Work-Related Negative Experience

Abstract

This cross-sectional study examines the relationship between poor employee well-being (PEWB) and work-related mental ill-health and substance consumption (MIH). It is proposed as a unification model that links both work-related negative consequences on the basis of the experiences of threat, loss, and frustration at work. PEWB contains the following elements: emotional discomfort, bodily uneasiness, organizational distance, task impairment, and dragging workday; and MIH includes work-related anxiety, depression, irritability, cigarette smoking, alcohol and drug consumption, and physical illness. Six hundred ninety-seven participants, working in a wide range of jobs and occupations, completed the survey. Results indicated that PEWB and MIH are significantly associated, after controlling for demographic and personal factors. Sense sharing between PEWB-MIH and PEWB element combination explained the relationships between both constructs. These findings could be helpful for organizations interested in preserving and improving worker mental health.

Full text

Work-related negative experience: A unification
model of poor employee well-being and work-
related mental ill-health and substance
consumption
ANTONIO DURO MARTIN
Department of Psychology, University Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain
Antonio Duro Martín
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Paseo de los Artilleros, s/nº, E28032 - Madrid (España).
e-mail: antonio.duro@urjc.es

Abstract
This cross-sectional study examines the relationship between poor employee well-being (PEWB)
and work-related mental ill-health and substance consumption (MIH), from a unification model that
links both work-related negative consequences on the basis of the experiences of threat, loss and
frustration at work. PEWB contains these elements: emotional discomfort, bodily uneasiness,
organizational distance, task impairment and dragged workday; and MIH includes work-related
anxiety, depression, irritability, cigarette smoking, alcohol and drugs consumption and physical
illness. 697 participants, working in a wide range of jobs and occupations, completed a survey.
Results indicated that PEWB and MIH are significantly associated, after controlling for demographic
and personal factors. Sense sharing between PEWB-MIH and PEWB-elements combining
explained the relationships between both constructs. These findings could be helpful for
organizations interested in preserving and improving worker’s mental health.
Key words:
Employee well-being - Work-related mental ill-health - Work-related substance consumption -
Occupational mental health - Quality of work-life

3
Employee well-being and occupational mental health are significant fields from academic,
economic, social and individual perspectives. In PsycINFO, there are hundreds of references to
employee well-being and to occupational mental health; the financial burden directly and indirectly
attributable to work-related mental ill-health (MIH) runs into the billions (Bejean & Sultan-Taieb,
2005; French et al., 1999; Greenberg et al, 2003); mental ill-health and work-related stress has now
become the second highest cause of sickness absence throughout Europe in all areas of economic
activity (WHO, 2000); the workforce is a massive social reality in all countries, exceeding 140 million
in the United States and 28 million in the United Kingdom, to give just two examples (IOL, 2005).
Above all and beyond, both fields are also important from an individual viewpoint because well-
being and occupational mental health are a direct result of the core of an employee’s working life,
the employee’s daily work experience.
Literature shows that work can negatively affect workers in many ways, reducing their
employee well-being (e.g., Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Cooper, 1998; Fineman, 2003; Harned et al.,
2002; Maslach, 1982; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Schabracq, 2003; Vincent, 2001), and producing them
symptoms and mental disorders (e.g., Quick & Tetrick, 2003; Sauter, Murphy, & Hurrel, 1999).
Besides, previous theory and research supports a relationship between these two work-related
negative outcomes (Harned et al., 2002; Hurrell, Nelson, & Simmons, 1998; Spielberger, Vagg, &
Wasala, 2003), and even some authors maintain that employee well-being and work-related mental
health are closely related (e.g., Danna & Griffin, 1999; Duro, 2005), being required to clearly
distinguish mere psychological distress from psychiatric symptoms (Terluin et al., 2004). But, until
now, there is no model that explicitly refers to both work-related negative consequences.
Consequently, the question that still remains unanswered is: what is the relationship between both
two? In other words, how does poor employee well-being (PEWB) relate to work-related mental ill-
health (MIH)? This is an important and interesting issue which has yet to be the subject of a
systematic study, and it is precisely the problem we address.
Proposed model
It is assumed that all workers aspire to obtain security, reward and satisfaction as values from their
work, therefore avoiding the experience of work-related threat, loss and frustration. Whenever work

4
satisfies those worker’s aspirations, he enjoys employee well-being; on the contrary, when they are
not satisfied, he suffers PEWB. It is precisely this ill-being that would be associated with the work-
related mental health damage and harmful consumption. They both would reflect the same negative
experience. Worker’s PEWB and MIH make up a system where would be materialized negative
psychological outcomes from an interpreted work-related experience.
This approach represents a new perspective since it considers PEWB as a factor per se to
explain MIH –until now they were exclusively considered as parallel consequences from antecedent
factors. Its contributions lie in these declarations: it (a) puts PEWB and MIH on a level, respectively,
with non-clinic and clinic worker’s work-related negative consequences, (b) defines two constructs,
“PEWB” and “MIH”, structured as a set of relevant elements and modalities, and (c) integrates and
functionally connects them. We will sum up the model (see Figure 1) by means of its subject,
definitions, postulates and theorems.
Model’s subject. Being the workers its reference field, the model represents the structure of
their non-clinic and clinic work-related negative consequences, and its subject is the relationship
between them.
PEWB definition. It refers to worker’s non-pathological negative consequences from work (De
Jonge & Bosma, 2000; Kinnunen, Parkatti, & Rasku, 1994; Koslowsky, 1998; Silverthorne, 2005;
van Horn et al, 2004; Warr, 1990), including these elements: (a) ‘Emotional discomfort’: damaged or
deteriorated employee well-being affective dimension, characterized by a tense state of emotional
and mental exhaustion; (b) ‘bodily uneasiness’: damaged or deteriorated employee well-being
somatic dimension, characterized by uncomfortable feelings of fatigue and body tiredness; (c) ‘Task
impairment’: deteriorated or insufficient employee well-being professional dimension that results in
an employee’s reduction of task quality or quantity; (d) Employee ‘organizational distance’: distance
and separation from the company and isolation from co-workers, putting company on a level with
work-mates in a single detachment movement; and, finally, (e) ‘dragging workday’: workday as it is
subjectively perceived by the employee, in particular, when workday is perceived as very long or
excessively slow –what implies a certain distortion or change for the worse in the employee well-
being temporal dimension. As observed, the first two elements express modal categories –worker’s
work-related emotional and somatic tones– and the three remaining, relationship categories –with

