Occupational Stress

The Link between Individual Occupational Stress and Organizational Effectiveness

as shown by Performance Evaluation, Productivity Measures, and Employee Satisfaction

By

Julie A. Cincotta

B.A. 1991, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee

M.A. 1997, University of Texas at El Paso

A Dissertation submitted to

The Faculty of The Graduate School of Education and Human Development

of The George Washington University

in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

May 22, 2005

Dissertation directed by:

Dr. Carol Hren Hoare, ChairProfessor of Human Development and Human Resource Development

Dr. Richard LanthierAssociate Professor of Human Development

Dr. Michael MarquardtProfessor of Human Resource Development

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UMI Number: 3161576

Copyright 2005 by

Cincotta, Julie A.

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

®

UMIUMI Microform 3161576

Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346


ABSTRACT

This study was based on the responses of 213 employees at six geographic Logistics

Centers within a medium-sized Fortune 500 company that is a distributor of

microcomputer hardware and software products headquartered in the Southeastern United

States. Most participants were White, male, and worked in skilled maintenance

occupations. The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between

employees’ occupational stress levels and the effectiveness of their organizational unit.

Perceived stress was measured using the Job Stress Survey (Spielberger, 1994), while

organizational effectiveness measures included overall employee satisfaction, employee

motivation, and turnover intention questions from the corporation’s annual employee

survey; performance appraisal ratings; and monthly audit defect ratings of picking,

packing, putaway, and receiving activities. This quantitative study followed a non-

experimental, correlational design, and data were analyzed using Pearson product

moment correlation, Analysis of Variance, and multiple regression. The results found

that there was an inverse relationship between employees’ individual occupational stress

levels and the effectiveness of the Logistics Center in which they were employed. Further,

the results found that Logistics Centers whose employees reported high levels of

occupational stress had lower results on measures of organizational effectiveness than

those Logistics Centers whose employees reported low levels of occupational stress.

Exploratory multiple regression analyses showed that the three Job Stress Survey scales

(Job Stress Index, Job Pressure Index, and Lack of Support Index) were significant

predictors of turnover intention, overall satisfaction, motivation, and performance

appraisal ratings.

ii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people that I want to acknowledge for their continued

encouragement, guidance, and efforts in helping me see this research study from its initial

concept through to its fruition. First, I would like to thank my dissertation chairperson,

Dr. Carol Hoare, for her availability, guidance, encouragement, and seemingly endless

readings of my dissertation. I would certainly not have accomplished this project without

her continual attention, ideas, and sound advice. I would also like to acknowledge the

expertise and guidance of my committee members, Dr. Richard Lanthier and Dr. Mike

Marquardt. Rich’s assistance with the design and analysis of this study, and willingness

to read the seemingly constant revisions of my results, and Mike’s expertise of the subject

matter and prompt feedback truly enhanced this dissertation. I also thank those

individuals who served as external examiners, Dr. Maria Cseh and Dr. Douglas Palmer,

whose insightful questions and thought-provoking discussion improved the dissertation

and provided me with new ideas to pursue.

I sincerely thank my colleagues and friends from ELP 11, especially Andrew

Fenniman, Dr. Banu Golesorkhi, Dave Flarper, Dr. Kathleen Cavanaugh, and Lawrence

Hamilton who provided me with much needed humor and wonderful memories during

our coursework, and advice and encouragement as I conducted this study. In addition,

this entire process would never have been the same without the other two members of the

“Three J’s,” Dr. Jane Thall and Dr. Julie Wallace Carr. Jane’s intelligence, motivation,

and dedication are only surpassed by her friendship, quick wit, and concern. Similarly,

Julie provided me with a refuge when I needed a place to escape, and I will be forever

grateful for her kindness, camaraderie, and humor.

iii


Given the longevity of this dissertation process, much of my success was due to

the enduring support and love of my entire family. In particular my parents, August and

Patricia, who have always encouraged my endeavors, even when they didn’t particularly

understand why I was taking them on, and have provided me with a wonderful example

of generosity, kindness, and wisdom, as well as the benefits of hard work and dedication.

A special thank you also goes out to my brother Steve and sister-in-law Sara, for their

optimism, interest, and availability to me when I needed to vent. Their never ending

confidence and support throughout my successes and setbacks are largely responsible for

my continued academic efforts.

Finally, and most important to me personally, was the unwavering support,

encouragement, and understanding of Rafael, with whom I am fortunate to share my life.

I could not have achieved all that I did without his unconditional love, confidence in my

abilities, patience, and wisdom.

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1

Problem Statement.....................................................................................................................5

Statement of Purpose.................................................................................................................6

Research Question.....................................................................................................................7

Hypotheses................................................................................................................................ 7

Significance of Study.................................................................................................................8

Conceptual Framework............................................................................................................. 9

Delimitations........................................................................................................................... 12

Limitations................................................................................................................................13

Definition of Terms.................................................................................................................14

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...................................................16

Definitions and Types of Stress..............................................................................................21

Stress Defined....................................................................................................................22

Taxonomies of Stress ......................................................................................................27

Correlates and Moderators of Stress................................................................................ 31

Effects of Occupational Stress................................................................................................41

The Occupational Stress-Peformance Link.................................................................... 41

Organizational Effectiveness..................................................................................................43

Approaches to the Evaluation of Organizational Effectiveness....................................44

Organizational Climate and Effectiveness .................................................................... 46

Employee Attitudes and Organizational Climate ..........................................................47

Organizational Climate and Employee behaviors .........................................................48

Consequences for Organizational Effectiveness............................................................ 51

Summary.................................................................................................................................. 54

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................. 55

Research Design......................................................................................................................55

Design................................................................................................................................ 55

Sample and Population..................................................................................................... 55

Instrumentation........................................................................................................................56

Job Stress Survey...............................................................................................................56

v


Reliability and Validity of Job Stress Survey........................................................................57

Job Pressure and Lack of Organizational Support Scales............................................. 60

Demographics....................................................................................................................62

Measures of Organizational Effectiveness..................................................................... 63

Data Collection Procedures....................................................................................................65

Procedure........................................................................................................................... 65

Data Analysis........................................................................................................................... 66

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS...................................................................................................... 67

Overview................................................................................................................................. 67

Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample.............................................................................67

Description of Responses on Study Variables.......................................................................70

Job Stress Survey.............................................................................................................. 70

Employee Survey.............................................................................................................. 72

Performance/Work Outcomes......................................................................................... 73

Reliability of Job Stress Survey Instrument for Study Sample........................................... 74

Job Stress Scale.................................................................................................................74

Job Pressure Scale............................................................................................................ 74

Lack of Organizational Support Scale.............................................................................75

Research Question and Hypotheses Analyses.......................................................................76

Research Question...................................................................................................................76

Hypothesis O ne.................................................................................................................76

Analysis of Hypothesis 1 and Findings...........................................................................77

Hypothesis Two.................................................................................................................82

Analysis of Hypothesis 2 and Findings...........................................................................82

Job Stress Index.................................................................................................................82

Job Pressure Index............................................................................................................ 83

Lack of Organizational Support Index............................................................................85

Organizational Effectiveness Measures...........................................................................86

Additional Analyses............................................................................................................... 92

Turnover Intention............................................................................................................ 93

Overall Employee Satisfaction........................................................................................ 94

Employee Motivation....................................................................................................... 94

vi


Performance Appraisal.....................................................................................................95

Chapter Summary....................................................................................................................96

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................98

Summary of the Research Study........................................................................................... 98

Discussion...............................................................................................................................101

Relationship between Occupational Stress and Organizational Effectiveness 101

Turnover Intention...........................................................................................................101

Overall Employee Satisfaction..................................................................................... 103

Employee Motivation..................................................................................................... 105

Performance..................................................................................................................... 107

Organizational Consequences of Occupational Stress.................................................112

Conclusions........................................................................................................................... 115

Limitations of the Study....................................................................................................... 118

Implications and Recommendations for Future Study....................................................... 119

Implications for Practice................................................................................................. 119

Implications for Research............................................................................................... 122

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 125

APPENDIX A: Letter of Introduction to Participants........................................................ 152

vii


LIST OF TABLES

1. Scale Reliabilities for the Job Stress Survey.................................................................. 59

2. Factor Analysis of JSS Items and Subscale Development............................................ 61

3. Location, Occupational Group, and Educational Level Demographics.......................68

4. Gender and Age Demographics....................................................................................... 69

5. Marital Status and Ethnicity Demographics................................................................... 70

6. Mean, Range, Standard Deviation, and Chronbach’s Alpha for Job Stress Survey

Scales.................................................................................................................................. 75

7. Pearson Correlations of the Job Stress Survey and Individual-Level Organizational Effectiveness Measures....................................................................................................80

8. Pearson Correlations of the Aggregate Job Stress Survey Scores and Organizational- Level Effectiveness Measures......................................................................................... 80

9. Descriptive Statistics for Job Stress Index Scores for each Logistics Center............. 83

10. Descriptive Statistics for Job Pressure Index Scores for each Logistics Center...........84

11. Descriptive Statistics for Lack of Organizational Support Index Scores for each Logistics Center.................................................................................................................86

12. Descriptive Statistics for Turnover Intention for each Logistics Center....................87

13. Descriptive Statistics for Overall Satisfaction for each Logistics Center..................87

14. Descriptive Statistics for Employee Motivation for each Logistics Center...............88

15. Descriptive Statistics for Performance Appraisal Ratings for each LogisticsCenter................................................................................................................................ 89

16. Descriptive Statistics for Aggregate Productivity Measures for each Logistics Center................................................................................................................................ 90

17. Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis of Job Pressure and Lack of Organizational Support Subscales on Turnover Intentions........................................... 93

18. Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis of Job Pressure and Lack of Organizational Support Subscales on Overall Employee Satisfaction......................... 94

19. Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis of Job Pressure and Lack of Organizational Support Subscales on Employee Motivation........................................95

20. Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis of Job Pressure and Lack of Organizational Support Subscales on Performance Appraisal Ratings........................ 96


1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Occupational stress is a chronic condition caused by situations in the workplace

that may negatively affect an individual’s job performance and/or overall well being.

Although people commonly complain of anxiety, there is no way to objectively measure

stress or to accurately determine its causes and effects. In fact, situations that create

severe stress for some individuals actually stimulate others. Most people, however,

seem to have firsthand knowledge that stress seems pervasive in modem society.

Concern about the effects of occupational stress on health has increased dramatically in

recent years. An examination of the titles that have appeared in the psychological,

organizational, and medical literature over the past 20 years shows a dramatic increase

in the number of published studies on stress.

In addition to the growth of literature, there have also been major developments

in terms of interdisciplinary groups coming together in an attempt to address the

emerging problem of occupational stress. For example, the American Psychological

Association (APA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH) of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) joined forces in 1990. Since their

joining, the APA and NIOSH have launched a series of initiatives to promote the new

field of Occupational Health Psychology, which is dedicated solely to the identification

and prevention of organizational risk factors for stress, illness, and injury at work.

Thus, it appears that the problem of occupational stress will continue to receive

attention in future years.

Numerous studies have shown that the prevalence of occupational stress has

been increasing at an alarming rate (Berry, 1998; Leiter & Harvie, 1997; Marks &


2

Mirvis, 1986; Marshall et al., 1997; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987; Mirvis, 1985; Vagg

& Spielberger, 1998; Weaver, 2003; Wojcik, 1999). Some sources have proclaimed

that occupational stress is now the nation’s leading adult health problem (Humphrey,

1998). A study conducted by Princeton Survey Research found that 75% of American

workers believe there is more on-the-job stress now than there was a generation ago

(Princeton Survey Research Associates, 1997). In addition, in a recent Harris

Associates (2001) poll of 11,000 Americans, over two thirds said stress is diminishing

their enjoyment of life and over one half say it is harming their health. The same survey

shows that the people who suffer the greatest stress are aged 35-54, college-educated,

and earning over $35,000 per year. In other words, severe stress affects a large segment

of the corporate workforce. Moreover, much of that stress appears to be a product of

employment itself. A majority of office workers in the Harris survey named work as

the primary cause of stress in their lives - ahead of financial concerns, domestic

relationships, and illness.

Stress in the workplace has been shown to have a tremendously negative impact

on the functioning of individuals in organizations. Several studies over the past 20

years have provided support for the involvement of stress as a risk factor in illness and

disease (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994; Danna & Griffith, 1999; Dyck, 2001; Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984; Panagiotakos, Chrysohoou, Pitsavos, Anotniou, Vavaouranakis,

Stravopodis, Moraiti, Stefanadis, & Toutouzas, P, 2004; Quick, Quick, Nelson, &

Hurrell, 1997). Findings from these studies suggest that a person who experiences long

term or chronic stress may potentially experience such debilitating illnesses as

hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, or ulcers. In addition, Humphrey’s (1998)


3

review of the medical literature found that prolonged tension developing from

psychological stress might result in psychosomatic disorders that can lead to serious

diseases, including cirrhosis of the liver, high blood pressure, cancer, and heart disease.

When an employee suffers from stress on the job, organizations have a vested

interest in minimizing its adverse effects in the workplace. It is estimated that

occupational stress has cost organizations billions of dollars through increased health

care costs, higher rates of absenteeism and turnover, and lower levels of performance

(American Institute of Stress, 2002; NIOSH, 1999). In addition to the monetary costs,

the study of stress is also important because many believe that organizations have a

moral, and increasingly legal, obligation to provide a work environment where stress is

kept to manageable levels (Jex, 1998).

While the volume of research conducted in the occupational stress arena has

increased within the past few decades (Barling, Kelloway, & Frone, 2005), the majority

has been focused almost exclusively at the individual level of analysis. Researchers

have primarily been interested in whether individuals who experience job-related stress

also tend to experience physiological, psychological, or behavioral problems as a result

(Lee and Ashforth, 1996; Vagg and Spielberger, 1998; Williams and Cooper, 1998;

Zohar, 1995).

Much less is known about the effect of occupational stress on the actual

performance of an individual or organization. Some have argued that this type of stress

research suffers from a “trivial findings” problem - reporting relationships between

theoretically similar constructs such as perceptions of tension or subjective reports of

poor health (Frese & Zapf, 1988; Kasl, 1978). In addition, research designs are often


4

confounded by common method variance where both independent and dependent

measures are taken from questionnaires completed by the same individual. The

difficulties associated with measuring effective performance may be another factor that

hinders research in this area (Jex, 1998; Pritchard, 1992). As with individual

performance (Campbell, 1990), there are numerous ways in which organizational

effectiveness can be assessed (such as profit, stock value, sales volume, or customer

service), but it is unclear which is the most appropriate. Finally, and perhaps more

importantly, there is very little theory to guide such examinations (Jex & Crossley,

2005).

Regardless of the difficulties associated with conducting research on

occupational stress and performance, specifically at the organizational level, a growing

body of research has begun to link a variety of organizational factors to organizational

effectiveness (Druckman, Singer, & Van Cott, 1997; Schneider, 1990). Organizational

factors that may influence organizational effectiveness include (but are not limited to)

job satisfaction (Birdi, Allen, & Warr, 1997), trust (Carnevale & Wechsler, 1992;

Ostroff, 1993), and organizational commitment (Deluga, 1994). Research has shown

that these types of attributes are important predictors of work-related behaviors that

result in heightened organizational effectiveness (Davy, Kinicki, and Scheck, 1997;

Organ and Ryan, 1995).

The current study begins to address the paucity of research in these areas.

Designed to overcome common method variance problems, occupational stress

measures were collected from job incumbents, while measures of organizational

effectiveness were obtained from a variety of sources. Furthermore, the research


5

question stems from practical management concerns; insight into the influence of

occupational stress on organizational effectiveness will benefit managers and

organizations as a whole as they tackle the difficulties related to measuring and

enhancing organizational effectiveness.

Problem Statement

Although the financial impact of occupational stress on organizations is

staggering, the social sciences literature has only recently shown an interest in

occupational stress. While the number of studies investigating occupational stress has

increased in recent years, most have focused on the individual level of analysis. For

instance, research has investigated how stress influences individuals’ health, well being,

and job performance.

Recent studies of so-called healthy organizations suggest that policies benefiting

worker health also benefit the bottom line (Delaney and Huselid, 1996; Ransom,

Aschbacher, and Burud, 1989). A healthy organization is defined as one that has low

rates of illness, injury, and disability in its workforce and is also competitive in the

marketplace (Browne, 2002; Cooper & Cartwright, 1994; Murphy, 1995). NIOSH

(1999) research has identified organizational characteristics associated with both

healthy, low-stress work and high levels of productivity. Examples of these

characteristics include the following: (1) an emphasis within the organization on

strategic planning, continuous improvement, and career development among

employees; (2) an organizational culture/climate that emphasizes innovation, conflict

resolution, and employee sense of belonging; and (3) organizational values that


6

emphasize commitment to technology, employee growth and development, and valuing

the individual.

Ongoing research, including the current study, is necessary to further explore

and explain the link between occupational stressors and effectiveness at the group or

organizational level of analysis. For instance, do organizations perform poorly when

individual employees, as a group, experience many occupational stressors? Answers to

this question could provide great benefit and insight to human resource development

practitioners and organizations as a whole as they encounter issues related to

organizational effectiveness.

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of occupational stress

within the various organizational units of the research site and its relationship to

measures of organizational effectiveness. Overall occupational stress, as well as the two

major components of occupational stress as outlined by Spielberger and Vagg (1999),

job pressure and lack o f organizational support, was the construct utilized to determine

the nature of occupational stress in this study. Overall employee satisfaction, employee

motivation, turnover intention, and performance appraisal ratings were utilized as

individual measures of the construct of organizational effectiveness. The study also

investigated the potential relationships between aggregate occupational stress levels and

organizational unit productivity measures.

The adverse consequences of occupational stress have been frequently

highlighted in the literature. Adverse individual outcomes that have been reported

include poor psychological and mental health outcomes (e.g., anger, depression,


7

anxiety, bumout), physical disease (e.g., hypertension, stroke, cancer, ulcers), and

detrimental behavioral outcomes (e.g., sleep disturbance; alcohol, tobacco, and illicit

drug use; poor eating habits; violence). Adverse organizational consequences, which

have been less frequently investigated, included poor psychological and emotional

outcomes (e.g., job dissatisfaction, low organizational commitment), indicators of poor

physical health (e.g., absence due to illness, workers’ compensation claims), and work-

related behavioral impairment (e.g., injuries, poor performance) (Barling, Kelloway, &

Frone, 2005). While the examples provided above illustrate how the occupational stress

literature has grown in recent decades, most of the research investigating outcomes has

been limited to the individual level of analysis. The current study will address this gap

in the literature by examining the important, yet understudied, issue of organizational

consequences of occupational stress.

Research Question

The current study explored the following question:

1. Is there a relationship between individual employees’ occupational stress

levels and the performance of organizational units as shown by employee

performance appraisal ratings, quality metrics, and employee

satisfaction?

Hypotheses

For the purposes of systematically testing the relationship between occupational

stress and organizational effectiveness, the following hypotheses were tested:

1. There is a significant, negative relationship between employees’ reported

level of occupational stress and organizational effectiveness as shown by


8

employee performance appraisal ratings, quality metrics, and employee

satisfaction.

2. Organizational units whose employees report high levels of occupational

stress will have lower results on measures of organizational effectiveness

than those divisions whose employees report low levels of occupational

stress.

Significance of Study

The current study is significant in that it moves the level of analysis in

occupational stress research from the individual to the group. The majority of research

in this area has focused on the individual level of analysis (for instance, the influence of

occupational stress on individual performance, attitudes, employee behaviors); this

research will enable researchers and practitioners to gain insight into how the stress

levels of a group of employees (a departmental unit) influence organizations in terms of

performance. In addition, investigating the relationship between occupational stress and

organizational effectiveness may actually be more practical than research on

occupational stress and individual performance. While there are a number of objective

organizational effectiveness criteria (financial performance, customer satisfaction

ratings, voluntary turnover rates), fewer absolute criteria measures exist in terms of

what constitutes effective individual performance. Similarly, many more variables may

confound the relationship between occupational stress and individual performance (e.g.,

demographics, Type A behavior).

Various authors have indicated that there are too many constraints on individual

performance to find a consistent relationship between occupational stressors and


9

performance (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Jex, 1998; Spector, 1986). In contrast, at the

organizational level, fewer constraints may exist. The common stressors at work (e.g.,

ambiguity, role overload, inadequate feedback and opportunity for advancement, poor

interpersonal relationships) are typically under the control of organizations, which

supports the notion that opportunities for significantly affecting occupational stress exist

primarily at the group and organizational levels (Quick & Quick, 1984; Zaccaro &

Riley, 1987). Organizational-level research, such as this study, may be more useful to

management in their efforts to reduce employee stress levels and, therefore, to improve

organizational effectiveness. In many cases, it is more efficient to intervene at the

organizational level (e.g., increasing employee participation, decreasing interruptions)

rather than solely teaching individual employees to cope more effectively with the

stressors they encounter (Hurrell, 1995; Murphy & Cooper, 2000).

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study is grounded in occupational stress

theory, individual performance, and organizational effectiveness research. The

framework creates a unique model that describes the stress factors investigated in this

study that are believed to relate to measures of organizational effectiveness. The model

captures the hypothesis that there is a relationship between employees’ reported level of

occupational stress and the effectiveness of the organization in which they are

employed. Investigating the relationship among these factors will provide clarification

and explanation of the influence of stressful work situations on the performance of

organizations.


10

Stress is considered to be an integral part of everyday life and simply cannot be

avoided. People encounter stressful stimuli many times a day in their personal and

social domains, and, since work is an essential aspect of human existence, they

encounter stress in the workplace as well. According to McGrath’s (1976) Process

Model, the situations employees encounter on the job are perceived via an appraisal

process. When these perceptions are negative, the existence of a stressor is indicated.

Following this appraisal, individuals make decisions as to how they will respond. Once

a response is selected, individuals then engage in some form of behavior and, by doing

so, may alter the original situation. When an employee perceives a stressor in the work

environment, he or she may engage in behaviors that detract from his or her job

performance (e.g., withdrawal from work, reduced effort). For example, if an employee

perceives unjust treatment at work as a stressor, he or she may decide to not put forth as

much effort on the job. If the employee ultimately does withhold effort, this will likely

reduce his or her job performance. If numerous employees within the organization

behave in a similar fashion, one can imagine the consequences on the functioning of the

organization.

Fluman resource strategies suitable to organizational effectiveness represent one

component of the conceptual framework. The management literature has recently been

accumulating evidence that human resource outcomes (e.g., employee satisfaction,

employee motivation, turnover intention) are related to organizational outcomes (e.g.,

customer satisfaction, productivity). Fluman resource management and organizational

behavior theories suggest that the proper use of employees heightens organizational

effectiveness. Most of the empirical studies testing this proposition have assumed a


11

causal chain that states that management practices influence human resource outcomes,

which, in turn, influence organizational outcomes. For example, some studies have

shown significant relationships between human resource strategies (e.g., high

performance and high commitment work systems) and organizational effectiveness

(Huselid, 1995; Tsui, Pearce, Porter & Tripoli, 1997). Others have shown relationships

between specific human resource activities (e.g., training, competitive pay,

advancement opportunities) and organizational effectiveness (Delaney & Huselid, 1996;

Ulrich, Halbrook, Meder, Stuchlik, & Thorpe, 1991).

Whether or not the individual perceptions of employees influence the

functioning of a group is an intermediate component in the conceptual framework.

However, this is a question that has not been fully explored in the organizational

sciences’ literature. Some researchers speculate that a group or organizational unit can

develop shared meaning because of social interactions (James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988;

Jex, Adams, Bachrach, & Sorenson, 2003). For example, the attitudes of individuals

within a group may come to be shared because of common experiences. An intolerable

supervisor, poor working conditions, or inadequate salaries may often be a shared

experience of a group, and will be reflected through shared attitudes of those group

members.

The framework for this study presumes that there is a relationship between

group-level employee attitudes and organizational effectiveness, even though the

empirical evidence has shown only a weak relationship (r = . 17) between individual

level employee satisfaction and individual level performance (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky,

1985). Drawing on a number of sources, Ostroff (1992) provided strong theoretical


12

justifications for adopting an organizational level of analysis. These justifications

suggested that satisfied workers contribute to organizational productivity by engaging in

collaborative efforts toward organizational objectives (Kopelman, Brief, & Guzzo,

1990), whereas dissatisfied and less committed employees may direct little effort

toward collaboration, or engage in disruptive activities such as sabotage (Fisher, 1980).

Similarly, Ryan, Schmit, and Johnson (1996) argued that organizational effectiveness is

not simply a sum of individuals’ performance; therefore, it may be influenced by factors

others than those affecting individual level performance. One of these factors may be

“shared values.” If a unit’s employees share positive attitudes, they should have norms

of cooperation and collaboration, which, in turn, enhance group-level productivity

(Ryan et al., 1996). These attitudes will likely produce work-related behaviors that

result in improved organizational effectiveness (Davy, Kinicki, and Scheck, 1997;

Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Johnson, 1996; Organ and Ryan, 1995).

