CHAPTER II

STRESS – A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, an attempt is made to analyse the theoretical aspects of

stress. It covers the meaning, evolution, sources, consequences of stress and the like.

2.2 DEFINITION OF STRESS

The term stress is derived from the Latin word “stringer” which means

to clutch, compress or blind. In the seventeenth century the term was used to mean

hardship, strain, adversity or affliction. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it

was used to mean force, pressure, strain or strong effort with reference to an object or

person. The term was first introduced in life science by Hans Selye in 1936.

There is no generally accepted definition to define the term “stress”.

Hans Selye, the father of stress management, wrote that stress suffers from the mixed

blessing of being too well-known and too little understood. However the term has

commonly been defined in one of three ways: (i) as an environmental stimulus, (ii) as

an individual’s psychological or physiological response to such an environment force

and (iii) as the interaction between one and two.

In the first approach, stress is viewed as a “stimulus” as a characteristic

of the environment. Stress means those environmental factors that stimulate unhealthy

individual reactions or characteristics of the job environment that pose a threat to the

individual. Cooper and Marshall1 (1976) state that organization stress includes

environmental factors or stressors such as work load, role conflict or ambiguity and

40

poor working conditions associated with a particular job. Caplan et al.,2 (1975) refers

stress to any characteristics of the environment which pose a threat to the individuals.

In the second approach, stress is conceptualized as a bodily response to

some externally imposed demand. Stress is conceived as a pattern of psychological

changes or a stress-related disease which may be behavioural, affective or somatic

disturbances. Selye3 (1956) defined stress as a non-specific response of the body to any

demand. According to him, stress is the adaptive response to an external situation that

results in physical, psychological and behavioural deviations for organizational

participants. In this approach the interest is on the response. The third approach

presents a view that an event can be stressful only if the individual perceived it as such

adopting a transactional view. According to Beehr and Newman4 (1978), “Stress is a

condition where job-related factors interact with the worker to change his or her

psychological or physiological condition so that the person’s mind and/or body is

forced to deviate from its normal way of functioning”. This approach to stress is

relational and process-oriented. The relational characteristic is evident in the definition

of stress as a relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by

the person as taxing or exceeding his resources and as endangering his well-being.

This relational definition distinguishes this theory from those approaches in which

stress is defined as a stimulus or as a response.

Process-oriented stress has two meanings in relation to this approach.

First that the person and the environment are in a dynamic relationship that is

constantly changing and the second is that this relationship is bi-directional with the

person and the environment each acting on the other.

41

In spite of such mixed conceptualizations of stress, a good number of

researchers have agreed upon the following. The word stress is not used to refer to any

one of the above specific elements. It is reserved as a general term referring to an area

of work or study that includes stressors and strains.

The term “stressors” is used to refer to environmental situation or

events, which are potentially capable of producing state of stress. The term strain refers

to the individual response and is the symptoms or indices of stress, which can be

physical, psychological or behavioural. They are indicators of ill health and/or

well-being of the individual. The outcomes refer to the consequences or strains that

have implications for the work and non-work domains.

2.3 EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF STRESS

The term “stress” has been derived from technical science, where it

indicates an excessive and detrimental overloading of objects. Scientific enquiry in

stress has developed from several disciplines. However there are two basic traditions in

which research has flourished. One is a biological perspective and the other is a

psychosocial tradition. Each has made important contributions to the understanding of

stress and both complemented each other.

2.3.1 BIOLOGICAL TRADITION

The modern work in stress is traced back to Claude Bernard5. He

pointed out that the internal medium of the living organism is the fixity of the ‘milieu

interior’. It is the condition of free and independent life. To maintain a healthy life,

nothing within the body must be allowed to deviate far from the norm. If something

does, the individual will become sick. His work formed the basis for the work of

42

Walter Cannon and Hans Selye. Walter Cannon in his work on Homeostasis had used

the term stress to describe emotional states that has possible detrimental physical

results on organisms. Walter Cannon’s contribution to the understanding of stress lay

almost dormant for decades, until Selye began working in this area. Work by Selye

reflects the primary popular view of research in the biological community6. Hans

Selye(1956) found in his laboratory studies that a few common physiological effects

accompanied a wide range of different noxious agents that were administered to

animals. That is the response was non-specific. All aversive stimuli caused the same

response. Selye labeled the phenomenon as the General Adaptation Syndrome – a three

stage process that described how stress affected organisms.

The first stage of the process is alarm, in which the organism is

mobilized to combat the physical demands of the stressor. The second stage is

resistance, in which the organism appears to hold its own against the still present threat.

The third stage is exhaustion. This occurs when the threat persists or repeats often

enough to overwhelm the organism’s ability to resist. His theory has several

implications.

The first is that the effects of stress are cumulative. Second, these

effects are involved in serious pathology when they overwhelm one’s ability to cope.

Third, stress may be additive, because responses to different threats are the same7.

Contributions have also been made by others through their research on

the physiological aspects of stress. Mason in 1950 characterized stress as a catabolic

process adding several dimensions to the model described by Cannon8. Henry and

Stephen in 1970 tried to combine the work of Cannon and Selye9. Though researchers

in this tradition occasionally referred to occupational or work-related stress, the actual

43

research did not focus on it. Much of their ground-breaking work was done with

animals.

2.3.2 PSYCHO-SOCIAL TRADITION

The psychosocial perspective to the study of stress has generated a

stream of research. It is usually independent of physiological studies. The key focus to

this perspective is upon healthy, usually normal, human and non-physical stressors.

The effects of psychological stressors which influence psychosocial strains are of

importance here.

Theoretical work on coping and defence mechanisms is traced to very

early psycho-analytic formulations and it formed a major part of the neo-analytic

thought of the 1930s and 1940s in the works of Sigmund Freud10 (1984). However, it

was only after World War II that the concept of stress was granted a place in

psychological studies. Considerable interest in emotional breakdown in response to

stresses of combat paved the way for research in this area. Grinker and Spiegel11

(1945) wrote “Men under Stress” and published a number of studies about battle

fatigue, war neurosis and demoralizations in the army. After World War II, it became

evident that many conditions of ordinary life could produce effects comparable to those

of combat. This led to a growing interest in stress as a cause of human distress and

dysfunction12.

A major source of current interest in job stress is traced to a book which

reports research results from studies done with American workers in the early sixties by

Kahn and his team of researchers using survey methods. They estimated that one-third

or more of the employees in their national sample were experiencing some occupational

stress13.

