Links between occupational stress and personal performance

French | Spanish | Portuguese | Italian | German | Japanese | Chinese | Korean | Russian | Arabic

Measuring the impact of stress on individuals, and its organizational costs and consequences, remains the subject of continuing debate among researchers. Some sceptics have referred to stress as a ‘weasel word’, or as a generic concept that has become a meaningless catch-all word used to ‘explain’ the negative effects that present-day work and family pressures can have on people. A few researchers have suggested that the connection between stressors and their impact on individuals is mythical, arguing that many of the causes and effects grouped under the broad heading of ‘stress’ should be separated into more specific relationships. It is true to say that the enormous range of possible causes of stress, the variety of personal responses to stress, combined with the intricate task of separating other influencing factors in the workplace, all make a simple assessment of cause and effect less than straightforward. In the past, this may have led some researchers to infer simplistic correlations between the consequences of occupational stress (such as high blood pressure or insomnia) and a stressor (such as overwork), without making sufficient allowance for other potential influencing factors, such as personality differences or lifestyle factors (Briner and Reynolds, 1999). However, while there may be some methodological problems associated with measuring the precise effects and consequences of occupational stress, a balanced reading of this literature leads to just one logical conclusion. There is a considerable body of research, accumulated over two decades by psychologists, epidemiologists, and health and medical researchers, which shows that occupational stress has become a significant occupational health issue, one that has measurable physiological and psychological effects on employees, as well as negative knock-on effects for the organizations that employ them. Consequently, several general conclusions can be drawn from research on occupational stress over the last 20 years.

First, the incidence of occupational stress increased dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, and its direct and indirect costs are rising year by year in all industrialized countries. Worldwide country–national data indicate that a large proportion of working people now routinely exhibit symptoms of occupational distress. There has been a steady rise in the average number of hours worked per week by most managerial employees and an increase in their workloads – in intensity, complexity and duration. For example, the percentage of Australian professional and managerial employees working more than 50 hours a week rose from 22 per cent in 1983 to 29 per cent in 2003 (ACTU and The Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training, 2003).

Second, there has been a marked increase in stress-related illnesses in all industrialized countries throughout the world. In the USA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and the American Psychological Association estimate that the national cost of stress is about $US500 billion a year (Carlopio et al., 2001: 114), with similar pro rata figures being reported in the UK and Australia. It has been estimated that two-thirds of visits to family doctors in the USA, the UK and Australia are attributable to stress-related illnesses (Robbins et al., 2001: 276).

Third, there has also been an increase in stress-related compensation claims in all industrialized countries during the 1990s. Stress-related litigation, already widespread in the UK and the USA, has the potential to become the single largest proportion of workers’ compensation claims in these countries during this decade. In some countries, the growth in stressrelated illnesses is imposing further demands, strains and costs on already overstretched and underresourced national health systems (Forster and Still, 2002; Maguire, 2001; Sternberg, 2000; Tabakoff, 1999; Cooper, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1999; ACTU and The Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training, 1999; Beehr, 1995).

Fourth, in some occupations levels of stress have reached epidemic proportions. For example, one study in 1998 reported that 45 per cent of Australia’s army officers were suffering stress-related symptoms that were sufficiently serious to warrant psychological counselling. The report described these officers as ‘psychological time-bombs’. Similar findings were reported in the 2000 Defence Green Paper (Anonymous, 2000). Over the last decade, several studies in the UK and Australia have revealed that young hospital doctors routinely work more than 100 hours a week and regularly work 24-hour shifts – without a break. It was alleged that these work hours, described by the Australian Medical Association as being ‘dangerously long’, would lead to patient deaths because of poor decisions made by fatigued doctors (Mitchell, 2000; Taylor, 2000).

Fifth, research in the USA, the UK and Australia reveals that stress has a number of negative effects on employees and organizations. The health of employees experiencing occupational stress declines over time, resulting in poorer work performance. They are more likely to be involved in accidents at work, are more likely to be absent from their jobs and will be less productive when at work. There can be other outcomes, including physical effects such as insomnia, higher cholesterol levels, increased blood pressure, heart disease and heart attacks, and psychological effects such as lowered self-esteem, increased anger and anxiety, greater marital problems and an increased likelihood of drug and alcohol abuse (Carlopio et al., 2001:115–19). Studies in the USA have found that employees who work more than 48 hours per week double their chance of developing heart disease. In a few cases, this can lead to complete psychological burnout and even death (Tobler, 2002; Jex, 1998). Organizations exhibiting high systemic stress levels suffer from increased rates of staff turnover and reduced staff loyalty, and may also incur additional costs when replacing employees who have succumbed to stress-related illnesses or who claim unfair dismissal. Organizations that exhibit sustained and high levels of stress are likely to show more signs of toxic behaviour amongst their employees and bullying of staff (Bachelard, 1999). There are also indications that suicide rates in the corporate world are increasing because of increased workplace pressure and uncertainty. In Japan, Karoshi (‘death from overwork’) claims at least 10 000 lives a year (Petersen, 2000; Kageyame, 1998).

There have also been some more bizarre indications of the effects of occupational stress. Evidence from Brazil, for example, indicates that the stress caused by fear of impending job losses and redundancies had actually shrunk the size of some male penises by an average of two centimeters. The worst affected groups were professional and whitecollar workers (cited in The Australian, 10 October 1998). Conversely, there is some evidence that women have begun to experience more ‘male’ stress symptoms, such as hair loss, as a result of ‘testosterone overload’. Women, having taken on an increasing number of traditionally male roles in the workplace, have adopted more aggressive and competitive working styles. In turn, this has made them more sensitive to the male hormone testosterone, with consequent thinning of their hair and even baldness (Norton, 1997).