STRESS AT WORK: A PSYCHO-ADMINISTRATIVE APPROACH.

By: Misael V. Hernandez Gutierrez Flores

INTRODUCTION

The topic of this research is organizational stress. Medical sciences have

long been concerned with this phenomenon because of the effect it has on
human health, but recently in management literature, some managers and
organizational researchers have begun to pay attention to it.

The reasons for this interest are based on the fact that stress appears to be linked to worker
productivity and satisfaction and the implicit obligation of management to improve the quality of
life at work. Another equally important reason is of an economic nature, as large amounts of
money are lost due to stress-related illnesses such as hypertension, ulcers, heart attacks, etc.

Wallace and Szilagyi (1982) in a review of the medical and

administrative literature found that: 1) A wide variety of organizational and
environmental conditions are capable of producing stress; 2) Different
individuals respond to the same conditions in different ways; 3) The
intensity and degree of stress are difficult to predict in the individual and 4)
The consequences of prolonged stress lead to behavioral changes such as
increased absenteeism or chronic illness.

In order to understand stress at work, this study aims to: 1) Review

the recent literature on stress to gain an overview of this phenomenon; 2)
Determine the stressors, symptoms and effects of stress in the organization
and apply a survey to diagnose stress to a sample of companies.

The organization of this report to achieve the objectives is as

follows. Review of the literature and background on stress, then the
exposition of the causes and symptoms, then a description of techniques
for stress reduction, then an analysis and definition of organizational and
individual stressors and finally, the application of the stress survey to the
sample of companies, results and conclusions.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND BACKGROUND ON STRESS.

Stress comes from the Latin word stringere (Blanquez Fraile, 1981), which
means to squeeze, compress, constrict tightly, oppress or hold.

According to the usual Larousse dictionary (García-Pelayo and

Gross, 1989), stress refers to the general physical exhaustion produced by
a nervous state, a set of alterations that appear in the organism when
subjected to a simply physical aggression (trauma), pathological (illness) or
psychic.

When looking for background information on stress, Ivancevich and

Matteson (1989) cite that it was Walter Cannon who adopted the term
stress and in his studies he spoke about "critical levels of stress" defining
them as those that could cause a weakening of the homeostatic
mechanisms (He coined the term homeostasis to refer to the maintenance
of the internal environment). He also used this concept in relation to social
and industrial organization.

The beginning of the current use of the term has its antecedents in
the research of Hans Selye and denotes an internal confusion of the
organism that translates into a response to evocative-stressful agents
(Ivancevich and Matteson 1989).

It is called "stress" (pressure), according to S. Rosenzweig (1972)

refers to the stimulus situation that constitutes a more or less
insurmountable obstacle or obstruction on the path leading to the
satisfaction of any vital need. The organism's expectation that corresponds
to this pressure can be conceived as an increase in tension, as in the
following case: in which if a person is hungry and is deprived of food by the
presence of an unwelcome visitor, frustration occurs and the visitor
constitutes the element of pressure that increases the person's tension.

SP Robbins (1988) adapted from RS Schuler defines stress as a

dynamic condition in which a person is faced with an opportunity, limitation,
or demand related to what is desired and for which the outcome is
considered uncertain and important at the same time.

For Davis and Newstrom (1987) stress is a state of overexcitement

of individual emotions, thought processes and physical conditions. They
add that this term is generally applied to the pressures that people
experience in their daily lives.

Wallace and Szilagyi (1982) define stress as an internal experience

or position creating physiological or psychological imbalance with in the
individual.

McGrath, cited by Stoner and Wankel (1989), states that "... there
are possibilities of stress when it is thought that an environmental situation
presents a demand that threatens to exceed the subject's capacities and
resources to satisfy it. Of the stressors or tensors he says that they are the
sources of pressure and tension that cause stress.

John M. Ivancevich and Michel T. Matteson, in his book, Stress

and Work: A Managerial Perspective, states that definitions can be based
on response, stimulus, and stimulus-response relationship.

A definition based on stimuli could be: Stress is a force or stimulus

that acts on the individual and gives rise to a stress response, in which
stress is synonymous with pressure, in the physical sense, with
deformation, while a definition based on the response would be that stress
is the physiological or psychological response that an individual shows to
an environmental stressor, in which the stressor may consist of an external
event or a situation, both potentially harmful. And finally, a definition of
stress that takes into account the stimulus and the response, according to
Ivancevich and Matteson, is the following: Stress is an adaptive response,
mediated by individual characteristics and/or by psychological processes,
which is at the same time a consequence of some action, a situation or an
external event that poses special physical or psychological demands on the
person.

In relation to the previous idea about stress, Stoner and Wankel

(1989) point out that the tension and pressure that result when an individual
considers that a situation presents a demand that threatens to exceed his
or her capabilities and resources is what constitutes the phenomenon of
stress; while for Irwin G. Sarason and Barbara G. Sarason (1988) indicate
that the same person can successfully cope with a difficult or frightening
situation and in other cases do so in a maladaptive manner. When asking
the reason for this, they found two concepts (stress and vulnerability) that
help to understand the differences in behavior and define stress as the
reactions that occur in situations that present demands, constraints or
opportunities. They conceive vulnerability as the probability that a person
will react in a maladaptive manner to certain situations. They add that the
latter can be increased by hereditary factors, personality characteristics,
lack of certain skills or by the accumulation of negative experiences. These
authors also point out that stress and vulnerability interact. In other words,
the greater the stress, the less vulnerability is needed to prevent
maladaptive behavior from occurring.

