As organization members we are exposed to a wide range of people, events, and situations which are potential stressors. One way of sorting these out to make them more manageable and amenable to discussion is to use the four organizational categories of the model presented in Chapter 2. Our interest at this point is in the individual level stressors. By that we mean stressors that are directly associated with the role we play or the tasks we have to accomplish in the organization. While in one way or another all work stressors are linked to the job we perform, the key here is the directness of the connection. Individual level stressors arise as a result of the job functions we perform.

Stressors at the individual level have been studied more than any other category, and there is more agreement about what constitutes a stressor at this level than at the other levels. It may also be true that individual level stressors account for more of the stress in organizations than any other level. At present, however, that must remain a speculative statement and may simply reflect the disproportionate amount of research directed at this level.

We will consider five major individual level stressors: role conflict, role ambiguity, work overload, responsibility for people, and career development stressors. Numerous other aspects of our organizational environments could quite properly be classified as individual stressors: time pressures and relationships with subordinates, peers, and superiors, for example. The five we shall treat in some detail, however, represent those upon which there is general agreement and which account for the bulk of the available research evidence.

How an individual employee behaves in a given position depends upon many factors. Some of these stem from the employee; others from the organization. A combination of the expectations and demands an employee places upon him or herself and those of other members of the organization results in a set of forces which may be termed rolepressures. When a situation arises in which two or more role pressures are in conflict with one another, a condition of role conflict exists. Role conflict is present whenever compliance with one set of pressures ma es compliance with another set difficult, objectionable, or impossible.

Some role conflict may be called objective. That is, it exists because two or more people are sending contradictory requests to the employee. One person asks the employee to do something that is forbidden by another person to whom the individual is responsible. Other role conflict is more subjective in nature and results from conflict between the formal requirements of the role and the individual's own desires, goals, or values. Thus, the salesperson directed to sell a product even if the customer doesn't need it may feel that this is a morally indefensible position and experience subjective role conflict.

It is apparent that the presence of virtually any type of conflict situation is a stressor. It is also true that much role conflict, particularly objective conflict, results from dysfunctional organization practices. Regardless of the source, the consequences tend to be disruptivel-of-the achievement of organizational goals and injurious to the individual. Probably the best-docurnented consequence of role conflict is a decrease in job satisfaction. Kahn and his associates (1964) found not only that conflict produced job dissatisfaction and anxiety, but also that the more authority possessed by the individual or individuals sending the employee the conflicting message, the greater the resulting job dissatisfaction.

Other research has linked role conflict to heart disease incidence, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol counts, and obesity. Thus, as a stressor, role conflict undermines job satisfaction (with all the negative outcomes so frequently found to be associated with that) and is associated with physiological changes that have both personal and organizational costs. Other difficulties, such as decreased quality of decisions made and reduction of creativity are very likely to result from the tension and anxiety associated with conflict.

While the data are sketchy, role conflict may be associated with absenteeism and turnover, as well. This is not surprising when you recall that the stress response is essentially one of fighting or fleeing, and both absenteeism and turnover may be attempts to flee.

Role ambiguity is a lack of clarity about one's role, job objectives, and the scope of the responsibilities of one's job. Almost everyone experiences some degree of role ambiguity. The first job, a promotion or transfer, a new boss, the first supervisory responsibility, a new company, or a change in the structure of the existing organization- all of these events, and others, may serve to create a temporary state of role ambiguity. While the effects of such transient ambiguity are not positive, neither are they particularly debilitating for most of us. They are expected in the situation, and while we may prefer it to be otherwise, we generally are able to deal with the ambiguity effectively and reach a state of clarity with minimal or no adverse consequences.

Role ambiguity does not have to be a long-term condition to function as a stressor. Nonetheless, the temporary conditions cited above do not usually cause a dysfunctional stress response. Except for those very few among us who are unable to cope with any lack of clarity, no matter how short the duration, it is the condition of chronic ambiguity which poses the greatest threat to our adaptive mechanisms.

Studies by Kahn and associates (1964) and French and Caplan (1970) have addressed the question of role ambiguity. Kahn found that men who experienced ongoing role ambiguity reported more job dissatisfaction, more job-related tension, and lower levels of self-confidence than men who did not report appreciable amounts of ambiguity. French and Caplan (1970) found ambiguity to be associated with indicators of physical and mental health such as elevated blood pressure.

More recently ambiguity has been linked to depressed moods, lowered self-esteem, decreased life satisfaction (in addition to decreased job satisfaction), lower levels of work motivation, and expressed intention to leave the job (Margolis, Kroes, and Quinn, 1974). Similar research has linked ambiguity to anxiety, depression, and feelings of resentment (Caplan and Jones, 1975).

