research (Carlson, Li & Holm, 1997). The media obtains

    factually based information on occupational stress from a number of sources including

    government bodies, academic studies and authorities on stress. Research funded by the

    UK Health and Safety Executive and other agencies frequently concludes that workenvironments are becoming more stressful, and that a high proportion of employees are

    experiencing stress-related illness (e.g. Jones & Hodgson, 1998). League tables of the most

    stressful occupations have also been compiled (Johnson, Cooper, Cartwight, Donald,

    Taylor & Millet, 2005). Such findings are promulgated by the media and frequently

    expounded upon by media-friendly stress experts. In particular, cases where employees

    (often from the public sector) have been awarded high levels of compensation for stress-

    related incapacity receive considerable media exposure (Wainwright & Calnan, 2002).

    Although little is known about the general message promulgated by the media in the UK,

    Lewig and Dollard (2001) recently conducted a content analysis of the newsprint media

    portrayal of occupational stress in Australia. Work stress was represented as an economic-ally costly epidemic that is primarily due to unfavourable workplace conditions rather than

    an individual failure to cope with pressure (p. 179). Articles reviewed placed particular

    emphasis on stress experienced by public sector employees such as teachers. A range of

    physical and psychological outcomes of stress was highlighted. The views presented were

    somewhat contradictory in that stress was portrayed in the press as a motivating force (and

    therefore a good thing) that could be reduced or eliminated through a range of strategies

    (implying that stress is inherently damaging). Lewig and Dollard conclude by commenting

    upon the paucity of research into lay representations of work stress, and recommending that

    more studies should be conducted to examine how employees themselves perceive the

    concept.Diverse, potentially contradictory, messages regarding the nature of stress and how it

    should be managed are likely to be disseminated by the various sources outlined above.

    Some variation in lay representations of workplace stress was therefore anticipated in the

    present study.

    To date, only three studies can be located that have examined lay representations of

    occupational stress. Cross-sectional research conducted by Furnham (1997) involved 134

    workers indicating their levels of agreement with a series of statements about stress at work.

    Respondents emphasised the behavioural consequences of occupational stress (e.g.

    impaired productivity and performance) more frequently than psychological strains,

    although anxiety, depression and fatigue were also highlighted. A number of what Furnhamtermed intra-individual factors (such as willpower), and inter-individual strategies

    104 G. Kinman & F. Jones

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    6/22

    (such as seeking professional help) were cited as the most effective ways of managing

    workplace stress. As respondents were not given the opportunity to rate the efficacy of

    structural strategies, the extent to which lay people believe that organisations are

    responsible for alleviating occupational stress in their employees could not be established

    from this study. This omission is surprising as surveys of various occupations suggest that

    employees may place a strong emphasis on organisational responsibilities for the avoidance

    and alleviation of occupational stress (e.g. Kinman, 1996; Moran & Colliss, 1995).Research conducted by Dewe and ODriscoll (2002) examined the views of 540 New

    Zealand managers on the outcomes of workplace stress, the extent to which their

    organisations were responsible for managing it, and the effectiveness of various interven-

    tions. Open-ended questions and questionnaires were utilised. Unlike Furnhams study,

    perceptions of the effectiveness of structural as well as individual stress management

    strategies were assessed. Respondents indicated that job stress manifested itself in various

    ways including emotional and erratic behaviour, physiological changes, absenteeism and

    impaired motivation, morale and performance. Interestingly, whereas most interviewees

    maintained that employees had little or no control over the factors that might induce

    workplace stress, 51 per cent considered that the individual had quite a lot or totalresponsibility for dealing with stress-related problems. These findings concur with

    research by Daniels (1996) suggesting that managers find secondary and tertiary

    approaches more appropriate than strategies and interventions designed to proactively

    manage stress.

    Sharpley and Gardner (2001) interviewed 36 senior managers (predominantly male)

    from large and highly successful Australian organisations about their understanding of work

    stress and its impact on employees. Findings suggest that over half of the managers

    interviewed perceived stress to be a response to workplace events and almost a third as a

    stimulus or the events themselves. Only one participant referred to stress as a combination

    of reactions and events that implied a stimulus-response relationship. Similar to Dewe andODriscolls findings, participants believed that workplace stress had an adverse impact on

    employees health and functioning and on the efficiency of the organisation. Although

    managers thought that stress management training should be made available to all staff, the

    strategies and interventions they favoured were unspecified. The views expressed were

    somewhat contradictory, however, as many interviewees maintained that employees who

    admitted experiencing work-related stress and/or who participated in stress management

    training risked being labelled weak and unable to cope with the demands of the job. The

    findings of a study conducted by Harkness et al. (2005) suggest that employees believe that

    disclosing stress at work is likely to be perceived by management as an expression of

    vulnerability, weakness or incompetence.It has been suggested that lay representations of work stress held by employees are likely

    to differ from those of employers. Barley and Knight (1992) maintain that managers will

    tend to utilise a stress rhetoric that emphasises internal factors or individual failings,

    whereas individuals with lower occupational status will refer to the concept in terms of

    untenable environmental features. The studies by Sharpley and Gardner (2001) and Dewe

    and Driscoll (2002) described above suggest that managers may favour an individualised

    conceptualisation of stress and how it should be managed but, as yet, Barley and Knights

    hypothesis remains largely untested.

    Researchers are in general agreement that work stress is a serious problem in many

    contemporary organisations that requires management at individual and the organisationallevels (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994). It is frequently maintained, however, that the majority

    Lay representations of workplace stress 105

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    7/22

    of stress management interventions are ineffective (e.g. Reynolds & Briner, 1994).

    The beliefs that individuals hold about stress are likely to influence how they perceive

    it in the workplace, the manner in which they respond to it, how they disclose it, and

    how they manage it in themselves and others. Consequently, insight into employees

    interpretations of the stress concept could facilitate the development of more successful

    interventions.

