Stress Management Interventions are characteristically difficult to implement (Lipsey & Cordray, 2000). It can be argued therefore that organizations will often adopt the intervention which is likely to cause the least disruption, regardless of whether the effects or the presence of stressors are being tackled. Primary Interventions aim to be preventative, which should be appealing to organizations however they are the least likely to be introduced (Cooper, Dewe & O’Driscoll, 2001). One reason for this is that the complex infrastructure of an organization is not yet well known (Reynolds, 1997), consequently interventions at an organizational level are much more “daunting and complex” (Briner 1997, p.62). It has also been argued that organizational level interventions often have little or no effect and where they do it may be positive or negative (Briner and Reynolds, 1999). This can be very problematic for an organization wanting quick, effective results. Dealing with the presence of stressors can involve restructuring the organization as a whole once careful assessment of specific stressors in the work climate have been carried out (Burke, 1993, cited in Cooper et al, 2001). This can be a costly and timely exercise and demands a lot of commitment and attention from managers which is a reason why this form of intervention is less popular (Cooper et al) . Interventions aiming to work with the individual and as a result focussing on the effects of stressors are argueably easier to implement into an organization. Their costs can be assessed and the intervention’s effectiveness evaluated within ethical guidelines (Reynolds, 1997). Secondary and tertiary interventions can be implemented quickly and are unlikely to cause disruption to existing work patterns (Murphy, 1995), which makes them particulary attractive to an organization and offers an explanation for the disproportionate implementation of such SMI’s. Giga, Noblet, Faragher & Cooper (2003) carried out a review of research on SMI’s in the UK and found that the vast majority of studies (over 80 percent) had developed SMI’s targeting the individual and only 19 percent intervened at the organizational level. Giga et al suggested that a possible reason for such a disproportion is that there is a relatively large number of specific stress management techniques available to organizations. These include Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Employee Assistance Programmes, Biofeedback and Meditation amongst others. It can also be argued that many therapies for example anxiety management, time management and counseling, which all focuss on the effects of stressors at work have in fact been “repackaged” as stress management interventions (Briner, 1997), which could explain why this form of intervention is so prevalent.
Research and evaluation can have an effect on the proportion of interventions which concentrate on reducing the presence of stressors rather than the effects of stress. Munz, Kohler & Greenberg (2001) noted that there is a clear lack of information regarding the benefits of different types of SMI’s. Giga, Noblet & Cooper (2003) argue that this due to a lack of rigourous research aimed at testing the effectiveness of stress management strategies. This could indicate that attempts to minimize the effects of stress at work are restricted to a certain extent by a scarcity of sound evidence This could infer that organizations are lacking reliable evidence regarding which type of intervention is likely to be most effective, therefore they are likely to choose the intervention which appears to work well and is the easiest to implement. For this reason, it is clear to see why counseling and psychotherapy services are so popular; they do appear to be improving workers’ psychological well-being, regardless of whether the presence of stressors are being tackled or whether there will be long-term benefits (Reynolds, 1997) Reynolds also noted that the existing systematic evaluations of work stress interventions have focussed on individually orientated schemes, which only deal with the presence of stressors. This infers that there is inadequate systematic evaluation of interventions working at an organizational level, tackling the presence of stressors at work, (Dewe & O’Driscoll 2001), which is likely to restrict organizations from wanting to implement them. In conjunction with this there is an arguement which states that the prevention of stressors at work is currently impossible as the causes of negative employee states are not yet clearly known (Briner & Reynolds, 1999). This certainly dampens the notion that prevention is better than cure when managing stress, which could explain why attempts to manage stress is disproportionately focussed on managing the effects. Interestingly, secondary interventions appear to be more promising in certain aspects; Reynolds argued that the most commonly evaluated form of SMI was stress management training and this form of intervention is also the most widely used in organizations. Stress management training presumely educates employees about the impact of stress and aims to help the individual cope with work demands. The outcomes of stress management training is that generally people report reductions in anxiety, depression and hostility (Ganster, Mayes, Sime & Tharp, 1982) and absenteeism (Murphy & Sorenson, 1988), which is clearly attractive to an organization. However it is important to note that the changes are relatively small, are often non-significant and fail to continue for a sustained period of time (Reynolds, 1997).
So why then are stress management initiatives so popular? One arguement is that they are cleverly sold to the organization by the thiving stress management industry who make unsubstantiated claims to their customers regarding their effectiveness and cost reduction capabilities (Briner, 1997). Organizations tend to have a fundamental aim when implementing a SMI, which is to address employee absence, turnover, lowered motivation and job performance (Briner, 1997). Such promises are often made by companies offering stress management interventions, which focuss on the effects of stressors on employees. It is widely known and accepted that organizations will introduce new policies and interventions without obtaining strong evidence that they will be effective (Briner, 1997), this is especially true when introducing SMI’s into an organization (Cooper, Dewe & O’Driscoll, 2001). Organizations are often sold the idea that stress is costly, therefore cost reduction is a major factor and selling point to an organization (Briner), which is a reason why stress management interventions are so prevalent Another reason could lie with the panacea surrounding stress interventions today and also that employers want to be seen as doing something about stress for both litigation reasons and in an attempt to be seen as a caring employer (Briner, 1997). The notion of care and responsibility is also an important factor, especially when concerning managers viewpoints.