Vernier (1993) says that the word stress designates the state of
unusual tension in a person as a result of an action of any kind, whether
sudden or continuous, and which is usually harmful to the body.

Stress (Wallace and Szilagyi, 1982) is grouped into two categories:

work or organizational stress associated with organizational causes and
daily life stress related to individual and/or family causes.

Other authors (Davis and Newstrom, 1987) use time or intensity

criteria to classify this phenomenon.

And so we have that stress can be temporary or permanent and

mild or severe.

Pressures (stress) for Rosenzweig are classified according to two

perspectives. On the one hand, in passive and active; on the other, in
external and internal.

The combination of the four types allows to distinguish four

directions of pressure: 1) External passive pressure, 2) External active
pressure, 3) Internal passive pressure and 4) Internal active pressure.

Another classification is that of Hans Selye. For this author, stress

is divided into: 1) Distress and 2) eustress. The first refers to disruptive or
"bad" stress and the second to good stress or stress that produces positive
or constructive results.

CAUSES AND SYMPTOMS OF STRESS.

Factors that cause stress can be attributed to aspects related to the

organization or to personal factors that arise in the employee's private life.

Let's look at the organizational factors first. An employee's job and

the structure of the organization are prevailing causes of stress. Boredom
at work can also create it. Another factor is when the unity of command
breaks down and employees confront more than one boss, this is a
structural source of stress. Excessive rules and regulations, ambiguous
communications, extreme temperatures, poor lighting or distracting noises.

Personal factors may include the death of a family member, a

divorce, or personal financial difficulties.

Research suggests that certain life events, when accumulated,

generate physiological or psychological stress.

Frew (1977) identifies that at work the factors causing stress or

stressors can be eight: 1) The unwritten psychological contract between the
organization and the employee; 2) The stressors inherent to the profession
and professional development; 3) The negative impact that the demands of
work have on the family; 4) The effect of change in terms of human
obsolescence; 5) Organizational obsolescence; 6) The stress caused by
attempts to overcome the demands of work, 7) Facing the expectations of
bosses; and, 8) The ideology of the organization.
 For Ivancevich and Matteson (1989) stressors can be classified as
extra-organizational and intra-organizational. The former are events or
situations that are outside the person's immediate work life but that
influence work and performance; while the latter are related to the initial
source of the stressor and can be of three types: individual, for example,
role conflict, overload, etc.; group, for example, lack of group cohesion,
intergroup conflict, etc.; and organizational, for example, organizational
climate, structure, technology, task characteristics, the influence of
leadership, etc.

Researchers Sarason (1988) claim that stressful situations can be

analyzed in terms of their: duration, severity, predictability, degree of loss of
control, degree of self-confidence and how suddenly the situation has
appeared; for them, stress-producing situations are accidents, natural
disasters, war, physical illness, life cycle transitions such as birth, entering
school, puberty, adolescence, entering college, getting a job, getting
married, raising children, moving house, momentous events in children's
lives and retirement. These authors also point out stress disorders such as
reactive disorders, brief or prolonged, which are maladaptations to stress,
post-traumatic stress disorders that are caused by anxiety and dissociative
disorders in which people use a variety of maneuvers to escape from the
anxieties and conflicts awakened by stress. In the latter case, the most
severe dissociative disorders include amnesia, psychogenic fugue, and
multiple personality.

Mario Timio (1983), reviewing several studies on stress, found that

it can arise from the social context in which the person lives and that a list
of stress-producing situations created by the contrast between the
organizational system and personal idiosyncrasy can be the following:

1. 1. Stress due to rapid environmental and

technological changes that progress towards
institutionalization.
2. 2. Stress at an individual level caused by changes
in personal role within a certain social and work
context (starting a career, carrying out projects,
personal successes).
3. 3. Stress caused by relationships with the group
(family, work group, etc.)
4. 4. And the stress arising from the polyvalence of
roles played in the social context in which one acts.

On the other hand, work can also be fraught with

short- and long-term stress-producing situations. The
former include:

1. 1. Overload of work that must be completed in a

limited fraction of time.
2. 2. Confusion and distraction caused by rumors,
lights, noise, overcrowding of the work
environment.
3. 3. Fear of not doing the job well and on time, fear
of being exposed to criticism, of incurring physical
danger, etc.

Long-term stress-producing stimuli include:

1. 1. Insecurity about keeping one's own job.

2. 2. Prolonged attention.
3. 3. Sense of isolation, as can be found on assembly
lines, and
 4. 4. The organization of the type of work.

Timio also points out that stress-producing

conditions, even of short duration and mild intensity, can
induce marked physiological changes in terms of
temporary hormonal imbalances. If stress is repeated over
a long period of time, it takes on a pathological meaning in
certain circumstances and in certain individuals. In this
regard, a notable contribution is provided by studies carried
out with animals, epidemiological studies, clinical
observations and haematochemical analyses.

On the other hand, Mario Timio (1983) states that it

is a mistake to consider that stress is always harmful, since
some type or degree of it is natural and inevitable. He adds
that when it is possible to adapt to stress, regardless of
whether its origin is individual, family, social or work-
related, it does not cause problems. On the contrary,
difficulties arise when an individual is unable to adapt to
stress, either because of its disproportionate intensity or
because the person must play a role that he or she cannot
cope with due to his or her psychosomatic makeup. The
feeling of helplessness and the relative conflict in the face
of an obstacle, an unfavorable situation or a condition of
injustice are some of the most widespread stress-
producing elements.