Delimitations

The current study is an exploration into the link between occupational stress and

organizational effectiveness within a single division in a large-sized private-sector

organization in the high-technology industry. This study serves as an initial step in

further examining the role that occupational stress plays in the performance of

organizations in general. Since the study is limited to employees of a single division

within a private-sector organization, the results will not be generalizable to the

organization as a whole, or to other private-sector organizations. Additionally, the

study is focused on employee perceptions of occupational stress and will not include


13

other means of assessing occupational stress levels (for example, observational reports

or physiological measures).

Limitations

One limitation of this study is its use of a correlational design. The correlational

design entails the measurement of relationships between dependent and independent

variables. The current study is non-experimental and did not involve random

assignment of participants into groups or manipulation of the independent variable.

Therefore, any relationships found between occupational stress levels and

organizational unit effectiveness in this study may not be inferred as causal.

The use of an aggregate score for the measure of organizational unit

occupational stress poses another limitation of this study. Although the absence of a

valid and reliable organizational-level measure precludes a more accurate assessment of

organizational unit stress, utilizing a composite score of individual employee

perceptions may not accurately reflect the stress level of the unit as a whole. However,

as Bliese and Jex (2002) note, aggregation is not without value. In many cases

individual strains are partially a function of the work group to which the individual

belongs.

All possible multivariate explanations were not explored in this study. The

literature review specifies that genetic factors (e.g., intelligence, sex), acquired factors

(e.g., socioeconomic status, education), and dispositional factors (e.g., personality,

coping style, self-esteem) are among the variables that may influence employees’

occupational stress levels. These attributes will not be investigated in this study.


14

Another limitation is that measures of occupational stress are based on

employees’ self-reports. Self-report instruments are particularly vulnerable to subjects’

distortion, either consciously or unconsciously (Gynther & Green, 1982). The

instrument selected for this study, however, was selected because its items are worded

in a manner that gives consideration to impression management issues.

Definition of Terms

Occupational Stress - The harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when

the requirements of the job do not match the capabilities, resources, or needs of the

worker (NIOSH, 1999).

Organizational Effectiveness — Refers to the success with which organizational

components complete the task of transformation. Key measures of effectiveness

include costs, timeliness, quality, productivity, employee moral, and turnover (Riley &

Zaccaro, 1987).

Role - A set of behaviors that are expected of a person occupying a certain position. In

social systems such as organizations, roles serve to coordinate individual members’

behavior (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Role Ambiguity - A stressor that occurs when role-related information is unclear to an

individual (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Role Conflict - A stressor that occurs when role-related information provided by one

member of a role set may conflict with the information provided by another member

(Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964).


15

Role Overload - A stressor that occurs when an employer demands more of an

employee than he or she can reasonably accomplish in a given time (Jones, Flynn, &

Kelloway, 1995).

Stress - The generalized, patterned, unconscious mobilization of the body’s natural

energy resources when confronted with a stressor (Quick & Quick, 1984).

Stressors - Any demand, either of a physical or psychological nature, encountered in

the course of living (Quick & Quick, 1984).


16

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

... work is, by its very nature, about violence - - to the spirit as well as to the body. It is about ulcers as well as accidents, about

shouting matches as well as fistfights, about nervous breakdowns as well as kicking the dog. It is, above all (or beneath all), about daily humiliations. To survive the day is triumph enough for the walking

wounded among the great many o f us. (Studs Terkel, 1972)

The literature concerning occupational stress and organizational health has

experienced rapid growth during the past few decades due to changes in the workplace.

Driven by technological change and innovation, uncertainty over the nature of work

experienced during the past decade is expected to continue (Cascio, 1995; Williams &

Cooper, 1998). In addition, a shift from manufacturing to a service- and information-

oriented economy has intensified occupational stress and employee burnout in the

United States (Marshall, 1997; Posig & Kickul, 2003). The loss of job security is

another facet of the current workplace that may lead to increased occupational stress.

These factors, among others, have led to mounting interest in occupational stress by

researchers and by organizational leaders. The literature presented in this review will

provide a rationale for the research questions addressing the relationships between

occupational stress and organizational effectiveness that are the focus of this study.

The research clearly indicates that high levels of occupational stress and the

resultant phenomenon of employee burnout are common in contemporary private-sector

organizations, enacting human and financial tolls that have a direct effect on the bottom

line (Adkins, 1999). An increase in occupational stress has spillover effects both on the

job and at home (Crouter, Bumbus, Maguire, & McHale, 1999; Standen, Daniels, &


17

Lamond, 1999). Many have observed that organizational change and occupational stress

are related and are responsible for billions of dollars of lost income to business and

industry, measured in lost employee work days (Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993; Marshall,

Barnett, & Sayer, 1997).

According to estimates by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and

Health (NIOSH), approximately 11% of all workers’ compensation claims in the United

States are related to occupational stress, generating employer costs of $150-200 billion

each year (Quick, 1998; Wolf, 1995). In the United States the number of stress claims

tripled between 1999 and 2000, with attributed organizational costs lying anywhere

between 200 and 300 billion dollars per year as a result of high staff absenteeism and

turnover, increased health and workers’ compensation claims, and decreased

productivity (Wojcik, 2001). The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

(2002) reported that over half of the 550 million working days lost annually in the U.S.

from absenteeism are stress-related and that one in five of all last-minute no-shows is

due to occupational stress. If this occurs among key employees it can have a domino

effect that spreads down the line to disrupt scheduled operations. Unanticipated

absenteeism is estimated to cost American companies $602 per worker per year, and the

price tag for large corporations could approach $3.5 million annually.

In addition, recent figures from Great Britain have indicated that approximately

70,000 workers are absent from work due to occupational stress every year, costing the

nation approximately £7 billion in lost productivity, worker entitlements, and health

care. An indirect result of these factors is the loss of 40 million working days per year

(Shergold, 1995).


18

As startling as these costs are, empirical studies demonstrate that the less visible

effects of employee stress have an even greater negative impact on organizational

effectiveness through their adverse influence on employee attitudes, efforts, and

behaviors. For example, a 1995 survey conducted by Northwestern Mutual Life

Insurance Company found that 34% of American workers in the sample reported that

they had considered quitting their jobs during the past year due to excessive

occupational stress (Wolf, 1995). An investigation by Northwestern National Life

Insurance reported that the proportion of highly stressed workers more than doubled

from 1985 to 1990 (Vagg & Spielberger, 1998).

These data show that occupational stress is likely here to stay, at least for the

foreseeable future. Since occupational stress tends to increase during periods of critical

change (Winum, Ryterband, & Stephenson, 1997), it is important for organizations to

plan ahead to offset these reactions. However, many organizations ignore or fail to

fully consider the psychological impact of change in their organizations, although these

negative outcomes can be prevented through deliberate change management strategies

(Parker, Chmiel, & Wall, 1997). During a major organizational change, employees

look to leaders for security. However, the ability of leaders to understand their

subordinates’ stress - what causes it, reduces it, or increases it - is generally out of

synchrony with the subordinates’ actual perceptions of stress (Offermann & Hellmann,

1996).

Adkins (1999) suggested that occupational stress comes from many different

areas, which are considered to be life domains. Bourbonnais, Comeau, and Vezina

(1999) concluded that emotional exhaustion can result from increased job demands,


19

suggesting that occupational stress has a stronger relationship to psychological disorders

than has been previously understood.

As the facets of occupational stress have come to light, organizational theorists

have constructed new models to describe, explain, and analyze their causes, mechanics,

and effects. For example, the stress-related syndrome of employee burnout was

originally identified in the mid-1970s (Freudenberger, 1974; Freudenberger &

Richelson, 1980). Subsequently investigated by various researchers (Maslach &

Jackson, 1982; Posig & Kickul, 2003), this syndrome has become the focus of much

occupational stress research. Employee burnout is marked by chronic fatigue,

depersonalization, and reduced achievement. As Greenberg (1993) and earlier

researchers (Golembiewski, Munzenrider, & Stevenson, 1986) have observed, it is now

evident that burnout is the result of a process that begins long before the manifestation

of symptoms and overt behaviors. Occupational stress can be acute or chronic; burnout

is always chronic.

Changes in the nature and composition of modem organizations have

undoubtedly contributed to the current epidemic of occupational stress and bumout.

Williams and Cooper (1998) were among the first researchers to discuss the stress of the

millennium computer bug. Earlier, Briner and Hockey (1988) reported “the

introduction of computers into the workplace is frequently cited as a major source of

occupational stress” (p. 115). The perceived loss of job security and the psychological

contract has been another force behind expanded interest in occupational stress and

bumout (Cascio, 1995; Mauno & Kinnunen, 2002).


20

Until the mid-1980s, a largely industrialized U.S. workforce labored under the

assumption of lifetime job security. As long as workers met employer performance

expectations and their organizations remained profitable, they went about their daily

work activities with the understanding that their diligence would leave them immune to

involuntary terminations (Gabriel, 1999). This assumption no longer holds true.

Organizations still expect employees to be hard-working and loyal but are asking for

more flexibility and more accountability from their workforce in this era of

technological development. At the same time, employers offer limited (or no)

guarantees or expectations of job security and career development. Occupational stress

is increased by chronic insecurity and downsizing (Gabriel, 1999; Kets de Vries &

Balazs, 1997; Tourish, Paulsen, Hobman, & Bordia, 2004). Since the late 1980s,

virtually all Fortune 1000 firms have engaged in some form of downsizing, featuring a

wholesale elimination of redundant workers (Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1997). This

radical change from a traditionally secure working environment to a rapidly changing

and insecure one could be expected to have an impact not only on the well being of

individuals but also on their work attitudes and behavior and, in the long run, on the

effectiveness of the organization.

Change resulting from mergers and acquisitions is also a formidable stressor

(Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welboume, 1999). Although it has been viewed as

necessary for survival, consolidation and the subsequent streamlining of private-sector

organizations have unleashed powerful stressors in the corporate world (Bardhan &

Kroll, 2003; Berry, 1998; Leiter & Harvie, 1997; Marks & Mirvis, 1986; Marshall et al.,

1997; Mirvis, 1985). Behavioral scientists now use terms such as “merger syndrome”


21

and “downsizing syndrome” to designate the effects on “survivor” employees. Shaw

and Barrett-Power (1995) defined corporate downsizing as “a constellation of stressor

events.. .which place demands upon the organization, work groups, and individual

employees and require a process of coping and adaptation” (p. 5). The evidence

suggests that merger/downsizing syndromes generate chronic stressors that ultimately

lead to employee bumout. The actions of organizations compelled by competitive

forces to consolidate their operations and improve their bottom line performance

through workforce cutbacks have increased the attention devoted to occupational stress

today.

Levi, Sauter, and Shimomitsu (1999) argued that there is an immediate need to

improve stress awareness and research. According to Offermann and Go wing (1990),

the way to survive what the new millennium brings in terms of stress is to educate and

train all individuals. Others argue that the stressful effects of organizational change can

be minimized through procedural justice and communication strategies (Parker, Chmiel,

& Wall, 1997). The research on stress over the past twenty-five years has resulted in

increased attention to its origins in the workplace and its outcomes (Jex & Crossley,

2005; Quick, Murphy, & Hurrell, 1992; Warr, 2005).

The next objective of this review is to discuss the literature on types of stress.

Earlier works are cited as a foundation for more current research in the field.

Definitions and Types o f Stress

Despite the attention given to occupational stress in recent years, there is still no

scholarly consensus about what stress is and how it should be defined. Stress has both

physiological and psychological dimensions, arises from a multitude of causes (Beehr,


22

1996; Leong, Fumham, & Cooper, 1996), and has a myriad of consequences for both

physical and emotional well being (Berry, 1998). Because of the complexity of the

nature, etiology, and consequences of stress, a universally accepted definition of the

term is nearly impossible (Shaw & Barrett-Power, 1997). Stotland (1984) outlined four

types of stress definitions: (1) those that emphasize stress as an organism’s response to

a situation; (2) those that focus on a situation that is defined independent of the

individual’s reaction to it; (3) those that underscore the intervening role that variable

perceptions play in generating stress; and (4) those that conceive of stress within an

interactive person-environment framework.

Stress Defined

Although his work has been significantly revised, Hans Selye is most closely

identified with the early description of stress as an organism’s physiological response to

a situation. Beginning his research on human stress in the early 1950s, Selye (1976)

first defined stress as “the nonspecific response of the body to any demand” and then

expanded this to include “efforts to cope with the wear and tear in the body caused by

life at any one time” (p. 398). From this perspective, environmental factors, or

“stressors,” do not cause stress, but the stress response is understood as a consequence

of an organism’s effort to maintain its internal equilibrium in response to environmental

factors. As such, stress is “usually the outcome of a struggle for the self-preservation

(homeostasis) of parts within a whole” (Selye, 1976, p. 367).

Symptoms are often understood to develop as a result of the strain on an

organism in its effort to adjust to stressors. However, as noted by Smither (1997),

“stress can be considered in terms of either factors in the environment or dispositional


23

qualities in the individual worker” (p. 483). This distinction illustrates how individual

stress factors may be internally or externally derived. Agreeing with Selye’s (1976)

original conception, Executive Health Examiners (1983) argued, “stress can be looked

upon as any disturbance which causes the body to make adjustments” (p. 43). In the

case of internal dispositional qualities, these disturbances may have little to do with the

work environment.

Researchers investigating both the physical and psychological dimensions of

stress have mostly adopted Selye’s physiologically based conceptualization (Cox, 1978;

Daniels & Guppy, 1997; Shaw & Bartlett-Power, 1995; Smither, 1997). Of the

remaining three categories of stress definitions identified by Stotland (1984), it is the

fourth (interactional) perspective that has proven most useful to the study of

occupational stress. Adopting this perspective, Cox (1978) conceptualized stress as an

intervening variable within a complex and dynamic system of exchanges between the

individual and his or her work environment. Subsequently, many researchers have

asserted that stress does not derive from the individual or from the work environment,

but rather from the interaction between the two. In other words, stress arises from the

situational context of an event, and many contextual elements (e.g., social or work

environments) contribute to the experience of stress (Appley & Trumbull, 1986; Radeke

& Mahoney, 2000; Westman & Etzion, 1999). It is this interaction that is critical for

the development of stress and bumout.

While there is relative consensus on a physiologically-based definition of human

stress, few definitions of occupational stress exist. Jex (1998) defined occupational

stress as the overall process by which job demands affect employees and proposed two


24

process components, stressors and strains. Stressors are conditions that require adaptive

responses, whereas strains are the negative outcomes that result from those response

attempts. Nearly everyone agrees that job stress results from the interaction of the

worker and the conditions of work. Views differ, however, on the importance of worker

characteristics versus working conditions as the primary cause of job stress. These

differing viewpoints are important because they suggest different ways to prevent stress

at work.

According to research by Daniels and Guppy (1997), poor psychological well

being has a direct effect on one’s assessment of workplace conditions. In some cases,

negative assessments result in cases where changes had occurred recently in the

workplace (Daniels & Guppy, 1997; NIOSH, 1999). According to Cooper and Payne

(1991), it is the interaction between stressors inherent within a particular job (e.g.,

overload, poor working conditions) and individual differences (e.g., gender, locus of

control) that determine how an individual responds to occupational stress and thus

determines the outcome of experienced stress.

A cognition-based explanation of occupational stress considers how individuals

perceive life within their environment. Objects are cognitively appraised based on the

characteristics that may or may not be permanent (Best, 1992). This perspective

assumes that the perception of stress is qualitatively different from one individual to

another. Sources of stress require us to “concentrate our senses to gather information”

(Best, 1992, p. 39). Cognitive processes, therefore, are important factors in the

development of stress reactions in the individual.


25

While most researchers currently ascribe to the cognition-based theories, few

theoretical models within the occupational stress arena examine the performance

implications of occupational stress. McGrath’s (1976) Process Model perhaps best

describes the performance implications of job-related stressors. McGrath

conceptualized occupational stress as a four-stage, closed-loop process. The first stage

represents situations that employees encounter in organizations. These situations are

then perceived via an appraisal process. When these perceptions are negative, the

existence of a stressor is indicated. Once a situation is appraised, individuals may,

either consciously or unconsciously, respond to the situation. Once a response is

selected, individuals then engage in some form of behavior and, by doing so, may alter

the original situation. When such behavioral responses are negative (e.g., withdrawal

from work, reduced effort), they are considered to be strains. The relevance of this

model to the proposed study is quite clear. When employees perceive a stressor in the

work environment, they may decide to engage in behaviors that detract from their job

performance. For example, if an employee perceives unjust treatment at work as a

stressor, he or she may not put forth as much effort on the job. If the employee

ultimately does withhold effort, this will likely reduce his or her job performance.

Beehr and Bhagat (1985) proposed an extension of McGrath’s (1976) model that

is also helpful for understanding the performance implications of occupational stress.

According to the authors, many stressors in organizations are due to employee

uncertainty with respect to the following factors: (1) whether their effort will lead to

high levels of job performance and (2) whether high levels of job performance will lead


26

to outcomes that are valued by the organization. Furthermore, such uncertainty must

last for a relatively long duration in order to be harmful to employees.

Since the Process Model only pertains to the influence of occupational stress on

the individual level of performance, additional theoretical grounding is necessary to

bridge the gap between individual performance and organizational effectiveness. In this

context, Lazarus (1995) proposed a metatheory that holds that understanding,

researching, and intervening in aspects of occupational stress necessitates a

transactional, process-focused, meaning-based orientation that takes into account the

individual within the work context. Taken from this perspective, occupational stress is

the perception of threat, pressure, demand, or challenge requiring change and adaptation

associated with work hazards experienced within the broad, context of the organizational

environment, including the interface between work and non-work issues in living.

Researchers frequently discuss excessive occupational stress and bumout within

the analytical framework of “fit.” Person-fit models were developed to reflect the

individual issues that define one’s work-life strategies and preferences (Bamett, Gareis,

& Brennan, 1999). Person-Environment fit approaches include a “panel of variables

encompassing sources of occupational stressors and a panel of variables dealing with

individual differences” (Burke, 1988, p. 78). Proponents of the Person-Environment fit

paradigm assert that stress occurs when there is a significant discrepancy between the

person’s available resources and the environmental demands placed upon those

resources (Berry, 1998; Harrison, 1978; Osipow & Fitzgerald, 1996; Quick, Nelson,

Quick, & Orman, 2001). For example, an individual’s job description may require that

he or she carry out a technical task for which he or she has not been adequately trained.


27

This disparity between task demand and individual capabilities generates stress, which

may further weaken the individual’s capacity to complete the specified task.

It should be noted that not all theorists share this precise understanding of

occupational stress. Hobfoll and Shirom (1993) have delineated a conservation of

resources (COR) theory that differs from conventional models of stress. This theory

regards occupational stress as a state in which demands outstrip coping resources and

sees stress as a consequence of the loss of things an individual considers valuable.

These things include (1) objects, such as a car or a house; (2) personal characteristics,

such as self-esteem; (3) conditions, such as a happy marriage or job stability; and (4)

energies, such as credit, money, and favors. According to the COR theory, stress may

be the result of circumstances that involve some type of significant outcome. Examples

include circumstances in which individuals are threatened with loss, lose resources, or

fail to gain resources following resource investment (Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993).

Because these outcomes vary with the individual, excessive levels of psychological

stress remain a matter of the interaction between external stressors and individual

characteristics.

Taxonomies o f Stress

Literature in the field is filled with theories and models of occupational stress

(Barling, Kelloway, & Frone, 2005; Cooper & Marshall, 1976; Quick & Quick, 1984;

Shuler, 1982). Taxonomies developed over the past 25 years comprise structured

clusters that function as guides to investigating and analyzing occupational stress. One

of the earlier models (Cooper & Marshall, 1976) classified occupational stressor

clusters under five headings: (1) those intrinsic to the job, (2) those resulting from the


28

employee’s role in the organization, (3) career development factors, (4) relationships

with others, and (5) organizational structure and climate. Similarly, Ivancevich and

Matteson’s (1980) model of occupational stressors was a four-level clustering of factors

related to: (1) the physical environment; (2) an individual’s concern with role and career

development; (3) interpersonal relationships; and (4) organizational factors such as

work climate, culture, structure, job design, and task characteristics.

Building on these schemes, Quick and Quick (1984) offered a four-fold division

of occupational stressors organized as (1) task demands, (2) role demands, (3) physical

demands such as task and work environment, and (4) interpersonal demands. Schuler

(1982) divided occupational stressors into seven sources: (1) job qualities, (2)

relationships, (3) organizational structure, (4) physical qualities of the job, (5) career

development, (6) change, and (7) role in the organization. Most recently, The National

Institute on Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, 1999) identified six working

conditions that may lead to occupational stress. These six conditions are (1) design of

tasks (heavy workload, hectic and routine tasks); (2) management style (lack of

participation by workers in decision making, poor communication in the organization,

lack of family-friendly policies); (3) interpersonal relationships (poor social

environment, lack of support); (4) work roles (conflicting or uncertain job roles); (5)

career concerns (job insecurity, limited opportunities for advancement, rapid changes);

and (6) environmental conditions (unpleasant or dangerous physical conditions such as

noise, ergonomic problems).

In a variety of studies, these six conditions identified by NIOSH have been

shown to influence perceptions of occupational stress. Vagg and Spielberger (1998)


29

designed the Job Stress Survey (JSS) to assess generic sources of occupational stress

encountered by employees in a wide variety of work environments and to address

aspects of job stress that had not been evaluated by previously used measures. The 30-

item JSS measures both the perceived intensity (severity) and frequency of occurrence

of working conditions that are likely to negatively affect the well being of employees

who are exposed to them. The authors performed factor analyses of the responses of

1,791 university and corporate employees to 30 severity items on the JSS. The analyses

identified two strong factors that positively correlated with responses for both males and

females: job pressure, which is comprised of items such as frequent change (M = .59, F

= .69), assignment of new duties (M = .77, F = .63), insufficient personal time (M = .55,

F = .59), and lack of organizational support, which is comprised of items such as lack of

participation in decisions (M = .67, F = .66), lack of opportunity for advancement (M =

.58, F = .69), and lack of recognition for good work (M = .63, F = .62). Williams and

Cooper (1998) developed the Pressure Management Indicator (PMI) to provide an

integrated measure of occupational stress. Factor analyses produced eight factors: (1)

sources of pressure, (2) factors intrinsic to job, (3) managerial role, (4) interpersonal

relations, (5) career and achievement, (6) organizational structure, (7) organizational

climate, and (8) home-work interface.

In addition to the factors identified above, research has investigated the role of

perceived fairness in incidents of occupational stress. Heaney (1999) conducted an

exploratory study of the nature of employee perceptions of unfairness and the extent to

which they are related to occupational stress, perceptions of employee control, and

social support. Semi-structured and in-depth interviews were conducted with employees


30

enrolled in stress reduction classes offered by their organizations. Employees reported

that fair treatment, clear expectations, consistent treatment, respect, reasonable

demands, and workloads contributed to their perceptions of fairness. Further analyses

suggest that perceptions of organizational unfairness are related to (1) heightened

employee distress related to exposure to worksite stressors, (2) increased feelings of

powerlessness when worksite stressors are experienced, and (3) increased use of

withdrawal or avoidance coping strategies.

Similarly, Zohar (1995) investigated whether work role injustice predicted job

strain, intention to withdraw, and actual turnover among a sample of 213 hospital

nurses. Role justice was measured using a four-point index developed by the author

that assessed the degree to which a sender’s role was negatively affected when

employees (1) were not informed of their responsibilities or told exactly what was

expected of them, (2) had to satisfy contradictory requests or work with incompatible

guidelines, (3) did not have enough time to complete assignments properly, and (4)

didn’t have the freedom to organize their work or the necessary authority to control

events. Participants reported that role justice was negatively related to job strain,

intention to leave the organization, and actual turnover. Hierarchical regression

analyses also showed that role justice accounted for variability in strain (AR = .06,

p<.001), intention to leave (AR2 = .05, p<.001), and actual turnover (AR2 = .05, p<.001)

after accounting for the effects of role conflict, role ambiguity, decision latitude, and

role overload.

Although the general categories of occupational stressors have been supported in

the literature, it is widely known that stressors will not affect all individuals in the same


31

way. The next section of this review will focus on the individual and organizational

variables that moderate individual responses to occupational stressors.

Correlates or Moderators o f Occupational Stress

Both individual and organizational variables have been investigated as

moderators, or buffers, of occupational stress. Payne (1988) distinguished three kinds

of individual differences: (1) genetic, relating to physique, constitution, reactivity, sex,

and intelligence; (2) acquired, as in social class, education, and age; and (3)

dispositional variables, such as trait anxiety, neuroticism, Type A/Type B personality,

self-image/esteem, locus of control, flexibility, coping style, and extraversion-

introversion. It should be noted, however, that correlations between any of these

variables, particularly those in the dispositional category, and occupational stress are

open to challenge due to the confounding influence of factor overlap (Payne, 1988).

