WORKER STRESS, NEGATIVE EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS

CHAPTER OUTLINE

DEFINING WORKER STRESS SOURCES OF WORKER STRESS

Stressful Occupations
Organizational Sources of Work Stress:
Situational Stressors
Work Task Stressors
Work overload
Underutilization
Work Role Stressors
Job ambiguity

Lack of control
Physical work conditions
Interpersonal stress
Harassment
Organizational change
Work–family conflict
Individual Sources of Work Stress:
Dispositional Stressors
Type A behavior pattern
Susceptibility/resistance to stress
Self-efficacy
MEASUREMENT OF WORKER STRESS
Physiological measures

Self-report assessments
Measurement of stressful life events
Measurement of person–environment fit
EFFECTS OF WORKER STRESS
Job Burnout
COPING WITH WORKER STRESS
Individual coping strategies Organizational coping strategies
NEGATIVE EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES
AND BEHAVIORS
Alcohol and Drug Use in the Workplace

Defining Worker Stress

The construct of stress is quite complex. So much so, in fact, that researchers cannot agree on a single definition for stress (Kahn
& Boysiere, 1992). Consequently, there are at least eight different definitions (models) for stress (Cooper, Dewe, & O’Driscoll,
2002; Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980).
According to the early stress researcher, Hans Selye (1976), stress is primarily a physiological reaction to certain threatening
environmental events. From Selye’s perspective, worker stress would simply refer to the stress caused by events in the work
environment. Psychologist John French and his colleagues (French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982; French, Rogers, & Cobb, 1974) say that
worker stress results from a lack of “fit” between a person’s skills and abilities and the demands of the job and the workplace. In
other words, a worker who is totally unqualified for a particular job should feel a tremendous amount of stress. For example,
imagine a worker with little previous experience with computer systems applying for and being hired as a communication specialist,
only to find out that the job requires a thorough knowledge of various computer networking systems. Richard Lazarus (1991;
Richard Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), in his “transactional” view of worker stress, saw stress as resulting from the worker’s perception
that a certain environmental event is a threat or a challenge, factoring in your perception of how capable you will be at managing the
threat.
All three definitions view worker stress as an interaction between the person and some environmental event, or stressor. In
addition, all the definitions emphasize that there are some important reactions to the stressful event. These reactions can be
either physiological or psychological in nature, or both. Therefore, we will define worker stress as physiological and/or
psychological reactions to an event that is perceived to be threatening or taxing.
Although we most often think of stress as an unpleasant state, it can have both negative and positive aspects. For example,
imagine that you have been working for several years as an assistant manager for a large company and find out that you have
just received a promotion to department manager, a position you have been trying to obtain for some time. With your new position
come feelings of stress. Some of these are negative, such as the stress that will result from having to work many overtime hours
without additional compensation; being required to make formal presentations regularly to your peers and superiors (and having
your presentations critically evaluated by them); and taking on the responsibility to take the criticism for any problems
occurring in your department. On the other hand, there are many positive reactions associated with the promotion, including
feelings of accomplishment, anticipation, pride, and challenge. Like the negative aspects, these positive responses also induce
physiological and psychological reactions in the body. Some stress researchers distinguish the negative stress, termed distress, from
the positive kind of stress, called eustress (see, e.g., Golembiewski, Munzenrider, & Stevenson, 1986; Nelson & Simmons, 2011).
We are all likely familiar with the physiological reactions to stress. They include signs of arousal such as increased heart and
respiratory rates, elevated blood pressure, and profuse sweating. The psychological reactions to stress include feeling anxiety, fear,
frustration, and despair, as well as appraising or evaluating the stressful event and its impact, thinking about the stressful
experience, and mentally preparing to take steps to try to deal with the stress.
In many ways, stress is a perceptual process. An event that one individual perceives to be stressful may not be labeled as such by
someone else. For example, making a formal presentation in front of a large audience may be perceived as extremely stressful for the
average college student, but may be perceived as energizing (and perhaps fun) by a person who is accustomed to public speaking.
Because stress may cause a variety of reactions and feelings, and because perceptions of stress may vary from person to person, stress
has not been particularly easy to define, and it is very difficult to measure. We will deal with methods of measuring stress shortly.
Companies and managers have become more and more concerned with the effects of stress on workers and on important
“bottom-line” variables, such as productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. Why all the interest in worker stress? The most
obvious reason is that too much stress can cause illness. Stress-related illnesses include ulcers, hypertension and coronary heart
disease, migraines, asthma attacks, and colitis. If worker stress leads to stress-related illnesses, rates of absenteeism can increase. At
the psychological level, stress can cause mental strain, feelings of fatigue, anxiety, and depression that can reduce worker
productivity and quality of work. If a job becomes too stressful, a worker may be compelled to quit and find a less-stressful position.
Thus, worker stress may influence turnover as well.
Managers and workers may also be concerned about stress at a more personal level. Worker stress can be, in many ways, the flip
side of job satisfaction. Whereas job satisfaction represents the “positives” associated with work, stress is a way of conceptualizing
the “negatives” associated with jobs—the pressures, the strains, the conflicts. No doubt, much of the interest in worker stress
results from the fact that managers, business owners, and all other sorts of workers experience stress on a day-to-day basis.

SOURCES OF WORKER STRESS

Stress can arise from either the environment (situational stress) or from an individual’s personal characteristics (dispositional stress).
Situational stress can come from all aspects of our lives. We are subjected to a wide range of stressors at home, at school, and in
our interpersonal relationships, as well as the stressors we encounter at work. No doubt, all these various sources of stress
accumulate and add to our overall stress levels. That is, stress at home can spill over to work situations and vice versa. Most
stress researchers realize this and emphasize that when studying stress, it is important to look at the broad picture of an
individual’s total stress, rather than focusing narrowly on stress derived from work (Erickson, Nichols, & Ritter, 2000; Frone,
Russell, & Cooper, 1991).