Once again an incomplete, but growing, array of evidence indicates that a factor in organizational life-ambiguity-elicits a stress response that can be negative and maladaptive in nature. We view it as maladaptive because none of the outcomes-lowered satisfaction, decreased motivation, increased blood pressure, etc.-reduce the ambiguity experienced. No organization can be structured or managed in a manner that will eliminate this problem. But a variety of steps can be taken to minimize ambiguity. Uncertainty is largely responsible for feelings of anxiety and uncertainty results from a lack of information. Consequently, anything designed to increase information flow, such as additional communication channels, increased use of existing channels, updating of job descriptions, and improved orientation procedures, will have the effect of reducing anxiety.

We have all experienced work overload at one time or another. Like ambiguity, it is not so much the transient condition which is a problem, but chronic overload, where for an extended period the individual feels overloaded much or all of the time.

An electrical system that is unable to handle all of the electricity introduced to it is overloaded. In most instances a fuse blows or a circuit breaker is tripped, stopping the input and preventing damage to the system. When an individual is unable to handle all the work input, that person may become overloaded. Unfortunately, unlike the electrical system, people do not have an automatic safety device, and the overload condition can lead to physical, mental, and job performance problems.

Overload may be of two different types: quantitative or qualitative. When employees perceive that they have too much work to do, too many different things to do, or insufficient time to complete assigned work, a condition of quantitative overload exists. Qualitative overload, on the other hand, occurs when employees feel they lack the ability to complete their jobs or that performance standards are too high, regardless of how much time they have. An engineer asked to design a containment system for a new nuclear power plant within three months may feel that, given the other projects he or she is already responsible for, three months is insufficient time. This is quantitative overload. The same assignment, given to a nonengineer, may cause qualitative overload since the individual may lack the necessary skills to complete the project.

From a health standpoint, research as far back as 1958 (Friedman, Rosenman, and Carroll) established that quantitative overload may cause biochemical changes, specifically, elevations in blood cholesterol levels. In an extremely well-designed study Sales (1969) also related cholesterol elevations to overload conditions. In addition to finding that role overload can exert marked negative effects on health, Sales suggested that overload is most harmful among those individuals who experience the lowest job satisfaction. Numerous medical studies have found relationships between coronary heart disease and heart attacks and conditions which at least indirectly suggest overload: working more than sixty hours a week, working two jobs, and foregoing vacations. Overload has also been linked to escapist drinking behavior, which in turn is linked to both health and performance difficulties.

Job performance may be affected by overload conditions in a variety of ways. The study by Margolis, et al. (1974) found overload to be associated with lowered confidence, decreased work motivation, increased absenteeism, and sharply reduced numbers of suggestions contributed by overloaded employees. Overload may also be indirectly responsible for decreases in decision-making quality, deteriorating interpersonal relations, and even accident rates,

Overload results from an interaction of the person with the environment. The absolute level of work needed to be done (what might be termed objective overload) is mediated by characteristics of the individual to determine subjective or perceived overload. What is too much for one person may be perceived as perfectly reasonable by another. Other stressors may also contribute to this one. Thus an employee who is experiencing role ambiguity-not knowing what is expected-may attempt to make certain that whatever is expected is getting done. Overload may well be a consequence of this strategy.

Occasional overload seems inevitable. Some, however, can be avoided or minimized through better scheduling, better assessment of resource needs, and more attention being paid to the fit or match between the individual's expertise and the requirements of the job. French and Caplan (1973) indicate that overloading may produce at least nine different unwanted outcomes: job dissatisfaction, excessive job tension, low self-esteem, threat, embarrassment, high cholesterol levels, in- creased heart rate, skin resistance, and increased cigarette consumption. These are outcomes which neither individuals nor organizations need.

Any type of responsibility can be a burden upon an individual, but for some, responsibility is much less likely to be a stressor than for others. Individual differences play a significant role. We probably all know someone who, after moving into a management or similar position, returned to the previous one because of a dislike for the increased responsibilities involved in the new job.

Different types of responsibility apparently function differently as stressors. One way of categorizing this variable is in terms of responsibility for people versus responsibility for things. While the distinction is somewhat artificial, the latter refers to primary responsibilty for equipment, budgets, and the like, while the former primarily involves responsibility for the activities of people. The available evidence supports the conclusion that responsibility for people is a much more potent stressor than responsibility for things. In one of the earliest studies which bears on this question, Wardwell and his associates (1964) found that individuals who had significant levels of responsibility for people were more likely to suffer from heart disease than individuals who had "thing" responsibilities. This could be partially explained by the fact that "people responsibilities" frequently mean more meetings that contribute to work overload and deadline pressures.

In a study conducted at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, French and Caplan (1970) found strong support for the hypothesis that responsibility for people contributes to job-related stress-at least for clerical, managerial, and technical/professional employees. The more people responsibilty the employee had, the more likely he or she was to smoke heavily and have high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol counts. Conversely, the more responsibility for things the employee had, the lower those indicators would be.