For example, since there is an established association between trait anxiety and internal

locus of control (LoC) orientation, reported associations between LoC intemality and

psychological stress may actually reflect (in part or in full) the influence of the greater

or more prevalent trait anxiety, rather than an internal locus of control orientation.

The inverse association between a worker’s chronological age and experienced

stress in employees was firmly established in the first decade of stress research by

Gurin, Verdoff, and Feld (1960), Langner (1962), and Indik, Seashore, and Slesigner

(1964) through analyses of demographic correlates of stress symptoms. The research

demonstrates an unambiguous negative correlation between a worker’s age and his or

her level of reported occupational stress. These authors report that occupational stress

is generally lower among older employees. Indik et al. (1964), in their sample of 8,234


32

industrial employees, report that the amount of decline in occupational stress is greater

for those employees with less education but find an exception among women with some

education beyond high school who show an increase in stress with advanced age and

among women with college education or more who show no age trend at all. Whether

this is a function of chronological age - or some other variable such as tenure,

experience, or stage of career development - is unclear. More recently, various authors

(Bames-Farrell, Rumery, & Swody, 2002; Cascio, 1995; Chandraiah, Agrawal,

Marimuthu, & Manoharan, 2003; Jameison & O’Mara, 1991) have reported conflicting

results; many older workers may experience higher levels of occupational stress than

younger workers due to technological advances that they may not feel competent in and

the threat of forced “early retirement” found in this era of increased downsizing.

With the increased entrance of women into the American workforce, and their

advancement into nontraditional occupations, several researchers have investigated the

role of gender in relation to occupational stress (Barling & Sorenson, 1997; Cooper &

Cartwright, 1994; Gianakos, 2002; Jick & Mitz, 1985). Sexual harassment and gender

discrimination have been linked to more frequent physical and psychological symptoms

of stress, according to Goldenhar, Swanson, Hurrell, Ruder, and Deddens’s (1998)

investigation of female construction workers. The researchers conducted telephone

interviews with 211 female laborers, and results indicated that having responsibility for

others’ safety and supervisory and male co-worker support was related to greater job

satisfaction. Increased responsibility, skill underutilization, and overcompensation at

work were positively associated with self-reports of insomnia, and sexual harassment


33

and gender discrimination were positively related to reports of increased nausea and

headaches.

Harassment need not be confined to sexual advances for it to have distressing

consequences for women. Piotrkowski (1998) tested the hypothesis that gender

harassment is related to decreased job satisfaction and increased distress. Of the 694

female office workers responding to a one-item questionnaire, 72% reported that they

had been exposed to gender harassment at work. Consistent with the hypothesis, more

frequent gender harassment was associated with both lower job satisfaction and greater

distress.

Feminist researchers (Franke, Crown, & Spake, 1997) have speculated that

female administrators are subject to greater role conflict, more intense task performance

demands, and greater work/personal life conflicts than are their male counterparts.

Edson (1988) asserted that in order for females to advance professionally, they must

deal with these conflicts and perform “exceptionally well” under pressure (p. 140).

According to most researchers, the general finding has been that female administrators

experience lower levels of stress than their male peers (Burke, 1976; Burke & Weir,

1980; Golembiewski, 1977). Such differences have generally been attributed to either

one or both of two reasons: (1) the fact that women were usually employed in less

responsible and demanding jobs and/or (2) that a woman viewed her job as secondary to

her natural role as a mother, wife, and homemaker. In the most robust empirical

investigation of gender as a correlate of stress in women, Tung’s (1980) central finding

was that female educational administrators experienced lower levels of perceived

occupational stress than did men in the same position; “women administrators


34

experienced lower levels of stress than their male counterparts on all four factors,

particularly with respect to boundary-spanning stress and conflict-mediating stress, both

of which relate to stress arising from the management of the organization-external

environment interface” (p. 353).

Comparisons of occupational stress levels may be made between individuals

with an external locus of control orientation and those with an internal locus of control

orientation (Gianakos, 2002; Schultz & Schultz, 1998). People who believe that events

affecting their lives are beyond their control are oriented externally, whereas individuals

with an internal locus of control orientation believe that what affects their lives is

subject to their control. Schultz and Schultz maintain that individuals with an internal

locus of control show higher levels of job involvement than do employees with an

external locus of control.

In terms of their capacity to deal with stressful events, “internals” appear to

manage and cope with stress more effectively than do “externals.” As Lefcourt (1982)

noted, the empirical data suggest “internals seem better able to survive their ordeals.

They do not as readily succumb to dysphoric feelings and cease their efforts to succeed

at their various tasks as do those who hold external control expectancies” (p. 109).

With few exceptions, studies have found that locus of control acts as a moderator of

stress (Lefcourt, 1982). For example, in his interviews with approximately 90 business

owners whose businesses had been disrupted by a hurricane, Anderson (1977) found

that externals perceived their circumstances to be more stressful than did internals and

had a tendency to rely more on emotional means of coping with stress (e.g., anger) than

internals, who were more likely to use problem-solving methods of coping.


35

Krause and Stryker (1984) analyzed interview data obtained from the National

Longitudinal Study of Middle-Aged Men, a national probability sample of 2,090 men

who were between the ages of 45 and 54 in 1966. Specifically, the researchers

investigated LoC orientation and stress in a sub sample of 2,000 men (1,339 internals

and 751 externals). As hypothesized, they found that men with external LoC

orientations “experienced higher levels of psychophysical distress because of stressful

events (job and economic events) than men with an internal LoC” (p. 786). But, when

they further divided their sample into extreme internal, moderate internal, moderate

external, and extreme external, their analyses yielded a more complicated set of results.

Both extreme groups (internal and external) reported greater psychological stress than

did the moderate groups. The researchers concluded that “extreme externals are

vulnerable to stress because they are less likely to bother taking positive actions, while

the high internals are paralyzed by their own guilt since they believe their failure to

cope is their own fault” (Krause & Stryker, 1984, p. 787).

During the past two decades, organizational sciences researchers have

investigated the relationship between an individual’s level of organizational

commitment and his or her experienced level of occupational stress (Jamal & Babba,

2000; Kobasa, 1982; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Such

studies have yielded contradictory results. A meta-analysis of 200 empirical studies on

organizational commitment conducted by Mathieu and Zajac (1990) reported that

individuals who had higher scores on an organizational commitment scale suffered

higher levels of perceived occupational stress than those with lower scores of

commitment. On the other hand, Kobasa (1982) studied a group of 157 attorneys in


36

general practice, many of whom had experienced serious challenges at work and, in

some instances, severe stresses at home. While Kobasa found a strong relationship

between symptoms such as headaches, nervousness, and sleep disturbances and the

attorneys’ attitudes at work, she also discovered commitment to be an important

determinant of an individual’s response to stress.

Similar results were reported by Begley and Czajka (1993) who distributed

questionnaires comprised of items measuring organizational commitment, stress, job

satisfaction, intention to quit, and depression at two points in time to 155 mental health

professionals in a large Midwestern city. The authors found that organizational

commitment moderated the relationship between occupational stress and job displeasure

(comprised of job dissatisfaction, intention to quit, and work-related irritation) during

periods of organizational turmoil.

More recently, Leong, Furnham, and Cooper (1996) investigated organizational

commitment as a moderator of stress outcomes in a sample of 106 professional and

administrative personnel in a public-sector organization. Responses to four measures

(Occupational Stress Indicator, Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, intention to

quit, demographic questionnaire) showed that stress was a significant predictor of job

satisfaction, poor mental health, poor physical health, and intention to quit.

Nevertheless, there was no significant correlation between the participants’ commitment

to the job and any of these four outcome variables. Thus, Leong et al. concluded that

their study “failed to show any substantial moderating effects of organizational

commitment on the stress-outcome relationships” (p. 1358).


37

Organizational factors have also been approached as potential moderators of

occupational stress. Zaleznik, Kets de Vries, and Howard (1977) concluded that some

occupations and corresponding work settings are more stressful than others. For

example, police officers, emergency service workers, and executives working in fast-

paced industries are at an abnormally high risk for adverse occupational stress.

In line with the stressor cluster of organizational roles discussed above,

Zaleznik, Kets de Vries, and Howard (1977) investigated stress within three groups of

employees in a corporate organization: managerial employees, clerical staff, and

production employees. Through a combination of participant observation, in-depth

interviews, and survey responses from 3,000 employees, the researchers concluded:

The management group appears better equipped to handle ritualistic

attachment to rules, depersonalization of work, the avoidance of face-

to-face confrontation and apathy....Therefore, they are less susceptible

to uncertainty and feelings of helplessness... .On the other hand, the

staff and operations groups experience high accountability, red tape,

uncertainty, lack of coordination, and ambivalence about leadership

and performance evaluation. Their perceived inability to act on the

work environment seems to contribute to the high incidence of stress

reactions, (p. 160-161)

Since the publication of this report, some scholars have questioned its conclusions,

asserting that managerial employees are exposed to more environmental stressors than

are those employees further down in the organizational hierarchy.


38

Two years after this study was published, one of its coauthors, Manfred Kets de

Vries (1979), stated: “the manager, for all appearances sake in pursuit of rational action,

is continually confronted with irrational behavior, ambiguity, and stress” (p. 3). In

addition, recent management practices, including 360-degree feedback, suggest a newly

acquired stressor: discrepant feedback (Dalton, 1996). When discussing occupational

stress, Quick (1998) and his colleagues (Quick, Nelson, & Quick, 1990) affirmed that

middle level managers are much more vulnerable to stress-related physical problems

than are those at the very top of the organizational hierarchy. In addition, Williams and

Cooper (1998) found that the level of people in the organizational hierarchy has a direct

bearing on the amount of occupational stress they experience.

Just as interpersonal conflicts on the job are a source of stress, an employee’s

participation in a supportive social network at work has been identified as a moderator

of occupational stress. Saranson, Saranson, and Pierce (1990) argued that social support

is a critical resource in many stressful situations. Winnubst and Schabracq (1996)

believed that social networks function as a mediator of occupational stress, especially

through the channel of increased access to information that can be useful in reducing

employee uncertainty about the organization and his or her place within it. Schabracq

and Cooper (1998) argued that being part of a social network may give employees

pleasant personal contacts that may reduce tension and increase emotional support.

They also noted that an adequate network contributes to employees’ perceived control

over their work activities, environment, and future options.

As stated earlier in this review, many organizations have undergone

consolidation through mergers or acquisitions since the mid-1980s. Mirvis (1985)


39

found increased levels of reported occupational stress among employees of a small

company after an announcement that it would be acquired by a larger organization.

Subsequently, Marks and Mirvis (1986) reported increased occupational stress among

all employees within a sample of recently merged organizations. They referred to a

“merger syndrome” in the wake of such unions, with many employees displaying a

defensive, fearful response to the uncertainties of their job tenure in the merged

organization. Similarly, Jick (1983) found that employees in organizations undergoing

cutbacks following a merger or acquisition were subject to the intensified occupational

stressors of role uncertainty, job insecurity, role overload, career plateau, inadequate

incentives, office politics, lack of participation in decision making, tense organizational

climate, and increased role conflict.

Under the broad heading of “downsizing,” both organizations that have

experienced consolidation and those that are struggling in the face of increased

competition have decreased their workforces. According to a survey conducted by the

American Management Association, between 1988 and 1993, at least one third of all

large- and medium-sized organizations incorporated in the United States had reduced

their payrolls as part of a downsizing exercise (Henkoff, 1994). Applebaum, Simpson,

and Shapiro (1987) and Custer (1994) reported that many organizations experiencing

downsizing enjoy an initial increase in productivity, followed by a sharp decline.

Henkoff (1990) cited the results of a study carried out by the Society for Human

Resources Management in which over 50% of the 1,468 firms surveyed reported that

employee productivity remained the same or deteriorated in the wake of downsizing. In


40

addition, 74% of senior executives in these downsized organizations reported increased

problems with employee morale, trust, and/or productivity.

Most research results substantiate Brockner’s (1988) conclusion that

organizational downsizing is a stress-inducing factor. Kets de Vries and Balazs (1997)

conducted open-ended interviews with 200 individuals drawn from one public-sector

and one private-sector organization, each of which had been downsized within the past

year. They found that, instead of the poor performers being terminated first through

downsizing, star performers are usually the first to voluntarily leave the organization.

This drains an organization’s human capital and organizational memory. Further, those

who remain often face an increased workload, which results in a group of unhappy,

overworked employees, some of whom have to do tasks for which they are not trained.

Several researchers have corroborated these findings of “survivor” stress

(Brockner, 1988; Brocker, Davy, & Carter, 1992; Burke, 2001; Mone, 1994; Toumish,

Paulsen, Hobman, & Bordia, 2004). Among the survivors interviewed by Burke (1988),

“managers and professionals who are currently employed but see that it is increasingly

harder to get and hold managerial and professional jobs will become increasingly

insecure about their own jobs” (p. 97). Clearly, the heightened threat of job loss,

increased workload, role conflict/ambiguity, and lowered expectations for advancement

generate increased stress among managerial employees in organizations that initiate

downsizing as a follow-up to a merger or acquisition, or for the sake of enhancing cost

efficiencies.


41

Effects o f Occupational Stress

As Bergin and Solman (1998) noted, “stress can be both a stimulant to growth

and development and a major causal factor in a wide variety of physical and emotional

disorders” (p. 5). While the term “stress” generally evokes negative connotations, it can

also perform a positive function; in fact, a certain amount of stress is thought to be

necessary and beneficial for the individual because it acts as a motivator for positive

change directed toward restoring one’s equilibrium. Still, research has consistently

demonstrated that excessive occupational stress has adverse effects for both physical

and psychological well being (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994; Danna & Griffith, 1999;

Dyck, 2001; Quick, Quick, Nelson, & Hurrell, 1997).

The Occupational Stress-Performance Link

In general, stressors are assumed to impair performance. Although some authors

have suggested a negative linear relationship (performance declines as stress increases),

others have argued for an inverted U-shaped relationship (performance improves until

an ideal level of stress is achieved, then deteriorates) (Jex & Crossley, 2005; Kahn &

Byosiere, 1992; McGrath, 1976; Sullivan and Bhagat, 1992; Tubre & Collins, 2000).

Both direct and indirect effects can explain the negative linear relationship between

stress and performance. Direct impairment of performance occurs when, for example,

an organizational stressor such as inadequate or broken equipment hinders successful

task completion. Pace of working can sometimes be increased to make up for the time

lost (time needed to repair equipment), but this can require a tradeoff with regard to

work quality. Noise can similarly reduce performance directly when high background

noise masks signals relevant for task accomplishment. Stressors can further impair


42

performance indirectly when they tax regulation capacity required for task execution.

Humans’ regulatory capacity is limited; stressors consume regulation capacity, and

therefore have the potential to impair performance (Hockey & Hamilton, 1983;

Kahneman, 1973; Mansfield, 2001).

There is empirical evidence for a negative linear relationship between stressors

and performance, in which prolonged exposure to stressors decreases performance; role

stressors in particular have been studied extensively. Meta-analyses have reported

small negative relationships, for example, illustrating decreased performance in cases of

increased role conflict and role ambiguity (Abramis, 1994; Jackson & Schuler, 1985;

Tubre & Collins, 2000). Jamal (1985), in a study of 227 middle managers and 283 blue

collar workers in a large Canadian manufacturing firm, found negative effects of role

overload. In contrast, in a study of 181 female secretaries from the University of South

Florida, no relationship between the secretaries’ reports of workload and their

supervisors’ performance ratings was found, but the secretaries’ reports of constraints

and role ambiguity were negatively related to performance (Spector, Dwyer, & Jex,

1988). Focusing on a typical supervisory task, Fried and Tiegs (1995) found that

supervisors’ role stressors decreased the accuracy with which they made performance

ratings of their subordinates: Role conflict was positively associated with actual

performance ratings, indicating a leniency error. For three different levels of managers

of a convenience store organization, O'Connor, Peters, Pooyan, Weekley, Frank, &

Erenkrantz (1984) reported a negative relationship between situational constraints and

performance ratings. Similar results were found in a financial services company (Steel

& Mento, 1987). Fisher and White (2000) reviewed the downsizing literature, in terms


43

of its contribution to stress, and proposed that the potential damage to an organization’s

learning capacity is great. In other words, much of the literature assumes that there is

no “optimal” stress level that enhances the performance of employees. Instead,

increased workload and occupational stress results in decreased learning and

performance.

Drawing from the Yerkes-Dodson Law, other researchers have suggested a

curvilinear relationship between stressors and performance (McGrath, 1976). What this

means is that a moderate level of arousal is necessary to keep an individual alert and

focused on the task. When there is too little arousal, performance is diminished. As

stressors have an activating function, they can increase arousal to a level optimal for

performance; but once arousal exceeds this optimal level, performance deteriorates,

resulting in an inverted U-shaped curve. Empirical support for the inverted U-shaped

relationship outside of the laboratory is limited (e.g., Anderson, 1976; Srivastava &

Krishna, 1991). There is more evidence for a linear negative relationship than for a

curvilinear relationship between stressors and performance (Jamal, 1984; 1985; Tutena

& Neidermeyerb, 2004). However, this is not surprising considering that the optimal

level of arousal depends on the type of task and on the individual (McGrath, 1976).

Organizational Effectiveness

The vast majority of occupational stress research and theory building over the

years has been focused at the individual level of analysis. Researchers and theorists

have been interested in whether individuals who experience job-related stressors also

tend to experience physical or psychological detriments as a result. It is just as

important, however, to examine whether the experience of occupational stress results in


44

decreased organizational effectiveness. One reason that may explain the paucity of

research in this area is the difficulty associated with defining and measuring

organizational effectiveness (Jex & Crossley, 2005; Pritchard, 1992). As with

individual performance, (Campbell, 1990), there are numerous ways in which

organizational effectiveness can be assessed (such as profit, stock value, sales volume,

customer service), but it is unclear which is the most appropriate. Second, and perhaps

more importantly, there is very little theory to guide such examinations. As a result, the

mechanisms by which job-related stressors may affect organizational effectiveness is

largely unknown.

This section of the literature review will focus on organizational effectiveness,

specifically how it is evaluated and what factors influence it. Organizational

effectiveness has often been described as a contradictory concept (Quinn & Cameron,

1983), has been studied using multiple notions of criteria (Gelade & Gilbert, 2003;

Robbins, 1990), and is often included as an integral aspect of organizational analysis

(Cameron, 1980). Despite these difficulties in agreeing on a definition and criteria for

evaluation of organizational effectiveness, this is a topic of increasing importance to

organizations and leaders.

Approaches to the Evaluation o f Organizational Effectiveness

Organizational effectiveness has been studied using a variety of approaches.

The five major approaches to examining organizational effectiveness are (1) the

systems resource approach, (2) the human resource and internal process approach, (3)

the multiple constituencies approach, (4) the competing values approach, and (5) the


45

goals approach. These five approaches will be briefly defined and the strengths and

weaknesses of each approach discussed in this section.

The systems resource approach evaluates organizational effectiveness by

focusing on the input processes and determining whether the organization is able to

develop necessary exchange relationships with the environment in order to gain

resources for high performance. Effectiveness is defined as “the ability of the

organization in either absolute or relative terms to exploit its environment in the

acquisition of scarce and valued resources” (Yuchtman & Seashore, 1967, p. 898).

The human resource and internal processes approach focuses on the throughput

processes and evaluates the internal health and efficiency of the organization. Cameron

(1980) defines effective organizations as “those with an absence of internal strain,

whose members are highly integrated into the system, whose internal functioning is

smooth and typified by trust and benevolence toward individuals, where information

flows smoothly both vertically and horizontally and so on” (p. 67). An advantage to

this approach is that it can be used to compare organizations when outputs are not the

same or are not easily identifiable. However, a problem is that many variables are

difficult to quantify with this approach, and an organization may have internal problems

but, nonetheless, perform effectively.

The multiple constituencies approach (Connolly, Conlon, & Deutsch, 1980)

focuses on the various stakeholder groups either inside or outside the organization and

evaluates the effectiveness of the organization according to how satisfied each group is

with performance of the organization. This approach takes into account multiple

perspectives of effective performance and the political power of those groups. A


46

drawback to this approach is that it may be difficult to identify all of an organization’s

constituent groups and determine their criteria for effective performance.

The competing values approach (Denison & Spreitzer, 1991) focuses on

evaluating an organization from multiple perspectives using multiple criteria. It may be

the most comprehensive of the approaches in that it combines all four of the other

approaches to determine where the organization is most effectively performing

according to its various constituent groups. A weakness of this approach is in

determining the most important constituent groups of the organization and in

identifying their multiple criteria for evaluating effective performance.

One of the earliest approaches used by researchers to evaluate organizational

effectiveness is the goals-output approach. This approach focuses on the goals or

output of an organization and on evaluating how well the organization meets those

goals. This approach is one of the most widely used in a variety of organizations.

However, the use of goal attainment as the sole measure of effectiveness can be a

problem because goals, in many organizations, may be multiple, overlapping, and

contradictory. In other words, effectiveness should not be evaluated on the basis of a

single indicator.

Organizational Climate and Effectiveness

What makes an organization perform effectively? In a review of the

organizational climate and culture literature, Schneider (1990) identified 17

organizational process dimensions that are related to organizational effectiveness. As

stated previously, organizational climate may not directly influence organizational

effectiveness. Research evidence suggests, however, that organizational climate does


47

affect organizational effectiveness by directly influencing employee attitudes and

behaviors that result in organizational effectiveness. Consequently, this portion of the

review will report research linking organizational climate to employee attitudes (e.g.,

job satisfaction), provide evidence of the linkages between organizational climate and

employee behavior (e.g., job performance, turnover), and, finally, review research that

links organizational climate to organizational effectiveness.

Employee Attitudes & Organizational climate

Numerous studies have investigated the impact of organizational factors on

employee attitudes such as job satisfaction. Gunter and Furnham (1996) conducted a

field survey study using data collected from 1,041 employees in four public sector

organizations to determine the links between dimensions of organizational climate and

job satisfaction. The results showed that receiving adequate training was positively

related to job satisfaction in three of the four organizations and that management

recognizing and rewarding good work was positively related to job satisfaction in all

four organizations. The results also showed that employee involvement in important

decisions was positively related to job satisfaction in all four organizations.

Birdi, Allan, and Warr (1997) reported similar results in their field survey study

that examined the effects of four different employee involvement activities (mandatory

training courses, work-based development assignments, voluntary learning activities,

career planning activities) on employee satisfaction. Data were collected from 1,798

employees in a vehicle manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom. The results

showed that participation in mandatory training courses and work-based development

activities were positively correlated with employee job satisfaction. Mossholder,


48

Bennett, and Martin (1998) investigated the effects of individual and workgroup level

perceptions of procedural justice (i.e., opportunity to participate in decision-making

processes) on employee satisfaction and organizational commitment in their survey of

323 employees at a large savings and loan corporation. Results indicated that both

individual and group level perceptions of procedural justice accounted for a significant

amount of the variation in employee job satisfaction (R2 = .28, p <. 01 and R2 = .20, p

<.001, respectively).

Organizational trust is another construct that has received widespread interest

within the organizational effectiveness literature (Camevale & Wechsler, 1992;

Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & Casier, 2000; Ostroff, 1993). Results of these studies

have shown that the development of strong supervisor/employee relationships and

employee reports of job security were positively related to high levels of employee trust

in the organization (r = .67 and .51 respectively). Supervisory behaviors that were

related to organizational trust were supervisor confidence and support, feedback,

approachability, and fairness in the distribution of rewards and punishments.

Organizational Climate & Employee Behaviors

Organizational climate influences employee behaviors in a variety of ways.

Significant variables include the influence of work/life benefits and favorable treatment

of employees on their behavior. Research conducted by Ransom, Aschbacher, and

Burud (1989) showed how investment in work-life programs improves certain

employee behaviors. The authors investigated the effects of using an on-site childcare

center on employee absenteeism and turnover by comparing employees with children

under the age of five who used the on-site center to parents with other childcare


49

arrangements. Results indicated that users of the on-site center were absent fewer days

(4.6) compared to parents with other childcare arrangements (6.3). The authors also

reported that users of the on-site center had much lower turnover (2.2%) compared to

nonusers (9.5%). Similar results were reported by the Whirlpool Foundation’s survey

of 153 North American organizations. They found that efforts related to childcare

assistance, while successful in increasing satisfaction and morale, had the greatest

impact in increasing retention and reducing absenteeism.

Favorable treatment of employees has been shown to lead to increases in

organizational citizenship behavior (Deluga, 1994; Organ & Ryan, 1995).