    With few exceptions, research that has examined lay theories of stress has focused on lifestress and its relationship with health and disease. Clearly, stress can refer broadly to a

    wide range of acute events (such as bereavement and relationship breakdown) and chronic

    factors (such as poverty and interpersonal conflict) (Goldberger & Breznitz, 1993). Whilst

    the studies reviewed above may well have encompassed concepts of work stress, this cannot

    be assumed and has certainly not been made explicit. In order to investigate how people

    make sense of their wellbeing in relation to their work, representations should be elicited

    that are restricted to the workplace context. As a result of the few existing studies on lay

    theories of work stress some knowledge has been gained, but the representations provided

    in the literature are predominantly from a managers perspective. There is reason to believe

    the views held by managers may differ from those of employees with no line management

    responsibility (Barley & Knight, 1992). Only one study has examined lay theories of

    occupational stress held by a more heterogenous group of employees (Furnham, 1997);

    however, this study made a priori assumptions about the nature of work stress that

    essentially constrained participants explanations.It has been argued here that individuals obtain their knowledge about the concept of work

    stress from a range of sources that may promote diverse perspectives. The present study

    aims to extend previous research discussed above by examining lay representations of work

    stress through a more inductive framework utilising an occupationally heterogenous

    sample. The research reported here set out explore areas that have the potential to aid

    further understanding of employees beliefs about stress and the ways by which it should be

    managed. More specifically it examined views on: the meaning of work stress; the incidence

    of workplace stress; the features of work and/or individual characteristics that cause work

    stress; the signs and symptoms that suggest that an employee is experiencing stress at work

    and the ways by which stress can be successfully managed. This study also aimed to

    examine Barley and Knights (1992) proposition that the stress rhetoric of managers and

    those without line management responsibility will differ. The extent to which lay

    representations of occupational stress reflect the dominant theories and variables

    operationalised in work stress research will also be explored, and the implications of the

    findings of this study for stress measurement and management examined.

    Method

    Participants

    Lay representations of work stress were obtained from semi-structured personal interviews

    with 45 working adults. Twenty participants were female and ages ranged from 29 to 59

    (mean0/45 years, SD0/14.4 years). A range of occupations was represented (e.g. solicitor,

    college lecturer, manager, secretary, journalist and caretaker). Participants were recruited

    by using purposive sampling via personal and professional connections (Maxwell, 1996).

    Twenty participants had line management responsibility (for numbers ranging from oneemployee to over 100).

    106 G. Kinman & F. Jones

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    8/22

    Measures

    The questions utilised in this study were developed to obtain lay opinions on issues relating

    to the meaning, causes, consequences and management of occupational stress. The

    questions were open in structure, free of psychological jargon and were designed to be

    neutral rather than value-laden or leading (Smith, 1995). The questions that initiated

    discussion on each topic were as follows:1. What do you think the term occupational stress means?

    2. Some people think there is more work stress around nowadays? To what extent do you agree

    with this view?

    3. Are there any particular jobs or working conditions that you think are more stressful than

    others? If so, what are they, and why do you think they more stressful?

    4. Are there any particular types of people that you think would be more likely to suffer from

    stress? If so, what types of people are they, and why do you think they are more stressed than

    others?

    5. If somebody was experiencing stress at work, what would be the signs?

    6. A number of things can be done to help people manage stress at work. If people are stressed atwork what do you think can be done about it?

    Procedure

    The questions were piloted with a small sample to ascertain that they were understandable

    and elicited a free response. Participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity.

    Although it was acknowledged that they might have first-hand experience of occupational

    stress, interviewees were asked to express their opinions on the concept of stress in general,

    rather than disclosing their personal experiences. Interviews lasted 30/40 minutes and were

    audio-taped and transcribed.

    Analysis

    Interview data was subjected to computer-based thematic content analysis by NuD*IST

    data analysis software (Gahan & Hannibal, 1998). As recommended by Neuendorf (2002),

    individual questions were used as the basic unit of analysis (or main theme areas) and

    categories and sub-categories were developed from each theme. The themes and categories

    derived from the data are described in the results section and quotes are provided by way of

    illustration. Where appropriate, descriptive statistics (such as frequencies of key terms) are

    used in order to produce a quantitative component to the analysis. To ensure reliability, aproportion of the data (c. 15 per cent) was analysed by another researcher: an acceptable

    level of concordance was achieved (K0/.78).

    Results

    What does occupational stress mean?

    Responses to this question were assigned to one of three categories depending on whether

    participants had described stress as a stimulus, a response, or a stimulus-response

    relationship (see Figure 1). One-third of interviewees (N0/15) conceptualised occupational

    stress as a stimulus arising from negative conditions in the workplace, for example: Stress isbeing overworked and not having enough hours in the day .

    Lay representations of workplace stress 107

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    9/22

    Other participants (N0/9) described workplace stress as a response to environmentalpressures. This view of occupational stress represented a deviation from a desired physical,

    emotional and/or cognitive state, for example: It (occupational stress) is used when people

    feel ill, discontented at work, have got health symptoms, emotional symptoms. It is usually used

    when they are not how they want to be . Owing to the variance found within this category, this

    data was further sub-divided into psychological/emotional, physical, cognitive and

    behavioural outcomes of stress. Workplace stress was described in emotional or

    psychological terms: It is a mental thing-something that is in peoples heads. An emotional

    thing / not a physical pressure . The specific affective experiences of anxiety, tension,

    depression, discontentment, confusion and frustration were invoked. Interviewees also

    referred to stress as a result of apprehension and perceived threat: I would say stress stemsfrom fear / fear of inadequacy, fear of not being able to cope, fear of not being able to meet up to

    somebody elses expectations of you at work. And: It (stress) is used when people feel threatened:

    their job is threatened, they are threatened / not physically, but their way of life is under threat.