The factors that can modulate the response to

elements that generate stress are personal and hereditary
constitution, character, culture and education.

In studies on stress cited by Stoner and Wankel

(1989), it has been found that doctors, office managers and
supervisors suffer less stress than teachers, workers and
craftsmen. Another finding has been that people differ in
what causes them to experience stress, the degree to
which they experience it, and how they react to it. In
addition to role conflict and excessive or insufficient
workload, several aspects of the environment can cause
stress such as responsibility for other people, lack of
participation in decisions that influence one's work,
performance evaluations, working conditions such as
noise, overcrowding, etc. changes within the organization
such as a reorganization, change in management, change
in policies, etc.

According to Salvatore R. Maddi and Suzanne C.

Kobasa's research into the factors that make some people
feel exhausted and consumed by stressors and other
people feel stimulated and excited by them is the ability to
manage stress, which depends on four characteristics:

1. 1. Personal style and personality, that is, how one

tends to perceive and interpret stress-producing
events and how one responds to them.
2. 2. Social support. These consist of the degree to
which family, friends, coworkers, and others
provide encouragement and emotional support
during times of stress.
 3. 3. Constitutional predisposition, that is, the vigor
and health of our body in terms of the innate
constitution.
4. 4. Hygienic habits, that is, the degree to which one
maintains good physical condition through exercise
and avoiding destructive behaviors such as
smoking, alcoholism, etc.

In their research, Maddi and Kobasa found that the

"strength" factor of personality was the most important.
People with a high degree of strength have an optimistic
attitude and feel committed to their work and life, have a
sense of control and interpret changes and problems as
challenges and not threats, while people with low strength
tend to assume a pessimistic attitude to stressors and take
evasive actions towards them, decreasing their efficiency.

On the other hand, the Public Health Institute of

Japan (1992) has reported, when studying the links
between stress and work, that there are five factors that
can lead to an increased chance of sudden death. They
are: 1) Working without vacations or days off, 2) excessive
work pressure, 3) jobs that require extreme physical effort,
4) night work that disrupts the usual sleeping schedule, and
5) continuous stress at work.

Regarding this last factor, the jobs that produce the

most stress are: Police, air traffic controller, paramedic,
high school teacher, stockbroker, miner and journalist.

Continuing with our review we now include the

results of two experimental works on stress in rats. In the
first, Joan Cunnick, a professor of microbiology at Iowa
State University, who has been researching the impact of
psychological and physical stress on rats, found that brief
periods of stress can weaken rats' immune systems. He
also recommends that researchers should examine the
impact of stress on people in order to find ways to prevent
disease.

In the second, Philip Landfield of Kentucky has just

obtained direct experimental proof, in his laboratory work
with rats, that stress hormones, corticosteroids, cause a
severe and rapid loss of brain neurons.

Before finishing this section of the report, it is

important to note that Boucher and Binette (1989) in their
book Know and Control Your Stress present the Sharpe
and Lewis classification of stressors and the International
Stress Institute's typology of them. The classification
divides stressors as follows:

1. 1. Performance stressor.
2. 2. Threat stressor.
3. 3. Stressful difficulty.
4. 4. Stressful from frustration.
5. 5. Stressful from loss or grief.
6. 6. Physical stressor.

The classification of stressors according to the

International Institute of Stress is:
1. 1. Stressful in general.

o o Fasting, Starvation, Malnutrition

o o Overfeeding, gorging
o o Trauma (physical)
2. 2. Physical stressors.
o o Altitude, hypoxia, decomposition
o or Burns
o or Heat
o or electroshock
o o Physical exercise
o o Cold, freezing
o o Gravity, acceleration, deceleration
o or War, combat
o o Hyperventilation, hyperoxia,
compression
o o Sun rays
o o Toning rays
o or X-rays
o o Visible spectrum
o o Magnetism, electromagnetic field
o o Immobilization, physical coercion
o o Sound, noise
o o General temperature
o o Ultraviolet and infrared rays
o or Ultrasound
o or Vibration
3. 3. Neuropsychiatric stressors
o o Anxiety, restlessness
o or Emotions
o o Affliction, mourning
o or Affective deficiency
o o Child care
o o Exams, tests
o or Combativeness
o o Handling (animals)
o or Sensory deprivation
o or Sleep deprivation
o or Interviews
o or Media
o or Motivation
o o Public speech, artist nervousness.
4. 4. Psychosocial stressors
o or Captivity, prison
o o Catastrophes, cataclysms
o o Climate, meteorology
o o Overpopulation, crowding
o or Culture
o o Economic problems
o o Family (divorce, crime, child abuse)
o o Hospitalization, intensive care
o or Aging
o or Pollution
o o Immigration, moving
o o Social isolation
o o Social problems
o o Transport, travel
o o Urban life, housing
 5. 5. Occupation-related stressors.
o o Aviation, aeronautics
o or Architecture
o o Air traffic control (signalling)
o or Armed Forces
o or Arts
o or Athletics
o or Criminality
o or Dental art
o o Executives, office work
o o Industry, commerce
o or Right
o or Medicine
o o Car driving
o or Marina
o or Nursery
o or Skydiving
o or Police
o or Diving
o or Social work
o o Education (teaching staff, studies)
o or Retirement
o or Unemployment

As far as symptoms are concerned, stress

manifests itself in several ways.

