Stressful Organizations and Worker Morale

Occupational Stress and Scientific Monitoring

Elena Georgiou*

Abstract

The aim of this project was to review evidence available on occupational stress and how it can be monitored scientifically. Closed-ended questionnaires were used to obtain data from 150 participants. Data was analyzed using OLS (Ordinary Least Squares) regression analysis. Data included the demographic background of participants: age, sex, and their occupational background. From the demographic background, all participants (150) were literate where more than 73% of participants had college or university degrees. Moreover, more than 74% of participants had at least 3 years working experience, where more than 78% of participants had at least 2 years working experience with their present employers. The results indicated that workload has been the major contributing factor leading to workplace stress. The study suggests that organizations should recruit more staff to reduce workload to manage workplace stress. Moreover, organizations should improve the supervisory control to reduce stress.

Keywords: Occupational stress, performance, scientific monitoring systems, workloads, harassment, bullying by management, lack of motivation or advancement opportunities.

Introduction

Occupational stress comes along when an employee was faced with demands within the workplace, and they were not able to complete or carry out these demands. The failure to complete the demands placed upon them would cause the employee mental and physical strain as their body would have a physiological reaction. According to research, various factors contributed to stress in the workplace. These factors included isolation, extensive working hours, negative workloads, unhealthy working environments, harassment, bullying by management, and lack of motivation or advancement opportunities. Keeping in view the positive nature of stress which can help employees improve their performance, organisations introduced scientific monitoring systems so that realization of being observed can force them perform at optimum level.

The research questions were:

· What are the causes of workplace stress?

· What are the effects of occupational stress to employees, family and the organization?

· How does effective supervision affect occupational stress?

· How effective are strategies used by other organizations in the quest for stress management?

The study answered the research questions using the OLS (Ordinary Least Squares) regression analysis. The data analysis was used to establish the cause of occupational stress, effect of occupational stress and how supervisory control affects occupational stress. The data analysis also established the strategies to mange occupational stress within a workplace.

The results established that workload has been the major contributing factor leading to workplace stress. Larger number (the half) of participants accepted that workload, time pressure, ability to meet deadlines and heavy workload have been the major factors leading to workplace stress. Thus, the effect of stress could cause problem within a workplace. The research suggests that organizations should recruit more staff to reduce workload to manage workplace stress. Moreover, organizations should improve the supervisory control to reduce stress.

Background

The modern 21st century has posed new challenges for the organisations to survive and grow (Smith et al., 2010). As they are operated and managed by human beings, the challenges are ultimately faced by the individuals who are responsible for making decisions and implementing them (Nieuwenhuizen, Weiss and Rossouw, 2009; Smith et al., 2010). As challenges are multifaceted, and human lives are divided into various aspects, it is difficult to excel in every field. The gap between desired and actual state of mind leads to stress and has a high impact on employee performance and productivity.

The concept of supervision is not new in business settings. It may be rooted right in the main essence of organisational structure from where delegation of authority and chain of command were introduced. As relaxation leads to slow motion of work and decreased productivity consequently, many organisations deliberately introduce supervision and monitoring systems (Robbins & Coulter, 2007; Smith et al., 2010) so that employees perform at their optimum level. It can be concluded that when employees are in occupational stress, they tend to perform better (Hartley, 2010; Smith et al., 2010).

As there is a perceived relationship between occupational stress and need to supervise employee, there is strong need to explore the possibility of any such relationship. It is because organisations can mould their supervisory techniques so that employees perform better. In the present challenging world of 21st century, organisations are concerned about performance improvement of their employees and want to leave no stone unturned for it.

Literature Review

Defining occupational stress involves the defining of its two constituent words. Occupational means all workplace-related activities and elements whereas stress talks about a natural body response to emotional or mental strain in a person. Therefore occupational/work stress can be defined as any system by which the body tries to conform to its workplace environment. These systems include the normal body system for managing work stress, popularly called the fight or flight response as well as all other likely or unlikely responses. These responses include anxiety, eyestrain due to staring at a computer screen for a long period, depression, physical and emotional stress, reduced concentration, cognitive problems such as memory losses and more. All these responses could cause poor work performance, cardiovascular disease, higher employee turnover, injury, higher absenteeism and even mortality (Patterson et al., 2005).

Occupational stress can equally be defined as an occupational safety and health recognized hazard which could have an adverse effect on employee health and which employers have to identify, evaluate and manage in every way possible. It is also referred to as the result when a person is not able to handle the pressures of the workplace (Rees, 1997). This is caused either because the person is not the right fit based on his/her strengths and the needs of that role or because the conditions of the workplace are not favorable.