    Work stress was also thought to be synonymous with other affective experiences such as:

    not knowing which way to turn and feeling out of control. Participants also referred to

    workplace stress as a departure from physical wellbeing; headaches, backache, digestive

    problems and hypertension were among the symptoms highlighted. One interviewee

    maintained that workplace stress was a disease entity in its own right: . . . a type of illness

    really that needs some sort of treatment in extreme cases . Some interviewees who

    conceptualised workplace stress as a response interpreted it as an impairment incognitive functioning: i.e. the inability to gain perspective and/or to think in a logical

    OCCUPATIONAL STRESS

    33 % (n=15)

    A STIMULUS: i.e.

    negative conditions in

    the workplace

    47% (n=21)

    A STIMULUS-RESPONSE

    relationship: i.e. an

    interaction between working

    conditions and individual

    factors

    20% (n = 9)

    A RESPONSE: i.e.

    various health and

    performance-related

    factors

    e.g. general pressure,

    heavy workload,

    unsatisfactory

    physical environment

    Affective response:

    i.e. departure from

    optimum

    psychological

    functioning

    Physical response:

    i.e. departure from

    physical health

    Cognitive

    response: e.g.

    inability to think

    clearly

    A combination of

    affective, physical

    and cognitive

    responses

    Figure 1. Beliefs regarding the meaning of occupational stress.

    108 G. Kinman & F. Jones

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    10/22

    manner, for example: (Stress is) . . . being unable to concentrate very well on what you are

    doing. Finally, stress was described as a combination of psychological, physical and

    cognitive responses, for example: Occupational stress means tension, anxiety, some mental

    problems, lack of concentration, plus physical things as well.

    The majority of interviewees (N0/21), however, described occupational stress in terms

    that imply stimulus-response conditions, for example: I would say stress is related to anxiety

    brought about by a whole series of pressures at work. This group frequently highlighted the roleof appraisal in the perception of, and response to, stress at work, for example: I think it

    (stress) means a point at which people cant cope: either their day-to-day experience doesnt match

    their expectations or their past experience.

    Occupational stress / a negative or positive phenomenon?

    Initially, most participants (N0/36) described occupational stress in negative terms.

    However, in response to a subsequent probe that asked interviewees whether they believed

    that stress was necessarily a bad thing, a considerable majority (N0/38) maintained that a

    certain degree of stress is unavoidable, whilst some indicated that stress at work could havepositive outcomes: A certain amount of pressure at work, a certain number of deadlines to work

    to, a certain amount of difficulties, are actually good things . And: If you go through life and

    everything runs smoothly it would be a bit mundane. You wouldnt keep going if some days you

    didnt have a bit of stress. I think it keeps people motivated. It was suggested that experiencing

    work stress could drive employees to implement necessary lifestyle changes: Work stress is a

    sign that things are getting on top of you. It is not a bad thing getting stressed out because it allows

    you to re-evaluate your job and helps you make decisions about what you want from your life.

    Several interviewees distinguished between damaging stress and motivating stress.

    The notion of a demarcation between these different types of stress was frequently invoked,

    but where this line was drawn was thought to be subject to individual differences: Quite a

    lot of people in very different ways seem to say that they need a certain amount of stress or a certain

    amount of adrenaline to be able to function well, but others crumble at the slightest amount of

    pressure. And: I think you have got to be a fairly strong character in order to cope with stress and

    not let it affect you badly, but I think some people can and some people thrive on it. The impact of

    acute and chronic stress at work was also differentiated, for example: As long as you can

    turn things around positively in the short term then that is healthy, but if it is too much all the time

    then it just grinds you down and you end up being useless at everything. Only seven participants

    (c. 15 per cent of the sample) believed occupational stress was wholly damaging. One

    interviewee strongly expressed the opinion that the notion of positive stress was actively

    promoted by employers to serve the interests of organisations not their employees: The idea

    that a certain amount of stress is good for you is a management-speak cliche . I dont think stress isgood for you / if it is good for you then it is not stress .

    Has occupational stress increased?

    A considerable majority of the sample (N0/41) alleged that stress at work had reached

    epidemic proportions in recent years. The most common target for blame was an

    unhealthy society or social changes in general that had resulted in, for example, a faster

    pace of life and increased acquisitiveness. Greater expectations on the part of employees

    and/or employers was also blamed for the recent intensification of stress (mentioned by

    almost 50 per cent of interviewees: N0

    /18). This viewpoint is illustrated by oneinterviewees comments: Stress is something that has been created out of modern society

    Lay representations of workplace stress 109

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    11/22

    whereby people expect an awful lot more of themselves than they did previously-increased demands

    to be an all-encompassing being.

    The changing nature of work was also thought to be responsible for the recent escalation

    in the incidence of workplace stress (cited by over half the sample: N0/29). The most

    common explanation related to organisational downsizing and reduced levels of job

    security, for example: The nature of work has changed / it has moved from a calmer

    atmosphere, where there were more people to do the job and more sharing of tasks, towards fewerpeople doing more things, often for less reward. The introduction of new technology was also

    thought to have led to increased stress: People have to respond quicker now-with things like

    email etc. there is no time to think and reflect on your actions any more. Everything is instant.

    Reference was made to the old days where people were more relaxed at work and, if

    someone was unhappy in their present position she or he had a choice of other jobs. This

    perspective is illustrated by one interviewee who commented on the intensified pace of work

    nowadays compared to the conditions that her father had enjoyed: He had a very responsible

    Senior Civil Service job, but was only expected to work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., he got a lunch hour

    and he never used to bring work home. Nowadays lunch is for wimps and you are not expected to fit

    everything into normal working hours.The role of the media was emphasised in raising the profile of stress and educating the

    public about the phenomenon: Stress is more in the spotlight. A few years ago, you never heard

    about it-you read about it all the time now and see programmes about it on TV. For some, the

    increased media exposure was positive, as it helped people to recognise signs of stress in

    themselves and decide what remedial action to take. For others, however, the term was

    over-used and the increase in stress claims was considered symptomatic of a culture of

    blame inherent in contemporary Western society: Stress is a much-abused word that is used

    far too much / people say Oh, I have got stress rather than talking about the real problem .