Symptoms can be summarized into two categories:

physiological and psychological symptoms. The former
include changes in metabolism, heart rate, blood pressure,
respiratory rate, etc. while the latter include employee
dissatisfaction, changes in productivity, absenteeism,
changes in eating habits, increased smoking or alcohol
consumption, nervousness, etc.

For Cox (1978) the consequences or symptoms of

stress include:

1. 1. Subjective effects: anxiety, aggression, apathy,

boredom, depression, fatigue, frustration, guilt and
shame, irritability and bad mood, melancholy, low
self-esteem, threat and tension, nervousness and
loneliness.
2. 2. Behavioral effects: Accident proneness, drug
addiction, emotional outbursts, excessive food
intake or loss of appetite, excessive consumption
of alcohol or cigarettes, excitability, impulsive
behavior, affected speech, nervous laughter,
restlessness and tremor.
3. 3. Cognitive effects: Inability to make decisions and
concentrate, frequent forgetfulness,
hypersensitivity to criticism and mental block
4. 4. Physiological effects: Increased catecholamines
and corticosteroids in the blood and urine, elevated
blood glucose levels, increased heart rate and
blood pressure, dry mouth, exudation, dilated
pupils, difficulty breathing, chills, lump in throat,
numbness and stinging in the extremities.
5. 5. Organizational effects: Absenteeism, poor labor
relations and low productivity, high accident and
 staff turnover rates, poor organizational climate,
antagonism and job dissatisfaction.

Davis and Newstrom (1987) indicate that people

have different tolerance to stress and the stress level that
each person can tolerate is called threshold. People are
also less tolerant of ambiguity under stress (Literer, 1973).

TO. J. Dubrin, cited by Hodgetts and Altman (1987),

indicates that the following are some negative reactions to
stress:

1. 1. Psychosomatic reactions: ulcers, hypertension,

headaches, dermatitis, etc.
2. 2. Emotional disorders: neurotic behavior, extreme
nervousness.
3. 3. Alcoholism and drug addiction.
4. 4. Defensive behavior: Projection, rationalization
and compensation.
5. 5. Concern about work details.
6. 6. Executive isolation: evasion, manager becomes
obsolete, etc.

Of interest, according to Timio (1983), are the

results of research related to the influence of some types of
work organization, considered as stress-producing factors,
on certain physiological functions and on some metabolic
parameters, in which it has been highlighted that
piecework, work on the assembly line and overtime
determine the hyperactivity of the adrenosympathetic
system and the adrenal cortex, to a much more
pronounced extent than simple manual work carried out
under normal conditions. In addition to the production of
adrenaline, noradrenaline and glycocorticoid hormones, an
increase in heart rate and blood pressure was recorded, as
well as arrhythmias and electrocardiographic changes.

According to other authors (HI Russek, B. L.

Zohman and J. Groen) mentioned by Timio, work stress
influences the genesis of heart attacks much more than
other factors.

For Joseph E. McGrath, stress can cause:

depression, irritation, anxiety, fatigue, decreased self-
esteem and job satisfaction. And he adds that if the stress
is prolonged it can produce: 1) Evasion through alcohol,
drugs and tobacco, 2) Work fatigue and 3) Physical,
emotional and mental exhaustion.

" Whether a situation causes us stress depends on

how we appraise it and how we judge our ability to handle
it," authors Sarason say. In primary appraisal, people
interpret whether a situation is threatening or harmless,
while, according to these same authors, during secondary
appraisal, the type of action that needs to be taken is
considered, as well as the nature and strength of the
resources available to manage or cope with the stressful
situation.

STRESS REDUCTION TECHNIQUES

Not all stress is negative or dysfunctional. The concern is
to reduce the negative consequences on the employee and
to try to minimize the chances of stress interfering with the
performance of work in the organization.

AJ Dubrin (1974) suggests that ways to avoid

stress are:

1. 1. Practice good management.

2. 2. Create meaningful work.
3. 3. Modify the structure of the organization.
4. 4. Encourage personal competition.
5. 5. Practice good mental health.

Actions to reduce stress according to Davis and

Newstrom, (1987), are orientation, participatory
management, organizational development, job design and
communication. Other approaches include meditation
programs and biofeedback.

Stress reducers (Wallace & Szilagyi, 1982) include

individual actions and organizational actions.

Individual actions include physical exercise, time

control, changing habits, etc.; while organizational actions
include redesigning the job, improving communication,
reviewing career progress, participation, training,
development, changing the organizational climate, etc.

For Maddi and Kobasa, organizational stress

management includes:

1. 1. Decentralize authority, which reduces feelings of

powerlessness among employees.
2. 2. Adjust reward systems so that performance
evaluations are considered fair and reasonable.
3. 3. Allow employees to participate in decision-
making that concerns them.
4. 4. Manage and expand communication lines.
5. 5. enrich jobs by giving employees greater
responsibility in planning and directing their work.

On an individual level, these same authors

recommend not overwhelming oneself with work, viewing
problems with optimism and acting decisively in the face of
them. In addition, train people in techniques of: 1) Coping
with stress with programs designed so that people learn to
recognize and deal with stressful situations, 2) improving
physical condition through exercise, 3) relaxation training,
4) meditation, and 5) biofeedback.