Many organizations emphasize the important of supervisory support for employees because of its advantages. Among the largest advantages is its effect on worker morale and job satisfaction. Supportive supervision helps to reduce occupational stress, which helps employees to handle their opportunities thus reducing the influence of other factors that affect job performance or lead to less than satisfactory products or services to clients or customers. According to Kadushin (1992), the supportive supervision helps to prevent potentially stressful situations thus removes employees from stress and reduces stress on the worker. This helps employees to adjust to the work environment and increases morale and job satisfaction.

Definition of Supervision

Supervision simply means the control or regulation of behavior via laid out guidelines and restrictions. A large number of authors claim there are several supervision aspects that have to be analyzed before it can be defined. These aspects are application of practices and ideas which provides a suitable environment for the employees to follow the laid out restrictions, provision of support and advice, ensuring that employees have access to the proper equipment and resources necessary for succeeding in their job roles and organizing job functions in an orderly manner so as to ease decision-making processes.

Categories of Supervisory Models

Supervision models are classified into three, based on their typical features. These classes are the developmental models, psychotherapy-based models and the integrative models (Smith and Witt, 1993).

Integrative supervision models rely on several theories and techniques (Haynes et al., 2003). A good example of these models is Bernard’s discrimination model developed by Bernard (1979) and revised by Bernard and Goodyear (2009). This model states that there are six foci of supervision. The first three are foci, which are intervention, conceptualization and personalization while the last three are roles, which are teacher, counselor and consultant. According to the model, the supervisor responds using one of the nine ways resulting from the three roles x the three foci. Another model is the systems approach model (Holloway, 1995) which argues that the supervisor and employee have a mutually involving relationship with seven dimensions. These are supervision functions, supervision tasks, employee, trainee, supervisor, and the institution (Mimura and Griffiths, 2003).

Research Method

Research Objectives

The purpose of the research was to reach the objectives of the study, which are:

· To find out the causes of workplace stress.

· To examine the effects of occupational stress to employees, family and the organization.

· To evaluate how effective supervision affects occupational stress.

· To evaluate strategies used by other organizations in the quest for stress management.

Techniques

In order to determine, identify and measure the causes and effects of occupational stress, it was important to conduct a multivariate OLS (Ordinary Least Squares) regression that controls for organizational size, number of working hours per week, gender, seniority, level of supervisory support, and ethnicity.

Research Design

The questionnaire was designed to be closed-ended. In order to succeed at answering the research questions, the study used a collection of quantitative data in order to balance the cause and effect relationship among the variables and to be able to gain an accurate description of the study phenomenon from the respondents. The quantitative design was considered better for the research questions.

Piloting the Survey

A pilot study on 10 participants was conducted to ensure that the questionnaire was pretested for accuracy and reliability.

Selection of Participants

For the selection of participants the snowball effect was used a total of 150 employees participated in the survey.

Operationalization of constructs

Various constructs were measured in this study. These included demographic information such as age, education, and gender which were used to categorize the respondents per their education and functional background. These constructs were operationalized by peer-review of the questionnaire and pre-testing it to ensure that it has the highest representation of appropriate choices in the questions. It also ensured that the questions were phrased in the simplest language possible for the respondents to understand and respond appropriately.

Demographic data

Demographic data was collected to help in identifying which may be confounders and thus beneficial in the OLS multivariate regression. Data collected included gender, age, in what sector they worked, duration of employment with their current company, total number of years of experience, and highest level of education. These questions were closed ended with equally distributed scales depending on the question. In order to reduce the chances of bias in the responses received, education was dichotomized to show whether or not a person has a college degree.

Dependent variables

The causes and effects of organizational stress were tested on six distinct dimensions of work. These were job satisfaction, morale, perceived opportunities for advancement, extra effort required to achieve organizational goals, level of supervision, and the approachability of supervisors. These form the dependent variables for the study. They were originally coded on a 3-item likert scale for example: (1) never (2) sometimes (3) often. The reason for choosing a 3-item likert scale is that it does not have a middle point; therefore responses will either be on the negative or on the positive. Responses were reverse coded in order to ensure that higher values indicate greater responses of job satisfaction, morale, effort or opportunities for advancement. Operational definitions for each of the variables were defined to ensure the research has a baseline for understanding what is constituted in each of the variables.