STRESSFUL OCCUPATIONS
It is generally believed that certain occupations, such as air traffic controller, physician or other health-care provider, police officer,
and firefighter, are particularly stressful. There has been increased attention to postal workers’ stress, following highly publicized
cases of postal workers attacking and killing coworkers. This has even led to the slang term “going postal.” Is it true that certain
occupations are particularly stress prone? There is some evidence to support this. For example, studies of air traffic controllers
indicate that they do indeed experience high levels of work-related stress, as do medical doctors and nurses (Leonhardt & Vogt,
2011; Rutledge et al., 2009; Sparks & Cooper, 1999). Similarly, studies of dentists suggest that dentistry is a high-stress occupation
(Cooper, Mallinger, & Kahn, 1978; DiMatteo, Shugars, & Hays, 1993). High-level managers and business executives are also
believed to hold extremely stressful jobs.
Police officers’ and firefighters’ jobs are particularly stressful because of the physical dangers involved (Chamberlin & Green,
2010; Tehrani & Piper, 2011). We saw the dangers associated with these jobs during and after the September 11, 2001, tragedy. The
day-to-day dangers facing police officers and firefighters are indeed stressful. However, some studies suggest that rather than causing
stress, the excitement and challenge of dealing with physical danger may be motivating and “enriching” to many police officers and
firefighters (Jermier, Gaines, & McIntosh, 1989; Riggio & Cole, 1995). Interestingly, studies of police officers suggest that they
suffer from the same sources of stress, such as increased responsibilities and workloads and difficulties with coworkers, as per- sons
in other occupations (Brown, Cooper, & Kircaldy, 1996). In sum, trying to determine levels of worker stress merely by looking at a
person’s occupation or job title may not be very accurate.
Research on these and other stereotypically stressful occupations has begun to discover exactly why these jobs are characterized
as stressful. For instance, air traffic controllers’ jobs are stressful because of the heavy workloads, the constant fear of causing accidents,
equipment problems, and poor working environments (Shouksmith & Burrough, 1988). The primary sources of dentists’
occupational stress come from difficult patients, heavy workloads, and the dentists’ own concern that their patients hold
negative views about them and about dentists in general (Coster, Carstens, & Harris, 1987; DiMatteo et al., 1993).
Rather than focusing only on high-stress occupations, it makes sense to examine those sources of worker stress that are common
to all kinds of jobs, even those that are not typically considered high-stress jobs. Such sources of stress can be divided into two
general categories: organizational and individual. Organizational sources of stress come from the work environment and can be
broken down into two subcategories: stress derived from work tasks and stress resulting from work roles. Individual sources of stress
include a person’s history of exposure to stress as well as certain stress-related personality characteristics and behavioral patterns. For
example, there is evidence that certain personality traits make people more prone to stress (and stress-related illnesses), and some
characteristics seem to make people more resistant to stress and its negative outcome.
ORGANIZATIONAL SOURCES OF WORK STRESS: SITUATIONAL STRESSORS
A great deal of worker stress is caused by stressors in the environment of the work organization. Some of this organizational stress
is caused by the work tasks themselves—the physical and psychological demands of performing a job. Organizational stress
may also be caused by work roles because work organizations are complex social systems in which a worker must interact with
many people. Therefore, the work relationships of various kinds that must be created and maintained for a worker to perform
the job adequately can also lead to stress. These two types of situational stress—work task and work role stressors—can often
be alleviated by management actions.

WORK TASK STRESSORS

Work overload
A common work task source of stress is work overload, also known as role overload, which results when the job requires excessive
work speed, output, or concentration (Brown, Jones, & Leigh, 2005). More recently, attention has been given to technology-related
work overload, such as the increased volume of information, leading to things such as “e-mail overload” (Bellotti, Ducheneaut,
Howard, Smith, & Grinter, 2005; Soucek & Moser, 2010). Work overload is widely believed to be one of the greatest sources of
work stress. Research on work overload indicates that it is related to physiological indicators of stress, such as elevated serum
cholesterol and increased heart rate (Caplan & Jones, 1975; Cobb & Rose, 1973); to psychological measures of stress (Spector, 1987;
Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988); and to lower quality of work and job dissatisfaction (Kirmeyer & Dougherty, 1988). In fact, work
overload has been reported as a common source of stress for jobs as diverse as clerical workers, soldiers, air traffic controllers,
courtroom attorneys, and health-care workers (Bliese & Halverson, 1996; Carayon, 1994; Iverson, Olekalns, & Erwin, 1998; Shouksmith
& Burrough, 1988).
Underutilization
Work overload can cause stress but having too little to do—underutilization— can also be stressful (French & Caplan, 1972;
Ganster, Fusilier, & Mayes, 1986). Underutilization may also occur when workers feel that the job does not use their work-related
knowledge, skills, or abilities, or when jobs are boring and monotonous (Melamed, Ben-Avi, Luz, & Green, 1995). Some college
graduates in low-level clerical or customer service positions may feel some stress due to underutilization of their knowledge and
skills (French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982). There is also evidence that some individuals may be more susceptible to stress relating to
underutilization than others (Vodanovich, 2003).
WORK ROLE STRESSORS
Job ambiguity
A potential source of work role stress is job ambiguity, which occurs when aspects of a job, such as tasks and requirements, are not
clearly outlined. When workers are unsure of their responsibilities and duties, stress can result (Breaugh & Colihan, 1994; Jackson &
Schuler, 1985). Job ambiguity is also sometimes referred to as “job uncertainty.” However, job uncertainty may better refer to the
uncertainty caused by a lack of regular performance feedback concerning how well or how poorly workers are doing their jobs.
Research suggests that supervisors can play an important part in reducing job uncertainty for subordinates by clarifying job
roles and duties (Schaubroeck, Ganster, Sime, & Ditman, 1993). Findings that job uncertainty can have negative influences on
job satisfaction highlight the importance of the supervisor’s role in alleviating uncertainty and its accompanying stress
(O’Driscoll & Beehr, 1994).
Conflict between roles can also occur and can become an additional source of stress (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). For instance, a
worker’s job may require excessive overtime that conflicts with the worker’s family roles of spouse and parent. Or, having to play
different roles at work simultaneously can cause stress.
Lack of control
Another important source of work stress results from workers sensing that they have little control over the work environment and
over their own work behavior. Stress resulting from this feeling of lack of control is particularly common in lower-level jobs or in
highly structured organizations. Jobs that are so constrained and rule-driven that employees are unable to have any sort of
input in work decisions and procedures are likely to be stress inducing, particularly for those workers who want to have some
input (see Dwyer & Ganster, 1991; Karasek, 1979; Theorell, Westerlund, Alfredsson, & Oxenstierna, 2005). Research indicates that
providing workers with a sense of control over their work environment, through techniques such as giving them a voice in decision-
making processes or allowing them to plan their own work tasks, reduces work stress and fatigue and increases job satisfaction
(Jackson, 1983; Jimmieson & Terry, 1998; Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006). On the other hand, some studies suggest that a sense of
a lack of control over one’s job may not be stressful for many workers (see Carayon, 1994). It may be the case that different types of
workers are concerned with having sense of control over their jobs. In fact, research has found that certain personality
characteristics may determine whether an individual is stressed by a perceived lack of job control (Ivancevich, Matteson, & Preston,
1982).
Physical work conditions
Physical conditions in the work environment are another organizational source contributing to worker stress (Frese & Zapf, 1988).
Jobs that must be performed under extreme temperatures, loud and distracting noise, or poor lighting or ventilation can be quite
stressful. Dangerous jobs that place workers at risk of loss of health, life, or limb are an additional source of work stress (Booth, 1986).
Cramped, crowded, and excessively noisy work environments can also cause stress. For example, one study showed that noise
levels in open-space office environments (offices with partitioned cubicles and open ceilings) constituted a significant source of
stress (Evans & Johnson, 2000). Similarly, working late night (“graveyard”) shifts can disrupt natural sleep and waking cycles
and may lead to problems such as high stress, fatigue, job dissatisfaction, and perfor- mance errors (Monk, Fokard, & Wedderburn,
1996; Smith & Folkard, 1993).
Interpersonal stress
One of the greatest sources of work stress results from difficulties in inter- personal relationships on the job. Interpersonal stress
stems from difficulties in developing and maintaining relationships with other people in the work setting. Having a harsh,
critical boss with a punitive management style would likely be stressful for just about anyone. With the rise of virtual work,
some workers feel a lack of social connections and support and experience a stressful sense of social isolation (Avolio & Kahai,
2003; Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 2001).
Interpersonal stress can also result when coworkers are placed in some sort of conflict situation. Imagine, for example, that
two employees are both being considered for an important promotion. A great deal of stress may be generated if the two
individuals must work together while both are competing for the same honor. There is also evidence that organizational politics
and struggles overpower can be important sources of stress in the workplace (Ferris, Frink, Gilmore, & Kacmar, 1994).
Whatever its causes, the inability to get along with other workers is one of the most common sources of stress in the workplace
(Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987).
Another form of interpersonal stress occurs frequently in service organizations and involves the stress of providing good
customer service. When one is dealing with impatient and difficult customers, the pressure to maintain one’s cool and offer
service with a smile can be quite taxing and stressful. Researchers have examined this emotional labor—the demands of regulating and
controlling emotions and emotional displays as part of a job requirement (Diefendorff & Gosserand, 2003; Hochschild, 1983). The
very common stress caused by emotional labor can cause workers to become dissatisfied and cynical about their jobs, reduce job
satisfaction, performance, and lead to frequent absentee- ism and turnover (Bono & Vey, 2005; Hulsheger, Lang, & Maier, 2010;
Rubin, Tardino, Daus, & Munz, 2005).