Organizational citizenship behavior has been defined as “individual behavior that is

discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and

that in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988,

p. 4), and includes such actions as helping other employees on organizationally relevant

tasks and performing work conscientiously. Deluga (1994) collected data from 86

supervisor-subordinate dyads from a variety of organizations to investigate the

relationships among supervisor trust building activity, leader-member exchange, and

four types of organizational citizenship behavior (altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness,

and sportsmanship). Participants were selected from a pool of employed continuing

education students attending evening classes at a college in the northeastern United

States, along with their identified supervisors. The results showed that perceived

fairness was the supervisor trust-building behavior most closely associated with the

different types of organizational citizenship behavior.


50

Sheridan (1992) examined whether particular cultural values help or hinder

organizations in retaining their most productive employees. The retention rates of 904

(453 female/451 male) recent college graduates hired into entry level positions in six

public accounting firms located in the western United States over a six-year period were

analyzed using survival analysis. Three firms were characterized as having cultures that

emphasized the interpersonal relationship values of team orientation and respect for

people. Two other companies were characterized as having cultures that emphasized the

work task values of detail and stability. Professionals hired in the companies that

emphasized the interpersonal relationship values stayed 14 months longer (45 months)

than those hired in the firms emphasizing the work task values (31 months).

Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, and Toth (1997) reported similar results in their

investigation of the effects that perceived organizational politics and support have on

job involvement, satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship

behavior, and turnover intention. The authors believed that employees who viewed

their workplaces as political would feel that their hard work would not be rewarded,

experience lower satisfaction and organizational commitment, be less involved in their

jobs, and be more likely to leave their jobs than employees who viewed their

workplaces as supportive. Results showed that organizational politics were negatively

related to job involvement (r = -.33, p < .01), and satisfaction (r = -.49, p < .01) and

positively related to turnover intentions (r = .63, p < .01). Conversely, perceived

organizational support was positively correlated with job involvement (r = .22, p < .05),

satisfaction (r = .63, p < .01), and organizational commitment (r = .69, p < .01) and

negatively related to turnover intentions (r = -.38,p<.01).


51

Consequences for Organizational Effectiveness

How do employee behaviors affect organizational effectiveness? It has been

demonstrated that employees with high levels of satisfaction and commitment to the

organization will perform in ways that improve organizational outcomes (Delaney &

Huselid, 1996; Fisher, 2001; Reilly, Grasha, & Schafer, 2002; Ryan et al., 1996;

Schmidt & Allscheid, 1995). Denison and Mishra (1995) tested the linkage between the

cultural traits of adaptability, sense of mission, consistency, and involvement with

organizational effectiveness. Results from a survey of top executives in 764

organizations in five major industries (manufacturing, business services, finance, retail,

wholesale) were compared to a set of effectiveness measures that included profitability,

quality, sales growth, employee satisfaction, and overall performance. The authors

reported that the cultural traits were weak predictors of sales growth and profits but

strong predictors of quality, employee satisfaction, and overall organizational

performance.

A number of organizational practices have demonstrated links to customer

satisfaction. For example, management support and rewarding and recognizing

employees who provide superior service and take a personal interest in resolving

customer problems were positively related to higher levels of customer satisfaction,

with particular facets of customer service, and with overall customer satisfaction. Koys

(2001) investigated whether positive employee attitudes and behaviors influence

organizational outcomes or whether positive organizational outcomes influence

employee attitudes and behaviors. The author collected data from 1,467 employees

(774 in year 1 and 693 in year 2) and 143 managers (64 in year 1 and 79 in year 2) at 28


52

stores in a regional restaurant chain over a two-year period. Measures of employee

attitudes and behaviors included employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship

behavior, and turnover. Employee satisfaction was measured via a 4-item scale based

on a restaurant industry study, organizational citizenship behavior was assessed via a 5-

item survey of the employees’ managers, and turnover rates were based on the number

of hourly employee separations divided by the number of hourly employees.

Organizational effectiveness was determined by profitability and customer satisfaction

measures. Two measures of profitability, “profits after controllable expenses” and

“profits after controllable expenses as a percent of sales,” were collected from corporate

records while customer satisfaction was measured by a survey of 5,565 customers in

year one and 4,338 customers in year two. Regression analyses showed that year one

outcomes of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover

rates accounted for 14% to 31% of the variance in year two organizational

effectiveness.

Customer satisfaction data is only one measure of organizational effectiveness.

Delaney and Huselid (1996) collected data from the National Organizations Survey of

590 for-profit and nonprofit firms to examine the effects of human resource

management practices on perceived organizational effectiveness and marketing

performance. Results showed that training, incentive compensation, and vertical

hierarchy accounted for 19% of the variance in perceived organizational effectiveness.

The results also indicated a positive relationship between human resource management

practices and perceived marketing performance.


53

Similarly, Russel, Terborg, and Powers (1985) investigated the impact of

training on organizational effectiveness. The authors examined the relationships among

sales training, organizational support, and store performance of 62 stores belonging to

the same merchandising firm. Results showed that training in basic sales procedures

was positively correlated with sales volume per employee. Bartel (1994) reported

similar findings in her study of productivity gains that resulted from the implementation

of a new employee orientation/training program. Data collected from a 1986 Columbia

Business School survey of 495 Compustat II business lines indicated that businesses

that were operating below their expected productivity levels in one year had a

significant increase in their labor productivity after implementing a new employee

orientation/training program. Overall, businesses that implemented such training

programs experienced a productivity gain of almost 19% over a three-year period.

Employee retention can also influence organizational effectiveness because

more experienced employees would have greater knowledge of organizational and

customer goals (Schneider & Bowen, 1985). Costs are lower because a low turnover

rate means fewer hiring and training activities. Empirical studies have shown that

employee turnover does have a negative correlation with organizational effectiveness.

For example, research conducted at Sears showed that as voluntary turnover decreased,

financial performance (i.e., return on controllable assets) increased (Ulrich, Halbrook,

M eder, Stuchlik, & Thorpe, 1991). Sim ilarly, O stro ff (1992) reported negative

relationships between high school teacher turnover and student academic achievement,

students' satisfaction, administrative performance, and the percent of students who

dropped out of high school.


54

Summary

The notion of stress has been around for decades and has been researched in a

variety of environments and in a multitude of ways. While the accumulated knowledge

on stress is considerable, there are still many questions unanswered. Much of the

research presented in this review highlights the association between occupational stress

and a variety of physical and psychological disorders (Berry, 1998; Zohar, 1995).

Many researchers have sought to better understand this relationship by trying to identify

the factors that moderate the stress process, and some have speculated that the

relationship between stress and illness varies with both personal and social

characteristics (Goldenhar, Swanson, Hurrell, Ruder, and Deddens, 1998; Gurin,

Verdoff, and Feld, 1960; Indik, Seashore, and Slesigner, 1964; Langner (1962); Payne,

1988; Schultz & Schultz, 1998).

This review has illustrated the influence of organizational climate on certain

employee attitudes and employee behaviors. These factors, in turn, may influence

organizational effectiveness. Excessive individual occupational stress has been shown

to negatively affect individual employee attitudes and behaviors. Therefore, it stands to

reason that a relationship exists between occupational stress and organizational

effectiveness, yet there is limited evidence that supports this claim (Allen, Hitt, &

Greer, 1982; Jones, Barge, Steffy, Fay, Kunz, & Wuebker, 1988; Moran, Wolff, &

Green, 1995). The current study provides additional insight that will further explore

and explain the link between occupational stressors and effectiveness at the group or

organizational level of analysis.


55

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlines the research methodology used in this study. It is

comprised of four sections: (1) research design, (2) instrumentation, (3) data collection

procedures, and (4) data analysis. The purpose of the study is to investigate the

relationship between occupational stress and organizational effectiveness.

Research Design

Design

This quantitative study followed a correlational and non-experimental design,

since both random assignment of subjects and manipulation of the constructs were

absent (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). The construct of job stress is operationalized in

terms of the scale and subscales of the Job Stress Survey (Spielberger, 1994), while the

construct of organizational effectiveness is operationalized in terms of “Return on

Human Resource” performance appraisal ratings, employee satisfaction ratings from the

annual Worldwide Employee Survey, and quality metrics used by the organization. The

correlational design involves the measurement of relationships between independent

and dependent variables. With the absence of random assignment or manipulation of

the independent variable, any relationships found in the study may not be inferred as

necessarily causal.

Sample and Population

The census of 578 employees from the Logistics Division of a medium-sized

Fortune 500 distributor of microcomputer hardware and software products

headquartered in the Southeastern United States served as the participants for the study.


56

Employees in the Logistics Division are dispersed across six geographic locations

within the United States, with location sizes ranging from 48 employees to 125

employees. Occupations within the Logistics Division include: (1) Administrative, (2)

Cashier, (3) Inventory Control, (4) Packing, (5) Picking, (6) Receiving, (7) Returns, (8)

Scheduling, (9) Material Handler, (10) Configuration, and (11) Manager. Each location

within the Logistics Division performs the same duties.

Instrumentation

Job Stress Survey

The Job Stress Survey was selected for this study on the basis of its

psychometric properties and its ability to provide comparison scores across departments

or groups. The Job Stress Survey (JSS; Spielberger, 1994) was designed to assess

generic sources of occupational stress encountered by men and women employed in a

variety of work settings. Each of the 30 JSS items describes generic, job-related

stressor events. The JSS focuses on aspects of work situations that often result in

psychological strain and assesses perceived severity (intensity) and frequency of

occurrence of 30 stressor events. Most measures of occupational stress evaluate the

degree of agreement or disagreement with statements describing sources of work-

related stress. In contrast, the JSS inquires about the severity of specific stressor events

as perceived by an individual worker and how often each stressor was experienced

during the past six months. Assessing the perceived severity and frequency of each

work-related stressor brings to the measurement of occupational stress the state-trait

distinction that has proven to be critically important in research on the assessment of

emotions and personality (Spielberger, 1983; 1988).


57

Items were selected to describe the generic sources of stress in a range of

occupational settings for managerial, professional, and administrative employees.

Respondents are asked first to rate, on a 9-point scale, the relative amount (severity) of

stress that they perceive to be associated with each of the 30 JSS job stressors (e.g.,

excessive paperwork, poorly motivated coworkers, or frequent interruptions) compared

with a standard event (assignment of disagreeable duties), which is assigned a value of

5. Next, respondents are asked to indicate on a scale, ranging from 0 to 9+ days, the

number of days in which each stressor was experienced during the previous six months.

The JSS provides overall scores on severity of stressful experience (based on the

individual’s comparison of each of the 29 severity items with the standard stressor item

that is assigned a constant mid-scale value of 5), frequency of stressful experience

(representing the average frequency of occurrence of the 30 JSS stressor events during

the past six months), and a Job Stress Index (provides an estimate of the overall level of

occupational stress based on the sum of the cross products of the severity and frequency

scores). There are also job pressure and lack of organizational support subscales (10

items each) for which severity and frequency scores can be computed. In addition to

providing information about specific work-related stressors that affect individual

employees, the JSS can also be used to identify sources of occupational stress for

groups of workers and to evaluate and compare the stress levels of employees in

different departments or divisions within the same organization.

Reliability and Validity o f the Job Stress Survey

Normative data for the JSS were obtained by administering the survey to

heterogeneous samples of 2,173 adults (1,218 males, 955 females) employed in


58

business and industry (393 managerial, professional, and clerical employees working at

the corporate headquarters of two large industrial companies), university (1,398

administrators, faculty, and associates with a large state university located in an urban

setting), and military (382 senior military officers who were participating in a program

for high-ranking officers considered as qualified for possible promotion) settings

(Spielberger & Vagg, 1999).

The alpha coefficients for the Job Stress Index (JS-X), Job Stress Severity (JS-

S), and Job Stress Frequency (JS-F) indicated a high level of internal consistency for all

groups (a range = .77 to .93; median a = .88), except for the small sample (n=24) of

female military officers. Test-retest reliability coefficients for the JSS scales and

subscales are substantially lower than the measures of internal consistency, ranging

from .48 to .75 over various time intervals. No significant occupational level or gender

differences were found for either the JS-X or JS-S scores based on all 30 JSS items.

However, managerial/professional level employee groups reported experiencing the 30

stressor events more frequently than clerical/skilled maintenance employee groups (F[l,

1781] = 13.60, p< .001). In similar analyses, senior military personnel groups reported

experiencing the JSS stressor events more frequently than the managerial/professional

groups (F[l, 1361] = 13.25, p < .001); no differences were found for the JS-X and JS-S

scores of these groups.

One large-scale study (N=2389) conducted by Spielberger & Reheiser (1994a)

reported reliabilities for the severity, frequency, and index measures in three

occupational groups (university, corporate, military) as high, suggesting a good level of

internal consistency (see Table 1). Content and construct validity for the JSS are


59

described as good; the measure uses a frequency based response scale with a specified

time period, and exploratory factor analyses support the proposed structure of two

distinct subscales measuring job pressure and organizational support.

Table 1

Scale Reliabilities for the Job Stress Survey

Sector Gender Severity Scale Frequency Scale Job Stress Index

University Male .91 .89 .89

Female .93 .92 .93

Corporate Male .88 .88 .85

Female .90 .89 .88

Military Male .84 .82 .79

Female .81 .74 .71

Tumage and Spielberger (1991) administered the JSS and Rotter’s (1966) Locus

of Control (LOC) scale to 775 employees working at the headquarters of a large

industrial corporation. A total of 322 employees responded to a series of voluntary

biographical questions and were classified as Managers, Professional/Engineers, or

Clerical personnel. The managerial group was 97% male (Mage = 50 years), the

professional group was 87% male (Mage = 42 years), and the clerical group was 23%

male (Mage = 26 years). In this study, small but significant (p < .01) positive

correlations of the LOC scale were found with three of the five JSS scales. Employees

who reported less internal control had higher overall JS-X Index and LS-F Frequency

scores and rated the 10 Job Pressure stressor events as more stressful than employees

with stronger internal control. These findings were consistent with previous research


60

guided by Karasek’s (1979) model in which employees who reported less control over

their work environment reported higher levels of occupational stress.

Spielberger and Reheiser (1994b) administered the JSS to 1,588 faculty,

administrative, and clerical staff associated with a large state university (648 males, 940

females) and compared their JSS scale and subscale scores with those of the corporate

employees tested by Turnage and Spielberger (1991). For the university employees,

internal consistency alpha coefficients were .89 or higher for the JS-X, JS-S, and JS-F

scale scores, based on all 30 items, and .80 or higher on the 10-item JP and LS

subscales.

Job Pressure and Lack o f Organizational Support Subscales

Construct validity of the JSS was established on the basis of a large combined

sample of corporate and university employees (931 females, 857 males). Item 1A, the

standard against which the other severity items were compared, was not included in the

validity analyses because of its constant value of five. The ratings of the remaining 29

JSS Severity items were evaluated in separate principal components factor analyses for

females and males. The eigenvalues in the factor analyses of responses to the JSS items

for the combined sample indicated that two relatively strong factors could be extracted

(see Table 2). Factor analyses of the Frequency and Index scores verified the factor

structure that was found in the analyses of the Severity items. Based on the content of

the items with the highest loadings, the two factors were labeled Job Pressure (JP) and

Lack of Organizational Support (LS).


61

Table 2

Factor Analysis of JSS Items and Subscale Development

Item

Severity Ratings Frequency Ratings Item Index Scores

JobPressure

Lack of Support

JobPressure

Lack of Support

JobPressure

Lack of Support

F M F M F M F M F M F M

4AB .53 .58 .49 .47 .44 .467AB .47 .64 .63 .74 .63 .739AB .51 .46 .53 .47 .40 .3411AB .70 .77 .64 .57 .65 .5216AB .56 .77 .67 .80 .66 .8223 AB .67 .46 .70 .69 .65 .5924AB .59 .57 .42 .41 .35 .3925AB .71 .37 .69 .63 .67 .5326AB .79 .67 .70 .73 .72 .6827AB .52 .48 .42 .35 .41 .343AB .42 .46 .35 .44 .38 .455AB .54 .48 .41 .44 .39 .466AB .92 .78 .88 .81 .88 .788AB .60 .58 .68 .65 .67 .6510AB .32 .38 (.28) (.20) (.20) (.27) (.24)13AB .76 .65 .69 .66 .66 .6314AB .67 .58 .50 .51 .52 .5118AB .43 .62 .49 .52 .51 .5821AB .69 .59 .78 .71 .74 .6529AB .47 .52 .46 .47 .44 .49

EigenvaluePrincipal 6.9 5.7 2.1 2.4 6.16 5.88 2.3 2.48 5.90 5.4 2.3 2.52

Promax 5.3 4.3 5.2 4.2 4.71 4.53 4.4 4.08 4.37 3.8 4.2 3.92

Alpha coefficients for the three Job Pressure measures (Index, Severity,

Frequency) ranged from .75 to .88 (median a = .83) for the three employee groups. The

mean JP-X and JP-F scores of the managerial/professional groups were significantly


62

higher than those of the clerical/skilled maintenance employee groups (p < .001) due

primarily to the consistently higher Frequency scores of the managerial/professional

employees. Significant gender main effects (p < .01) were also found, reflecting the

higher Frequency scores of females at both occupational levels. The JP-X scores of the

senior military officers were substantially higher (p < .001) than those of the

managerial/professional groups, due to their higher Frequency scores.

The Lack of Organizational Support alpha coefficients for the managerial/

professional and clerical/skilled maintenance groups were all .80 or higher (median a =

.83) but were somewhat lower for the more homogeneous senior military officers (a

ranged from .75 to .83; median a = .75). The LS-S scores of the

managerial/professional groups were significantly higher (p < .02) than those of the

clerical/skilled maintenance groups; males in the managerial/professional and

clerical/skilled maintenance groups had higher (p < .05) LS-S scores than females. In

contrast, the male military officers had lower LS-X scores than any other group,

primarily due to their relatively low LS-F scores.

Demographics

Demographic information was collected from survey respondents so that the

findings can be better interpreted in light of some of their demographic and background

characteristics. Specific demographic information collected on the survey included age,

gender, educational level, m arital status, ethnicity, and jo b type (e.g., m anagerial/

professional, clerical, skilled maintenance).


63

Measures o f Organizational Effectiveness

Historical data on measures of organizational effectiveness were analyzed on a

number of organizational units (geographically dispersed Logistics Centers) within a

medium-sized division of a Fortune 500 technical products provider. The indicators of

organizational effectiveness were chosen for a number of reasons: (1) to overcome

potential method variance issues by collecting data from a variety of sources; (2) for

their fit to the conceptual framework (i.e., individual attitudes—* individual outcomes—»

shared group attitudes—* group outcomes/organizational effectiveness) and goals of the

study; and (3) for their relevance to the research site. The following indicators of

organizational effectiveness were analyzed for this research study.

Employee Motivation. The Employee Motivation rating is based on employee

responses to the question “I am motivated to help [employer] be successful'’'’ on the

company’s annual organizational climate survey administered in November 2003.

Employees rated this question on a 5-point scale, where a rating of 1 reflects “strongly

disagree” and a rating of 5 reflects “strongly agree.”

Employee Satisfaction. The Employee Satisfaction rating is based on employee

responses to the question “Overall, I am satisfied with my job” on the company’s annual

organizational climate survey administered in November 2003. Employees rated this

question on a 5-point scale, where a rating of 1 reflects “strongly disagree” and a rating

of 5 reflects “strongly agree.”

Picking Audit Defect Percentage. The Picking Audit Defect Percentage reflects the

results of monthly audits on the accuracy in picking specified products from inventory.


64

The scores were collected for each Logistics Center and reflect the percentage of

inaccurate picks for the month of April 2004.

Packing Audit Defect Percentage. The Packing Audit Defect Percentage reflects the

results of monthly audits on the accuracy in packing specified products into shipment

containers. The scores were collected for each Logistics Center and reflect the

percentage of inaccurate packing activities for the month of April 2004.

Putaway Audit Defect Percentage. The Putaway Audit Defect Percentage reflects the

results of monthly audits on the accuracy in activities related to the receipt of material,

determination of its storage or other destination, movement to that location and the

stocking and physical arrangement as required. The scores were collected for each

Logistics Center and reflect the percentage of inaccurate putaway activities for the

month of April 2004.

Receiving Audit Defect Percentage. The Receiving Audit Defect Percentage reflects the

results of monthly audits on the accuracy of processing incoming material against

purchase orders, customer returns, verifying proper item, quantity and physical

condition, moving to stocking locations, and performing receipt update and

documentation duties. The scores were collected for each Logistics Center and reflect

the percentage of inaccurate receiving functions for the month of April 2004.

Return on Human Resources Rating. The Return on Human Resources Rating is the

company’s semi-annual employee performance evaluation ratings, which were

performed in December 2004. Employees are rated on a 6-point scale where a rating of

1 reflects an evaluation of “too new” and a rating of 6 reflects an evaluation of

“consistently exceeds expectations.”


65

Turnover Intention. The Turnover Intention rating is based on employee responses to

the question “Iplan on staying at [employer] for at least the next 12 months'’’’ on the

company’s annual organizational climate survey administered in November 2003.

Employees rated this question on a 5-point scale, where a rating of 1 reflects “strongly

disagree” and a rating of 5 reflects “strongly agree.”

Data Collection Procedures

Procedure

The collection of data took place from January 2004 to April 2004, and the

researcher complied with the University’s policies regarding the protection of human

subjects. Study participants were initially notified about their role in the study during

monthly “all hands” meetings in October and November 2003. Subsequently,

employees received a notification letter in January 2004, which explained the purpose

of the study and their employer’s commitment to understanding the sources of stress

that employees face (see Appendix A). This letter, along with an Informed Consent

Form, Job Stress Survey packet, and return envelope, was attached to employees’

biweekly paycheck. In addition to publicity flyers posted at each location to encourage

participation, the names of each employee who returned the survey to his or her

location’s Human Resources Department were entered into a drawing for an American

Express Gift Cheque. Human Resource Managers from each of the Logistics Centers

mailed the packet of completed Job Stress Surveys from their locations to the

researcher. All completed JSS questionnaires were scored via the JSS computerized

scoring program, and the T-scores for the JSX, JPX, and LSX scales were entered into

SPSS for analysis.


66

Data Analysis

Initial analyses consisted of a descriptive overview of the study sample

characteristics, including the frequencies, means, and standard deviations related to the

various demographic variables obtained as well as the results achieved from the

Overall, Severity, Frequency, Job Pressure, and Lack of Occupational Support scales

and subscales of the Job Stress Survey. Hypothesis 1 was tested by calculating

bivariate Pearson Product Moment Correlations between the various JSS scales and

subscales and the measures of organizational effectiveness to explore the relationship

between occupational stress and organizational effectiveness. Hypothesis 2 was tested

by conducting Analyses of Variance (ANOVA), to test for organizational unit

differences in occupational stress levels and measures of organizational effectiveness.

Given the final sample size, a series of exploratory regression analyses were performed

to investigate the explanatory power of the different components of occupational stress

(job pressure, lack of organizational support) on various measures of organizational

effectiveness (turnover intention, employee satisfaction, employee motivation).


67

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Overview

This chapter presents the quantitative research findings of this study

investigating the relationship between occupational stress and organizational

effectiveness. A significant, direct relationship between individual employees’

occupational stress levels and various performance indicators was hypothesized in

Hypothesis 1. In Hypothesis 2, it was hypothesized that organizational units whose

employees reported high levels of occupational stress would have lower scores on

measures of organizational effectiveness than those divisions reporting low levels of

occupational stress. Information in this chapter is presented in three sections. First, a

detailed description of the demographic characteristics of the participants in the study is

provided followed by the mean scores for each of the variables included in the study.

Next, the internal consistency of each of the JSS scales used in the study is examined.

Finally, the results for each of the proposed research hypotheses and exploratory

analyses are addressed.

Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample

From the initial solicitation of 578 study participants, 226 returned the Job

Stress Survey questionnaire. Thirteen surveys were eliminated from the final sample

because they were returned with insufficient responses to obtain valid Job Stress scale

and subscale scores. The final sample size achieved for the study was 213 participants.

Thus, valid responses were received from 36.9 % of the potential participants who were

sent the questionnaire.


68

As shown in Table 3, respondent location was nearly equally distributed among

the six Logistics Centers participating in the study. Respondents from Location D

comprised the largest portion of participants (18.8%) with 40, while those from

Locations B and E comprised the smallest portion (15%) with 32 each. Given the type

of work performed in the Logistics Centers, it is not surprising that the majority of

workers identified themselves as belonging to the Skilled Maintenance occupational

group (49.3%), while the remaining participants were nearly evenly split between the

Managerial/Professional (29.6%) and Clerical (21.1%) occupational groups. The

majority of respondents reported that they had attended two years of college or less

(65.4%).

