Occupational Stress. Hart & Cooper

Hart, P.M. & Cooper, C.L. (2001). Occupational Stress: Toward a More Integrated Framework. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (vol 2: Personnel Psychology). London: Sage. (ISBN: 0 7619 6489 4) The attached book chapter is one of the most comprehensive scientific articles on the theory and background to the organisational health framework. The organisational health framework was developed in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s in response to the limitations that had been identified in the occupational stress literature. This chapter outlines these limitations, and then introduces the key elements of the organisational health framework. “… the authors undertake the gargantuan task of reviewing the literature and applied findings in this area with genuine brevity. Moreover, they undertake a constructively critical overview of this topic area by suggesting, some might consider somewhat controversially, that the framework of occupational health provides a key integrative vantage point from which to view the important issues. Decrying the lack of generally accepted definitions of stress and strain in the workplace, Hart and Cooper’s chapter represents nothing less than a masterclass in the intellectual construction of integrative review; most crucially much of the latter part of this chapter is dedicated to the development of a synergistic perspective – organizational health as the quintessential nodal link between stress, individual performance, and organizational performance. Far from merely reviewing the morass of individual studies into stress and strain, the authors put forward an integrative future-oriented framework upon which occupational stress research can be based, and within which stress research can be inextricably linked to individual and organizational performance.” Sinangil, Viswesvaran, Ones, & Anderson (2001). For further information about this publication please contact Dr Peter M Hart, Director, Insight SRC Pty Ltd, and Honorary Senior Fellow, School of Behaviour Science, University of Melbourne (email: [email protected]).

5

Occupational Stress: Towarda More Integrated Framework

P E T E R M . H A R T and C A R Y L . C O O P E R

Although the stressors and strain approach has become the dominant theme in the occupa-tional stress literature, a growing body of empirical evidence has called this approach intoquestion. Additionally, limitations with many of the process theories of occupational stressprevent them from being fully integrated into the mainstream literature on work and organi-zational psychology. In this chapter we argue that these limitations can be addressed byadopting an organizational health framework. According to this framework, it is importantto focus simultaneously on employee well-being and organizational performance. It is arguedthat these are determined by a combination of individual (e.g., personality and coping) andorganizational (e.g., organizational climate and work experiences) characteristics. Weoutline a research agenda for the organizational health framework and demonstrate how itcan be used to provide a stronger link between occupational stress and other areas of workand organizational psychology. We believe this approach will help to improve the relevanceof occupational stress to work organizations.

INTRODUCTION

Occupational stress is a growing problem thatresults in substantial cost to individual employeesand work organizations around the globe. Thechanging nature of work has placed unprecedenteddemands on employees, and fuelled concerns aboutthe effect this change is having on the well-beingand health of employees and their work organi-zations. In many large organizations, for example,the 1990s were a period of dramatic downsizing,outsourcing, and globalization. Although thesechanges have led to greater mobility and moreflexible work arrangements for some employees, forothers they have raised concerns about employmentsecurity, increased work demands, and the loss of‘connectedness’ that can result from the movetoward less secure forms of employment (e.g., part-time and short-term contract work). In many organi-zations, these changes have also been coupled with

rapid technological change, and a strong push forgreater efficiency, increased competitiveness, andimproved customer service. Conventional wisdomsuggests that it is this climate of continual changethat is placing many employees under pressure andcreating the types of work organizations that willproduce high levels of occupational stress. Thisplaces a premium on being able to understand thecauses and consequences of occupational stress, sothat appropriate policies and practices can be devel-oped to ameliorate these concerns.

In this chapter, we review the traditionalapproach to occupational stress that has beenadopted in both research and applied settings, andcall into question the core assumptions that haveunderpinned this approach. In particular, we believethat it is necessary to develop stronger linksbetween the occupational stress literature and otherareas of work psychology (Wright, & Croponzano,2000a), in order to broaden our understanding of

sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 93

occupational stress and demonstrate that employeewell-being is central to the ongoing viability andsuccess of work organizations.

DEFINITIONS OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS

The starting point in this chapter should be toprovide a clear, coherent and precise definitionof occupational stress. Unfortunately, this is notstraightforward. Despite the key words ‘occupationalstress,’ ‘work stress,’ and ‘job stress’ being used in2,768 scientific articles published during the 1990s,the scientific community has still not reached anagreed position on the meaning and definition ofoccupational stress. There has been considerabledebate, for example, about whether occupationalstress should be defined in terms of the person, theenvironment, or both (e.g., Cooper, 1998; Cotton,1995; Quick, Murphy, & Hurrell, 1992a). This lackof coherence has led to a degree of fragmentation inthe occupational stress literature, and may explain,in part, why during the 1990s only 8% of theresearch articles related to occupational stress werepublished in the leading applied psychology andmanagement journals (see Table 5.1 for details).

The Stressors and Strain Approachto Occupational Stress

The ongoing debate about the meaning and defini-tion of occupational stress has allowed the stressorsand strain approach to become the dominant themein the occupational stress literature (e.g., Spector, &Jex, 1998). The stressors and strain approach isbased on a relatively simplistic theory that viewsstress as occurring when work characteristicscontribute to poor psychological or physical health(Beehr, 1995). According to this approach, stressorsrefer to the work-related characteristics, events orsituations that give rise to stress, and strain refersto an employee’s physiological or psychologicalresponse to stress (Hurrell, Nelson, & Simmons,1998). The main interest, however, is on the pre-sumed causal relationship between stressors andstrain. Cox (1978) has likened this approach to anengineering model in which environmental demandsmay put people under pressure, and the straincreated by this pressure may place people at riskof experiencing physiological and psychologicalharm.

The stressors and strain approach is at the coreof most recent research into occupational stress.This research has concentrated on identifying theoccupational and organizational sources of stressthat are related to various indices of strain (e.g., jobdissatisfaction, psychological distress, burnout, andsickness absence) and, in some instances, has

focused on identifying the individual (e.g, perceivedcontrol) and organizational (e.g., decision-latitude)factors that moderate the stressor–strain relationship(e.g., Quick et al., 1992a; Sauter, & Murphy, 1995).However, despite the volume of research into thestressors and strain approach, we believe that ourunderstanding of occupational stress has not pro-gressed that far over the past decade. Moreover,the implications stemming from this volume ofresearch have not been fully integrated into anappropriate theoretical framework that enables us tobuild a strong bridge between the occupationalstress literature and other areas in the managementscience and work psychology literatures.

Four Assumptions Underpinningthe Stressors and Strain Approach

In order to put much of the recent occupationalstress research into its proper perspective, it isimportant to understand the assumptions that havetended to underpin the stressors and strain approach.We believe that four basic assumptions characterizethe stressors and strain approach, and these assump-tions continue to influence most research into occu-pational stress. These assumptions have generallybeen accepted as ‘givens’ in the occupational stressliterature and, despite contrary evidence being foundin other areas of psychology, occupational stressresearchers have rarely challenged or empiricallytested these assumptions.

Occupational Stress Is Associatedwith Unpleasant Emotions

First, it is generally believed that occupationalstress is associated with the aversive or unpleasantemotional states that people experience as a conse-quence of their work. For example, Kyriacou, &Sutcliffe (1978) defined occupational stress as theexperience of unpleasant emotions, such as tension,frustration, anxiety, anger, and depression. Thisdefinition has been used extensively in the occupa-tional stress literature (e.g., Newton, 1989), and issimilar to definitions of psychological distress(Headey, & Wearing, 1992) and negative affect(Watson, 1988). Several influential theories havealso reinforced this view by emphasizing the linkbetween occupational stress and psychologicalstrain (e.g., Beehr, & Newman, 1978; French,Caplan, & Harrison, 1982; cf. Cooper, 1998).Although some researchers draw a distinctionbetween stress and psychological distress (e.g.,Quick, Murphy, & Hurrell, 1992b), this distinctionis seldom made by the lay community where occu-pational stress is typically associated with the nega-tive feelings that employees have about their work(Jex, Beehr, & Roberts, 1992).

Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology94

sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 94

Positive and Negative ReactionsAre Inversely Related

The second assumption is that people experiencefeelings of stress at the expense of more pleasurableemotions, such as those typically associated withpositive affect, psychological morale, and a senseof overall well-being (cf. Hart, 1994; Headey, &Wearing, 1992; Lazarus, & Folkman, 1984). Thisassumption implies, for example, that stress andmorale are at the opposite ends of an occupationalwell-being continuum, where one rises as the otherfalls. This may explain why occupational well-being indices, such as morale, have received littletheoretical and empirical attention in recent times(Organ, 1997). Moreover, this assumption is con-sistent with the fact that none of the 23 articles in anedited publication entitled Stress and Well-Being atWork (Quick et al., 1992a) defined the nature of therelationship between stress and well-being. It wasmerely assumed that stress resulted in an absence ofwell-being.

Stress Can Be Measured bya Single Variable

The third assumption is that stress can be expres-sed as a single variable. In other words, manyresearchers have assumed, at an operational level,that a single measure can be used to capture theconcept of ‘stress.’ There is some debate, however,as to whether this measure should assess the objec-tive characteristics of the environment, an indivi-dual’s subjective interpretation of the environment,or an individual’s psychological response to theenvironment. Newton (1989) has observed, forexample, that response-based measures, such asthose focusing on anxiety, depression, job satisfac-tion, or psychophysiological symptoms, are oftenused to assess stress in occupational settings. Thisapproach has persisted throughout the 1990s, with

many studies stthe Minnesota SDawis, England,Health Questionoccupational stapproaches haveevent inventorieused in the lif(e.g., Holmes, & scales to identifyfactors (e.g., Hu

Stresby Adv

The fourth assumences (i.e., advetions in the wopersonal (e.g., psatisfaction, burorganizational (stress related woproductivity, andattributed to occ1992a; Sauter, &why many occualmost exclusiveative work expepsychological ouabout the role pl

Calling tAssum

Although these fthe occupationacalled into questevidence in the whealth psychologand perceived

Occupational Stress 95

Table 5.1 Articles published since 1990 using the key words of ‘occupational stress,’‘work stress,’ or ‘job stress’Journal Published articles

Academy of Management Journal 14Academy of Management Review 3Journal of Applied Psychology 22Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 70Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 49Journal of Organizational Behavior 32Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1Journal of Vocational Behavior 24Personnel Psychology 1Psychological Bulletin 0All other journals 2,552Total 2,768

Note: The literature search was conducted on PsycLit and identified all listed artNovember 1999.

sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 95

ill at &nares ins (e eRa th

rre

s Ierpt

rserk oonoue.grk hiup Mpaly rietco

aye

hep

oul stion

ory (qua

icle

ui i

S

h

l

ssi er

.ega

ton

t

r

e

s

sing single measures, such assfaction Questionnaire (Weiss,Lofquist, 1967) or the Generalre (Goldberg, 1978), to assesss. To a lesser extent, othercluded the use of work-relatedewell, 1983), similar to those

vents literature of the 1970se, 1967), and the use of stressor

e stress caused by work-relatedl et al., 1998).