44

This was closely followed by the work of Rahe who reported that

individuals with severe illness had experienced more stressful events in the months

preceding their illnesses than individuals with fewer severe illnesses. This study

brought to light two important concepts of stress, the first being the additive concept of

stress over time. The second was that both positive and negative events could be

associated with stress14. Making both the positive and negative events stressful is the

uncertainty, the importance and the desire for resolution associated with them15.

Building on the work of Rahe many studies in this area attempted to show that

individuals who had experienced a disproportionate number of major life changes were

particularly susceptible to the development of illness16.

As methodological refinements were progressively introduced the

magnitude of the observed correlation between life changes and illness diminished and

researchers began to look for variables that might moderate the stress illness

relationship. The emphasis turned to the interaction of stressful agents and the human

system of appraisal and evaluation. This view suggests that nothing is stressful unless

the individuals define it as such. A research example of this conception of appraisal is

provided by the classic work of Lazarus and his colleagues. The notion of appraisal is

a central component of most psychosocial research on stress17.

At the Institute for Social Research, the University of Michigan, Caplan

and his colleagues studied stress from the point of person-environment fit. When there

was a mismatch between the person and the environment, it resulted in stress for the

individual18.

In India also stress has been recognized long ago. References can be

found in the ancient Indian Scriptures and Ayurved (Indian System of Medicine)19. In

45

the modern day research in the area of stress, Uday Pareek has made noteworthy

contributions regarding stress in general and role stress in particular20.

2.4 SOURCES OF STRESS

The presence of job stress in the workplace is a major concern for both

employees and organizational managers. Stress has taken an immense toll on the

physical and emotional health of individuals, as well as the bottom lines of

organizations. Indeed, stress can lead to such negative consequences as depression,

burnout, physiological and psychosomatic illness and low job satisfaction21. Personal

characteristics of the employee and his cognitive appraisal of the job factors in the

framework of his capacity and resources also determine the extent of stress he would

experience from a job factor or situation. Some job factors or work conditions such as

extreme heat or cold, chronic dangers, demotion, loss of job, and the like are likely to

cause stress in majority of the workers. But stress resulted from these factors also vary

from one worker to another. The pressures caused from the job factors, in fact, are

mediated by the personal characteristics of the focal worker. Moreover, certain

psychological and behavioural specialties of the employee also become consistent

sources of stress. Some of the common work stressors are discussed below.

2.4.1 WORK DEMANDS

It is a common perception that stress comes from task stressors. Work

demand stress involves the volume of work that has to be accomplished (quantitative)

and the difficulties involved in the work (qualitative) (Fernet et al., 2004)22. It is

defined as “a perceptual phenomenon arising from a comparison between the demand

on the person and his ability to cope” (Cox, 1978)23. Work demand stress depends on

46

the deviation between one’s perceptions of his/her expected ability and the actual

ability to achieve the task (Gmelch, 1994)24. Task stressors, especially the workload,

are the common factors that influence individual stress.

In the view of Leclair and Leclair25 (2001), work demands can be

conceptualized as involving 4 intersecting domains: physical, cognitive, affective and

social.

Work Demand – Domains

Physical

Type of physical exertion

Degree of physical exertion

Physical endurance requirements

Work environment factors: noise, light, space and the like

Cognitive

Intellectual, aptitude and ability requirements

Memory requirements

Problem – solving skills

Insight and judgement

Ability to attend and follow directions

Ability to work independently

Attention and concentration requirements

Affective

General mood and consistency with expectations in the work environment

Affective response to general job or work – site requirements

47

Affective response to stressful events and changes in job or work-site

requirements

Affective response to interaction with customers, co-workers and supervisors

Social

Ability to work with a group or team

Ability to supervise others and to be supervised

Ability to maintain working relationships in the workplace

Ability to respond appropriately to public or customers

2.4.2 RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS

Being able to manage others in terms of the nature of differing

relationships and the consequent expectations is, again, likely to reduce the occurrence

of stress – inducing situations. If the individual is clear about the boundaries of

relationships, he or she is less likely to experience stress. This might be the

expectations of a boss not calling after work hours or friends not calling at the house on

an impulse26.

2.4.3 CAREER CONCERNS

Career concern includes change of job, employer, location,

obsolescence, career plateau, bias in the workplace, loss of employment and

retirement27. Siegrist28 proposed the effort – reward imbalance model that essentially

suggests that strain results when rewards are not consistent with efforts in work

environments. In this view, efforts are described as the strivings of the individual to

meet the demands and obligations of the job. Rewards are conceptualized as

encompassing financial rewards, esteem rewards and career rewards, including job

security. Career related factors such as job insecurity, fear of job obsolescence, under

48

and over promotion and more generally, concerns about career development have been

identified as stressful29.

2.4.4 SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE

Today, having an efficient and effective information technology strategy

and operation is essential to an organization’s success. It is the heartbeat that makes an

organization run30. Systems maintenance is defined as the modification of a system to

correct faults, to improve performance, or to adapt the system to a changed

environment or changed requirements31.

Systems maintenance includes hardware maintenance, information

system maintenance, software maintenance and file maintenance. Hardware

maintenance is the testing and cleaning of equipment. Information system maintenance

is the routine updating of master files, such as adding and deleting employees and

customers and changing credit limits and product prices. Software, or programme,

maintenance is the updating of application programs in order to meet changing

information requirements, such as adding new functions and changing data formats. It

also includes fixing bugs and adapting the software to new hardware devices. Disk or

file maintenance is the periodic reorganizing of disk files that have become fragmented

due to continuous updating32.

2.4.5 ROLE AMBIGUITY

Stress arises due to role ambiguity too. Role ambiguity is the situation

where the role holder has insufficient information for adequate performance of his role,

or where the information is open to more than one interpretation. Potentially ambiguous

situations are in jobs where there is a time lag between the action taken and visible

results, or where the role holder is unable to see the results of his actions33. French and

49

Caplan34 found that role ambiguity was associated with low job satisfaction and

feelings of job related threat to individual well-being.

2.4.6 ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS

Attending to administrative tasks causes stress to a greater extent.

Administrative tasks have a number of internal purposes, among them requesting

information, announcing new policies and providing updates on personnel changes

takes time and if not properly performed, results in the effects of careless mistakes

which will compound quickly and creates stress to the IT professionals.

2.4.7 JOB DISSATISFACTION

An employee’s satisfaction might be defined as the difference between

the amount of some valued outcome a person receives and the amount of that outcome

the person thinks he or she should receive35. Thus an employee becomes dissatisfied

when things are not the way they should be. Job dissatisfaction generally depends on

job, pay, promotional opportunities, co-worker relationships and overall management

effectiveness36. When employees become dissatisfied, costly problems can result.