Procedures for treating stress disorders, according

to Sarason and Sarason, include supportive therapy, use of
drugs and sedatives, relaxation training, systematic
desensitization, cognitive modification, and social
intervention.

Finally, according to Boucher and Binette (1989),

there are two strategies for stress management: 1)
Managing external stressors, which includes: managing
time, avoiding making too many simultaneous changes,
anticipating stress, seeking meaningful activities,
withdrawing from the stressful situation and changing the
stressor, and 2) managing internal stress resistance
factors. This includes managing psychological and physical
factors, which involves: relaxing through meditation,
progressive relaxation, etc., controlling irrational ideas,
seeking the necessary social support, living with stress,
eating well and exercising.

APPLICATION OF A SURVEY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF

STRESS.

Given the importance and growing interest in research on

stress at work or in the organization due to the physical,
psychological, economic and social impact it has, this study
aims to make a first approach to the analysis and
evaluation of stress at work in a group of public and private
organizations in Xalapa in order to determine the stressors
with the greatest impact.

METHODOLOGY

The procedure followed to carry out this study included the

following: Determination of the population and sample,
selection of the instrument for diagnosing stress and
defining the stressors, selection and training of the
interviewers, application of the selected survey to the set of
organizations and the tabulation and results.

POPULATION AND SAMPLE

The universe or population, in this case, is made up of the

personnel working in the public and private organizations
listed in the Xalapa telephone directory. Following a
random process, 50 elements were chosen.

INSTRUMENT SELECTION AND DEFINITION OF

STRESSORS.

Stress, in general terms, has been measured using various

methods, techniques and procedures. Methods include
questionnaires, interviews and physiological tests.

Two of the most common methods are:

a. a. The social readjustment range scale designed

by Thomas Holmes and Richard Rahe in 1967.
These authors studied the clinical effects of major
life changes. As a result of their studies they were
able to assign a numerical value to each of the
events and established a scale.

The Social Readjustment Rank Scale has been

used as a rough estimate of the degree of stress a
person is experiencing at the time of completing
the scale. The main disadvantage is that this scale
does not take into account the person's ability to
cope with stress.
 b. b. The Michigan Stress Assessment. This measure
was developed by French and Kahn (1962) and
identifies the main sociopsychological variables
that cause stress.

For this study, the thinking, classification and

definition of stressors, as well as the stress survey
developed by Ivancevich and Matteson (1989), have been
very useful and basic. They divide stressors into two large
groups: 1) Intra-organizational stressors and 2) Extra-
organizational stressors. The first ones refer to those
factors located within the organization and that cause
stress. These include: a) Stressors of the physical
environment (lighting, noise, temperature, vibration,
movement, polluted air), b) Stressors at the individual level
(work overload, role conflict, role ambiguity, etc.), c)
Stressors at the group level (lack of cohesion, intra-group
conflict, etc.), and d) Stressors at the organizational level
(climate, technology, structure, etc.). The second are those
stressors that occur outside the organization and that can
have a significant influence on it, such as family
relationships, change of residence, domestic finances.

Interest in individual, group and organizational level

stressors arises because they are those that are directly
associated with the role played or the task to be
accomplished and the global perspective of work in an
organization. Therefore, in this research work, the survey
developed by Ivancevich and Matteson was chosen to
measure stress (See appendix). This includes
organizational, group and individual stressors.

The main stressors at the individual level are five:

1. 1. Role ambiguity. It is a lack of clarity about the

role being played, the objectives of the job, and the
scope of responsibilities in the individual job. It
produces job dissatisfaction, increased stress, low
levels of confidence, states of depression, anxiety,
feelings of resentment and reduced self-esteem.
2. 2. Role conflict. It occurs when two or more role
pressures are present in a situation and
compliance with one set of pressures makes it
difficult, objectionable or impossible to comply with
another set of pressures. This type of stressor
negatively affects job satisfaction and is linked to
physiological changes that have personal and
organizational costs.
3. 3. Work overload. This can be of two types: a)
quantitative and b) qualitative. The first case
occurs when employees perceive that they have
too much work to do, different things to
accomplish, or little time to complete the assigned
work; the second occurs when employees feel that
they lack the ability to do their job or that
performance standards are too high. This stressor
causes biochemical changes (raises cholesterol),
health effects, psychological effects (lower
confidence, decreased motivation for work, etc.).
4. 4. Stressors related to career development. These
include those aspects of the individual's interaction
with the organizational environment that influence
 that person's perception of the quality of progress
in his or her career. They are stressors when these
elements become sources of worry, anxiety or
frustration for the individual. For example, it occurs
when an employee feels a lack of job security,
progress towards promotion is inadequate, and/or
there is dissatisfaction between his or her career
aspirations and the actual level of his or her
achievements.
5. 5. Responsibility for other people. Evidence
indicates that responsibility for people is more
stressful than responsibility for things. The reason
responsibility for others is stressful is a specific
product of the nature of responsibility as it relates
to making unpleasant interpersonal decisions and
the fact that one is overworked.

