联系我们
我们只做按需定制化代写服务,绝对原创!
QQ:41806229 点击这里在线咨询代写
Email:admin@assignment.cc
网  址:http://www.assignment.cc/
支持Paypal、VISA、MasterCard、Discover等银行卡支付
Paypal支付
代写essay。Stress Control At Work
发表日期:2013-09-12 09:29:54 | 来源:assignment.cc | 当前的位置:首页 > 代写essay > 正文
INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to review and discuss literature searches that addresses the link between `stress' and personal control in work settings. The review is limited to three topical areas: participative decision making and related managerial styles, research on the job characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham (1975, 1976) and locus of control. First a review of the relevant literature is presented. Then, a conceptual framework is presented for examining the role of control in work settings. The framework highlights the need to consider stress symptoms as responses to environmental control, and the need to consider attempts to increase control as responses to experienced stress.

1. Karasek’s ‘Job Demand-Control’ model

Initial attempts to relate stress in the workplace with health-related behaviours, highlighting heart disease date back to the early 1960s (Theorell & Karasek, 1996). Robert Karasek was one of the early contributors in the study of workplace social associations, stress-inducing causes and their effects on an individual’s health. In the 1970s, Karasek (1979) developed a bi-dimensional conceptual model that linked two aspects, demand and control in the workplace, to the risk of disease. The Demand-Control (DC) Model combines elements of two prior research traditions: the occupational stress tradition (e.g., Caplan, Cobb, French, van Harrison, & Pineau, 1976; Kahn, 1981) and the job redesign tradition (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Both research traditions associated psychosocial job attributes to employee health. The occupational stress tradition focused on “stressors” at work, such as high workload, role conflict, mentally taxing work and role ambiguity (e.g., French & Kahn, 1962). The job redesign tradition centered mostly on job control aspect as its primary intend was to provide information on job redesign with the intention of augmenting the motivation, satisfaction, and performance at work. As suggested by Karasek (1979), the relationship between job demands placed on the employee and the employee’s ability/freedom to choose how to meet those demands (i.e., job control) is an important first step in the prediction of strain and of the employee’s active learning and growth.

From this point, these two fundamental principles, work demands and job control or decision latitude, is appropriate for further investigation, as it can provide insight in predicting mental strain. According to Karasek’s (1979) Job Demand-control model, work demands are occupational stressors where work inflicts on the worker and they can include working with speed and efficiency, the volume of work, the speed of work, conflicting tasks and demands, inadequate time and insufficient resources. Decision latitude includes decision authority and unrestricted control that workers can exercise control how their work will be completed, as well as skill discretion, which ascribes to the occasion to utilize an array of skills on the job (Karasek, 1979). Mental strain can be a result of heavy work load and low decision latitude or control (Karasek, 1979). In essence, heavy work demands induce worker’s level of arousal, typically accompanied by an increased heart rate, increased adrenalin, increased breathing rate and higher blood pressure (Karasek, 1979). According to Karasek, 1979, in a high control job, the worker has the ability to channel his or her own coping response to effectively reduce the arousal level. In a low job control, the employee’s unresolved strain may in turn accumulate and as it builds up can eventually manifest themselves as cardiovascular disease, emotional exhaustion, anxiety, depression, or psychosomatic related ailments (Fox et al., 1993; Karasek, 1979; Schaubroeck and Merritt, 1997, Cole et al., 2002; Perbellini, 2004).

Karasek et al. expanded the model in 1982, to include social support as a third element and as an important aspect of today’s work environment. This review found that social and emotional support through colleagues, supervisors, social activities and informal rituals have beneficial effects in behavioral responses to stress. It provides a buffer between the stressors and the individual and is consistent with the idea that it may also facilitate coping patterns within the worker. Accordingly, the increased threat of illnesses is found in jobs with high work demands, low decision latitude (described as low intellectual discretion and low personal scheduled freedom) and little social support (Karasek et al., 1982.

Considerable empirical support of the model has been found. For example, Landisbergis (1988) showed that unrewarding work, depression, and symptoms of mental health were high in a study of New Jersey healthcare workers when a heavy workload and where their decision latitude was compromised. Similarly, Bromet et al. (1988) demonstrated a link between work demands and lack of control to a higher family-work conflicts and alcohol consumption. A study of 90 male manufacturing employees by Dwyer and Ganster (1990) showed that heavy work requirements and perceived low control were linked with absenteeism and tardiness.

Karasek's model of job strain has also been related to work satisfaction (Landsbergis, Schnall, Deitz, Friedman, & Pickering, 1992; Munro, Rodwell, & Harding, 1998; Parkes, Mendham, & von Rabenau, 1994). For example, Dollard and Winefield (1998) study among correctional officers used the Demand-Control/ Support model to understand the causes of the intention to leave their employment. Further endorsement for the model transpires from Fox et al.’s (1993) research of 136 registered nurses. The relations between workload with low control were positively related to increased blood pressure and cortisol levels and are a useful measure to predict job dissatisfaction (Fox et al.’s (1993).

These studies are consistent with the idea that passive jobs, with little opportunity for control correlates significantly to emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and lack of productivity (Landsbergis, 1998; Dollard and Winefield 1998; De Jonge J, Kompier; 1997, Kristensen; 1999, Van der Doef & Maes, 1999). Taken together, these results present apparent support of the consequences of adverse work environments on a workers health and well-being.

  • Empirical Literature - Main Findings

The Karasek Job Demand-Control model (Karasek, 1979, Karasek and Theorell, 1990) clearly confirms the stress hypothesis which has been linked to ill-health, such as heart- and vascular diseases (e.g. de Jonge & Kompier, 1997; van der Doef & Maes, 1998). To test Karasek’s hypothesis, Verhofstadt, Hans De Witte & Omey highlighted the research work of van der Doef and Maes (1999) where the authors examined 20 years of data on the Job Demand Control model. Van der Doef and Maes (1999) concluded that workers in the high-strain category experienced more distress, job dissatisfaction, burnout, hopelessness, tension, and anger. Moreover, Van der Doef and Maes (1999) reported that social support buffered negative health-related outcomes if it conformed to the specific demands of the job. However, as pointed out by Cohen & Wills (1985), that strong social support defined as instrumental help from others as work demands or time pressures are increased, is effective in preventing and reducing the negative effects of stress. Van der Doef and Maes (1999) concur that both job-related control and job-related social support provide positive and critical stress buffers. In this view, instrumental support from colleagues can help meet work deadlines (Van der Doef & Maes, 1999) and may consequently improve and lower the impact of stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Interestingly, there is substantial evidence that autonomy can also buffer the stressful impact of work demands on exhaustion, cynicism, depression and anxiety (Van der Doef & Maes, 1999). For example, a literature review has correlated psychological ill health including anxiety, depression, and emotional exhaustion and absenteeism to a variety of job aspects, including management effectiveness, excessive work load and pressures, control at work, and role ambiguity (Michie & Williams, 2003). These reviews have reaffirmed job stress as a risk factor for adverse physical and mental health outcomes.

