Tilburg University

Work pressure
Roe, R.A.; Zijlstra, F.R.H.

Publication date:
1999

Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Roe, R. A., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (1999). Work pressure: Results of a conceptual and empirical analysis. (WORC
Paper / Work and Organization Research Centre (WORC); Vol. 99.05.011/4). Unknown Publisher.

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.

Download date: 03. Feb. 2025

 Work pressure: Results of a
conceptual and empirical analysis

Authors Roe,R.A.;Zijlstra,F.R.H.

Published in WORC Paper / Work and Organization Research Centre (WORC)

Publication Date 1999

Link https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/71f88f84-f058-463a-
b74c-ea970acd6346

Citation Roe , R A & Zijlstra , F R H 1999 , Work pressure : Results of a conceptual and
empirical analysis . WORC Paper / Work and Organization Research Centre
(WORC) , vol. 99.05.011/4 , vol. 99.05.011/4 , Unknown Publisher .

Download Date 2025-02-03 04:38:51

Rights General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public
portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a
condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal
requirements associated with these rights.
- Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public
portal for the purpose of private study or research.
- You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making
activity or commercial gain
- You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public
portal"
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us
providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.
~BM
R
~585

1999
11
~aper i i i iui i uiHuuu~uuiiiiNi iuui
~ Work pressure.
R es ults of a conceptu al
~ and e mpirical a n a l ys is