Caused Primarilye Work Experienceson is that adverse work experi-characteristics, events or situa-nvironment) contribute to the quality of work life, low jobt, and lack of motivation) and, increased sickness absence,rs’ compensation claims, poorh turnover) outcomes normallytional stress (e.g., Quick et al.,urphy, 1995). This may explainional stress researchers focusn the relationship between neg-ces (stressors) and employees’mes, but say little, if anything,d by positive experiences.

Stressors and Strainions into Question

assumptions permeate much ofress literature, they have beenby a growing body of empiricalk psychology (e.g., Hart, 1999),.g., Lazarus, & Folkman, 1984),lity of life (e.g., Headey, &

Published from 1 January 1990 to

Wearing, 1992) literatures. For example, many ofthe theoretical developments in recent years suggestthat stress cannot be located in any single variable(Lazarus, 1990), but instead, results from theinterplay between a broad system of variables(e.g., Cooper, 1998).

These developments highlight that one of themajor limitations of the stressors and strainapproach is that it is not driven by a strong coherenttheory. Instead, researchers merely attempt to iden-tify the stressors experienced by different work-groups and then attempt to relate these to indices ofstrain and psychological distress (e.g., Sauter, &Murphy, 1995). Unfortunately, the mere identifica-tion of the stressors that affect employees’ psy-chological outcomes will not help to accumulateknowledge about the causes and consequences ofoccupational stress. This will require a much strongercommitment to theory-based research.

Moreover, the ‘field’ nature of most occupationalstress studies means that the role of theory becomeseven more crucial when trying to establish causa-tion. In a field study, the variables of interest canrarely be manipulated experimentally. Instead, thenaturally occurring covariation between these vari-ables must be carefully examined. This requires aclearly articulated theory that describes the relation-ships within the system of variables under investi-gation. Only then will it be possible to useappropriate measures and analytic techniques toexamine the adequacy of the theory within a tradi-tional hypothesis-testing framework. As noted byHobfoll (1989: 513), ‘without a clear theoreticalbackdrop, it is difficult to create a true body ofknowledge because there are no defined borders oftheory to be challenged.’ The absence of a strongtheoretical framework has meant that many occupa-tional stress studies have adopted an exploratoryanalytic approach, rather than a hypothesis-testingframework that allows for an empirical assessmentof competing hypotheses and theoretical positions.

PROCESS THEORIES OF OCCUPATIONAL

STRESS

Despite the fact that a large volume of research hasfocused on linking stressors to strain, a growingnumber of process theories have been developed toprovide a more coherent framework for understand-ing occupational stress (Cooper, 1998). Some ofthese theories have a strong occupational orienta-tion (e.g., Edwards, 1992), whereas others can bereadily applied to other domains of an employee’slife (e.g., Hart, 1999). One thing that most processtheories have in common, however, is that they arebased on the transactional approach to stress.

The transactional approach treats stress as adynamic process operating between a person and his

or her environment. Although the term ‘transaction’is used to emphasize the fact that stress results fromthe conjunction between personal and environ-mental variables (Cox, 1978; Lazarus, & Folkman,1984), it is the dynamic, reciprocal nature of therelationships between these variables that dis-tinguishes transactional models from other morestatic, or unidirectional theories. For example, thetraditional stressors and strain approach assumesthat stressors cause strain. There is no allowance forthe fact that a reciprocal causal relationship mayexist between stressors and strain, or that employ-ees’ levels of strain may actually cause them toexperience stressors. Moreover, the reciprocity ormutual determinism that is an integral part of trans-actional theories serves to create a self-regulatingsystem that is constantly striving to maintain a stateof homeostasis or equilibrium (Edwards, 1992;Hart, 1999; Headey, & Wearing, 1989). This meansthat in order to understand occupational stress, it isnecessary to understand how a system of variablesrelate to one another over time. Unfortunately, littleis known about how occupational stress variablesactually relate to one another over time, becausethe vast majority of occupational stress studieshave been cross-sectional, rather than longitudinalin nature.

The transactional approach has led to the develop-ment of specific occupational stress theories, suchas French et al.’s (1982) person–environmentfit theory, which suggests that a misfit between thecharacteristics of an individual (e.g., abilities andgoals) and his or her work environment (e.g., workdemands and organizational climate) will result inpsychological, physiological, and behavioral strain.Although such theories have been discussed widelyin the occupational stress literature (Edwards,1992), their specific occupational nature does noteasily facilitate a more systemic view that integratesthe various domains of employees’ lives. Moreimportantly, however, the theoretical emphasisplaced on strain does not adequately account for thefact that people’s psychological responses to theirenvironment include both positive (e.g., well-being,positive affect, morale) and negative (e.g., ill-being,negative affect, psychological distress) dimensions(Agho, Price, & Mueller, 1992; Bradburn, 1969;Diener, & Emmons, 1985; Watson, & Tellegen,1985), each potentially having their own unique setof causes and consequences (e.g., Costa, & McCrae,1980; Hart, 1994; Hart, Wearing, & Headey, 1994;Headey, Glowacki, Holmstrom, & Wearing, 1985;Headey, & Wearing, 1992).

The Cognitive-Relational Approach

The cognitive-relational theory developed byLazarus and his colleagues (e.g., DeLongis,Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988; Lazarus, & Folkman,1984) is a transactional theory that can be applied to


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 96

all domains of a person’s life, and can be used toexplain the positive and negative responses thatpeople have to their environment. Based on thisapproach, stress has been variously defined as amultivariate process (Lazarus, 1990) or term for anarea of study (Lazarus, DeLongis, Folkman, &Gruen, 1985). However, these definitions havebeen criticized for being too vague and, in them-selves, provide no information about the sorts ofvariables or relationships that should be consideredimportant. This definitional approach contrasts withother transactional theorists, like Cox (1978) andMcGrath (1970), who have defined stress as theimbalance between people’s perceived environ-mental demands and their perceived ability to copewith these demands. Although this definition ismore precise, it still fails to convey the truedynamic nature of stress.

The major contribution of the cognitive-relationaltheory is not the way in which it defines stress, butits introduction of the notion that the interdependentprocesses of appraisal and coping mediate therelationship between a person’s environment and hisor her adaptational outcomes. Adaptation refers tothe continual interplay between appraisal and coping,and is the process through which people managetheir environment to maintain an optimum level ofphysical, psychological and social well-being. Theoutcomes of this process have been operationallydefined as positive and negative affect (Kanner,Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981), as well as anxi-ety, depression, perceived social competence, andgeneral self-worth (Kanner, Feldman, Weinberger, &Ford, 1991), but may also include other indica-tors of psychological well-being, somatic health,and social functioning (Lazarus, 1990; Lazaruset al., 1985).

According to the cognitive-relational approach,people’s experience of their environment is medi-ated through appraisal. Appraisal is a cognitiveprocess through which people constantly monitorthe conditions in their environment to determinewhether these conditions are likely to have conse-quences for their well-being (referred to as primaryappraisal ), and if so, what can be done about it(referred to as secondary appraisal). When envi-ronmental conditions are appraised as beingpotentially harmful, beneficial, threatening, orchallenging, people will interpret the conditions ashaving consequences for their well-being and,therefore, this will result in the use of copingprocesses (Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988).

Coping processes refer to the cognitive or behav-ioral efforts that people bring into play in anattempt to alter their environment (e.g., problem-focused coping) or manage their emotions (e.g.,emotion-focused coping). This definition of copinghas been widely accepted (Latack, & Havlovic,1992), and emphasizes the importance of whatpeople actually do to cope or deal with a stressful

situation, whether it is effective or not. In otherwords, there is a recognition that people sometimesengage in coping strategies that may actually makematters worse.

For example, when people are confronted with asituation that is potentially harmful or threateningto their well-being they may engage in a range ofcoping strategies, such as logically analyzing theproblem, planning what to do, and doing things thatwill actually address or remove the problem. Thesetypes of strategies all have a focus on dealing withthe problem or situation at hand. Additionally,people may also engage in coping strategies such asdenying the seriousness of the situation, trying toconvince themselves that the problem will go awayof its own accord, using relaxation techniques toreduce anxiety or tension, or turning to alcohol,tobacco and other substances to help manage theiremotional response. Although, in some circum-stances, these strategies may be beneficial inhelping people to manage their emotions, they donot manage or deal with the stressful situation.Consequently, when people adopt coping strategiesthat focus almost exclusively on managing theiremotions, the initial problem will not be addressedand may sometimes become worse.

Focusing on what people actual do when theyattempt to cope or deal with a stressful situation isquite different from the focus that is sometimesplaced on the availability of coping resources.Coping resources can be defined as any characteris-tic of the person or the environment that can beused during the coping process. For example,people’s levels of self-esteem and their social sup-port networks are resources that could be drawnupon to help them manage or deal with stressfulsituations (see Kahn, & Byosiere, 1992, for areview of the relationship between self-esteem,social support, and occupational stress). In somecircumstances, however, people may have access tocoping resources that they choose not to use. Thishighlights the distinguishing feature between cop-ing processes and coping resources. Copingprocesses refer to what people actually do, ratherthan the resources that may be available to them. Tofurther emphasize this distinction, it is sometimeshelpful to use the term ‘coping strategies’ instead ofcoping processes.

The notion that people use a broad range of cop-ing strategies when faced with stressful situations iswidely accepted (further information on the typesof different coping strategies can be found inCarpenter, 1992; Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub,1989; Zeidner, & Endler, 1996). Some research sug-gests, however, that the extent to which one strat-egy is used over another varies across situations(e.g., Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis,1986), and that different types of strategies mightbe effective as different stages of the stressful situa-tion unfold (e.g., Folkman, & Lazarus, 1985). This


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 97

is consistent with the view that emotion-focusedstrategies are effective when people have littlecontrol over the situation, particularly during theearly stages of a stressful situation, and thatproblem-focused strategies are effective when thesituation is amenable to change (Auerbach, 1989).Nevertheless, this view has not always been sup-ported (e.g., Conway, & Terry, 1992). Others sug-gest that the effects of different coping strategiesremain much the same, irrespective of the situation.Several studies have found, for example, that theuse of problem-focused strategies tends to be adap-tive or beneficial to well-being, whilst the use ofemotion-focused strategies tends to be maladaptiveor harmful to well-being, when used to deal with abroad range of stressful situations (e.g., Headey, &Wearing, 1990; Holahan, & Moos, 1986). Again,these findings have not always been replicated(e.g., Bolger, 1990).