There has also been an emphasis on the role of higher workloads in physical health of workers (Netterstrom & Juel, 1988). These complex questions to the increase of disease and death rates were answered in Netterstrom & Juel (1988) Danish study which followed2465 bus drivers for a period of seven years. This study found that high traffic congestions that were interpreted by the workers as lack of control were more like to suffer with heart attacks (Netterstrom & Juel, 1988). In their study, they hypothesize that the incidenceof both death and hospitalization in those with excessive workloads (driving in heavy traffic) and negligible social support from colleagues were more than two times that in the group with low workloads (Netterstrom & Juel, 1988 cited in Michie & Cockcroft, 1996 ). In line with the literature, in a study of British bus drivers tackling heavy traffic, time pressures, multiple stops, passenger complaints and irregular working hours experienced higher job strain, which, in turn, increased stress hormones, cardiovascular risk factors, mental health complaints and musculoskeletal disorders (Evans & Carrere, 1991).

Evans, G, W., Carrere, & S. (1991). Traffic congestion, perceived control, and psychophysiological stress among urban bus drivers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 658-663.

Evans (1994)concluded that more than half of all urban bus drivers retired prematurely with some form of medical disability. Consistent findings were revealed to be in line with Karasek’s job strain model which suggest that high job control may help alleviate stress (Evans & Carrere, 1991)

Falk, Hanson, Isacsson & Ostergren, (1992, cited in Michie & Crawford, 1996) tracked 500 Swedish men for seven years, concluded that the pace of work combined with low social interaction with colleagues increased the risk of heart attacks. In this contribution, Falk et al. (1992) found that job strain foretold mortality. In the research, job strain was affiliated with low personal freedom and exposure to high demands and the results attested that the mortality rate was notablyabaded in individuals who had good social networks and support outside the workplace, implying a buffering function on the negative side effect of stress (Falk, Hanson, Isacsson & Ostergren, 1992).

A further study found a correlation between physical activity at work and job responsibilities and mortality (Menotti & Seccareccia, 1985). The cohort consisted of 100,000 railway workers, aged between 40-59 years. The data collected included the men’s exercise habits and subjective ratings of workload, responsibility (accountability) stress and fatigue (Menotti & Seccareccia, 1985). Interestingly, the representative nature of the study permitted the researchers to conclude that lack of exercise at work and higher work responsibilities were linked to increased risk of heart attacks and other chronic illnesses (Menotti & Seccareccia, 1985).

In similarity, a longitudinal one year review of health care personnel is also worth noting with respect to stress and heart disease (Doncevic, Theorell & Gianpaolo, 1988). Researchers noted that the nurses with the highest workload, defined by emotional exhaustion, job dissatisfaction and limited support networks, had thehighest levels of plasma cortisol in the morning, elevated bloodpressure and heart rate during working hours, and significant sleep disturbances (Doncevic, Theorell & Gianpaolo, 1988). In this study, the authors sought to demonstrate that the nurses with the highest autonomy, decision latitude and good social support exhibited the lowest stress (Doncevic, Theorell & Gianpaolo, 1988).

Finally, in testing the job strain hypothesis, Susan Michie and Anne Cockcroft, (1996) hypothesize in their article “Overwork can kill”, that high job demand may diminish performance and adaptationdue to poor memory and attentiveness and prolonged ineptnessand disorganisation, leading to a build-up of errors, accidents,and occupational hazards at work. The former and latter results seem to suggest that time pressures and energy committed to higher job demands may also impede the protective effects of social support and to information and coachingon evading accidents at work (Michie & Cockcroft, 1996). The combination of heavier workloads and diminished adaptation may also be linkedwith a work environment that is not conducive to a positive health and safety culture (Di Martino, 2003.)

Ten years of study have correlated high jobdemands (workload and pace) and low decision latitude (individualcontrol at work, decision making, and skill training) to diverse threats comprising (Michie & Cockcroft, 1996) everything from heart attacks, strokes, musculoskeletal disease and mortality to increased absenteeism, turnover and low moral (De Jonge & Kompier, 1997).

In summary, Michie & Cockcroft (1996) confirm that these outcomes are conformable with Karasek's job strain hypothesis (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) which demonstrates that the more job demands are stressful, whereas more control in the job leads to a decrease in stress among workers. Furthermore, the evidence also suggests that work stress is rapidly emerging as a consistent factor to work-related disease and injury, and as a considerable deleterious contributor to the overall burden of disease in society.

3. Criticism of the Karasek model

Karasek’s ‘Job Demand-Control’-model (1979; also see Karasek & Theorell, 1990) has rapidly moved into a dominant position in the field of work and occupational health. One of the reasons for this may be its simplicity and broad applicability: the model integrates various older research traditions such as Hackman & Oldham (1980) work motivation theoretical framework and the Michigan model of organizational stress (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal, 1964) to identify role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload as critical sources of stress in organizations, and reduces these stressors to only two basic dimensions, namely the psychological demands and job control when analyzing jobs. The model’s simplicity has been criticized, however, (e.g. Johnson & Hall, 1988) as it disregards some crucial job dimensions. Johnson and Hall (1988) show a strong association involving a much larger number of variables between demands and decision latitude. Controlling and deciphering these environmental work factors and job circumstances create a wide variety of uncontrollable variables (e.g. social support, physical stressors, job characteristics, meaningfulness of the job, social class, and personality). These inconsistencies which incorporate personality, organizational and societal aspects may manipulate the outcomes of perceived autonomy and control (Johnson & Hall, 1988). Karasek’s operationalization of control, more particularly, his assessment of decision latitude has been further criticized as including work factors that do not typify control, such as utilization of skills, job enrichment, the use of creativity, or leaning opportunities (Ganster 1988, Smith, Tisak, Hahn & Schmeider, 1997; Wall & Jackson, 1996). This limitation was validated in a study by Wall and Jackson, in which the moderating role of control was explored utilizing two divergent measures of control: Karasek’s decision latitude and a more focused measure of timing (freedom to determine the pace of work) and method control (control of how the work is done). The interface between job demand and the focused control measure forecasted job strain (job dissatisfaction, depression and anxiety) whereas the interaction between job demand and Karasek’s decision latitude did not. As suggested by Ganster (1988) this can be addressed in other ways. First by demonstrating that for control to be a factor, it must be conceptualized as a multi-faceted framework to correspond to the explicit stressors confronted in the workplace. He developed measures that addressed seven work domains in which individuals may or may not have control: work scheduling, physical work environment (air quality, temperature, and humidity), work pacing, decision-making, task demands (work pressures, overtime work, shift work), social environment at work, and career mobility. In addition, Ganster (1988) included predictability of work activities and work demands as an ameliorator which arguably provides security and certainty in people’s coping mechanism.