, 1 , - ~

Robert A. Roe
Fred R.H. Zijlstra

I,~'IIJ ,1` -
Worá nnd Urgrruiurtinu Hrsrarrb Crnrre
 ~~~~ ~'.OJ r~~..C'~f
~ f~,~~1~~ rr

t
v wo~~ p~--~-~.~~,
Work pressure. Results of a conceptual and empirical analysis

Robert A. Roe 8~ Fred R.H. Zijlstra

WORC - Tilburg University, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands

Paper presented at the 9th European Congress of Work 8~ Organizational

Psychology,

Espoo-Helsinki, Finland, May 12-16, 1999

Keywords: work demands, work load, work pressure, fatigue, burnout

This paper presents a conceptual and empirical analysis of the notion of 'work
pressure'. This notion is frequently used in current debates on working
conditions, but lacks conceptual and operational precision. A conceptual model
based on action regulation theory, state regulation theory, and stress theory is
used to differentiate work pressure from related concepts, such as work
demands, work load and work stress. Work pressure is conceived as a
subjectively experienced state of tension associated with the (current and~or
anticipated) execution of work tasks.
Using items from several published measurement instruments a set of
scales was developed for measuring nine work demands, workload, and work
pressure. Next, these scales were used in an analysis of structural relationships,
together with scales pertaining to non-work factors as well as to fatigue and
stress, using LISREL-8. The analyses are based on a cross-sectional sample of
Dutch workers (N - 1 1291.
It is demonstrated that the various concepts can be reliably measured and
that their interrelationships conform to the conceptual model. A comparison of
subgroups of workers, based on cluster analysis, shows that high levels of work
pressure can derive from different patterns of work demands. It is also shown
that high work load does not necessarily lead to high work pressure, and that
high work pressure does not necessarily produce stress. Implications for the
effective prevention and management of work pressure are discussed.

Introduction

In current debates about the working conditions in Europe frequent references

are made to the notion of 'work pressure'. In popular publications and reports
from work hygiene institutions and labour unions concern is expressed about

1
the prevalence of high work pressure among a great part of the working

population. In our own country, the Netherlands, alarming figures have been
published, showing that 30 to 600~0 of workers suffer from high pressure at

work (Smulders 8~ Bloemhoff, 1991; Diekstra et al., 1992; Vroom, 1995;

Werkduk in Nederland, 1997). For instance, Diekstra et al. have shown that

35 0~0 of all respondents report problems with work pressure, 10 0~o describe
these problems as serious and speak of "excessive work demands". According

to another study the percentage of employed people complaining about high

time pressure at work has grown to 600~o in 1996 (CBS, 1997). In the public

debate about the issue it is often asserted that high work pressure is a result

of ongoing reductions of the work force, greater intensity of work due to high

demands on speed and quality, and the greater use of computer technology at

work. There is a fear that high work pressure will lead to greater work stress
and rising work disability, and will bring social and economic disadvantages in

the long run. Several studies suggest that work pressure is indeed a factor
negatively affecting worker health and well-being (e.g. Carayon á Zijlstra, in

press; Frone, Russell 8~ Cooper, 1995; Carayon, Yang 8~ Lee, 1995;

Turnipseed, 1994; Neubauer, 1992; Smith et al., 1992; Rees á Cooper, 1992;
Jones, Fletcher 8~ Ibbetson, 1991; Siegrist et al., 1990).

However, the notion of work pressure does not carry a very precise

meaning, and there is as yet little agreement about the way in which it should
be operationalised. In this paper we will present a conceptual model, that may

help to distinguish work pressure from similar concepts and to define it in a

unequivocal way. We will also describe the construction of a method for

measuring work pressure and related concepts, the so-called 'Tilburg Work

Pressure Questionnaire', and present some empirical findings on the

phenomenon of work pressure, based on a study carried out in the Netherlands
in 1998' (see also van Helvoort et al., 1998).

The research project reported upon here was carried out by a research team
consisting of R.A. Roe, F.R.H. Zijlstra, A. Vingerhoets, J. de Vries, M. van der Mast, M.
Meegens 8~ S. van Helvoort at Tilburg University. The project was co-funded by the
Magazine 'Psychologie' and the Research School 'Psychology and Health'.

2
Aim

The aim of the study is multi-fold, i.e.: (1) to clarify the conceptual status of
work pressure, (2) to develop a set of instruments for the measurement of

work pressure, (3) to investigate the situational and personal determinants of

work pressure, and (4) to explore the consequences of work pressure for
people's well-being and health. The approach taken is primarily work

psychological, that is, the focus is on intra-individual factors and processes

involved in the execution of work tasks. The study reported here, is part of a

wider research programme on work pressure, which comprises three main

parts: a survey study carried out in a broad cross-sectional sample of people

doing paid work, an in-depth interview study, aiming at revealing people's

subjective experiences associated with work pressure, and an experimental

study of the dynamics of work pressure on a longer and shorter time axis. Here

we focus on results from the survey study, but we will use some findings from

the interview study in the discussion.

Conceptual issues

If one examines the relevant research literature it appears that there exists

considerable conceptual confusion with regard to notions such as work

demands, work load, time pressure, job pressure, and work pressure. Often

two or more of these terms are used interchangeably (e.g. Brookings, Wilson
8~ Swain, 1996; Urban, Weaver á Bowers, 1996; Veltman 8~ Gaillard, 1993;