Harassment
All forms of harassment, including sexual harassment, harassment due to group membership (e.g., gender, race, sexual
orientation), and being singled out by an abusive supervisor or colleague, are all extremely stressful (Malamut & Offermann, 2001;
Raver & Nishii, 2010; Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001). Research has suggested that victims of workplace sexual harassment, as
well as victims of more general harassment at work, including bullying, have increased odds of work-related illness, injury, or
being assaulted (Rospenda, Richman, Ehmke, & Zlatoper, 2005). A study of over 6,000 telephone company employees across the
United States showed that incidence of sexual harassment increased stress and decreased job satisfaction, but that the culture of the
organization/unit in terms of whether the culture fostered and appeared to tolerate harassment or discouraged it played a
part in levels of employee stress (Law, Dollard, Tuckey, & Dormann, 2011; Mueller, De Coster, & Estes, 2001). Moreover, there is
evidence that sexual and other forms of harass- ment tended to co-occur in certain organizations, along with generally uncivil
behavior (Lim & Cortina, 2005).

Organizational change
A common organizational source of stress is change (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). People tend to grow accustomed to certain work
procedures and certain work structures, and they resist change. Most of us prefer things to remain stable and predictable. Such
stability in our working environments seems comforting and reassuring. Therefore, it should not be surprising that major
changes in a work organization tend to cause stress (Dahl, 2011; Leiter & Harvie, 1998). Some com- mon change situations that lead to
worker stress include company reorganizations, mergers of one company with another or acquisitions of one organization by another,
changes in work systems and work technology, changes in company policy, and managerial or personnel changes (see Table
10.1; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). For example, research has shown that physiological
stress responses are stronger in novel or unfamiliar circumstances that involve a threat or challenge (Rose, 1987). An event like a
company-wide reorganization, or a merger or acquisition, would certainly be perceived as threatening and stressful by many
employees (Marks & Mirvis, 2010).

Work–family conflict
A very important source of stress, one that extends beyond the boundaries of the organization, is work–family conflict, which
results from efforts to balance the often-competing demands of work roles and requirements and those of family and nonworking
life. A great deal of attention has been devoted to research on work–family conflict and efforts to achieve balance between the
world of work and the world of family (Halpern & Murphy, 2005; Kossek & Lambert, 2005). Importantly, work–family
conflict is a source of stress that is common internationally and is on the rise because of the increased demands of work
(Poelmans, 2005; Rantanen, Mauno, Kinnunen, & Rantanen, 2011).

INDIVIDUAL SOURCES OF WORK STRESS:

DISPOSITIONAL STRESSORS
Although a great deal of worker stress is created by factors in the organization or by features of jobs and work tasks, some is
caused by characteristics of the workers themselves. We will consider two such individual sources of work stress: the Type A
behavior pattern and susceptibility to stress and to stress effects. It is the individual worker—not management—who must work to
alleviate these sources of stress.