    What are the most stressful aspects of work?

    Interviewees were asked whether they considered any particular working conditions or jobs

    to be particularly stressful. Almost one-third of participants (N0/14) maintained that all

    jobs were potentially stress inducing: I dont think there is any type of work that is more

    demanding than any other. Stacking shelves can be stressful if you are asked to do too many, the

    product is too heavy, there is a boss breathing down your neck, or the time-scale is too tight. The

    remaining interviewees tended to argue that some jobs were intrinsically high in stress; these

    tended to involve working under conditions of physical danger, responsibility for the welfare

    of others, and dealing with people who are themselves experiencing stress.

    Interviewees responses relating to the stressful aspects of work were categorised into

    individual factors and structural factors. Organisational stressors accounted for the majorityof statements made in response to this question (78 per cent). A number of individual

    explanations for work stress (such as personality) were also provided, which accounted for

    the remaining proportion of statements. Table I provides details of the sub-themes found

    within each category, together with the total number of statements made within each sub-

    theme.

    A wide range of working conditions was considered stressful. Job insecurity was most

    commonly cited as a work stressor: The fact is jobs are very hard to come by. No job these days

    is secure and the trouble is that no one knows when they will be made redundant and what will

    happen to them when this occurs . The stress of mundane and unchallenging work with low

    utilisation of skills was more frequently cited than highly pressured managerial jobs withline-management responsibility. One interviewee commented: The stereotypical stressful job

    110 G. Kinman & F. Jones

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    12/22

    is managers working 12 hour days, but in reality stress is often to be found in the frustration that

    people experience when they are in low level jobs where they are bored and not reaching their

    potential. Lack of job autonomy was also highlighted as stressful in relation to low status

    jobs: Not having any control and being bossed around and pushed around and treated with little

    respect is stressful for people .

    As can be seen in Table I, individual (as opposed to organisational) explanations for

    occupational stress comprised 22 per cent of the total statements made. Personalitycharacteristics of the employee were most commonly specified, for example: Some people

    Table I. Categories of percived occupational stressors.

    Type of stressor Number of statements in categor y

    Environmental stressors

    (78% of overall statements made)

    Job insecurity 20

    Time pressures/deadlines 22Work overload 17

    Boring and repetitive work 12

    Lack of support 12

    Responsibility for welfare of others 11

    Lack of job control 11

    Lack of resources 11

    Conflict with manager/co-workers 10

    Dealing with stressed people 10

    Long working hours 9

    Physical danger or risk 7

    Role ambiguity 7

    Management jobs 6

    High expectations of other people 6

    Organisational change 6

    Lack of reward/appreciation 5

    Lack of training or guidance 4

    High powered job 3

    New communication technology 3

    Poor management 3

    Conflict with colleagues 2

    Dealing with difficult people 2

    Lack of equal opportunities 2

    Open-ended jobs 2

    Poor management 2

    Physical surroundings 2Skills not recognised/utilised 2

    Individual stressors

    (22% of overall statements made)

    Personality 25

    Role conflict/work-home spill-over 10

    High expectations of self 6

    Lack of person/environment fit 5

    Cannot meet personal standards 3

    Feeling trapped 3

    Feeling inadequate 2

    Feeling undervalued 2

    Lack of achievement 2

    Over involvement 2

    Poor time management skills 2

    Lay representations of workplace stress 111

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    13/22

    almost invite stress upon themselves, whereas others are somehow able to ride through whatever

    happens with no difficulty. The roles of high self-expectations and a poor fit between the

    individual and the organisation in generating work stress were also emphasised: Some

    people set such high standards for themselves that they can never really achieve. And: It could be

    that you and the job dont match-you are a square peg in a round hole .

    What are the outcomes of occupational stressors?

    Interviewees maintained that work stress affected employees in various ways. Statements in

    response to this question were allocated into four categories: psychological, behavioural,

    physical and cognitive. As can be seen in Table II, the psychological consequences of stress,

    most notably anxiety, were most commonly emphasised (29 per cent of total statements

    made in response to this question).

    The negative impact of work stress on physical health was also commonly highlighted by

    interviewees (23 per cent of statements made). Stress was thought to result in physical

    Table II. Categories of perceived outcomes of occupational stressors.

    Outcomes Number of statements

    Psychological outcomes

    (29% of total statements made)

    Tension/anxiety/worry 26

    Depression/unhappiness 10

    Sleeplessness 7

    Lack of motivation 7

    Nervous breakdown 4

    Personality change 2

    Apathy 2

    Behavioural outcomes(26% of total statements made)

    Irritability/being argumentative 18

    Marital difficulties 14

    Absenteeism 6

    Less sociable 8

    Early retirement 2

    Complaining 2

    Physical outcomes

    (23% of total statements made)

    Poor physical health 16

    Tiredness 10Aches and pains 7

    Blood pressure 5

    Digestive problems 5

    Heart disease 2

    Cognitive outcomes

    (22% of total statements made)

    Poor standard of work/making mistakes 20

    Poor concentration 10

    Irrational thoughts/lack of perspective 6

    Less organised 2

    Difficulty prioritising 2

    Confusion 2

    112 G. Kinman & F. Jones

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    14/22

    illness in general and tiredness, aches and pains and digestive problems in particular. More

    serious physical health problems such as heart attacks and hypertension were mentioned

    less frequently.