Tsang 8~ Velasquez, 1995; Laudeman 8~ Palmer, 1995; Carayon, Yang 8~ Lee,

1995; Frone, Russel 8~ Cooper, 1995; Turnipseed, 1994; Martin á Wall,

19891. Yet, from a theoretical and a practical point of view, it is preferable to

distinguish between these notions and to operationalise them more rigorously

in order to better understand the psychological phenomena involved.

3
 We propose to make a distinction between four notions, i.e. work

demands, work load, work pressure and work stress. Work demands represent

the objective requirements posed by the tasks to be performed and the

working conditions. These demands are the same for each job incumbent.

Examples of work demands are: task speedlrate, difficulty, complexity,

uncertainty and responsibility. Task speedlrate is sometimes designated as

'time pressure' (e.g. Van Roon et al., 1996; Raby 8~ Wickens, 1994; Moray et
al., 1991) although this notion is also used in a subjective sense. Work load

refers to the degree to which the person's individual resources are charged

when carrying out work tasks. It can be considered as the subjective

counterpart of the work demands. Since it depends on individual factors, such

as the worker's capacity, psycho-physiological state, and work strategy, there

is no one-to-one correspondence between demands and work load. Two people

with equal work demands can have higher or lower work load, depending on
dynamic intra-individual factors. The distinction between work demands and

work load is an important one. It corresponds to the distinction between the

external work load as an attribute of the task given to a person, and internal

(also: functional or effectiveJ work load as experienced by the person when

actually carrying out the task. External work load refers to the demands posed

by the work tasks to be performed, and hence is equivalent to work demands.

Some languages use specific terms to refer to this distinction, e.g. 'Belastung'

and 'Beanspruchung' in German (e.g. Hacker, 1997) or 'last' and 'belasting'

in Dutch.

Work pressure is provisionally conceived of as a cognitive-energetic

state of the person, producing the experience of strain or felt pressure, which
is associated with the ongoing and anticipated execution of work tasks. At

present it can best be understood as the subjective reflection of the person's

psychologicall physiological state while carrying out work tasks. Obviously,

this state can vary and work pressure can augment or decline, depending a.o.
on the worker's expectation of the amount of work that remains to be done

and hislher assessment of the chance to accomplish the work successfully.

4
Although work pressure is conceived as a dynamic phenomenon, one would

expect it to change less quickly than work load. Work pressure seems to be

a more enduring state which may extend into people's leisure time.
Stress is defined as a state of excessive activation which results when

one has been exposed to a threatening situation for a longer period, and when

attempts to cope with, or to terminate the threatening situation fail. Work

pressure can be such a threatening situation. Work pressure seems related to

stress, but unlike stress it is specifically linked to work tasks to be performed

and probably more susceptible to change. The difference, thus, is that stress

is a-specific and relatively persistent, while work pressure seems specific and
changeable. Work pressure may well be a precursor of stress, but under typical

conditions work pressure may alternatively reach high levels and drop again,

without ultimately causing stress. This implies that the 'wave-length' of work
pressure is longer than that of work load and shorter than that of stress.

It is important to recognize that the phenomena dealt with here are

inherently dynamic, and they are affected by a number of regulatory

mechanisms. We distinguish between three such mechanisms: (1) the effort

mechanism (Kahneman, 1973; Sanders, 1983; Mulder, 1986; Hockey, 1986,

1997; Zijlstra, 1993, 1996) which lowers or heightens the mental capacity in

response to work load; (2) the strategic mechanism (Hacker, 1997; Sperandio,

1973; Hockey, 1986, 1997), which produces variations in strategy in

response to work load (and perhaps work pressure); and (3) the fatigue-

recovery mechanism (Meijman, 19891, which adjusts the person's state by

means of recovery in response to fatigue. Each of these mechanisms can be

supposed to have an influence on work load, as well as on work pressure.

Here Figure 1

Figure 1 presents a heuristic conceptual model showing the links between the

four concepts introduced above. But it also incorporates a number of other

concepts which were briefly mentioned above, including actual capacity,

5
psycho-physiological state, fatigue and recovery. Since work load not only

depends on the level of the demands, but also on how long the person is

exposed to them, work time is also included. Also included are outcomes of
the work and the rewards they lead to. This aspect has been incorporated

because of the findings by Siegrist et al. (1990) that rewards may counteract

potential negative effects of work stressors on people. A final important

element in the model is strategy. Through their choice of strategy people may

take an influence on work demands, work time, and non-work factors.

Strategy ís dependent on 'control' (Ganster, 1989; Karasek á Theorell, 1990),
i.e. the degree to which the work setting enables people to excert influence on

their work.

The primary function of the model is to serve as a heuristic tool in

developing a set of instruments and to direct research on work pressure.

Although it incorporates the three regulatory mechanisms mentioned above,

it does not represent a fully developed causal scheme of the factors and

mechanisms related to work pressure.

Method

The first step in our study is the development of a set of instruments for the

measurement of work demands, work load, work pressure and other concepts.
This was done on the basis of the conceptual model presented above. Existing

scales, published in the literature as well as questionnaires commonly used in