Type A behavior pattern

When many people think of individuals who are extremely stressed in the workplace, they immediately picture the stereotypical hard-
driving, competitive executive who seeks a job with a heavy workload and many responsibilities—a person who takes on too much
work and never seems to have enough time to do it. Is there any truth to this characterization? Research evidence indicates that
there is. Researchers have uncovered the Type A behavior pattern, or Type A personality, which is characterized by excessive drive and
competitiveness, a sense of urgency and impatience, and underlying hostility (Table 10.2; Friedman & Rosenman, 1974;
Rosenman, 1978). This behavior pattern is particularly significant because there is evidence that persons who possess the Type
A personality are slightly more prone to develop stress-related coronary heart disease, including fatal heart attacks, than persons
who do not have the behavior pattern, termed Type Bs (Allan, 2011; Booth-Kewley & Friedman, 1987; Schaubroeck, Ganster,
& Kemmerer, 1994).
An important question is how does the Type A behavior pattern relate to stress and to stress-related heart disease? Early
research on Type A behavior hypothesized that it was the Type A’s hardworking, competitive drive that caused stress and
subsequent heart problems (Rosenman et al., 1964). Later research, however, suggested that the Type A’s underlying hostility,
and the lack of appropriate expression of that hostility, is also partly responsible for increased stress reactions in Type A’s
(Dembroski & Costa, 1987; Friedman, Hall, & Harris, 1985; Smith & Pope, 1990). Other studies suggest that the more global
construct of “negative affectivity,” or the expression of negative emotions, such as anger, hostility, anxiety, impatience, and aggression,
is what com- bines with a Type A personality to increase stress-related health risks (Chen & Spector, 1991; Ganster,
Schaubroeck, Sime, & Mayes, 1991).
Do Type A’s experience more stress than others? Research into this question has produced mixed results. For example, some studies
indicate that Type A’s are more likely to experience or report high stress than are other personality types under the same workload
(Kirmeyer & Dougherty, 1988; Payne, Jabri, & Pearson, 1988). Other studies show that Type A’s do not report or experience greater
stress, but simply have stronger physiological stress reactions to stressful situations (Ganster, 1986). Perhaps the subjective experience
of stress has less negative influence on health than the physiological responses. In other words, Type A’s may have stronger stress-
induced physiological responses that they are not necessarily aware of, and it is these strong physiological responses over time that
lead to increased health risks. If this is the case, Type A’s may simply not realize that their long, intense work style is creating wear
and tear on their bodies.
Although there are obvious stress-related costs to the Type A behavior pattern, there are also some gains. Studies consistently show
that Type A’s tend to work harder (Byrne & Reinhardt, 1989), work well in high-variety jobs (Lee, Earley, & Hanson, 1988), and have
higher positions and salaries than Type B’s (Boyd, 1984; Chesney & Rosenman, 1980; Payne et al., 1988). This aspect of Type A
behavior is conceptually related to strong achievement orientation or “workaholism” discussed in the motivation chapter (see
Chapter 8, Up Close).
An important question is whether the Type A behavior pattern is something related to Western or U.S. work culture, or
whether Type A’s occur in other countries and cultures. Although there is some evidence that other cultures have Type A and
Type B workers (e.g., Jamal, 1999; Li & Shen, 2009), there are most certainly differences across cultures and countries in the
 prevalence and rates of the Type A behavior pattern (Al-Mashaan, 2003).

Susceptibility/resistance to stress
Another dispositional source of stress may stem from the fact that some persons are simply more susceptible to stress, whereas
others have stress- resistant, hardy personalities. The concept of hardiness was outlined by psychologist Suzanne Kobasa (1982;
Maddi & Kobasa, 1984), who argued that hardy personality types are resistant to the harmful effects of stress because of their
style of dealing with stressful events. A meta-analysis shows that hardy individuals experience less stress and are better at coping with
stress than non- hardy individuals (Eschleman, Bowling, & Alarcon, 2010). Rather than viewing a stressful situation as a threat, hardy
types view it as a challenge and derive meaning from these challenging experiences (Britt, Adler, & Bartone, 2001). Moreover, they
also believe that they can control and influence the course of their lives (recall that a sense of lack of control can contribute to
stress) and are committed to their jobs. Conversely, a lack of hardiness is associated with higher levels of self-perceived stress, and
there is evidence that such “unhardy” or “disease-prone” persons may be more susceptible to stress-related illnesses and depression
(Friedman & Booth-Kewley, 1987; Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983). Thus, it appears that certain types of workers are more “stress prone.”
That is, they are more likely to suffer stress-related physical illness and psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, etc.) than are
more hardy workers.
There have been attempts to increase hardiness through what has been called HardiTraining. (Khoshaba & Maddi, 2001). In
essence, training for hardiness involves the development of workers’ coping skills, and a combination of relaxation training, a
program of diet and exercise, and developing supportive networks to help reduce stress (Maddi & Khoshaba, 2003). More
recently, hardiness training was found to be successful in helping college students deal with the stresses of college life (Maddi,
Harvey, Khoshaba, Fazel, & Resurreccion, 2009).
Self-efficacy
Research has also identified another characteristic that seems to increase resistance to stress: self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as an
individual’s beliefs in his or her abilities to engage in courses of action that will lead to desired outcomes (Bandura, 1997). In other
words, self-efficacy is related to one’s sense of competence and effectiveness. Self-efficacy is a very important concept that not only
relates to one’s ability to cope with stressful situations (i.e., the possession of coping self-efficacy), but it is also an important factor
relating to a worker’s ability to perform his or her job (job-related self-efficacy), to lead a work team (leadership self-efficacy), and to
deal effectively with relationships at work (relationship self-efficacy). There is evidence that a sense of self-efficacy can have positive
effects in reducing stress in the workplace (Jex & Bliese, 1999; Rennesund & Saksvik, 2010; Saks, 1994; Van Yperen, 1998). In one
study, it was found that having a sense of control over a stressful work situation only decreased stress if the employees had a high
sense of self-efficacy about their abilities to do their jobs under stress and strain (Jimmieson, 2000).

Measurement of Worker Stress

Because stress is such a complex phenomenon and because stress researchers can- not agree on a single definition of stress, you might
suspect that the measurement of stress is extremely difficult. For the most part, measurement of stress in general, and of worker stress in
particular, is problematic. There have been several approaches to measuring stress. We will consider several of these.

Physiological measures
As has been stated, the stress response involves physiological reactions as well as psychological and emotional responses. Therefore,
one strategy for measuring stress has focused on measuring signs of physiological arousal and strain that accompany stress. This
includes blood pressure monitoring, electrocardiogram (EKG) for monitoring heart rate, or blood tests for monitoring levels of
certain hormones, such as the stress-linked hormone, cortisol, and cholesterol in the bloodstream. One problem with using such
physiological indicators of stress is the amount of variation that can occur from hour to hour, day to day, or person to person
(Herd, 1988). Another drawback to the use of such stress tests is the requirement for trained medical personnel, as well as the
associated costs for equipment and analysis procedures.