Job satisfaction

According to Hodson and Sullivan (2011), there are various factors that affect job satisfaction. These include intrinsic such as finding meaning in work and extrinsic rewards such as salary, promotion, etc. The questions were related to work and productivity issues. In addition, officials were asked to answer some other questions which will show if there is less productivity or not and that in due. The options in this question would include increased or decreased job stress, increased or reduced supervision, promotion, change of organizational culture, reduced / increased workload, etc.

Morale

The operational definition of morale that was used for this study is the capacity of the employees to maintain sufficient belief in the organization and its goals especially when faced with opposition in the form of change resistance, occupational stress and hardships such as difficult work environments. For this variable, the study attempted to identify whether occupational stress affects the morale of employees in carrying out their duties and functions.

Perceived opportunities for advancement

This is a broad ended phrase that encompasses all opportunities ranging from study leaves, promotions, salary increments, fringe benefits and much more. This has been chosen intentionally since it may be difficult to design questions that capture the responses for each individual value.

Extra effort required to achieve organizational goals

The operational definition of extra effort that is picked focus on the employee’s willingness to put in extra effort towards the achievement of organizational goals. This question reflects on the idea of the organization providing the necessary resources required to achieve the goals and objectives stated.

Level of supervision & Approachability of supervisors

Respondents were first asked to state whether they receive supervision in their organization. For those whose organizations do not provide supervision, they were asked to state how frequently they transfer difficulties to family or friends. For those whose organizations provide supervision, they were asked to fill in 6 different categories for supervision such as Secure Base Subscale, Construction Subscale, Enchain Subscale, Contemplative Education Subscale, Role Model Subscale and Instructive Feedback Subscale.

In the section of Secure Base Subscale respondents were asked to specify if supervisor respect them opinions and ideas, if the supervisor and them were equal partners in supervision, if the supervisor had a collaborative approach to supervision, if in them sessions for supervision they felt safe, if the supervisor was critical in supervision, if the supervisor treats them with respect, if the supervisor is open minded to supervision, if they felt criticized by supervisor to feedback concerning them performance, if the advice they received from supervisor were restrictive and only collaborative, if with supervisor felt able to discuss them concerns openly, if in supervision they feel that is an exchange of ideas, if the supervisor gave them feedback in a way that felt safe and if they openly discuss them feelings with supervisor, they would be evaluated negatively.

In addition in the Section of construction Subscale respondents were asked to specify if the sessions of supervision they performed regularly, if the sessions in them supervision are structured, if the meetings of them supervision regularly shortened by supervisor, if the supervisory sessions were focused, if the supervisory sessions were disorganized, if the supervisory sessions were arranged in advance and if the supervisor and them drafted an agenda for supervision together.

Moreover, in the Section of Enchain Subscale respondents were asked to specify if the supervisor is excited with them supervision, if the supervisor shows them interest in supervision, if the supervisor is indifferent to them, if the supervisor cares about them as a person, if they feel like a burden to the supervisor, if the supervisor is accessible, if the supervisor is at them disposal, if the supervisor gives them attention when they were talking about them feelings and them worries.

In the Section of Contemplative Education Subscale respondents were asked to specify if the supervisor drew a series of theoretical models, if the supervisor gave them the opportunity to learn a range of models, if the supervisor linking theory with practice very well, if the supervisor give them special attention to the process of supervision, if the supervisor recognize the power difference between supervisor and supervised and if they learned a lot by observing the supervisor.

In the Section of Role Model Subscale respondents were be asked to specify if the supervisor is them connoisseur, if the supervisor is an experienced supervisor, if they respect the abilities of them supervisor, if the supervisor is aware of them organizational system in which work, if they respect them supervisor as a professional, if they respect them supervisor as a supervisor, if they respect them supervisor as an individual, if the supervisor gave them practical support, if the supervisor respects all supervised persons and if the supervisor is indifferent with supervisees.

Finally, in the Section of Instructive Feedback Subscale respondents were asked to specify if the supervisor give them useful negative feedback on them performance, if the supervisor is able to balance negative comments about them performance with honors, if the supervisor give them positive feedback on them performance, if the opinion of them supervisors for them performance is constructive, if them supervisor give them attention to the level of them competence, if the supervisor helps them to track them learning needs, if the supervisor did not examine the impact of them previous skills and experience on them learning needs, if the supervisor thinks the training that they need, if the supervisor give them regular update on them performance, if the skills and them confidence grew because of them supervisor and if the supervisor adjusts them supervision at the level of them competence.

