Purpose-To compare the experience of occupational stress across a large and diverse set of occupations. Three stress related variables (psychological well-being, physical health and job satisfaction) are discussed and comparisons are made between 26 different occupations on each of these measures. The relationship between physical and psychological stress and job satisfaction at an occupational level is also explored. Design/methodology/approach-The measurement tool used is a short stress evaluation tool which provides information on a number of work related stressors and stress outcomes. Out of the full ASSET database 26 occupations were selected for inclusion in this paper. Findings-Six occupations are reporting worse than average scores on each of the factors-physical health, psychological well-being and job satisfaction (ambulance workers, teachers, social services, customer services-call centres, prison officers and police). Differences across and within occupational groups, for example, teaching and policing, are detailed. The high emotional labour associated with the high stress jobs is discussed as a potential causal factor. Research limitations/implications-This is not an exhaustive list of occupations and only concerns employees working within the UK. Originality/value-There is little information available that shows the relative values of stress across different occupations, which would enable the direct comparison of stress levels. This paper reports the rank order of 26 different occupations on stress and job satisfaction levels.

Technostress—defined as stress that individuals experience due to their use of Information Systems—represents an emerging phenomenon of scholarly investigation. It examines how and why the use of IS causes individuals to experience various demands that they find stressful. This paper develops a framework for guiding future research in technostress experienced by individuals in organizations. We first review and critically analyse the state of current research on technostress reported in journals from the IS discipline and the non‐IS disciplines that study stress in organizations (eg, organizational behaviour and psychological stress). We then develop our framework in the form of the “technostress trifecta”—techno‐eustress, techno‐distress, and Information Systems design principles for technostress. The paper challenges 3 key ideas imbued in the existing technostress literature. First, it develops the argument that, in contrast to negative outcomes, technostress can lead to positive outcomes such as greater effectiveness and innovation at work. Second, it suggests that instead of limiting the role of IS to that of being a stress creator in the technostress phenomenon, it should be expanded to that of enhancing the positive and mitigating the negative effects of technostress through appropriate design. Third, it lays the groundwork for guiding future research in technostress through an interdisciplinary framing that enriches both the IS and the psychological stress literatures through a potential discourse of disciplinary exchange.

We quantitatively integrated 169 samples (N= 35,265 employees) that have been used to investigate the relationships of the following 7 work‐related stressors with job performance: role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, job insecurity, work–family conflict, environmental uncertainty, and situational constraints. Overall, we obtained a negative mean correlation between each job performance measure and each stressor included in our analyses. As hypothesized, role ambiguity and situational constraints were most strongly negatively related to performance, relative to the other work‐related stressors. Analysis of moderators revealed that (a) the negative correlation of role overload and performance was higher among managers relative to nonmanagers; (b) publication year moderated the relation of role ambiguity and role overload with performance, although in opposite directions; (c) the correlations obtained for published versus unpublished studies were not significantly different; and (d) using the Rizzo et al. scale of role ambiguity and role conflict decreased the magnitude of the correlations of these stressors with performance, relative to other scales. Theoretical contributions, future research directions, and practical implications are discussed.

1Over a decade of research attests to the importance of resilience in the workplace for 2 employee well-being and performance. Yet, surprisingly, there has been no attempt to resilience training can improve personal resilience, and is a useful means of developing 10 mental health and subjective well-being in employees. We also found that resilience training 11 has a number of wider benefits that include enhanced psychosocial functioning and improved 12 performance. Due to the lack of coherence in design and implementation, we cannot draw 13 any firm conclusions about the most effective content and format of resilience training. 14 Therefore, going forward, it is vital that future research uses comparative designs to assess 15 the utility of different training regimes, explores whether some people might benefit 16 more/less from resilience training, and demonstrates consistency in terms of how resilience is 17 defined, conceptualized, developed, and assessed.

A quantitative and qualitative review of existing literature on working hours and health was carried out. Meta‐analyses were performed on 21 study samples. Results indicated small, but significant positive mean correlations between overall health symptoms, physiological and psychological health symptoms, and hours of work. Qualitative analysis of 12 other studies supported these findings of a positive relationship between hours of work and ill‐health. Different factors which may obscure the relationship between health and hours of work are discussed, together with other moderating influences. Taking these into account it is proposed that the results of the meta‐analyses together with the qualitative analysis offer support for a link between hours of work and ill‐health.