As regards organizational stressors, these are:

1. 1. Organizational climate. The interaction of

people, structure, policies and goals generates an
atmosphere or climate. In other words, it is the
"feel", the "personality" or the "character" of an
organization. The climate can lead to a relaxed
style of working or a very tense, crisis-oriented
style. The weather affects people differently.
2. 2. Organizational structure. Stressor that can be
caused by the type of established structure, the
hierarchy of power and the authority of an
organization. Not all employees experience stress
from their organizational structure.
3. 3. Territory. Term used to describe a person's
personal space or setting of activities. People
working in foreign territories experience stress.
4. 4. Technology. Technological limitations in an
organization can increase the number of potential
stressors by restricting employee and manager
activity. Technology here refers to the ways in
which the organization transforms resources and
other inputs into desirable outputs. For some
workers, organizational technology can be a
stressor that affects their behavior and physiology.
5. 5. Stressors due to the leader's influence. This
means that the actions, style and procedures of
some leaders can act as stressors for some people
and affect production and job satisfaction.

Finally, the group stressors included in the survey

are:

1. 1. Cohesion. Degree of attraction and motivation

force that allows for group unity; when these forces
displace a member of the group, distancing him
from the other members, it causes stress.
2. 2. Group support. Stressor that occurs when group
opinions and emotions are shared only to a small
degree. The less support or inadequate support,
the greater the stress and vice versa.

SELECTION AND TRAINING OF SURVEYORS.

 For the application of the survey, it was necessary to use
interviewers, who were chosen from among the students of
the Psychology of Organizations course of the Master's
Program in Human Resources Administration. The
selected students were explained the project and trained in
how to use the survey.

APPLICATION OF THE SURVEY TO ORGANIZATIONS

Each student was given a list containing the randomly

chosen organizations and ten surveys. In order to collect
the survey information, care was taken to directly supervise
the work of each student by the researcher. In total, five
students participated in this study and 50 surveys were
administered.

TABULATION AND RESULTS

Once the information was collected, it was tabulated for

better analysis. Below are tables summarizing the
information and interpreting the results.

Table 1 Gender distribution of surveyed employees

SEX FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Male 28 56.00%

Female 22 44.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

In Table 1 we observe that the majority of the staff

surveyed are male (56%) but female staff make up a
percentage of 44%.

Table 2 Type of organizations in which the stress survey was applied.

TYPE OF FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

ORGANIZATION

Public 37 74.00%

Private 13 26.00%
TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

In relation to the type of organization (See Table 2)

a high percentage corresponds to public organizations
(74%) and a low percentage to private organizations
(26%). Distribution that seems to correspond to the reality
of Xalapa, since it is the seat of the state government and
not an industrial city.

Table 3 Role ambiguity stress

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 22 44.00%

Half 28 56.00%

High 0 0.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

From the analysis of Table 3, it can be stated that,

in terms of the stress caused by role ambiguity, it
corresponds in order of importance to medium with a
percentage of 56%, while in second place it corresponds to
low with 44%; while the stress caused by role conflict
(Table 4) was assigned a high level of 4%.

Table 4 Stress due to role conflict

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 24 48.00%

Half 24 48.00%

High 2 4.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%
 Source: Direct research.

Tables 5 and 6 show the stress caused by role

overload. In the quantitative aspect, the highest degree
corresponds to a medium level with 60%; the same is
observed in terms of medium level in the qualitative aspect
with a slightly higher percentage (64%).

Table 5 Stress due to quantitative role overload

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 20 40.00%

Half 30 60.00%

High 0 0.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

Table 6 Stress due to qualitative role overload

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 18 36.00%

Half 32 64.00%

High 0 0.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

 From tables 7 and 8 it can be seen that the average
level (70%) is due to stress caused by career development
while due to personal responsibility the level is low (60%).

Table 7 Career development stress

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 10 20.00%

Half 35 70.00%

High 5 10.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

Table 8 Stress due to personal responsibility

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 30 60.00%

Half 20 40.00%

High 0 0.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct
research.

Table 9 Stress by organizational climate

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 24 48.00%

Half 22 44.00%

High 4 8.00%
TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

Table 10 Stress by organizational structure

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 22 44.00%

Half 27 54.00%

High 1 2.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

The stress caused by the organizational climate

tends to be medium to low level with 92% (See Table 9)
while the stress produced by the organization structure at a
high level only registers 2% (See Table 10).

The level of stress caused by the organizational

territory is low (62%) and the level caused by technology is
medium (54%). The above is derived from tables 11 and
12.

Table 11 Stress caused by the organizational territory

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 31 62.00%

Half 19 38.00%

High 0 0.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

 Table 12 Technology-induced stress

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 21 42.00%

Half 27 54.00%

High 2 4.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

Table 13 Stress produced by the influence of the leader

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 28 56.00%

Half 20 40.00%

High 2 4.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

Table 14 Stress due to lack of cohesion

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 10 20.00%

Half 35 70.00%

High 5 10.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%
 Source: Direct research.

From the observation of tables 13 and 14 it can be

stated that the level of stress produced by the influence of
the leader is low (56%) as well as the stress caused by
lack of cohesion (50%). The same can be expressed in
relation to the level of stress caused by group support: the
level is low (56%) as shown in Table 15.

Table 15 Stress caused by group support

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 28 56.00%

Half 22 44.00%

High 0 0.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

As can be seen from Table 16, the level of

individual stress is medium at 52%; organizational stress is
low since more than three quarters of the people
interviewed are at the low level (see Table 17).

Table 16 Individual stress

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 21 42.00%

Half 26 52.00%

High 3 6.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

Table 17 Organizational stress

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 43 86.00%

Half 7 14.00%

High 0 0.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

Table 18 shows total stress; the level of this

corresponds to low with 72%.

