|
During 1990, Janine completed her Masters
degree (cum laude) in Industrial Psychology
entitled The Moderator Effects of Hardiness and
Social Support on the Person-Environment (P-E)
Fit-Strain Relationship, a study which examined
certain stress-strain relationships and
moderating factors in organizations. The
strains examined were psychological distress,
organizational commitment, management stress,
and propensity to leave the organization.
Since then, armed with this detailed knowledge
of stress and the organization, which she
converted to practical programs, she has
coached a multitude of employers, employees,
and executives about how to cope with stress
within their organizations, as well as
conducting in-house programs dealing with this
very pertinent issue that affect most of us in
our lives, and relationships. Years of hands-on
experience, have added to her practical
knowledge of organizational stress. Here are
some extracts of this study.
Definitions of
Stress
Stress has become inextricably bound to our
quality of life. That individuals are
confronted by stressor's in their day-to-day
living is no longer a disputed issue. However,
the varied definitions of stress from the
distinct disciplines within which it has been
examined, namely, psychology, physiology, and
sociology, together with the different
approaches toward studying stress, have all led
to the absence of a universal understanding of
the concept of stress.
Three major definitions of stress have been
advanced, that of a response pattern elicited
in an individual, a stimulus external to the
individual in the environment, and a dynamic
interactional process between the individual
and the environment. The latter two approaches
conceptualize stress as an independent variable
and the former categorize it as a dependent
variable.
Stress as a
Response
Stress as an adjustment process constitutes the
response definition. Stress, seen as a
dependent variable, is in the form of an
appropriate fight or fight reaction necessary
to return the organism to homeostasis.
Following this, stress can be defined as a
non-specific physiological response elicited in
an organism which followed three sequential
stages. This process can be termed as the
general adaptation syndrome that consists of an
alarm (initial shock and counter shock), a
resistance, and an exhaustion phase. The
inverted-U shape relationship between stress
and performance, as previously observed by
Yerkes and Dodson (1908) and so called the
"Yerkes-Dodson Law", has highlighted the
possible existence of both negative stress
(dystress) and positive stress
(eustress)......
Stress as a
Stimulus
Situations external to an individual function
as a stimulus. The orientation is toward
identifying causes of stress within the
environment. Stress, therefore, was viewed as
an independent variable. The stimulus-based
model of stress was based on an engineering
analogy of stress: People have variable
in-built resistance to stress, but if the
stress becomes too great, it can cause
permanent damage......
Criticisms have been raised against this view
of stress because of the lack of explicitly
stated characteristics of stressful situations,
the lack of quantification of the stress that
was present, and the suggestion that a
stress-free environment was optimal.....It is a
mechanistic approach that places the individual
as a mere passive recipient of the stressful
stimuli with no regard for individual
differences or the psychological processes
involved.
Stress as an
Interactional Process
Although circumstances might have
"intrinsically stressful predicaments" inherent
in them, stressful conditions would "vary
significantly in relation to the perceptions
and cognitions of those who react to the
conditions" (Ellis, 1978, p.209). It was this
psychological process interacting with
stressful stimuli in the environment, together
with the resulting responses (consequences),
that formed the basis for the approach
stipulating the interactional nature of
stress......Then there is the conceptualization
of stress were the processes of appraisal,
where individuals re-evaluated the environment
demands placed on them and the coping resources
available to them.....where individuals took
action to modify either the stressor or their
own emotions. The inclusion of the aspects of
appraisal and coping highlighted the importance
of the moderating effect of personality, such
that high or low strain levels in individuals
were not attributable solely to the presence or
absence of stress.
Criticism has been directed at the
interactional approach for excluding those
extremely stressful situations where demand was
excessively high so that a response was
directly elicited without any intervening
psychological process. Methodologically, it was
very difficult to operationalize the appraisal
and coping processes and cognitive appraisal
elicited its own empirical problems because it
could be influenced by impulsive or unconscious
appraisals which render self-reports inaccurate
for the reflections on the time that the
stressful situation took place.
Two Approaches to
Examining Stress
Both the stimulus view of stress and the
interactional process definition of stress
present stress as an independent variable. The
two approaches used to investigate stress in
this research, were, namely, life-events
research and P-E fit research.
The term stressor is taken to mean an
environmental demand, stress is seen as a
subjective perception of demands that are
received, strain implies the responses to these
demands, and the term moderator means the
attributes of influences on an individual that
can influence at any stage the stress-strain
process that the individual is
experiencing.
Life-Event
Approach
Some stress researchers have adopted a
“life-events” approach. The life-event approach
has been a recognized methodology for studying
complex psychological processes. A life event
is defined as an incidence in the recent life
of a person which may have been associated with
the experience of stress. It is a life change
that involves some form of social adjustment.