These apparent discrepancies may well demon-strate the complexity of the coping process, as wellas the infancy of the coping literature (Folkman,1992). For example, there are problems associatedwith the conceptualization and measurement of cop-ing (Stone, Kennedy-Moore, Newman, Geenberg, &Neale, 1992; Zeidner, & Endler, 1996), as well asan ongoing debate regarding the extent to whichcoping is either a trait or a state (e.g., Bolger, 1990;McCrae, & Costa, 1986; Terry, 1994). Moreover,occupational stress research has tended to focus oncoping strategies that were initially identifiedthrough studies in the areas of clinical and healthpsychology (e.g., avoidance, denial, logical analy-sis, wishful thinking). It is possible, however, thatin the area of occupational stress, it would be moreappropriate to take a broader approach, and includejob skills, training, and knowledge as part of thecoping repertoire that employees can draw uponwhen dealing with stressful situations. Notwith-standing the need to resolve these issues, it is clearthat when faced with a stressful situation, the out-come of the coping process will influence people’ssubsequent appraisal (referred to as reappraisal) oftheir environmental conditions (Lazarus, 1990) and,ultimately, their adaptational outcomes (Bolger,1990). Since the effects of coping are always medi-ated through appraisal, however, cognition is con-sidered the linchpin that ‘actively negotiates’between a person and his or her experience of theenvironment (Lazarus, 1993, p. 6).

The Dynamic EquilibriumTheory of Stress

Although the cognitive-relational approach hasbeen one of the dominant theories of stress since theearly 1980s, it has been called into question for dis-counting the role that enduring personality charac-teristics (Costa, & McCrae, 1990) and emotions

(Worrall, & May, 1989) play in the stress process(cf. Lazarus, 1993). The dynamic equilibriumtheory of stress proposed by Hart et al. (1993, 1994;cf. Headey, & Wearing, 1989) deals with these con-cerns by integrating the perceived quality-of-lifeliterature (e.g., Headey, & Wearing, 1992) withthe cognitive-relational approach. According to thedynamic equilibrium theory, stress results from abroad system of variables that include personality(e.g., Costa, & McCrae, 1980) and environmental(Michela, Lukaszewski, & Allegrante, 1995) char-acteristics, coping processes (e.g., Bolger, 1990),positive and negative experiences (e.g., Hart, 1994;Kanner et al., 1981), and various indices of psycho-logical well-being (e.g., Diener, 2000; George,1996). As noted by Lazarus (1990), stress cannot belocated in any one of these variables. Rather, stressoccurs when a state of disequilibrium exists withinthe system of variables relating people to their envi-ronments, and only when this state of disequilib-rium brings about change in people’s normal(i.e., equilibrium) levels of psychological well-being. This suggests that stress is a relativelyabstract construct that cannot be assessed directly.Instead, stress can only be understood by assessinga complex system of variables, and establishinghow these variables relate to one another over time.

Drawing on a considerable body of empiricalevidence, it is argued that separate positive andnegative affectivity paths underpin the relationsthat link the stable (trait) and situational (state)components of these variables (Hart et al., 1995;cf. George, 1996). The terms positive and negativeaffectivity refer to the general emotional orientationthat appears to underpin these variables. It has beenshown, for example, that the enduring personalityconstructs of neuroticism and extraversion arerelated to life experiences (Headey, & Wearing, 1989;Magnus, Diener, Fujita, & Pavot, 1993), copingprocesses (Bolger, 1990; McCrae, & Costa, 1986),and perceived quality-of-life indices (Costa, &McCrae, 1980). Different patterns of associationoften emerge, with neuroticism correlating morestrongly with negative life experiences, emotion-focused coping, and indices of psychological dis-tress (e.g., negative affect), while extraversioncorrelates more strongly with positive experiences,problem-focused coping, and indices of well-being(e.g., positive affect).

These findings demonstrate that neuroticism andextraversion are more than a mere methodologicalnuisance (Spector, Fox, & Van Katwyk, 1999;Williams, Gavin, & Williams, 1996). They are aninformative and important part of the process thatenables people to interpret and respond to theirenvironment. Since neuroticism and extraversionare almost completely stable over long periods oftime (Costa, & McCrae, 1989), it follows, as a logi-cal consequence of their links with life experiences,coping processes, and indices of psychological


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 98

well-being, that these constructs must also exhibit adegree of temporal stability that can be predicted onthe basis of a person’s personality characteristics(Hart, 1999; Headey, & Wearing, 1989; Staw, &Ross, 1985). This implies that each of these con-structs has a stable (equilibrium) and situational(change from equilibrium) component.

Moreover, enduring personality characteristicsdetermine, in part, the psychological meaning that aperson may ascribe to an event (Brief, Butcher,George, & Link, 1993). This does not mean thatpeople’s subjective experience of their environ-ments and their coping processes are necessarilybenign or mere reflections of personality. Severalstudies have shown that coping processes (e.g.,Bolger, 1990), life experiences (e.g., Headey, &Wearing, 1989), and daily work and nonworkexperiences (e.g., Hart, 1999) make additionalcontributions to psychological well-being.

The dynamic equilibrium theory has importantimplications for the way in which occupationalstress is viewed. For example, it is commonlybelieved, by researchers and the lay communityalike, that police are among the most stressed of alloccupational groups (e.g., Gaines, & Jermier,1983); a view that is intuitively appealing given thedangerous and unsavory aspects of police work thatare portrayed in the media. According to thedynamic equilibrium theory, however, a police offi-cer may dislike some aspects of their work, such asattending a fatal road accident or dealing with trau-matized victims, but this does not necessarily meanthat the tasks are, in themselves, stressful. Whenconfronted with these ‘unsavory’ aspects of policework, an officer may report feeling anxious orfind it difficult to cope with the experience. Giventhat stress is sometimes viewed as an imbalancebetween perceived demands and the ability to copewith those demands (Cox, 1978; Lazarus, 1990;McGrath, 1970), and often assessed in occupationalsettings with anxiety or other psychological distressmeasures (Newton, 1989), these experiences wouldgenerally be considered stressful. The dynamicequilibrium theory of stress suggests, however, thatthese scenarios cannot be construed as ‘stressful’unless the experiences represent a deviation fromthe officer’s normal pattern of experiences and theybring about change in his or her equilibrium levelsof psychological well-being. It is a reasonable andnormal reaction for police, as with any other occu-pational group, to report feeling uncomfortable orexpress difficulty with some aspects of their work.This, in itself, however, is not sufficient to infer thata police officer is experiencing stress or that policework is necessarily stressful. In fact, there is someevidence to suggest that the levels of psychologicalwell-being among police officers are generallymore favorable than those reported for other occu-pational groups (Hart et al., 1995) and, like manyother occupational groups, police officers’ levels of

psychological well-being are determined more bynonwork, rather than the work domains of theirlives (Hart, 1999).

TOWARD AN ORGANIZATIONAL

HEALTH FRAMEWORK

One of the key strengths of the dynamic equili-brium theory of stress is that it can be applied to alldomains of an employee’s life. This has consider-able benefit, for example, in helping to guideresearch into the relationship between the work andnonwork domains of employees’ lives (e.g., Hart,1999). However, one of the main limitations of anoccupational stress theory that applies to alldomains of an employee’s life, is that it can becomeincidental to the mainstream work psychology liter-ature. In other words, it may lead to occupationalstress being viewed as a topic that is primarily con-cerned with general health issues, rather than atopic that is integrally linked to the ongoing viabil-ity and profitability of work organizations. This is aserious problem facing many of the approaches tooccupational stress, and we believe that one of theways to address this problem is to focus more atten-tion on the concept of organizational health.

The concept of organizational health differs frommany of the traditional approaches to occupationalstress in two important ways. First, it emphasizesthe need to simultaneously focus on employeewell-being and an organization’s ‘bottom-line’(Cox, 1992; Griffin, Hart, & Wilson-Evered, 2000).By ‘bottom-line’ we mean the performance of anorganization in terms of its financial, social, andenvironmental responsibilities. Ultimately, its per-formance in these areas will affect its ongoinghealth and viability as a business or work organiza-tion. A fundamental requirement for most organiza-tions that wish to improve their ‘bottom-line,’however, is the need to develop appropriate struc-tures and processes that will reduce occupationalstress and, at the same time, enhance employeesatisfaction and performance. From this viewpoint,the organizational health perspective recognizes thefact that having happy and satisfied employees isof little value to an organization unless employeesare also performing efficiently and productively.Likewise, having an efficient and productiveorganization is of little value if this is achievedat the expense of employee well-being. Althoughthis view is intuitively appealing, research andpractice in the area of occupational stress has rarelyfocused simultaneously on employee well-beingand organizational performance (cf. Wright, &Cropanzano, 2000b).

Second, the organizational health perspectiverecognizes that employee well-being and organi-zational performance are both influenced by a


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 99

combination of individual and organizationalcharacteristics. This view is consistent with a range ofstudies that have linked personality (e.g., Barrick, &Mount, 1991), coping processes (e.g., Judge,Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999), organiza-tional climate (Michela et al., 1995), and workexperiences (e.g., Hart et al., 1995), to variousindices of psychological well-being and perfor-mance. In fact, a range of different individual andorganizational characteristics has been included inthe major process theories of occupational stress(e.g., Cooper, 1998). The emphasis placed onorganizational characteristics, however, means thatthe organizational health perspective requires thedevelopment of multilevel approaches to occupa-tional stress. This is an important departure fromtraditional approaches to occupational stress, giventhat it is typically conceptualized at the individuallevel of analysis.

The organizational health approach to occupa-tional stress is shown diagrammatically in Figure 5.1.As indicated by this diagram, we believe that indi-vidual and organizational factors contribute toemployee well-being, which in turn, contributes toorganizational performance. Individual and organi-zational characteristics also have a direct link toorganizational performance. The model also allowsfor a number of reciprocal relationships or feedbackloops. For example, there is a reciprocal relation-ship between individual and organizational charac-teristics. By ‘organizational characteristics’ wemean both the objective aspects of an organiza-tion’s environment (e.g., resources and structure),as well as employees’ subjective experience of thatenvironment (e.g., organizational climate and workexperiences). By ‘individual characteristics’ wemean those factors that are typically associated with

individual differences among employees, such astheir personalities and coping processes, as well astheir individual attitudes and behaviors. Given thesebroad definitions, it is reasonable to assume thatthere would be some reciprocity in the relationshipbetween individual and organizational characteris-tics (e.g., Headey et al., 1985).

It is also necessary to include feedback loopsfrom employee well-being and organizational per-formance to individual and organizational charac-teristics. For example, the cognitive-relationaltheory of stress uses the concepts of primary, secon-dary, and reappraisal to explain the continualinterplay between how a person might feel at anygiven point in time, and the way in which theywill perceive and respond to their environment(Lazarus, & Folkman, 1984). Moreover, it is quitefeasible that an organization’s performance willinfluence the quality of its work environment, as wellas the attitudes and behaviors of its employees.