the Netherlands, were scrutinized as to identify which scales and~or items

would be appropriate for operationalizing the various concepts. Some of the

items were re-sorted as to match our conceptual distinctions, mentioned

above, and several new items were developed. Next, questionnaires were

composed and tested in a small pilot study before administering them in the
survey sample. Scales were formed on the basis of item analysis (item-test

correlations and coefficients alpha).

6
 To investigate the relationships between the variables we performed two

types of analysis. First, work demands and work time were correlated with

work load, work pressure, fatigue and stress, and regression analysis was

applied. Next, we did path analysis on these and a few other variables, using

LISREL-8 (Jdreskog 8~ Sdrbom,1993).

In order to achieve a better understanding of how different
configurations of work demands may affect work pressure, we conducted a
cluster analysis (using SPSS Quick Cluster) and formed groups with different

work demand profiles and compared them with respect to the level of work

pressure, using analysis of variance.

Sample

For the purpose of the present study a sample of Dutch working people was

drawn in the following way. From a random sample of some 8000 private

phone numbers, 4000 numbers were selected. Those persons have been called
in order to find people who would satisfy the criteria for participation in the

study and would be ready to take part. The criteria were such that people had

to be over 18 years old, perform a paid job, either as an employee or being self-
employed, and make at least 8 hours per week. People without a paid job, such

as housewives, retired people, and students were excluded from participation.

People were asked whether they would be willing to take part in a study on

work and working conditions conducted by the University of Tilburg. Addresses

of those agreeing were taken down and people were sent a written
questionnaire with a prepaid return envelope. A total of 2000 questionnaires

were sent out, and 1 130 have been returned; the return rate therefor was 56.5

o~o. Information on the sample composition in terms of age, gender and

education is given in Table 1. The distribution across economic sectors and

types of work, categorized by the relative importance of data, people and

things as work objects, is given in Table 2. It appears that the sample is

7
approximately representative of the Dutch work force, although persons with

a higher education are somewhat over-represented.

Here Table 1

Here Table 2

Measurement instruments

Measures of work demands, work load and work pressure were made by
means of scaling, using re-arranged items from other published instruments and

new items generated by the research team. Along with questions concerning

work time and non-work activities, these scales constitute the 'Tilburg Work

Pressure Questionnaire' or T-WPQ. The work demands scales that are covered
in the T-WPQ are:

o Quantity: the amount of work that must be performed.

o Difficulty: the degree of difficulty or complexity of the work tasks.

o Intensity: the degree of sustained and focussed attention needed to do

the work.

o Emotiveness: the degree to which the work implies emotionally

demanding situations.

o Responsibility: the degree to which the work implies carrying

responsibility for other people or for valuable goods.

o Temporality: the degree to which the work flow must meet deadlines,
take place at a prescribed speed etc.

o Multiplicity: the degree to which the work involves multiple tasks.

o Interruptiveness: the degree to which the work is susceptible to

interruptions.

8
o Lack of support ~ hinder: the degree to which people lack the
information, tools, personal assistance needed to carry out their work

tasks, or feel that things get in their way.

Along with the T-WPQ we used a number of instruments for measuring other

variables in the model. The variables involved in the present study are: Rewards
(scale developed after Siegrist et al., 1990), Fatigue (measured by the CIS-20;

Vercoulen et al., 1994; subscales: 'subjective fatigue', 'concentration',

'energetic', 'activity'), and Burnout (MBI-Dutch version; Schaufeli 8~ van

Dierendonck, 1994; subscales: 'emotional exhaustion', 'distance',

'competence').

The coefficients alpha of the newly created scales are presented below
in Table 3. Generally speaking the items appeared to be suitable for measuring

the constructs. Only few items had to be deleted in order to raise the scale's

reliability.

Here Table 3

Structural relationships

A first impression of the structural relationships between the variables in this

study comes from the pattern of correlations and regression weights. Table 4

gives the raw correlations and beta-weights of the nine work demands, the

number of working hours and the number of household hours for the prediction

of work load, work pressure, subjective fatigue and felt exhaustion. It is clear
that the demands correlate strongest with work load, somewhat lesser with

work pressure, and the least with exhaustion and fatigue. Apart from the

relative position of fatigue and exhaustion, which can be supposed to influence

each other mutually, this seems to be in agreement with the general structure

9
of our conceptual model. The number of working hours correlate only with

work load and work pressure. And for number of household hours weak

negative correlations are found with three of the four criteria.

Here Table 4

The overall pattern of relationships was established by path analysis, using

LISREL-8 (Jbreskog 8~ Sbrbom, 19931. The results are presented in Figure 2.

The path model is the one that fits the data best. It was developed iteratively,

suppressing paths with coefficients lower than 1.00, 1.50 and 1.96 (50~0
significance level) successively. The fit of the model is acceptable. The RMR

is .037, the Goodness-of-Fit Index IGFI) is .97, the Adjusted Goodness of Fit

Index (AFI) is .92, the Normed Fit Index (NFI) is .97. The model shows that

some, but not all demands act as determinants of work load, and that work
