Eustress, distress and their interpretation in primary and secondary occupational stress management interventions: which way first?

Abstract

PurposeTo develop an argument for the retention of secondary approaches to stress management (those that focus on the individual within the organization) as first interventions, prior to the employment of primary approaches (those that focus on the organization's processes and structures). This is based on a reconsideration of eustress versus distress and a review of current empirical evidence on the effectiveness of stress management interventions.Design/methodology/approachMajor empirical studies and reviews are critically reviewed and placed within a theoretical framework derived from both early and more recent work in the field.FindingsThere is little empirical evidence on which to base recommendations for organization‐based stress management interventions as first or sole approaches and therefore the value of these as first or sole approaches is questioned. Instead secondary, individual‐focused, approaches are recommended as first‐line interventions prior to the adoption of organization‐based interventions.Practical implicationsIn practice secondary stress management approaches are currently most common. Broader primary approaches appear to have excellent theoretical support and a growing body of supportive literature and accompanying recommendations for employment. We suggest, however, that secondary approaches be employed prior to the introduction of primary methodologies within a client organization.Originality/valueThis paper provides a review and framework for interpreting/understanding the research on the effectiveness of stress management interventions and makes recommendations relevant to practitioners in the field.

Testing a eustress–distress emotion regulation model in British and Spanish front-line employees.

“…First, since emotional demands are unlikely to disappear, broadening the focus of the stress response to include the growth-related experiences has potentially major implications for stress interventions. Thus, in line with contemporary efforts on stress intervention programs which highlight the key role of individual interventions (e.g., Le Fevre et al, 2006), the study supports the theory that an individual's interpretation is key in influencing the eustress vs.…”

“…It should be noted that the emphasis on the individual experience of stress does not translate into a manager's assumption that it is down to employees to reinterpret this demand as a challenge. Thus, managers should support their employees through coaching or individually-based interventions in order to assist them in interpreting and reacting to the customer demands and the resources they have in more positive ways (Le Fevre et al, 2006). Engaging in cognitive reappraisal will be something that happens quite naturally for many.…”

Effects of Occupational Stress on Spiritual QuotientAmong Executives

“…While few investigations have evaluated stress as a positive factor in motivating employees M. Le Fever, G.S. Kolt, and J. Matheny [23], a majority of researchers see stress as a potential risk to both employee well-being and business H.W. Jaffe, R.O.…”

Binary decision automata modelling stress in the workplace

“…A stressor is any environmental, chemical, biological or external demand placed on an organism that elicits a response [11]. Consequently, the individual can have a positive or negative reaction to the stressor depending on its nature [19].…”