_ The beneficial effects on stress symptoms are often short-lived.
_ They often ignore important root causes of stress because they focus on the worker and not the environment.
Organizational Change: Another method of dealing with job stress is to change the organization as a whole. In contrast to stress management training and EAP programs, organizations may reduce job stress by bringing in a consultant to recommend ways to improve working conditions.
This approach is the most direct way to reduce stress at work. It involves the identification of stressful aspects of work (e.g., excessive workload, and conflicting expectations) and the design of strategies to reduce or eliminate the identified stressors (Keita and Hurrell 1994).
The advantage of this approach is that it deals directly with the root causes of stress at work. However, managers are sometimes uncomfortable with this approach because it can involve changes in work routines or production schedules, or changes in the organizational structure.
According to Quick, Murphy and Hurrell (1992),
Aas a general rule, actions to reduce job stress should give top priority to organizational change to improve working conditions. But even the most conscientious efforts to improve working conditions are unlikely to eliminate stress completely for all workers. For this reason, a combination of organizational change and stress management is often the most useful approach for preventing stress at work.
The following is a list of ideas of how to change an organization to prevent Job Stress;
How to Change the Organization to Prevent Job Stress
_ Ensure that the workload is in line with workers’ capabilities and resources.
_ Design jobs to provide meaning, stimulation, and opportunities for workers to use their skills.
_ Clearly define workers’ roles and responsibilities.
_ Give workers opportunities to participate in decisions and actions affecting their jobs.
_ Improve communications-reduce uncertainty about career development and future employment prospects.
_ Provide opportunities for social interaction among workers.
_ Establish work schedules that are compatible with demands and responsibilities outside the job.
Recommendations for Reducing Stress in the Workplace:
Through this research it was learned that no standardized approaches or simple “how to” manuals exist for developing a stress prevention program. Program design and appropriate solutions will be influenced by several factors-the size and complexity of the organization, available resources, and especially the unique types of stress problems faced by the organization (Scott and Jaffe, 1994).
Although it is not possible to give a universal prescription for preventing stress at work, it is possible for this paper to offer guidelines and recommendations based on research pertaining to the process of stress prevention in organizations. According to to Rosch and Pelletier (1984),
AIn all situations, the process for stress prevention programs involves three distinct steps: problem identification, intervention, and evaluation. For this process to succeed, organizations need to be adequately prepared. At a minimum, preparation for a stress prevention program should include the following:
_ Building general awareness about job stress (causes, costs, and control)
_ Securing top management commitment and support for the program
_ Incorporating employee input and involvement in all phases of the program
_ Establishing the technical capacity to conduct the program (e.g., specialized training for in-house staff or use of job stress consultants)@
Bringing workers or workers and managers together in a committee or problem-solving group may be an especially useful approach for developing a stress prevention program (Bacharach, 1991).
Low morale, health and job complaints, and employee turnover often provide the first signs of job stress. But sometimes there are no clues, especially if employees are fearful of losing their jobs. Lack of obvious or widespread signs is not a good reason to dismiss concerns about job stress or minimize the importance of a prevention program. Each of the three steps named above will be listed and described based on the research done for this paper.
Step 1 – Identify the Problem. According to Scott and Jaffe (1994), the best method to explore the scope and source of a suspected stress problem in an organization depends partly on the size of the organization and the available resources. Group discussions among managers, labor representatives, and employees can provide rich sources of information. Such discussions may be all that is needed to track down and remedy stress problems in a small company. In a larger organization, such discussions can be used to help design formal surveys for gathering input about stressful job conditions from large numbers of employees.
Regardless of the method used to collect data, information should be obtained about employee perceptions of their job conditions and perceived levels of stress, health, and satisfaction.
Objective measures such as absenteeism, illness and turnover rates, or performance problems can also be examined to gauge the presence and scope of job stress. However, these measures are only rough indicators of job stress-at best.
Data from discussions, surveys, and other sources should be summarized and analyzed to answer questions about the location of a stress problem and job conditions that may be responsible-for example, are problems present throughout the organization or confined to single departments or specific jobs.
Survey design, data analysis, and other aspects of a stress prevention program may require the help of experts from a local university or consulting firm. However, overall authority for the prevention program should remain in the organization.
Step 2 – Design and Implement Interventions. Once the sources of stress at work have been identified and the scope of the problem is understood, the stage is set for design and implementation of an intervention strategy.