5
performance, social context and workday, respectively. They are considered non-stratified: none of
them contained into another.
These somewhat diverse elements –derived from elemental an universal dimensions of working-
are put together into PEWB because (a) none of them constitute as such a pathological outcome -
thus satisfying the aforementioned definition’s conditions-, and they all (b) necessarily involve some
worker’s suffering or distress, (c) constitute a coherent construct as referential parts of a unitary
conceptual domain, and (d) behave as a system –for example, an emotional exhausted worker can
make more mistakes what in turn can increase his willingness to turnover, and so on.
MIH definition. This construct refers to worker’s work-related pathological mental consequences
-mental ill-health and substance consumption. It covers the following modalities: work-related
‘anxiety’, ‘-depression’, ‘irritability’, ‘cigarette smoking’, ‘alcohol and drugs consumption’ and
‘physical illnesses’. These negative outcomes do constitute pathological and harmful outcomes on
health catalogued in the DSM-IV (APA 1994).
Working population (Burchell, 2001; Snyder, 2001) repeats identical psychopathological trend
than in general population (Howard et al., 1996), being the most frequent anxiety (Lazarus, 1996;
McLean, 2001; Wilkinson, 2001), depression (Beck et al., 1979; Gilbert, 2000), cigarette smoking
(Fisher et al., 2004), alcohol and drugs consumption (Milby, Schumacher, & Tucker, 2004), and
physical illness (Karjalainen, 1999; Vickers, 2001). In the name of completeness, we also include
irritability as a sign of intermittent explosive disorder to provide a larger picture of work-related
psychopathology (American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Haller & Kruk, 2006), and illnesses due
to its psychosomatic facet.
A work-related ‘pathological’ and ‘non-pathological’ consequences classification is
problematical and rather indefinite. The boundaries between these classes are actually vague.
Although bodily uneasiness is also possible in illness, there are as well illnesses that course
asymptomatic. Furthermore, some patients with mental disorders don’t become really conscious of
their symptoms.
Postulates. The model accepted as true that any PEWB-element (a) implies a worker’s work-
related irreparable ill-being experience, (b) has adhered or can be assigned a work-related threat,
loss and/or frustration sense, and, owing to its salience, (c) refocuses worker’s attention from the

6
natural flow of working to his own work-related individual repercussions, triggering psychological
processes concerned with psychopathology (e.g., hyper-vigilance, bodily checking, self-exploration,
self-conscious, re-experiencing) what would accentuate the negative work experience in course.
These processes would cover the distance between PEWB and MIH.
Sense sharing. The different PEWB-elements and MIH modalities will be related according to
the sense given to the work-related experience. A particular sense will join together the specific
PEWB-element with its concomitant symptoms and consumption. Whenever any PEWB-element:
(a) implies an experience with a sense of threat (Sparks, Faragher & Cooper, 2001), it will be
associated with anxiety symptoms, (b) if with an experience of loss, with depression symptoms, (c)
if with frustration, with irritability, and within this conceptual frame (d) the consumption of work-
related substances would simply be an outlet, also associated with PEWB-elements. Previous
research review will help to make sense to PEWB-elements (see Hypotheses).
Such experiences are psycho-pathogenic factors of anxiety, depression and irritability,
respectively (Beck et al., 1979; Ellis & Grieger, 1986). The underlying mechanism of action would
be worker’s interpretation and reaction to ill-work, which could be located over three vectors:
experience of threat-anxiety, experience of loss-depression and experience of frustration-irritability.
Consistent with the social cognitive theory, continuity between PEWB and MIH would exist due to
worker’s social learned apprehension of the codes to interpret his work-related experience.
PEWB-elements combining. These elements combine and interact with respect to MIH. Two
different PEWB-elements with the same adhered sense aggregate and reinforce mutually as well as
their association with their pathological concomitant.
This logic, though somehow superficial, will permit us to form a non-arbitrary set of
combinations to test. Out of their own sense, organizational distance and dragging workday will
stress another PEWB-elements’ sense acting as amplifiers since they position worker’s work-
related experience into a social context with a bad dynamic of interaction and into a plenty of time,
what can prompt negative mental contents iterations. The processes assumed in postulate (c) will
help us to explain the proposed combinations: it is expectable, for example, that a dragging
workday could boost the worker self-conscious and rumination, that the organizational distance

7
would increase his vigilance to detect external cues, and that his bodily uneasiness would raise the
bodily checking to notice internal cues.
Hypotheses
A general, somewhat unspecific, relationship exists between worker’s basic poor well-being
dimensions and pathological outcomes: either affective (Lacoursiere, 2001; Tse, Flin, & Mearns,
2006), somatic (Gilbert, 2000; Harma & Ilmarinen, 1999; Singh-Manoux et al., 2006), organizational
(Haslam, 2004; Milbourn, 1984), behavioral (Vallance, Dunn, & Dunn, 2006) or temporal (Blewett,
1992; Haslam, 2004). This can reflect an overlapping of experiences or simply a background
experience.
H1: Emotional discomfort, bodily uneasiness, organizational distance, task impairment, and
dragging workday, will have a relationship with work-related anxiety, depression, irritability, cigarette
smoking, alcohol and drugs consumption and physical illnesses.
Poor affective and somatic worker’s dimensions take place in work-related situations of threat,
alarm or risk and are associated with anxiety (Dickman, 2002; McLean, 2001; Shirom & Ezrachi,
2003). Then, given their characteristics, the same will happen with emotional discomfort and bodily
uneasiness. These elements will reinforce reciprocally by means of multiplying worker’s internal
cues –noticeable via bodily checking and self-conscious processes- what would deepen the sense
of threat.
H2: Emotional discomfort and bodily uneasiness (H2a) as well as their interaction (H2b) will
have a positive relationship with work-related anxiety symptoms.
Deteriorated social, organizational and temporal dimensions are present at work-related
experience of loss (Frone, 2000; Goodrich & Weaver, 1998; Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006; Shaw
& Gupta, 2001) being linked to depression, the response to loss (Beck et al., 1979). Our model’s
correlative elements will behave similarly since they specify a loss of connections and normal

8
workday flow. Social isolation and extra-free time will interact to intensify the sense of loss –
possibly triggering a rumination process of loss contents.
H3: Organizational distance and dragging workday (H3a) and their interaction (H3b) will have a
positive relationship with work-related depression symptoms.
Poor social, organizational and professional worker’s dimensions also embody a work-related
experience of frustration and dissatisfaction (Ash, 1970; Barling & Boswell, 1995; Houkes et al.,
2003; Vallance, Dunn, & Dunn, 2006; van Roosmalen & McDaniel, 1998) and then are associated
to irritability. Our equivalent PWEB-elements will act equally as well as their interaction. Mistakes
will be more frequent in a non-supportive social context acting as an audience or echo chamber
(Goffman, 1974), and vice versa.
H4: Organizational distance and task impairment (H4a) and their interaction (H4b) will have a
positive relationship with work-related irritability symptoms.
Some previous results indicate how a poor affective and temporal worker’s dimensions are
implicated in annoying or discomfort work-related experiences being associated to cigarette
smoking as an outlet (Emdad et al., 1998; Kivimaki et al., 2001; Kouvonen et al., 2005). Emotional
discomfort as well as dragging workday will interact as prompts that make smoking appear as a
possible escape from such experiences. Simply, they referred to the case of a worker nervous or on
the edge with extra-free time. Even the very slowly course of time can make him more nervous.
H5: Emotional discomfort and dragging workday (H5a) and their interaction (H5b) will have a
positive relationship to work-related cigarette smoking.
Another results (Hoffmann & Larison, 1999; Martin et al, 1992; Milbourn, 1984; Moore &
Greenberg, 2000) indicate that poor organizational, social and temporal dimensions point to a
difficult, hard or intolerable experience of work, accompanied by a subjective perception of endless