Similarly, Bacharach, Bamberger, Conley and Bauer (1990) have found empirical support for the multiple construct of decision participation, which provides workers a feeling of efficacy and job satisfaction by offering a sense of control in managing work stress. These researchers also acknowledge personality characteristics and individual differences in the desired levels of participation in the workplace, as one employee might view decision participation as a stressor in itself, while another might find that participation provide the tools to successfully cope with job demands. They optimally attribute decision participation as a discrepancy between perceived and expected or desired levels of participation in decision-making (Bacharach et al, 1988). They strategically recommend a typology of participation domains supported by two dimensions of decision-making: strategic versus operational and individual versus organizational (Bacharach et al, 1988).

A further critique of research attempting to provide empirical support for the moderating role of control is the assumption of linearity. A curvilinear relationship between level of control and strain has been suggested in that too little control may lead to stress, but too much control is damaging when it induces a sense of too much responsibility and decision-making (de Jonge & Kompier, 1997).

In another study, Schaubroeck and Merritt (1997) found that job control was predicated to buffer the negative effects of demands on health among the more efficacious workers, whereas it had the opposite effects among the more inefficacious ones. Schaubroeck and Merritt's (1997) obtained data indicating that self-efficacy may play an important role in reducing cardiovascular consequences of job related strain. They further conclude that individuals with low self-efficacy tend to feel threatened with increased responsibilities and challenges, will easily discourage themselves, self-blame, suffer anxiety and as shown in Seligman’s (1975) study, intensify their “learned helplessness”. In a similar vein, Bandura (1992, 1997) asserts that individuals with high-efficacy appreciate challenges; demonstrate better judgment, intensify their efforts to succeed in a particular situation and recover quickly from setbacks and disappointments.

This perspective is in keeping with Jimmieson’s (1984) framework. According to Jimmieson’s (1984), an individual with high self-efficacy are able to implement strategies to cope with job demands. Evidence shows that self-efficacy reduces the negative health consequences of stress (Jimmieson’s, 1984). As such, both self-efficacy and social support are seen as effective characteristics to prevail over stressful demands (Jimmieson’s, 1984). This “personal control” enables an individual to feel confident during the course of their daily lives and buffers the negative impact of workplace stressors (Jimmieson’s, 1984). Extending the findings from Schaubroeck and Merritt’s (1997) study, these individuals demonstrate better coping behaviours to handle demanding work tasks. Similarly, Welch & West (1995) make a very strong case that highly efficacious individuals who are unable to exercise control in the workplace, will face many struggles and negative health consequences. In such cases, efficacy values are confronted and frustration sets in (Fisher, 1984). Thus, low control is harmful for efficacious workers because they are powerless to resolve their job problems (Fisher, 1984).

Models of occupational stress contain a number of alternative explanations for the role of self-efficacy in the demands-control interaction (Karasek, 1970). Karasek utilizes the term “job decision latitude” to symbolize control (Karasek, 1970). Conversely, efficacious individuals who lack job control can experience dangerous health effects (Averill, 1973). As noted by Schaubroeck and Merritt’s (1997) Karasek's (1979) demands-control hypothesis only pertain to individuals with high self-efficacy.

Turning to a more general mental health outcome, a UK study investigated a connection between personality, negative affectivity and the risk of poor mental health from organizational stress (Blomkvist, Eriksen, Theorell, Ulrich & Rasmanis, 2005). Surprisingly, the results indicated that personality had little effect on mental health in relation to job control (Blomkvist et al. 2005).

In the stress measurement literature, researchers have identified some possible antecedent constructs with lower socio-economic status. For example, consistent evidence demonstrate that low job control and high physical demands are more common among lower status occupations, particularly with machine-paced production or scheduled performance requirements, whereas higher psychologic demands combined with greater job control are more common among high-status occupations, which have professional entry criteria and higher compensation (Belkic et al. 2000). Evidence is increasing that demonstrate the growing risks in coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, and cholesterol, as well as other health outcomes (Belkic et al. 2000). Belkic (2000) argues on whether social disadvantage confound the relationships observed between high job stress, which are characterized with the unhealthy combination of high demands and limited discretionary autonomy with adverse health outcomes.

Strictly speaking, her observational studies have addressed these challenges in two ways. First, by assessing whether the job stress is associated with health outcome within the lower disadvantage group and secondly, she adds that most positive studies of job stress and heart disease have controls for social class (Belkic et al. 2000). She further makes her point, by stressing a 2004 well-conducted Australian research realized by Strazdins et al (2004). Their sample was drawn from a collection of advantaged professionals and managers aged 40-44, where they reported a fairly strong association between job stress and adverse physical and mental health outcomes. They concluded that the negative health outcome associated with stress should not be confounded by lower social disadvantage (Strazdins et al. 2004).

We have now set the stage for our conceptualization of control and work behaviours as a special case of job stress. It is important to distinguish between formal and informal control, as it is to distinguish between actual and illusory control. Although the formal organizational structure may limit control, informal norms may arise that allow for increased or even decreased employee control.

However, the effects of demands on health are complex and vary considerably according to individual differences. Research supports the view that having high levels of control over one’s job responsibilities can rebound if an individual lacks the confidence on the job or has a predisposition to take the blame for negative results at work (Schaubroeck, Jones & Xie, 2001). More accurately, job control develops into recurring disappointment and a validation for self-blame (Schaubroeck, Jones & Xie, 2001).

It seems clear from the research and that of Schaubroeck (1997, 2001) and his colleagues, that for an individual to manage stress, more self-efficacy in the workplace is generally better than having none.

The mounting evidence suggests that job stress is quickly looming as the single greatest threat of injury and work-related illnesses, and as a significant contributor to diseases in our society. Adjustment for personality traits, inefficacious individual, self-efficacy and lower status occupations may attenuate the approaches on how some individual handle stress, but it does not eliminate its negative health outcomes. Today’s organizations are adversely affected through the consequences of absenteeism, antecedent to commitment, inadequate job performance, turnover, lack of productivity, and other human and financial tolls.

Although Karasek’s model has attracted criticism in some quarters, others have conjured that coupled with knowledge on the effect of stress (mental health, sickness, absenteeism) it can depict a useful, rapidly administered diagnostic tool. The model also offers a basic intervention tool for organizations to execute organizational changes and intervention programs to address identified sources of workplace stress.

The Effects of Occupational Stress Management Intervention Programs

“Stress is the number one disease of the 21st century.”

Rob Weingust

The topic of occupational stress has received considerable research attention over the last decade and has emerged as an important occupational safety and health concern. Workers' compensation claims for stress-related illnesses, for example, are the fastest growing type of claim, comprising more than 11% of all such claims: (Statistics Canada, 2002).