Excessive absenteeism, turnover and grievances often result when workers experience

high levels of job dissatisfaction37.

2.4.8 JOB INDUCED TENSION

According to House and Rizzo38, job induced tension is viewed as, “the

existence of tension and pressures growing out of job requirements, including possible

outcomes in terms of feelings or physical symptoms”. Job induced tension is the result

of an employee’s general feeling of anxiety or apprehension about their work which

manifests in the form of poor physical health and well-being39. Considerable research

has shown that a negative social climate in the workplace is associated with job related

50

stress. More specifically, employees who reported being less involved in their job and

work activities also reported higher levels of job induced tension. As such it is

expected that employees experiencing Interpersonal Workplace Exclusion (IWE) i.e.

immersed in a negative social climate and less involved in work-based activities will

report higher levels of job induced tension40.

2.4.9 INTENTION TO QUIT

Intention to quit makes subordinates less dependent on their supervisors.

As a result, they will experience less constraint on their ability to act in their own

interests and will be more likely to retaliate against an abusive supervisor and the

organization by engaging in deviant behaviour41.

2.5 CONSEQUENCES OF STRESS

When properly monitored and managed, stress response contributes to a

state of optimal health and well-being by fostering productivity and supporting

performance. But when stress response is elicited too intensely or very often, the

worker is unable to rapidly dispel the effects of stress responses, and the result is

individual distress.

The negative impact of work stress on mental and physical health of

workers has been found to be a strong support by several researchers. The distress

resulting from mismanaged stress may be seen clearly in the physiological,

psychological and behavioural problems of the individual. The outcomes of stress on

the individual are reflected in organizational consequences in the form of low

productivity, accidents, absenteeism and higher turnover and so on. With regard to the

51

individual-organizational interface, the consequences of stress also affect job

satisfaction, job performance, organizational commitments and so forth.

2.5.1 INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES

The following are some of the individual outcomes of stress.

2.5.1.1 Physiological Outcomes

According to Fresh42, Brief et al.,43 Ganster et al.,44 and Spector et al.,45

headache, heartburn, backache, musculoskeletal conditions and generalized fatigue are

the symptoms associated with stress. Stress plays an important role in accelerating the

onset of disease or in worsening the impact of diseases. There is a particular weakness

in the structure of the organism. Stressors disrupt homeostasis in two ways: first by

being beyond the power of adaptability and second by causing disease. In typical

diseases of adaptation, insufficient, excessive or faulty reactions to stressors are at the

root of the disturbance. Stress lowers bodily resistance or increases sensitivity to the

existing symptoms and the presence of symptoms in turn may affect the appraisal of the

innocuous environmental demands.

Cooper and Marshall46, and Matteson and Ivancevich47 have

demonstrated that many types of working conditions are associated with coronary heart

diseases. According to Friedman48, Kaufmann and Beehr49, Quick et al.,50 Henry51,

Karasek et al.,52 and Smith et al.,53 there is evidence to suggest that the following risk

factors which contribute to coronary heart diseases are related to at least some types of

job stressors: namely electrocardiogram abnormalities, pulse rate, cholesterol level and

blood pressure. The onset or worsening of high blood pressure of hypertension has

been associated with psychological stress. Hendrix et al.,54 Ellestad55 and Malaspine

52

and Jackson56 have emphasized the role of cholesterol level in the development of heart

diseases and those levels are related to stress.

According to Cooper57, stress has also been linked to cancer. There are

two cancer causing mechanisms: the first, carcinogens is the production of cancer by an

agent or mechanism by overcoming the existing resistance of the body, and the second

is lowered resistance to cancer, which permits a potential carcinogen normally

insufficient to produce cancer to do so, as in weakened and emotional state.

According to Funch and Marshall58, people experiencing stress direct

their psychic energy inward, against their own natural body defences, thus paving the

way for increased chance of cancer. Meyer and Haggard,59 Parens et al.,60 Spilken and

Jacobs,61 Graham et al.,62 and Cohen and Williamson63 found that evidences from very

early studies have associated stress with the increased incidence of respiratory illnesses.

According to Slote64, Ivancevich and Matteson65, and Quick and Quick66,

musculoskeletal conditions including arthritis, low back pain, and displaced

inter-vertebral disc are also associated with stress. According to Susser67 and

Fried et al.,68 ulceration of the stomach and the small intestine represents the classic

psychosomatic illness. During stress, the stomach lining becomes engorged with load,

acid production is increased, and eventually bleeding erosions are developed. Stress

also has been found to exacerbate the onset of infectious diseases.

According to Baunm and Wesselhof69 and Kiecott Glaser and Glaser70

evidence reveals that psychological factors influence immune function and there is an

increased recognition of the importance of understanding the role of stress and

psychological factors in the onset and progression of the Acquired Immune Deficiency

Syndrome (AIDS).

53

2.5.1.2 Behavioural Outcomes

According to Mc Auliffe et al.,71 behavioural changes are among the

earliest and most overt signs of rising levels of stress. The changes that are associated

with stress are increased smoking, too much alcohol consumption, accident proneness

and violence. Individuals prone to stress have been found to be less sensitive to others

and they reveal a decrease in helping, a decrease in recognition of individual

differences and an increase in aggression. These consequences on interpersonal

sensitivity are consistent with results of studies on aggression and altruism. They

indicate that the negative emotions associated with stress incline people towards more

aggressive and less altruistic behaviour.

The people who are under stress also tend to be involved in poor health

practices. According to Cohen and Williamson72, they smoke more, drink alcohol, take

drugs, eat poorly and sleep less. Alcoholism has its effects on work performance and

on professional and personal relationship. Performance, stress and alcohol consumption

forms vicious circle with each one contributing to the other with markedly increased

appetite or decreased appetite, either of which leads to unhealthy consequences.

Individuals also respond to stress.

Elkin and Rosch found that between 60 and 80 per cent of all the

job-related accidents are in some way stress-related. A very potentially lethal effect of

stress is to predispose the individual to accidents73. According to Cartwright et al.,74

research has repeatedly demonstrated that individuals make mistakes, under-perform

and are careless in their routing behaviour when they are experiencing stress.

Rule and Nasdale studied that violence is one of the most extreme but

less common manifestation of stress75. Consequently, the public are afraid of

54

becoming victims of violence. The US Public Health Service has expanded its health

promotion and disease prevention objectives of the nation to include the control of

stress and violent behaviour76.

2.5.1.3 Psychological Outcomes

Depression, sleep disturbance, irritability, psychogenic disability,

anxiety and cognitive disabilities are some of the psychological outcomes of stress for

the individual.