9
time, and are associated to alcohol and drugs consumption as outlets. The same reasons
aforementioned apply to our PEWB-elements in the next hypothesis. Isolation from workmates can
also be adhered a hostility sense to escape from by alcohol-drugs. Moreover, there is an added
conflict between these two elements: the worker wants to leave company, but the time runs slowly.
H6: Organizational distance and dragging workday (H6a) and their interaction (H6b) will have a
positive relationship with work-related alcohol and drugs consumption.
And, lastly, poor organizational, social and somatic worker’s dimensions embody an experience
of drain or gradual depletion of physical energy and social resources at work, which make worker
vulnerable to sickness (Beutel et al, 2006; Frese, 1985; Harma & Ilmarinen, 1999; Singh-Manoux et
al., 2006), being associated with work-related physical illnesses. These arguments can extent to our
corresponding PEWB-elements. Their interaction would emerge from an altered worker’s
immunological system in a hostile context, where hyper-vigilance and bodily checking processes
would be facilitated.
H7: Organizational distance and bodily uneasiness (H7a) and their interaction (H7b) will have a
positive relationship with work-related illnesses.
Method
Participants and procedure
The participants were 697 Spanish employees in total, with an average age of 32.73 years (Sd =
9.66). 48.92% were men. Their average working seniority was 5.95 years (Sd = 6.63), and their
average organizational tenure was 4.90 years (Sd = 5.68). The study was carried out in Madrid and
the most common jobs were: clerks 39.6%, technicians 27.3%, sales people 12.5% and blue-collar
workers 11% -only 1.6% was managers. Some employees in the sample held government offices,
but more than 90 per cent were employed in private companies. The sample method was
conventional or accidental.

10
This research was unfunded, taking shape from the author university teaching. Undergraduate
students were invited to collaborate in the project to obtain their practical credits. Thus, the
participants were our very own working university students (56 students completed the survey) and
their co-workers, friends and family. Some middle-sized companies –with staff from 13 to 32
workers also participated. For obvious reasons, the students were unaware of our final research
goals.
Surveys were handed out to participants in their workplace or home and later, after completed,
they were collected in a closed envelope to preserve anonymity. Survey-booklets included an
introduction explaining the evaluation as well as a brief instruction manual.
Instruments
The items used to measure PEWB and MIH in this cross-sectional survey, selected after a previous
qualitative research consisting of content analysis and interviews, are provided in Appendix 1. It is
to mention that our measure is only intended to evaluate organizational distance, task performance,
etc., as PEWB-elements and not as constructs per se. Similarly, we do not attempt to evaluate
anxiety, depression and so forth as complete disorders, but as mere indicators of those most
frequent work-related mental symptoms and substance consumption. To help separate work-related
substance use and symptoms from other causes, all these items were worded indicating explicitly
that such negative outcomes were as a consequence of work.
Controls
Participant’s demographic and personal variables were used as control variables –age, gender,
organizational tenure as well as present non-work-related ill-health problems-, given that prior
research indicates they are related to employee well-being (Finegold, Mohrman, & Spreitzer, 2002;
Warr, 1992) and to work-related substance consumption (White & Bates, 1995). Gender was
measured with a dichotomous variable, where 0 indicates a female and 1 indicates a male
respondent; and organizational tenure was expressed as employee years of service in his/her
current organizational position.

11
Results
Were carried out two exploratory factor analyses (principal-axis factor analysis with Varimax
rotation) to examine items structure. The analysis of PEWB-items (see pattern matrix in Table 1)
obtained a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = .78 and a Bartlett test of sphericity
= 9385.42 (p < .000). Five factors were extracted (68% of the variance) with these eigenvalues
6.46, 1.97, 1.67, 1.52, and 1.36. Table 1 also indicates reliabilities over .70, except in the case of
task impairment (α=.54). After these previous results, item-scales confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted, achieving these results: chi-squared (135 df) = 648.57 (p = .000), with NFI = .94, RFI =
.91, IFI = .95, TLI = .93, CFI = .95, and RMSEA = .07.
In the analysis of employee MIH-items (see pattern matrix in Table 2) were obtained a Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin value = .75, and a Bartlett value = 8222.02. Six factors were (76%) with eigenvalues
5.99, 2.01, 1.48, 1.37, 1.11, and 1.04. These items were structured according to the symptoms and
substance consumption aforesaid, with the exception of two items, anxiety-frequency and anxiety-
severity, which simultaneously produced high results in the factors of anxiety and irritability. A
possible reason for this result is that irritability can be a symptom of anxiety as well as a sign of an
intermittent explosive disorder. To avoid confusion, these two items were exclusively retained in the
anxiety scale. Table 2 also shows acceptable reliabilities. The results of the corresponding
confirmatory factor analysis items-scales were: chi-squared (102 df) = 635.13 (p = .000); with NFI =
.93, RFI = .90, IFI = .94, TLI = .91, CFI = .94, and RMSEA = .08.
In the confirmatory factor analysis, considering PEWB and MIH as latent variables and their
scales as observed variables (Figure 2), we obtained: chi-squared (43 df) = 297.92 (p = .000); with
NFI = .87, RFI = .80, IFI = .89, TLI = .83, CFI = .89, and RMSEA = .09. Following modification
indexes, there would be fit improvement when error terms of organizational distance and
depression as well as bodily uneasiness and work-related illnesses are allowed to correlate –
something reasonable to assume: chi-squared (41 df) = 210.63 (p = .000); with NFI = .91, RFI = .85,
IFI = .93, TLI = .88, CFI = .93, and RMSEA = .08 .
Table 3 contains means with their ranges, standard deviations and correlations amongst the
scales. It was not surprising that correlations of anxiety with emotional discomfort and irritability