load is a determining factor of work pressure. Work pressure in its turn
determines fatigue and exhaustion, whereas fatigue affects exhaustion as well.

All this is more or less in accordance with our conceptual model. However,

there are differences as well. Some demand factors seem to influence work

pressure directly. Some demands produce rewards, which appears to

counteract work pressure and fatigue, and - indirectly - also exhaustion. This

latter finding is in agreement with the 'effort-rewards' model of Siegrist et al.

(1990), which postulates that rewards are a good buffer against the unhealthy
effects of work stressors. Of course, it should be kept in mind that the model

does not display real causal links, since the data were all gathered at the same

moment. Causal analysis based on longitudinal data will be left for a later

moment.

Here Figure 2

10
Subgroup analysis

Since jobs may differ in the demands they pose to people and yet produce

equally high work pressure, we have broken up the overall sample up in

subgroups with different profiles of job demands and made a comparison

between these groups. The groups were created by means of cluster analysis

using SPSS Quick Cluster. A first analysis using the nine demand scales alone
did not produce a clear solution, but including the number of working hours and

gender did. Number of working hours is a relevant factor, since long work

hours may add to the effects of otherwise similar job demands. Gender is

relevant since there are systematic differences in job content and number of
working hours between men and women. The final solution is based on an

analysis of z-scores of demands, number of working hours and gender (with.01

decrement and 30 iterations)2.

The analysis resulted in five job types with predominantly male job

incumbents, six job types with predominantly female job incumbents and one

mixed job type. The twelve job types are described in Figures 3 and 4.

Here Figure 3

Here Figure 4

It appears that there are clear differences between types of jobs in terms of the
demands posed. Apart from job types with one or several high demands, there

are several with low demands. Male and female job types seem similar apart

from the number of working hours, which are typically longer for men. In our

Note: we are using perceived demands, since no information about objective

demands could possibly be gathered.

11
description of the job types we have also indicated wether the respondents had

substantial duties outside of the work, that is in the household. Some of the
female groups with less work hours than the standard work week spent over

20 hours a week on household duties (including care)3.

Six of the twelve job types, involving 470~0 of the total number of
workers in the sample, can be characterized as highly demanding. This applies

to: M 1 (overtaxing male jobs), M2 (intense male jobs) and M3 (broad male

jobsl, F1 (overtaxing female jobs), F2 (intense female jobs), and F4 (ordinary

female jobs), and to X1 (draining jobs, male and female). The other job types,
comprising 530~0 of the respondents, pose moderate to low demands.

Looking at work pressure for the twelve job types, we find large and
significant differences (F - 44,39; df - 1 1,1082 p c.0001). Work pressure is

highest among X1 (emotionally draining jobs), M1 and F1 (overtaxing jobs,

male and female), F2 (intense jobs female), and M3 (broad male jobs). Analyses

carried out with fatigue, emotional exhaustion and health complaints give
similar results.

To better understand the differences between the job types we also

compared the job types with respect to a number of job content variables, that
is: the mental vs. manual nature of the tasks, the work object (data-people-

things), the use of technical tools. From this analysis it appears that in most

jobs mental tasks dominate, and that higher demands are associated with a
predominance of inenta~ tasks. The lightest jobs are those with more manual

tasks. The job types also differ in the work objects dealt with. On average
dealing with people is more common in female jobs. A prevalence of people as

work object is found for F1 (overtaxing female jobs) on the one hand, and F4

(ordinary female) and M5 (light female jobs) on the other hand. Male jobs at the
lighter end of the scale, i.e. M4 and M5, more often have 'things' as work

objects. Thus we find some evidence of gender segregatíon in work content,

and are reminded of the fact that high demands can originate from different

This variable is presented for descriptive and explanatory purposes. It was not
included in the cluster analysis.

12
sources. Interestingly enough, we find that the work in category X1
(emotionally draining jobsl is almost exclusively focused on people. Here the

number of respondents reporting 'work with people' amounts to 900~0. There

are also differences in the use of work support tools, like the use of the
portable telephone and the laptop, which are more common in the groups M 1

(overtaxed male jobs) and M2 (intense male jobs).

Discussion

Looking at the results of the foregoing, it appears that work pressure is a

distinct phenomenon, that can neither be equated to high work demands, nor
to high work load or work stress. There are positive correlations between

demands, work load, and work pressure, to be sure, but they are not

sufficiently high to consider all these variables as expressions of a single factor.

The model that we propose can be seen as a kind a'stage-model' in the

process of developing stress and burnout. The work demands have an effect

on workload, but the effects of demands on work pressure and fatigue and
exhaustion are much weaker. The decrease in the Multiple R2 from left to right

in Table 4 illustrates this quite clearly.

For the sample as a whole, the main determinant of work pressure is

high work load, which is in its turn produced by quantity, difficulty, intensity

and hinder (lack of support). Higher demands are associated with greater

rewards, and rewards seem to play a buffering role since it goes together with