Spector et al.,77 established that there was a positive correlation between

stress and anxiety, frustration reported symptoms and job dissatisfaction. Jex and

Beeh78 researched and produced evidences to show that organizational

constrains – conditions of work that prevented employees from performing their job or

achieving their goals – could lead to adverse effective reactions.

The effects of stress on the individual environment-fit, directly alters the

person’s subjective perception of abilities. A depressed person for example has low

self-esteem. Anxiety, hostility and depression are generated by stress. They in turn

affect components of job performance such as tolerance for frustration, clerical

accuracy and interpersonal sensitivity79.

When difficulties arise at work or when there are insufficient signs of

success, burnout sets in. Burnout is a reactive depression. It is a “milder form of the

concept of nervous breakdown”. It is a pattern of physical-emotional exhaustion,

performance changes and behavioural symptoms. Burnouts occur in professions

characterized by a high degree of personal investment in work and such performance

expectations.

55

Another outcome of stress is insomnia. Worries, over promotion,

conflict at work and project deadlines frequently cause difficulty in falling asleep. As

sleep deprivation has a negative impact on mood and performance, it can worsen the

work situation which causes sleep disturbances in the first instance. Lazarus et al.,80,

and Wilkinson81 have reported that, the cognitive abilities of the individual are affected

by stress. Studies have shown harmful effects of a wide variety of stress on speed and

accuracy in tracking, clerical accuracy, tolerance for frustration, ability to avoid

perceptual distractions, verbal reasoning, sentence formation and other kinds of verbal

performance. Further, stressors create conditions of information overloads because

they force people to pay special attention to these stressors. This results in cognitive

tiredness and it exhausts the energy needed for task performance.

2.5.2 ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES

The job environment negatively affects the health of the individuals to a

degree and it also affects the organization in which the individuals are employed. It is

an attempt to cope with stress, withdraw from works, absenteeism, turnover and

psychological withdrawal. Psychological withdrawal includes lower job involvement

and less identification with the organization. Apart from this, low performance and

productivity, high rate of turnover, loss of customers, increased alienation of workers

from the job and even destructive and aggressive behaviour resulting in strikes and

sabotages are included in the adverse consequences. The following are some of the

organizational outcomes.

2.5.2.1 Job Performance

One can view performance as an activity in which an individual is able

to accomplish successfully the task or goals assigned to him. It is subject to the normal

56

constraint of reasonable utilization of available resources. The popular model

connecting the stress with performance is based on the Yerkes Dodson Law. It

suggests an inverted U-shaped relationship between them. When low stress is

experienced by an individual at the job, he is most probably not activated and thus

would not exhibit any improved performance. On the other hand, if the individual

experiences a very high level of job stress, he may spend more time in coping with

stress and his efforts at performance may be reduced, resulting in low performance.

The performance is high when the individual is not only activated but also able to

expend his energies towards job performance at moderate levels of stress. Dhillion82,

by his study established that there is a negative relationship between the high job stress

and the performance. Besides, the negative relationship between performance and

specific stressor like role demands, informational overload and work overload have also

been established.

2.5.2.2 Organizational Commitment

According to Mowday et al.,83 organizational commitments refer to the

nature of an individual’s relationship to an organization, with the result that a highly

committed person will indicate a strong desire to remain a member of a particular

organization, a willingness to exert high levels of effort on behalf of the organization, a

definite belief in and acceptance of the values and the goals of the organization.

Organizational commitment represents something more than the passive loyalty to an

organization. Instead, it involves an active loyalty to an organization in which the

individual is willing to give something of them in order to help the organization

succeed and prosper. In turn, individuals also expect reciprocity from the organization.

Since organizational factors play an important role in creating job stress, they have an

impact on organizational commitment also.

57

2.5.2.3 Absenteeism

Jackson84 is of the opinion that one way people react to job stress is to

withdraw from the stressful environment which is the workplace. Physical and mental

ill-health are two significant reasons for absenteeism which cost the American business

between $10 and $20 billion a year. According to Dalton and Todor85, the Research

Institute of America has estimated that a one-day absence by a clerical worker can cost

a company up to $100 in reduced efficiency and increased supervisory workload.

Steers and Rhodes86, Rhodes and Steers87 have supported the view that for every

0.5 per cent of change in national absence rates in the U.S. the gross national product

goes down $10 billion. Michaels and Spector88 stated in unison that the relationship

between stress and absenteeism is well established.

2.5.2.4 Other Organizational Outcomes

In addition to the above, social interactions within an organization can

set in motion a destructive process that adversely affects the individuals who under

normal conditions would not be so affected in times of stress. The outcomes of this

destruction process on a group level are referred to as organizational burnout syndrome.

Signs of organizational burnout due to stress are lowered mental state, morale and

dissatisfaction expressed through group interactions such as frequent scape-goating

hostility within the groups of individuals working together, lack of co-operation,

progressive lack of initiative, maintenance of critical attitudes towards co-workers,

increase in expression of negativism concerning role or function of the unit. Stress also

costs organizations in terms of lost profit, declining assets, bad image projection, loss

of future profits and poor reputation.

58

Kahn and Cooper have supported the view on the macro level that the

consequences of stress are enormous. In the U.S. the cost involving stress alone is

estimated to be approximately $100 billion annually which is ten times more than all

the labour strikes combined.89 Hatfield said that a study by the National Council on

Compensation Insurance revealed that claims for gradual mental stress alone accounted

for eleven per cent of all the claims for occupational diseases in the U.S. The costs for

psychological disorder in terms of medical services, employment and productivity are

far more elusive. 90 In the U.S. several sources have concluded that such costs run in of

tens of billions of dollars annually. 91

2.6 MODERATORS OF STRESS

Stress of certain type sometimes becomes unavoidable or beyond

control. In such situations the severity of stress and its impairing effect on employees

should be moderated to the possible extent through the effect of some variables. Such

variables are discussed below:

2.6.1 HARDINESS

Research has shown that some people are more resistant to stress and

better able to cope with it than others. This is partly due to the fact that some people

have a number of personality traits that protect them from the effects of stress;

psychologists call this the stress-hardy personality92.

One researcher in the stress hardiness field is clinical psychologist at the

City University, New York, Dr. Susan Kobasa. She found that certain personality traits

protected some of the executives and managers from the health ravages of stress. The

hardy personality traits include the following:

59

• Commitment

• Control

• Challenge

The executives who had these stress hardy personality traits decreased

their risk of developing a stress related health problem by a massive 50 per cent. Stress

hardy people obviously have a natural advantage than those who do not have these

personality traits. However research is suggesting that those who do not naturally have

the stress hardy personality traits can actually learn them, with time and practice, and so

increase their own levels of stress hardiness. Having a stress hardy personality does not

mean that a person never ever suffers stress. It means that their ability to deal with it,

without it causing a problem, is greater. It is about learning to control how they react to

the challenges they face in a more flexible, confident and less destructive way.