12
were high given the continuity between them (Dickman, 2002). The correlation between anxiety and
depression was also high attributable to comorbidity (Overbeek & Griez, 2005).
In order to test our hypotheses, we carried out an exploratory hierarchical regression analysis on
cross-sectional associations amongst the variables with three blocks of predictors: controls,
variables of the model and interaction terms (see Tables 4 and 5). The interactions together
explained a small, though significant amount of additional variance in the case of work-related
anxiety, depression, irritability, and illnesses.
Results for hypotheses
H1 was supported. Results indicate that emotional discomfort, bodily uneasiness, organizational
distance, dragging workday and task impairment (main effects in the regression analyses), have a
relationship with work-related anxiety (∆ R2 = 0.45, p < 0.001), depression (∆ R2 = 0.34, p < 0.001),
irritability (∆ R2 = 0.38, p < 0.05), cigarette smoking (∆ R2 = .04, p < 0.001), alcohol-drugs
consumption (∆ R2 = 0.02, p < 0.05) and illnesses (∆ R2 = 0.09, p < 0.001).
H2 was supported. The main effects results show that emotional discomfort (β = 0.50*) and
bodily uneasiness (β = 0.23*) were positively related to anxiety (H2a). Their interaction also had a
positive relationship with work-related anxiety (β = 0.27†) (H2b) –it is a synergistic interaction given
that both PEWB-elements affect these symptoms in the same direction, (Cohen, 2003; p. 285).
H3 was supported. The main effects results indicate that organizational distance (β = 0.32*) and
dragging workday (β = 0.16*) were positively related to depression as a result of work (H3a).
Similarly, their synergistic interaction term had a positive relationship with depressive symptoms (β
= 0.23†) (H3b).
H4 was partially supported. The main effects results indicate that organizational distance (β =
0.31*) and task impairment (β = 0.16†) had a positive relationship with work-related irritability (H4a).
However, although a significant relationship was found for their antagonistic interaction term (β = -
0.25†), its negative sign was contrary to the hypothesis (H4b).
H5 was partially supported. No significant relationship was found between emotional discomfort
and dragging workday with respect to work-related cigarette smoking (H5a). Nevertheless, their
interaction term (H5b) was significant (β = 0.39†).

13
H6 was partially supported. The results of the main effects indicate only a positive relationship (β
= 0.27‡) between organizational distance and alcohol-drugs consumption (H6a) –whereas the
relationship between dragging workday and alcohol-drugs consumption, although with a positive
sign, resulted not significant (β = 0.13). The interaction term achieved a significant negative relation
(β = -0.33†), but its sign is also contrary to the hypothesis (H6b).
H7 was supported. The main effects results show that bodily uneasiness (β = 0.32*) and
organizational distance (β = 0.08†) were related to physical illnesses (H7a) as well as their
interaction term (β = 0.30†).
Discussion and conclusions
Exploratory factorial analyses show that extracted factors match up with PEWB-elements and MIH-
modalities as scales; and the confirmatory factorial analyses demonstrate a good fit of the scales
with their respective PEWB and MIH, and an acceptable fit of both constructs with respect to the
unified model. Therefore, items-factors, scales-constructs and constructs-model are structured as
was to be expected.
Furthermore, results present PEWB and MIH as constructs strongly interconnected, making up a
system where negative work-related experience would be materialized. This relationship is
important in the case of work-related anxiety, depression, and irritability; and of medium importance
with regard to physical illnesses. Their relationships with work-related consumption of cigarettes
and alcohol-drugs, although significant, are minor.
Also, there is support for a sense sharing between PEBW and MIH, and for PEWB-elements
combining, with some exceptions –especially with consumptions. Emotional discomfort and bodily
uneasiness, and their interaction, are associated with anxiety, suggesting a subsystem switched-on
by a work-related experience of threat, alarm or warning –where supposedly bodily checking, self-
exploration and self-consciousness processes would have facilitated treat contents. The same
occurs with organizational distance and dragging workday, and their interaction, with work-related
symptoms of depression, but in this case loss contents would be facilitated -in a supposed process
of rumination.

14
With regard to work-related experience of frustration –trio organizational distance, task
impairment and irritability– has happened something unexpected: their interaction results negative.
It seems as if organizational distance would mediate irritability, suggesting that task mistakes and
low professional self-esteem in a context of socio-organizational detachment –where employees,
companies and workmates have grown apart- neutralize or mitigate the response of irritability. So,
when an employee makes mistakes in a job or company in which he/she wants to stay it is
associated with a lack of control of his impulses and irritability, this not being the case when he/she
has and expresses a willingness or intention to leave or change job or company.
The harmful consumptions as outlets present a less clear picture. Emotional discomfort
combined with dragging workday is positively associated with cigarette smoking. However,
considered independently, neither element showed any single significant relationship with work-
related smoking in our study. It suggest as if the inferable extra-time when workday is dragged
could intensify the emotional discomfort and foster the smoking outlet. Work-related alcohol-and-
drugs consumption is positively associated with organizational distance, but the interaction term
between this PEWB-element and dragging workday on that MIH-variable resulted negative. These
complex results suggest that dragging workday can rule out alcohol-drugs as a potential outlet for
organizational distance -maybe by helping use extra-time in a more constructive way via re-
experiencing the very work-related experience.
Finally, bodily uneasiness and organizational distance, and their interaction, are related to
physical illnesses because of work. It points to a subsystem switched-on when worker is risking a
hostile work situation where, it is supposed, his immunology system, and vigilance and bodily
checking processes would be implicated.
Results support that PEWB-elements and MIH-modalities associate according to an
interpretative logic –a sort of language- of the worker’s work-related negative experience. The
particular sense assigned to this experience switches-on the correlative negative non-pathological
and pathological consequences. Consequently, relationships among employee ill-being
consequences and symptoms and consumptions are not arbitrary at all, reflecting a precise sense
sharing. This is the reason why we talk here of unification model. On the other hand, the combining
possibilities of PEWB-elements tend to reinforce and intensify certain interpretations of the work-

15
related experience. In terms of the processes aforementioned, it seems that work-related negative
experience refocusing worker’s attention from its natural-working-flow mental contents to work-
repercussions-on-worker mental contents (e.g., thread, loss, and frustration), what in their turn
would trigger verification processes biased in detecting and noticing new confirmatory stimuli and
son on –in a complete vicious circle. As a whole, the transcendence of these results lies in the role
assigned to PEWB as a risk factor for MIH. Now PEWB arises as something to prevent and
regulate, and maybe in the future as something also to indemnify for.
We believe that these findings can be useful to those organizations interested in preserving and
improving employees’ mental health. In accordance with this model the emphasis in prevention
should focus on the worker’s whole negative work experience (e.g., preventing only worker’s work-
related depression without tackling his non-pathological correlatives would be a waste of time). Any
periodical uncomplicated evaluation of PEWB-MIH would serve to detect rapidly employees’
preventive necessities and readdress the occupational health promotion programs to manage and
mitigate all risks involved. Even it would be less costly and more accessible to firstly address an
improvement in employee’s work experience rather than directly treat with work-related mental
disorders. Employee assistance programs are already aware to wellness in the workplace (Csiernik,
2005). In particular, given its interconnections with pathological outcomes, we encourage to improve
the socio-organizational well-being dimension –for example, optimizing worker’s organizational
commitment (Siu, 2002).