  • Stress-related absences cost Canadian employers approximately over $3.5 billion each year. (Statistics Canada, 2002)
  • Health care costs are almost 50% greater for individuals who disclose elevated levels of stress. (Statistics Canada, 2002)
  • 83.1% of Canadian workers acknowledged stress as the most important health worries within their company. (Canadian Mental Health Association, 2002)
  • Stress causes 19% of absenteeism expenditures, 40% of turnover costs, 55% of EAP expenses, 30% of STD and LTD costs, 60% of accidents at the workplace, and 10% of cost of prescriptions. (Health Canada, 2002)

Occupational stress has become a real and pervasive challenge in the workplace: stress-related costs are currently estimated at more than $33 billion annually (Statistics Canada) and the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety rates stress as one of the ten leading work-related diseases (CCOHS, Forum 2005). Over a period of five years in the United States, stress-related disability claims have continued to grow by almost 700%, with the unequivocal cost to settle a stress claim averaging between $10,000 and $15,000 (Stevens, 1992.)

Of the many proposed by those authors studying in the field, three common stress intervention strategy frameworks have been identified as relevant to the understanding of stress management in the workplace (Mullen, 1989; Newman & Beehr, 1979; Murphy, 1988). They are classified as primary, secondary (both preventative measures) and tertiary (curative) (Cahill, 1996; Hurrell & Murphy, 1996).

The nature of interventions at primary level is preventative. The target is a reduction in the number and/or intensity of stressors so that stress can be prevented or eliminated (Clarke & Cooper, 2004). This approach aims at work environments, technologies or organizational structures (Clarke & Cooper, 2004). Examples of interventions are job redesign, clear job descriptions, employee participation, increasing employee control, or flexible working arrangements (Clarke & Cooper, 2004).

Another ameliorative secondary intervention is of a preventative/reactive nature (Clarke & Cooper, 2004). They aim at modifying individual responses to stressors (Clarke & Cooper, 2004) by helping employees improve their coping capacity. Examples are stress management training, communication and information sharing (Clarke & Cooper, 2004; Cox & Cox, 1990).

Finally, tertiary interventions focus on treatment of employees already suffering stress-related illness (Clarke & Cooper, 2004; Cox, Leather & Cox, 1990). They aim at minimizing the damaging consequences of stressors by helping individuals to cope better. Examples are employee assistance programs or stress counseling (Clarke & Cooper, 2004; Cox, Leather & Cox, 1990). Tertiary interventions are not usually regarded as preventative programs (Cox, Leather & Cox, 1990). According to Cox et. al (1990), in the average workplace, it may be more effectual to create a comprehensive stress prevention program which would include all three interventions. Cooper et al. (2001) noted that organizations mainly focus their stress management strategies on individual worker. The authors underscore that effective stress management interventions include organizational level interventions as compared to focusing on the individual (Cooper et al, 2001). Giga et al (2003) presents a framework that recommends a more comprehensive coverage focused on integrating management support, strategic solutions and commitment combined with work participation. Models focusing on the physical work environment (noise level, job redesign, workload reduction) and other aspects of the organization (coping skills training, employee assistance programs, conflict management training) have greater preventive potential as effective intervention approaches than concentrating on individual employees (Hurrell & Murphy, 1996; Melamed & Froom, 2000). Consequently, primary prevention is more effectual than secondary (they handle problem at the source), and secondary (proactive), is more helpful than tertiary (van Dierendonck, Schaufeli & Buunk, 1998). Essentially, combining both approaches (primary and secondary) are more valuable to the employee and organization (Halperin, 1996). The systems approach (dealing with problems at their source) typology described is generally synonymous with most other ‘best practice’ models, all of which acknowledge the need to address both work organisations and individual levels (Karasek, 2004; Kompier & Cooper, 1999; Hurrell & Murphy, 1996; Bond, 2004). Yet a number of studies have concluded that the effectiveness of the different approaches to these interventions are difficult to evaluate because of the heterogeneity of the methods, study designs and even target groups (Van der Hek & Plomp, 1997). According to Ivancevich et al. (1990), most professionals choose to focus their intervention efforts on changing individual behaviours because most are more comfortable with changing the individual rather than their organizations. As noted by Fleishman & Quaintance (1984), and as expected, psychologists have been more interested in evaluating human responses and actions than situational factors.

Van der Hek and Plomp (1997) reviewed 24 studies on the effects of occupational stress management programs published between 1987 and 1994. Only two of them evaluated interventions on the individual-organizational interface level (restructuring of jobs, coping skills and support groups) and two on the organizational level (1 year organization-wide stress management program) (van der Hek & Plomp, 1997). These results provide firm evidence that an organization-wide stress intervention approach provides the most favourable outcome on the individual and the entire organization (van der Hek & Plomp, 1997).

An in-depth analysis of 90 cost reduction studies showed the impact of the growth in ‘lean production’ management methods with respect to associated effects on job stress (Landsbergis, Cahill & Schnall, 1999). Lean production is an assembly-line manufacturing methodology developed originally for Toyota and the manufacture of automobiles. In its most basic form, lean production is the methodical eradication of misuse – overproduction, waiting, shipping/haulage, inventory, wasted time, over-processing, substandard products – and the execution of the model of continuous flow and customer pull (customer tells a company what to produce) (Landsbergis et all, 1999). Landsbergis et al. (1999) established little substantiation that lean production environments empowered workers or reduced their work stress. Conversely, they seemed to intensify work pace and demands. Increases in decision authority and skill are very reticent and temporary, and decision latitude remains low. Therefore, the scheme of “lean" work ideology (e.g., an understaffed, high demands, repetitive work, overtime) is more likely to amplify the occurrence of stress-related physical illnesses (e.g., hypertension, cardiovascular disease) and mental health (e.g., depression) outcomes (Landsbergis et al., 1999).

In Cox et al (2000) collaborative efforts regarding organizational interventions on work stress, recommend a balance approach tailored to the problems of each organization. They suggest a detailed risk assessment practices to create solutions best suited for the organization. As Cox (1993) indicates, selecting a solution, should be based by analysing the current problems instead of using cookie cutter designs which may be projected at the individual rather than the organization.

Concluding Comments

Over the past two decades, research into worker’s well-being and stress at work has been greatly influenced by the demand-control-support models of Robert Karasek (1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). These models propose that worker strain and active learning are determined by particular combination of job demands, job control and social support. Specifically, incumbents of jobs that are high in demands, low in control, and low in support are expected to show high levels of strain, while incumbents of jobs that are high in all three job factors are expected to display high levels of activity, learning and participation, both on the off the job. The models also propose that prolonged exposure to combinations of these job conditions influence workers accumulated anxiety and sense of mastery.