less work pressure, less fatigue and less exhaustion.

Our analysis of subgroups makes clear that high and low work pressure

are associated with different profiles of work demands, typical for certain types
of jobs. High work pressure is found in subgroups of workers who face high

overall demands (M 1 and F1), who have jobs with a high level of intensity (M2

and F2), those with a great variety of tasks (only male: M3), who have
'ordinary jobs' but make much hours in household (only female: F4), and those

13
who deal with people in emotionally demanding situations (male and female:

X1). The number of people in these seven job categories is almost 50 0~0 of the
total sample. Since the subgroups do not only differ in the pattern of work

demand, but also in the overall balance of work and household hours, the

factor time seems to play a role as well. However, further research is needed

to clarify the role of temporal factors.

Implications for practice

With respect to practice a first lesson from this study is that high work
demands do not necessarily result in high work pressure. Much depends on

other factors and particularly on the rewards people receive from their work.

This makes it desirable to look beyond signs of work pressure and to make a

proper diagnosis of relevant situational and personal factors. An instrument like

the T-WPQ may be helpful in this context. Secondly, it seems that, generally
speaking, work pressure can be reduced in different ways: on the one hand by

reducing the work demands or adjusting working (or household) hours, on the
other hand by giving people more rewards for their work. Thirdly, we can

conclude that the factors producing work pressure vary with the type of job

people are in. This implies that job factors should be taken into account in
making a diagnosis of high work pressure, and that the ways to reduce work

pressure should depend on the particular constellation of demands in the job.

The results from the survey suggest some measures for preventing and

reducing high work pressure in general, but they do not yield information about

the ways in which people can cope with work pressure in everyday settings.

For this we can rely on a study by Stuifbergen (1999), who conducted in-depth
interviews with 24 people engaged in various types of jobs. This study

examines the meanings people assign to work pressure, the conditions under

which work pressure is felt, and the methods people use to cope with high

work pressure. The study confirms that work pressure is a subjective state

14
associated with expectations about the future flow of work, more in particular

with the dynamic balance between the work that has to be done and the work

that one is able to do. On the basis of this finding and the coping methods

mentioned by the subjects we propose a simplified model in which work

pressure is the outcome of a process of balancing the work that must be done

and the work that can be done. The work that must be done can be seen as

determined by work demands and work supply, whereas the work that can be

done is seen as determined by the personal competence to meet the demands

and the capacity to manage the work supply.

Here Figure 4

There are different opportunities for intervention, both corrective and

preventive, and there is a role to play for the workers themselves, their

supervisors, line management, and the personnel department. We propose the

following options for intervention. Since work pressure does not occur
constantly, but is a dynamic phenomenon, there is an important role to play for

working people themselves. They may first of all regulate work pressure by: (1)

planning their work tasks before they start working, by structuring their work,
(re)scheduling it etc.; (2) spending more effort in order to meet the high

demands, or to reduce the actual demands by changing one's work strategy;

(3) doing overtime or taking work home. These methods have in common that
they aim for maintenance of the level of work performance and adjustment of

the individual's work capacity. Typical for the second group of inethods is that

they enable workers to protect themselves by lowering the standards of

performance. This is done by: (4) isolating oneself from others in order to avoid

disturbances and concentrate on the task; (5) giving in to constraints, deferring

the work till a more suitable moment, and "giving up", that is, abandoning the
task; (61 taking a break in order to restore one's work capacity. An important

role for the supervisor lies in: (7) planning the overall work flow and

(re)allocating the work across workers. In this way the supervisor may avoid

15
or reduce peak-loads and overload of individual workers. Moving to the line
management there is a more structural and preventive solution, i.e. (8)

(re)structuring the part of the organization that is susceptible to work pressure

or changing its capacity by deploying a greater number of workers or

prolonging the work hours. Intervention within the scope of line and personnel

management are: (9) selection and placement of workers, with the purpose of

adjusting the available competence to the overall work demands; and (10)

providing training to workers as to increase their competence.

In order to decide about the appropriateness of all these interventions a

good diagnosis is needed. Both the average level of work pressure and its

distribution across the organization would have to be ascertained. When high

levels of work pressure are found among almost all employees of a work unit,

or an organization as a whole, one would think of organizational restructuring

and ~ or work force expansion as appropriate measures. If high work pressure

is found with particular jobs or at particular moments only, one would think of
training the employees involved or alleviating high demand by better work flow

planning. If level of work pressure is low to average for most of the time, one
would put the emphasis on measures taken by the workers themselves or by

their superior. In order for workers to effectively use the methods 1 through 6,