16
A number of the limitations on the study should be noted. The sample of employees is large
enough and heterogeneous; however its selection was neither systematic nor random. This fact and
our research methods limits on the generalization of these findings what must be taken into
consideration. Firstly, since the variables are drawn from a single survey instrument, the results
may have been affected by common method variance (Spector, 1987). Secondly, the cross-
sectional design also limits the interpretation of the results. Thirdly, employee mental ill-health is
only self-reported by the worker himself what also constitutes a drawback –even though this method
is valid to evaluate mental disorders (Beck et al, 1979). Lastly, the number of items to measure the
different PEWB and MIH elements also falls short.
Future research should replicate this study with a systematic sample method. At he same time, it
should be used a longitudinal design to test causal effects of PEWB on MIH, because, possibly,
work-related mental health is nested in employee well-being, hence any damage in worker’s mental
health caused by work previously would have necessarily damaged or deteriorated his employee
well-being. Finally, a professional clinical evaluation of employee mental health would be
convenient to rely on a more based diagnosis of the participants.

17
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th
Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Ash, Ph. (1970). The parties to the grievance. Personnel Psychology, 23(1), 13-37.
Barling, J., & Boswell, R. (1995). Work performance and the achievement’ strivings and impatience-
irritability dimensions of Type A behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44(2),
143-153.
Bech, P. (1975). Depression: Influence on time estimation and time experience. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 51(1), 42-50.
Beck, A.T., Rush, A.J., Shaw, B.F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York
Wiley.
Bejean, S., & Sultan-Taieb, H. (2005). Modeling the economic burden of diseases imputable to
stress at work. The European Journal of Health Economics, 6 (1), 16-23.
Beutel, M.E., Knickenberg, R.J., Krug, B., Mund, S., Schattenburg, L., & Zwerenz, R. (2006).
Psychodynamic focal group treatment for psychosomatic inpatients with an emphasis on work-
related conflicts. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 56(3), 285-305.
Blewett, A.E. (1992). Abnormal subjective time experience in depression. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 161, 195-200.
Bowling, N.A., & Beehr, T.A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: A
theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (5), 998-1012.
Burchell, B. (2001). Insecurity and work intensification. Florence, KY: Routledge.
Cohen, J. (2003). Applied multiple regression - Correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cooper, C.L. (1998). Theories of organizational stress. New York: Oxford University Press.
Csiernik, R. (2005). What we are doing in the employee assistance program: Meeting the challenge
of the integrated model of practice. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 21(1), 11-22.
Danna, K., & Griffin, R.W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of
the literature. Journal of Management, 25 (3), 357-384.
De Jonge, J., & Bosma, H. (2000). Job strain, effort-reward imbalance and employee well-being: A

18
large-scale cross-sectional study. Social Science & Medicine, 50 (9), 1317-1326.
Dickman, S.J. (2002). Dimensions of arousal: Wakefulness and vigor. Human Factors, 44(3), 429-
442.
Drake, Ch.L., Roehrs, T., Richardson, G., Walsh, J.K., & Roth, Th. (2004). Shift work sleep
disorder: Prevalence and consequences beyond that of symptomatic day workers. Sleep:
Journal of Sleep and Sleep Disorders Research, 27(8), 1453-1462.
Duro, A (2005). Calidad de vida laboral y psicología social de la salud laboral: hacia un modelo de
componentes comunes para explicar el bienestar laboral psicológico y la salud mental laboral de
origen psicosocial. Fundamentos teóricos [Quality of work life and occupational health
psychology: Towards a model of common components for psychological organizational well-
being and mental organizational health from psychosocial origin. Theoretical basis]. Revista del
Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales. Serie Economía y Sociología, 56, 15-56.
Ellis, A. , & Grieger, R.M. (1986). Handbook of rational-emotive therapy, Vol. 2. New York: Springer
Publishing Co.
Emdad, R., Belkic, K., Theorell, T., & Cizinsky, S. (1998). What prevents professional drivers from
following physicians' cardiologic advice? Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 67(4-5), 226 240.
Finegold, D., Mohrman, S., & Spreitzer, G.M. (2002). Age effects on the predictors of technical
workers' commitment and willingness to turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5),
655-674.
Fineman, S. (2003). Understanding emotion at work. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Fisher, E.B., Brownson, R.C., Heath, A.C., Luke, D.A., & Summer II, W. (2004). Cigarette smoking.
In Th. J. Boll, J.M. Raczynski, & L.C. Leviton (Eds.), handbook of clinical health psychology,
Volume 2. Disorders of behavior and health. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Fiske, S.T., & Yamamoto, M. (2005). Coping with rejection: core social motives across cultures. In
K. D., J.P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel, (Eds), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion,
rejection, and bullying. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
French, M.T., Zarkin, G.A., Gray, J.W., & Hartwll, T.D. (1999). Cost of employee assistance
programs: Comparison of national estimates from 1993 and 1995. Journal of Behavioral Health

19
Services and Research, 26 (1), 95-103.
Frese, M. (1985). Stress at work and psychosomatic complaints: A causal interpretation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 70, 314-328.
Frone, M.R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model
among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 246-255.
Gilbert, P. (2000). Counselling for depression (2nd Edition). London: Sage Publications.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge: Harvard.
Greenberg, P.E., Kessler, R.C., Birnbaum, H.G., Leong, S.A., Lowe, S.W., Berglund, P.A., & Corey-
Lisle, P.K. (2003). The economic burden of depression in the United States: How did it change
between 1990 and 2000? Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 64 (12), 1465-1475.
Goodrich, S., & Weaver, K.A. (1998). Differences in depressive symptoms between traditional
workers and shift workers. Psychological Reports, 83(2), 571-576.
Haller, J., & Kruk, M. (2006). Normal and abnormal aggression: Human disorders and novel
laboratory models. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(3), 292-303.
Harma, M.I., & Ilmarinen, J.E. (1999). Towards the 24 hour society new approaches for aging shift
workers? Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 25(6), 610-615.
Harned, M.S., Ormerod, A.J., Palmieri, P.A., Collinsworth, L.L., & Reed, M. (2002). Sexual assault
and other types of sexual harassment by workplace personnel: A comparison of antecedents
and consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 174-188.
Haslam, S.A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (Second Edition).
London: Sage Publications.
Hemingway, M.A., & Smith, C.S. (1999). Organizational climate and occupational stressors as
predictors of withdrawal behaviors and injuries in nurses. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72(3), 285-299.
Hoffmann, J., & Larison, C. (1999). Drug use, workplace accidents and employee turnover. Journal
of Drug Issues, 29(2), 341-364.
Houkes, I., Janssen, P. M., Jonge, J. de, & Bakker, A.B. (2003). Specific determinants of intrinsic
work motivation, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention: A multisample longitudinal study.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(4), 427-450.