Measuring level of supervision is expected to be difficult to measure and therefore the method that was used provided the closest representation of level of supervision. Also, the approachability of supervisors was defined as the ease of approaching a supervisor to resolve a problem or complaint.

The responses on the 7-itm likert scale will be: (1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) slightly agree (4) neither agree or disagree, (5) slightly disagree, (6) disagree, (7) strongly disagree. By multiplying the reverse code of the questions, the level of supervision for each organization will be coded.

Therefore organizations with 2 (agreement) and 3 (strongly agree) point should be considered strict supervision and have effective supervision, so the supervisor uses the right roles and skills. While anything above 4 (neither agree or disagree) will be very lenient and therefore regarded as low supervision, so the supervisor used the wrong roles and skills or not giving the correct dedication during supervision to solve a problem.

Threats to internal and external validity

Threats to validity are anticipated in the quantitative research design and were addressed in various ways. In order to ensure validity of the data, a standardized questionnaire was used to gather in order to ensure that all respondents answer to the same questions. This ensured that the questions are phrased in the same way to ensure higher validity of the study.

Ensuring quality of findings

Since the study was designed to be quantitative, the quality of findings were ensured by distributing questionnaires and collecting responses electronically through email. This ensured that the employees were able to fill in the responses honestly as a result of confidentiality being upheld. The results were triangulated with results from other previous studies to find whether they concur or differ. This enabled the researcher to confirm the findings that emerged from this study.

Ethical considerations

All research projects require the highest levels of expertise, honesty, diligence, and integrity. The questionnaires were in no way coded or marked with any identification that can be traced to the respondent. No personal identifiable information such as name, staff numbers, and email addresses, etc. was collected. All people involved in the research were emphasized to the importance of confidentiality in this study and will be needed to uphold the highest ethical standards to make sure confidentiality is kept. The respondents were given the right to self-determination to agree or disagree to participate in the study, right to confidentiality, right to anonymity, and right to informed consent. Scientific honesty was ensured by making sure that all data was entered into the SPSS computer software as is in the filled questionnaire.

Results and analyses

The study used the descriptive statistics to summarize the demographical data in a manageable form. The study also uses the inferential statistics to infer the likely of the statistical results to the total population (Freshwater, Sherwood, & Drury, 2006). The section presents the descriptive statistics in a tabular form. The study presents the demographical data in tabular form to reveal the gender, age, years of working experience and duration of employment with their current employers.

In addition, this part of the study shows results based on the analysis of the data collected. A total of 300 questionnaires were collected. The response rate to the sample questionnaires was 50% successful.

The findings start from the demographic data, and the results of the demographic data reveal that 45.27% of the participants are male while 54.73% of participants are female. Based on the results, the number of female participants is larger than male participants.

The majority of respondents were in the age of group > 40 years old representing 28% of the sample, followed by the age of group 18 to 25 years old representing 24% of the sample. After, followed by the age of group 31-36 years old representing 21.33% of the sample. Next, followed by the ages of group 26-30 years old representing 19.33% of the sample. Last comes, by the age of group 36-40 years old representing 7.33%.

Moreover, 73.83% of participants are college and university degree holders showing that larger percentage of college or degree holders participate in the survey. 21.14% of participants are Lyceum school certificate holders. Based on the results, all participants are literate because no high and primary school certificate holders participate in the survey.

According to the findings the largest percentages of participants work in both private and public sectors. The 46% of participants work in private sectors while 41.33% work in the public sectors. However, 8% work in semi-sector and 3.33% work with the local government. Participants working with voluntary sector contribute to the lowest percentages of participants forming 1.33% of all participants.

From the results of the data analysis, 47.33% of participants have already got more than 10 years working experience, while 13.33% have between 6 and 10 years working experience. The results reveal that more than 60% of participants have had of at least 6 years of working experience. Thus, large number of participants will be able to contribute positively to the factors leading to the workplace stress. However, 14% of participants have between 3 and 5 years working experience and 25.33% have between 0 and 2 years working experience. The results reveal that more than 74% of participants have at least 3 years working experience showing that the participants already have experience on the work related stress.

According more than 57% of participants have more than 5 years of working experience with their present employers, while 8.67% have between 4 and 5 years working experience with their current companies. The results reveal that 66% of participants have at least 4 years of working experience with their current companies. However, 13.33% of participants have between 2 and 3 years of experience with their employers while 20.67% have worked for one year or less with their employers. Based on the results, more than 79% of participants have had at least 2 years of working experience with their present companies. Since large percentages of participants have at least 2 years of working experience with their present employers, they will be able to contribute positively to the factor leading to the workplace stress in their present organizations.

