Managing organizational stress: A field experiment.

Ganster, Daniel C.; Mayes, Bronston T.; Sime, Wesley E.; Tharp, Gerald D.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.5.533

Cited by 105 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An examination of these 11 studies reveals a rather odd selection of studies of varying methodological rigor and mixed outcomes and whose results do not appear to fully justify the conclusion drawn by Burke. One was an unpublished dissertation (Campbell, 1973), two provided no quantitative data (Falconer and Hornick, 1983;Blake and Mouton, 1984), a fourth was not an evaluation of an intervention (Pierce and Newstom, 1983), and two further studies were individually orientated interventions, not organizational interventions (Culbert and Renshaw, 1972;Ganster et al, 1982). Of the remaining ®ve studies, Quick (1979) reported signi®cant changes in role con¯ict and role ambiguity but not in absence 5 and 8 months after a goal-setting intervention.…”

Section: Examples Of the Evidencementioning

confidence: 98%

“…At least three explicit reasons are usually oered: ®rst, tackling the presumed causes of stress is seen as more eective than simply trying to deal with the presumed eects of stressÐin other words prevention is better than cure; second, evaluations of individual stress interventions, such as stress management training, have revealed only limited and short-term eectiveness (e.g. Allison, Cooper and Reynolds, 1989;Ganster, Mayes, Sime and Tharp, 1982;Sallis, Trevorrow, Johnson, Hovell and Kaplan, 1987) and hence organizational interventions are likely to be more eective; third, targeting interventions at the individual level is viewed as somehow blaming the victim (e.g. Murphy, 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The costs, benefits, and limitations of organizational level stress interventions

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryModels of organizational stress posit that a number of undesirable employee states and behaviors, such as lower levels of well-being and performance, and higher levels of absence and turnover are caused by organizational stress. It is often suggested that organizational level interventions which aim to reduce stress, such as job redesign, will therefore reduce or eliminate these states and behaviors. This suggestion is, however, based on two unsupportable assertions. The ®rst is that these states and behaviors are caused by organizational stress. While there is some limited evidence for the role of stress, the quality of this evidence is severely compromised by numerous methodological and conceptual problems. The second assertion is that organizational level interventions aimed at changing some of these states and behaviors will actually have an eect, and that these eects will be uniformly positive. However, the available evidence suggests that these interventions often have little or no eect, and where they do have eects, these may be both positive and negative., The implications of this analysis for future work on organizational level stress interventions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Examples Of the Evidencementioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The costs, benefits, and limitations of organizational level stress interventions

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While most other individual-level stress management interventions have been used to change the way employees appraise their current stressors (e.g., Ganster, Mayes, Sime, & Tharp, 2002), reduce the problem stressors (e.g., Searle, 2008) or change the way employees cope with current strain (e.g., Kabat-Zinn, 1990), self-leadership training provides individuals with resources that not only enable them to address current stressors but also prevent future stressors from occurring. Whereas previous research has examined stress management interventions in relation to a specific stressor in this research we examined individuals in a wide range of organizational settings where the range of potential stressors varied naturally.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Help yourself: The mechanisms through which a self-leadership intervention influences strain.

Unsworth

Mason

2012

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research reports on two field studies which demonstrate that self-leadership training decreases strain via increases in self-efficacy and positive affect. The first, an experimental study, found that strain was reduced in the randomly assigned training group, but not in the control group. The second was a longitudinal study and supported the hypotheses that self-efficacy and positive affect mediated the effect of self-leadership training on strain. Our findings extend both self-leadership and stress management literatures by providing a theoretical framework within which the effects of self-leadership on strain can be understood. Practically speaking, our findings suggest that self-leadership training offers an individual-level preventive approach to stress management.

show abstract

“…Research on organizational stress suggests that work-related stress is a critical influence on employee health and well-being (Ganster, Mayes, Sime, & Tharp, 1982;see also, Cooper & Marshall, 1976;Kasl, 1973). In fact, medical research has documented the physical changes that occur to the body in response to stress.…”

Section: Outcomes Linked To Perceived Control Over Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Time management: Test of a process model.

Macan¹

1994

Journal of Applied Psychology

447

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the popular literature on time management claims that engaging in time management behaviors results in increased job performance and satisfaction and fewer job tensions, a theoretical framework and empirical examination are lacking. To address this deficiency, the author proposed and tested a process model of time management. Employees in a variety of jobs completed several scales; supervisors provided performance ratings. Examination of the path coefficients in the model suggested that engaging in some time management behaviors may have beneficial effects on tensions and job satisfaction but not on job performance. Contrary to popular claims, time management training was not found to be effective.There is a voluminous popular literature that lauds the benefits of time management. Examples of some books and magazine articles on the subject are: "Time Is Money, So Use It Productively" (Taylor & Mackenzie, 1986), "Put Time on Your Side" (Emanuel, 1982), and "How To Get Control of Your Time and Your Life" (Lakein, 1973). Surprisingly little empirical research, however, has examined time management. Perhaps it is because time management is typically viewed as a fad and not held in very high esteem by researchers in the field. Nonetheless, many organizations promote efficient use of company time and spend a great deal of money on having their employees learn these time management behaviors. This emphasis on time management stems from the untested popular belief that poor allocation of time not only increases employee stress, but also impairs performance. In the present research, I tested this belief by examining a process model of the effects of time management training on time management behaviors; perceived control of time; and stress responses, job satisfaction, and job performance. Process Model of Time Management Time Management Training Leads to Time Management BehaviorsAccording to Lakein's (1973) description of time management, individuals first determine their needs and wants and then rank them in terms of importance. Specific activities include setting goals to achieve the needs or wants and prioritizing the tasks necessary to accomplish them. The tasks of utmost I thank Gary K. Burger, Robert L. Dipboye, Miles L. Patterson, Carlla S. Smith, and Mark E. Tubbs for invaluable assistance. Thanks are also due Dick Jeanneret, Micheal Bosen, and Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) Services for the job structure information based on PAQ job data and to Denise Champagne for providing the data for Study 2.1 am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers, whose suggestions greatly improved the quality of the article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Therese HofFMacan, Department of Psychology, University of MissouriSt. Louis, 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, importance are then matched to the time and resources available by planning, scheduling, and making lists. Lakein also described other time management tips, such as organizing the work space and determining the approach to ...

show abstract

Managing organizational stress: A field experiment.

Cited by 105 publications

References 18 publications

The costs, benefits, and limitations of organizational level stress interventions

The costs, benefits, and limitations of organizational level stress interventions

Help yourself: The mechanisms through which a self-leadership intervention influences strain.

Time management: Test of a process model.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About