The organizational health model shown inFigure 5.1 also shows that the relationship betweenindividual and organizational characteristics on theone hand, and employee well-being and performanceon the other, operates in a broader context. Thenature of this broader context varies, depending onthe level of analysis that is applied to the core ele-ments of the model. For example, if the core ele-ments of the model were applied to a particularwork team, then the policies and practices of thewider organization will form part of the context inwhich the work team must operate. If the core ele-ments of the model were applied to the organizationas a whole, however, then other factors, such asgovernment policies, regulatory authorities, and themarketplace, will make up the broader context inwhich the organization operates. At another level


OrganisationalCharacteristics

IndividualCharacteristics

EmployeeWell-Being

OrganizationalPerformance

Government Customers

Share holders Partners

Figure 5.1 A heuristic model of organizational health

sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 100

again, if the core elements of the model wereapplied to a series of organizations or occupationalgroups in a particular country, then factors, such asethnicity, culture, and globalization, become animportant part of the context in which these organi-zations or occupational groups operate.

One of the pitfalls with the model shown inFigure 5.1 is that it can be seen as providing anoverly simplistic view of occupational stress.However, we believe that it is important to distin-guish between macro and micro approaches to thestudy of occupational stress. The main strength ofthe organizational health model shown in Figure 5.1is that it provides a broad (i.e., macro) theoreticalframework that can be used to guide research andpractice in the area of occupational stress. For exam-ple, this model has been used extensively over thepast decade to guide the development of policies andprograms aimed at reducing occupational stress andimproving performance in a wide variety ofAustralian private and public sector organizations(e.g., Griffin et al., 2000; Hart, Griffin, Wearing, &Cooper, 1996). Similar work has also occurred inother countries and cultural settings (Murphy, &Cooper, 2000; Williams, & Cooper, 1994).

Moreover, the organizational health frameworkcan be used to guide theory-driven research that(a) helps to unify the different, and often compet-ing, approaches to the study of occupational stress,(b) encourages the development of stronger linksbetween the study of occupational stress and otherareas of work psychology, and (c) leads to occupa-tional stress research that demonstrates a clear linkto ‘bottom-line’ performance and, therefore, hasgreater relevance to work organizations. This frame-work also enables research to be conducted at a verybroad (i.e., macro) or relatively specific (i.e., micro)level. For example, it is possible to address broadresearch questions about the relationships amongthe four core elements shown diagrammatically inFigure 5.1, or to focus on any one of these elementsand address questions such as the one recently posedby Kasl (1998) about the need to develop a taxon-omy of relevant organizational characteristics.

Although the organizational health approach tooccupational stress was first introduced during thelate 1980s (Cox, 1988), the concept has receivedrelatively little empirical attention. For example, asearch of the PsycLit database showed that only 48scientific articles have been published during the1990s and indexed with the term ‘organizationalhealth.’ There have also been relatively few bookspublished on the topic (cf. Cooper, & Williams,1994; Murphy, & Cooper, 2000). Nevertheless, therehas been considerable research in the occupationalstress, quality of life, and broader work psychologyliteratures that can be used to inform our currentunderstanding of the organizational health model,and identify the key issues that need to be addressedin future research.

Structure of Employee Well-Being

One of the first issues that must be addressed inorder to understand the organizational health frame-work is to develop a coherent model that defines thecomponents and structure of employee well-being.It is necessary, for example, to develop a modelthat includes cognitive and affective components,positive and negative components, as well as indi-vidual and group components. By understandinghow each of these components relates to thebroader construct of employee well-being, we willbe in a much better position to develop and testtheories about the causes and consequences oforganizational health.

With some notable exceptions (e.g., Burke, Brief,George, Roberson, & Webster, 1989), the structureof employee well-being has received little empiri-cal attention in the occupational stress and workpsychology literatures. Quality-of-life researchers,however, have long been interested in the structureof psychological well-being (e.g., Diener, 2000), andtheir efforts can be used to inform our understandingof employee well-being. In the quality-of-lifeliterature, for example, it is generally accepted thatpsychological well-being includes both affectiveand cognitive components. The affective compo-nent is often characterized by the two broad dimen-sions of positive and negative affect (Watson,1988), whereas the cognitive component is associ-ated with life satisfaction and satisfaction withvarious life domains (Pavot, & Diener, 1993).

Since the early work of Bradburn (1969), per-ceived quality-of-life researchers have made adistinction between the positive and negativedimensions of psychological well-being. Strongempirical support has been found for the notion thata person’s emotional experience can be explainedby the two conceptually independent dimensions ofpositive and negative affect (Agho et al., 1992;Diener, & Emmons, 1985; Headey, & Wearing,1992; Watson, & Tellegen, 1985). Positive affect isa pleasurable emotional state characterized byterms such as enthusiasm, energy, mental alertness,and determination, whereas negative affect refers tothe subjective experience of distress and includesemotional states such as anger, anxiety, fear, guilt,and nervousness (Watson, 1988).

Although job satisfaction has sometimes beenequated with positive affect (e.g., Edwards, 1992),a growing number of work-related studies havecalled this view into question and support thequality-of-life literature. For example, Agho et al.(1992) found that job satisfaction was distinct fromdispositional measures of positive and negativeaffect. Brief, & Roberson (1989) investigatedthe extent to which three different measures ofjob satisfaction were affectively or cognitivelyladen, and found that one of the most commonlyused job satisfaction questionnaires, the Minnesota


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 101

Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967), waspredominantly cognitive in nature. More recently,Hart (1994, 1999) found empirical support for thenotion that people make a judgment about theiroverall levels of job satisfaction by weighing uptheir good and bad experiences. These findings areconsistent with the fact that job satisfaction is typi-cally measured on scales that range from ‘extremelydissatisfied’ to ‘extremely satisfied’, and as such,embrace both positive and negative dimensions.

The tendency for people to respond more towardthe positive end of job satisfaction scales may havetempted some researchers to equate job satisfactionwith positive affect (e.g., Edwards, 1992). Job satis-faction, however, is actually an umbrella constructthat refers to the summary judgments that employ-ees make about how satisfied they are with theirpositive and negative experiences. Given that jobsatisfaction differs conceptually and empiricallyfrom positive affect, it is not appropriate to distin-guish between psychological distress and job satis-faction when investigating the positive and negativedimensions of employees’ well-being. The bipolarnature of job satisfaction means that it will beconfounded to some extent with measures ofpsychological distress, rather than forming an inde-pendent positive dimension. A more appropriatedistinction can be made between psychologicaldistress and morale.

Smith (1966) has referred to morale as a groupphenomenon that exists when there is persistenceand energy, enthusiastic striving, cohesion, andcooperation. Although morale is often viewed as agroup phenomenon, a growing number of researchersrecognize that the individual experience of moraleis psychologically more meaningful (Doherty,1988; Evans, 1992; Lazarus, & Folkman, 1984).Taking this phenomenological approach, Hart,Wearing, Conn, Carter, & Dingle (2000) definedmorale as the energy, enthusiasm, team spirit, andpride that employees experience as a result of theirwork. These adjectives mirror Smith’s descriptionof morale, and are similar to those used by Watson(1988) in defining positive affect. In terms of ourunderstanding about the structure of employee well-being, the concepts of psychological distress andmorale can be considered analogous to positiveand negative affect, in that they represent the aver-sive and pleasurable emotional states that peopleexperience as a result of their work (Hart, 1994).Accordingly, we believe that the concepts of jobsatisfaction, psychological distress, and moraleform a three-dimensional model of employee well-being that is consistent with the views held in thequality-of-life literature.

In terms of developing a coherent model ofemployee well-being, however, it is important tofocus attention on the appropriate level of analysis.For example, George (1990) introduced the concept

of group affective tone. This was based on thepremise that between-group differences could befound in employees’ aggregate levels of affect.However, George’s approach to group affectivetone was largely a methodological one, in whichindividual affect scores were aggregated to pro-vide a group level variable. This means thatgroup affective tone was merely an aggregation ofhow the individual employees in a workgroupactually felt.

At a conceptual level, however, we believe that itis the experience of group affective tone that ismore meaningful to employees. In other words,rather than merely aggregating the way in whichindividual employees feel in themselves, groupaffective tone should be conceptualized as anemployee’s experience of the emotional tone of hisor her particular workgroup. As demonstrated byGriffin et al. (2000), for example, it is meaningful todistinguish between the levels of energy and enthu-siasm that individual employees actually feel inthemselves, and the extent to which they believethere is a sense of energy and enthusiasm amongtheir workgroup. Although this means that employ-ees in the same workgroup could experience groupaffective tone differently, we expect that it wouldoperate much more like a group level variable(i.e., greater between-group variance) than woulda simple aggregation of individual employees’levels of affect. From this perspective, it is possibleto conceive of psychological distress and moraleas operating at two levels of analysis (e.g., Hartet al., 1996). This is shown diagrammatically inFigure 5.2.

As shown in Figure 5.2, we believe that occupa-tional well-being has five core components. First,there are individual morale and individual distress,which operate at the individual level of analysis,and are akin to definitions of positive and negativeaffect. Second, there are workgroup morale andworkgroup distress, which operate more at thegroup level of analysis, and refer to employees’experience of the workgroup’s positive and


−

−

+ +−

− +

+

JobSatisfaction

WorkgroupDistress

IndividualDistress

WorkgroupMorale

IndividualMorale

Figure 5.2 A model of employee well-being(‘+’ indicates a positive relationship; ‘−’indicates a negative relationship)

sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 102

negative emotional tone. Although these are notentirely group-level variables, we would expect tofind considerably more between-group variation inworkgroup distress and workgroup morale, than wewould in individual distress and individual morale(cf. Van Yperen, & Snijders, 2000). Moreover, wewould expect the individual and workgroup vari-ables to have different causes and consequences.For example, we would expect team- and workgroup-oriented variables (e.g., organizational climate) tohave a stronger influence on workgroup distressand morale, but individual difference variables(e.g., personality) to have a stronger influence onindividual distress and morale. Third, job satisfac-tion is a cognitively oriented variable that reflectsemployees’ judgments about how satisfied they arewith their current work situation. This componentof employee well-being is viewed as a summaryjudgment that results from the positive and negativeemotional experiences associated with an employeeswork. It also reflects employees’ individual experi-ences and their experience of the workgroup’semotional tone.

Organizational Characteristics

The distinctions we have made in our proposedmodel of employee well-being between the cogni-tive and emotionally laden variables, the positiveand negative emotionally oriented variables, as wellas between the individual and group-level vari-ables, can also be applied to the way in which wethink about organizational characteristics. Forexample, a long-standing criticism of the occupa-tional stress literature is that there has been a relianceon emotionally laden constructs when investigatingthe relationship between organizational stressorsand psychological distress (Brief, Burke, George,Robinson, & Webster, 1988; Kasl, & Rapp, 1991).This criticism could, in part, be dealt with byfocusing on the cognitively oriented construct oforganizational climate (Schneider, 1990). This raisesquestions, however, about the nature of the relation-ship between organizational climate and organiza-tional stressors.