Self-report assessments
Another approach to measuring stress, one that is favored by psychologists, is to ask people directly to report on their own
perceived stress through various rating scales. Most self-report assessments fall into one of two major categories: reports about
organizational conditions or reports about psychological and/or physical states.
Reports on organizational conditions typically contain items that ask about facets of the job such as autonomy, feedback,
task identity, task significance, skill variety, complexity, dealing with others, ambiguity, and workload (Spector, 1992). For example,
questions dealing with workload might include the following (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987):
• Number of projects/assignments you have
• Amount of time spent in meetings
• Amount of time spent at work
• Number of phone calls and visitors you have during the day.
There are several standardized self-report measures of psychological and physiological stress and strain, such as the Stress
Diagnostic Survey (SDS; Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980), the Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI; Cooper, Sloan, & Williams, 1988),
and the Job Stress Survey (JSS; Spielberger & Reheiser, 1994). For example, the SDS measures workers’ perceptions of stress in 15
 work-related areas, including time pressure, workload, role ambiguity, and supervisory style. The JSS is a 30-item instrument that
measures the severity and frequency with which workers experience certain stressful working conditions. These instruments have been
used in research or by organizations to quickly gauge employees’ stress levels.

Measurement of stressful life events

As was mentioned earlier, situational stress in one area of an individual’s life, such as the home or school, can affect stress levels at work
(Levi, Frankenhaeuser, & Gardell, 1986; Martin & Schermerhorn, 1983). Particularly important is the worker’s experience of traumatic or
stressful life events, which include negative events such as the death of a spouse or loved one, divorce or separation, major illness, and
financial or legal troubles, as well as positive events such as marriage, the birth of a child, and vacations. This approach to measuring
stress assumes that such events can bring on stress-related illness and may impair job performance.
One measure is a checklist where individuals total the numerical “stress severity” scores associated with the significant life events that
they have experienced in the past year (Holmes & Rahe, 1967; see Table 10.3). This provides a personal life events stress index. Half
of the 10 most stressful life events are directly related to work (Hobson & Delunas, 2001). Research suggests that persons with high
personal stress indexes tend to perform more poorly, have higher absenteeism, and change jobs more frequently than persons who
experience fewer stressful life events (Bhagat, 1983; Weiss, Ilgen, & Sharbaugh, 1982). Moreover, there is some evidence that stressful life
events have a greater stress impact on younger as opposed to older persons based on the notion that young people do not have as
well-developed coping mechanisms (Jackson & Finney, 2002). Yet, there has been a great deal of criticism of the stressful life
events approach to assessing stress (e.g., Hurrell, Murphy, Sauter, & Cooper, 1988). Much of the criticism is that this approach is
too general. Certain life events may affect people very differently. For example, it has been suggested that a simple additive
weighting of the Social Readjustment Rating Scale does not accurately assess the effect of an additional stressful event when an individual
is already experiencing other stressful events (Birnbaum & Sotoodeh, 1991). In addition, assessment of stressful life events may not
reveal the impact of day-to- day stressors influencing the individual.

Measurement of person–environment fit

Person–environment (P–E) fit refers to the match between a worker’s abilities, needs, and values, and organizational demands,
rewards, and values. P–E fit has been found to have a positive correlation with organizational commitment, well-being, and a negative
correlation with turnover (Hult, 2005; Ostroff, 1993b; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003; Yang, Che, & Spector, 2008). According to the
P–E fit approach, a mismatch between the worker and the work organization/environment is believed to be a primary cause of worker
stress. For example, imagine a worker who has a high need for job clarification, job structure, and feedback and who accepts a job with a
small, fast-growing company where jobs are neither well defined nor structured, and where supervisors have little time for feedback due
to constant production demands. In such a case, there would be a poor person–environment fit.
Typically, measurement of person–environment fit involves measuring some characteristics of the worker, such as worker skills
and/or abilities, and assessing the work environment and job demands. The discrepancy between these two sets of measures is then
calculated as an index of fit (e.g., Edwards & Cooper, 1990). It can be argued, however, that the concept of person– environment fit
is overly broad, and that measures that specifically look at “subcategories” of P–E fit—such as person–organization fit, person–job
fit, and the extent to which a particular job fits an individual’s motivational needs (see Chapter 8)—are needed (see Kristoff, 1996;
Medcof & Hausdorf, 1995; Sutherland, Fogarty, & Pithers, 1995).
Effects of Worker Stress

Much of the growing interest in worker stress (it is one of the most studied areas of I/O psychology) is due to the very powerful
impact that it can have on workers and work behavior, and, most dramatically, on employee health.
It is believed that more than one half of all physical illnesses are stress related. Some common stress-related illnesses are ulcers,
colitis, high blood pressure, heart disease, respiratory illnesses, and migraine headaches. Moreover, stress can worsen common colds,
flus, and infections, making recovery time longer. It is estimated that these illnesses, attributed in part to work stress, cost billions of
dollars annually in health-care costs and in employee absenteeism and turnover (Beehr & Bhagat, 1985; Clark, 2005; Hart &
Cooper, 2001). Importantly, polls of workers show that the majority believes that job stress causes them problems (Clark, 2005).
Worker stress can also have an adverse impact on employees’ psychological states. High levels of stress are associated with
depression, anxiety, and chronic fatigue. Stress may also contribute to alcoholism and drug abuse in workers and may influence
accident rates on the job (Frone, 2008; Wolf, 1986; we will discuss these in more depth later). Emotional exhaustion, detachment from
coworkers, negative self-evaluations, and lowered self-esteem are also associated with worker stress (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993).
As you might imagine, stress can influence important work outcomes. Stress is believed to cause decreased work performance
and increased absenteeism and turnover. However, the relationships between work stress and these key bottom-line variables are
quite complex. For example, it has been suggested that the relationship between stress and performance may often take the form of
an inverted U (see Figure 10.1), rather than being direct

High Too Little Stress Optimum Stress Excessive Stress

(Excellent)
and linear, with greater stress leading to poorer performance. In other words, very low levels of stress (or no stress) and very
high levels of stress are associated with poor work performance, whereas low to moderate levels of stress seem to be related to
better performance (Cohen, 1980; Muse, Harris, & Field, 2003). This makes sense, because very high levels of stress will
interfere with job performance. For instance, there is evidence that severe, acute stress results in poor performance because
stress interferes with workers’ mental processing (Ellis, 2006). On the other end, having little or no stress likely means that
workers are not being challenged or motivated (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). In short, a little bit of stress might not be
a bad thing. Of course, both stress and job performance are extremely complex variables, and this inverted U relationship may
not hold for all types of stressors or for all aspects of job performance (Beehr, 1985).
The effects of work stress on job performance might also be affected by other variables. For example, one study showed that
the effect of stress on the job performance of nurses was mediated by feelings of depression. That is, work stress caused the
nurses to be depressed, and the depression led to decreased quality of patient care and problems with relationships with
coworkers (Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986). If stress is caused by an inability to get along with a certain coworker, an
employee may try to cope with this situation by avoiding all interactions with the individual. This avoidance strategy may
impair the employee’s job performance if the coworker has some valuable information that the employee needs to perform his
or her job. In this case, it is not the stress that is causing poor job performance, but the coping strategy!
A great deal of evidence suggests that work stress can lead to increased turnover and absenteeism (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2004;
Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; Mayes & Ganster, 1988). Gupta and Beehr (1979) found this to be true for a variety
of occupations in five organizations. Another study concluded that it was a combination of high levels of work stress and low
levels of organizational commitment that predicted voluntary turnover rates for workers in a food processing company
(Parasuraman & Alutto, 1984). Further, if stress levels are to blame for certain illnesses, it is a given that stress must be
responsible for some absenteeism and some turnover caused by disabling illness.