Table 18 Total stress

LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Low 36 72.00%

Half 14 28.00%

High 0 0.00%

TOTAL 50 100.00%

Source: Direct research.

CONCLUSIONS

In this research work we set out to do the following:

1. 1. Review of the literature and background on

stress.
2. 2. Determining the factors that cause stress, the
symptoms, effects or impacts and some
techniques to reduce it.
3. 3. The application of a survey for the diagnosis of
stress in a sample of organizations.

As regards the first point, we begin our inquiry with

the etymological origin of the word stress (from the Latin
word stringere, which means to squeeze, compress,
constrict strongly, oppress or hold), the author who
adopted the term (Walter Cannon), the researcher who
initiated its current use (Hans Selye), and the enumeration
of the different definitions (Rosenzweig, Robbins, Davis
and Newstrom, Wallace and Szilagyi, McGrath, Ivancevich
and Matteson, Sarason and Sarason and Vernier), and we
end with the grouping into categories or classification
(Wallace and Szilagyi, Davis and Newstrom, Rosenzweig
and Hans Selye).

Regarding the second point, we begin our

presentation by indicating that the factors that cause stress
can be organizational or personal aspects, we continue
with the description of the stressors of various researchers
(Frew, Ivancevich and Matteson, Sarason and Sarason,
Timio, Maddi and Kobasa, etc.) and we conclude with the
explanation of symptoms, effects and techniques for stress
reduction.

Regarding the third point, we begin by pointing out

the importance and objective of applying the survey to a
group of public and private organizations in Xalapa, then
the methodology used, and we finish with the results and
conclusions.

As conclusions we can draw the following:

1. 1. Stress is a complicated phenomenon. It's hard to

define. But in general it refers to a physiological
and psychological imbalance in the employee.
Typical symptoms are nervousness and tension,
chronic worry, inability to relax, excessive use of
alcohol, drugs and/or cigarettes, insomnia
problems, uncooperative attitudes, feelings of
inadequacy, emotional instability, digestive
problems, high blood pressure, absenteeism from
work, social isolation, excitability, inability to make
decisions, frequent forgetfulness, low self-esteem,
boredom, low productivity, job dissatisfaction, etc.
2. 2. The causes of stress can be found in
environmental or extra-organizational factors,
organizational factors at the individual and group
level, and personal factors of a family and/or
economic nature.
3. 3. Actions to eliminate or reduce stress are aimed
at eliminating or minimizing the factors causing
stress.
4. 4. The most interesting thing revealed by the
survey applied in the organizations of Xalapa is
that stress at work has not yet become a
problematic situation, since when analyzing the
total stress data (table 18) we found that it is
located in the low level category with almost three
quarters (72%); organizational stressors also fall
into the low level (86% table 17) and only individual
stressors correspond to the medium level category
(52% table 16).
5. 5. Other relevant data found are as follows: The
number of men slightly exceeds that of women by
12% (Table 1), and three quarters of the
companies surveyed are public.
 The stressors with the greatest impact (medium
level) are, in order of importance: Career development,
qualitative overload, quantitative overload, responsibility for
other people, role ambiguity, technology, structure, role
conflict, organizational climate, influence of the leader and
organizational territory.

As a final recommendation, it is suggested that a

necessary step is the timely diagnosis of stressors and
then taking the pertinent measures to eliminate or minimize
the stressors at the organizational, group and individual
levels.

REFERENCES.

1. 1. Bader, Jean-Michel. 1993 "How stress kills

neurons" in Knowing life and the universe year
2, number 117, 64-69 pp.
2. 2. Blanquez Fraile, Augustine. 1981 Latin-Spanish
and Spanish-Latin manual dictionary. Barcelona:
Editorial Ramón Sopena.
3. 3. Boucher, Francine and André Binette. Know
and control your stress. 1989. Buenos Aires,
Argentina, Lidium editions.
4. 4. Cox, T.1978. Stress. Baltimore: University Park
Press in Ivancevich M., John and Michael T.
Matteson. 1989. Stress and work: A managerial
perspective. 2a. ed., Mexico: Editorial Trillas
Series: Organizational theory and practice.
5. 5. Davis, Keith and John W. Newstrom. 1987.
Human behavior at work: Organizational
behavior. 7a. ed. (2a. in Spanish). Mexico:
McGraw-Hill.
6. 6. Dubrin J., A. 1974. Fundamentals of
organizational behavior. New York: Pergamon
Press in Hodgetts M., Richard and Steve Altman.
1987 Behavior in organizations. Mexico: New
Interamerican Publishing House.
7. 7. Frew, DR: 1977. Stress management. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall. Publishers. in Ivancevich M., John
and Michael T. Matteson. 1989. Stress and work:
A managerial perspective. 2a. ed., Mexico:
Editorial Trillas. Series: Organizational theory and
practice.
8. 8. Garcia-Pelayo and Gross, Ramon. 1989.
Larousse common dictionary. 6th ed., tenth
printing, Mexico: Ediciones Larousse.
9. 9. Hodgetts M., Richard and Steve Altman. 1987.
Behavior in organizations. Mexico: New
Interamerican Publishing House.
10. 10. Institute for technical and business advice.
1991. "How to deal with stress" in "Rescuing
the organizational experience, Official organ.
Quarterly magazine. Oct.-Nov.-Dec., 1991, year 2,
num. 8, p. 21.
11. 11. Ivancevich M., John and Michael T. Matteson.
1989. Stress and Work: A Managerial
Perspective. 2a. ed., Mexico: Editorial Trillas.
Series: Organizational theory and practice.
12. 12. Literer A., Joseph. 1973. The Analysis of
organizations. 2a. ed., New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
 13. 13. Robbins P., Stephen. 1988. Organizational
behavior: Concepts, controversies and
applications. 3a. ed., Mexico: Prentice-Hall
Hispanoamericana.
14. 14. Rosenweig, S. 1972. Performance frustration
test (PFT). Manual. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Paidos Publishing House.
15. 15. Sarason G., Irwin and Barbara G. Sarason,
1988. Abnormal psychology, The problems of
maladaptive behavior. 2a. ed., Mexico, Editorial
Trillas.
16. 16. Stoner, James A.F. and Charles Wankel. 1989.
Administration. Mexico, Prentice-
Hispanoamericana, S.A.
17. 17. Timio, Mario. 1983. Social classes and
illness. Introduction to differential epidemiology.
3a. ed., Mexico, New Image Publishing House.
18. 18. Vernier, Antoine. 1993. How to overcome
stress. Barcelona, Spain, Edicomunicacion, SA,
1993.
19. 19. Wallace J., Marc Jr. and Andrew D. Szilagyi,
Jr. 1982. Managing Behavior in organizations.
Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foreman and Company.