Detailed stress hardy dimensions are discussed below:

2.6.1.1 COMMITMENT

Commitment means having a purpose to life and involvement in family,

work, community, social, friends, religious faith, one selves, and the like which gives a

meaning to one’s life. When an individual have this commitment to something or

someone that is important, gives his life a purpose. When committed to something he

tends to be motivated to put in more effort. This helps to find a goodness and meaning

to his life.

2.6.1.2 CONTROL

Studies have shown that how much control an individual perceives over

any stressor, will influence him to cope with that difficult stressor. Researchers have

60

found there are basically two types of control, internal and external, and these can

either exacerbate or reduce a stressful situation.

Internal Locus of Control

With the internal locus of control people are aware that they cannot

influence all the external events that go on in their lives, but they do have a deep sense

that they have a choice in how they react to that stressor and believe that although they

cannot totally influence it, they do have some influence over the event.

External Locus of Control

In the external locus of control people believe that they have little or no

control over what happens to them; what happens is due to fate or destiny and that they

will not be able to influence it. For example, someone who suffers a chronic back

problem may believe that it is their destiny and fate in life to suffer the pain. They may

believe there is nothing they can do to influence their condition and the subsequent

pain, therefore they do not take any action, nor use any strategies that could enable

them to reduce their pain.

In life it is impossible to remove all the pressure and stress that an

individual encounters, but that does not mean they were impotent in the face of it. An

individual do have some degree of control over how stressors affect him. The late

Dr. Viktor Frankyl, a psychiatrist who was a prisoner in the Nazi concentration camp at

Auschwitz, said, “The one thing that cannot be taken away from a person is their choice

of how they deal with the difficult situations which they find themselves in”. In

managing the stress it is important to recognize where the locus of control is and with

time, stress management training and practice can move an individual from an external

61

locus of control to a more internal locus of control and in so doing improve the coping

abilities.

2.6.1.3 CHALLENGE

Challenge is about how an individual perceive the events that occur in

the lives; seeing the difficulties as a challenge rather than as a threat and accepting that

the only thing in life that is constant, is change. There is an Old Russian proverb that

says, “One can never put his foot in the same river water twice”. If an individual view

change as a total threat or see every difficulty he encounters as a threat to him, then this

is going to trigger a stronger fight/flight response than if he sees the event as a

challenge. Stress hardy people do not spend time ruminating over why things have to

change, they are not frightened by it, they accept it as being a natural part of life, not a

threat but an opportunity to learn and grow.

2.6.2 SELF – ESTEEM

It is believed that high self – esteem is likely to lead to a greater

resilience to the causes of stress (and even an avoidance of situations that lead to stress)

through assertive behaviour and recognition and understanding of situations that might

otherwise be damaging those with a lower self – esteem.

When individual are exposed to high levels of pressure for prolonged

periods, they are likely to experience a loss of self – esteem, which can ultimately lead

to high stress levels93.

62

2.7 REDUCING / ELIMINATING / MITIGATING ORGANIZATIONAL

STRESSORS

Although stress of certain type can to some extent be prevented at an

individual and organizational level, it is impossible to make the work environment

entirely free from all sorts of stresses. Stress is an inevitable part of a job. However,

some existing stressors can be eliminated, and the frequency as well as severity of the

job stressors can be mitigated to some extent by putting into effect various corrective

interventions by the management as well as by individual employees.

A number of stress researchers (Caplan and Jones94, Cooper and

Marshall95, French and Caplan96, and Kahn and Quinn97) have alluded that

organizations can play a significant role in reducing the courses of stress in their

environment. Organizations might begin by surveying their environment and

identifying the positions, conditions and events which are potential sources of stress for

their employees. This knowledge could then be used to orchestrate a better

person – environment fit, both through changes in the established organizational

structure, polices and procedure and through introduction of a wide range of stress

management programmes.

Many stresses can be changed, eliminated, or minimized. There are a

number of changes that can be introduced in organizational life to begin to mitigate

stress at work, for example:

• Become aware of one’s own reactions to stress

• Reinforce positive self-statements

• Focus on the good qualities and accomplishments

• Avoid unnecessary competition

63

• Develop assertive behaviours

• Recognize and accept one’s limits and remember that everyone is unique

and different

• Get a hobby or two. Relax and have fun

• Exercise regularly

• Eat a balanced diet daily

• Talk with friends or someone who is trustworthy

• Learn to use the time wisely

� Evaluate how to budget the time

� Plan ahead and avoid procrastination

� Make a weekly schedule and try to follow it

• Set realistic goals

• Set priorities

• Practice relaxation techniques

Likewise a variety of corrective interventions can be put into effect to

eliminate or minimize the situations of job stress.

2.8 MANAGING / COPING WITH STRESS

Coping implies dealing with something. Coping has long been ascribed

as a central role in human adaptation. People ultimately adopt one or another sort of

adaptive behaviour in order to deal with the confronting situations of stress.

Sometimes they make even spontaneous responses to adjust with the situation of stress

at subconscious level. These specific efforts made by the stressed person are denoted as

coping behaviour. Biologists use the term coping to refer to the adjustment of a tissue

system or the body to noxious agents as in Selye98 “General Adaptation Syndrome”.

64

Lazarus and Folkman99(1984) have defined coping at the psychological level of

analysis as, “The process of managing (mastering, tolerating or reducing) external or

internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person”.

Pareek100 has proposed two styles of coping which people generally

adopt in order to deal with perceived stress, i.e., functional and dysfunctional. In

functional coping style the focal person confronts and makes some efforts to deal with

stressful situations. This style may also be referred to a “approach” mode of coping. In

dysfunctional mode of coping, the individual denies the stress or tries to escape from it.

This style is denoted as “avoidance” mode of coping. Combining the source of stress

and mode of coping (i.e. approach and avoidance), Pareek has suggested four

approaches and four avoidance coping strategies which people adopt in their every day

lives. They are discussed as under.

2.8.1 APPROACH COPING STRATEGIES

The following are the types of approach coping strategies:

1. Impersistive:

This strategy is characterized by low internality, low externality and

approach. Individual hopes that time or normally expected circumstances will bring

about the solution of the problem.

2. Intropersistive:

It is characterized by high internality, low externality and approach.

Individual himself takes action in relation to the faced stress.

