Managerial, Occupational and Organizational Stress Research

Manchester School of Managements, Cary L. Cooper

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9781138717688
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351766463
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

This title was first published in 2001. A discussion of managerial, occupational and organizational stress research. The volume is in seven parts. The first part explores the theoretical or conceptual frameworks in occupational and organizational stress that have developed out of empirical work and work with others in different countries. The second part provides the reader with reviews of literature on different topics in the field of workplace stress. Part Three highlights a range of studies undertaken by UMIST and their collaborating colleagues in different institutions. The research that highlights issues and problems of current relevance is found in the fourth part, while the methodological studies involving instrument development, refining of existing measures, and more, is found in Part Five. The studies linking stress and health follows on from this, and the new area of investigation, evaluating stress management interventions, concludes this survey of research in this field.

Part I
Theoretical

[1]

Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health

CARY L. COOPER and JUDI MARSHALL

Department of Management Sciences, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

A great deal of research has been conducted over recent years in the field of occupational stress and its relationship to physical and mental illness. This paper attempts to provide a framework for examining this work, with the dual objectives of broadening the existing psychological literature with the extensive medical data available and also highlighting the research gaps in this area. By emphasizing the medical evidence it is hoped that we may encourage greater interdisciplinary work in the growing field of stress at work.

Felton & Cole (1963) estimate that all cardiovascular diseases accounted for 12 per cent of the time lost by the ‘working population’ in the US, for a total economic loss of about $4 billion in a single year. A report (1969) by the Department of Health and Social Security in the UK shows, as Aldridge (1970) indicates, that the sum of incapacity for men suffering from mental, psychoneurotic and personality disorders, nervousness, debility and migraine headache accounted for 22.8 million work days lost in 1968 alone (second only to bronchitis in the league table of illness and lost working days). Coronary heart disease and mental ill health together, therefore, represent a serious cost for industry both in human and financial terms.

There is a growing body of evidence from studies in experimental laboratory settings (Kahn & Quinn, 1970) and in the workplace (Margolis, Kroes & Quinn, 1974) to suggest that occupational stress is a causal factor in these diseases. By occupational stress is meant negative environmental factors or stressors (e.g. work overload, role conflict/ambiguity, poor working conditions) associated with a particular job. In addition to the environmental precursors, inherent characteristics of the individual and his behaviours may also contribute to occupational ill health. In fact, as Jenkins (1971a) has suggested, the early clinical studies of psychosomatically oriented General Practitioners and psychiatrists led to a number of theories about a predisposing state of neuroticism being confronted by environmental stressors leading to reaction of anxiety, changes in cardiovascular function and, in time, to coronary heart disease or mental ill health.

There are, therefore, two central features of stress at work, the interaction of which determines either coping or maladaptive behaviour and stress-related disease (Cooper & Marshall, 1975): (1) the dimensions or characteristics of the person and (2) the potential sources of stress in the work environment; or as Lofquist & Dawis (1969) have labelled this interaction The Person—Environment Fit. There is, however, a third set of extra-organizational variables which can also be sources of stress. These are not linked directly to the individual’s characteristics or the work environment but are related to outside relationships and events, for example, family problems, financial difficulties, life crises (death in the family), etc., which have an impact in the workplace. In Fig. 1 we provide a diagram which will highlight a model of stress at work which incorporates these concepts.

Fig. 1 A model of stress at work

It is our intention here to examine the stress research literature linking environmental and individual sources of stress to physical and mental disease or illness. We are attempting this in the hope that we will be able to reveal where much of the work has been done and where the gaps lie. In addition, since much of the research has been carried out ‘within’ particular disciplines (i.e. psychology, management, sociology, medicine) and not ‘between’ disciplines, it is hoped that we may indicate the potential of interdisciplinary work in this field and begin to encourage this development.

Before embarking on this review, it might be helpful to note that many of the stress studies over the last 10–15 years have utilized two primary indices of occupational disease, coronary heart disease (CHD) and mental ill health (MIH). A more limited number of studies have focused on other physical illnesses thought to be stress-related, such as peptic ulcers, respiratory diseases and allergies, but these have not been as thoroughly researched in respect to social and psychologic stressors as heart disease or mental ill health. We have concentrated on the CHD and MIH studies primarily but have included the others, where they have contributed a new dimension or perspective to this topic. It might be added here that our literature review covered all the journals incorporated in the MEDLARS literature-retrieval system of the US National Library of Medicine, which includes most of the relevant medical and social science journals.