SURVEY TO DIAGNOSE STRESS

For each survey item, indicate how often the condition

described is a current source of stress. Some of the items
refer to the organization and others to its work group. For
each item, write the number that best describes how often
the indicated condition is a current source of stress for you
in the parentheses to the left of each item, from 1 to 7.

Score 1 if the condition is never a

source of stress.
Score 2 if the condition is rarely a
source of stress.
Score 3 if the condition is
occasionally a source of stress.
Score 4 if the condition is
sometimes a source of stress.
Score 5 if the condition is
frequently a source of stress.
Score 6 if the condition is generally
a source of stress.
Score 7 if the condition is always a
source of stress.

( ) 1. The tasks of my position and the objectives of my

work are not clear to me.

( ) 2. Working on unnecessary tasks or projects.

( ) 3. I have to take work home every night or on

weekends to stay on top of things.

( ) 4. The demands made on me in relation to the quality

of work are unreasonable.
( ) 5. I lack adequate opportunities to advance in this
organization.

( ) 6. I am held responsible for the development of other

employees.

( ) 7. I am not sure who I am responsible to and/or who is

responsible to me.

( ) 8. I am between a rock and a hard place between my

supervisors and my subordinates.

( ) 9. I spend too much time in trivial meetings that take

me away from my work.

( )10. The tasks assigned to me are sometimes very

difficult and/or complex.

( )11. If I want to improve, I have to look for a job in

another organization.

( )12. I am responsible for giving advice to my

subordinates and/or helping them solve their problems.

( )13. I lack sufficient authority to carry out my

responsibilities.

( )14. The formal chain of command is not followed.

( )15. I am responsible for a number of almost

unmanageable projects or tasks at the same time.

( )16. Tasks are becoming more and more complex.

( )17. I am damaging my career progress by staying with

this organization.

( )18. I take actions or make decisions that affect the

safety or well-being of others.

( )19. I don't fully understand what is expected of me.

( )20. I do things at work that are accepted by some

people and not by others.

( )21. I simply have more work than can be done in an

ordinary day.

( )22. The organization expects more from me than I can

do with my experience and skills.

( )23. I have few opportunities to improve and acquire

new knowledge in my work.

( )24. I have more responsibility for people than things in

this organization.
( )25. I don't understand the role my job plays in achieving
the organization's overall goals.

( )26. I receive conflicting orders from two or more people.

( )27. I feel like I just don't have time to take the

occasional break.

( )28. I have insufficient training and/or experience to

perform my duties properly.

( )29. I feel like I'm stuck in my career.

( )30. I feel responsible for the future (careers) of others.

( )31. Staff do not understand the organization's mission

and goals.

( )32. The way reports are given between superior and

subordinate makes me feel pressured.

( )33. I am not in a position to control the activities in my

work area.

( )34. The equipment available to complete the job on

time is limited.

( )35. My supervisor does not represent me in front of his

bosses.

( )36. My supervisor does not respect me.

( )37. I am not part of a close collaborative working group.

( )38. My team does not support my personal goals.

( )39. My team does not enjoy status or prestige within

the organization.

( )40. The organization's overall strategy is not well

understood.

( )41. General policies initiated by management impede

good performance.

( )42. A person at my level has little control over the job.

( )43. My supervisor does not care about my personal

well-being.

( )44. There is no technical knowledge to remain

competitive.

( )45. There is no right to a private workspace.

( )46. The formal structure has too much paperwork.

 ( )47. My supervisor has no confidence in my job
performance.

( )48. My team is disorganized.

( )49. My team does not provide me with protection from

unfair work demands made by my bosses.

( )50. The organization lacks direction and purpose.

( )51. My team puts too much pressure on me.

( )52. I feel uncomfortable working with members of other

work units.

( )53. My team does not provide technical support when

needed.

( )54. The chain of command is not respected.

( )55. There is no technology available to do important

work.

|Administrative Science Journal |Editorial |Articles |Research Reports |Reviews |Main Menu