Turning first to the concept of stressors, this is anemotionally laden concept that reflects the attribu-tions employees make about the source of their dis-tress. Stressors can refer to a wide variety ofenvironmental conditions or situations that affectthe well-being of employees (Hurrell et al., 1998).When completing a stressors scale, for example,employees are typically asked to consider a numberof organizational or job characteristics and to ratethe level of distress that has been associatedwith each characteristic (e.g., Karasek, Brision,Kawakami, Houtman, Bongers, & Amick, 1998;Williams, & Cooper, 1998). The vast majority ofoccupational stress studies have focused on chronic

stressors. These can be defined as the sources ofdistress that persist over long periods of time(e.g., problematic leadership styles, communicationdifficulties, conflict with coworkers, and difficul-ties balancing home and work life). Although theconcept of daily hassles has typically been vieweddifferently (Wheaton, 1994), recent evidence sug-gests that daily work hassles also tend to beenduring over time and, therefore, operate muchlike chronic stressors (Hart, 1999). Other commonapproaches to the concept of stressors have inclu-ded a focus on acute, critical or traumatic events(e.g., Anshel, Robertson, & Caputi, 1997; Sewell,1983), and an emphasis on concepts such asrole ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload(e.g., Beehr, 1995; Jackson, & Schuler, 1985).Moreover, a distinction has often been madebetween the generic stressors that are relevant tomost occupational groups and the stressors that arepeculiar to the occupational group under investi-gation (Hart et al., 1994).

The different approaches to the conceptualizationof stressors share one thing in common. They allfocus on the negative work experiences that arebelieved to influence employee well-being. Thiscommon theme fails to recognize, however, thatpositive experiences also play a role. According tothe cognitive-relational theory of stress, for example,employees can appraise their environmental condi-tions or situations in either positive (i.e., potentiallybeneficial to well-being) or negative (i.e., poten-tially harmful to well-being) terms (DeLongis et al.,1988; Lazarus, & Folkman, 1984). This view isconsistent with several studies in the quality-of-lifeliterature showing that positive and negative lifeevents make independent contributions to people’soverall levels of psychological well-being (e.g.,Headey, & Wearing, 1989).

The role of positive work experiences hasreceived little empirical attention in the occupa-tional stress literature. Nevertheless, there is someevidence to suggest that positive and negative workexperiences are largely uncorrelated, and contributedifferently to employee well-being. It has beenfound, for example, that negative work experiencestend to contribute to indices of psychological dis-tress, but not to morale, whereas positive workexperiences tend to contribute to morale, but not topsychological distress (Hart, 1994; Hart et al.,1995). It has also been found that positive and nega-tive work experiences contribute independently,and sometimes equally, to employees’ levels of jobsatisfaction (Hart, 1999). These results demonstratethe importance of taking into account both positiveand negative experiences when investigating thedeterminants of employee well-being.

Another theme that is common to the differentconceptualizations of stressors, is that an emphasishas often been placed on organizational experiences


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 103

(e.g., Hurrel et al., 1998; Sauter, & Murphy, 1995).This may reflect the fact that general organizationalexperiences, such as those associated with leader-ship, coworker relations, decision making, and goalsetting, are relevant to employees in most workorganizations. It may also reflect the view, however,that organizational experiences influence employeewell-being much more than stressors that are pecu-liar to the job or occupational group under investi-gation. This view has even been supported inreputedly high-stress occupations such as policework (e.g., Hart et al., 1995) and teaching (e.g.,Borg, 1990), which highlights the central role oforganizational climate (e.g., Griffin et al., 2000;Hemmingway, & Smith, 1999; Michela et al., 1995).

Organizational climate refers to the perceptionsthat employees have about the way in which theirorganization functions (James, & McIntyre, 1996).As noted by Griffin et al. (2000), this means thatorganizational climate has two components. Itinvolves the organizational structures and processesthat are part of everyday organizational activity, aswell as individual employees’ perceptions of theseactivities. We believe that one of the key differ-ences between organizational climate and organiza-tional stressors, however, is that perceptions oforganizational climate do not have an emotionalovertone. In other words, organizational climate isnot related to how people feel about their organiza-tional experiences. It is merely a judgment ordescription about what is happening in the organi-zation (Hart et al., 2000). This is why we believethat organizational climate is a cognitively, ratherthan emotionally oriented variable.

Moreover, organizational climate can be used atthe individual and group levels of analysis(Schneider, 1990). It is reasonable to expect that thefocus on organizational structures and processeswill mean that organizational climate has clearbetween group differences. This is consistent withthe view that individual difference variables, suchas personality, will have a stronger influence onorganizational stressors than on perceptions oforganizational climate. This is largely due to thefact that the concept of organizational stressors hasa strong emotional overtone, and considerable evi-dence suggests that this emotional component isinfluenced, to a large extent, by personality charac-teristics, such as neuroticism (e.g., Costa, &McCrae, 1990).

Given that there are meaningful differencesbetween organizational climate and organiza-tional stressors, we believe that it is important toinclude both in the study of occupational stress(e.g., Hemingway, & Smith, 1999). It is also impor-tant, however, to focus on employees’ positive andnegative emotionally laden experiences. Accor-dingly, we believe that there are three core compo-nents that underpin employees’ organizational

experiences, and that each of these components willrelate differently to indices of employee well-being.Although there has been substantial research intothe role of negative emotionally laden experiences(i.e., stressors), relatively little research has beenconducted into the role of positive emotionally ladenexperiences and organizational climate. Moreover,little has been done to establish a taxonomy ofthe types of organizational experiences that shouldbe included as part of these three core constructs(Kasl, 1998).

Personal Characteristics

There are a number of different personal characteris-tics that are relevant to the organizational healthmodel shown in Figure 5.1. For example, a large vol-ume of literature exists about the direct, indirect, andmoderating effects that coping (e.g., Cartwright, &Cooper, 1996; de Rijk, Le Blanc, Schauefeli, &de Jonge, 1998), locus of control (e.g., Spector, 1998),hardiness (Cox, & Ferguson, 1991), Type A Behavior(e.g., Ganster, 1987; Lee, Ashford, & Jamieson,1993), and self-esteem (Jex, & Elacqua, 1999) haveon the stressors and strain relationship (Kahn, &Byosiere, 1992). One area that has received littleempirical attention, however, is the role of the BigFive personality characteristics (Costa, & McCrae,1989). The Big Five has become a dominant themein the personality literature, and provides an inte-grated framework that can be used to examine therole that dispositional factors play in determiningorganizational health. The Big Five refers to the per-sonality characteristics of neuroticism, extraversion,openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Inthe occupational stress literature, there has been con-siderable interest in the role of neuroticism (alsoknown as dispositional negative affectivity, Costa, &McCrae, 1990) and, to a lesser extent, extraversion,but there has been very little interest in the role ofopenness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

Neuroticism refers to a person’s tendency tofocus on the negative aspects of themselves andhis or her environment (Costa, & McCrae, 1989). Ithas also been referred to as a mood-dispositionaldimension that reflects a person’s tendency toexperience negative emotions (Watson, 1988). It isnot surprising, therefore, that strong relationshipshave been found between neuroticism and othervariables, such as coping, negative work experi-ences (i.e., stressors), and various indices of psycho-logical distress (e.g., Hart et al., 1995; Moyle,1995). The strength of these relationships has raisedconcerns about whether neuroticism is merely amethodological nuisance or really has substantiveeffects (Burke et al., 1993; Spector et al., 1999;Williams et al., 1996). This is a difficult questionthat is still yet to be resolved. Nevertheless, it is


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 104

important to control for neuroticism in any studiesthat are concerned with establishing the relation-ships between negative emotionally laden variables(Brief et al., 1989; Costa & McCrae, 1990). This isnecessary to ensure that reported relationships do infact exist, and are not merely a methodological orsubstantive artefact of neuroticism or dispositionalnegative affectivity.

Extraversion refers to a person’s tendency to beactive, talkative, person-oriented, optimistic, fun-loving, and affectionate (Costa, & McCrae, 1989).In general terms, it can be characterized by threerelated, but separate components. These include theextent to which a person prefers to engage in socialinteraction (e.g., gregariousness), the extent to whicha person is predisposed to display interpersonalwarmth (e.g., empathy), as well as the extent towhich a person tends to have a positive outlookand experience positive emotions (e.g., positiveaffectivity). This does not mean, however, thatextraversion and dispositional positive affectivityare the same constructs. Although positive affectiv-ity is a component of extraversion, extraversion isconsidered to be a much broader construct thatincludes aspects of gregariousness and interpersonalwarmth.

As noted earlier in this chapter, a considerablebody of research in the quality-of-life literature hasshown that extraversion is related to problem-focused coping, positive life experiences, andindices of psychological well-being (e.g., Headey, &Wearing, 1989; Magnus et al., 1993). Similarresults have also been found in occupational stressstudies (Hart, 1999; Hart et al., 1995; cf. George,1996). Overall, this body of evidence suggests thatextraversion should be included as a matter ofroutine in occupational stress studies that are con-cerned with establishing the relationships betweenpositive emotionally laden variables. As with thenegative affectivity literature, however, a questionremains as to whether the influence of extraversionis methodological or substantive in nature.

The role of agreeableness, openness, and conscien-tiousness in determining employee well-being isless clear. It is possible to theorize about potentialrelationships, but the paucity of empirical evidencemeans that it is difficult to argue a firm position.For example, agreeableness refers to a person’s pre-disposition to be compliant and cooperative, as wellas being someone who is easy to get along with(Costa, & McCrae, 1989). Accordingly, people whotend to be more agreeable may experience less con-flict with their supervisors and coworkers. If thiswere the case, it is likely that they would experiencea more positive organizational climate, fewer inter-personal stressors and, ultimately, better levels ofwell-being (Michela et al., 1995).

Employees who are high on openness tend to beopen to new ideas and experiences (Costa, &

McCrae, 1989). This may predispose them toparticipate in meetings or volunteer to serve oncommittees. However, employees who are high onopenness also tend to be dreamy and artistic. Insome contexts, these attributes may not be valuedor may even be actively discouraged. In these cir-cumstances, employees who exhibit more opennessbehaviors may feel uncomfortable and withdrawfrom work situations that involve meetings or com-mittees. This may result in less favorable viewsabout organizational climate and, subsequently,poorer levels of well-being.

There is some evidence to suggest that conscien-tiousness is more likely to be related to perfor-mance than to employee well-being (Barrick, &Mount, 1991; Miller, Griffin, & Hart, 1999).However, this could be due to the fact thatemployee well-being has generally been equatedwith job satisfaction and psychological distress. Byincluding the concept of morale in definitions ofemployee well-being, it may be possible to findstronger links with conscientiousness. Employees’enthusiasm for their work is one of the key compo-nents of morale (Hart et al., 2000; Organ, 1997).Moreover, conscientiousness refers to a predis-position to be dutiful, dedicated, thorough, andpersistent (Costa, & McCrae, 1989). It is possiblethat employees who display these characteristicsare more likely to be enthusiastically engaged intheir work.