    A further 26 per cent of statements related to behavioural outcomes of occupational

    stress, with irritability with co-workers and family most frequently cited as well as reduced

    levels of sociability. The impact of stress at work on work-life balance in general, and

    personal relationships in particular, was emphasised: for example, often peoples work performance is the last to suffer because of the pressure of losing their job-so the home life and the

    social life suffer before the work does. And: If you take the job home with you, you live it all the

    time / you cant relax at home when you are with your family and friends . The role stress

    experienced by working mothers was also reflected upon by one interviewee: It must be very

    stressful trying to be everything at the same time. Women trying to be mums, trying to be wives,

    trying to be working better than other people. Another participant, however, challenged this

    perspective: When I read the papers and I see women talking about the problems they have

    combining work and children, I think well, millions of women all over the world do it and have

    done it for centuries / so why is it called stress now ? It should perhaps be mentioned that these

    both of these interviewees were female and both had children.Workplace stress was also thought to impact on the employees cognitive functioning (22

    per cent of statements) leading to a reduction in performance, difficulties concentrating and

    irrational and disordered thinking. The cumulative nature of work stress was emphasised

    where a negative impact in one domain can lead to disruptions in functioning in others: this

    Table III. Stress management strategies.

    Strategies Number of statements

    Individual strategies

    (76% of statements made)

    Time management/personal organisation 9

    Self analysis/inward/introspection 8

    Counselling/disclose emotions 7

    Exercise 6

    Look after yourself (diet, sleep) 5

    Hobbies/interests/leisure 5

    Depends on the individual (what works) 4

    Change your reaction/attitude 4

    Medication/medical advice 3

    Change jobs 2

    Control own workload 2

    Relaxation 2

    Talk to your manager 2Slow down 2

    Dont get too involved 1

    Organisational strategies

    (24% of statements made)

    More control, info and knowledge 6

    Organisational in general 4

    Reduce workload 2

    Job enrichment/involvement 2

    Investigate sources 2

    Change work 2

    More resources 1

    Lower expectations 1

    Lay representations of workplace stress 113

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    15/22

    viewpoint was exemplified by one interviewee: Stress at work can be a vicious circle. People

    worry that they worry and find themselves waking up at 2 a.m. and cant get back to sleep. Then if

    they havent had a good nights sleep through worry, their health suffers and their performance is

    worse.

    The management of occupational stress

    Table III presents the methods of stress management that were mentioned by participants.

    More statements were made relating to individually focused strategies (76 per cent) than

    organisational interventions to manage stress. As can be seen, a range of secondary ortertiary strategies was believed to be beneficial, such as developing more effective

    organisational skills, self-examination and counselling. Nominating introspection as the

    most constructive method of managing stress, one participant observed: People dont ask

    themselves simple questions-one should look inwardly and say why am I stressed? Do I eat properly?

    Did I go to bed at a reasonable time last night? Did I get enough sleep? There is a whole load of

    factors involved in creating stress. I think before you start shouting out you have to look in.

    Further individually focused strategies that were highlighted included taking regularexercise, pursuing interests and hobbies, alternative remedies, and taking medication.

    Primary strategies for managing stress were mentioned less frequently: these included

    increasing job control, reducing workload and enriching jobs.

    Almost half of the sample (N0/22) asserted that the employee should be the sole focus of

    change, whereas a small minority of interviewees (N0/6) believed that stress should be

    managed solely by the organisation. Amongst the latter group, some concern was expressed

    that emphasising individual responsibility for dealing with work stress was likely to have

    deleterious consequences for the individual, for example: I think the causes of workplace stress

    are often structural and it adds to the stress of people to make them think that if they go on a stress

    management course that is the end of their problem. That is damaging. Over one-quarter of the

    sample (N0/12) alleged that it was the joint responsibility of the employee and the

    organisation to manage workplace stress: It is a two way thing, the person needs to be able to

    cope and the job needs to be cope-able with . Within this group, opinions were expressed that

    the range of options available for the employee to manage stress was dependent on the level

    of control she or he has over the nature of her or his work: Some people are able to change their

    lives, or do less work. Other less fortunate people are trapped where they are without any choice .

    Several interviewees in this category indicated that if the job cannot be made less stressful,

    the individuals reaction to the situation should be changed. The importance of finding some

    sort of catharsis in other areas of life was emphasised: If work factors cant be changed, you

    could have a release mechanism / it helps to have some sort of safety valve if there arent any

    alternatives .The remaining interviewees (N0/5) maintained that occupational stress was unavoidable

    under current working conditions and that nothing could be done to manage it. One such

    respondent (a female solicitor) indicated that stress was a price that individuals had to pay

    for success at work: The more money you earn the more stress you are under / you dont get

    something for nothing!

    The impact of occupational status on lay representations of work stress

    Interviewees without line management responsibility tended to describe stress either in

    terms of a stimulus arising from untenable job conditions or a stimulus-responserelationship. Conversely, management grades were more likely to refer to the concept as

    114 G. Kinman & F. Jones

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    16/22

    an individual response (x20/13.51, pB/.001). Furthermore, for participants with line

    management responsibility, managing stress was generally believed to be an individual

    concern, not the responsibility of the organisation: this group indicated that secondary and

    tertiary strategies were more salient. Interviewees from the lower grades of employment

    maintained that successful stress management would involve a combination of individual

    and organisational strategies (x20/14.94, pB/.01).

    Discussion

    In accordance with research that has investigated lay theories of other psychological

    phenomena (e.g. Furnham, 1988), the representations of occupational stress found in the

    present study are not nave beliefs about cause and effect, but sophisticated and multi-

    faceted. No clear consensus was found in how work stress was interpreted: participants

    referred to a diverse array of personal, environmental, and social factors when defining the

    concept and placed different weighting on the roles these factors play in the antecedents and

    outcomes of stress. Parallels were apparent between the lay accounts revealed here and

    theories of stress that have been developed in the scientific literature.A different (and arguably more complex) pattern of definitions was found in the present

    study than in previous investigations of lay theories of the impact of life stress in general

    (Helman, 1985; Pollock, 1988). Studies of managers representations of work stress

    conducted by Dewe and ODriscoll (2002) and Sharpley and Gardner (2001) suggest that

    they tend to refer to the concept in rather simplistic terms as either a stimulus (a stressor: i.e.

    the demands of the working environment) or a response (a strain: i.e. a physical,

    psychological and/or behavioural reaction to these demands). Although interviewees in

    the present study described the phenomenon in this manner, the most common definition

    of work stress found here referred to it in terms of an interaction or transaction.