Table 3

Location, Occupational Group, and Educational Level Demographics

Characteristic Group % N

Location A 16.9% 36B 15% 32C 16.9% 36D 18.8% 40E 15% 32F 17.4% 37

Occupational Group Managerial/Professional 29.6% 63Clerical 21.1% 45Skilled Maintenance 49.3% 105

Years of Education 8th grade or less 1.9% 49 .5% 110 .5% 111 2.8% 612 31.5% 6713 14.1% 3014 14.1% 3015 6.6% 1416+ 16.9% 36Missing data 11.2% 24


69

As shown in Table 4, a slight majority of the study participants identified

themselves as male (51.6%), and less than one-half (43.2%) identified themselves as

female. Study participants varied in age from 21 to 57 years. The mean age of the

entire sample was 36.65 years (SD=9.23), with females and males being nearly the

same age (Mfemak= 37.09, SDfemaie= 8.38; Mma]e= 36.44, SDmaie= 10.00).

Table 4

Gender and Age Demographics


Gender (+ row above Male 51.6% 110Female 43.2% 92Missing data 5.2% 11

Age 21-25 7.5% 1626-30 7.5% 1631-35 11.3% 2436-40 11.3% 2441-45 7.5% 1646-50 6.1% 1351-55 4.7% 1056-60 .5% 1Missing data 43.6% 93

The majority of respondents were married (46.5%) or single (33.8%), and they

predominantly identified themselves as Caucasian (45.5%); of the remainder, 23.9%

identified themselves as Hispanic, 11.3% identified themselves as African American,

1.4% identified themselves as Asian, and 6.6% identified themselves as “other” (see

Table 5).


70

Table 5

Marital Status and Ethnicity Demographics


Marital Status Single 33.8% 72Married 46.5% 99Widowed .5% 1Separated .5% 1Divorced 9.4% 20Missing data 9.4% 20

Ethnicity African American 11.3% 24Asian 1.4% 3Hispanic 23.9% 51Caucasian 45.5% 97Other 6.6% 14Missing data 11.3% 24

Description of Responses on Study Variables

Job Stress Survey

There were a total of 213 employees whose responses on the Job Stress Survey

permitted the calculation of scale scores. The possible T-scores on each of the various

Job Stress Survey (JSS) scales range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher

levels of perceived stress. The mean score on the Job Stress Index (JSX), which was

used to assess participants’ perceived level of overall occupational stress, was 50.47

(SD=11.81) for the entire sample. The mean score on the Job Stress Severity (JSS)

scale, which was used to assess participants’ perceptions about the severity of

occupational stressors, was 48.88 (SD=11.94) for the sample; and the mean score on the

Job Stress Frequency (JSF) scale, which was used to assess participants’ perceptions

about the frequency with which they experienced occupational stressors, was 50.34

(SD= 10.77) among all participants. Since each of these scale scores was near the


71

midpoint of the JSS ranges, these scores indicate that, when taken as one group,

participants reported “average” levels of overall occupational stress in terms of the

presence of occupational stressors, their severity, and their frequency.

The mean score on the Job Pressure Index (JPX), which measures components

of occupational stress associated with the job itself, was slightly lower, at 47.00

(SD=10.81), as were corresponding scores on the Job Pressure Severity (JPS) and Job

Pressure Frequency (JPF) scales (M=48.04, SD=12.44; M=46.92, SD=9.92

respectively). These scores, which are below the midpoint of the range, indicate that

participants’ perceived occupational stress attributed most directly to aspects of their

job’s structure, design, or duties (e.g., overtime, meeting deadlines, excessive

paperwork) was still near “average,” but was slightly lower than perceived stressors

attributed to other work-related factors.

Mean scores on the Lack of Organizational Support Index (LSX), which

measures perceived lack of support from supervisors, coworkers, or the policies and

procedures of the organization, were slightly higher at 52.27 (SD=10.93). Mean scores

on the Lack of Organizational Support Severity (LSS) and Lack of Organizational

Support Frequency (LSF) scales were 48.62 (SD=10.96) and 52.42 (SD=10.24),

respectively. These scores, which are slightly above the midpoint of the range, indicate

that participants’ perceived occupational stress related to events involving other people

(e.g., difficulties with supervisor or co-workers) or organizational policies and

procedures was higher than their perceived occupational stress related to specific

aspects of the job itself, as evidenced by scores on the JPX that were slightly below the

midpoint (M=47.00). In sum, while there was some variability among the scores on the


72

various scales of the Job Stress Survey, each of the scale scores was within the range of

the normative sample. Specific differences that were found in the scores among the six

Logistics Centers will be discussed later in this chapter.

Employee Survey

The mean score on the turnover question from the employee survey, which

assessed employees’ agreement with a statement that they plan to stay with their

employer for the next 12 months, was 3.97 (SD=1.02). The possible scores on this item

can range from 1 (“disagree strongly”) to 5 (“agree strongly”), with higher scores

indicating greater intentions to remain with the company. Although the responses of

participants at each location suggest their intent to remain with their employer, there

was some variability in the degree of their intent. Specific differences among the

turnover intentions of the six Logistics Centers will be discussed in greater detail later

in this chapter.

The mean score on the overall satisfaction question from the employee survey

was 3.56 (SD=1.28). The possible scores on this item can range from 1 (“disagree

strongly”) to 5 (“agree strongly”), with higher scores indicating higher overall job

satisfaction. In general, the results reflect that most participants were at least somewhat

satisfied with their jobs, with scores ranging from 3.00 to 4.06. The mean score on the

employee motivation question from the employee survey, which assessed their

motivation to help the company be successful, was 3.55 (SD=.99). The possible scores

on this item can range from 1 (“disagree strongly”) to 5 (“agree strongly”), with higher

scores indicating higher levels of motivation toward aiding the company’s success.

Although the responses of participants at each location suggest they are motivated to


73

help their employer succeed, there was some variability in the degree of their

motivation, which will be discussed later in this chapter.

Performance/Work Outcomes

The mean score on participants’ semi-annual performance appraisal ratings was

3.55 (SD=.99). The possible scores on this item range from 1 (“too new”) to 6

(“consistently exceeds requirements”), with higher scores indicating higher

performance appraisal ratings. In general, the results reflect that most participants were

near the average rating of “meets requirements,” although there was some variability

among the locations, which will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.

The percentage of inaccurate picks of items from inventory in one month across

all Logistics Centers was 5.16%, with one location reporting the highest picking defects

percentage of 18.84% and another reporting the lowest percentage of picking defects

(.40%) for the month. The percentage of inaccurate packing of items for shipment in

one month across all Logistics Centers was .30%, with the highest percentage of

packing defects being .74% and the lowest percentage of packing defects being 0% for

the month. The percentage of inaccurate putaway activities in one month across all

Logistics Centers was 1.35%, with one location reporting the highest putaway defect

percentage of 6.49% and another location reporting the lowest percentage of putaway

defects (0%). Finally, the average percentage of inaccurate receiving activities across

all Logistics Centers in one month was .31%, with one location reporting the highest

percentage of receiving defects (1.35%) and other locations reporting no (0%) receiving

defects for the month.


74

Reliability of Job Stress Survey Instrument for Study Sample

Job Stress Scale

The Job Stress Scale is made up of three components: (1) Job Stress Index, (2)

Job Stress Severity, and (3) Job Stress Frequency. The internal consistency of these

three components for this sample, as measured by Chronbach’s alpha, were .93, .94, and

.92, respectively, which is slightly higher than previously cited reliability coefficients of

.89, .91, and .89 (Spielberger & Reheiser, 1994b). Nunnally and Bernstein (1994)

recommend instruments with reliability coefficients above .70. Therefore, the Job Stress

Scale for this study met the requirement for internal consistency. For an overview of

the mean, range, standard deviation, and Chronbach’s alpha for this scale, refer to Table

6 .

Job Pressure Scale

The Job Pressure Scale is made up of three components: (1) Job Pressure Index,

(2) Job Pressure Severity, and (3) Job Pressure Frequency. The internal consistency of

these three components for this sample, as measured by Chronbach’s alpha, were .87,

.91, and .84, respectively, which is slightly higher than previously cited reliability

coefficients, which were between .75 and .88 (Spielberger & Reheiser, 1994a). Thus,

the requirement for internal consistency was met. For an overview of the mean, range,

standard deviation, and Chronbach’s alpha for this scale, refer to Table 6.


Lack o f Organizational Support Scale

The Lack of Organizational Support Scale is comprised of three components:

(1) Lack of Organizational Support Index, (2) Lack of Organizational Support Severity,

and (3) Lack of Organizational Support Frequency. The internal consistency of these

three components for this sample, as measured by Chronbach’s alpha, were .85, .86, and

.84, respectively, which is slightly higher than previously cited reliability coefficients,

which were between .75 and .83 (Spielberger & Reheiser, 1994a). These were above

Nunnally and Bernstein’s (1994) recommendation of .70. Thus, the Lack of

Organizational Support Scale for this study met the requirement for internal

consistency. For an overview of the mean, range, standard deviation, and Chronbach’s

alpha for this scale, refer to Table 6.

Table 6

Mean, Range, Standard Deviation, and Chronbach’s Alpha for Job Stress Survey Scales

Scale Mean Range StandardDeviation

Chronbach’sAlpha

Job StressIndex 50.47 3 1 - 9 9 11.81 .93Severity 48.88 18- 80 11.94 .94Frequency 50.34 30- 81 10.77 .92

Job PressureIndex 47.00 32-91 10.81 .87Severity 48.04 2 2 - 8 0 12.44 .91Frequency 46.92 2 9 - 7 2 9.91 .84

Lack o f Organizational Support

Index 52.27 3 6 - 8 8 10.93 .85Severity 48.62 1 8 - 7 3 10.96 .86Frequency 52.42 3 4 - 8 0 10.24 .84



76

Research Question and Hypotheses Analyses

A review of the occupational stress and job performance literature highlighted

the fact that little is currently known about the influence of individual employees’

occupational stress levels on the effectiveness of the organization in which they are

employed. In order to address this void in the literature and to overcome method

variance problems, an occupational stress measure was collected from job incumbents,

while measures of organizational effectiveness were obtained from a variety of sources.

Furthermore, answers to the following research question and hypotheses will provide

researchers with insight into the influence of occupational stress on organizational

effectiveness and will benefit human resource development practitioners, managers, and

organizations as a whole as they strive toward creating a healthy workforce while

tackling the difficulties related to measuring and enhancing organizational

effectiveness.

Research Question

Is there is a relationship between individual employees’ occupational stress

levels and the performance of organizational units as shown by employee performance

appraisal ratings, quality metrics, and employee satisfaction?

Hypothesis One

There is a significant, negative relationship between employees’ reported level

of occupational stress and organizational effectiveness as shown by employee

performance appraisal ratings, quality metrics, and employee satisfaction.


77

Analysis o f Hypothesis One and Findings

Organizational effectiveness measures obtained for this study were collected at

two levels of analysis (individual and organizational), which necessitated the use of two

types of analyses. The magnitude and direction of the relationship between employees’

reported levels of occupational stress, as shown by individual scores on the three JSS

scales and four measures of organizational effectiveness at the individual level of

analysis (turnover intention, employee satisfaction, employee motivation, performance

appraisal ratings), were tested using a Pearson Product Moment correlation. For

organizational level analyses, an aggregate score for the various JSS scales was

calculated using the “AGGREGATE” command in SPSS for each Logistics Center and

compared with the four measures of organizational effectiveness at the organizational

level of analysis (audit defect picking percentage, audit defect packing percentage, audit

defect putaway percentage, audit defect receiving percentage).

In support of Hypothesis 1, scores on the Job Stress Index were significantly

correlated with each of the four individual-level organizational effectiveness measures.

There was a significant, negative correlation between the Job Stress Index and

employee intention to remain with the organization (r=-.500, p<.01), employee overall

satisfaction (r=-.632, p<.01), employee motivation to help their organization succeed

(r=-.640, p<.01), and employee performance appraisal ratings (r=-.219, p<.01). These

results suggest that participants who had higher levels of overall occupational stress had

lower scores on the various measures of organizational effectiveness (see Table 7).

Although a small sample size among the aggregate Job Stress Index scores for each

location (N=6) prohibited an adequately powerful statistical test of the correlation


78

among the organizational-level measures, an examination of the magnitude of the

correlations indicates a positive relationship between location scores on the Job Stress

Index and audit defect putaway percentage (r=.717) and audit defect receiving

percentage (r=.817) (see Table 8). These results suggest that when participants at a

given location had higher levels overall occupational stress, they had a higher

percentage of defects in putaway and receiving activities.

In support of Hypothesis 1, scores on the Job Pressure Index were significantly

correlated with all four of the individual-level measures of organizational effectiveness.

There was a significant, negative correlation between the Job Pressure Index and

employee intention to remain with the organization (r=-.489, p<.01), employee overall

satisfaction (r=-.607, p<.01), employee motivation to help their organization succeed

(r=-.585, p<.01), and employee performance appraisal ratings (r=-.170, p<.05). These

results suggest that participants who had higher levels of occupational stress levels

associated with the job itself had lower scores on the various measures of organizational

effectiveness (see Table 7). An examination of the aggregate data reveals that there was

a positive relationship between location scores on the Job Pressure Index and audit

defect putaway percentage (r=.652) and audit defect receiving percentage (r=.750) (see

Table 8), which suggests that when participants at a given location had higher levels of

occupational stress levels associated with the demands of the job itself, there was a

higher percentage of defects in putaway and receiving activities at that location.

Scores on the Lack of Organizational Support Index were significantly

correlated with the four individual-level measures of organizational effectiveness, in

support of Hypothesis 1. There was a significant, negative correlation between the


79

Lack of Organizational Support Index and employee intention to turnover (r=-.440,

p<.01), employee overall satisfaction (r=-.567, p<.01), employee motivation to help

their organization succeed (r=-.604, p<.01), and employee performance appraisal

ratings (r=-.244, pc.Ol). These results suggest that when participants had higher levels

of occupational stress associated with perceptions about supervisory and coworker

support and organizational policies and procedures, they had lower scores on the

various measures of organizational effectiveness (see Table 7). An examination of the

aggregate data indicates a positive relationship between location scores on the Lack of

Organizational Support Index and audit defect putaway percentage (r=780) and audit

defect receiving percentage (r=.878) (see Table 8). These results suggest that when

participants at a given location had higher occupational stress levels associated with

perceptions about supervisory and coworker support, they had a higher percentage of

defects in putaway and receiving activities at that location as well.


Reproduced with

permission

of the copyright owner.

Further reproduction prohibited

without permission.

80

Table 7

Pearson Correlations of the Job Stress Survey and Individual-Level Organizational Effectiveness Measures

Variable 1 2 3~ 4 5 6 7

1. Job Stress Index 1.000

2. Job Pressure Index


3. Lack of Support Index


4. Turnover Intention

4. Turnover Intention

5. Overall Satisfaction

5. Overall Satisfaction

6. Employee Motivation

8 8 4 ***

884* * *

886* * *

. 886* * *

-.500***

-.500***

-.632***

-.632***

-640***

1.000

1.000

6 2 5 * * * 1 . 0 0 0

.625*** 1.000

-.489*** -.440*'

-.489*** -.440*'

-.607*** -.567*'

-.607*** -.567*'

-.585*** -.604*'

1.000

1.000

.658*** 1.000

.658*** 1.000

.680*** .811’ 1.000

ooo

***oIs-CM

***oIs -CM

00

*CMCO

*CMCO

***oooCD

*CDIs-

*CDIs-

***M-OCO

***M-M-CM

***M"M"CM

■x**ID00ID

*OIs -

*oIs -

***oCD

**CD

CM

**CT>CM

OoVGH **

VG<**

® £ CD O>o CO

E oLU ^

CD

d) a)O Oc sz __5 CO CO COE co E co

o 5 o _ t o. t a.CD CL CD Q -

CL < Q . <

1̂ 1̂

CO

moVGh

*


Reproduced with

permission

of the copyright owner.

Further reproduction prohibited

without permission.

82

Table 8

Pearson Correlations of the Aggregate Job Stress Survey Scores and Organizational-Level Effectiveness Measures

Variable 1

1. Job Stress Index





4. Picking Defects

4. Picking Defects

5. Packing Defects

5. Packing Defects

6. Putaway Defects

1.000

.992**

.992**

.968**

.968**

.039

.039

-.323

-.323

.717

1.000

1.000

.934** 1.000

.934** 1.000

-.001 .106

-.001 .106

-.316 -.322

-.316 -.322

1.000

1.000

.850* 1.000

.850* 1.000

.652 .780 .612 .135 1.000

inco

CM

5

ooCM

CMCMCO

ooCM

CMCMCO

o * *00 00 00Is- I''- Is-oo oo

CMinCD

oID

oIDIs-

Is-

ro w 5 oZ J CD

CL Q

*Is-

00

o 0 0 CC Q

*Is -

00

O)I «

0

O)i «>£ O0 0o 0 0

DC Q

ooVf t***

oV f t**irloV f t

CD


84

Hypothesis Two

Organizational units whose employees report high levels of occupational stress

will have lower results on measures of organizational effectiveness than those divisions

whose employees report low levels of occupational stress.

Analysis o f Hypothesis Two and Findings

Descriptive statistics highlighted differences in the occupational stress and

organizational effectiveness scores among the six Logistics Centers. To test for

significant differences among these scores, one-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs)

were performed with Logistics Center as the grouping variable. In partial support of

Hypothesis 2, the data indicate that higher mean scores on the various Job Stress Survey

scales were associated with significantly lower scores on approximately one half of the

organizational effectiveness measures.

Job Stress Index

As stated previously in this chapter, the Job Stress Index measures participants’

perceived levels of overall occupational stress. Table 9 illustrates that Logistics Centers

reported varying levels of occupational stress, as evidenced by scores on the Job Stress

Index (JSX). With possible JSX scores ranging from 0 -1 0 0 , and low JSX scores

indicating lower levels of occupational stress, the mean score for the total population

was 50.47, indicating an “average” level of overall occupational stress with a moderate

level of variability among participants’ ratings, as evidenced by a standard deviation of

11.81. When compared to all respondents of the Job Stress Survey (Spielberger &

Vagg, 1999), the occupational stress levels of participants from Location B and

Location D correspond to scores in the 85th and 65th percentiles, respectively.


85

Conversely, the occupational stress levels of participants from Location C and Location

E correspond to scores in the 40th and 30th percentiles, respectively.

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics for Job Stress Index Scores for each Logistics Center

Logistics Center Mean SD N

Location A 49.56 11.66 36Location B 60.81 16.03 32Location C 46.39 7.93 36Location D 54.45 8.50 40Location E 43.75 7.90 32Location F 47.92 9.87 37

While some of the differences between the means of Logistics Centers on JSX

scores may appear small, examination of ANOVA results indicates that there was a

statistical difference between the JSX scores among organizational units,

F(5,207)=T 1.38, p<.05. The Tukey post-hoc test for pairwise comparisons revealed that

participants from Location B (M= 60.81) reported significantly higher levels of

occupational stress than their counterparts at Location A (M=49.56), Location F

(M=47.92), Location C (M=46.39), and Location E (37=43.75). In addition, participants

from Location D (M=54.45) reported significantly higher occupational stress levels than

participants from Location C and Location E. Participants from Location E reported

significantly lower occupational stress levels than their counterparts at Location C. All

differences were significant at the .05 level.

Job Pressure Index

As stated previously in this chapter, the Job Pressure Index measures

participants’ perceived occupational stress pertaining to the job itself, which can be


86

attributed most directly to aspects of their job’s structure, design, or duties. Table 10

illustrates that Logistics Centers reported varying levels of occupational stress

pertaining to the job itself, as evidenced by scores on the Job Pressure Index (JPX).

With possible JPX scores ranging from 0 -1 0 0 and low JPX scores indicating lower

levels of occupational stress pertaining to the job itself, the mean score for the total

population was 47.00, indicating an “average” level of occupational stress pertaining to

the job itself, with a moderate level of variability among participants’ ratings, as

evidenced by a standard deviation of 10.81. When compared to all respondents to the

Job Stress Survey (Spielberger & Vagg, 1999), the occupational stress levels associated

with the job itself of participants from Location B and Location D correspond to scores

in the 70th and 55th percentiles, respectively. Conversely, the occupational stress levels

of participants from Location E and Location C correspond to scores in the 25th and 35th

percentiles, respectively.

Table 10

Descriptive Statistics for Job Pressure Index Scores for each Logistics Center



While some of the differences between the means of Logistics Centers on JPX


statistical difference between the JPX scores among organizational units, F (5,207)=


87

10.15, p<.05 . The Tukey post-hoc test for pairwise comparisons revealed that

participants from Location B (M= 55.19) reported significantly higher levels of job

pressure than their counterparts at Location A (M=46.31), Location F (M=44.22),

Location C (M=43.50), and Location E (M=41.00). Participants from Location D

(M=51.58) reported significantly higher job pressure levels than participants from

Location C (M=43.50), Location E (M=41.00), and Location F (M=44.22). All

differences were significant at the .05 level.

Lack o f Organizational Support Index

As stated previously in this chapter, the Lack of Organizational Support Index

measures participants’ perceived lack of support from supervisors, coworkers, or the

policies and procedures of the organization. Table 11 illustrates that Logistics Centers

reported varying levels of occupational stress related to perceived organizational

support, as evidenced by scores on the Lack of Support Index (LSX). With possible

LSX scores ranging from 0 - 100, and low LSX scores indicating lower levels of

occupational stress, the mean score for the total population was 52.27, indicating a

slightly “above average” level of occupational stress pertaining to perceived lack of

organizational support, with a moderate level of variability among participants’ ratings,

as evidenced by a standard deviation of 10.93. When compared to all respondents of the

Job Stress Survey (Spielberger & Vagg, 1999), the occupational stress levels associated

with perceived lack of organizational support of participants from Location B and

Location D correspond to scores in the 85th and 70th percentiles, respectively.

Conversely, the occupational stress levels of participants from Location E and Location

C correspond to scores in the 55th and 60th percentiles, respectively.


88

Table 11

Descriptive Statistics for Lack of Organizational Support Index Scores for each Logistics Center



While some of the differences between the means of Logistics Centers on LSX


statistical difference between the LSX scores among organizational units,

F(5,207)=5.89, p<.05. The Tukey post-hoc test for pairwise comparisons revealed that

participants from Location B (M=60.19) reported significantly higher levels of

occupational stress related to perceived organizational support than their counterparts at

Location F (M= 52.19), Location A (M=50.81), Location C (M=49.42), and Location E

(M=47.59). All differences were significant at the .05 level.

Organizational Effectiveness Measures

When corresponding organizational effectiveness measures were examined, it

was found that Logistics Centers reported varying intentions to turnover. With possible

turnover intention ratings ranging from 1 - 5 , and low ratings indicating less likelihood

of the employee’s intention to remain with their employer, the mean score for the total

population was 3.97 (SD=1.02), indicating a relatively high likelihood of remaining

with their employer (see Table 12). Analysis of Variance indicated there were no


89

significant differences between Logistics Centers’ employees’ intentions to remain with

their employer.

Table 12

Descriptive Statistics for Turnover Intention for each Logistics Center


Location A 4.03 1.03 36

Location B 3.88 0.87 32Location C 3.97 0.97 36Location D 3.85 1.08 40Location E 4.41 0.91 32Location F 3.73 1.15 37

When the overall satisfaction measure was examined, it was found that Logistics

Centers’ employees reported varying levels of overall satisfaction. With possible overall

satisfaction ratings ranging from 1 - 5 , and low ratings indicating lower overall

satisfaction levels, the mean score for the total population was 3.56 (SD:=1.28),

indicating a moderately high overall satisfaction level (see Table 13).

Table 13

Descriptive Statistics for Overall Satisfaction for each Logistics Center


Location A 3.44 1.52 36



90

While some of the differences between the means of Logistics Centers on

overall satisfaction scores may appear small, examination of ANOVA results indicates

that there was a statistical difference between the overall satisfaction scores among

organizational units, F(5,207)=2.74, p<.05. The Tukey post-hoc test for pairwise

comparisons revealed that participants from Location B (M= 3.00; SD=1.39) reported

significantly lower levels of overall satisfaction than their counterparts at Location E

(M= 4.06; SD=.95).

When employee motivation ratings were examined, it was found that Logistics

Centers’ employees reported varying levels of motivation to help their employer

succeed. With possible employee motivation ratings ranging from 1 - 5 , and low ratings

indicating lower motivation levels, the mean score for the total population was 3.52

(SD=1.31), indicating a moderately high motivation level (see Table 14).

Table 14

Descriptive Statistics for Employee Motivation for each Logistics Center


Location A 3.31 1.51 36



employee motivation ratings may appear small, examination of ANOVA results

indicates that there was a statistical difference between the motivation ratings among



91

comparisons revealed that participants from Location F (M= 3.24; SD=1.30) and

Location B (M= 3.25; SD=1.39) reported significantly lower levels of motivation than

their counterparts at Location E (M=4.06; SD=.95) and Location C (M= 4.03; SD=1.08).

When performance appraisal ratings were examined, it was found that Logistics

Centers’ employees were assessed as having varying levels of job performance. With

possible performance appraisal ratings ranging from 1 (“too new”) to 6 (“consistently

exceeds requirements”), with higher scores indicating higher performance appraisal

ratings, the mean score for the total population was 3.53 (SD=1.02), indicating a rating

between “low meets requirements” and “meets requirements” (see Table 15).