20
Howard, K.I., Cornille, R.A., Lyons, J.S., Vessey, J.T., Jueger, R.H., & Saunders, S.M. (1996).
Patterns of mental health service utilization. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, 696-703.
Hurrell, J.J. (Jr), Nelson, D.L., & Simmons, B.L. (1998). Measuring job stressors and strains: Where
we have been, where we are, and where we need to go. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 3 (4), 368-389.
IOL (2005). Internacional Labour Organization. Laborsta Internet.
Karjalainen, A. (1999). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems
(ICD-10) in occupational health. Albany, NY: World Health Organization.
Kinnunen, U., Parkatti, T., & Rasku, A. (1994). Employee well-being among aging teachers in
Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 38(34), 315-332.
Kivimaki, M., Kuisma, P., Virtanen, M., & Elovainio, M. (2001). Does shift work lead to poorer health
habits? A comparison between women who had always done shift work with those who had
never done shift work. Work and Stress, 15(1), 3-13.
Koslowsky, M. (1998). Modeling the stress-strain relationship in work settings. London: Routledge,
1998.
Kossek, E.E., Lautsch, B.A., & Eaton, S.C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary
management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work family effectiveness.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347-367.
Kouvonen, A., Kivimaki, M., Virtanen, M., Pentti, J., & Vahtera, J. (2005). Work stress, smoking
status, and smoking intensity: An observational study of 46,190 employees. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(1), 63-69.
Lacoursiere, R.B. (2001). “Burnout" and substance user treatment: The phenomenon and the
administrator-clinician's experience. Substance Use and Misuse, 36(13), 1839-1874.
Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Martin, J.K., Blum, T.C., & Roman, P.M. (1992). Drinking to cope and self-medication:
characteristics of jobs in relation to workers' drinking behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 55-71.
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. New York: Prentices-Hall Press.
McLean, P.D. (2001). Anxiety disorders in adults: An evidence-based approach to psychological

21
treatment. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resources Management Review, 1 (1), 61-89.
Milbourn, G. (1984). Alcoholism, drug abuse, job stress: What small business can do. American
Journal of Small Business 8, 36-48.
Milby, J.B., Schumacher, J.E., & Tucker, J.A. (2004). Substance use disorders. In Th. J. Boll, J.M.
Raczynski, & L.C. Leviton (Eds.), handbook of clinical health psychology, Volume 2. Disorders of
behavior and health. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Moore, S.G.L., & Greenberg, E. (2000). The relationships between alcohol problems and well being,
work attitudes, and performance: Are they monotonic? Journal of Substance Abuse, 11(2), 183-
204.
Overbeek, Th., & Griez, E.J.L (2005). At the Interface of Depression and Anxiety: Comorbidity and
Concepts. In E.J.L Griez, C. Faravelli, D.J. Nutt, & J. Zohar, (Eds), Mood disorders: Clinical
management and research issues. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Quick, J.C., & Tetrick, L.E. (Eds.) (2003). Handbook of occupational health psychology.
Washington, DC: APA.
Roxburgh, S. (2004). 'There just aren't enough hours in the day': The mental health consequences
of time pressure. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45(2), 115 131.
Sauter, S.L.. Murphy, L.R., & Hurrell, J.J. (1990). Prevention of work-related psychological
disorders. American Psychologist, 45, 1146-1158.
Schabracq, M.J. (2003). Everyday well-being and stress in work and organizations. In: M. J.
Schabracq, A.M. Winnubst, & C.L. Cooper (Eds). Handbook of work and health psychology,
Second edition. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Shaw, J.D., & Gupta, N. (2001). Pay fairness and employee outcomes: Exacerbation and
attenuation effects of financial need. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
74(3), 299-320.
Shirom, A., & Ezrachi, Y. (2003). On the discriminant validity of burnout, depression and anxiety: A
re-examination of the Burnout Measure. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal.
16(1), 83-97.

22
Silverthorne, C. (2005). Organizational psychology in cross-cultural perspective. New York, NY,:
New York University Press.
Singh-Manoux, A., Martikainen, P., Ferrie, J., Zins, M., Marmot, M.l., & Goldberg, M. (2006). What
does self rated health measure? Results from the British Whitehall II and French Gazel cohort
studies. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(4), 364-372.
Siu, O. (2002). Occupational stressors and well-being among Chinese employees: The role of
organisational commitment. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(4), 527-544.
Snyder, C.R. (2001). Coping with stress: Effective people and processes. Cary, NC: Oxford
University Press.
Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C.L. (2001). Well-being and occupational health in the 21st
century workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 489-509.
Spector, P.E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work:
Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438-443.
Spielberger, Ch.D., Vagg, P.R., & Wasala, C.F. (2003). Occupational stress: Job pressures and
lack of support. In J.C. Quick, & L.E. Tetrick (Eds), Handbook of occupational health psychology
(pp. 185-200). Washington, DC: APA.
Sullivan, P.F., Kovalenko, P., York, T.P., Prescott, C.A., & Kendler, K.S. (2003). Fatigue in a
community sample of twins. Psychological Medicine, 33(2), 263-281.
Terluin, B., Van-Rhenen, W., Schaufeli, W.B., & De-Haan, M. (2004). The Four-Dimensional
Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): Measuring distress and other mental health problems in a
working population. Work and Stress, 18(3), 187-207.
Tse, J.L.M., Flin, R., & Mearns, K. (2006). Bus driver well-being review: 50 years of research.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 9(2), 89-114.
Vallance, J.K.H., Dunn, J.G.H., & Dunn, J.L.C. (2006). Perfectionism, anger, and situation criticality
in competitive youth ice hockey. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28(3), 383-406.
van Horn, J.E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Schreurs, P.J.G. (2004). The structure of employee
well-being: A study among Dutch teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 77(3), 365-375.
Vickers, M. (2001). Work and unseen chronic illness: Silent voices. London: Routledge.

23
Vincent, Ch.(2001). Clinical risk management: enhancing patient safety. London: BMJ Publishing.
Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 193-210.
Warr, P. (1992). Age and employee well-being. Psychology and Aging, 7(1), 37-45.
White, H.R., & Bates, M.E. (1995). Cessation from cocaine use. Addiction, 90, 947-957.
WHO (2000). Occupational Medicine in Europe: Scope and Competencies. Bilthoven: World Health
Organization.
Wilkinson, I. (2001). Anxiety in a risk society. London: Routledge.