    Accordingly, the views represented in this study are a more accurate reflection of

    contemporary theorising where work stress is generally seen as residing neither solely in

    the individual nor in the environment but in the transaction between the two (Dewe &

    ODriscoll, 2002, p. 156). Differences between the representations of work stress held by

    managers and those without management responsibility (and the implications of these

    differences for research, policy and practice) will be examined further below.

    In accordance with Lewig and Dollard (2001), who examined newspaper coverage of the

    phenomenon, work stress was perceived to be positive and functional as well as a negative

    feature of the workplace. Some insight into this ambiguity has been provided in the present

    study. Interviewees frequently referred to a boundary between beneficial and damaging

    stress: where this line was drawn was believed to be subject to individual and environmental

    factors. In some cases, work stress was also believed to be protective and functional, as its

    presence could signify that a change of lifestyle was necessary. Again, such a view

    corresponds with a transactional approach where individual appraisal is an inextricable part

    of the stress process. In differentiating between positive and negative stress, some

    participants distinguished between the impact of acute and chronic work stressors: in the

    short term, stress was portrayed as a positive factor that could help the individual to attain

    peak performance. Over the long term, however, experiencing stress at work was generally

    believed to erode the individuals physical and/or psychological integrity. This reflects the

    prevailing view amongst researchers that chronic work stressors are likely to result in ill

    health. The finding that work stress can be viewed in positive as well as negative terms

    Lay representations of workplace stress 115

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    17/22

    should be contrasted with the tendency amongst researchers to conceptualise the

    phenomenon in wholly negative terms.

    Interviewees almost invariably maintained that work stress had become endemic, and

    that the pathogenic nature of contemporary life was to blame. Such views support those

    expressed in an interview study conducted by Pollock in 1988 that examined lay

    representations of the relationship between life stress and health. A number of additional

    explanations for the increase in workplace stress were revealed in the present study,however, that provides more insight into the phenomenon. These encompassed individual,

    organisational and societal factors including unrealistic self-expectations, increasing

    demands from employers, a faster pace of work and a general rise in job insecurity.

    In accordance with Lewig and Dollard (2001) the findings of the present study highlight

    the role of the media in raising awareness of occupational stress and in promoting dominant

    ideologies of the phenomenon. Insight has been gained, however, into how working people

    view representations of the stress concept that are disseminated by the media. Some

    interviewees maintained that the term has become over-used and somewhat abused; the

    media and a general culture of blame inherent in contemporary society were thought to

    be responsible. Such views are in contrast with those reported by Harkness et al. (2005),where female clerical workers believed that the attention paid to stress by the media was

    generally a positive factor. The marked emphasis on socio-cultural aspects of work stress

    found in this study stands in contrast with the individualistic and essentialist perspective

    that underpins much research in the field of occupational stress. Such findings lend support

    to Barley and Knight (1992) and Reynolds and Briner (1994) who assert that, as stress does

    not arise in a political and ideological vacuum, it cannot be investigated in a meaningful way

    by abstracting the individual from her or his cultural context.

    Analysis of the findings of previous studies of how work stress is represented by employees

    suggests that the stereotypical stressed individual is a business executive who is

    experiencing chronic work overload (Pollock, 1988; Furnham, 1997; Lewig & Dollard,2001). Although the stressful nature of work underload has been acknowledged (see Jex,

    1998), research in the field of occupational stress commonly portrays high workload and

    intensive work pace as the most significant stressors experienced in contemporary

    organisations (e.g. Sparks, Cooper, Fried, and Shirom, 1997). In the present study, an

    individual working in an under-stimulating job with little autonomy was generally believed

    to be more at risk of job stress. Such views are consistent with Karaseks job strain model

    (Karasek, 1989), and also with research findings of the Whitehall Study that utilises this

    model (Bosma, Marmot, Hemingway, Nicholson, Brunner & Stansfeld, 1997). The

    findings of the present study may indicate that recent psychological research on occupa-

    tional stress has had a demonstrable impact on lay theorising-possibly through mediadissemination of research findings. It is clear, however, that lay representations of work

    stress will not remain static but will reflect the rapidly changing demands faced by employees

    in contemporary working environments. The recent growth of the service sector may mean

    that the low levels of job autonomy and lack of skill utilisation inherent in this work have

    recently become more salient sources of strain to the lay public than overloaded executives.

    Although the causes of occupational stress were perceived as being predominantly

    organisational (as opposed to individual), in accordance with Furnham (1997) the impact of

    stress on the employee was more frequently emphasised than organisational outcomes. Some

    organisationally relevant consequences were salient, however: one-quarter of interviewees

    nominated absenteeism as a likely outcome of occupational stress, and one-half emphasisedits negative impact on performance. Interestingly, Furnham (1997) did not include these

    116 G. Kinman & F. Jones

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    18/22

    factors in his study of lay representations of occupational stress stating that people do not

    readily mention them (p. 77).

    Perceptions of a strong causal link between work stress and ill health were commonly

    expressed. Interviewees were more likely to associate the concept with minor psychosomatic

    complaints such as headaches and fatigue, than more serious conditions such as

    hypertension and coronary heart disease. This is surprising, as recent research that has

    examined causal attributions held by patients with coronary heart disease suggests that

    stress (particularly work overload and type of occupation) is one of the most common

    explanations for the onset of the disorder (Clark, 2003; Petrie & Weinman, 1997). Research

    findings that associate chronic work stressors with cardiovascular problems are also well

    publicised by the British Heart Foundation and the American Heart Association, and by

    health care providers. It is possible that individuals who are diagnosed with life-threatening

    disorders engage in post hoc rationalisations as to the likely cause of their illness, and stress

    at work is a popular target for blame. This notion should be further explored.