This section provides the results of the occupation stress revealing causes of stress within a workplace. The results assist in providing evidence that occupation stress occurs in a workplace. The results also assist in answering the research questions:

· What are the causes of workplace stress?

· What are the effects of occupational stress to employees, family and the organization?

· How does effective supervision affect occupational stress?

· How effective are strategies used by other organizations in the quest for stress management?

The results also help provide a greater understanding on the strategies to prevent occupation stress in a workplace. The study assesses the research results one after the other to reveal the cause, different type of occupational stress and the strategy to prevent and manage stress within a workplace.

“Do you suffer from any of the following?”

The result does not provide a statistical significant that workers suffer from headaches, Anxiety, Chest pain/palpitations, Indigestion or nausea, Sleeplessness, Irritability, Backache, Neck ache, Stomach disorders, Inability to concentrate and others as in the table. The R Square (0.05) from the regression analysis result does not support that workers suffer from the problems. The R Squared value measures the extent of relationships between independent and dependent variables. The close the R Squared to 1, the stronger the relationship between dependent and independent variables. However, if R Squared is closer to 0, there may not be a relationship between dependent and independent variables. Based on the results of the R Square (0.05), very small number of workers suffers from the problem. The results of the descriptive statistics also reveal that little number of workers suffers from the problem listed in the table.

“Do any of the following cause problems for you at work?”

The result of the regression analysis reveal that Noise, Poor/inadequate lighting, Excessive heat, Excessive cold, Overcrowding, Poor ventilation, Dust or fumes and Poor maintenance of equipment cause problem in workplace. The R Square of the regression result is 0.95 reveals the issue cause problem in the workplace.

“Do you find any of the following cause problems?”

The result of regression analysis reveal that R Square is 0.49 revealing that Shift work times/mealtimes, inadequate break, unsocial hours, Very heavy workload, unfair distribution of work and other problems in the table averagely cause problem within the workplace.

“Regarding working relationships, do any of the following cause you problems?”

The results reveal that there is a strong linear relationship between the independent and dependent variables concerning poor relations with supervisor, poor relations with workmates, harassment, discrimination, impersonal treatment, and lack of communication from management. Based on the results of the R Square (0.96), these issues cause problem in the workplace.

“How much control do you feel you have over your job? Do you feel?”

The result reveals that virtually all workers are able to plan their work, make decision for their own job and control the content of their work. The result of R Square (1) is not surprising because 73.83% of participants are college or university degree holders revealing that they hold higher positions in their workplace. Moreover, over 79% of participants have had at least 2 years of working experience with their present company, and 60% of participants have had 6 years of working experience in their workplace. The results reveal that the participants will be able to influence job control in their workplace based on their years of experience.

“Do you feel you are underpaid?”

Based on the regression analysis results, that all participants are not underpaid. The R Square (1) points to the fact there is a correlation between education certificates and level of payment in a workplace. Large percentages of workers are not underpaid or undervalued. They also receive appreciation for good work.

“How do you feel about your job in general?”

The results reveal that large percentages of participants enjoy their job. The result is not surprising because large percentage of participants receive high salary.

“If you feel you are under stress, please tick which you feel is the main contributory factor”.

The results reveal that both problems at work and at home are the contributing factor to stress. The result (R Square =1) reveals that there is a strong relationship between problem at work and home and cause of stress. Thus, the results underlies that both problem at work and home can lead to stress.

a. “The Main Causes of Stress in your Job”

The result reveals that workload has been the top major factor leading to stress in a workplace. More than 70% of participants indicate that workload has been the major factor leading to stress in the workplace. Some of the participants indicate that “lot of work’ or work load” which mean the same thing. Some workers also identify time pressure, pressure or meeting deadline lead to stress. When there is too much workload in a workplace, the time will not be sufficient to complete work, and there would a time pressure and pressure from the superior.

b. “The effects that these have on other workers and yourself”

The result reveal stress has been the effect of workload. Majority of the participants identify workload as the major factor leading to stress in the workplace. The results reveal that workload contributes to stress in a workplace.

c. “The steps you think could be taken to ease the situation”

Largest percentage of participant reveal that organizations need to recruit more staff to reduce workload within a workplace thereby reduces stress. Some participants point out that there should be a division of labor to reduce workplace stress. From the results, majority indicate “more staff” “increase staff”, “recruit more staff” and “division of labor”.