they should have sufficient control in their work, either individually or as

members of a work group.

Conclusions

On the basis of our study we come to the following conclusions:

1. Work pressure should be distinguished from work demands, to work

load and work stress. Although its nature should be investigated further,

it can currently best be understood as a dynamic state associated with

the anticipated execution of work tasks. People experiencing high work

pressure are in a state of cognitive and energetic activation. Subjectively

16
 they are aware of the work to be done and are concerned about their

ability to complete the work successfully.

2. The main determinant of work pressure is work load. Generally speaking,

high work load is produced by high work demands with respect to

quantity, difficulty, intensity and hinder (lack of support). High work

pressure can be seen as a precursor of elevated fatigue and stress

Iburnoutl.

3. The perception of being properly rewarded for one's work counteracts

the emergence of work pressure, fatigue and exhaustion. On the whole

greater rewards are associated with higher demands.

4. The antecedents of high work pressure are not the same for all workers.

They vary according to the nature of the job, the number of working
hours and the number of hours spent in the household. There are some

differences between men and women here.

5. Practical interventions aiming at reducing or preventing high work

pressure should be based on an assessment of the work demand, work

time, and should take the particularities of the job into account.

6. There is a wide range of possibilities for reducing and preventing high

work pressure. Organizational re-structuring, work force expansion,

extension of working hours, and improved planning are important, but

such structural measures can be supplemented by selection, placement

and training on the one hand, adjustments in planning and task allocation

by the supervisor and various adjustments in the work process by the

workers themselves. For this workers need sufficient control.

17
References

Brookings, J.B., Wilson, G.F., 8~ Swain, C.R. (1996). Psychophysiological

responses to changes in workload during simulated air traffic control.

Biological Psychology, 42, 363-377.

Carayon, P., Yang, C.L., á Lee, S.Y. (19951. Examining the relationship

between job design and worker strain over time in a sample of office

workers. Ergonomics, 38, 1 199-121 1.

Carayon, P., 8~ Zijlstra, F.R.H., (in press) Relationship between job control,
work pressure and strain. Studies in the USA and The Netherlands. Work

8c Stress, 13.

CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek) (1997). Enquête beroepsbevolking

1996. Heerlen.

Diekstra, R., e.a., (19921. Stress aan het werk in Nederland. Den Haag: Min.
van SoZaWe (S-153).

Frone, M.R., Russell, M., 8~ Cooper, M.L. (1995). Job stressors, job

involvement and employee health: A test of identity theory. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 1-1 1.

Ganster, D.C. á Fusilier, M.R. (1989). Control in the work place. In C.L.

Cooper 8~ I.T. Robertson (Eds.). International Review of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology. (pp. 235-280). Chichester: Wiley.

Hacker, W. (1997). Allgemeine Arbeítspsychologie. Psychische Regulation von

Arbeitstátigkeiten. Bern: Huber.

Hockey, G.R.J. (1986). A state control theory of adaptation and individual

differences in stress management. In G.R.J. Hockey, A.W.K. Gaillard á

M. Coles (Eds.l. Energetics and Human Information Processing.

Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff, pp. 285-298.

Hockey, G.R.J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human

performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical

framework. Biological Psychology, 45, 73-93.

18
Jones, F., Fletcher, B.C., á Ibbetson, K. (1991). Stressors and strains amongst

social workers: demands, supports, constraints, and psychological

health. British Journal of Social Work, 21, 443-469.

Jdreskog, K.G. 8~ Sórbom, D. (1993). LISREL-8.02. Chicago, III.: SSI.

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Karasek, R. 8~ Theorell, T,. (1990). Healthy work. Stress, productivity and the
reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.

Laudeman, I.V. 8~ Palmer, E.A. (1995). Quantitative measurement of observed

workload in the analysis of aircrew performance. International Journal

of Aviation Psychology, 5, 187-197.

Martin, R. 8~ Wall, T.D. (1989). Attentional demand and cost reponsibility as

stressors in jonfloor jobs. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 69-86.

Meijman, Th.F. (1989). Belasting en herstel: Een begrippenkader voor het

arbeidsspychologisch onderzoek van werkbelasting. In: Meijman, Th.F.

(Red.), Mentale belasting en werkstress. Assen: Van Gorcum; pp. 5-20.

Moray, N., Dessouky, M.I., Kijowski, B.A., á Adapathya, R. (1991). Strategic

behavior, workload, and performance in task scheduling. Human Factors,

33, 607-629.

Mulder, G. (1986). The concept and measurement of inental effort. In: Hockey,
G.R.J., Gaillard, A.W.K. 8~ Coles, M.G.J. (Eds.), Energetics and human
information processíng. Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff. pp. 175-198.

Neubauer, P.J. (1992). The impact of stress, hardiness, home and work

environment on job satisfaction, illness, and absenteeism in critical care

nurses. Medical Psychotherapy An International Journal, 5, 109-122.

Raby, M. 8~ Wickens, C.D. (19941. Strategic workload management and

decision biases in aviation. Internatíonal Journal of Aviation Psychology,

4, 21 1-240.
Rees, D.W. á Cooper, C.L. (1992). The Occupational Stress Indicator locus of

control scale: Should this be regarded as a state rather than trait

measure? Work and Stress, 6, 45-48.

19
Sanders, A.F. (1983). Towards a model of stress and human performance.
Acta Psychologica, 53, 61-97.

Schaufeli, W.B. 8~ Van Dierendonck, D., (1994). Burnout, een begrip gemeten.

De Nederlandse versie van de Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-NL).

Gedrag 8c Gezondheid, 22, 153-172.

