and reach thousands of daily visitors
16 MAY 2008
NO 1297
The causes of stress
While it is important to recognise the effects of occupational stress, it is even more crucial to identify its causes in order to seek alleviation from stress. An obvious starting point is the development of a clear concept and definition of occupational stress. What do we actually mean when we use the term "occupational stress"? Lazarus (1966) identifies stress in situations when the demands on the person either tax or exceed his/her personal resources. He emphasises two important concepts: (1)individuals strive to maintain a state of emotional equilibrium, and (2) individuals subjectively appraise each event in relation to its potential stressor.
In this sense, occupational stress may be regarded as the outcome of a mismatch (or imbalance) between a person's skill and abilities and the demands encountered by the job. In keeping with the Demand-Control-Supply model, work that presents high demands, little decision autonomy, and low support reduces health and well-being (Van der Doef & Maes, 1999). As a person appraises a situation as harmless, challenging, or threatening, he/she also appraises his/her ability to cope with any situation adequately. If he/she concludes that he/she is not able to cope, he/she experiences stress (Houkes, Peter, Janssen, de Jonge, & Nijhuis, 2001).
The notion of "appraisal" was more recently replaced with the concept of "perception" (Reid, 1990). It was proposed that occupational stress occurs if an imbalance is experienced between "perceived" demand and "perceived" capability. In both cases the personal assessment of the situation by the worker was viewed as the starting point for gauging the level of stress experienced. In summary, it can be said that the notion of stress as being caused by the perception of imbalance promotes the following definition of occupational stress: "Stress arises as a consequence of discrepancy between individual worker expectations and the experienced reality of the work situation" (Reid, 1990, p. 39).
Although this concept incorporates an appreciation of the person's interaction with the environment to some degree, it places the origin of stress inside the individual (Eriksen & Ursin, 1999; Jimmieson, 2000). This view poses serious limitations for the identification of those factors that are responsible of the stress in the first place (Dillenburger, 2000). That is, labelling a group of symptoms as indicators of stress is to be viewed as only the starting point for the identification of those factors that are responsible for this bodily condition. It also follows from this perspective that it is mistaken to view a person's perception of a situation as a direct cause of stress when in fact their perception and the experience of stress are the end products of a series of interactions with their environment (Burke, 2001).
If the emphasis is put on delineating those behaviours (including feelings and thoughts) that are shaped by individuals' exposure to certain environmental conditions, an explanation is to be found outside of individuals in terms of the systemic contingencies that collectively define their historical and current context. Historical context refers to what is usually called the individuals' "learning history" (i.e. all past experiences that arise from interactions between the individual and his/her environment), while current context refers to the contingencies presently operating. By suggesting that stress is an entity that is inside a person (as opposed to a process), the term "stress" is not properly conceived as a label for a pattern of behaviours. Given that stress behaviours are a function of the environmental context, the main focus of concern should be in finding out what actually goes on in the work environment.
From this analysis it is clear why some people perceive a situation as stressful that others do not. People's learning histories and their current context determine their perceptions of the situation. The young inexperienced child care worker, for example, may feel stressed at the time of her first house call, while the experienced child care worker may even look forward to the challenge of a difficult case; the female child care worker may feel sexually harassed by a certain member of staff, while her male colleagues may enjoy his company. It also becomes clear why some contexts are responsible for stress-related behaviour outcomes in almost all people, especially if they are exposed to them for an extended time period. Many of the contingencies operating in child care, particularly in child protection work, have such effects.
If we are to alleviate the detrimental effects of occupational stress on child care workers, their clients, and agencies, we have to identify those contexts responsible for their emergence. In the main attention has to be focused on three areas (adapted from Handy, 1985).
1. Nature of work and social context:
Clients and their
problems.
Community/public/social attitudes.
Conflict and ambiguity.
Reorganisation.
Economic factors.
Legislative factors.
2. Occupational and management issues:
Leadership and management
styles.
Interpersonal relationships.
Training issues.
Organisational factors.
3. Individual factors:
Personal standard.
Worker's commitment.
Individual involvement.
Availability of positive feedback.
Fear or reality of attack.
Depending on the interaction between these factors, individuals exposed to them experiences different levels of stress. It therefore is important to identify those components that are part of the experience of occupational stress.
KAROLA DILLENBURGER
Dillenburger, K. (2004). Causes and
alleviation of occupational stress in child care work. Child Care in
Practice, 10, 3. pp. 215-217.
REFERENCES
Burke, R. J. (2001). Predictors of workaholism components and behaviors. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 2. pp. 113-127.
Dillenburger, K. (2000). Functional assessment and functional analysis. In M. Davies (Ed.). Encyclopaedia of social work. Oxford. Blackwell Publishers.
Eriksen, H. R. & Ursin, H. (1999). Subjective health complaints: Is coping more important than control? Work and Stress, 13. pp. 238-252.
Handy, C. (1985). Understanding organisations. London, UK. Penguin.
Houkes, L.; Peter, P. M.; Janssen, P. P. M.; de Jonge, J. and Nijhuis, F. J. N. (2001). Work and individual determinants of intrinsic work motivation, emotional exhaustion, and turnover intention: A multi-sample analysis. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 4. pp. 257-283.
Jimmieson, N. L. (2000). Employee reactions to behavioural control under conditions of stress: The moderating role of self-efficacy. Work and Stress, 14. pp. 262-280.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York. McGraw Hill.
Reid H. (1990). Theoretical and emperical analysis of occupational, stress: A study of residential social workers in child care. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Ulster, Coleraine.
Van der Doef, M. & Maes, S. (1999). The job Demand-Control (-Support) model and psychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work and Stress, 13. pp. 87-114.