Table 15

Descriptive Statistics for Performance Appraisal Ratings for each Logistics Center


Location A 3.50 1.06 36



performance appraisal ratings may appear small, examination of ANOVA results

indicates that there was a statistical difference between the motivation ratings among


comparisons revealed that participants from Location E (M= 4.19; SD=.78) received

significantly higher ratings than their counterparts at Location A (M= 3.50; SD=1.06),

Location D (M= 2.89; SD=.65), and Location F (M= 2.82; SD=.90). Participants from


92

Location D (M= 2.89; SD=.65) received significantly lower performance appraisal

ratings than their counterparts at Location A (M= 3.50; SD=1.06), Location B (M= 3.88;

SD=.79), and Location C (M=4.03; SD=1.08).

When Logistics Centers’ productivity measures were examined it was found that

the six locations were assessed as having varying levels of performance on picking,

packing, putaway, and receiving activities. With higher percentages from the monthly

audits indicating higher percentages of errors in a given activity, the mean error

percentage across all locations was 5.15% for picking activities, .30% for packing

activities, 1.35% for putaway activities, and .31% for receiving activities. Table 16

shows the range in error rates among the six Logistics Centers for the four aggregate

productivity measures.

Table 16

Descriptive Statistics for Aggregate Productivity Measures for each Logistics Center

Logistics Center Mean

Audit Picking Defect PercentageLocation A 0.40Location B 8.51Location C 18.84Location D 0.43Location E 1.23Location F 1.53

Audit Packing Defect PercentageLocation A 0.74Location B 0.70Location C 0.00Location D 0.00Location E 0.33Location F 0.00


93

Table 16 (continued)

Descriptive Statistics for Aggregate Productivity Measures for each Logistics Center

Logistics Center Mean

Audit Putaway Defect PercentageLocation A 0.00Location B 6.49Location C 0.94Location D 0.43Location E 0.00Location F 0.26

Audit Receiving Defect PercentageLocation A 0.00Location B 1.35Location C 0.00Location D 0.00Location E 0.52Location F 0.00

In support of Hypothesis 2, participants from Location B, which reported

significantly higher levels of overall occupational stress, occupational stress related to

job pressure, and occupational stress related to lack of organizational support than

Locations C, E, and F, reported significantly lower levels of overall satisfaction than

participants at Location E. Similarly, participants from Location B reported

significantly lower levels of motivation than Locations C and E. Finally, when

aggregate productivity measures were examined, Location B reported a higher

percentage of picking errors compared to Locations E and F, and higher percentages of

packing, putaway, and receiving errors than Locations C, E, and F. Contrary to

expectations, there were no significant differences in the turnover intentions or


94

performance appraisal ratings of participants from Location B and those from locations

whose participants reported significantly lower levels of occupational stress.

Additional Analyses

Multiple regression analysis was not a part of the original study proposal

because it was not necessary to answer the study’s primary research question

concerning the relationship between individual employees’ occupational stress levels

and the performance of Logistics Centers. However, given an adequate final sample

size of 213 participants, it seems appropriate to utilize the interpretive power of multiple

regression to follow on previous seminal research conducted in this area (Cooper &

Sloan, 1985; Jamal, 1984) and to seek additional insights from the study data to

determine if certain components of occupational stress are better predictors of

organizational effectiveness than others. A series of multiple regression analyses were

conducted to explain the extent to which the predictor variables (JPX and LSX scores),

individually and in combination, explained a proportion of the variance in the criterion

variables (turnover intention, overall satisfaction, employee motivation, performance

appraisal ratings) with which they were shown (see Table 7) to have significant

correlations.

Because the Job Stress Index (JSX) scores are comprised of the Job Pressure

Index (JPX) and Lack of Organizational Support Index (LSX) scores, these dimensions

were highly correlated with the JSX (JPX - r = .884, LSX - r = .886). This resulted in a

multicollinearity effect. Since the Beta weights for a simple regression of the JSX and

criterion variables equals the correlation coefficients presented in Table 7, only

simultaneous multiple regression analyses for the JPX and LSX and each of the


95

criterion variables were performed. The JPX and LSX were not as highly correlated

with each other as they were with the JSX (r = .625). Multiple regression analyses

result in an F statistic, Beta weights, and R2, the coefficient of determination. The F

statistic specifies the extent to which the predictor variable(s) significantly relate to the

criterion variable. The Beta weights specify how each predictor variable associates

with the criterion variable. The coefficient of determination, R2, determines the extent

to which the predictor variables can predict the variance in the criterion variable.

Turnover Intention

In the first exploratory regression analysis, the Job Pressure Index and Lack of

Organizational Support Index were the predictor variables, and turnover intention was

the criterion variable. The results indicate that job pressure and lack of organizational

support, in combination, explained 27% of the variance in turnover intention (R2=.269,

R adj=.262, F=38.61, p<001). On closer examination of the partial regression

coefficients (see Table 17), job pressure (13=-.35, p<.001) and lack of organizational

support (13=-.22, p<.01) were each significant predictors of turnover intention.

Table 17

Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis of Job Pressure and Lack of Organizational Support Subscales on Turnover Intentions

IndependentVariable

Standardized Coefficients 13

t Sig.

Job Pressure -.351 -4.649 .000Lack of Organizational -.221 -2.919 .004Support

V r . 1-.2 t-,2 -w -.Note. R2=.269, R2adj=262, F(2,210)=38.614, p<.001


96

Overall Employee Satisfaction

In the next exploratory regression analysis, the Job Pressure Index and Lack of

Organizational Support Index were the predictor variables, and overall employee

satisfaction was the criterion variable. The results of the regression analysis indicate

that job pressure and lack of organizational support, in combination, explained 43% of

the variance in overall employee satisfaction (R2=.426, R2a(jj=.421, F=77.99, p<001).

On closer examination of the partial regression coefficients (see Table 18), job pressure

(B=-.42, p<.001) and lack of organizational support (B=-.31, p<.001) were each

significant predictors of overall employee satisfaction.

Table 18

Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis of Job Pressure and Lack of Organizational Support Subscales on Overall Employee Satisfaction

IndependentVariable

Standardized Coefficients B

t Sig.

Job Pressure -.415 -6.205 .000

Lack of Organizational -.307 -4.587 .000Support

A 7 . T->2 T ,2Note. R2=.426, R2̂ . 421, F(2,210)=77.993, p<.001

Employee Motivation


Organizational Support Index were the predictor variables, and employee motivation

was the criterion variable. The results of the regression analysis indicate that job

pressure and lack of organizational support, in combination, explained 44% of the

9 9variance in employee motivation (R =.436, R adj=.431, F=81.23, p<001). On closer

examination of the partial regression coefficients (see Table 19), job pressure (B=-.34,


97

pc.OOl) and lack of organizational support (B=-.39, p<.001) were each significant

predictors of employee motivation.

Table 19

Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis of Job Pressure and Lack of Organizational Support Subscales on Employee Motivation

IndependentVariable


t Sig.

Job Pressure -.341 -5.137 .000


17 , T l2 T l2 ,.->1Note. R2=.436, R2adj=.431, F(2,210)=81.229, p<.001

Performance Appraisal


Organizational Support Index were the predictor variables, and employee performance

appraisal rating was the criterion variable. The findings of the regression analysis

indicate that job pressure and lack of organizational support, in combination, explained

6% of the variance in performance appraisal ratings (R =.060, R adj=.051, F=6.50,

p<01). On closer examination of the partial regression coefficients (see Table 20), lack

of organizational support (B=-.23, p<.05) was a significant predictor of performance

appraisal ratings. However, job pressure (B=-.03, p=.730) was not a significant

predictor of performance appraisal ratings for this sample.


98

Table 20

Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis of Job Pressure and Lack of Organizational Support Subscales on Performance Appraisal Ratings

IndependentVariable


t Sig.

Job Pressure -.030 -.346 .730


Note. R2=.060, R2adj=.051, F(2,204)=6.500, p<.01

Chapter Summary

The results of this study were based on the responses of 213 respondents to the

Job Stress Survey. Respondents were employed at six Logistics Centers from a

medium-sized Fortune 500 company that is a distributor of microcomputer hardware

and software products headquartered in the Southeastern United States. Hypothesis 1,

which investigated the relationship between individual occupational stress levels and

the effectiveness of the Logistics Center in which they were employed, was fully

supported. The three primary scales of the Job Stress Survey (i.e., Job Stress Index, Job

Pressure Index, Lack of Support Index) were significantly correlated with all individual-

level measures of organizational effectiveness (i.e., turnover intention, employee

satisfaction, employee motivation, performance appraisal). In addition, aggregate

scores on the three Job Stress Survey scales (i.e., Job Stress Index, Job Pressure Index,

Lack of Support Index) showed strong correlations with errors in putaway and receiving

activities.

Hypothesis 2, which investigated whether Logistics Centers whose employees

report high levels of occupational stress will have lower results on measures of


99

organizational effectiveness than those divisions whose employees report low levels of

occupational stress, was partially supported. Higher mean scores on the Job Stress

Survey scales (i.e., Job Stress Index, Job Pressure Index, Lack of Support Index)

resulted in significantly lower scores on approximately one half of the organizational

effectiveness measures. Although not a part of the original study design, a series of

multiple regression analyses was performed to determine if certain components of

occupational stress are better predictors of organizational effectiveness than others.

These exploratory analyses showed that the two Job Stress Survey subscales (Job

Pressure Index, Lack of Support Index) were significant predictors of turnover

intention, overall satisfaction, motivation, and performance appraisal ratings.


100

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to examine the link between occupational stress

and the performance of Logistics Centers as shown by employee performance appraisal

ratings, quality metrics, and employee satisfaction. This chapter is divided into five

sections. The first section will provide an overview of the research study. Second, the

research findings from this study will be discussed and interpreted relative to the

existing occupational stress and organizational effectiveness literature. Third,

conclusions from the study will be detailed, and fourth, the limitations of the study will

be highlighted. Finally, the implications for practice and recommendations for future

study will be discussed.

Summary of the Research Study

Stress in the workplace has been shown to have a tremendously negative impact

on the functioning of individuals in organizations. Several studies over the past twenty

years have also provided support for thinking that stress is a risk factor in illness and

disease (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Quick, Quick, Nelson,

& Hurrell, 1997). However, the crippling effects of occupational stress on work

performance have often been presumed but seldom demonstrated empirically, likely

based on the difficulties involved in obtaining reliable performance data under stressful

conditions.

While there is a consensus among stress researchers that stress is related to

performance (Bhagat, 1983; Jamal, 1984; Jex, 1998; Kahn, et al., 1964; McGrath,

1976), most of the evidence confirming a relationship between stress and objective


101

indicators of performance has been assessed in laboratory experiments (e.g., Shiflett &

Cohen, 1980; Tubre & Collins, 2000). In field studies, performance has frequently been

assessed subjectively and correlated with the subjective reports of stress by the same

respondents. Such correlations among perceptual data are weak evidence because they

are susceptible to artificial inflation based on common method effects (Fried, Rowland,

& Ferris, 1984). This study examined the relationship between individuals’

occupational stress levels and the performance of the organizational division in which

they were employed, using both subjective and objective performance measures, and

hypothesized that high stress levels are detrimental to performance.

This quantitative study followed a non-experimental, correlational design. The

study was comprised of 213 individuals employed in six geographic locations of the

Logistics Division of a medium-sized Fortune 500 distributor of microcomputer

hardware and software products headquartered in the Southeastern United States. The

participants ranged in age from 21 to 57, and the majority were male, Caucasian,

married, had attended some college, and had worked in a skilled maintenance

profession. As a whole, the sample reported relatively average occupational stress

levels when compared to normative samples, but when broken down by geographic

location, employees at Location B reported the highest levels of occupational stress on

the various Job Stress Survey scales, while those at Location E reported the lowest

levels of occupational stress on the various Job Stress Survey scales.


102

The main findings of this study were:

(1) There was a significant, negative relationship between occupational stress levels

and employee intentions to remain with the organization, employee overall

satisfaction, employee motivation, and performance appraisal ratings.

(2) There was a positive relationship between occupational stress levels and defects

in Logistics Center putaway and receiving activities.

(3) Logistics Centers whose employees reported high levels of occupational stress

had lower results on various measures of organizational effectiveness than those

Logistics Centers whose employees reported low levels of occupational stress.

The importance of addressing occupational stress levels is evident based on these

findings as well as on the following: (1) the prevalence of occupational stress has been

shown to be increasing at an alarming rate in recent years (Berry, 1998; Leiter &

Harvie, 1997; Marshall et al., 1997; Vagg & Spielberger, 1998; Wojcik, 2001); (2)

occupational stress has cost organizations billions of dollars through increased health

care costs, absenteeism and turnover, and lower levels of performance (Ganster, Fox, &

Dwyer, 2001; NIOSH, 1999); and (3) research has illustrated that policies benefiting

worker health also benefit an organization’s bottom line (Delaney & Huselid, 1996;

Ransom, Aschbacher, & Burud, 1989). Since nearly 64% of all persons aged 16 and

older in the United States are employed outside of the home (U.S. Bureau of Census,

2004) and with weekly work hours consistently increasing (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky,

& Prottas, 2002), it is essential that organizations begin to address their employees’

occupational stress levels, since these may influence organizational costs and

effectiveness.


103

Discussion

Relationship between Occupational Stress and Organizational Effectiveness

The first hypothesis accurately predicted that employees’ reported level of

occupational stress was related to six of eight measures of organizational effectiveness

in the expected direction. Specifically, there was a statistically significant, negative

relationship between employees’ scores on the three scales of the Job Stress Survey

(JSS) and their intention to remain with the organization, their overall employee

satisfaction, employee motivation to help the organization succeed, and employee

performance appraisal ratings. There was a positive relationship between aggregate

employee scores on the three scales of the JSS and the percentage of errors in putaway

and receiving activities. These results provide support for the conceptual bases of this

study, as well as findings and interpretations from earlier studies, which are further

explained below.

Turnover Intention

Pearson r correlations revealed a significant, negative relationship between

occupational stress levels, as measured by the Job Stress Index (r = -.500), and turnover

intentions of Logistics Center employees, as well as between turnover intentions and the

two dimensions of occupational stress, job pressure (r = -.489) and lack of

organizational support (r = -.440). These findings show a somewhat larger relationship

between job stress and turnover intention than a recent study conducted by Ezell (2003).

Ezell investigated the relationship between turnover intentions of Tennessee

Cooperative Extension System employees and scores on the Job Stress Survey and

reported correlations of .136 with the JPX, .302 with the JSX, and .341 with the LSX.


104

In the current study, the relationship between overall occupational stress, as evidenced

by scores on the Job Stress Index and turnover intention, was particularly strong. The

strength of this relationship illustrates that employee concerns about insufficient

personnel, role conflict, and role overload are more closely related to their intention to

remain with their employer than concerns such as meeting deadlines, excessive

paperwork, interruptions, participation in decision making, and difficulties with

supervision.

These findings are consistent with results obtained by various researchers,

including Cropanzano et al. (1997), Layne, Hohenshil and Singh (2004), and Todd and

Deery-Schmitt (1996), over the past decade. Similarly, Zohar (1995) investigated the

role of work role injustice in intention to withdraw and actual turnover among 213

hospital nurses and found that work role injustice accounted for a significant portion of

the variance in intention to withdraw and actual turnover. Slate and Vogel (1997)

reported that occupational stress was significantly related to turnover intentions in a

large sample of corrections officers, while Mitchell, Mackenzie, Styve, and Gover

(2000) determined that occupational stress was one of the primary causes of turnover in

their study of juvenile corrections officers.

The results of the exploratory regression analyses conducted in this study

indicate that the two primary dimensions of job stress, job pressure and lack of

organizational support, may be important factors in an employee’s decision to leave his

or her organization. Nearly 27% of the variance in turnover intentions was explained

by job pressure and lack of organizational support scale scores. While the amount of

variance in turnover intentions explained by occupational stress in this study is


105

substantial, it is the least amount explained compared to the other attitudinal variables

included in this study. In fact, occupational stress accounted for 43% of the variance in

overall satisfaction and 44% of the variance in employee motivation. These findings

support the assertion expressed in earlier studies that turnover intention appears to be a

multi-faceted construct, with occupational stress perhaps serving as one of many

influencing factors (deCroon, Sluiter, Blonk, Broersen, Frings-Dresen, 2004;

Elangovan, 2001; Ezell, 2003), along with others investigated in this study, such as

satisfaction, motivation, or performance.

Overall Employee Satisfaction

The results of the current study highlight the strong connection between

employee perceptions of job satisfaction and occupational stress. Pearson r correlations

revealed a strong, negative relationship between occupational stress levels, as measured

by the Job Stress Index, and overall satisfaction of Logistics Center employees (r = -

.632), as well as between employee satisfaction and the two dimensions of occupational

stress, job pressure (r = -.607), and lack of organizational support (r = -.567).

According to these results, participants who had higher levels of occupational stress had

lower ratings of overall employee satisfaction.

The current study indicates that the relationship between overall occupational

stress, as evidenced by scores on the Job Stress Index, and employee satisfaction was

stronger than the relationship between employee satisfaction and the two remaining

indices of occupational stress (i.e., Job Pressure Index, Lack of Organizational Support

Index). Lack of organizational support scores had the weakest association with overall

satisfaction among the three indices, which is somewhat surprising since scores on this


106

index were the highest among study participants. However, it is possible that the global

nature of the overall employee satisfaction question (“overall, I am satisfied with my

job ”) was more directly related to the general stressor items that comprise the Job Stress

Index (e.g., insufficient personnel to handle assignments, role conflict, role overload)

than it was to those that comprise the Job Pressure Index (e.g., meeting deadlines,

excessive paperwork, frequent interruptions) or the Lack of Organizational Support

Index (e.g., lack of participation in decision making, difficulties with supervision).


indicate that job stress and its two dimensions, job pressure and lack of organizational

support, may be substantial factors in an employee’s overall satisfaction with his or her

job. Nearly 43% of the variance in overall satisfaction was explained by job pressure

and lack of organizational support scale scores. Based on this result, it is also possible

that employees who are dissatisfied with their jobs may perceive their work

environments as less supportive and more stressful. The strength of the inverse

relationship between occupational stress and employee satisfaction reported in the

current study was expected and confirms the findings of various meta-analyses and

empirical studies (Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Tubre & Collins, 2000).

A recent study by Williams, Konrad, Scheckler, and Pathman (2001) analyzed

the survey responses of 1,735 physicians on job stress, job satisfaction, physical and

mental health, and intention to withdraw from practice. Structural equation modeling

found that higher perceived stress was associated with lower satisfaction levels, which

were also found to be related to greater intentions to quit, decrease work hours, or leave

direct patient care. Mitchell, et al. (2000) reported that job satisfaction and occupational


107

stress displayed the strongest relationship among all organizational level variables in

their investigation of juvenile corrections officers’ turnover intentions. The results of

the current study echo those reported in Dobreva-Martinova’s (2001) investigation of

the relationship between occupational stress and organizational well being in the

Canadian armed forces, which showed that occupational stressors accounted for 45% of

the variance in employee satisfaction. Employee satisfaction is a frequently changing

psychological outcome that is adjusted by experiences in a person’s working life. Since

many organizational researchers contend that employee satisfaction is predictive of a

variety of performance indicators (Davy et al., 1997; Ryan et al., 1996), the results of

this study further highlight the importance of paying attention to occupational stress

levels.

Employee Motivation

In the current study, employee motivation was the attitudinal variable found to

have the strongest relationship with occupational stress. Pearson r correlations revealed

a significant, negative relationship between occupational stress levels, as measured by

the Job Stress Index, and motivation of Logistics Center employees (r = -.640), as well

as between employee motivation and the two dimensions of occupational stress, job

pressure (r = -.585) and lack of organizational support (r = -.604). These results

indicate that higher occupational stress levels were associated with lower levels of

motivation to help their employer. Once again, overall occupational stress levels, as

evidenced by scores on the Job Stress Index, showed the strongest relationship with

employee motivation. In contrast to the results reported for the other attitudinal

variables (i.e., turnover intention, employee satisfaction) included in this study, job


108

pressure scores had the weakest association with employee motivation among the three

indices. The stressors that comprise the job pressure index are more closely related to

stressors inherent in the job itself (e.g., meeting deadlines, excessive paperwork) and

less controllable by the organization. Therefore, it is plausible that the employee

motivational level was more directly related to stressors they felt were under the control

of the organization (e.g., lack of participation in decision making, difficulties with

supervision), which comprise the lack of organizational support index.


indicate that job stress and its two dimensions, job pressure and lack of organizational

support, may be very influential factors in an employee’s motivation to help the

organization succeed. Nearly 44% of the variance in employee motivation was

explained by job pressure and lack of organizational support scale scores. These

findings are consistent with previous research that found a relationship between

occupational stress and employee motivation (Davis & Wilson, 2000; Freidman &

Farber 1992). In a study of public school teachers and principals, Davis and Wilson

(2000) found that teacher motivation was negatively related to occupational stress.

Similarly, Friedman and Farber (1992) showed that teacher motivation had a

moderately strong association with both job satisfaction and occupational stress, with

approximately 28% of the variance in teacher motivation being explained by job

satisfaction and occupational stress.

The strength of the relationship between employee motivation and occupational

stress reported here may be explained by the conceptual model provided as the

framework for this study (McGrath, 1976). Using this framework, participants who


109

appraised their objective work environment as stressful may have perceived this

situation negatively. It is possible that these negative perceptions were related to

employees’ decreased motivation to contribute to the organization’s success.

Performance

Four possible scenarios regarding stress and performance were reviewed by

Sullivan and Bhagat (1992): (1) stress may increase performance (i.e., positive, linear

relationship), (2) stress may decrease performance (i.e., negative, linear relationship),

(3) stress may have no effect on performance, and (4) stress may increase performance

to a point, then decrease performance (i.e., inverted U-shaped relationship). The

authors reported that a negative relationship between stress and performance was most

commonly reported, which has been supported in subsequent research (Abramis, 1994;

Fischer, 2001; Greer, Castro, & Dorland, 1996; Tubre & Collins, 2000), including the

current study.

Performance Appraisal

The current study moved beyond the scope of self-report attitudinal perceptions

and included supervisory ratings of performance. Pearson r correlations revealed a

significant, negative relationship between occupational stress levels, as measured by the

Job Stress Index, and performance appraisal ratings of Logistics Center employees (r =

-.219), as well as between performance appraisal ratings and the two dimensions of

occupational stress, job pressure (r = -.170), and lack of organizational support (r = -

.244). These results indicate that increased occupational stress levels among

participants were related to decreased job performance, as evidenced by supervisors’

semi-annual appraisal ratings. Although the results report a statistically significant


110

negative relationship, the magnitude of the correlation between occupational stress and

performance appraisal ratings was relatively low among all three indices of the Job

Stress Survey when compared to previously reported correlation coefficients between

the attitudinal variables (i.e., turnover intention, overall satisfaction, motivation) and

occupational stress. This finding is somewhat expected since empirical research has

often found much weaker relationships between occupational stressors and

organizationally relevant behavioral outcomes such as performance appraisals than

between occupational stressors and organizationally relevant psychological outcomes

such as employee satisfaction, motivation, and turnover intention (Jex & Crossley,

2005).

Although there are limited examples of studies investigating the relationship

between occupational stress and performance appraisal ratings in the empirical

literature, research investigating this relationship has found mixed results. In support of

the current findings, Fried, Ben-David, Tiegs, Avital, and Yeverechyahu (1998) found

that role stressors were negatively related to supervisory job performance ratings of

Israeli blue-collar employees. Westman and Eden (1992) reported an inverse

relationship between occupational stress and supervisory performance ratings among

officer-cadets in the Israeli Defense Forces. Similarly, Jamal (1985) found a negative

relationship between occupational stress and supervisory ratings of performance among

middle managers and blue-collar employees. Motowidlo, Packard, and Manning (1986)

found inverse relationships between perceived occupational stress and performance

among nurses as evaluated by peers and supervisors. In contrast to the current study’s

findings, Spector, Dwyer, & Jex (1988) found no relationship between 181 secretaries’


I l l

perceptions of stress and supervisory ratings of their performance. Similarly, Bhuian,

Menguc, & Borsboom (2005) reported no relationship between stress and supervisory

performance appraisals among 203 salespersons in New Zealand.

The exploratory regression analyses conducted in this study indicate that job

stress and its two dimensions, job pressure and lack of organizational support, may have

a minor influence on an employee’s job performance, as assessed by his or her

supervisor. Six percent of the variance in performance appraisal ratings was explained

by job pressure and lack of organizational support scores. Although these analyses

represent statistically significant relationships between performance appraisal ratings

and the various occupational stress scales, the strength of these relationships is

relatively weak. However, the deficiencies (i.e., rater distortion, perception,

subjectivity) often associated with supervisory ratings (Hogan, 1987; Landy & Farr,

1980; Lefkowitz, 2000; Scullen, Mount, & Goff, 2000) may help explain the weak

relationships among these variables.