Kristensen (1995, p.18) notes that it is “no exaggeration to say that (his) has been the most influential model in the research on psychosocial work environment, stress and disease for the past ten year”. However, Karasek’s model has also been criticized for their breadth, simplicity, and lack of conceptual clarity. A number of writers have argued that in the field of stress research requires distinguishing between specific types of job demands and control. Their argument is that different dimensions of the work environment have different affects upon strain, for example, personality, work environment, the culture of the organization, and social and economic environments. I agree with the argument that the psychosocial work environment extends beyond the characteristics of the job itself, and stress management consultants need to focus on the nature and quality of workplace atmosphere. The quality of your work environment extends beyond the characteristics of the job itself, but evolves around social and interpersonal relationships and it is the result of these relationships with your peers and management which will influence how an individual will handle and manage their stress level. Positive and supportive relationships will nonetheless contribute to favourable work attitudes and behaviours. As simplistic as the model is, the theory has profound implications for the design of healthy work environments, seeing that Karasek clearly indicates that stress poses a real risk to staff’s health and wellbeing. Depression, anxiety, work absences and other work related diseases were clearly linked with the presence of greater work demands and low job control.

Occupational stress is a complex issue. Stress intervention approaches that incorporate organizationally focused primary and secondary interventions are likely to be more successful in reducing the level of stress in the workplace.

Developing and maintaining a good work culture with a reasonable amount of stress should not be about managing absenteeism or increasing productivity but should be about quality of life issues, such as work-life home balance, manageable work hours and workloads, clarity in one’s career direction, security at work and being a valuable member to the company. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge stress as an important issue and it should be a strong focus on occupational health and reduction of sickness in the workplace.

 