65

3. Extrapersistive:

It is characterized by low internality, high externality and approach. In

this strategy the individual requests someone to solve the problem or expects that the

solution will come from other people.

4. Interpersistive:

It is characterized by high internality, high externality and approach.

Here, the individual makes joint efforts with others to deal with stress.

2.8.2 AVOIDANCE COPING STRATEGIES

The following are the types of avoidance coping strategies:

1. Impunitive:

It has a combination of low internality, low externality and avoidance.

Herein the individual blames others for the stress situation and simply admits stress as

an unavoidable situation with a belief that nothing can be done about it.

2. Intropunitive:

It is a combination of high internality, low externality and avoidance.

Herein the individual directs the blame and aggression to himself.

3. Extrapunitive:

It is characterized by low internality, high externality and avoidance. In

this strategy the individual expresses irritation and aggression towards external factors,

and blames others for creating stress.

4. Defensive:

It is characterized by high internality, high externality and avoidance. In

this strategy the focal person either denies the stress or gives rationalization to the

stressful situation in order to defend his super ego.

66

2.9 SUMMARY

In this chapter, the researcher has presented a theoretical discussion of

job stress. The definition of the job stress from three perspectives has been presented.

Stress is viewed as a stimulus, as a response and as an interaction of both. Definitions

relating to all the three perspectives are discussed. Further, the basic terms like

stressors, strain and outcome have been clarified. The study of stress has been evolved

through two traditions namely, the biological tradition and the psycho-social tradition.

Evaluation from both the complemented decisions is presented.

Job stress arises from different sources which include the work

demands, relationship with others, career concerns, systems maintenance, role

ambiguity, administrative tasks, job dissatisfaction, job induced tension and intention to

quit. These factors are further analysed in the subsequent chapters.

The consequences of stress are presented in two sections namely

individual outcomes and organizational outcomes. Individual outcomes take the forms

of physiological outcomes, behavioural outcomes and psychological outcomes. The

organizational outcomes take the form of job performance, organizational commitment,

absenteeism and other organizational outcomes.

Stress of certain type sometimes becomes unavoidable or beyond one’s

control. In such a situation, they should be moderated to the possible extent through

the effect of some variables. Such variables are hardiness and self-esteem. They are

also further analysed in the subsequent chapters. Further, elimination of risk,

management of risk, approach coping strategies, and avoidance coping strategies are

also discussed in this chapter.

67

FOOTNOTES

1 C.L. Cooper and J. Marshall, “Occupational Sources of Stress: A Review of

Literature Relating to Coronary Heart Diseases and Mental Health”, Journal of

Occupational Psychology, Volume 49, 1976, pp.11-20.

2 R.D. Caplan, S. Cobb, J. French, R. Van Harrison, and S. Pinneau, “Job

Demands and Worker Health”, Ann Arbor: Michigan Institute of Special

Research, Volume 45, 1975, pp.918-927.

3 H. Selye, “The Stress of Life”, New York, Mc-Graw Hill, 1956, pp.316-327.

4 T.A. Beehr and J.E. Newman, “Job Stress, Employee Health and Organizational

Effectiveness: A Facet Analysis, Model and Literature Review”, Personnel

Psychology, Volume 31, 1978, pp.665-699.

5 R. Flemming, A. Baurn and J.E. Singer, “Towards an Integrative Approach to

the Study of Stress”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Volume 46, 1984, pp.939-949.

6 W.B. Cannon, “Stress and Strain of Homeostasis”, American Journal of

Medical Science, Volume 189, No.1, 1914, pp.917-949.

7 H. Selye, “Selye’s Guide to Stress Research” New York, Van Nostrand

Reinhold, 1936, pp.247-257.

8 R. Flemming, A. Baurn and J.E. Singer, “Stress: Psychobiological Assessment”

in J.M. Ivancevich and D.C. Ganster, (eds.) “Stress: Theory, Research and

Suggestions”, The Hawthorne Press Inc., 1987, pp.839-849.

9 M.A. Chesney and R.H. Rosenman, “Specificity in Stress Models: Examples

Drawn from Type A Behaviour”, in C.L. Cooper (ed.) “Stress Research”, John

Wiley Sons Ltd., 1983, pp.21-34.

10 R.R. Mc Crae, “Situational Determinants of Coping Responses: Loss, Threat

and Challenge”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 46,

1984, pp.919-928.

11 R.R. Grinker and J.P. Spiegel, “Men under Stress”, University Microfilms,

1945, p.321.

12 S.A. Stcuffer, “The American Soldier”, Princeton University Press, 1950,

pp.240-332.

68

13 R.H. Kahn, D.M. Wolfe, R.P. Quinn, J.D. Snock and R.A. Rosenthal,

“Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity”, New York:

Wiley, 1964, pp.340-355.

14 R.H. Rahe, M. Merger, M. Smith, G. Kjaer and T.H. Holmes, “Social Stress

and Illness Onset”, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Volume 8, 1964,

pp.35-44.

15 A. Toffler, “Future Shock”, New York, Random House, 1970, pp.340-342.

16 R.R. Mc Crae, op. cit., pp.919-928.

17 R.S. Lazarus, “Psychological Stress and the Coping Process”, New York,

McGraw-Hill, 1966, pp.809-838.

18 R.D. Caplan, S. Cobb, J. French, R. Van Harrison and S. Pinneau, “Job

Demands and Worker Health”, Ann Arbor: Michigan Institute of Social

Research, 1975, pp.316-330.

19 S.M. Pestoonje, “Stress and Coping”, The Indian Experience, New Delhi: Sage

Publications, 1992, pp.214-228.

20 Uday Pareek, “Organizational Role Stress Scale Manual”, Ahmedabad, Navin

Publication, 1981, pp.816-828.

21 H. Jeffrey Greenhaus, A. Gerard Callanan, and M. Veronica Godshalk, “Career

Management”, Sage Publications, Inc., California, 2010, p.266.

22 C. Fernet, F. Guay, and C. Senecal, “Adjusting to Job Demands: The Role of

Work, Self-Determination and Job Control in Predicting Burnout”, Journal of

Vocational Behavior, Volume 65, 2004, pp.39-56.

23 T. Cox, “Stress” London: Macmillan Press, 1978.

24 W.H. Gmelch, “Thriving on Stress for Success”, Thousand Oaks, California:

Sage Publication, 1994.

25 N.J. Leclair and S.W. Leclair, “Impairment and Disability: Mental and

Behavioural Disorders, Clinics in Occupational and Environmental Medicine”,

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Volume 47, 2001,

pp.253-264

26 Jane Cranwell, Ward and Alyssa Abbey, “Organizational Stress”, Pal Grave

Macmillan, New York, 2005, pp.56-58.