    Depression and anxiety were most commonly nominated as the potential outcomes of job

    stress. The more specific (but non-clinical) affective states of boredom, frustration, guilt

    and fear were also thought to be synonymous with the experience of occupational stress, as

    were emotionally-laden judgements such as feeling exploited, inadequate and out of

    control. These findings support and extend those of exploratory research by Gourlay,

    et al., (1998) who investigated the subjective experiences associated with feeling stressed

    at work. Briner (1996) maintains that labelling an individual as stressed is essentially

    meaningless since the concept is so vague. He argues that insight into the range of affective

    phenomena associated with the stress concept is likely to provide greater insight into the

    relationship between work and wellbeing than the amorphous construct of stress. The

    results of the present study suggest that the popularity of the stress concept may be

    attributable to how it can be utilised to express dissent or distress whilst avoiding the overt

    expression of more complex emotions and feeling states that may be perceived as

    pathological (and thus socially unacceptable). This would imply that the stress concept

    serves a useful purpose for workers who may value its non-specificity as suggested by Barley

    and Knight (1996). The popularity of the term stress suggests that individuals will continue

    to utilise it in order to describe their everyday experiences and feelings. Rather than

    abandoning the stress concept altogether, a fruitful avenue for research may be to examine

    how and why individuals use this label to describe themselves and others in various

    occupational contexts and what they actually mean when they use it.

    As the present study finds the perceived causes of workplace stress to be predominantly

    organisational, it might be expected that structural strategies to proactively manage stress at

    work would be favoured. Surprisingly, however, a significant majority of interviewees

    highlighted the effectiveness of secondary forms of stress management (where the burden of

    responsibility is placed on the individual rather than the organisation). It appears that whilst

    organisations are believed to be mainly responsible for engendering stress in their

    employees, it is the employees responsibility to deal with it. This implies that stress should

    not be prevented (primary intervention) but the symptoms of strain should be treated. In

    this sense, the views of this heterogenous sample of workers reflect those held by a group of

    managers recently surveyed by Dewe and ODriscoll (2002). They are, however, counter to

    those expressed in research conducted by Harkness et al. (2005), where female clerical

    wokers perceived stress management training (such as employee assistance programmesand counselling) to be irrelevant and unrealistic.

    Lay representations of workplace stress 117

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    19/22

    Some evidence was found to support Barley and Knights proposition (1992) that lay

    theories of stress will differ according to occupational status. Individuals with line

    management responsibility were more inclined to emphasise individual responsibility for

    managing stress, but few interviewees from the lower grades favoured a purely structural

    approach. It was generally maintained by employees without line management responsi-

    bility that the individual and the organisation are equally responsible for dealing with stress

    at work. The findings of this study suggest that gaining insight into lay representations ofstress at different levels of the organisational hierarchy is potentially useful to occupational

    health psychologists. The beliefs and attitudes that individuals hold shape their expectations

    and resultant behaviour (Furnham, 1997, p.68). Managers beliefs and attitudes regarding

    work-related stress and its impact on employees will determine the culture of the

    organisation and inform its policies and practices on dealing with stress, whereas

    employees beliefs and attitudes will determine which policies and practices are likely to

    be resisted and which may be successful. Lay representations of stress could augment, and

    potentially enrich, audits of occupational health by providing insight into the stress culture

    of an organisation, together with the attitudes of employees towards different strategies for

    managing stress. This may help employers design and introduce interventions that are morecongruent with managers and employees representations.

    Although some general themes were revealed in this study, the idiosyncratic nature of

    definitions of stress found here, together with perceptions of its situational determinants

    and outcomes, challenge current approaches to theorising about stress in terms of general

    elements and common perceptions. It could be argued that stress has evolved into a flexible

    concept with a marked ideological component that can be employed to support whatever

    position individuals and institutions wish to adopt. This suggests that future research

    should adopt a more nomothetic perspective that examines personal constructions of stress

    by individuals and within particular working contexts. The challenges inherent in such an

    approach are, however, acknowledged.

    In particular, future research should further examine the structure of lay representations

    of the relationship between work stress and health. The individual uses lay beliefs, not only

    to interpret the nature of the threat a particular illness may pose, but also to determine the

    type of action she or he might use to mitigate this threat. Lay representations of workplace

    stress, therefore, are likely to have a profound impact on the individuals perceptions and

    experience of health symptoms and on determining the type of remedial action that she or

    he might take. The manner in which an individual conceptualises occupational stress may

    also influence their work-related actions, such as absenteeism, seeking promotion and

    turnover intentions.

    Finally, health and human resource professionals should be aware of the nature and

    variety of lay conceptions and meanings of stress. Indeed, representations of work stress andits management should be investigated in these groups. The term is frequently used in

    health-care and occupational settings without regard for the powerful (and varied)

    connotations it may hold for the individual.

    References

    Aaronson, L., Pallikkathayil, L., & Crichton, F. (2003). A Qualitative Investigation of Fatigue Among Healthy

    Working Adults. Western Journal of Nursing Research , 25, 419 /434.

    Barley, S. R., & Knight, D. B. (1992). Toward a Cultural Theory of Stress Complaints. Research in Organisational

    Behaviour, 14, 1 /48.

    Bosma, H., Marmot, M., Hemingway, H., Nicholson, A., Brunner, E., & Stansfeld, S. (1997). Low job control andrisk of coronary heart disease in Whitehall II (prospective cohort) study. British Medical Journal, 314, 558 /565.

    118 G. Kinman & F. Jones

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    20/22

    Briner, R. B. (1996). Stress talk: sociocultural approaches to understanding organisational stress. Proceedings of the

    BPS Occupational Psychology Conference , January, Eastbourne, UK.

    Briner, R. B. (1997). Beyond stress and satisfaction: alternative approaches to understanding psychological

    wellbeing at work. Proceedings of the BPS Occupational Psychology Conference , January, Blackpool, UK.