简介
本章的目的是审查和讨论文献检索,解决`压力“之间的联系和工作环境中的个人控制。审查仅限于三个主题领域:参与决策和相关的管理风格,哈克曼和奥尔德姆(1975年, 1976年)和轨迹控制的工作特征模型的研究。首先回顾相关文献。然后,一个概念性的框架检查工作环境中的控制的作用。该框架强调需要考虑压力症状作为应对环境控制,需要考虑增加经验丰富的应激反应控制的企图。
1。 KARASEK的工作需求控制“模式
首次尝试在工作场所与健康相关行为与压力,突出心脏疾病可以追溯到20世纪60年代初( 1996) Theorell KARASEK 。罗伯特KARASEK是在工作场所的社会团体,应力诱发原因和他们对个人健康的影响的研究早期贡献者之一。在20世纪70年代, KARASEK (1979 )开发了一个两维的概念模型连接两个方面,需求和在工作场所的控制,疾病的风险。需求控制( DC )模型结合前两个研究传统:职业压力的传统(如卡普兰,科布,法语,面包车哈里森,皮诺, 1976年,卡恩,1981年)和“工作再设计的传统元素(例如,哈克曼奥尔德姆,1980)。这两个研究传统相关员工健康的社会心理工作的属性。职业压力的传统,专注于在工作中的“压力源” ,如高的工作量,角色冲突,精神上繁重的工作和角色模糊(例如,法语和卡恩,1962) 。工作再设计的传统,大多集中在工作控制方面作为其主要的打算是对工作重新设计,提供信息,增强动机,满意度,并在工作中表现的意图。 KARASEK (1979) ,工作需求放在雇员和雇员的能力/自由选择如何满足这些需求, (即作业控制)是一个重要的第一个步骤中预测的应变和雇员的关系的建议主动学习和成长。
从这一点来说,这两个基本原则,工作要求和工作控制或决策纬度,作进一步调查是适当的,因为它可以提供洞察预测精神紧张。据KARASEK ( 1979年)工作需求控制模型,工作要求是职业的压力,在那里工作,对其造成的工人和他们可以包括工作速度和效率,工作量大,的速度工作,相互矛盾的任务和需求,时间不足资源不足。决策纬度包括决策权力和不受限制的控制,工人可以行使控制将完成他们的工作如何,以及技能的自由裁量权,这赋予之际,在工作中利用了一系列的技能( KARASEK ,1979) 。精神紧张可繁重的工作负荷和低的决定的纬度或的控制( KARASEK ,1979年)的结果。从本质上讲,繁重的工作需求引起工人的觉醒水平,通常伴随着增加心脏速率,增加肾上腺素,增加呼吸频率和血压较高( KARASEK ,1979) 。根据,1979 ( KARASEK ) ,在一个高的控制作业,工人有信道他或她自己的应对响应的能力,以有效地降低觉醒水平。雇员的未解决的应变在低作业控制,可能反过来积累和它建立起来的能最终体现自己作为心血管疾病,情绪耗竭,焦虑,抑郁,或心身相关疾病( Fox等, 1993 ; KARASEK , 1979年; Schaubroeck和梅里特, 1997年,科尔等人, 2002; Perbellini , 2004年) 。
KARASEK等。扩大了模型在1982年,作为第三元素,并作为当今的工作环境中的一个重要方面包括社会支持。审查发现,社会和情感的支持,通过同事,上级,社会活动和非正式的仪式行为反应压力产生有益的影响。它提供了一个缓冲区之间的压力和个人的想法是一致的,它可能也有利于应对模式内的工人。因此,高的工作要求,决定纬度低(低智的自由裁量权和低个人定的自由)和小社会支持( KARASEK等, 1982年的工作中发现的疾病的威胁增加。
大量的经验支持的模型已被发现。例如, Landisbergis (1988)表明,当一个沉重的工作量和他们的决策纬度入侵新泽西州的医疗保健工作者在一项研究中,吃力不讨好的工作,抑郁和心理健康的症状是高。同样, Bromet等。 (1988)证明工作要求较高的家庭工作冲突和酒精消费和缺乏控制之间的链接。 90只雄性制造业雇员德威尔和甘斯特(1990)的研究表明,沉重的工作要求和知觉低控制与缺席和迟到。
Karasek的模型,工作压力也得到了相关工作满意度(兰茨贝吉斯Schnall ,德茨,弗里德曼,皮克林, 1992年,哈密,罗德威尔,哈丁, 1998年,帕克斯,曼德汉目·冯·拉本瑙, 1994年) 。例如,多拉德和Winefield的惩教人员( 1998年)的研究需求控制/支持模型的意图理解的原因,离开他们的就业。为模型的进一步认可蒸发Fox等(1993)的研究, 136名注册护士。低控制之间的关系工作量增加血压和皮质醇水平呈正相关,预测工作的不满(福克斯等人(1993 )是一个有用的措施。
这些研究是一致的想法,被动的工作,很少有机会控制显著相关,情感耗竭,人格解体和缺乏生产力(兰茨贝吉斯,1998年,多拉德和Winefield 1998 ;德容格J, Kompier ; 1997年,克里斯腾森,1999年,范der Doef的梅斯,1999)。总的来说,这些结果不利的工作环境,工人健康和福祉的后果呈现明显的支持。
实证文学 - 主要结论
KARASEK工作需求控制模型( KARASEK , 1979年, KARASEK Theorell , 1990年)清楚地证实了压力假说已被链接到健康欠佳,如心脏和血管疾病(如德容格& Kompier的, 1997年,范德Doef梅斯,1998)。要测试KARASEK的假说,伏思达,汉斯·德维特& Omey的突出面包车der Doef的和梅斯(1999)的作者研究了20多年的招聘需求控制模型数据的科研工作。范德Doef和梅斯(1999)的结论是,工人在高应变类体验更为窘迫,工作的不满,倦怠,绝望,紧张,愤怒。此外,凡der Doef的和梅斯(1999)的报道,社会支持缓冲负面的健康相关的结果,如果它符合作业的具体要求。然而,正如科恩遗嘱( 1985 ),定义作为工具帮助他人工作要求或时间压力的增加,强大的社会支持,是有效预防和减少压力带来的负面影响。范德Doef和梅斯(1999)的同意,都与工作相关的控制和与工作相关的社会支持提供了积极和重要的压力缓冲器。这种观点认为,从同事的工具性支持可以帮助满足工作的最后期限(范der Doef的梅斯,1999年) ,并可能因此而改善,并降低应力的影响(科恩遗嘱, 1985年) 。有趣的是,有大量证据表明,自主性衰竭,玩世不恭,抑郁和焦虑(范der Doef的梅斯,1999年)的工作要求,也可以缓冲压力的影响。例如,文献回顾相关的心理健康状况不佳,包括焦虑,抑郁,情绪耗竭和缺勤的各种工作方面,包括管理的有效性,过度的工作负荷和压力,在工作中控制,角色模糊(米基·威廉姆斯, 2003年)。这些评论重申,工作压力,不良的生理和心理健康成果的一个危险因素。
也一直强调对工人身体健康( Netterstrom JUEL ,1988)更高的工作负载的作用。发病率和死亡率的增加,这些复杂的问题回答Netterstrom & JUEL的(1988)丹麦研究的7年为一个周期followed2465巴士司机。这项研究发现,高的交通挤塞,由工人被解释为缺乏控制更像是患心脏攻击( Netterstrom JUEL ,1988) 。在他们的研究中,他们推测,死亡的发生率和住院工作量过重(行驶在交通繁忙)和同事从微不足道的社会支持是两次以上,在低负荷组( Netterstrom JUEL , 1988年引米基克罗夫特,1996)。在符合文献中,在经历了较高的工作压力,这反过来,增加应激激素,心血管危险因素,心理健康的投诉解决交通繁忙,时间压力,多个车站,乘客投诉及不规则的工作时间一项研究的英国巴士司机肌肉骨骼疾病(埃文斯& CARRERE 1991 )。
埃文斯, G , W. CARRERE , S. (1991) 。交通拥堵,感知控制,以及城市公交车司机之间的心理生理压力。 [应用心理学,76, 658-663 。
埃文斯(1994)得出的结论是某种形式的医疗残疾一半以上的所有城市巴士司机提前退休。结果一致透露要在符合Karasek的工作应变模型表明,高作业控制可能有助于缓解压力(埃文斯& CARRERE , 1991 )