Table 1. Principal components analysis with Varimax rotation of poor employee well-being items: factor loadings
Variables Emotional
discomfort Bodily
uneasiness Organizational
distance Dragging
workday Task
impairment
Job strain intensit
y
0.
80
0.
22
0.
11
0.
03
0.
15
Emotional exhaustion intensity
0.
78
0.23 0.14 0.13 0.09
Emotional exhaustion frequency
0.
77
0.
27
0.
09
0.
06
0.
04
Mental fatigue frequency
0.
76
0.19 0.11 0.21 0.08
Mental fatigue intensity
0.
76
0.
21
0.
12
0.
20
0.
13
Job strain frequency
0.
67
0.13 0.01 0.03 0.01
Muscular tiredness frequency
0.
20
0.
84
0.
09
0.
13
-
0.
01
Physical fatigue intensity 0.30
0.
81
0.05 0.09 0.15
Physical fatigue frequency
0.
31
0.
81
0.
03
0.
06
0
.
08
Muscular tiredness intensity
0.
23
0.
81
0.
12
0.
13
0.
08
Willingness to turnover intensity
0.
01
0.
15
0.
90
0.
15
0.
01
Willingness to turnover frequency 0.00 0.14
0.
90
0.16 -0.04
Isolated from bosses 0.23 -0.01
0.
52
-0.01 0.13
Isolated from co-workers
0.
29
-
0.
04
0.
44
-
0.
08
0.
29
Dragging workday frequency 0.20 0.16 0.11
0.
92
0.03
Dragging
workday intensity
0.
21
0.
17
0.
13
0.
91
0.
05
Task mistakes frequency
0.
01
0.
11
0.
05
0.
10
0.
83
Task mistakes
sever
ity
0.
07
0.
13
0.
07
0.
15
0.
78
Low professional self-esteem 0.14 -0.01 0.05 -0.12
0.
53
Cronbach alpha reliability 0.89 0.90 0.72 0.94 0.54
Eigenvalue 6.46 1.97 1.67 1.52 1.36
Explained variance
33.97
10.36
8.80
8.00
7.16

Table 2 Principal components analysis with Varimax rotation of work-related mental symptoms and substance
consumption items: factor loadings
Variables Anxiety Depression
Irritability Cigarette
smoking Illnesses Alcohol-
drugs
Concentration difficulties frequency
0.
87
0.22 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.05
Concentration difficulties
severity
0.
86
0.
21
0.
14
0.
03
0.
09
0.
09
Anxiety severity
0.
55
0.34 0.50 0.16 0.17 0.03
Negative effects on sleep
0.
54
0.
13
0.
26
0.
03
0.
28
0.
01
Anxiety frequency
0.
53
0.33 0.50 0.10 0.20 0.03
Apathy
frequency
0.
19
0.
89
0.
11
0.
06
0.
12
0.
02
Apathy severity 0.24
0.
85
0.15 0.10 0.15 0.03
Depressed state of mind 0.25
0.
54
0.43 0.01 0.10 -0.02
Low personal self
-
esteem
0.
16
0.
51
0.
2
8
-
0.
08
0.
04
0.
16
Irritability
severity
0.
19
0.
17
0.
87
0.
07
0.
07
0.
03
Irritability
frequency
0.
16
0.
22
0.
86
0.
03
0.
05
-
0.
01
Cigarette smoking frequency
0.
04
0.
03
0.
04
0.
97
0.
03
0.
09
Cigarette smoking severity 0.07 0.04 0.07
0.
96
0.06 0.12
Illnesses frequency
0.
13
0.
16
0.
06
-
0.
01
0.
92
0.
02
Illnesses severity 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.10
0.
90
0.04
Alcohol
-
drugs
severity
0.
11
-
0.
03
0.
06
0.
10
0.
02
0.
87
Alcohol-drugs frequency 0.00 0.15 -0.03 0.09 0.03
0.
86
Cronbach alpha reliability
0.86
0.80
0.88
0.95
0.87
0.69
Eigenvalue 5.99 2.01 1.48 1.37 1.11 1.04
Explained variance
35.26
11.85
8.70
8.06
6.53
6.10

Table 3. Means, standard deviations and correlations
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Age 32.73 9.66
2. Gender
0.52 0.50 0.18*
3. Org. tenure 4.90 5.68 0.54*
0.07║
4.
Personal ill
-
health
1.28 1.98 0.02 -0.04 0.04
5. Emotional discomfort (42-0)
19.72 10.47 -0.02 -0.12†
-0.01 0.28*
6. Bodily uneasiness (28-0) 11.24 7.18 -0.04 -0.18*
0.02 0.31* 0.54*
7.
Org
.
detachment
(28
-
0)
8.65 6.59 -0.12†
-0.05 -0.09‡
0.24* 0.29* 0.24*
8. Dragging workday (14-0) 7.57 4.09 -0.06 -0.05 0.02 0.17* 0.36* 0.37* 0.26*
9.
Task impairment
(21
-
0)
5.44 3.27 -0.11†
-0.01 0.01 0.18* 0.25* 0.21* 0.19* 0.13†
10. Anxiety (35-0) 10.80 8.34 -0.06 -0.07║
-0.03 0.44* 0.70* 0.61* 0.37* 0.34* 0.29*
11.
Depression
(28
-
0)
8.71 6.59 -0.09‡
-0.08‡
0.02 0.39* 0.52* 0.46* 0.51* 0.42* 0.31* 0.62*
12. Irritability (14-0) 5.55 3.91 -0.06 -0.14*
0.03 0.27* 0.65* 0.44* 0.39* 0.32* 0.23* 0.57* 0.51*
13.
Cigarette smoking
(14
-
0)
3.01 4.73 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.11† 0.16* 0.15* 0.07║ 0.12† 0.09‡ 0.18* 0.12† 0.14*
14. Illnesses (14-0) 1.70 2.99 0.04 -0.06 0.07║
0.40* 0.22* 0.41* 0.19* 0.15* 0.09‡ 0.38* 0.33* 0.22* 0.11†
15. Alcohol-drugs (14-0) 0.77 2.29 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.14* 0.03 0.00 0.10‡ 0.03 0.13† 0.15* 0.13† 0.06 0.21*
0.07║
* for p < 0.001
† for p < 0.01
‡ for p < 0.05
║ for p < 0.10.