69

27 H. Jeffrey Greenhaus, A. Gerard Callanan, and M. Veronica Godshalk, op. cit.,

p.266.

28 J. Siegrist, “Adverse Health Effects of High Effort / Low Reward Condition”,

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Volume 1, 1996, pp.27-41.

29 E. Julian Barling, Kevin Kelloway, and Michael Robert Frone, “Handbook of

Work Stress”, Sage Publications, Inc., California, 2005, pp.97,98.

30 http://www.profsystems.com/

31 http://www.bitpipe.com/tlist/Systems-Maintenance.html

32 http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=maintenance&i=46542,00

.asp

33 W. Jeremy Stranks, “Stress at Work: Management and Prevention”, Linacre

House, Burlington, 2005, pp.48.

34 Jr. J.R.P. French, and Caplan R.D., “Organizational Stress and Individual

Strain”, in A.J. Marrow, (ed.) “The Failure of Success”, New York: AMACOM

1972, p.181.

35 M.J. Gannon, “Organizational Behavior”, Little Brown: Boston, M.A, 1979,

p.186.

36 John Walter Jones, D. Brian Steffy, and Douglas Weston Bray, “Applying

Psychology in Business: The Handbook for Managers and Human Resource

Professionals”, Lexington Books, New York, 1991, pp.743.

37 Pieter Grobler, Surette Warnich, R. Michael Carrell, F. Norbert Elbert, and

D. Robert Hatfield, “Human Resource Management in South Africa”,

Thomson Learning, London, 2006, p.128.

38 R.J. House and J.R. Rizzo, “Role Conflict and Ambiguity as Critical Variables

in a Model of Organizational Behaviour”, Organizational Behaviour and

Human Performance, Volume 7, 1972, pp.465-505.

39 O. William Bearden, L. Kelly Haws, G. Richard Netemeyer, and L. Kelly

Haws, “Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-Item Measures for Marketing

and Consumer Behavior Research”, Sage Publications Inc. California, 2011,

pp.510.

70

40 L. Linda Neider, and A. Chester Schriesheim, “The Dark Side of

Management”, Information Age Publishing Inc., United States of America,

2010, pp.149.

41 Stale Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and L. Cary Cooper, “Bullying and

Harassment in the Workplace – Developments in Theory, Research and

Practice”, CRC Press, New York, 2011, pp.56.

42 M. Fresh, “Stress at Work and Psychosomatic Complaints: A Causal

Interpretation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 70, No.2, 1985,

pp.314-328.

43 A.P. Brief, M.J. Burke, J.M. Georgem, B. Robinson and J. Webster, “Should

Negative Activity Remain an Unmeasured Variable in the Study of Stress?”,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 78, 1986, pp.193-198.

44 D.C. Ganster, M.R. Fusilier and B.T. Mayes, “Role of Social Support in the

Experiences of Stress at Work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 71,

No.1, 1986, pp.919-928

45 P.E. Spector, D.J. Dwyer and S.M. Jex, “Relations of Job Stressors to Affective,

Health and Performance Outcomes: A Comparison of Multiple Data Sources”,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 73, No.1, 1988, pp.919-928.

46 C.L. Cooper and J. Marshall, op. cit., pp.11-20.

47 M.T. Matteson and J.M. Ivancevich, “Organizational Stressors and Heart

Diseases: A Research Model”, Academy of Management Review, 1976,

pp.347-357.

48 M. Friedman, R.H. Rosenman, and V. Caroll, “Changes in the Serum

Cholesterol and Blood Clotting Time of Men Subject of Cyclic Variation in

Occupational Stress”, Circulation, Volume 17, 1957, pp.852-861.

49 G.M. Kaufmann and T.A. Beehr, “Occupational Stressors Individual Strains

and Social Support among Police Officers”, Human Relations, Volume 42,

No.2, 1986, pp.919-928.

50 J.D. Quick, R.S. Horn and J.C. Quick, “Health Consequences of Stress” in

J.M. Ivancevich and D.C. Ganster, (eds.) “Job Stress: From Theory to

Suggestion”, New York: The Haworth Press, 1987, pp.421-434.

71

51 J.P. Henry, “Understanding the Early Pathophysiology of Essential

Hypertension”, Geriatrics, Volume 31, 1976, pp.59-72.

52 R.A. Karasek, D. Baker, F. Maxer, A. Ahlbom, and T. Theorell, “Job Decision

Latitude, Job Demands and Cardiovascular Disease: A Prospective Study of

Swedish Men”, American Journal of Public Health, Volume 71, 1981,

pp.694-705.

53 K.W. Smith, S.M. Mc Kinlay, and B.D. Thorington, “Validity of Health

Appraisal Instruments of Assessing Coronary Heart Diseases Risk”, American

Journal of Public Health, Volume 71, 1987, pp.419-424.

54 W.H. Hendrix, N.K. Ovalle and R.G. Troxler, “Behavioural and Physiological

Consequences of Stress and its Antecedent Factors” Journal of Applied

Psychology, Volume 70, No.1, 1985, pp.188-201.

55 M.H. Ellestad, “Stress Testing: Principles and Practice” (2nd ed.),

Philadelphia: Davis, 1930, pp.121-147.

56 C. Malaspine, and S.E. Jackson, “Measurement of Experienced Burnout”,

Journal of Occupational Behaviour, Volume 2, 1981, pp.99-113.

57 C.L. Cooper, “Psychological States as Factors in the Development of Malignant

Disease: A Critical Review”, Journal of National Cancer Institute, 1984,

pp.131-156.

58 D.P. Funch and J. Marshall, “The Role of Stress, Social Support and Age in

Survival from Breast Cancer”, Journal of Psychosomatic Research,

Volume 27, 1983, pp.77-83.

59 R.J. Meyer, and R.J. Haggard, “Streptococcal Infections in Families”,

Pediatrics, Volume 29, 1962, pp.539-549.

60 H. Parens, B.J. Mc Conville and S.M. Kalpana, “The Prediction of Frequency

of Illness from the Response to Separation”, Psychosomatic Medicine,

Volume 28, 1966, pp.162-176.

61 A.S. Spilken and M.A. Jacobs, “Prediction of Illness Behaviour from Measure

of Life Crisis, Manifest Distress and Maladaptive Coping”, Psychosomatic

Medicine, Volume 33, 1971, pp.251-265.

72

62 N.M.H. Graham, R.B. Douglas, and P. Ryan, “Stress and Acute Respiratory

Infection”, American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 124, No.3, 1986,

pp.389-401.