With excessive changes, adjustment efforts
become more difficult to make and so strain may
be experienced by an individual. The purpose of
life-events research was to establish the
relationship between increases in the number
and perceived impact of life events which were
presumed to have additive effects, and strain
or illness onset……
Person-Environment
(P-E) Fit Theory
An individual’s interaction with the work
environment has been conceptualized as
person-environment (P-E) fit……The P-E fit
theory is based on two central features of
organizational stress, first, the
characteristics of the person and second, the
potential source of stress in the work
environment. The idea is that stress increases
in an individual as the degree of fit decreases
and this misfit can be in both directions
(i.e., underload and overload can be
stressful). Central to this thinking is that
people are viewed as active agents in their
environment, so that behaviors are seen as a
function of the characteristics of both the
person and the environment. In this way, an
individual’s experience of organizational
stress is a function of the interaction between
personal and environmental characteristics.
Therefore, P-E fit (or misfit) depends on
individuals’ perceptions of their abilities,
needs, personality, and resources interacting
with their perceptions of the situation within
which they find themselves. P-E fit also
includes the ability of individuals and work
environments to change in an ongoing
process.
Objective vs
subjective fit
The first element of the P-E fit model is the
clear distinction made between objective and
subjective fit. Experiencing stress from a
misfit between individual and environmental
characteristics is a function of cognitive
appraisal. Studies using commensurate objective
and subjective measures have shown that an
individual’s perceptions of stressors serve as
the intervening variables between objective
stressors and the resultant strains. Potential
organizational stressors become actual
stressors only if they are perceived as being
stressful or representing a threat. The
subjective environment is that which is formed
by the individual’s perceptions or cognitions
of the external objective environment.
The objective environment alone cannot
significantly alter the stress levels
experienced by individuals; the person’s
perception or translation of the objective
environment has to be included when examining
stress. In much of the P-E fit stress research,
subjective paper-and-pencil measuring
instruments are used to assess stress. Because
P-E fit theory has identified that cognitive
distortion of the objective environment occurs,
the important component is the subjective
assessment of P-E fit. The relationship between
the objective environment and the subjective
environment (i.e., how the person perceives the
environment to be) is influenced by the
“contact with reality” that the person has and
the relationship between the objective and the
subjective person is influenced by the
“accuracy of self assessment” that the person
possesses. However, research has indicated that
there is a correlation between subjective and
objective measures of both person and
environment, and that subjective P-E fit bears
a stronger association with the psychological
and physiological consequences of
person-environment interactions than objective
P-E fit does. The pivotal concept in the P-E
fit model arises, then, as the subjects’
cognitive appraisal of themselves, their
environment, and the perceived match between
the two.
Coping and
defenses
Certain dynamic concepts are included in the
P-E fit based stress-strain model. The
adjustive techniques, namely, coping and
defenses, influence objective and subjective
fit respectively in the model, but are not
included as directly interacting with each
other. Coping involves action-oriented efforts
(instrumental coping) to modify the objective
stressor and internal psychological efforts
(palliative coping) to regulate the person’s
emotions. Instrumental coping involves dealing
with the actual source of stress and palliative
coping entails accommodation to the stressful
situation by changing how one views the source
of stress or the stressful situation. The
coping strategies that are adopted can
ultimately influence health. Healthy outcomes
were more frequently being attributed to
effective coping than to the absence of any
recorded stress by an individual......
The two dimensions
of P-E fit
The perceived match between an individual and
the environment has been distinguished in P-E
fit theory into two types. The one P-E fit is
between the external demands of the job or work
environment and the employee’s abilities,
skills and knowledge to function effectively in
the job (termed the demand-ability dimension of
P-E fit). The other type of fit propounded is
that between an individual’s internal needs and
values and the extent to which the job
environment is able to meet these needs and
values (termed the supply-need or supply-motive
dimension of P-E fit). A misfit, known as
underload, exists if environmental supplies are
inadequate to meet the individual’s needs, or
the individual’s abilities exceed the
environmental demands. A misfit known as
overload, results if the environmental supplies
exceeds the individual’s needs or the
environment demands exceeds the individual’s
abilities……
P-E fit and
strain
Consequences of P-E misfit are serious for both
the person and the organization involved. In
the case of individuals, this is measured from
their strain levels experienced. People’s
perceptions of the situations to which they
have been exposed determine whether they are
experiencing P-E fit or misfit and whether it
has resulted in strain. The relationship
between perceived fit and the level of strain
experienced is not necessarily of a positive or
negative linear nature……
Variables
involved
Organizational Stressors
(P-E fit variables)
In the relationship between the person and the
environment, where there are discrepancies
between job demands and an individual’s
capabilities in either direction (i.e., over-
or underload), any resulting misfit is a source
of stress. Similarly, when the job or
organization is unable to fulfill the needs of
the individual, a resultant misfit can also be
experienced. A person perceived no stress when
there is a fit between factors at work and
one’s own actual characteristics. Research
results have indicated that perceived
incongruence (i.e., poor P-E fit) is an
important determinant of strain and ill
health……
Quantitative
workload
Quantitative overload occurs when the work
expected of the individual is more than could
be accomplished by the individual within a
given time limit. Quantitative overload results
if the tasks demand skills, abilities or
knowledge that is beyond what the individual
has to offer. A further distinction between
overload and underload can be made. Where the
latter occurred if there was insufficient work
to do in a time period or the task was too
simple. Both overload and underload could be
perceived as stressful within the
person-environment fit approach, allowed the
individual to discriminate between what was an
under- or over quantitative workload for
themselves……
Responsibility for people
and things
Responsibility, as a stressor, has been
differentiated into responsibility for people
and responsibility for things. The former deals
with taking responsibility for the work of
others, their future careers, and their job
security. The latter is of a more impersonal
nature where responsibility is for budgets,
equipment, projects and the like.