Part of the reason responsibility for people acts as a stressor undoubtedly results from the specific nature of the responsibility, particularly as it relates to the need to make unpleasant interpersonal decisions. Another part of the reason, as alluded to above, is that prople responsibility positions lend themselves to overload, and perhaps role conflict and ambiguity as well. With this stressor, eliminating the condition is not a solution; some organizational members must have responsibility for people. But more careful attention to the fit between the individual and the job can result in the selection of those individuals who are less likely to be stressed. Additionally, as we shall see, there are ways of dealing with stress if it is not possible to prevent its occurrence in the first place.

Career development stressors is the name we have chosen for those aspects of the individual's interaction with the organizational environment which influence that person's perception of the quality of his or her career progress. Career variables may serve as stressors when they become sources of concern, anxiety, or frustration to the individual. This can happen if an employee feels a lack of job security, is concerned about real or imagined obsolescence, feels that promotion progress is inadequate, and/or is generally dissatisfied with the match between career aspirations and the current level of attainment.

These stressors, while clearly having the potential to affect anyone at anytime, seem to be a problem most frequently for individuals in midcareer, from ages forty to fifty. It is during this period that many individuals experience doubts about the quality of their past accomplishments and the likelihood of significant future contributions. Frequently, the cause of stress is a discrepancy between actual accomplishments and expected ones. Erikson and his associates (1972) found that the highest levels of job satisfaction were reported by individuals whose promotion rate matched or exceeded their expectations. As advancement rates did not keep pace with expectations, dissatisfaction increased. The least successful men in the sample reported the greatest amount of stress in their lives.

More so than with the other stressors thus far discussed, career problems may be aggravated by factors unrelated to work. Concern over lack of career progress, for example, may be an extension of concern and confusion about the meaning of life. Particularly for men, middle age frequently becomes a period for soul-searching and self-doubt. Career progress then becomes a convenient focal point for many of these feelings.

Stress brought about by this category of stressors often manifests itself in the form of job dissatisfaction. In the extreme it may involve changing careers or even dropping out. More often it shows up in a variety of ways, all of which tend to be dysfunctional for both the individual and the organization. Blau (1978) has identified a number of negative consequences. Among them are reduction in the quality and/or quantity of the work produced, increase in accident frequencies, alcoholism and/or drug abuse, declining interpersonal relations on the job, and unwillingness by the individual to perform certain tasks, coupled with an increased tendency to question or challenge previously accepted management decisions.

Because these stressors may be precipitated by extraorganizational conditions, dealing with them effectively is difficult. In some cases it may be a relatively simple matter of helping an individual align expectations with realistic opportunities. Sometimes, however, because of the seriousness of the problem and the fact that it is extraorganizational in scope, resources for dealing with it are available only in the professional community. The alert manager will keep a sharp lookout- in himself or herself as well as others--for indications of behavior change that may be related to career stressors.

We will deal with the topic of stress management in Chapter 10. Nonetheless, a few words about this topic seem appropriate. It could be argued that a manager has very little control over the kind and degree of stress experienced by organizational members. Stress is, after all, an internal, idiosyncratic response which is difficult or impossible for the individual experiencing it to control, much less an outsider. Let us not lose sight of the fact, however, that this internal response is elicited by an external factor over which the manager may have quite a bit of control.

The first step in stress management is recognition of potential stressors. We have discussed two broad categories in this chapter, physical environment and individual level organizational stressors. Further categories will be pursued in the two subsequent chapters. Our purpose has been to increase awareness of what factors may serve as precipitators of stress, why they may be stressors, and what health and performance dysfunctions they may cause.

The second step in stress control is to alter either the environment, or the individual, or both with the objective of minimizing stressors. In a general way this involves creating an organizational climate in which communications are encouraged. While not a catch-all solution by any means, open communications are almost always a prerequisite to effective stress management.

By alteration in the individual we mean essentially two things. First is performance and job counseling with the aim of helping the individual clarify his or her job role, rearranging schedules and priorities to help alleviate quantitative work overload, improving understanding of alternative methods of meeting career objectives, and similar considerations. Changing individual behavior and, in many cases, beliefs and values, is a sensitive process. If a manager feels uncomfortable in entering that kind of a process with an employee, it had better be left to someone more adept, such as the career counselors who are increasingly being added to the staffs of large organizations.

The other approach to alteration in the individual is training and development. The usual objective here is to provide the individual with new or updated skills, knowledge, and expertise to allow that person to perform better in his or her job and consequently minimize the likelihood of some stressors' (such as career development) posing or continuing to pose a problem.

Organizational alterations of the environment involve a number of variables. In general the kinds of changes that may be appropriate here include the already mentioned need for increased communication, restructuring of work flows or job assignments, clarification of reporting relationships, and similar strategies. In the case of the environmental stressors the changes focus on improvement of physical conditions: better temperature control, changes in lighting, elimination or masking of noise, installation of air purification systems, and the like. What organizations and individual managers can do to reduce stress levels among employees is limited only by the amount of effort and creativity which are brought to bear on the problem.