Work Outcomes

Four objective organizational-level productivity measures were utilized as work

outcomes for this study. The first, “picking audit defect percentage,” is the percentage

of errors found in monthly audits of the accuracy of picking products from inventory for

shipment. The second, “packing audit defect percentage,” is the percentage of errors

found in monthly audits of the accuracy of packing products into shipment containers.

The third, “putaway audit defect percentage,” is the percentage of errors found in

monthly audits of the accuracy of activities related to the receipt of material,

determination of its storage or other destination, movement to that location, and the


112

stocking and physical arrangement of the material. Finally, “receiving audit defect

percentage” is the percentage of errors found in monthly audits of the accuracy of

processing incoming materials against purchase orders; customer returns; verifying

item, quantity, and physical condition; and performing receipt update and

documentation duties.

To address level of analysis issues, aggregate scores on the JSX, JPX, and LSX

were calculated for each Logistics Center for comparison with the organizational-level

work outcomes data. The small sample size among aggregate Job Stress Survey scores

for each location (N=6) prohibited an adequately powerful statistical test of the

correlation among the organizational-level measures. However, examination of the

magnitude of correlations revealed a positive relationship between occupational stress

levels, as measured by the Job Stress Index, and Logistics Center audit putaway and

receiving defect percentages, as well as between Logistics Center putaway and

receiving defect percentages and the two dimensions of occupational stress, job

pressure, and lack of organizational support. These findings indicate that higher

occupational stress levels of Logistics Center employees relate to higher numbers of

defects discovered through audits of putaway and receiving activities. This result was

expected and is consistent with those of previous studies reporting an inverse

relationship between occupational stress levels and objective measures of performance

(Fisher, 2001; Reilly, Grasha, & Schafer, 2002; Westman & Eden, 1992).

In one of the few laboratory experiments conducted in the occupational stress

arena, Reilly, et al. (2002) investigated the effects of increased workload and stress on

performance efficiency in detecting errors in simulated pharmacy prescriptions. In this


113

study, college students were asked to judge the accuracy of simulated pharmacy

prescriptions against handwritten order cards. The authors report that a condition of

high workload (120 orders over 120 minutes on task) resulted in a decline in error

detection, while a low-workload condition (72 orders over 120 minutes on task) did not

result in a negative change in error detection.

A different picture emerged, however, when the investigation shifted to the

remaining productivity measures. There was no relationship between occupational

stress levels, as measured by the Job Stress Index, and Logistics Center audit picking

and packing defect percentages, as well as between Logistics Center audit picking and

packing defect percentages and both dimensions of occupational stress, job pressure and

lack of organizational support. Although this finding is contradictory to expectations, it

is possible that picking and packing activities are more mechanistic work activities in

which the Logistics Centers are able to emphasize greater controls on the employees’

production levels through quality assurance processes.

The contradictory findings in this study are not unusual. The complexity of the

relationship between self-assessed occupational stress and objective performance

outcomes is highlighted in the research conducted by Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray

(2000), which investigated the relationship between occupational stressors and job

performance in a sample of field salespeople. The authors utilized ratings of sales

dem onstration quantity and units sold as the m easures o f objective perform ance and

found significant relationships between three of four stressors and units sold, but no

significant relationships between stressors and the number of sales demonstrations

conducted. The authors provided the following as a possible rationale for the conflicting


114

results: stressors decreased the quality of the demonstrations, which led to fewer units

sold, even though it did not lead to a lower quantity of demonstrations.

Organizational Consequences o f Occupational Stress

Hypothesis 2 correctly predicted that Logistics Centers whose employees

reported higher levels of occupational stress would have lower scores on the various

organizational effectiveness measures than Logistics Centers whose employees reported

lower levels of occupational stress. Employees at Location B reported significantly

higher levels of overall stress than their counterparts at four of the five remaining

locations. Similar results were found when employees’ levels of stress related to the

pressures of the job itself (e.g., job structure, duties) were reviewed. Again, employees

at Location B reported the highest levels of occupational stress related to job pressures,

and these differences in stress level were significantly different than those at four of the

five locations. Finally, when occupational stress related to organizational support issues

(e.g., support from supervisors or coworkers, policies and procedures) was reviewed, a

similar pattern emerged. Employees from Location B reported significantly higher

levels of occupational stress related to organizational support issues than did employees

from four other locations.

In turn, Location B reported the lowest overall satisfaction and employee

motivation ratings, and the highest percentages of defects in putaway and receiving

activities. In fact, Location B reported the low est or second-low est scores on m easures

of organizational effectiveness in all instances. Conversely, employees at Location E

reported the lowest levels of overall occupational stress, the highest intention to remain

with their employer, the highest overall satisfaction ratings, the highest employee


115

motivation ratings, the highest performance appraisal ratings, and the lowest percentage

of defects in putaway activities.

As discussed previously, studies assessing the relationship between occupational

stress and objective job performance are rare in the stress literature. However, there are

several examples that support the findings of the current study (Greer et al., 1996;

Jones et al., 1988; Varca, 1999; Westman & Eden, 1992). Varca (1999) examined the

relationship between perceived occupational stressors and job performance in a

technical support profession. Performance was evaluated in terms of how efficiently

communication networks were installed and maintained at the customer's site. As

predicted, linear regression and chi-square analyses revealed that a significantly greater

proportion of individuals in the high performance group reported low occupational

stress levels, which suggests that perceptions of job stress can relate to quality service.

A frequently cited study that supports the findings relative to the organizational

consequences of occupational stress described in this section was conducted by Jones et

al. (1988). The authors conducted a series of longitudinal studies to examine the

relationship between a composite index assessing employee perceptions of occupational

stress and the number of malpractice claims in a sample of hospitals. In the first study,

hospital departments with a record of malpractice claims reported higher levels of

occupational stress than did matched departments reporting low levels of occupational

stress. In the second study, the authors found that the occupational stress levels of

employees at 61 hospitals correlated significantly with the frequency of malpractice

claims. Studies 3 and 4, which investigated the influence of organization-wide stress

management programs on medication errors and malpractice claims, reported


116

significant decreases in both monthly medication errors and malpractice claims. As

with the Jones et al. study, it is presumed that employees in the current study who

experienced high levels of occupational stress may have become more anxious, more

easily distracted, or less able to concentrate on their work, which may be related not

only to decreased motivation or satisfaction, but also to increased errors on the job.

While it is contrary to expectations that Location B did not report the lowest

scores on all measures of organizational effectiveness, it is possible that the wording of

the turnover intention measure ( “Iplan to stay at [my employer] for the next 12

months”) did not truly reflect an individual’s thoughts or desires about quitting his or

her job. In addition, the research site has undergone a series of layoffs in recent years

that may have made participants fearful to provide completely honest assessments of

their occupational stress levels or turnover intentions. These uncertain internal

conditions, coupled with recent employment instability in the manufacturing and

technology sectors (Dobbs, 2004; Thibodeau, 2003) may very well have influenced

employees’ perceptions regarding whether or not they expected, or planned, to remain

with their employer. Similarly, while it was expected that Location B would have

produced the highest percentage of defects in picking and packing activities, it is

possible that these types of activities are less cognitively complex, and the increased

occupational stress levels may actually have served as “functional stress” and, thus,

maintained high performance levels (Abramis, 1994; Allen et al., 1982). Another

potential explanation for the relatively weak relationships between occupational stress

levels and errors in production activities may result from the typically high levels of

control over these activities in production environments such as the research site. In


117

such an environment, workers often have little freedom to “underproduce” and, at the

same time, are unable to assume individual responsibility for these activities.

The persistence of the inverse relationship reported in this study, across different

locations, raters, and measures, highlights the potential for excessive occupational stress

levels to have an adverse effect on organizational effectiveness.

Conclusions

Research linking occupational stress to organizationally relevant outcomes is in

its relative infancy in the occupational stress literature. Although no causal effects can

be determined from this descriptive, correlational investigation, the following general

conclusions are drawn based on the statistical analyses utilized to address the research

questions and test the hypotheses that guided this study.

1. Participants’ overall occupational stress levels were significantly and

negatively related to their intentions to remain with their current employer,

their overall job satisfaction, their motivation to help their employer succeed,

and their performance appraisal ratings. Further, respondents’ perceptions

regarding the stress related to their job demands and the supportive nature of

the work environment were also significantly and negatively related to these

organizationally relevant outcomes.

2. Aggregate measures of overall occupational stress at the location level were

positively related to location-level errors in putaway and receiving activities,

as were aggregate measures of occupational stress related to job demands

and perceived organizational support. While the literature has indicated that

occupational stress is more strongly related to other psychological outcomes


118

(i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, burnout) than it is to

objective performance outcomes, the results of this study illustrate that the

potential impact of a stressed or dissatisfied employee on an organization

could be very high if one or more employees decide to withhold effort in

response to their negative attitudes regarding perceived stress (Jex, Adams,

Bachrach, & Sorenson, 2003; Jex & Crossley, 2005; McGrath, 1976).

3. No evidence of a significant curvilinear relationship between occupational

stress levels and organizational effectiveness measures was found in the

current study. In other words, there was no evidence of “functional” stress

that improved performance on a given outcome measure, which has been

previously cited in the occupational stress literature. Therefore,

organizational awareness of the levels of stress its employees are

experiencing and efforts to reduce stress to manageable levels are critical to

the organization’s functioning and performance.

4. Based on the findings of the current study, it is evident that organizations

whose employees experience high levels of stress perform more poorly than

those whose employees experience lower levels of occupational stress.

Conversely, it was shown that organizations whose employees report low

levels of occupational stress performed better than those with higher levels

of occupational stress. These findings suggest that occupational stressors

experienced by employees, particularly those related to perceived lack of

organizational support, can have negative effects on organizations in very

tangible ways (i.e., errors in productivity measures). Unfortunately, this


119

study is unable to explain why this occurred. Although it was hypothesized

that high levels of occupational stress resulted in low organizational

effectiveness, it is just as possible that a Logistics Center’s low performance

may be unrelated to stress. Further, the Center’s poor performance may

have resulted in its employees experiencing higher levels of occupational

stress based on greater pressure to perform or uncertainty about the future of

their jobs based on the poor performance of their Center. Therefore, it

would be advantageous for organizations to conduct ongoing monitoring and

analysis of the sources and levels of occupational stress of its employees, as

well as quarterly or semi-annual assessments of its performance outcomes.

When this information is analyzed on a longitudinal basis, comparisons

between occupational stressors and performance outcomes can be made to

further examine the direction of this inverse relationship between

occupational stress and organizational effectiveness.

5. The major conclusion to be drawn from this research is that the influence of

occupational stress extends beyond the individual to negatively affect the

well being of the organization. Although this conclusion has previously

been based more on conventional wisdom and logic, the current study

provides one of the few instances of empirical evidence to support this

claim. It is hoped that the efforts of other occupational stress researchers

will benefit from the findings, implications, and recommendations of this

study. In addition, it is hoped that human resource practitioners and

organizational leaders will utilize the study findings to address the


120

occupational stress levels of their workforce and fulfill their responsibility to

ensure their employees’ continued health and well being.

Limitations of the Study

There are a number of limitations in this study that need to be addressed. The

first limitation pertains to the generalizability of the findings. Since this research was

conducted solely in one division within one organization, it may not represent the

occupational stress levels or climate present in other occupations or workplaces, and the

relationship between occupational stress and organizational effectiveness found here

may not be borne out elsewhere. Therefore, future research needs to assess and

compare the relationship of occupational stress and organizational outcomes in different

work settings (e.g., different types of private-sector companies, as well as public sector

organizations) and among different occupational groups (e.g., academic, professional,

technical).

This study’s correlational design, which entailed the measurement of

relationships between occupational stress levels and measures of organizational

effectiveness, poses another limitation to the interpretation of the findings. Since the

current study was non-experimental it did not involve random assignment of

participants into groups or manipulation of the independent variable. Therefore, the

relationships found between occupational stress levels and organizational effectiveness

in this study may not be inferred as causal. In other words, although this study

hypothesized directional relationships in which high levels of occupational stress

negatively influence organizational effectiveness measures, it is possible that the

reverse was true: A Logistics Center’s poor performance may have resulted in


121

employees’ increased stress levels related to their jobs. In addition, since all possible

multivariate explanations were not explored in the current study, the effects of

unmeasured variables might influence organizational effectiveness to a greater degree

than occupational stress.

The final limitation addresses the absence of qualitative data to augment the

quantitative results of the study. Although the results of this study supported the

hypotheses presented regarding the inverse relationship between occupational stress and

organizational effectiveness, by relying solely on responses to the Job Stress Survey,

one cannot provide a true interpretation of some of the “why” questions that arose

through the course of this investigation. For instance, although Location B reported

significantly higher levels of occupational stress (and lower performance) than the other

five locations, it is only possible to speculate on the reasons behind these findings since

little is known about the specific differences in culture, leadership, and processes in the

six Logistics Centers. The use of interview or focus group data to supplement the

quantitative measures might provide a clearer picture of the conditions at the various

Logistics Centers, which may offer more robust support for the hypothesized

relationships.

Implications and Recommendations for Future Study

Implications for Practice

The results of the current study have some practical implications. Since the

findings showed that occupational stress is negatively related to performance, both

individual and group, practitioners should be aware that when stress is imposed, there

might be a price in terms of performance reduction. By demonstrating that there is a


122

potential negative influence of employee stress levels on organizational effectiveness

and profitability, it is possible that organizations will take more proactive steps to

prevent stressors in the first place (e.g., Hurrell, 1995). For example, an organization

may pay attention to situations that have been shown to influence decreased

performance and increased occupational stress levels (e.g., mergers, downsizing,

changing leadership), and take action to minimize potentially negative outcomes.

In addition, the results of the current study highlight the value of an organization

becoming a “healthy organization,” which has been defined as an organization that is

not only financially successful, but also one that emphasizes employee health and well

being (Browne, 2002; Sauter, Lim, & Murphy, 1996). Healthy organizations are those

that demonstrate the following characteristics: (1) an organizational climate that

emphasizes innovation, conflict resolution, and employee inclusion; (2) an

organizational emphasis on strategic planning and career development; and (3)

organizational values that emphasize commitment to technology, employee growth and

development, and valuing the employee (NIOSH, 1999). As the data indicate, Logistics

Centers that possessed such characteristics, as evidenced by low scores on the lack of

organizational support scale, reported higher scores on the various measures of

organizational effectiveness. Although none of the characteristics of a healthy

organization can be considered as stress interventions per se, they are proactive steps in

preventing stress-related problems among employees.

In addition to proactive strategies, the results of the current study have the

potential of increasing management awareness of the sources of stress in the workplace.

Once management is aware of the stressors its workforce is experiencing, it would seem


123

logical that their next course of action would be to consider what could be done about

such stressors. Organizations have typically responded to this question by offering

employees various interventions (e.g., stress management training) designed to help

them cope more effectively with occupational stressors. This strategy may work in

instances in which the organization feels that the stressors themselves are relatively

unchangeable or that the cost of changing them is too high. In these cases, stress

management programs operate under the premise that employees are capable of

modifying their reactions to stressors and provide them with needed tools and

techniques to do so.

Given the potential costs, in terms of poor performance, that were highlighted by

the findings of this study, organizations should have a comprehensive strategy that

includes the reduction and/or management of occupational stressors, as well as

employee stress management techniques. After all, while it is beneficial to reduce the

severity and frequency of workplace stressors, it is not possible for organizations to

reduce or eliminate them all. However, given that inadequate supervisory support,

promotional and salary issues, and lack of recognition for good work were shown to be

some of the most prevalent sources of stress in the current study (as well as in others

[e.g., Ezell, 2003]), an effort should be made to eliminate or minimize occupational

stressors. Actions in the following areas would be most beneficial to organizations

experiencing similar stressors: (1) create an open, supportive work environment that

encourages innovation and excellence; (2) create an environment of open

communication and respect between coworkers, occupational specialties, and managers;

(3) increase employee involvement in decisions concerning work processes and


124

improvements; (4) provide clarity and communication of roles and expectations for

employees; and (5) provide quality supervision at all levels of the organization.

When possible, a comprehensive stress management strategy should also include

some form of monitoring workplace conditions and follow-up efforts aimed at

decreasing occupational stressors. Given the strong correlations between the Job Stress

Survey and its component Job Pressure and Lack of Organizational Support Indices and

the various measures of organizational effectiveness, it may be beneficial to combine

these instruments into a diagnostic tool to monitor workplace conditions. This

monitoring could also include assessment of the design and organization of work,

assessments of interpersonal relationships among employees and between employees

and customers, and assessments of the presence of constraints on performance that are

frustrating to employees. When an organization pays attention to the issues most salient

to its workforce and invests resources in its human resource base, employees will

generally respond with increased motivation and commitment to their work and to the

organization as a whole, all of which enhance the bottom line (Huselid, Jackson, &

Schuler, 1997; Murphy, Hurrell, Sauter, & Keita, 1995).

Implications for Research

The findings of the current study have laid the groundwork for a greater

understanding of the multifaceted relationships between occupational stressors and the

performance of individuals and the organizations in which they are employed. Future

research is needed to further explore this relationship and to determine the extent to

which certain aspects of occupational stress influence indicators of organizational

effectiveness. Experimental investigations that measure changes in individual (e.g.,


125

employee turnover intention, employee satisfaction, employee motivation, performance

appraisal ratings) and organizational (e.g., productivity) outcomes are necessary to

attribute these outcomes to occupational stress levels. Without such studies, it is

difficult to determine causation for the variance found in these measures.

Similarly, the findings of this study would be strengthened with its replication in

other work environments. Since this research was conducted solely in one division

within one organization, it may not represent the occupational stress levels or culture

present in other divisions within the company, let alone in other occupations or

workplaces. It is crucial that future research investigate the relationship between

occupational stress and organizational effectiveness found here in different work

settings (e.g., different types of private-sector companies, public sector organizations)

and among different occupational groups (e.g., academic, professional, technical).

As noted previously in this study, measurement issues are crucial to

occupational stress researchers, and these issues become even more important when

investigating the organizational consequences of occupational stress. The few examples

of empirical research, including the current study, that have investigated the relationship

between organizational effectiveness outcomes and occupational stressors, have relied

on the use of easily accessible measures, regardless of whether those measures were the

most appropriate. In order to develop better measures of organizational outcomes, two

things are necessary. First, researchers need to have a clear idea of which

organizational outcomes should be affected by occupational stress. This necessitates

the development of stronger theory to identify the organizational outcomes that should

and should not be influenced by various occupational stressors. These theories must


126

also explicate levels of analysis issues and describe the levels to which generalization is

appropriate (Bliese & Jex, 2002; Rousseau, 1985). Second, once appropriate theories

have been developed and articulated, researchers must develop operational measures of

these outcome variables.

Attitudinal variables used in the current study, such as employee motivation and

satisfaction, have often been identified in the research literature as potential moderators,

mediators, or intervening variables in the occupational stress process (Pool, 2000;

Schabracq & Cooper, 2000; Visser, Smets, Oort, & de Haes, 2003). While it is possible

that these variables played moderating or intervening roles in the stress/performance

relationship reported in the current study, they were utilized solely as outcome

variables, and not investigated in this context. Future research should investigate these

potential relationships to obtain a more complete picture of the link between

occupational stress and organizational effectiveness.

Finally, an interdisciplinary approach is recommended for the conduct of high

quality research investigating the relationship between occupational stress and

organizational effectiveness. Occupational stress research began with medical

professionals, and our current understanding has benefited not only from these

contributions, but from those trained in psychology, public health, organizational

behavior, and human factors. Collaborations among researchers in these areas are vital

for a comprehensive understanding of the organizational consequences of occupational

stress.


127

References

Abramis, D. J. (1994). Relationship of job stressors to job performance: Linear or

inverted-U? Psychological Reports, 75(1), 547-558.

Adkins, J. A. (1998). Base closure: A case study in occupational stress and

organizational decline. In M. Gowing, J. Kraft, & J. Quick (Eds.), The New

Organizational Reality. Downsizing, Restructuring, and Revitalization, (pp.

111-141). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Allen, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Greer, C. R. (1982). Occupational stress and perceived

organizational effectiveness in formal groups: An examination of stress level

and stress type. Personnel Psychology, 35, 359-370.

Applebaum, S. H., Simpson, R., & Shapiro, B. T. (1987). The tough test of downsizing.

Organizational Dynamics, 16, 68-79.

Appley, M. H., & Trumbull, R. (Eds.). Dynamics o f Stress: Phsyiological,

Psychological, and Social Perspectives. New York: Plenum.

Bardhan, A. D., & Kroll, C. A. (2003). The New Wave o f Outsourcing. University of

California, Berkeley, Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics.

Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Frone, M. R. (2005). Handbook o f Work Stress.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Barling, J., & Sorenson, D. (1997). Work and family: In search of a relevant research

agenda. In C. L. Cooper & S. Jackson (Eds.), Creating Tomorrow’s

Organizations. London: Wiley.


128

Bames-Farrell, J., Rumery, S., & Swody, C. (2002). How do concepts of age relate to

work and off-the-job stresses and strains? A field study of health care workers

in five nations. Experimental Aging Research, 28, 87-98.

Barnett, R. C., Gareis, K. C., & Brennan, R. T. (1999). Fit as a mediator of the

relationship between work hours and burnout. Journal o f Occupational Health

Psychology, 4, 307-317.

Bartel, A. P. (1984). Productivity gains from the implementation of employee training

programs. Industrial Relations, 33(4), 411-426.

Bartel, A. P. (1994). Training, wage growth, and job performance: Evidence from a

company database. Journal o f Labor Economics, 73,401-425.

Beehr, T. A., & Bhagat, R. S. (1985). Introduction to human stress and cognition in

organizations. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human Stress and

Cognition in Organizations (pp. 3-19). New York: John Wiley.

Beehr, T.A., Jex, S.M., Stacy, B.A. and Murray, M.A. (2000). Work stressors and

coworker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance.

Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 21, 391-405.

Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational

effectiveness: A facet analysis, model and literature review. Personnel


Bergin, M., & Solman, R. (1988). Perceptions of role related stress in senior

educational executives and its relationship to their health. The Journal o f

Educational Administration, 26, 159-182.

Berry, L. M. (1998). Psychology at work (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill


129

Best, J. B. (1992). Cognitive Psychology (3rd ed). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing

Company.

Bhagat, R. S. (1983). Effects of stressful life events on individual performance

effectiveness and work adjustment processes within organizational settings: A

research model. Academy o f Management Review. 5(4), 660-671.

Bhuian, S. N., Menguc, B., & Borsboom, R. (2005). Stressors and job outcomes in

sales: A triphasic model versus a linear-quadratic-interactive model. Journal o f

Business Research, 58, 141-150.

Birdi, K., Allan, C., & Warr, P. (1997). Correlates and perceived outcomes of 4 types

of employee development activity. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 82(6), 845-

857.

Blau, G. (1981). An empirical investigation of job stress, social support, service length,

and job strain. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 273-302.

Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. M. (2002). Incorporating a multilevel perspective into

occupational stress research: Theoretical, methodological, and practical

implications. Journal o f Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 265-276.

Bond, J. T., Thompson, C., Galinsky, E., & Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights o f the

National Study o f the Changing Worlforce. New York: Families and Work

Institute.

Bourbonnais, R., Comeau, M., & Vezina, M. (1999). Job strain and evolution of mental

health among nurses. Journal o f Occupational Health Psychology, 4(2), 95-107.


130

Briner, R., & Hockey, G. R. J. (1988). Operator stress and computer-based work. In C.

L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, Coping and Consequences o f Stress at

Work. New York: Wiley.

Brocker, J. (1988). The effects of work layoffs on survivors: Research, theory, and

practice. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational

Behavior (pp. 213-255). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Brocker, J., Davy, J., & Carter, C. (1985). Layoffs, self-esteem, and survivor guilt:

Motivational, affective, and attitudinal consequences. Organizational behavior

and human decision processes, 36, 229-244.

Browne, J. (2002). Validation of the healthy work organizations model. Journal o f the

American Academy o f Business, 1(2), 206-214.

Burke, R. J. (2001). Nursing staff survivor responses to hospital restructuring and

downsizing. Stress and Health, 17(4), 195-205.

Burke, R. J. (1988). Sources of managerial and professional stress in large

organizations. In C.L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, Coping, and

Consequences o f Stress at Work (pp. 77-114). Chichester, UK: John Wiley &

Sons.

Cameron, K. S. (1980). Critical questions in assessing organizational effectiveness.

Organizational Dynamics, 9, 66-80.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and

organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds). Handbook

o f Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 (2nd ed., pp. 687-732). Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.


131

Camevale, D. G., & Wechsler, B. (1992). Trust in the public sector: Individual and

organizational determinants. Administration and Society, 23(4), 471-494.

Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing

world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928-939.