“Does the organization you work for provide supervision?”

The findings reveal that the supervisory control lead to stress since larger percentages of participants (54.42%) agree that they enjoy the scale of supervision in their workplace making them to record to low stress at work. This means there is not significant stress from supervision. Since p-value is 0.297011

“If the organization does not provide supervision, then how frequently do you transfer your daily difficulties to your family or friends?”

The 34.14% of the respondents reveals that both problem at work and home could led to stress.

The results of this part establish whether the scale of supervision has been the contributing factor leading to the workplace stress. This section uses Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis to determine whether the scale of supervision has been the contributing factor leading to an occupational stress.

The results reveals that 54.42% of participants indicate that their organizations provide supervision, while 45.58% accept that their organization do not provide supervision.

The results of regression statistics reveal that larger percentage of participants agrees that there is strong cordial relationship between them and their supervisor. The R Square (0.99) reveals large percentages of participant accept that their supervisors accept their opinion, has a collaborative approach to supervision, and treats them with respect. The result of Secure Base Subscale reveals the style of supervision in the workplace could contribute to the workplace stress if the R Square is closer to 0.

Table 1 near here.

moreover, the results of construction subscale, contemplative educational feedback, role model feedback, and instructive feedback subscale reveals that worker are more conducive in their work environment based their R Square results that are equal or closer to 1. The overall results reveal that workers who enjoy a strong friendly relationship with supervisors do not have occupational stress.

Table 2 near here.

Discussion

The level of occupational stress is determined by three dimensions - life situations, work and self - and that the balance between the causes of stress and available systems of support must be considered.

Occupational stress is not related only to what goes on at work. Conflicts between the demands of the workplace and of home life are increasingly common.

Making a Real Commitment to Reduce Stress

Probably the most important step in healthy organizational changes is to make a serious and sustained commitment to it. In non -unionized workplaces, senior management should make the commitment. In unionized workplaces, including senior managers and union representatives should be involved.

Healthy organizational change takes time. Lots of time. No serious attempt to change should start with a limited time in weeks or a few months.

Healthy organizational change including health and employee satisfaction as an explicit and independent outcome measure. These results should be the main objectives of the change effort, and not by products.

Wide Organizational Goals

Healthy organizational changes could include:

· The changes will increase the autonomy or control workers.

· Changes that will increase the skill levels of employees.

· Changes that will increase levels of social support (both supervisory support and partner support).

· Changes that will improve the physical working conditions.

· The changes will make a healthy use of technology.

· Changes that provide a reasonable level of job requirements.

· Changes that provide for job security and career development.

· Changes that provide for healthy working hours.

· Changes that improve their personal coping mechanisms workers.

· The changes will do no harm (i.e. have the side effect of degrading the quality of the work).

Obviously, we need to translate these broad goals into specific measures and programs. In general, reducing unhealthy stressful job involves a working environment in which employees have senses of control, correctness, where they work at a reasonable pace, which challenged and motivated, where they have a sense of support and security.

Offer a Laboratory Stress in the Workplace

There are many useful ways to begin this process, but perhaps the handiest strategy is to offer a laboratory work-related stress. The strategy workshop has several advantages. It sends a message to employees who worry about them and their stress levels. It will help to educate them so they all speak a common language for anxiety. Finally, it can help to identify some of the most important personal and organizational concerns on the issue.

In fact, for employees to take seriously such a laboratory, it is important to include discussion on organizational change strategies and personal stress management. This training can be comfortable either a half or full day session. Before the end of the training, you should ask participants to indicate whether they are interested to work further on the issue of workplace stress. Most organizations take guest participant as a routine part of every education. This practice is an especially good idea for a tutorial job stress. This kind of feedback will help you judge the quality of education, and how important a concern is stress on workers. Finally, feedback can be extremely useful for demonstrating the need for additional programs or activities to reduce stress.

A committee of Stress in the Workplace

A logical next step might be the establishment of a committee occupational stress. This group could meet on an ongoing basis and to formulate a strategy for improving the working environment in your organization. This group must have a unique identity and focus. Join the team should include both labor and management. If workers are represented by a union or bargaining unit, they should be included in the committee. Potential conflicts with the collective bargaining process should be avoided. If no bargaining unit, then a representative of the employees and managers should attend the meetings. Given that the committee will examine issues in the working environment, everyone involved in this interface will be involved, including office, support and maintenance personnel.