We should like to preface this review with a brief summary of some of the methodological problems encountered in some of the studies to follow. In the main text detailed criticism of individual studies has been kept to a minimum to allow breadth of coverage; we hope here, however, to forewarn the reader of the difficulties of interpretation of the research reported. Some of the methodological shortcomings are:

(1)Use of correlational analysis

(a)Most of the studies reported rely heavily on correlational data for their conclusions. The inferences about causality which can be drawn are, therefore, limited.

(b)Correlational analysis also fails to point out the role of intervening variables. A causal chain is not necessarily only two variables long as many studies would have us believe.

(2)Confusion of dependent and independent variables
By using the term ‘stress’ too widely—to denote pressure on the individual (e.g. work overload), its’ effects (e.g. poor work performance), and also his reactions (e.g. escapist drinking)—researchers have contributed to conceptual and definitional confusion in this area. For an attempt to remedy this see Kagan & Levi (1974) and their ‘theoretical model for psychosocially mediated disease’.

(3)Definition and measurement of variables

(a)Should ‘stress’ be measured objectively (e.g. diastolic blood pressure) or subjectively (e.g. self-report)?

(b)How adequate are the currently used measures of MIH?

(c)Some independent variables are susceptible to contamination by the dependent variable being studied. In retrospective studies of CHD deaths, for example, occupation (usually taken from the death certificate) may have been directly affected by a preceding illness.

(d)Use of broad categories (e.g. occupational levels) can obscure meaningful differences between groups and make the comparison of findings between studies more difficult.

(4)Samples

(a)Some researchers attempt to generalize from an intensive study of a small highly specific sample; others, from large-scale samples using simplistic survey techniques.

(b)It is difficult to decide what represents an adequate control group: the general normative population; patients suffering from (supposedly) non stress-related diseases; or the subjects at a ‘normal’ time in their lives?

(5)Retrospective studies
Retrospective studies are particularly likely to suffer from the drawbacks mentioned above; the current trend towards prospective studies is, therefore, encouraging.

ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS AT WORK

There are a large number of possible environmental sources of stress at work, as one can see from Fig. 1: factors intrinsic to a particular job (e.g. air traffic controller), role in organization, career development, relationships at work, and just ‘being’ in an organization:

Factors intrinsic to a job

A great deal of work has been done linking the working conditions of a particular job and its relationship to physical/mental health. Kornhauser (1965) found, for example, that poor mental health was directly related to unpleasant work conditions, the necessity to work fast and to expend a lot of physical effort, and to excessive and inconvenient hours. There is increasing evidence (Marcson, 1970; Shepard, 1971), that physical health, as well, is adversely affected by repetitive and dehumanizing environments (e.g. paced assembly lines). Kritsikis, Heinemann & Eitner (1968), for example, in a study of 150 men with angina pectoris in a population of over 4000 industrial workers in Berlin, reported that more of these workers came from work environments employing conveyor-line systems than any other work technology. Although we possess enough indirect data to suggest that paced assembly lines are a potential danger to occupational health (both mental and physical) not enough controlled work, with multiple health criteria measures, is available to draw any firm conclusions—research in this area is desperately needed.

On the other hand, research into work and overload has been given substantial empirical attention. French & Caplan (1973) have differentiated overload in terms of quantitative and qualitative overload. Quantitative refers to having ‘too much to do’, while qualitative means work that is ‘too difficult’. (The complementary phenomena of quantitative and qualitative underload are also hypothesized as potential sources of stress but with little or no supportive research evidence.) Miller (1960) has theorized, and Terryberry (1968) has found, that ‘overload’ in most systems leads to breakdown, whether we are dealing with single biological cells or individuals in organizations. In an early study, French & Caplan (1970) found that objective quantitative overload was strongly linked to cigarette smoking (an important risk factor or symptom of CHD). Persons with more phone calls, office visits, and meetings per given unit of work time were found to smoke significantly more cigarettes than persons with fewer such engagements. In a study of 100 young coronary patients, Russek & Zohman (1958) found that 25 per cent had been working at two jobs and an additional 45 per cent had worked at jobs which required (due to work overload) 60 or more hours per week. They add that although prolonged emotional strain preceded the attack in 91 per cent of ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Series Preface
• Introduction
• Part I theoretical
• Part II Reviews Of Workplace Stress Issues
• Part III occupational stress studies
• Part IV issues in organizational stress
• Part V research methodology in organizational stress
• Part VI links between stress and health
• Part VII organizational stress strategy and intervention studies
• Name Index