When one holds responsibility for people, it
leads to a greater potential for role conflict
and role ambiguity and the possibility of
having to make unpleasant interpersonal
decisions. It has been found that
responsibility for people is significantly
correlated with increased smoking, blood
pressure, and serum cholesterol levels. It has
also been found that the existence and severity
of ulcers and hypertension in an individual are
affected by the amount of responsibility for
people that one has. It has been found that
responsibility for people, rather than
responsibility for things, is significantly
more likely to lead to coronary heart disease.
Higher scores registered on both responsibility
for people and things, are related to increased
strain.
The higher up in the organizational hierarchy
one goes the more responsibility for people a
person has. For those people lower down in the
hierarchy, responsibility for things
constitutes a fair portion of their job. This
seems to suggest that studies covering blue and
white collar workers would need to consider
both types of responsibility, for although both
have been found to be stressful, they involve
different kinds of work.
References
Beehr, T.A., & Newman, J.E. (1978). Job
stress, employee health, and organizational
effectiveness : A facet analysis, model, and
literature review. Personnel Psychology,
31.
Cannon, W. B. (1922). New evidence for
sympathetic control of some internal
secretions.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 2.
Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human
concerns. New Jersey : Rutgers University
Press.
Caplan, R.D. (1983). Person-environment fit :
Past, present and future. In C.L. Cooper (Ed.)
Stress Research. Chichester : John Wiley &
Sons.
Chalmers, B. E. (1981). A selective review of
stress: Some cognitive approaches taken a step
further.
Current Psychological Reviews.
Cooper, C.L., & Marshall, J. (1976).
Occupational sources of stress : A review of
literature relating to coronary heart disease
and mental health. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 49.
Cox, T. (1978). Stress. Baltimore : University
Park Press
Dohrenwend, B.S., & Dohrenwend, B.P. (Eds).
(1974). Stressful life events : Their nature
and effect. New York : Wiley
Frankenhauser, M. (1980). Psychobiological
aspects of life stress. In S. Levine & H.
Ursin (Eds.), Coping and health. New York :
Plenum.
French, J.R.P., Jr., & Caplan, R.D. (1972).
Organizational stress and individual strain. In
A.J. Marrow (Ed.). The failure of success. New
York : Amacom.
Harrison, R. Van (1978). Person-environment fit
and job stress. In C.L. Cooper & R. Payne
(Eds.). Stress at work. Chichester : John Wiley
& Sons.
Holmes, T.H., & Rahe, P.H. (1967). The
Social Readjustment Scale. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 11.
Holroyd, K.A., & Lazarus, R.S. (1982).
Stress, coping and somatic adaption. In L.
Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook
of stress : Theoretical and clinical aspects.
New York : The Free Press.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek,
J.D., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964).
Organizational stress : Studies in role
conflict and ambiguity. New York : Wiley.
Klonowicz, T. (1980). A person-environment fit
at work : An attempt to evaluate the costs of
adaptation. Polish Psychological Bulletin,
11(4).
Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological stress and
the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R.S. (1976). Patterns of adjustment.
(3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R.S., & Launier, R. (1978).
Stress-related transcactions between person and
environment. In L.A. Pervin & M. Lewis
(Eds.), Perspectives in interactional
psychology. New York : Plenum.
Lofquist, L.H., & Dawis, R.V. (1969).
Adjustment of work. New York :
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McGrath, J.E. (1970). Social and psychological
factors in stress. New York : Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Monroe, S.M. (1982). Life events assessment :
current practices, emerging trends. Clinical
Psychology Review, 2.
Rabkin, J.G., & Streuning, E.L. (1976).
Life events, stress, and illness. Science,
194.
Schuler, R.S. (1980). Definition and
conceptualization of stress in organizations.
Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance,
25.
Selye, H. (1936). A syndrome produced by
diverse noxious agents. Nature, 138.
Strumpfer, D.J.W. (1983). Executive dystress,
executive eustress and what makes the
difference.
Facts & Opinions Papers
Vinokur, A., & Selzer, M.L. (1975)
Desirable versus undesirable life events :
Their relationship to stress and mental
distress. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 32.
Yerkes, R.M. & Dodson, J.D. (1908). The
relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of
habit-formation.
Journal of Comparative Neurology and
Psychology, 18.
Janine Sergay
↑ Back to
Top
|