JOB BURNOUT
Employees exposed to such things as unresolved interpersonal conflicts, lack of clearly defined work tasks and responsibilities,
extreme overwork, lack of appropriate rewards, or presence of inappropriate punishment may become victims of burnout, a process
by which they become less committed to their jobs and begin to withdraw from work. The process of withdrawal may include such
reactions as increased tardiness and absenteeism and decreased work performance and work quality (Gaines & Jermier, 1983;
Sutherland & Cooper, 1988; Ybema, Smulders, & Bongers, 2010). Moreover, work-related burnout can spill over to an individual’s
family life, as we saw with stress earlier (Maslach, 2005; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).

Burnout usually occurs in three phases. The first phase is emotional exhaustion caused by excessive demands placed on the worker. The
second phase is depersonalization, or the development of a cynical, insensitive attitude toward people (other workers or customers) in the
work site. The third phase is marked by feelings of low personal accomplishment. Here the burned-out workers feel a sense of frustration
and helplessness. They begin to believe that their work efforts fail to produce the desired results, and they may quit trying (Jackson,
Schwab, & Schuler, 1986; Lee & Ashforth, 1990).
Research has shown that burnout is especially high in human service professions that involve helping others, such as health-care providers
(physicians, nurses, counselors), teachers, social workers, and policemen (Burke, 1997; Carlson & Thompson, 1995; Cherniss,
1980). A study of nurses found that burnout led to decreased organizational commitment and increased negative interactions
with supervisors (Leiter & Maslach, 1988). Similarly, the effects of burnout on teachers include insensitivity toward students,
lower tolerance for disruption in the classroom, inadequate preparation for classes, and the feeling that they are no longer able to
help students learn (Byrne, 1993). A longitudinal study of social welfare workers found that the emotional exhaustion
component of Maslach’s Burnout Inventory was related to both voluntary turnover and declines in job performance over a 1-
year period (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Although much of the research on burnout focuses on the “helping professions,”
there is evidence that burnout can occur in many different occupations (Leiter & Schaufeli, 1996; Sonnentag, Brodbeck,
Heinbokel, & Stolte, 1994). Clearly, however, the emotional labor of providing services to clients, customers, and patients,
plays a big part in causing burnout (Brotherridge & Grandey, 2002; Zapf, Seifert, Schmutte, Mertini, & Holz, 2001).
It is important to note that there is some debate among researchers about the definition and the complexity of the burnout
phenomenon. For instance, researchers have disagreed about the number of components that comprise the burnout syndrome
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Evans & Fischer, 1993; Schaufeli & Van Dierendonck, 1993). Yet, burnout is a
serious problem and illustrates some of the long-term psychological and behavioral effects of work-related stress.

Coping with Worker Stress

The tremendous variety of strategies and techniques designed to cope with work stress can all be categorized into two general
approaches: individual strategies and organizational strategies. Individual strategies are those that can be used by individual
employees to try to reduce or eliminate personal stress. Organizational strategies are techniques and programs that organizations
can implement to try to reduce stress levels for groups of workers or for the organization.
Individual coping strategies
Individual coping strategies are behavioral or cognitive efforts made to manage internal demands and conflicts that have
exceeded an individual’s usual coping resources (Lazarus & Launier, 1978; Sethi & Schuler, 1984). The most obvious of such
techniques are programs developed to improve the individual’s physical condition, such as exercise and diet plans. The primary
rationale behind such health programs is to make the body more resistant to stress-related illnesses. Some claim that exercise itself
may directly reduce the anxiety associated with stress, or that it may have a certain tranquilizing effect on stressed individuals (Jette,
1984). However, it is unclear whether it is the exercise that directly alleviates the physiological symptoms of stress or simply
that an individual “feels good” after exercising because of positive psychological factors. For instance, because exercising and
keeping physically fit are valued highly by our culture, it may be that physically active persons feel better about themselves and thus
psychologically reduce perceived stress. More rigorous evaluation is needed to determine the precise physiological and psychological
influences of exercise and diet programs in alleviating stress.
Another individual coping strategy is the inducement of states of relaxation to reduce the negative arousal and strain that
accompany stress. A variety of techniques have been used to achieve this, including systematic relaxation training, meditation, and
biofeedback (Stein, 2001). In systematic relaxation training, individuals are taught how to relax all the muscles of the body
systematically, from the feet to the face. Meditation is a deep relaxed state that is usually brought on by intense concentration on a
single word, idea, or object. Supposedly, meditative states are “free of anxiety, tension, or distress” (Sethi, 1984a, p. 145).
Biofeedback uses some measure of physiological activity, typically brain waves or muscle tension, that is associated with relaxed
states. When the person is in the state of relaxation, the measurement machinery provides some sort of feedback, such as a tone. The
individual then learns through practice how to enter the relaxed, stress-free state. Although relaxation, meditation, and biofeedback
are intended principally to reduce the physiological arousal associated with stress, they may also induce positive psychological
reactions to stress.
These various methods of coping with stress through relaxation processes are widely touted, but there has been very little
systematic investigation of their effectiveness. In fact, some findings indicate that such programs are not very effective at all (Ganster,
Mayes, Sime, & Tharp, 1982; Sallis, Johnson, Trevorrow, Hovell, & Kaplan, 1985).
One possible reason why systematic relaxation coping strategies may not be effective is that most of the relaxation techniques require
quite a bit of dedication and practice to be used effectively. Not all persons find it easy to induce a deeply relaxed state; others
may not be able to adhere to a regular program of systematic relaxation or meditation. Also, many of these programs last only a
few hours, which may not be enough time to teach someone difficult relaxation techniques. The timing of the relaxation
technique is another problem. Many people would find it difficult (and perhaps inappropriate) to meditate at work, and relaxing
before or after work may or may not significantly reduce stress while at work. The same argument can be made for exercise
programs—the benefits will only occur if people adhere to their exercise regimens (see Erfurt, Foote, & Heirich, 1992). In
short, although all these techniques may be good in theory, they may not function well in practice.
Other individual coping strategies include a variety of techniques to try to fend off work stress through better, more efficient work
methods. Courses in time management are often advertised as methods of reducing stress caused by overwork and inefficiency
(Schuler & Sethi, 1984; Wratcher & Jones, 1986). For example, learning to approach work tasks systematically by budgeting and
assigning parcels of time to specific tasks and by planning to avoid last- minute deadlines may be quite effective in helping reduce
stress for some workers. Again, however, these strategies depend on the individual’s commitment to the technique and willingness
and ability to use it regularly (Shahani, Weiner, & Streit, 1993).
Individuals may also try to cope with stress by removing themselves, temporarily or permanently, from the stressful work
situation. It is not uncommon for workers to exchange a stressful job for one that is less stressful (although many do seek more
challenging and more stressful jobs). Although a vacation may temporarily eliminate work stress, certain trips, such as intense
tours of eight European countries in seven days, may create a different kind of stress them selves (Lounsbury & Hoopes, 1986).
Research indicates that although vacations do indeed reduce work stress and feelings of burnout, the effects are temporary. In fact,
levels of stress and burnout are reduced immediately before, during, and immediately after the vacation, but may go back to original
levels a few weeks after the vacation (Etzion, 2003; Westman & Eden, 1997).
It is interesting to note that workers might use absence from work--voluntarily taking a day off—as a coping strategy. If
absence is used as an attempt to cope with a particularly stressful job, then the lost work time must be balanced against the
possible gains in terms of the employee’s long-term performance and well-being (Hackett & Bycio, 1996).
Finally, cognitive efforts to cope may include cognitive restructuring, which entails changing the way one thinks about stressors
(Lazarus, 1991; Lowe & Bennett, 2003). For example, instead of thinking negative thoughts when faced with a stressor, the
individual practices thinking neutral or positive thoughts (e.g., “this is not important,” “this is really a challenge”). Studies of
teachers and nurses who used cognitive restructuring found that it reduced their perceptions of stress and stress-related illnesses
(Begley, 1998; Gardner, Rose, Mason, Tyler, & Cushway, 2005; Schonfeld, 1990). Cognitive restructuring is often used to treat post-
traumatic stress disorder in workers and others who have experienced severe trauma (Mueser, Rosenberg, & Rosenberg, 2009).
Individual coping strategies may be effective in combating stress if they increase an individual’s self-efficacy for coping with
stress. Research shows that self-efficacy can help cope with work demands, such as work overload, but only if the person has the
resources to help reduce the job demands (Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001).