    Briner, R. B., Harris, C., & Daniels, K. (2004). How do work stress and coping work? Toward a fundamental

    theoretical reappraisal. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32 , 223 /234.

    Calnan, M. (1987). Health and Illness: The Lay Perspective . London: Tavistock.

    Carlson, E. S., Li, S., & Holm, K. (1997). An analysis of menopause in the popular press. Health Care for WomenInternational, 18, 557 /564.

    Clark, A. M. (2003). Its like an explosion in your life. . .: Lay perspectives on stress and myocardial infarction.

    Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 , 544 /553.

    Conboy, L., Domar, A., & OConnell, E. (2001). Women at mid-life: Symptoms, attitudes and choices, an Internet

    based survey. Maturitas , 38, 129 /136.

    Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind; healthy organisation / a proactive approach to

    occupational stress. Human Relations , 47, 455 /471.

    Daniels, K. (1996). Why arent managers concerned about occupational stress? Work and Stress , 10, 352 /366.

    Dewe, P., & ODriscoll, M. (2002). Stress management interventions: what do managers actually do? Personnel

    Review, 31 , 143 /165.

    French, D., Marteau, T., Senior, V., & Weinman, J. (2002). The structure of beliefs about the causes of heart

    attacks: a network analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology , 7, 463/

    479.Furnham, A. (1988). Lay Theories: Everyday Understanding of Problems in the Social Sciences . Oxford: Pergamon

    Press.

    Furnham, A. (1997). Lay theories of work stress. Work and Stress , 11 , 68 /78.

    Gahan, C., & Hannibal, M. (1997). Doing Qualitative Research Using QSR NuD.IST. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Goldberger, L., & Breznitz, S. (2004). Handbook of Stress (2nd Edn). New York: Free Press.

    Gourlay, C., Briner, R., Jones, F. (1998). How was your day? Understanding the specific affective experiences of

    feeling stressed and satisfied. Proceedings of the BPS Occupational Psychology Conference , January.

    Eastbourne, UK.

    Harkness, A. M. B., Long, B. C., Bermbach, N., Patterson, K., Jordan, S., & Kahn, H. (2005). Talking about work

    stress: Discourse analysis and implications for stress interventions. Work & Stress , 19, 121 /136.

    Helman, C. G. (1988). Culture, Health and Illness . London: Butterworth Heinemann.

    Hepburn, A., & Brown, S. (2001). Teacher stress and the management of accountability. Human Relations , 54,

    691 /715.

    Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and Job Performance: Theory, Research and Implications for Managerial Practice . London:

    Sage.

    Jex, S., Beehr, T., & Roberts, C. (1992). The meaning of occupational stress items to survey respondents. Journal

    of Applied Psychology, 77, 623 /628.

    Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The experience of work-

    related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 178 /187.

    Jones, F., & Bright, J. (2001). Stress: Myth, Theory and Research . London: Prentice Hall.

    Kasl, S. (1995). Methodologies in stress and health research: past difficulties, present dilemmas, future directions.

    In S. Kasl, & S. Cooper (Eds.), Research Methods in Stress and Health Psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Kinman, G. (1996). Occupational Stress and Health Among Lecturers Working in Further and Higher Education.

    London: NATFHE Publications.

    Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. In P. Perrewe (Ed.), Handbook on Job Stress . USA:Select Press.

    Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer.

    Lewig, K. A., & Dollard, M. F. (2001). Social construction of work stress: Australian newsprint media portrayal of

    stress at work, 1997 /98. Work & Stress , 15, 179 /190.

    McCormick, J. (1997). An attribution model of teachers occupational stress and job satisfaction in a large

    educational system. Work and Stress , 11 , 17 /32.

    MacKay, C. J., Cousins, R., Kelly, P. J., Lee, S., & McCaig, R. H. (2004). Management Standards and work-

    related stress in the UK: Policy background and science. Work & Stress , 18, 91 /112.

    Masse, R. (2000). Qualitative and quantitative analysis of psychological distress: methodological complimentarity

    and ontological commensurability. Qualitative Health Research , 10, 411 /423.

    Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach . London: Sage.

    Moran, C. C., & Colless, E. (1995). Perceptions of work stress in Australian firefighters. Work and Stress , 9, 405 /415.

    Lay representations of workplace stress 119

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    21/22

    Mulhall, A. (1996). Cultural discourse and the myth of stress in nursing and medicine. International Journal of

    Nursing Studies, 33 , 455 /468.

    Neuendorf, K. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook . California: Sage.

    Petrie, K. J., & Weinman, J. A. (1997). Illness representations and recovery from myocardial infarction. In K. J.

    Petrie, & J. A. Weinman (Eds.), Perceptions of Health and Illness . Amsterdam: Harwood.

    Pollock, K. (1988). On the nature of social stress: Production of a modern mythology. Social Science & Medicine ,

    26, 381 /392.

    Reynolds, S., & Briner, R. B. (1994). Stress management at work: With whom, for whom and to what ends? BritishJournal of Guidance and Counselling, 22 , 75 /89.

    Sharpley, C., & Gardner, J. (2001). Managers understanding of stress and its effects in the workplace. Journal of

    Applied Health Behaviour, 3 , 24 /30.

    Smith, J. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van

    Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage.

    Sparks, K., Cooper, C., Fried, Y., & Shirom, A. (1997). The effects of hours of work on health: A meta-analytic

    review. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology , 70, 391 /408.

    Wainwright, D., & Calnan, M. (2002). Work Stress: The Making of a Modern Epidemic. Buckingham: Open

    University Press.

    Warr, P., & Payne, R. (1983). Affective outcomes of paid employment in a random sample of British workers.

    Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 4, 91 /104.

    120 G. Kinman & F. Jones

  • 8/3/2019 MRU15-Reprezentarea Stresului Ocupational

    22/22


Recommended