Chandraiah, K., Agrawal, S. C., Marimuthu, P., & Manoharan, N. (2003). Occupational

stress and job satisfaction among managers. Indian Journal O f Occupational

And Environmental Medicine, 7(2), 6-11.

Cohen, S. (1980). Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A

review of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 55(1), 82-108.

Connolly, E. Conlon, W., & Deutsch, S. (1980). Organizational effectiveness: A multi

constituency approach. Academy o f Management Review, 5, 211-218.

Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind, healthy organization: A

proactive approach to occupational stress. Human Relations, 47, 455-470.

Cooper, C. L., & Payne, R. (1991). Personality and Stress. Chichester: John Wiley &

Sons.

Cooper, C. L., & Sloan, S. (1985). Occupational and psychosocial stress among

commercial aviation pilots. Journal o f Occupational Medicine, 27, 570-576.

Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of

organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress.


Crouter, A. C., Bumpus, M. F., Maguire, M. C., & McHale, S. M. (1999). Linking

parents’ work pressure and adolescents’ well being: Insights into dynamics in

dual-eamer familes. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1453-1461.


Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1997). Stressors, locus of control, and social support as

consequences of affective psychological well being. Journal o f Occupational

Health Psychology, 2, 156-174.

Danna, K. and Griffin, R.W. (1999), Health and well being in the workplace: A review

and synthesis of the literature. Journal o f Management, 25, 357-384.

Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principals’ efforts to empower teachers: Effects on

teacher motivation and job satisfaction and stress. Clearing House, 73(6), 349-

353.

Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (1997). A test of job security’s direct and

mediated effects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal o f Organizational

Behavior, 18, 323-349.

DeCroon, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., Blonk, R. W., Broerson, J. P., & Frings-Dresen, M. H.

(2004). Stressful work, psychological job strain, and turnover: A 2-year

prospective cohort study of truck drivers. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 89(3),

442-454.

Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management

practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy o f

Management Journal, 39(4), 949-969.

Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange, and

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal o f Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 67, 315-326.

Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and

effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204-223.


133

Denison, D. & Spreitzer, G. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational

development: A competing values approach. Research in Organizational

Change and Development, 5, 1-21.

Dobbs, L. (2004). The job-quality debate. CNN.com, October 25, 2004. Retrieved on

January 2, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com.

Dobreva-Martinova, T. (2001). Occupational role stress in the Canadian forces: Its

association with individual and organizational well being. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 63(04).

Druckman, D., Singer, J.E., & Van Cott, H., Editors (1997). Enhancing organizational

performance. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.

Dyck, D. (2001), The toxic workplace. Benefits Canada, 25(3), 52.

Elangovan, A.R. (2001). Causal ordering of stress, satisfaction and commitment, and

intention to quit: A structural equations analysis. Leadership & Organizational

Development Journal, 22(4), 159-165.

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2002). Inventory of socioeconomic

costs of work accidents. Fact Sheet 27.

Executive Health Examiners (1983). Coping with Stress. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ezell, P. (2003). Job Stress and Turnover Intentions among Tennessee Cooperative

Extension System Employees. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06).

(UMI Number: 3092816)

Fischer, R. T. (2001). Role stress, the Type A behavior pattern, and external auditor job

satisfaction and performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 13, 143-171.


http://www.cnn.com

134

Fisher, S. R., & White, M. A. (2000). Downsizing in a learning organization: Are there

hidden costs? Academy o f Management Review, 25(1), 244-251.

Frese, M. & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological issues in the study of work stress:

Objective versus subjective measurement of work stress and the question of

longitudinal studies. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.) Causes, Coping, and

Consequences o f Stress at Work. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). Staff burnout. Journal o f Social Issues, 30, 159-164.

Freudenberger, H. J. & Richelson, G. (1980). The High Cost of Achievement. Garden

City, NY: Doubleday.

Fried, Y., Ben-David, H. A., Tiegs, R. B., Avital, N., & Yeverchyahu, U. (1998). The

interactive effect of role conflict and role ambiguity on job performance.

Journal o f Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 19-28.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A

review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322.

Fried, Y., Rowland, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1984). The physiological measurement of

work stress: A critique. Personnel Psychology, 37, 583-615.

Fried, Y., & Tiegs, R. B.(1995). Supervisors’ role conflict and role ambiguity

differential relations with performance ratings of subordinates and the

moderating effect of screening ability. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 80(2),

282-292.

Friedman, I. A., & Farber, B. A. (1992). Professional self concept as a predictor of

teacher burnout. Journal o f Educational Research 56(1), 28-35.

Gabriel, Y. (1999). Organizations in Depth. London: Sage Publications.


135

Ganster, D. C., Fox, M. L., & Dwyer, D. J. (2001). Explaining employees’ health care

costs: A prospective examination of stressful job demands, personal control,

and physiological reactivity. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 86, 954-964

Gelade, G., & Gilbert, 2003). Work climate and organizational effectiveness: The

application of data envelopment analysis in organizational research.

Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 482-501.

Gianakos, I. (2002). Predictors of coping with work stress: The influences of sex,

gender role, social desirability, and locus of control. Sex Roles: A Journal o f

Research, 46(5-6), 149-158.

Goldenhar, L. M., Swanson, N. G., Hurrell, J. J., Ruder, A., & Deddens. (1998).

Stressors and adverse outcomes for female construction workers. Journal o f

Occupational Health Psychology, J(l), 19-32.

Golembiewski, R. T., Munzenrider, R., & Stevenson, J. (1986). Stress in

Organizations. New York: Praeger.

Greer, C. R., & Castro, M.D. (1986). The relationship between perceived unit

effectiveness and occupational stress: The case of purchasing agents. Journal o f

Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 159-175.

Gunter, B., & Furnham, A. (1996). Biographical and climate predictors of job

satisfaction and pride in organization. The Journal o f Psychology, 130, 193-

208.

Guzzo, R. A. (1988). Productivity research: Reviewing psychological and economic

perspectives. In J. P. Campbell, R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in

organizations (pp. 63-81). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


136

Gynther, M. D., & Green, S. B. (1982). Methodological problems in research with self-

report inventories. In J. N. Butcher & P. C. Kendall (Eds.), Handbook o f

Research Methods in Clinical Psychology. New York: Wiley.

Harrison, R. B. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress. In C.L. Cooper and & R.

Payne (Eds.), Stress at work (pp. 175-205/ New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Heaney, C. A. (1999). Organizational fairness and employee attitudes toward

occupational health programs. Paper presented at Work, Stress & Health ’99:

Organization of Work in a Global Economy Conference. March 11-13, 1999.

Henkoff, R. (1994). Getting beyond downsizing. Fortune, 129, 58-64.

Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (1993). Stress and burout in work organizations. In R. T.

Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook o f Organization Behavior (pp. 41-61). New

York: Dekker.

Hockey, G. R. J., & Hamilton, P. (1983). The cognitive patterning of stress states. In

G. R. J. Hockey (Ed.) Stress and Fatigue in Human Performance. New York:

Wiley.

Hogan, E. A. (1987). Effects of prior expectations on performance ratings: A

longitudinal study. Academy o f Management Journal, 30,354-368.

Hurrell, J. J., Jr. (1995). Commentary: Police work, occupational stress, and individual

coping. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 16, 27-28.

Humphrey, J. H. (1998). Job stress. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Huselid, M. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,

productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy o f Management

Journal, 72(6), 470-481.


137

Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and strategic human

resource management effectiveness as determinant of firm performance.

Academy o f Management Journal, 40(1), 171-188.

Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance:

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 251-273.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of

research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16-78.

Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical

assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 1-21.

Jamal, M. (1985). Relationship of job stress to job performance: A study of managers

and blue collar workers. Human Relations, 38, 409-424.

James, L. R., Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W. (1988). Organizations do not cognize;

Response: Organizations are not central tendencies: Shadowboxing in the dark,

round 2. Academy o f Management Review, 13, 129-132.

Jamieson, D. & O’Mara, J. (1991). Managing wor I f or ce 2000. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance. Theory and implications for

managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Jex, S. M., Adams, G. A., Bachrach, D. G„ & Sorenson, S. (2003). The impact of

situational constraints, role stressors, and commitment on employee altruism.

Journal o f Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 171-180.


138

Jex, S. M., & Crossley, C. D. (2005). Organizational consequences. In J. Barling, E. K.

Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.) Handbook o f Work Stress (pp. 575-599).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Jick, T. D., & Mitz, L. F. (1985). Sex differences in work stress. Academy o f

Management Review, 10, 408-420.

Jones, J.W., Barge, B. N., Steffy, B. D., Fay, L. M., Kunz, L. K., & Wuebker, L. J.

(1988). Stress and medical malpractice: Organizational risk assessment and

intervention. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 75,727-735.

Jones, B., Flynn, D. M., & Kelloway, E. K. (1995). Perception of support from the

organization in relation to work stress, satisfaction, and commitment. In S. L.

Sauter & L. R. Murphy (Eds.) Organizational risk factors for job stress (pp. 41-

52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial

coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal o f

Applied Psychology, 84, 107-122.

Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, M. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L.

M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook o f Industrial & Organizational Psychology (2nd

ed., Vol. 3, pp. 571-650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).

Organizational Stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John

Wiley.

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


139

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain:

Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.

Kasl, S. V. (1978). Epidemiological contributions to the study of work stress. In C.L.

Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Stress at Work (pp. 3-48). Chichester: Wiley.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology o f Organizations (2nd Ed.).

New York: John Wiley.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Balazs, K. (1997). The downside of downsizing. Human

Resources, 50(1), 11-50.

Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. R., & Guzzo, R. A. (1990). The role of climate and culture

in productivity. In B. Schneider (Ed.) Organizational Climate and Culture. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship

behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness. A unit-level,

longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 101-114.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its

conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49,

1-9.

Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-

107.

Laschinger, H. K., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Casier S. (2000). Journal o f Nursing

Administration, 30(9), 413-425.


140

Layne, C. M., Hohenshil, T. H., & Singh, K. (2004). The relationship of occupational

stress, psychological strain, and coping resources to the turnover intentions of

rehabilitation counselors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 48( 1), 19-30.

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

Springer.

Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of

the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 81(2),

123-133.

Lefkowitz, J. (2000). The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory

performance ratings: A literature review and proposed causal model. Journal o f

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 67-85.

Leiter, M. P., & Harvie, P. (1997). The correspondence of supervisor and subordinate

perspectives on major organizational change. Journal o f Occupational Health


Leong, C. S., Furnham, A., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). The moderating effect of

organisational commitment on the occupational stress outcome relationship.

Human Relations, 79(10), 1345-1354.

Levi, L., Sauter, S. L., & Shimomitsu, T. (1999). Work-related stress - it’s time to act.

Journal o f Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 394-396.

Mansfield, B. (2001). Impairment of employees - the union view. Australian Council

o f Trade Unions, May 4, 2001. Retrieved on January 27, 2005, from

http ://www. actu. asn.au/public..


McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in orgagnizations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.),

Handbook o f Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1351-1395).

Chicago: Rand McNally.

Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1986). The merger syndrome. Psychology Today,

26(10), 36.

Marshall, N. L., Barnett, R. C., & Sayer, A. (1997). The changing workforce, job

stress, and psychological distress. Journal o f Occupational Health Psychology,

2(2), 99-107.

Maslach, D. & Jackson, S. (1982). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal

o f Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-115.

Matteson, M. T., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Individual stress management

interventions: Evaluation of techniques. Journal o f Managerial Psychology,

2(1), 24-31.

Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2002). Perceived job insecurity among dual earner

couples: Do its antecedents vary according to gender, economic sector and the

measure used? Journal o f Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75,

295-315.

Mirvis, P. H. (1985). Formulating and implementing human resource strategy: A

model of how to do it, two examples of how it’s done. Human Resource

Management, 24(A), 385-413.

Mitchell, O., Mackenzie, D. L., Styve, G. J., & Gover, A. R. (2000). The impact of

individual, organizational, and environmental attributes on voluntary turnover

among juvenile correctional staff members. Justice Quarterly, 17(2), 333-357.


142

Moran, S. K., Wolff, S. C., & Green, J. E. (1995). Workers’ compensation and

occupational stress: Gaining control. In L. R. Murphy, J. J. Hurrell, Jr., & G. P.

Keita (Eds.), Job Stress Interventions (pp. 355-368). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Motowidlo, S., Packard, J.D., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its

causes and consequences for job performance. Journal o f Applied Psychology,

71, 618-629.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. (1982). Employee-Organization Linkages:

The Psychology o f Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York:

Academic Press.

Murphy, L. (1995). Characteristics of healthy work organizations. Symposium at the

American Psychological Association, National Institute for Occupational Safety

and Health Joint Conference, Washington, DC.

Murphy, L., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Healthy and Productive Work: An International

Perspective. London: Taylor & Francis.

Murphy, L. R., Hurrell, J. J., Sauter, S. L., & Keita, G. P. (1995). Job Stress

Interventions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1999). Stress....at Work.

Washington, DC: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

O'Connor, E. J., Peters, L. H., Pooyan, A., Weekley, J., Frank, B.,& Erenkrantz, B.

(1984). Situational constraint effects on performance, affective reactions, and

turnover: A field replication and extension. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 69,

663-672.


143

O’Reilly, C. A. (1980). Individuals and informational overload in organizations: Is

more necessarily better? Academy o f Management Journal, 23, 684-629.

Offermann, L., & Gowing, M. (1990). Organizations of the future: Changes and

challenges. American Psychologist, 45, 95-108.

Offermann, L. R., & Hellmann, P. S. (1997). Culture’s consequences for leadership

behavior. National values in action. Journal o f Cross-Cultural Psychology,

28{3), 342-351.

Organ, D. W. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and

dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel


Osipow, S. H., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1996). Theories o f Career Development. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance:

An organizational-level analysis. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 77, 963-974.

Panagiotakos, D., Chrysohoou, C., Pitsavos, C., Anotniou, S., Vavaouranakis, E.,

Stravopodis, P., Moraiti, A., Stefanadis, C., & Toutouzas, P. (2004). The

association between occupational stress and the risk of developing coronary

syndromes: The CARDI02000 study. Central European Journal o f Public

Health, 77(1), 25-30.


144

Parker, S. K., Chmiel, N., & Wall, T. D. (1997). Work characteristics and employee

well being with a context of strategic downsizing. Journal o f Occupational

Health Psychology, 2(4), 289-303.

Parkes, K. R., & Sparkes, T. J. (1998). Organizational interventions to reduce work

stress: Are they effective? The Health and Safety Executive. University of

Oxford.

Piotrkowski, C. S. (1998). Gender harassment, job satisfaction, and distress among

employed white and minority women. Journal o f Occupational Health

Psychoogy, 5(1), 33-43.

Pool, S. W. (2000). Organizational culture and its relationship between job tension in

measuring outcomes among business executives. Journal o f Management

Development, 19{1), 32-49.

Popkin, N. K., Stiller, V., Peirce, C. M., Williams, M., & Gregory, R. (1976). Recent

life changes and outcomes of prolonged competitive stress. Journal o f Nervous

and Mental Disease, 163, 302-306.

Pozig, M., & Kickul, J. (2003). Extending our understanding of burnout: Test of an

integrated model in nonservice occupations. Journal o f Occupational Health


Princeton Survey Research Associates (1997). Labor Day survey: State of workers.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton Survey Research Associates.

Pritchard, R.D. (1992). Organizational productivity. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.

Hough (Eds.), Handbook o f Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed.,

vol. 3, pp. 443-471). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.


Quick, J. C., Murphy, L. R., & Hurrell, J. J. (1992). Stress and Well-Being at Work:

Assessments and Interventions for Occupational Mental Health. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Quick, J. C., Nelson, D. L., Quick, J. D.& Orman, D. K. (2001). Stress and Health, 17

(3), 147-157(11).

Quick, J. C., & Quick, J. D. (1984). Organizational Stress and Preventative

Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Hurrell, J. J. (1997). Preventative Stress

Management in Organizations. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological

Association.

Quinn, R. I., & Cameron, K. S. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria

of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 9, 363-

377.

Radeke, J. T., Mahoney, M. J. (2000). Comparing the personal lives of

psychotherapists and research psychologists. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, 31, 82-84.

Ransom, S., Aschbacher, P., & Burud, S. (1989). The return in childcare investment.

Personnel Administrator, 34, 54-58.

Reilly, S., Grasha, A. F., & Schafer, J. (2002). Workload, error detection, and

experienced stress in a simulated pharmacy verification task. Perceptual and

Motor Skills, 95, 27-46.

Robbins, S. P. (1990). Organization theory: Structure, design, and application (3rd

ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.


146

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80.

Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and

cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1-37.

Russell, J. S., Terborg, J. R. & Powers, M L. (1985). Organizational Performance and

Organizational Level Training and Support. Personnel Psychology, 38, 849-

863.

Ryan, T. F. (2001). A comparison of the reported stress levels of Massachusetts

secondary principals and their schools’ scores on the 1999 MCAS. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 62 (01), 44-140. (AAT 3001649).

Ryan, A. M., Schmit, M. J., & Johnson, R. (1996). Attitudes and effectiveness:

Examining relations at an organizational level. Personnel Psychology, 49, 853-

882.

Schabracq, M. J., & Cooper, C. (2000). The changing nature of work and stress.

Journal o f Managerial Psychology, 15, 227-241.

Schmidt, M. J. & Allscheid, S. P. (1995). Employee attitudes and customer satisfaction:

making theoretical and empirical connections. Personnel Psychology, 48, 521 -

536.

Schneider, B. (1990). Organizational Culture and Climate. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of

job performance ratings. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 83, 956-970.

Selye, H. (1976). Stress in Health and Disease. London: Butterworth


147

Shaw, J. B., & Barrett-Power, E. (1998). The effects of diversity on small work group

processes and performance. Human Relations, 57(10), 1307-1325.

Shergold, P. (1995). Managing workplace health. In Proceedings o f the Workplace

Health Conference. Sydney, Australia.

Shiflett, S., & Cohen, S. L. (1980). Number and specificity of performance outcomes in

the prediction of attitudes and behavioral intentions. Personnel Psychology,

53(1), 137.

Slate, R. N., & Vogel, R. E. (1997). Participative management and correctional

personnel: A study of the perceived atmosphere for participation in correctional

decision making. Journal o f Criminal Justice, 25(5), 397-408.

Smither, R. D. (1998). The Psychology o f Work and Human Performance (3rd ed. j.

New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies

concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005-

1016.

Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective,

health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources.

Journal o f Applied Psychology, 73, 11-19.

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory

(STAXI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.


148

Spielberger, C. D., & Reheiser, E. C. (1994a). Job stress in university, corporate, and

military personnel. International Journal o f Stress Management, 1, 19-31.

Spielberger, C. D., & Reheiser, E. C. (1994b). The Job Stress Survey: Measuring

gender differences in occupational stress. Journal o f Social Behavior &

Personality, 9(2), 199-218.

Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. R. (1999). Job Stress Survey Professional Manual.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Srivastava, A. K., & Krishna, A. (1991). A test of the inverted "U" hypothesis of stress

performance relationship in the industrial context. Psychological Studies, 36, 34-

38.

Standen, P., Daniels, K., & Lamond, D. (1999). The home as a workplace: Work-

family interaction and psychological well-being in telework. Journal o f

Occupational Health Psychology, 4{4), 1-15.

Steel, R.P. & Mento, A.J. (1987). The participation-performance controversy

reconsidered: Subordinate competence as a mitigating factor. Group and

Organization Studies, 12(4), 411-423.

Sullivan, S. E., & Bhagat, R. S. (1992). Organizational stress, job satisfaction, and job

performance: Where do we go from here? Journal o f Management, 18(2), 353-

374.

Terkel, S. (1972). Working: People talk about what they do all day and how they feel

about what they do. New York: The New Press.

Thibodeau, P. (2003). IT unemployment hits ‘unprecedented’ level. Computerworld,

57(38), 6.


149

Todd, C., & Deery-Schmitt, D. (1996). Factors affecting turnover among family child

care providers: A longitudinal study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11,

351-376.

Tourish, D., Paulsen, N., Hobman, E, & Bordia, P. (2004). The downsides of

downsizing. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(4), 485-516.

Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches

to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay

off1 Academy o f Management Journal, 40(5), 1089-1122.

Tubre, T., Collins, J. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of

the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance.

Journal o f Management, 26, 155-169.

Tumage, J. J., & Spielberger, C. D. (1991). Job stress in managers, professionals, and

clerical workers. Work & Stress, 5, 165-176.

Tutena, T. L., & Neidermeyerb, P. E. (2004). Performance, satisfaction and turnover in

call centers. The effects of stress and optimism. Journal o f Business Research,

57, 26-34.

Ulrich, D., Halbrook, R., Meder, D., Stuchlik, M., & Thorpe, S. (1991). Employee

andTs customer attachment: Synergies for competitive advantage. Human

Resource Planning, 14 (2), 89-104.

United States Bureau of the Census (2003). Employment Status: 2000. Retrieved

December 20, 2004, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-18.pdf.


http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-18.pdf

Vagg, P. R., & Spielberger, C. D. (1998). Occupational stress: Measuring job pressure

and organizational support in the workplace. Journal o f Occupational Health


Varca, P. E. (1999). Work stress and customer service delivery. The Journal of

Services Marketing, 13(3), 229-242.

Visser, M., Smets, E., Oort, F. J., & deFlaes, H. (2003). Stress, satisfaction, and burnout

among Dutch medical specialists. Canadian Medical Journal, 168(3) 271-275.

Warr, P. (2005). Work, well-being, and mental health. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway,

& M. R. Frone (Eds.) Handbook o f Work Stress (pp. 575-599). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications.

Weaver, J. (2003). Job stress, burnout on the rise: Layoffs, long hours taking their toll

on workers. MSNBC.com, September, 1, 2003. Retrieved on January 2, 2005,

from http://www.msnbc.com/id3072410/.

Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1992). Excessive role demand and subsequent performance.


Westman, M. & Etzion, D. (1999). The crossover strain from school principals to

teachers and vice versa. Journal o f Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 269-

278.

Williams, E. S., Konrad, T. R., Scheckler, W. E., & Pathman, D. R. (2001).

Understanding physicians’ intentions to withdraw from practice: The role of job

satisfaction, job stress, mental and physical health. Health Care Management

Review, 26(1), 7-20.


http://www.msnbc.com/id3072410/

151

Williams, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Measuring occupational stress: Development of

the pressure management indicator. Journal o f Occupational Health


Winnubst, J. A., & Schabracq, M. J. (1996). Social support, stress and organization:

Toward optimal matching. In M. J. Schabracq, C. L. Cooper, & J.A.M.

Winnubst (Eds.), Handbook o f Work and Health Psychology (pp. 87-102).

Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Winum, P., Ryterband, E., & Stephenson, P. (1997). Helping organizations change.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 49, 6-16.

Wojcik, J. (1999). Stress a major risk in compensation consultant. Business Insurance,

18(1), 18-19.

Wojcik, J. (2001). Helping employees cope. Business Insurance, 35(39), 1-2.

Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: Can scope be too high? Academy

o f Management Journal, 38, 1288-1309.

Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity

of habit formation. Journal o f Comparative Neurological Psychology, 18, 459-

482.

Yuchtman, E., & Sheashore, S. E. (1967). A systems resource approach to

organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32, 891-903.

Zaccaro, S. J., & Riley, A. W. (1987). Stress, coping, and organizational effectiveness.

In A. W. Riley & S. J. Zaccaro (Eds.) Occupational Stress and Organizational

Effectiveness (pp. 1-28). New York: Praeger Publishers.


152

Zohar, D. (1995). The justice perspective of job stress. Journal o f Organizational

Behavior, 18, 487-495.


APPENDIX A


154

Dear [Employer] Employee,

You are invited to take part in a research study that will examine the various factors and situations that influence employees’ perceptions of job stress. Job stress is a chronic condition caused by situations in the workplace that may negatively affect an individual’s job performance and/or overall well being, and has been shown to have a tremendously negative impact on the health and functioning of individuals in organizations. [Employer] is committed to maintaining the health and wellness of its employees and is interested in determining the levels of job stress present in its workforce and the contributory factors so they may be reduced and kept to a minimum.

As a student in the Executive Leadership Doctoral Program at The George Washington University in Washington, DC, I am conducting this research study to identify the particular factors and situations that contribute to job stress. In order to take part in this study, you will need to fill out a 60-item job stress survey that asks for your perception of the severity and frequency of common stressors that may occur at work. The job stress survey should take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete.

While your participation in this research study is voluntary, I hope that you will take the time to complete this survey. Each job stress survey received will help identify the factors that contribute to stressful working conditions and to help improve workplaces for employees. Your participation and responses to the survey will be kept completely confidential, and you will not be identified (e.g., name, social security number) in any reports or publications of this study. If you have any questions about the procedures of this research study, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your participation in this important study!

Sincerely,

Julie A. CincottaThe George Washington UniversityGraduate School of Education and Human Development


Documents

Occupational Stress