It is apparent that the Big Five personalitycharacteristics are likely to play an important role inthe organizational health framework shown inFigure 5.1. Some characteristics, such as neuroti-cism and extraversion, are more likely to influenceemployee well-being, whereas other characteristics,such as conscientiousness, are more likely to con-tribute to organizational performance. Nevertheless,there is relatively little empirical evidence in theoccupational stress literature about the role of theBig Five personality characteristics. Moreover, it isnot known whether the Big Five personality charac-teristics provide additional predictive power, ormerely account for the effects of other personalityconstructs such as Type A Behavior, locus ofcontrol, and self-esteem, in determining employeewell-being.

Organizational Performance

In terms of the organizational health framework,the notion of organizational performance shouldbe considered quite broadly. Relatively few occu-pational stress theories have explicitly addressedthe relationship between employee well-being andperformance, with most theories focusing on ill-health as the ultimate outcome (e.g., Cooper, 1998).It is generally assumed, however, that ill-health


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 105

results in substantial cost to work organizationsthrough sickness absence, medical expenses, andlost productivity. These potential outcomes ofoccupational stress are highly relevant to theorganizational health framework, because theycan have a substantial affect on an organization’s‘bottom-line.’ Human resources often account for alarge part of an organization’s cost structure indelivering its products and services, and any sub-stantial increase in these costs can adversely affectthe ongoing viability and profitability of theorganization. Unfortunately, there is relatively littleempirical evidence in the occupational stressliterature to demonstrate a causal relationshipbetween employee well-being and the types ofoutcomes that affect the ‘bottom-line’ of workorganizations.

A promising area of research that may help toprovide a stronger link between employee well-being and performance is the work currently beingundertaken in the area of contextual performance.Contextual performance refers to the discretionarybehaviors that are not formally required of employ-ees, but are necessary for the overall success of theorganization (e.g., Motowidlo, & Van Scotter,1994). These behaviors are related to the conceptsof prosocial organizational behavior (Brief, &Motowidlo, 1986) extra-role behavior (Katz, &Kahn, 1978), and organizational citizenship behav-ior (Bateman, & Organ, 1983), and include activi-ties such as volunteering to carry out tasks,cooperating with coworkers, exerting effort, andpromoting the organization to others. These behav-iors are under the volitional control of employees,and are likely to be influenced by employees’ levelsof morale (George, & Brief, 1992). This suggeststhat rather than trying to establish a link betweenpsychological distress and performance, it will bemore fruitful to explore the link between perfor-mance and morale.

Accordingly, by integrating the concepts ofpsychological distress, job satisfaction, and moraleinto a broader model of employee well-being, itmay be possible for occupational stress researchersand practitioners to demonstrate a strong link bet-ween employees’ levels of well-being and organi-zational performance (cf. Wright, & Cropanzano,2000b). This link may best be achieved, however,by focusing on a broad range of organizationalperformance indicators, including discretionarybehaviors such as contextual performance, as wellas behaviors that are directly related to the cost ofhuman resources (e.g., sickness absence, turnover,medical expenses, and legal compensation claimsfor stress-related injury). In this way, researchersand practitioners will be better placed to demon-strate that occupational stress plays an importantrole in determining the overall success of workorganizations.

TESTING THE ORGANIZATIONAL

HEALTH FRAMEWORK

There are many different ways in which researchinto the organizational health framework can becarried forward. One possible way is through theresearch model shown in Figure 5.3. Although thismodel integrates many of the key variables thathave been discussed throughout this chapter, it isnot meant to represent an exhaustive list of occupa-tional stress variables, nor do we intend it to reflectall of the variables that are considered central to theorganizational health framework. Its main purposeis to serve as a heuristic model that illustrates howwe can generate and test competing hypothesesabout organizational health.

The model draws on the cognitive-relational(e.g., Lazarus, & Folkman, 1984) and dynamic equi-librium (e.g., Hart, 1999) theories of stress, as well asour earlier discussion about the structure of employeewell-being and organizational experiences. The tradi-tional stressors and strain approach is also embeddedwithin this model, but in its most elementary form,can be explained by just two of the 16 variables(i.e., negative work experiences and distress). Thisdemonstrates how limiting the stressors and strainapproach has become in helping us to understand thecauses and consequences of occupational stress.

The model suggests that organizational climateplays a central role in determining employee well-being (Griffin et al., 2000; Michela et al., 1995).This reflects the view that employees will engage incoping processes when exposed to the conditionsand situations in their organizational environments.Moreover, the organizational environment andemployees’ coping processes will influence the wayin which employees appraise their work experi-ences in positive or negative terms (Hart et al.,1995). This is consistent with Lazarus’s (1990)view that coping processes influence people’sreappraisal of their environmental conditions, andthat measures of positive and negative experiences(e.g., hassles and uplifts; Hart, 1999) reflect thesereappraisals, rather than the initial conditions orsituations that triggered the coping response. It isthe organizational environment, as well as employ-ees’ positive and negative experiences associatedwith this environment that, ultimately, influencesemployee well-being (Hemingway, & Smith,1999). The model also reflects the positive and neg-ative affectivity paths that are typically thought tounderpin the relationships between neuroticism,emotion-focused coping, negative work experi-ences, and distress, on the one hand, and extra-version, problem-focused coping, positive workexperiences, and morale, on the other (e.g., Costa, &McCrae, 1980; Hart, 1999; Headey, & Wearing,1992; cf. George, 1996). Although no specific links


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 106

_

_

_

_

+

+

+

+

+

+

_

++

++

+

+

_

++

+

Organizational PerformancePersonal and Organizational Characteristics

ContextualPerformance

SicknessAbsence

MedicalExpenses

Turnover

CompensationClaims

CustomerSatisfaction

Neuroticism

Extraversion

Negative WorkExperiences

Distress

Employee Well-Being

EmotionFocusedCoping

Positive WorkExperiences

MoraleProblemFocusedCoping

JobSatisfaction

OrganizationalClimate

Figure 5.3 Example of an organizational health research model (‘+’ indicates a positiverelationship; ‘−’ indicates a negative relationship. Dotted lines indicate possiblerelationships that are expected to be comparatively weak.)

san

d0

5.q

xd 5

/9/0

1 1

:33

AM

Pa

ge

10

7

to organizational performance have been specified,the model allows for this possibility. Based on ourdiscussions throughout this chapter, the followingpropositions can be made about this model.

P1: Employee well-being includes both cognitiveand emotional components, with the emo-tional component being further divided intoseparate positive and negative dimensions.

P2: The emotional component of employeewell-being operates at the individual andworkgroup levels of analysis.

P3: Employee well-being influences organiza-tional performance.

P4: Positive and negative work experiencesoperate independently to determine employ-ees’ levels of well-being, with negative workexperiences having a stronger influence ondistress and positive work experienceshaving a stronger influence on morale.

P5: Positive and negative work experiencescontribute equally to job satisfaction.

P6: Organizational climate contributes equallyto employees’ positive and negative workexperiences.

P7: Organizational climate operates at the indivi-dual and workgroup levels of analysis.

P8: Coping processes partially mediate therelationship between organizational climateand employee’s positive and negative workexperiences.

P9: Emotion-focused coping contributes tonegative work experiences and problem-focused coping contributes to positive workexperiences.

P10: Employees will engage in both emotion-focused and problem-focused copingprocesses to manage or deal with the condi-tions and situations in their organizationalenvironment.

P11: Neuroticism contributes to emotion-focusedcoping, negative work experiences, and dis-tress, whereas extraversion contributes toproblem-focused coping, positive workexperiences and morale.

P12: Neuroticism, extraversion, and organiza-tional climate will exhibit more temporalstability than coping processes, positive andnegative work experiences, and indices ofemployee well-being.

P13: Employee well-being, positive and negativework experiences, and coping processes willhave both stable (i.e., equilibrium) and situa-tional (i.e., deviations from equilibrium)components.

P14: Employees’ equilibrium levels of well-beingcan be explained by enduring personalitycharacteristics, such as neuroticism andextraversion, and enduring characteristics ofthe organizational environment, as well as

by their equilibrium patterns of workexperiences and coping processes.

P15: Employees’ normal (i.e., equilibrium) levelsof well-being can change, either positivelyor negatively, if a change occurs in theirnormal patterns of work experiences andcoping processes.

P16: Stress occurs when there is a state ofdisequilibrium between employee well-being, work experiences, coping processes,and enduring personal and organizationalcharacteristics, provided that this state ofdisequilibrium brings about change, eitherpositively or negatively, in the employee’snormal levels of well-being.

P17: Stress cannot be expressed as a singlevariable.

P18: It is a normal and inevitable part of dailywork life for employees to experience somedegree of distress, and to dislike certain con-ditions and situations in their environment,but this does not necessarily mean that theyare experiencing stress.

P19: Day-to-day fluctuations in employee well-being, work experiences, and coping pro-cesses are a normal part of day-to-day worklife, and do not, in themselves, imply that anemployee is stressed.

These propositions reflect a particular theoreticalposition that has been taken in relation to the modelshown in Figure 5.3. We acknowledge, however, thatin many cases alternate viewpoints can be argued.Also, we have not referred to other variables that webelieve are important in helping us to understandoccupational stress, nor have we addressed the poten-tial moderating and interaction effects that may applyto this system of variables. It is our intention, how-ever, that these propositions illustrate one potentialstarting point for theory-driven research that lendsitself to a traditional hypothesis-testing approach.Moreover, these propositions highlight a number ofmethodological issues that have often been raised inrelation to the study of occupational stress.

Methodological Considerations

First, the heuristic model shown in Figure 5.3 high-lights the need for more large-scale studies in thearea of occupational stress. The number of variablesincluded in this model means that it could only beinvestigated with relatively large samples. Althoughit would be possible to examine different sections ofthe model in isolation, this would raise the possibil-ity of a major limitation. One of the major concernswith nonexperimental methodologies is that it isoften difficult, even with longitudinal data, to estab-lish what is a causal, rather than spurious, relation-ship (Kessler, & Greenberg, 1981). This is parti-cularly true when self-report measures are used to


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 108

investigate variables that have some degree ofconceptual overlap. In part, this is the problem thathas underpinned much of the concern that has beenraised about the negative affectivity bias in occupa-tional stress research (e.g., Brief et al., 1988).Although not completely eliminating the problem,by including all relevant variables in a given study itis possible to minimize this limitation.

Second, in addition to using large samples ofemployees, consideration must be given to thehierarchical structure of the sample. A number ofpropositions refer to the possibility of consideringvariables at different levels of analysis. In orderto investigate these propositions, it is necessary tosample sufficient workgroups to provide the neces-sary power for the planned analyses, as well as sam-pling sufficient employees within each workgroup toprovide accurate estimates of the workgroup vari-ables. This often involves the use of cluster samplingdesigns (e.g., Van Yperen, & Snijders, 2000), whichis an approach not often used in the occupationalstress literature. The lack of cluster sampling designsis probably due to the fact that the vast majorityof occupational stress studies have focused on theindividual level of analysis. Moreover, analyzingdata at different levels of analysis will require occu-pational stress researchers to make more use of hier-archical linear modeling techniques (e.g., Klein, &Kozlowski, 2000).