福尔克,恒信, Isacsson奥斯特格伦,(1992 ,引米基·克劳馥, 1996 ) ,跟踪调查了500名瑞典男性为7年,得出的结论是低的社会互动与同事结合工作节奏的心脏病发作的风险增加。在这方面的贡献,福尔克等人。 (1992)发现,工作压力,死亡率预言。在研究中,工作压力,参加了与个人自由和低暴露于很高的要求和结果证明,个人有良好的社会网络和支持,这意味着在工作场所之外的负面副作用缓冲功能的死亡率是notablyabaded压力(福尔克Isacsson ,恒信,奥斯特格伦, 1992 ) 。
进一步的研究发现,在工作和岗位职责和死亡率(梅诺蒂Seccareccia的,1985)的体力活动之间的相关性。研究对象包括10万铁路工人,年龄在40-59岁之间。收集的数据包括男人的锻炼习惯和主观评价的工作量,责任(问责)应力和疲劳(梅诺蒂Seccareccia的,1985) 。有趣的是,允许代表性质的研究,研究人员得出结论,缺乏锻炼,在工作和更高的工作责任与风险增加的心脏病发作和其他慢性疾病(梅诺蒂Seccareccia 1985 ) 。
相似性,纵向一期审查医护人员也是值得注意的压力和心脏疾病( Doncevic Theorell詹保罗,1988) 。研究人员指出,护士最高的工作量,情绪耗竭,工作的不满和有限的支持网络,定义thehighest血浆皮质醇水平在早晨,高架的bloodpressure的心脏速率在工作时间和显著睡眠的干扰( Doncevic , Theorell詹保罗,1988)。在这项研究中,作者试图证明,护士最高的自主权,决策纬度和良好的社会支持表现出最低的的应力( Doncevic , Theorell詹保罗,1988) 。
最后,在测试工作紧张假说,苏珊·米基和安妮·克罗夫特(1996 )推测可以杀死在他们的文章“过劳” ,即高工作需求可能会减少性能和adaptationdue ,记忆力差,注意力和延长ineptnessand混乱,导致了积聚的错误,事故和职业病危害工作。前者和后者的结果似乎表明,时间压力和能源致力于以更高的工作要求,也可能妨碍保护作用的社会支持,信息和coachingon逃避工伤事故(米基&克罗夫特,1996) 。较重的工作负荷和适应降低的结合,也可能是linkedwith的工作环境,不利于积极的健康和安全文化( 2003年迪·马蒂诺, )。
十多年的研究,各种威胁包括心脏病发作,中风,肌肉骨骼疾病(米基&克罗夫特,1996)一切从的相关高jobdemands (工作量和步伐)和低的决策的纬度( individualcontrol在工作,决策,技能培训)死亡率增加缺勤率,离职和低道德(德容格Kompier ,1997年) 。
综上所述,米基 - 克罗夫特(1996)证实,这些结果是Karasek的工作应变假说( KARASEK & Theorell , 1990年)这表明,更多的工作需求,是紧张的,而在作业更多的控制导致减少应力之间贴合工人。此外,证据还表明,工作压力正在迅速崛起为一个一致的因素与工作有关的疾病和​​损伤,以及社会整体疾病负担相当有害的贡献。
3。批评KARASEK模型
“ KARASEK招聘需求Control'模型( 1979年也看到KARASEK Theorell ,1990)已经迅速移动到工作和职业健康领域的主导地位。这种情况的原因之一可能是其简单性和广泛的适用性:模型集成各种旧的研究传统哈克曼和奥尔德姆(1980)等工作动机理论框架和组织应力(卡恩,沃尔夫,奎因,斯诺依克罗森塔尔密歇根模型,1964)在组织的压力的关键来源,以确定角色冲突,角色模糊,角色超载,只有两个基本维度,即分析工作时的心理需求和作业控制,并减少这些压力。一直批评该模型的简单,但是, (如约翰逊和霍尔,1988) ,因为它忽略了一些关键的作业尺寸。约翰逊和霍尔(1988)显示出强大的协会,涉及一个更大的需求和决策纬度之间的变量。控制和破译这些工作环境因素和工作环境,创建多种不可控因素(如社会支持,实际压力,工作特性,工作的意义,社会阶层,和个性) 。这些不一致,其中包括个性,组织和社会方面可能操纵知觉的自主权和控制(约翰逊和霍尔,1988)的结果。 KARASEK运作的控制,特别是,他的决策纬度的评估进一步批评为包括工作因素,也没有典型的控制,如利用技能,工作丰富化,创造性的使用,或靠在机会( 1988年甘斯特,史密斯, ,哈恩Tisak和Schmeider , 1997 ;墙和杰克逊, 1996年) 。验证这个限制在墙和杰克逊,在控制调节作用,探索利用两个不同的控制措施: KARASEK的决定,纬度和一个更有针对性的措施定时(确定工作节奏的自由)和控制方法的研究(控制工作是如何做的)。岗位需求之间的接口和聚焦控制措施的预测工作紧张的工作的需求和KARASEK的决策纬度之间的相互作用(工作不满,抑郁和焦虑) ,而没有。甘斯特(1988)所建议的,可以以其他方式处理。首先通过展示控制是一个因素,它必须作为一个多层面的概念,框架,对应在工作场所面临明确的压力。他制定措施,解决7个工作领域中,个人可能会或可能不会有控制:工作调度,物理工作环境(空气质量,温度,湿度) ,工作起搏,决策,任务要求(工作压力,加班,轮班工作) ,社会环境在工作中,和职业流动。此外,甘斯特(1988)包括改良剂,可以说是在人们的应对机制,提供了安全性和确定性要求的工作活动和工作的可预见性。
同样,巴哈拉赫,班贝格,康利和Bauer (1990)已发现多个结构的决策参与,工人提供效能与工作满意度提供控制管理工作压力感感觉的实证支持。这些研究人员也承认在参与工作场所的理想水平的个性特征和个体差异,作为一名员工可能会认为决策参与本身作为一种应激,而另一个可能会发现,参与提供工具来成功应对工作要求。他们之间的差异感知和预期或参与决策所需的水平(巴哈拉赫等人,1988) ,最佳属性决定参与。他们的战略建议的类型学参与域支持两个维度:战略决策与运作,个人与组织(巴哈拉赫等,1988)。
进一步批判研究试图提供实证支持控制的调节作用是线性的假设。太少控制已建议在控制水平和应变曲线之间的关系可能会导致压力,但太多的控制权损害时,它引起了太多的责任和决策感(容格Kompier的,1997年) 。
在另一项研究中, Schaubroeck和梅里特(1997)发现,作业控制为前提,以缓冲对健康的需求之间的更有效的工人带来的负面影响,而在更多的,无效的,它有相反的效果。 Schaubroeck和梅里特( 1997年)获得的数据表明自我效能可以发挥重要的作用,减少心血管后果与工作有关的应变。他们进一步得出结论,低自我效能的个人往往会感到威胁增加的责任和挑战,很容易会劝阻自己,自责,饱受焦虑和塞利格曼(1975)的研究显示,强化他们的“习得性无助” 。同样,班杜拉(1992年, 1997年)断言,个人与高功效赞赏挑战;表现出更好的判断,加紧努力,在特定情况下成功,并很快从挫折和失望中恢复。
这个观点是在保持与Jimmieson的(1984)的框架。据Jimmieson (1984),高自我效能的个人都能够实现策略,以应付工作需求。有证据表明,自我效能感降低压力对健康的负面后果( Jimmieson ,1984) 。因此,自我效能感和社会支持视为有效的特点战胜压力要求( Jimmieson的,1984年) 。这种“个人控制”使个人感到有信心的过程中他们的日常生活和缓冲职场的压力带来的负面影响( Jimmieson的,1984年) 。扩展从Schaubroeck和梅里特(1997)的研究结果,这些人表现出更好的应对行为的处理要求苛刻的工作任务。同样,韦尔奇西(1995年) ,一个非常强大的情况下,高度有效的个人谁是无法行使控制权,在工作场所,将面临许多斗争和对健康的负面后果。在这种情况下,疗效面临值和挫折套(费舍尔, 1984年) 。因此,控制有效的工人是有害的,因为他们无力解决他们的工作问题(费舍尔,1984年) 。
职业压力的模型包含了一些替代性的解释在需求控制的相互作用( KARASEK , 1970)的自我效能感的作用。 KARASEK利用“工作决策北纬”象征控制( KARASEK ,1970) 。相反,缺乏有效的个人作业控制可以遇到危险的健康效应( Averill的,1973年) 。正如Schaubroeck和梅里特(1997) KARASEK (1979)的假设只涉及到个人与自我效能感高的要求控制。