Table 4. Hierarchical linear regression analysis for poor employee well-being on work-related anxiety, depression, and irritability
Poor employee well-being Stage one:
anxiety Stage two:
anxiety
Stage
three:
anxiety
Stage one:
depression Stage two:
depression
Stage
three:
depression
Stage one:
irritability Stage two:
irritability
Stage
three:
irritability
Controls
Age -0.06 -0.03 -0.02 -0.12‡ -0.05 -0.05 -0.11‡ -0.08‡ -0.07‡
Gender
-
0.
04
0.
04
0.
02
-
0.
05
0.
00
-
0.
01
-
0.
12
†
-
0.
06
‡
-
0.
06
║
Organizational tenure
0.
00
0.
00
-
0.
01
0.
07
0.
06
║
0.
05
0.
09
†
0.
11
†
0.
10
†
Personal ill-health problems 0.45*
0.20*
0.18* 0.40* 0.18*
0.17*
0.26* 0.04 0.04
Variables of the model
Emotional discomfort
0.
50*
0.
30*
0.
24*
0.
11
0.
49*
0.
46*
Bodily uneasiness 0.23*
0.05 0.09‡
-0.06 0.07║ 0.03
Organizational distance
0.
09*
0.
15
‡
0.
32*
0.
17
‡
0.
21*
0.
31*
Dragging
w
orkday
0.
01
-
0.
02
0.
16*
0.
06
0.
04
-
0.
0
4
Task impairment 0.06‡
0.10‡ 0.10†
0.10‡
0.03 0.16†
Interactions
Emotional discomfort
*
b
odily uneasiness
0.
27
†
0.
31
†
0.
10
Emotional discomfort*dragging workday 0.14 -0.01 0.00
Bodily uneasine
ss
*
o
rg.
detachment
0.
04
-
0.
08
-
0.
07
Org.
detachment
*
dragging
workday
-
0.
09
0.
23
†
0.
16
║
Org. detachment* task impairment -0.04 0.03 -0.25†
F 38.99* 125.39* 84.40* 30.68* 68.37* 46.69* 15.95* 60.47* 40.52*
∆
R
2
n/a
0.45*
0.01
†
n/a
0.34*
0.02
†
n/a
0.38*
0.01
‡
Total R2 0.21 0.66 0.67 0.17 0.51 0.53 0.10 0.48 0.49
Beta coefficients are presented
* for p < 0.001
† for p < 0.01
‡ for p < 0.05
║for p < 0.10

Table 5. Hierarchical linear regression analysis for poor employee well-being on work-related smoking, alcohol-drugs use and illnesses
Poor employee well-being Stage one:
cigarette
smoking
Stage two:
cigarette
smoking
Stage
three:
cigarette
smoking
Stage one:
alcohol-
drugs
Stage two:
alcohol-
drugs
Stage
three
alcohol-
drugs
Stage one:
illnesses
Stage two:
physical
illnesses
Stage
three:
illnesses
C
ontrols
Age 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.02
Gender
0.06
0.08
║
0.07
║
0.03
0.02
0.02
-
0.06
-
0.01
-
0.02
Organizational tenure 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.03
Personal ill
-
health problems
0.12
†
0.05
0.05
0.12
†
0.10
‡
0.10
‡
0.43*
0.32*
0.32*
Variables of the model
E
motional discomfort
0.09
║
-
0.02
0.03
0.01
-
0.04
-
0.08
Bodily uneasiness 0.06 0.24‡
-0.09║ -0.16 0.32* 0.08
Organizational distance
0.01
-
0.03
0.08
║
0.27
‡
0.08
†
0.04
Dragging workday 0.09 -0.15 -0.02 0.13 0.00 0.05
Task
impairment
0.05
‡
0.00
0.11
‡
0.13
║
-
0.02
0.09
Interaction
Emotional discomfort* bodily uneasiness -0.23 0.02 0.14
Emotional discomfort*dragging workday 0.39†
0.00 -0.04
Bodily uneasiness *org. detachment
-
0.09
0.11
0.30
†
Org. detachment*dragging workday 0.05 -0.33† -0.03
Org. detachment* task impairment
0.10
-
0.04
-
0.19
‡
F
2.83
‡
3.86*
3.24*
2.21
║
2.45
‡
2.16
†
35.43*
25.70*
18.06*
∆ R
2
n/a 0.04* 0.01║ n/a 0.02‡ 0.01 n/a 0.09* 0.02†
Total R
2
0.02
0.06
0.07
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.19
0.28
0.30
Beta coefficients are presented
* for p < 0.001
† for p < 0.01
‡ for p < 0.05
║for p < 0.10

CONSTRUCT OF POOR
EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING
Elements:
- Emotional discomfort
- Bodily uneasiness
- Organizational distance
- Dragging workday
- Task impairment
CONSTRUCT OF WORK-
RELATED MENTAL
SYMPTOMS AND
SUBTANCE CONSUMPTION
Modalities:
- Anxiety
- Depression
- Irritability
- Cigarette smoking
- Alcohol-drugs consumption
- Illnesses
Work-related non-pathological
negative consequences
Work-related pathological
(negative) consequences
Figure 1 Employee work-related negative consequences
Attention refocused
Psychopathological processes
Experience of threat
-
anxiety
Experience of loss
-
depression
Experience of frustration
-
irritability

2
Poor
employee
well-being
Emotional
discomfort
Bodily
uneasiness 2
Organizational
distance 3
,47
Mental
symptoms
and
consumptions
Work-related
anxiety 6
Work-related
depression 7
Work-related
irritability 8
Work-related
cigarette smoking 9
Work-related
alcohol-drugs 10
,70
Work-related
illnesses 11
1,05
1
Dragging
work-day
Task
impairment
4
5
Figure 2 Confirmatory factor model. Stantardized estimates
,66
,77
,45
,33
,72
,84
,21
,11
,39

Appendix 1
The items used to measure poor employee well-being and work-related mental ill-health and substance
consumption are shown below.
Response categories:
Extremely high (7)
Moderately high (6)
Lightly high (5)
Mediate (4)
Lightly low (3)
Moderately low (2)
Extremely low (1)
Self-reported poor employee well-being
Emotional exhaustion that my present work causes me
FREQUENCY 
INTENSITY 
General job strain that my present work produces
FREQUENCY 
INTENSITY 
Negative opinion about my own professional efficacy
VALUE 
Level of isolation from my bosses that I experience
INTENSITY 
Mental fatigue that my present work produces
FREQUENCY 
INTENSITY 
Level of isolation from my work-mates that I experience
INTENSITY 
General muscular pains/tiredness that I suffer due to my present work
FREQUENCY 
INTENSITY 
Physical fatigue that my present work produces
FREQUENCY 
INTENSITY 
Willingness, intention to leave the company
FREQUENCY 
INTENSITY 
Mistakes that I normally make in my present job
FREQUENCY 
SERIOUSNESS 
Working day becomes excessively long
FREQUENCY 
INTENSITY 

2
Self-reported work-related mental ill-health and substance consumption
Present work depressive effects on my habitual state of mind
SERIOUSNESS 
General irritability (tendency to get angry) that my present work produces
FREQUENCY 
SERIOUSNESS 
Alcohol and/or drugs that I consume due to my present job
FREQUENCY 
SERIOUSNESS 
Concentration difficulties I suffer due to my present work
FREQUENCY 
SERIOUSNESS 
Present work’s negative effects on my personal self-esteem
SERIOUSNESS 
Present work’s negative effects on my habitual sleep and rest
SERIOUSNESS 
Physical illnesses I have suffered because my present work
FREQUENCY 
SERIOUSNESS 
Cigarettes I smoke due to my present work
FREQUENCY 
SERIOUSNESS 
Anxiety symptoms (strain, worry…) I suffer due to my present work
FREQUENCY 
SERIOUSNESS 
Apathy and inactivity I suffer due to my present work
FREQUENCY 
SERIOUSNESS 