Managerial attitudes towards stress can dramitically affect the type of SMI a company introduces. The degree of concern, knowledge and responsibility managers have for stress at work is likely to have an impact on their decision to implement a strategy at an organizational level or whether to just help the individual employees deal with the effects of stress.. Managers tend to ignore the sources of strain and the risk of occupational stress, which then creates a shift in responsibility from the organization to the individual (Murphy, 1995). This infers that stress management is often seen as an issue that rests with the workers. For this reason, Murphy (1988) argued that whilst managers hold this opinion regarding responsibility, secondary interventions aimed at individual’s coping skills, such as stress management training, will continue to be more predominant in the workplace than primary interventions operating at an organizational level, combatting the presence of sytressors. Dewe & O’Driscoll (2000) surveyed managers’ views on stress, their beliefs about SMI’s and who should be responsible. They found that 51.1 percent of the managers believed individual employees had “quite a lot of responsibility”, which could explain why SMI’s such as Stress Mangement Training and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy are so popular. Such intereventions focuss on the individual’s coping skills and do not consider the organization as a whole. This creates a shift in responsibility whereby the organization has provided a service for which it is often the responsibility of the employee to engage in. Saksvik, Nytro, Dahl-Jorgensen & Aslaug (2002) evaluated individual and organizational occupational stress interventions. They found that the role of managers was the most significant factor influencing SMI’s. They indicated that managers prefered individual strategies which favoured more “circumscribed and not so provocative activities” (Saksvik et al 2002, p.52), even when the importance of the work environment was explained to them. Furthermore it was found that the practicality of implementing SMI’s during the working week was a fundamental concern for the managers, which could explain their preference for individual interventions which are argueably easier to implement (Cooper et al, 2001) The study also noted that managers were seldomly judged on their efforts regarding occupational health, which could explain their lack of enthusiasm for restructuring the organization and their preferences for implementing strategies which only deal with the effects of stressors at an individual level.
Stress Management Interventions appear to be focussed more on reducing the effects of stressors at work than actually aiming to reduce the presence. The reasons for this disproportion are certainly not exhaustive which makes such a discussion particularly difficult. Organizations are such complex structures it is difficult to argue convincingly this disproportion exists, however it can be suggested that the lack of rigourous research in the field, the complexity of understanding and restructuring an organization and the financial and time implecations of doing so, all hinder the likelyhood of an organization choosing to tackle the presence of stress. Conversely, secondary and tertiary interventions appear very attractive to an organization despite their limitations; they can be implemented fairly quickly and efficiently, show immediate results and appear to offer a panacea for mananging stress. In a fast moving, money conscious organization with numerous other demands, the claims made my the stress management industry seem very appealing, which is why such interventions are so popular. Although the concept of removing the presence of stressors is often the ultimate goal of an organization there is a clear lack of sound evidence supporting the concept of this being possible. Therefore until theory and research develop in this area, the band-aid that is secondary and tertiary interventions will remain popular.
Word Count: 2287
References
Briner, R.B. (1997) Improving Stress Assessment: Toward an evidence-based
approach to organizational stress interventions, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 43(1), 61-71.
Briner, R. B. & Reynolds, S. (1999). The costs, benefits, and limitations of
organizational level stress interventions. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20, 647-664
Cooper, C.L. & Cartwright, S. (1994). “Healthy mind; healthy organization- a
proactive approach to occupational stress”, Human Relations, 47, 455-71.
Cooper, C.L., Dewe, P.J. & O’Dricoll, M.P. (2001). Organizational Stress: A review
and critique of theory, research, and applications. Sage Publications. USA
Ganster, D. C., Mayes, B. T., Sime, W. E. & Tharp, G. D. (1982). `Managing
organizational stress: A Field experiment', Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 533-542.
Giga, S. I., Noblet, A. J., Faragher, B. & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The UK perspective: a
review of research on organizational stress management interventions. Australian Psychologist, 38(2), 158-164.
Health and Safety Executive. (2001). Tackling work-related stress: A manager’s guide
to improving and maintaining Employee health and wellbeing. Sudbury (UK): Author.
Health and Safety Executive (2005) retrieved Oct 12th, 2007 from the World Wide
Web: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/stress.htm
Ivancevitch, J.M., Matteson, M.T., Freedman, S.M.& Phillips, J.S. (1990). Worksite
stress management interventions. Am Psychology; 45, 252-261.
Kohler, J.M. & Munz, D.C. (2006). Combining individual and organizational stress
interventions: An organizational development approach. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(1), 1–12.
Lipsey, M. V., & Cordray, D. S. (2000). Evaluation methods for social intervention.
Annual Review Psychology, 51, 345-375.
Munz, D., Kohler, J., & Greenberg, C. (2001). Effectiveness of a comprehensive
worksite stress management program: Combining organizatonal and individual interventions. International Journal of Stress Management, 8(1), 49-62.
Murphy, L. R. & Sorenson, S. (1988). Employee behaviours before and after stress
management. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 9, 173-182.
Reynolds, S. (1997). Psychological well-being at work: Is prevention better than cure?
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 43(1), 93-102.
Saksvik, P. O., Nytro, K., Dahl-Jorgensen, C. & Aslaug, M. (2002). A process
evaluation of individual and organizational occupational stress and health interventions. Work and Stress, 16(1), 37-57.
by
gemmasanders (student)