Siegrist, J., Peter, R., Junge, A., 8~ Cremer, P. (19901. Low status control,

high effort at work and ischemic heart disease: Prospective evidence

from blue-collar men. Social Science and Medicine, 31, 1 127-1 134.

Smith, M.J., Carayon, P., Sanders, K.J., 8~ Lim, S.Y. (1992). Employee stress
and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance

monitoring. Special Issue: Electronic performance monitoring. Applied

Ergonomics, 23, 17-27.

Smulders, P.G.W. 8~ Bloemhoff, A. (1991). Arbeid, gezondheid en welzijn in de

toekomst. Toekomstscenario's arbeid en gezondheid 1990-2010.

HoutenlAntwerpen: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.

Sperandio, J.-C. (1977). La régulation des modes opératoires en fonction de la

charge de travail chez les controleurs de trafic aérien. Le Travail Human,

40 (21, 249-256.

Stuifbergen, I. (1999). Werkdruk. herkomst, beleving en aanpak van werkdruk.

Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Vakgroep Psychologie.

Tsang, P.S. 8~ Velazquez, V.L. (1996). Diagnosticity and multidimensional

subjective workload ratings. Ergonomics, 39, 358-381 .

Turnipseed, D.L. (1994). An analysis of the influence of work environment

variables and moderators on the burnout syndrome. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 24, 782-800.

Urban, J.M., Weaver, J.L., Bowers, C.A., 8~ Rhodenizer, L. (1996). Effects of

workload and structure on team processes and performance:

Implications for complex team decision making. Human Factors, 38,

300-310.

20
Van Helvoort, S., Van der Mast, M., Megens, M., Roe, R., Vingerhoets, A., De

Vries, Y. á Zijlstra, F. (19981. Werkstress in Nederland. Psychologie, 17,

32-45. (Extra bijlage)

Van Roon, A.M., Mulder, L.J.M., Veldman, J.B.P., 8~ Mulder, G. (19951.

Beat-to-beat blood-pressure measurements applied in studies on mental

workload. Homeostasis in Health and Disease, 36, 316-324.

Veltman, J.A. á Gaillard, A.W. (1993). Indices of inental workload in a

complex task environment. International Symposium: Psychobiology:

Psychophysiological and psychohumoral processes combined (1992,

Giessen, Germany). Neuropsychobiology, 28, 72-75.

Vercoulen, J.H.M.M., Swanink, C.M.A. Galama, J.M.D., Fennis, J.F.M. Van

der Meer, J.W.M. Bleijenberg, G. (1994) Dimensional assessment in

chronic fatigue syndrome. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 383-

392.

Vroom, M. (1995). Onder druk. Amsterdam: FNV.

Werkduk in Nederland (1997). PS, Periodiek voor Sociale Verzekering,

Arbeidsvoorziening en Arbeidsrecht, 14, 526.

Zijlstra, F.R.H., (19931. Efficiency in Work Behaviour; A Design Approach for

Modern Tools. Delft: Delft University Press. ISBN 90-6275-918-1.

(Ph.D. Thesis. Delft University of Techno-logy). 172 pp.

Zijlstra, F.R.H., (1996). Effort as energy regulation. In: W. Battmann á S.

Dutke, (Eds.l. Processes of the Molar Regulation of Behavior. Berlin:

Pabst Science Publishers. p. 219-235. ISBN 3-931 660-1 1-7.

21
 Figure 1

CONCEPiUAI MODEL OF WORK PRESSURE

Figure 2

Slttx~llonal de7errrdnarrle oi Work Predture - fie Netfle~lantle, 1998

(N ~ 1129)

~ .u
-.19
~ -,16 -
-,47
1
~~

.4?
09
~
.31
4

DIiiICllly

I RA1R ~ D.J7: 6FI ~.97: N4t ~.9Z: NFl ~.9I I

 Figure 3

WC~tI( DEMANDSMD Wbf~1C PRFSSURE FaRJ0BT1?~ES

(M4LE ~MIXED)
M1 M2 M3 M4 MS xi
5 v.ert~mg i~rte,e troacl f~t wYf~t- ri~rin9
~ ~ ~
4

3 --.. . .
~

7'~0 100~6 13~~a 13'~. 10'I. ~k

I
t
~ Quantity ~ Emotiveness o Muhiplicity
o Difficulty ~ Responsibility ~ Interruptiveness
~ Intensitv ~ TemporalitV ~ LackofsupptrR
~-- Work preesure

Figure 4

WORK DFINAC.DSMD W~K PRESSI~E FOR JOB TYPES

~~
Fi F2 F3 F4 FS F6
5 o.~cig iioatse ordFray ortirtaY ~~ `~Y~
~--- ~ 3J4 94 yd 1f1

4
~
r
3

i
2

50~ 7ol0 7ol0 , 7~~ 70~0 : 90~0 '

1
~ Quantity ~ Emotiveness o Multiplieity
o Difficulty ~ Responsibility 0 Interruptiveness
O Intensity D Temporality ~ Lack of support
t Work pressure
 Figure 5

Work pressure: Starting points for intervention

1 plan ahead

2
divide own work
spend more effort
change strategy
có.
3 do overtime
[ake work home
Wor1c damends x Work eupply
4 isolate oneself
5 gNe in
defer ~
gNe up balanoe
h ~4~' ~i r~
6 pause
take day off
v
7 planworkflow Compeóertce x Wor1c cepaàty
allocate work
8 restructure
set capacity
9 selection ~`~1`~ .~~
placement
t0 training
 Table 1

SAMPLE COMPOSITION
(N- 1129)

Age Male Female

Under 30 79 103
30-50 429 322
over 50 104 51

Education f
Basic 23
Lower vocational 212
Middle vocational 247
College 108
Higher vocational 316
Un iversiry 136
Other 32

Table 2

SAMPLE COMPOSITION
(N- 1129)
Sector f
Industry 8 Agriculture 155
Construction 49
Trade, hotels, repair 124
Transport 38
Banks 8~ Insurances 150
Health care 186
Education 1 11
Public Services 109
Other sernces 125

Work Objects f
People ~ Data ~ Things 389
Data ~ People ~ Things 352
Things ~ People ~ Data 130
People ~ Th~ngs ~ Data 89
Things ~ Data ~ People 52
Data ~ Things ~ People 33
 Table 3

Tilburg Work Pressure Questionnaire

(WPQ)

Scale m alpha
WORK DEMANDS
Quantity 6 .74
DitTlculty 6 .66
Intensity 5 .72
Emotiveness 6 .80
Responsibility 5 .71
Temporality 6 .64
Multiplicity 6 .69
Interruptlveness 6 .76
Lack of support 7 .76
WORK LOAD 8 .82
WORK PRESSURE 14 .86
REWARDS 6 .80
FATIGUE (i) 20 .93
BURNOUT
Exhaustion 5 .89
Distance 5 .76
Competence 6 .75

Sample Dutch errployed people, 1998 (N-1 129)

Table 4

Correlations and Beta's d Work Demands for 4 áiteria

s'~~;~orb'; VVcr'r. Fa?:a~,re~

Work Demands 6chaustion
Load Fressurc fS~ib1?

f5 r f5 r f5 r R
Ouantiry 65 43 56 31 19 07 33 12
C~ifficulry 60 33 46 17 24 22 38 29
I ntensiry 41 12 32 10 03 -.03 17 O6
Emotiveness 44 11 41 12 22 11 33 15
Responsibiliry 26 - 13 23 - 11 -.03 -.17 04 -22
Terrporaliry 39 02 32 - 01 07 -. 05 20 -,00
Multipliciry 37 - 10 37 -.05 12 -.03 20 - 10
InterruptNeness 39 02 43 14 16 09 26 12
Lack of support 28 17 32 23 31 23 33 24
Workinghours 26 03 26 08 02 01 08 -.01
Househ old hours - 09 - 07 - 10 - 07 07 05 - 03 - 06
Multiple R' S9 44 17 29
u~~~i iwi~iá~~i~~áuw i i

Work and Organization Research Centre

Warandelaan 2, P.O. Box 90153
5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
Phone f31 13 4663140
Fax ~-31 13 46620~3