Organizational coping strategies

Individual coping strategies are steps that workers themselves can take to alleviate personal stress, and organizational coping strategies are
steps that organizations can take to try to reduce stress levels in the organization for all, or most, employees (Burke, 1993). Because
work stress can come from a variety of organizational sources, there are many things that organizations can do to reduce situational
stressors in the workplace. These strategies include the following:
Improve the person–job fit—We have already seen that work stress commonly arises when workers are in jobs they dislike or jobs for
which they are ill suited (French & Caplan, 1972). A mismatch between a worker’s interests or skills and job requirements can
be very stressful. By maximizing the person–job fit through the careful screening, selection, and placement of employees,
organizations can alleviate a great deal of this stress.
Improve employee training and orientation programs—Perhaps the most stressed groups of workers in any organization are new
employees. Although they are usually highly motivated and want to make a good impression on their new bosses by showing that
they are hardworking and competent, their lack of certain job-related skills and knowledge means that new employees are often
unable to perform their jobs as well as they would like. This mismatch between expectations and outcomes can be very stressful for
new workers. Moreover, they feel a great deal of stress simply because they are in a new and unfamiliar environment in which
there is much important information to be learned. Companies can help eliminate some of this stress by ensuring that new workers
receive proper job training and orientation to the organization. Not only does this lead to a more capable and productive new
workforce, but it also helps to reduce the stress-induced turnover of new employees.
Increase employees’ sense of control—We have seen that the lack of a sense of control over one’s job can be very stressful. By
giving workers, a greater feeling of control through participation in work-related decisions, more responsibility, or increased
autonomy and independence, organizations can alleviate some of this stress (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1980;
Ganster, Fox, & Dwyer, 2001; Jimmieson & Terry, 1993; Schaubroeck, Jones, & Xie, 2001). Programs such as job enrichment,
participative decision making, and systems of delegating authority all help increase employees’ sense of control over their jobs and
the work environment. Eliminate punitive management—It is well known that humans react strongly when they are punished or
harassed, particularly if the punishment or harassment is believed to be unfair and undeserved. The very act of being threatened
or punished at work can be very stressful. If organizations take steps to eliminate company policies that are perceived to be
threatening or punitive, a major source of work stress will also be eliminated. Training supervisors to minimize the use of
punishment as a managerial technique will also help control this common source of stress.
Remove hazardous or dangerous work conditions—In some occupations stress results from exposure to hazardous work conditions,
such as mechanical danger of loss of limb or life, health-harming chemicals, excessive fatigue, or extreme temperatures. The
elimination or reduction of these situations is another way of coping with organizational stress.
Provide a supportive, team-oriented work environment—There is considerable research evidence that having supportive colleagues—
people who can help deal with stressful work situations—can help reduce worker stress (Fenlason & Beehr, 1994; House, 1981;
Lim, 1996). This is particularly true for workers involved in the emotional labor of service work (Korczynski, 2003). Meta-
analyses suggest that social support in the workplace reduces perceptions of threat, lessens the perceived strength of the
stressors, and helps in coping with work-related stress (Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). The more organiza- tions can foster
good interpersonal relationships among coworkers and an integrated, highly functioning work team, the more likely that
workers will be able to provide support for one another in times of stress (Heaney, Price, & Rafferty, 1995; Unden, 1996).
Improve communication—Much of the stress at work derives from difficulties in interpersonal relations with supervisors
and coworkers. The better the communication among workers, the lower the stress created because of misunderstandings. In
addition, stress occurs when workers feel cut off from or uninformed about organizational processes and operations. In one
study, merely providing more job-related information helped in reducing stress caused by task overload (Jimmieson & Terry,
1999).