至于更普遍的心理健康结果,英国的一项研究调查了个性,消极情感和心理健康状况欠佳的风险,从组织应力(布洛姆奎斯特,埃里克森, Theorell ,乌尔里希Rasmanis等,2005年)之间的连接。令人惊讶的是,结果表明,个性对心理健康的影响不大,作业控制(布洛姆奎斯特等人,2005年) 。
在地应力测量的文献中,研究人员已经确定了一些可能先行构建与社会经济地位较低。例如,一致的证据表明,低工作控制和体能要求高,地位较低的职业中是比较常见的,尤其是用机器生产节奏或预定的性能要求更高的心理需求结合更大的作业控制,而更常见的高地位的职业,其中有专业的准入标准和更高的补偿( Belkic等,2000 ) 。证据越来越多,表现出越来越大的风险,冠状动脉心脏病,血压高,胆固醇,以及其他健康结果( Belkic等,2000 ) 。 Belkic (2000)认为无论是社会缺点变乱的观察高工作压力之间的关系,这是不健康的组合,具有很高的要求和有限的酌情自治与不良健康结果。
严格地说,她的观察研究在两个方面解决这些挑战。首先,通过评估是否健康结果在较低的弱势群体,其次是与工作压力,她补充说,最积极的工作压力和心脏疾病的研究有控制的社会阶层( Belkic等,2000 ) 。她还让她的观点,强调2004年的进行澳大利亚研究,实现Strazdins等(2004 ) 。他们的样本是来自40-44岁,他们报道了较强的工作压力和不良的生理和心理健康结果之间的关联得天独厚的专业人员和管理人员的集合。他们的结论是负面的健康结果,不应混淆与压力较低的社会的劣势( Strazdins等,2004年) 。
现在,我们已经控制作为一种特殊情况的工作压力和工作行为的概念化阶段。区分正式和非正式的控制,这一点很重要,因为它是区分实际和虚幻的控制。虽然正式的组织结构可能会限制控制,非正式规范可能出现的,允许增加,甚至下降的雇员控制。
然而,对健康的需求的影响是复杂的,根据个体差异有很大的不同。支持研究认为具有高水平的控制权一个人的工作职责,能抢篮板,如果一个人在工作缺乏信心,或有工作(负的成绩, 2001年,琼斯和谢Schaubroeck )承担责任的倾向。更准确地说,作业控制发展成经常性的失望和自责( Schaubroeck ,琼斯和谢验证,2001年) 。
从研究Schaubroeck ( 1997年, 2001年)和他的同事,个人管理压力,在工作场所更自我效能感普遍优于没有它似乎很清楚。
越来越多的证据表明,工作压力正在迅速若隐若现的损伤和与工作有关的疾病的单一最大威胁,并作为重大疾病,在我们的社会贡献。人格特质,个人,无效,自我效能感和职业地位较低的调整可能会减弱一些个人如何处理压力的方法,但它并不能消除其负面的健康结果。今天的组织受到不利影响通过旷课,先前承诺,工作绩效的不足,营业额,缺乏生产力,和其他的人力和财力过路费的后果。
虽然KARASEK的模式吸引了在某些方面的批评,别人恳求,加上应力的影响,知识(心理健康,疾病,旷工) ,它可以描绘了一个有用的管理,迅速诊断工具。该模型还提供了一个基本的干预工具,组织执行组织的变化和干预方案确定的工作压力来源。
职业压力管理干预方案的影响
“压力是21世纪的头号疾病。 ”
Rob Weingust的
职业压力的话题已经在过去十年中获得了相当多的研究关注,并已成为一个重要的职业安全和健康的关注。工人的赔偿要求与压力相关的疾病,例如,是增长最快的类型声明,其中包括超过11%的所有该等申索: (加拿大统计局,2002) 。
应激相关的缺席使加拿大雇主约超过$ 3.5亿美元每年。 (加拿大统计局,2002年)
医疗保健费用是近50%的个人谁透露的压力水平升高。 (加拿大统计局,2002年)
83.1 %的加拿大工人承认作为最重要的健康状况的担忧,他们公司内部的压力。 (加拿大心理健康协会, 2002年)
压力会导致旷工支出的19% ,营业成本的40% , 55 %的EAP费用,性病和LTD成本的30% , 60%在工作场所的事故, 10 %的处方成本。 (加拿大卫生部,2002年)
职业压力已经成为一个真正和普遍的挑战在职场:压力有关的费用都是目前估计每年超过330亿美元(加拿大统计局)和加拿大职业健康和安全率压力中心为一体的10领先的工作,相关疾病(论坛2005 CCOHS ) 。过了一段五年在美国,与压力有关的伤残索赔已经持续增长了近700% ,与毫不含糊的成本平均在$ 10,000和$ 15,000 (史蒂文斯, 1992年定居应力要求。 )
这些作者在外地读书的许多建议,三种常见的应力的干预战略框架已经确定,有关压力管理的理解在工作场所(马伦1989纽曼Beehr的, 1979年,墨菲,1988年) 。他们被列为小学,中学(预防措施)和三级(疗效) (卡希尔, 1996年; Hurrell墨菲, 1996) 。
在初级水平的干预措施的性质是预防性的。目标是一个压力源的数量和/或强度的降低,使应力可以防止或消除(克拉克库珀,2004) 。这种做法的目的是在工作环境,技术或组织结构(克拉克和库珀,2004年) 。干预的例子是工作的重新设计,明确的岗位说明,员工参与,提高员工的控制,灵活的工作安排(克拉克和库珀,2004年) 。
另一种改良性的二级干预是一种预防性/无功性质(克拉克和库珀,2004年) 。他们的目标是在修改个人应激反应(克拉克和库珀,2004年) ,帮助员工提高他们的应对能力。例如压力管理培训,沟通和信息共享(克拉克和库珀,2004年;考克斯考克斯, 1990 ) 。
最后,三级干预的重点治疗已经患上与压力有关的疾病(克拉克和库珀, 2004年考克斯,皮革&考克斯,1990年)的员工。他们的目标是帮助个人更好地应对,尽量减少应激的破坏性后果。例如员工援助计划或心理压力辅导(克拉克和库珀, 2004年考克斯,皮革&考克斯,1990年) 。三级干预通常不被视为预防计划(考克斯,皮革&考克斯, 1990 ) 。据考克斯等。 (1990 ) ,在平均工作场所,它可能会更有效地创建一个全面的压力预防方案,其中将包括所有三个干预。 Cooper等人。 (2001)指出,组织个体劳动者,他们的压力管理策略,主要集中。作者强调,有效的压力管理干预措施包括组织层面的干预相比,专注于个人( Cooper等人,2001) 。千兆等(2003 )提出了一个框架,专注于整合管理的支持,战略与工作参与相结合的解决方案,并承诺推荐了一种更全面的覆盖。模型侧重于物理工作环境(噪声水平,工作再设计,减少工作量)和其他方面的组织(应对技能培训,员工援助计划,冲突管理培训)有更大的预防潜力不是集中于个别员工有效的干预方法( Hurrell墨菲, 1996年,梅拉梅德弗鲁姆,2000)。因此,一级预防是更有效地比中学(他们处理问题的源头) ,次要(积极的) ,更帮助比大专(面包车Dierendonck Schaufeli & Buunk的,1998年) 。从本质上讲,这两种方法结合起来(小学和中学)是更有价值的员工与组织(霍尔珀林,1996) 。系统方法(在源头处理问题)类型学描述一般是与其他大多数“最佳实践”模式的代名词,所有这些都承认,需要解决两个工作机构和个人层面( KARASEK , 2004; Kompier库珀, 1999年; Hurrell墨菲, 1996年,债券, 2004年) 。然而,多项研究得出的结论是这些干预措施的不同方法的有效性是难以评估的,因为方法的异质性,研究设计和目标群体(范德安利马赫Plomp的,1997年) 。根据Ivancevich等人。 ( 1990年) ,最专业选择上集中他们的干预力度不断变化的个人行为,因为大多数是改变个人,而不是他们的组织更舒适。弗莱什曼熟人(1984)指出,如预期,心理学家一直在评估人类的反应和行动比情境因素更感兴趣。
范德安利马赫Plomp的(1997)审查了24项研究,刊登在1987年和1994年之间的职业压力管理方案的影响。
 
 
结论意见