In small organizations, the informal discussions that helped identify stress problems may also produce fruitful ideas for prevention. In large organizations, a more formal process may be needed. Frequently, a team is asked to develop recommendations based on analysis of data from Step 1 and consultation with outside experts.
Certain problems, such as a hostile work environment, may be pervasive in the organization and require company-wide interventions. Other problems such as excessive workload may exist only in some departments and thus require more narrow solutions such as redesign of the way a job is performed. Still other problems may be specific to certain employees and resistant to any kind of organizational change, calling instead for stress management or employee assistance interventions. Some interventions might be implemented rapidly (e.g., improved communication, stress management training), but others may require additional time to put into place (e.g., redesign of a manufacturing process). Before any intervention occurs, employees should be informed about actions that will be taken and when they will occur. A kick-off event, such as an all-hands meeting is often useful for this purpose
Step 3 – Evaluate the Interventions. Evaluation is an essential step in the intervention process. Evaluation is necessary to determine whether the intervention is producing desired effects and whether changes in direction are needed.
Time frames for evaluating interventions should be established. Interventions involving organizational change should receive both short- and long-term scrutiny. Short-term evaluations might be done quarterly to provide an early indication of program effectiveness or possible need for redirection. Many interventions produce initial effects that do not persist. Long-term evaluations are often conducted annually and are necessary to determine whether interventions produce lasting effects.
Evaluations should focus on the same types of information collected during the problem identification phase of the intervention, including information from employees about working conditions, levels of perceived stress, health problems, and satisfaction. Employee perceptions are usually the most sensitive measure of stressful working conditions and often provide the first indication of intervention effectiveness. Adding objective measures such as absenteeism and health care costs may also be useful. However, the effects of job stress interventions on such measures tend to be less clear-cut and can take a long time to appear.
The job stress prevention process, which can be seen as a recommendation, does not end with evaluation. Rather, job stress prevention should be seen as a continuous process that uses evaluation data to refine or redirect the intervention strategy. This process should be ongoing because stress intervention and reduction is so important for organizations today.
Conclusion:
In today’s fast paced society trying to cope with occupational and social stress is challenge for everyone. Some people view occupational stress a necessary life style to stay competitive in an aggressive business or manufacturing setting. If an individual is bombarded by enough stressors, burn out may be inevitable. Individuals who are exposed to stressors on the job, and/or at home are at risk of becoming physically and psychologically ill. This type of stress creates barriers to productivity for organizations and can cause low employee morale, absenteeism, and high turnover. Even though social stress can contribute to occupational stress, and visa versa, as of yet no conclusive research has shown the cumulative effects of the two environments (S. Klintzman, 1990). After looking at all the facts it is very obvious to see that stress is an unavoidable fact of life. If properly monitored and controlled through stress reduction techniques and a healthy lifestyle we all can reduce, but never total eliminate stress from our lives. Through the job stress reduction process described in this research and techniques such as EAP=s and organizational change, companies can work to help relieve job stress for individuals who find this a barrier to a normal life.
References
Bacharach Samuel B, Bamberger Peter & Conley (1991) Work Home Conflict Among Nurses and Engineers Journal of Organizational Behavior Jan vol 12, 39-53
Evans G., Cohen S.; (1987) Environmental Stress Handbook of Environmental Psychology chapter 15, vol 1 Wiley Interscience Publication, New York, NY., 572-576
Golembiewski, Robert & Munzenrider Robert (1991) Burnout and Mental Health: A Pilot Study Organizational Development Journal, Sum Vol 9, 51-57
Heirch, Max (1989) Making Stress Management Relevant to Worksite Wellness Advances Spr Vol 6, 36-40
Hendrix William H; Steel Robert P & Schultz Sherryl A (1987) Job Stress and Life Stress Journal of Social Behavior & Personality Aug Vol 2, 291-302
Hurrell, J.J.Jr & Murphy, L.R. (1998). Occupational Stress. In W.N. Rom (Ed.), Occupational and Environmental Medicine, (3rd edition). New York: Little, Brown and Co.
Hurrell, J.J.Jr., Murphy, L.R. & Sauter, S.L. & Cooper, C.L. (Eds.). (1988). Occupational stress: Issues and developments in research. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Kahn, R.L. & Byoriere, P. (1992) Stress in Organizations Handbook of Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol 3 571-575, Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologist Press
Keita, G.P & Hurrell, J.J.Jr. (Eds.). (1994). Job stress in a changing workforce. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Klintzma