Third, many of the propositions about theheuristic model cannot be investigated with cross-sectional data. Some propositions imply causal rela-tions among the variables shown in the model,whereas other propositions refer to issues ofstability and change. These propositions can only beinvestigated with longitudinal data that is obtainedfrom the same employees at different points in time(e.g., Hart, 1999; Kessler, & Greenberg, 1981;Schaubroeck, Ganster, & Kemmerer, 1996). More-over, the analysis of longitudinal data, particularlywhen a large system of nonexperimental variables isinvolved, ideally requires the use of mathematicalmodeling procedures, such as structural equationanalysis (e.g., Byrne, 1998).

Fourth, the model shown in Figure 5.3 is con-cerned with the relations among a large system ofvariables. Accordingly, the proper investigation ofthese relations will require the use of regression-based statistical procedures, such as multipleregression analysis (e.g., Cohen, & Cohen, 1983),structural equation analysis (e.g., Byrne, 1998), andhierarchical linear modeling analysis (e.g., Klein, &Kozlowski, 2000). These techniques will providemuch greater insight into the nature of a relation-ship than can typically be obtained from proceduressuch as the analysis of variance. The value in usingregression-based techniques also applies to theinvestigation of any moderating and interactioneffects that may exist among the variables shown

in Figure 5.3. Analysis of variance often requiresthe variables under investigation to be collapsed(e.g., dichotomized), and this can result in the lossof valuable information. Accordingly, it is oftenbest to use the full range of information availableon a set of variables, and to focus on reporting thestrength of relationships and the amounts of vari-ance explained by different effects, rather thanreporting the results of significance tests thatmerely show whether or not an effect is present.

Fifth, an investigation of the model shown inFigure 5.3 requires that careful attention be paid tothe issue of construct validity. There is a degreeof conceptual overlap among many of the vari-ables shown in the model. This type of conceptualconfounding has been a source of much criticism inthe occupational stress literature (e.g., Burke et al.,1993), and has led some methodologists to call forthe use of more ‘objective’ measures (e.g., Kasl,1987). It is hard to avoid the fact, however, thatoccupational stress resides largely in the subjec-tive experience of employees. Nevertheless, thedifferences among some of the variables shown inFigure 5.3 are based on subtleties in the way theyoperate over time or across levels of analysis.

For example, neuroticism and distress are bothconcerned with negative affectivity. The differencebetween these variables, however, lies in the fact thatneuroticism refers to dispositional negative affectiv-ity, whereas distress refers to situational negativeaffectivity. From an empirical point of view, this canbe demonstrated by showing that other situationalvariables contribute to distress, once the effects ofneuroticism have been taken into account, and thatneuroticism and distress differ in terms of the tem-poral stability that can be observed in these variablesover time. Likewise, organizational climate andorganizational work experiences have a degree ofconceptual overlap and, therefore, should be moder-ately correlated. The key differences between thesevariables, however, are the extent to which one ismore cognitively, rather than emotionally laden, andthe extent to which they operate at the individual orworkgroup levels of analyses. These differences canbe empirically tested. Although we acknowledge thedifficulties that these subtle differences may pose inselecting or developing appropriate measures, it isimportant for occupational stress researchers to paygreater attention to construct validity in order toavoid the methodological criticisms that have oftenbeen targeted at the occupational stress literature.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The organizational health framework provides con-siderable flexibility and scope for developing ourunderstanding of occupational stress. Moreover,


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 109

it provides a broad theoretical framework that canbe used to integrate the different approaches tooccupational stress, and emphasizes the need foroccupational stress research to become morealigned with the wider work psychology literature.As suggested by the organizational health frame-work, it is also important for occupational stressresearchers and practitioners to adopt a muchbroader perspective than the traditional stressorsand strain approach, and to demonstrate that a linkexists between occupational stress and an organiza-tion’s ‘bottom-line’ performance. By adopting thisbroader approach, it will be possible to develop andtest more coherent theories that enable us tounderstand the complex dynamics that underpinoccupational stress. Ultimately, we believe that sus-tained improvements can only be brought about byusing this broader approach to develop effectivestrategies and policies for managing stress in workorganizations.

REFERENCES

Agho, A.O., Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1992).Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction,positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 65,185–196.

Anshel, M.H., Robertson, M., & Caputi, P. (1997).Sources of acute stress and their appraisals andreappraisals among Australian police as a function ofprevious experience. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 70, 337–356.

Auerbach, S.M. (1989). Stress management and copingresearch in the health care setting: an overview andmethodological commentary. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 57, 388–395.

Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big FivePersonality Dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–25.

Bateman, T.S., & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfactionand the good soldier: the relationship between affectand employee ‘citizenship’. Academy of ManagementJournal, 26, 587–595.

Beehr, T.A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace.London: Routledge.

Beehr, T.A., & Newman, J.E. (1978). Job stress, employeehealth, and organizational effectiveness: a facet analy-sis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psycho-logy, 31, 665–699.

Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: aprospective study. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 59, 525–537.

Borg, M.G. (1990). Occupational stress in British educa-tional settings: a review. Educational Psychology, 10,103–126.

Bradburn, N.M. (1969). The structure of psychologicalwell-being. Chicago: Aldine.

Brief, A.P., Burke, M.J., George, J.M., Robinson, B.S., &Webster, J. (1988). Should negative affectivity remainan unmeasured variable in the study of job stress?Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 193–198.

Brief, A.P., Butcher, A.H., George, J.M., & Link, K.E.(1993). Integrating bottom-up and top-down theories ofsubjective well-being: the case of health. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 64, 646–653.

Brief, A.P., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial organi-zational behaviors. Academy of Management Review,11, 710–725.

Brief, A.P., & Roberson, L. (1989). Job attitude organiza-tion: an exploratory study. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 19, 717–727.

Burke, M.J., Brief, A.P., & George, J.M. (1993). The roleof negative affectivity in understanding relationsbetween self-reports of stressors and strains: a commenton the applied psychology literature. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 78, 402–412.

Burke, M.J., Brief, A.P., George, J.M., Roberson, L., &Webster, J. (1989). Measuring affect at work: confir-matory analyses of competing mood structures withconceptual linkage to cortical regulatory systems.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,1091–1102.

Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural equation modeling withLISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carpenter, B.N. (Ed.) (1992). Personal coping: theory,research, and application. Wesport, CT: Praeger.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C.L. (1996). Coping in occupa-tional settings. In M. Zeidner, & N.S. Endler (Eds.),Handbook of coping: theory, research, applications(pp. 202–220). New York: John Wiley.

Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989).Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically basedapproach. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho-logy, 56, 267–283.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multipleregression/correlation analysis for the behavioralsciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum.

Conway, V.J., & Terry, D.J. (1992). Appraised con-trollability as a moderator of the effectiveness of differ-ent coping strategies: a test of the goodness of fithypothesis. Australia Journal of Psychology, 44, 1–7.

Cooper, C.L. (Ed.). (1998). Theories of organizationalstress. New York: Oxford.

Cooper, C.L., & Williams, S. (Eds.) (1994). Creatinghealthy work organizations. Chichester: John Wiley.

Costa, P.T. Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1980). Influence ofextraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,668–678.

Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1989). NEO PI/FFIManual Supplement. Odessa, FL: PsychologicalAssessment Resources.

Costa, P.T. Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1990). Personality:another ‘hidden factor’ in stress research. PsychologicalInquiry, 1, 22–24.


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 110

Cotton, P. (1995). Psychological health in the workplace:understanding and managing occupational stress.Carlton, Australia: The Australian PsychologicalSociety.

Cox, T. (1978). Stress. London: Macmillan.Cox, T. (1988). Organizational health. Work and Stress,

2, 1–2.Cox, T. (1992). Occupational health: past, present, and

future. Work and Stress, 6, 99–102.Cox, T., & Ferguson, E. (1991). Individual differences,

stress and coping. In C.L. Cooper, & R. Payne (Eds.),Personality and stress: individual differences in thestress process. New York: John Wiley.

DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1988).The impact of daily stress on health and mood:psychological and social resources as mediators.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,486–495.

De Rijk, A.E., Le Blanc, P.M., Schauefeli, W.B., &de Jonge, J. (1998). Active coping and the need forcontrol as moderators of the job demand-control model:effects on burnout. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 71, 1–18.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: the science ofhappiness and a proposal for a national index. AmericanPsychologist, 55, 34–43.

Diener, E., & Emmons, R.A. (1985). The independence ofpositive and negative affect. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 47, 1105–1117.

Doherty, J. (1988). Psychological morale: its conceptuali-sation and measurement. The Doherty Inventory ofPsychological Morale (DIPM). Educational Studies,14, 65–75.

Edwards, J.R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress,coping and well-being in organizations. Academy ofManagement Review, 17, 238–274.

Evans, L. (1992). Teacher morale: an individual perspec-tive. Educational Studies, 18, 161–171.

Evans, M.G. (1969). Conceptual and operational prob-lems in the measurement of various aspects of jobsatisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53,93–101.

Folkman, S. (1992). Making a case for coping. InB.N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: theory,research, and applications (pp. 31–46). Westport,CT: Praeger.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1985). If it changes it mustbe a process: study of emotion and coping during threestages of a college examination. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 48, 150–170.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). The relationshipbetween coping and emotion: implications for theoryand research. Social Science & Medicine, 26, 309–317.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R.S., Gruen, R.J., & DeLongis, A.(1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psycho-logical symptoms. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 50, 571–579.

French, J.R.P., Jr., Caplan, R.D., & Harrison, R.V. (1982).The mechanisms of job stress and strain. London: JohnWiley.

Gaines, J., & Jermier, J.M. (1983). Emotional exhaustionin a high stress organization. Academy of ManagementJournal, 26, 567–586.

Ganster, D.C. (1987). Type A behavior and occupationalstress. In J.M. Ivancevich, & D.C. Ganster (Eds.),Job stress: from theory to suggestion (pp. 61–84).New York: Haworth Press.

George, J.M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behaviorin groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,107–116.

George, J.M. (1996). Trait and state affect. InK.R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behaviorin organizations (pp. 145–171). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

George, J.M., & Brief, A.P. (1992). Feeling good–doinggood: a conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. PsychologicalBulletin, 112, 310–329.

Goldberg, D. (1978). Manual for the general healthquestionnaire. Windsor: National Foundation forEducational Research.

Griffin, M.A., Hart, P.M., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2000).Using employee opinion surveys to improve organiza-tional health. In L.R. Murphy, & C.L. Cooper (Eds.),Health and productive work: an international perspec-tive (pp. 15–36). London: Taylor & Francis.

Hart, P.M. (1994). Teacher quality of work life: integrat-ing work experiences, psychological distress andmorale. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 67, 109–132.