Negative Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

In previous discussion we saw how individual differences in positive affectivity had a favorable impact on job satisfaction and
other work outcomes and that workers with negative affectivity tended to have low levels of satisfaction (Connolly &
Viswevaran, 2000). What are the relationships between negative affectivity, worker stress, and undesirable work outcomes?
There is mixed evidence about how negative affectivity influences perceived stress; however, it seems that individuals prone
to negative emotions do indeed perceive that they have more stress on their jobs (Cassar & Tattersall, 1998; Spector,
Chen, & O’Connell, 2000). However, the true relationship may be complex. For example, there is evidence that negative
affectivity interacts with other variables, such as perceptions of being treated inequitably or unjustly—with persons prone
toward negative emotionality reacting more strongly to being treated unfairly (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999). Workers with high
negative affectivity were also more likely to leave work early, before the scheduled end of the workday (Iverson & Deery,
2001). In addition, there is some evidence that workers high in negative affectivity may not respond as well to feedback from
supervisors about how to improve their work performance (Lam, Yik, & Schaubroeck, 2002).
Beyond the role of negative emotions, what are some negative employee behaviors that are of major concern to organizations?
I/O psychologists have investigated counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), which are deviant behaviors that are harmful to an
employee’s organization and its members (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Spector & Fox, 2005). Counterproductive work behaviors
include such things as stealing from employers, vandalism, sabotage, harassment of coworkers, deliberately missing work, and
using drugs or alcohol on the job.
Research has shown that CWBs can result from stress, frustration at work, or feelings of inequity, causing attempts to retaliate against
the employer and seek revenge, or even from jealousy (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001; Fox & Spector, 1999; Jensen, Opland, &
Ryan, 2010; Vecchio, 2000). Meta-analyses suggest that CWBs are more prevalent in younger employees and those with lower job
satisfaction (Lau, Au, & Ho, 2003). Counterproductive work behaviors, and even workplace aggression and violence, are also
linked to trait negative affectivity, anger, and other personality variables (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Spector, 1997b).
Interestingly, a meta-analysis showed that the incidence of CWBs is negatively related to (r = –0.32) the incidence of organizational
citizenship behaviors (Dalal, 2005), but they are distinct constructs (Spector, Bauer, & Fox, 2010).
Researchers suggest that organizations should engage in programs to try to alleviate sources of stress and provide strategies
to give workers greater control over their jobs, to reduce CWBs. There is evidence that CWBs are not just individually
motivated (“bad apples”), but can also be influenced by the norms and values of the group and organization (“bad barrels”;
O’Boyle, Forsyth, & O’Boyle, 2011.) Also, making sure that employees are treated fairly, providing reasonable workloads,
clearly defining jobs, and having supervisors trained to mediate interpersonal disputes among workers, are other strategies to
prevent counterproductive behavior and workplace violence (Atwater & Elkins, 2009; Spector, 2001).

ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE IN THE WORKPLACE

A problem that is of great concern to businesses and to industrial/organizational psychologists is employee’s use and abuse of
alcohol and drugs (Frone, 2011). No doubt a great many industrial accidents occur because of worker intoxication. The combination of
alcohol or drugs and heavy machinery or motor vehicles is deadly. Drug and alcohol abuse is also directly responsible for decreased
productivity and increased absenteeism and turnover, not to mention all the problems that it can cause in the home lives of
workers. The costs of all of this are staggering. A conservative estimate is that substance abuse costs U.S. employers more than
$100 billion dollars a year, and substance abuse is a worldwide problem.
A study of young workers found that workers who reported problems with alcohol and drugs had greater job instability and
reduced job satisfaction in comparison to their peers who did not abuse drugs (Galaif, Newcomb, & Carmona, 2001). Moreover, this
is likely a cyclical process. Studies suggest that workers who are under severe stress, such as heavy job demands or the stress of job
loss, may turn to alcohol or drugs (Begley, 1998; Frone, 2008; Murphy, Beaton, Pike, & Johnson, 1999). This, in turn, leads to
problems on the job, and the cycle continues.
There is some evidence that organizational policies that ban substance abuse in the workplace and advocate against illicit
drug use reduce employees’ use of drugs both on and off the job (Carpenter, 2007). Several programs have been used to try to
deter drug use by employees (Ghodse, 2005).
To combat substance abuse, many companies have employee assistance programs (EAPs), programs that offer counseling for a
variety of employee problems. Of particular concern is counseling for drug and alcohol abuse, although EAPs also help employees
to deal with work stress and personal problems that may adversely affect their performance and well-being (Cairo, 1983; Cooper,
Dewe, & O’Driscoll, 2011). Although employee counseling has long been offered by companies, only in the past 20 years have
comprehensive EAPs become commonplace in large organizations. This increase is likely due to the growing concern over the
devastating consequences of substance abuse in terms of harming worker health and organizational productivity. Most large
American companies today have some type of formalized employee assistance program.
Although industrial/organizational psychologists are greatly concerned about the adverse impact of substance abuse and
work stress on employee productivity and well-being, clinical and counseling psychologists, social workers, and drug rehabilitation
counselors, rather than I/O psychologists, typically staff EAPs. However, I/O psychologists may have a hand in the design,
implementation, and evaluation of EAPs.
Employee assistance programs usually take one of two forms. External programs are those in which the company contracts with
an outside agency to provide counseling services for its employees. Internal EAPs offer services at the work site. The advantage of
an internal program is its convenience for the employees, although they are expensive to maintain. Usually only large organizations
can afford internal EAPs. The main advantages of external programs are the lower costs and the increased employee confidentiality.
Despite the increasing popularity of employee assistance programs, there has been surprisingly little research on their
effectiveness (Weiss, 1987; Kirk & Brown, 2003). The problem results partly from the difficulty of evaluating any counseling
program, because it is not always clear which variables will best determine a program’s “success” (Mio & Goishi, 1988). For
example, some programs measure success by the number of workers treated, whereas others may use some standard of recovery
or “cure.” Furthermore, it is difficult to determine how EAP counseling affects bottom-line variables such as employee
performance. It is also difficult to determine the effectiveness of EAPs because the large number of external agencies that offer
counseling services for businesses usually conduct their own evaluations, and it is unclear how objective and accurate these
self-assessments are. Although there are questions about the effectiveness of employee assistance programs in general, it is
likely that even a few cases of employee recovery would lead an employer to label an EAP a success because of the severity of
drug and alcohol addiction. Moreover, there is some evidence that EAPs do help reduce long-term health-care costs for
employees (Cummings & Follette, 1976). One critic of substance abuse EAPs argues that they focus primarily on treating
alcohol and drug problems after they have reached the problem stage, but give little attention to their prevention (Nathan, 1983).
Despite the uncertainty of the effectiveness of employee assistance programs, it is likely that they will become a mainstay in
most work organizations and another service that will be considered an essential part of any employee benefit package.