63 S. Cohen, and G.M. Williamson, “Stress and Infectious Disease in Humans”,

Psychological Bulletin, Volume 109, No.1, 1991, pp.5-24.

64 A. Slote, “Termination: The Closing at Baker Plant” New York,

Boobs-Merrill, 1969, p.141.

65 J.M. Ivancevich, and M.T. Matteson, “Stress and Work: A Managerial

Perspective”, Glenview, II: Scott-Foresman, 1980, pp.130-158.

66 J.C. Quick, and J.D. Quick, “Organizational Stress and Preventive

Management”, New York: Mc Graw-Hill Inc. 1984, pp.160-198.

67 M. Susser, “Causes of Peptic Ulcer: A Selective Epidemiologic Review”,

Journal of Chronic Diseases, Volume 20, 1967, pp.435-456.

68 Y. Fried, K. Roawland, and G.R. Ferris, “The Physiological Measurement of

Work Stress: A Critique”, Personnel Psychology, Volume 37, 1984,

pp.583-615.

69 A. Baunm, and E.A. Wesselhof, “Psychological Research and the Prevention,

Etiology and Treatment of AIDS”, American Psychologist, Volume 43, 1988,

pp.900-906.

70 J.K. Kiecott Glaser, and R. Glaser, “Psychological Influence on Immunity:

Implication for AIDS”, American Psychologist, Volume 43, 1988, pp.892-898.

71 W.E. Mc Auliffe, S. Santengelo, E.M. Angnuson, A. Sobol, M. Rohman,

and J. Weissman, “Risk Factors of Drug Impairment in Random Samples of

Physicians and Medical Students”, The International Journal of Addictions,

Volume 22, 1987, pp.825-841.

72 S. Cohen, and G.M. Williamson, “Perceived Stress in a Probability Sample of

the United States”, in S. Spacapan and S. Oskamp, (eds.), “The Social

Psychology of Health”, Newbury PRK, C.A: Sage, 1988, pp.31-67.

73 A.J. Elkin, and P.J. Rosch, “Promoting Mental Health at the Work Place: The

Prevention Side of Stress Management”, Occupational Medicine, State of the

Art Review, Volume 5, No.4, 1990, pp.739-754.

73

74 S. Cartwright, C.L. Cooper, and A. Barron, “An Investigation of the

Relationship between Occupational Stress and Accidents among Car Drivers”,

Journal of General Management, Volume 19, No.2, 1993, pp.78-85.

75 B.G. Rule, and A.R. Nasdale, “Emotional Arousal and Aggressive Behaviour”,

Psychological Bulletin, Volume 83, 1976, pp.851-863

76 B.J. Silver, S.E. Goldstone, and L.B. Silver, “The 1990 Objectives for the

National for the Control of Stress and Violent Behaviour”, Progress Report,

Public Health Report, Volume 100, 1985, pp.374-375.

77 P.E. Spector, D.J. Dwyer and S.M. Jex, op.cit., pp.919-928.

78 S.M. Jex, and T.A. Beeh, “Emerging Theoretical and Methodology Issue in the

Study of Work-Related Stress”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management, Volume 9, 1991, pp.311-365.

79 D.C. Ganster, M.R. Fusilier and B.T. Mayes, op. cit., pp.919-928

80 R.S. Lazarus, J. Deese, and J.F. Osler, “Psychological Stress upon

Performance”, Psychological Bulletin, Volume 49, 1952, pp.293-316.

81 R. T. Wilkinson, “Some Factors Influencing the Effect of Environmental

Stressors upon Performance”, Psychological Bulletin, Volume 72, 1969,

pp.260-272.

82 P.K. Dhillion, “Moderator Effects on the Occupational Stress – Job Satisfaction

Relationship”, Productivity, Volume 34, No.4, 1991, pp.391-397.

83 R.T. Mowday, R.M. Steers, and L.W. Porter, “The Measurement of

Organizational Commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Volume 14,

1979, pp.224-247.

84 S.E. Jackson, “Participation in Decision Making as a Strategy for Reducing

Job-Related Strain”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 68, No.1, 1983,

pp.3-19.

85 D.R. Dalton, and W.D. Todor, “Turnover, Transfer, Absenteeism: An

Interdependent Perspective”, Journal of Management, Volume 19, No.2, 1993,

pp.193-219.

74

86 R.M. Steers, and S.R. Rhodes, “Knowledge and Speculation about

Absenteeism”, in P.S. Goodman and R.S. Atkins, (eds.), “Absenteeism”, San

Francisco: Jossey – Bass, 1984, pp.229-275.

87 S.R. Rhodes, and R.M. Steers, “Managing Employee Absenteeism”, Addison

Wesley, 1990, pp.526-535.

88 C.E. Michaels, and P.E. Spector, “Causes of Employee Turnover: A Test of

Mobley, Griffith, Hand and Meglino Model”, Journal of Applied Psychology,

Volume 67, No.1, 1982, pp.53-59.

89 K. Kahn, and C.L. Cooper, “Stress in the Dealing Room - High Performers

under Pressure”, London: Rout ledge, 1993, p.3.

90 M.O. Hatfield, “Stress and the American Worker”, American Psychologist,

Volume 45, No.10, 1990, pp.162-164

91 C. Brodsky, “Long Term Work Stress”, Psychosomatics, 1984, pp.361-368.

92 http://stresscourse.tripod.com/id106.html

93 Jane Cranwell, Ward and Alyssa Abbey, op. cit., pp.56-58.

94 R.D. Caplan, and K.W. Jones, “Effects of Workload, Role Ambiguity and

Type A Personality on Anxiety, Depression and Heart Rate”, Journal of

Applied Psychology, Volume 60, 1975, pp.713-719

95 C.L. Cooper and J. Marshall, op. cit., pp.11-20.

96 Jr. J.R.P. French, and R.D. Caplan, op. cit., pp.30-66

97 R.L. Kahn, and R.P. Quinn, “Role Stress: A Framework for Analysis” in

A. McLean (ed.), “Mental Health and Work Organization”, Chicago: Rand

McNally, 1970.

98 H. Selye, op. cit., pp.316-327.

99 R.S. Lazarus, and S. Folkman, “Coping and Adaptation”, in W.D. Certry (ed.),

“Handbook of Behavioural Medicine”, New York: Guilford, 1984, pp.282-325.

100 U. Pareek, “Preventing and Resolving Conflict”, in L.D. Goodstein and

J.W. Pfeiffer (eds.), “The 1983 Annual for Facilitators, Trainers and

Consultants”, San Diego, California: University Associates, 1983, pp.115-118.