Hart, P.M. (1999). Predicting employee life satisfaction: acoherent model of personality, work and nonworkexperiences, and domain satisfactions. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 84, 564–584.

Hart, P.M., Griffin, M.A., Wearing, A.J., & Cooper, C.L.(1996). Manual for the QPASS survey. Brisbane: PublicSector Management Commission.

Hart, P.M., Wearing, A.J., Conn, M., Carter, N.L., &Dingle, R.K. (2000). Development of the SchoolOrganizational Health Questionnaire: a measure forassessing teacher morale and school organizationalclimate. British Journal of Educational Psychology,70, 211–228.

Hart, P.M., Wearing, A.J., & Headey, B. (1993). Assessingpolice work experiences: development of the PoliceDaily Hassles and Uplifts Scales. Journal of CriminalJustice, 21, 553–572.

Hart, P.M., Wearing, A.J., & Headey, B. (1994).Perceived quality of life, personality and work experi-ences: construct validation of the Police Daily Hasslesand Uplifts Scales. Journal of Criminal Justice andBehavior, 21, 283–311.

Hart, P.M., Wearing, A.J., & Headey, B. (1995).Police stress and well-being: integrating personality,coping and daily work experiences. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 68,133–156.

Headey, B., Glowacki, T., Holmstrom, E., & Wearing, A.J.(1985). Modelling change in perceived quality of life.Social Indicators Research, 17, 267–298.


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 111

Headey, B., & Wearing, A.J. (1989). Personality, lifeevents, and subjective well-being: toward a dynamicequilibrium model. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 57, 731–739.

Headey, B., & Wearing, A.J. (1990). Subjective well-being and coping with adversity. Social IndicatorsResearch, 22, 327–349.

Headey, B., & Wearing, A.J. (1992). Understandinghappiness: a theory of subjective well-being. Melbourne:Longman Cheshire.

Hemmingway, M.A., & Smith, C.S. (1999). Organi-zational climate and occupational stressors as predictorsof withdrawal behaviours and injuries in nurses.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycho-logy, 72, 285–299.

Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of resources, a newattempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psycho-logist, 44, 513–524.

Holahan, C.J., & Moos, R.H. (1986). Personality, copingand family resources in stress resistance: a longitudinalanalysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 389–395.

Holmes, J.H., & Rahe, R.H. (1967). The SocialReadjustment Rating Scale. Journal of PsychosomaticResearch, 5, 335–357.

Hurrell, J.J., Jr., Nelson, D.L., & Simmons, B.L. (1998).Measuring job stressors and strains: where wehave been, where we are, and where we need to go.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3,368–389.

Jackson, S.E., & Schuler, R.S. (1985). A meta-analysisand conceptual critique of research on role ambiguityand role conflict in work settings. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16–78.

James, L.R., & McIntyre, M.D. (1996). Perceptionsof organisational climate. In K. Murphy (Ed.),Individual differences and behavior in organisations(pp. 416–450). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jex, S.M., Beehr, T.A., & Roberts, C.K. (1992). Themeaning of occupational stress items to surveyrespondents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,623–628.

Jex, S.M., & Elacqua, T.C. (1999). Self-esteem as amoderator: a comparison of global and organization-based measures. Journal of Occupational and Organi-zational Psychology, 72, 71–81.

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T.M.(1999). Managerial coping with organizational change.Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.

Kahn, R.L., & Byosiere (1992). Stress in organizations. InM.D. Dunnette, & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook ofindustrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.,Vol. 3, pp. 571–650). Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Kanner, A.D., Coyne, J.C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R.S.(1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measure-ment: daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events.Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 4, 1–39.

Kanner, A.D., Feldman, S.S., Weinerger, D.A., &Ford, M.E. (1991). Upflits, hassles, and adaptional

outcomes in early adolescents. In A. Monat, &R.S. Lazarus (Eds.), Stress and coping: an anthology(pp. 158–181). New York: Columbia.

Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I.,Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The Job ContentQuestionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationallycomparative assessments of psychosocial job charac-teristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,3, 322–355.

Kasl, S.V. (1987). Methodologies in stress and health: pastdifficulties, present dilemmas, future directions. InS.V. Kasl, & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Stress and healthissues in research methodology (pp. 307–318).New York: Wiley.

Kasl, S.V. (1998). Measuring job stressors and studyingthe health impact of the work environment: an epidemio-logic commentary. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 3, 390–401.

Kasl, S.V., & Rapp, S.R. (1991). Stress, health andwell-being: the role of individual differences. InC.L. Cooper, & R. Payne (Eds.), Personality andstress: individual differences in the stress process(pp. 269–284). Chichester: Wiley.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology oforganizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Kessler, R.C., & Greenberg, D.F. (1981). Linear panelanalysis: models of quantitative change. New York:Academic Press.

Klein, K.J., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds.) (2000). Multileveltheory, research, and methods in organizations: foun-dations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Kyriacou, C., & Sutcliffe, J. (1978). A model of teacherstress. Education Studies, 4, 1–6.

Latack, J.C., & Havlovic, S.J. (1992). Coping with jobstress: a conceptual evaluation framework for copingmeasures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,479–508.

Lazarus, R.S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement.Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3–13.

Lazarus, R.S. (1993). From psychological stress to theemotions: a history of changing outlooks. AnnualReview of Psychology, 44, 1–21.

Lazarus, R.S., DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Gruen, R.(1985). Stress and adaptational outcomes, the problemof confounded measures. American Psychologist, 40,770–779.

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

Lee, C., Ashford, S.J., & Jamieson, L.F. (1993). The effectsof Type A behavior dimensions and optimism oncoping strategy, health, and performance. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 14, 143–157.

Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993).Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objectivelife events: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 65, 1046–1043.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1986). Personality,coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample.Journal of Personality, 54, 385–405.


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 112

McGrath, J.E. (Ed.) (1970). Social and psychologicalfactors in stress. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.

Michela, J.L., Lukaszewski, M.P., & Allegrante, J.P.(1995). Organizational climate and work stress: ageneral framework applied to inner-city schoolteachers.In S.L. Sauter, & L.R. Murphy (Eds.), Organizationalrisk factors for job stress (pp. 61–80). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Miller, R., Griffin, M.A., & Hart, P.M. (1999). Personalityand organizational health: the role of conscientiousness.Work and Stress, 13, 7–19.

Moran, E.T., & Volkwein, J.F. (1992). The culturalapproach to the formation of organizational climate.Human Relations, 45, 19–47.

Motowidlo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidencethat task performance should be distinguished fromcontextual performance. Journal of Applied Psycho-logy, 79, 475–480.

Moyle, P. (1995). The role of negative affectivity in thestress process: tests of alternative models. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 16, 647–670.

Murphy, L.J., & Cooper, C.L. (Eds.) (2000). Health andproductive work: an international perspective. London:Taylor & Francis.

Newton, T.J. (1989). Occupational stress and copingwith stress: a critique. Human Relations, 42, 441–461.

Organ, D.W. (1997). Toward an explication of ‘morale’:in search of the m factor. In C.L. Cooper, &S.E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organi-zations: a handbook for future research in organi-zational behavior (pp. 493–504). Chichester: JohnWiley.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the SatisfactionWith Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 2,164–172.

Quick, J.C., Murphy, L.R., & Hurrell, J.J., Jr. (1992a).Stress and well-being at work: assessments and inter-ventions for occupational mental health. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Quick, J.C., Murphy, L.R., & Hurrell, J.J., Jr. (1992b).Preface. In J.C. Quick, L.R. Murphy, & J.J. Hurrell, Jr.(Eds.), Stress and well-being at work: assessmentsand interventions for occupational mental health(pp. ix–x). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Sauter, S.L., & Murphy, L.R. (1995). Organizational riskfactors for job stress. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D.C., & Kemmerer, B. (1996).Does trait affect promote job attitude stability? Journalof Organizational Behavior, 17, 191–196.

Schneider, B. (Ed.) (1990). Organizational climate andculture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sewell, J.D. (1983). The development of a critical lifeevents scale for law enforcement. Journal of PoliceScience and Administration, 11, 109–119.

Smith, K.R. (1966). A proposed model for the investiga-tion of teacher morale. Journal of EducationalAdministration, 4, 143–148.

Smith, K.R. (1976). Morale: a refinement of Stogdill’smodel. Journal of Educational Administration, 14,87–93.

Spector, P.E. (1998). A control theory of the job stressprocess. In Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Theories of organiza-tional stress (pp. 153–169). New York: Oxford.

Spector, P.E., Fox, S., & Van Katwyk, P.T. (1999). Therole of negative affectivity in employee reactions to jobcharacteristics: bias effect or substantive effect?Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycho-logy, 72, 205–218.

Spector, P.E., & Jex, S.M. (1998). Development of fourself-report measures of job stressors and strain:Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, OrganizationalConstraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory,and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupa-tional Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.

Staw, B.M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst ofchange: a dispositional approach to job attitudes.Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469–480.

Stone, A.A., Kennedy-Moore, E., Newman, M.G.,Greenberg, M., & Neale, J.M. (1992). Conceptual andmethodological issues in current coping assessments.In B.N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: theory,research, and applications (pp. 15–30). Westport, CT:Praeger.

Terry, D.J. (1994). Determinants of coping: the role ofstable and situational factors. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 66, 895–910.

Van Yperen, N.W., & Snijders, T.A.B. (2000). A multi-level analysis of the demands-control model: is stress atwork determined by factors at the group level or theindividual level? Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 5, 182–190.

Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividualanalyses of positive and negative affect: their relation tohealth complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,1020–1030.

Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensualstructure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98,219–235.

Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H.(1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfac-tion Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota.

Wheaton, B. (1994). Sampling the stress universe. InW.R. Avison, & I.H. Gotlib (Eds.), Stress and mentalhealth: contemporary issues and prospects for thefuture (pp. 77–114). New York: Plenum.

Williams, S., & Cooper, C.L. (Eds.) (1994). Creatinghealthy work organizations. Chichester: John Wiley.

Williams, S., & Cooper, C.L. (1998). Measuring occupa-tional stress: development of the Pressure ManagementIndicator. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,3, 306–321.

Williams, L.J., Gavin, M.B., & Williams, M.L. (1996).Measurement and nonmeasurement processes withnegative affectivity and employee attitudes. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 81, 88–101.


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 113

Worrall, N., & May, D. (1989). Towards a person-in-situation model of teacher stress. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 59, 174–186.

Wright, T.A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000a). The role oforganizational behavior in occupational health psychol-ogy: a view as we approach the new millennium. Journalof Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 5–10.

Wright, T.A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000b). Psychologicalwell-being and job satisfaction as predictors of jobperformance. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 5, 84–94.

Zeidner, M., & Endler, N.S. (1996). Handbook of coping.New York: John Wiley.


sand05.qxd 5/9/01 1:33 AM Page 114

Date post:	22-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	andreea-madalina
View:	63 times
Download:	4 times

Occupational Stress. Hart & Cooper

Documents