ArticlePDF Available

Stress and Health at the Workplace-A Review of the Literature

  • Interserve


This review of the literature gives information about work stress, factors in the working environment that cause stressful situations and negative health consequences of the workplace stress. Stressors are pointed out in details that lead to stress at the workplace. Approaches to the stress are explained and most famous models of the stress are assessed critically in this review. This article highlights the work stress and its adverse effects on the physical and mental health of an employee. Finally, recommendations for future research are given and areas are highlighted where there is need of more empirical research.
Journal of Business Studies Quarterly
2015, Volume 6, Number 3 ISSN 2152-1034
Stress and Health at the Workplace-A Review of the Literature
Mariam Sohail
PhD Scholar, Superior University, Lahore
Contact: +92-322-4553964, Email:
Chaudhary Abdul Rehman
Professor, Business School, Superior University, Lahore
Contact: +92-042-35530361-8, Email:
This review of the literature gives information about work stress, factors in the working
environment that cause stressful situations and negative health consequences of the workplace
stress. Stressors are pointed out in details that lead to stress at the workplace. Approaches to the
stress are explained and most famous models of the stress are assessed critically in this review.
This article highlights the work stress and its adverse effects on the physical and mental health of
an employee. Finally, recommendations for future research are given and areas are highlighted
where there is need of more empirical research.
Keywords: Stress, Health, Employee, Work
Stress is a result of social relationship in such a way that a person may undergo stress because of
the people in his social circle. A person may undergo stress especially when he assumes a danger
to his social respect. Stress possesses both negative and positive outcomes. Stress is normally a
response to the danger. When a person perceives danger, automatically signals are transferred to
the mind and reaction to that danger is generated. In positive sense, stress pulls us towards a
necessary reaction and solution against the threat posed to us. While in negative sense, stress is a
barrier which reduces productivity and plays a major role in creating hurdles to achieve our
targets. In an organization, stress brings behavioral changes which ultimately decrease the
cooperation between the employees of an organization.
It is a well-established fact now that the stress is becoming more complex at working area in
many industrial countries. With the sizeable increase in stress problems, there is also a sizeable
loss in term of money in all over the world collectively and also millions are badly affected
individually. Absenteeism because of disease, psychological health problems, unexpected events
and many more are the outcomes of the stress at working areas. The negative outcomes of
workplace stress are pushing the governments towards for making laws in favor of employees
due to an increase quantity of the publications and research done in this field. The problems
created because of workplace stress are not limited to a particular profession or a particular
country; it has caused long-term effects everywhere in the world (Mark, 2008).
Work stress is an old problem, but more consideration has been given in the recent decades than
any other time before. It is generally believed that the stress at work has adverse effects on the
health of an employee and on the organizational health in every sector of employment.
There are some basic questions that should be answered:
“What is work stress?”
“Does work stress influence health of an employee?”
If yes then, how work stress influences the health of an employee?
This review paper is based on these questions.
The focus of this review does not mean that work does not have positive effect on the health of
an employee. There is proof that under certain situations work has positive effects on the health
of an employee and it develops mental comfort (Baruch and Barnett, 1987). Work may have
positive effect on the physical health of an employee (Repetti, Matthews & Waldron, 1989).
Particular work components may be favorable for the health of an employee such as energy
expenses (Fletcher, 1988).
The main objective of this review is to know about the work stress and its effects on the health
whether positive or negative.
Work Stress
The word stress is being daily used by most of the people but the meaning of stress is not clear to
them. All the current definitions of stress state that people experience stress because of the
demands or pressure, it is an individual experience and ability of the individual to manage the
things is effected by the stress. Job stress arises when there is imbalance between the job
demands and abilities and skills of an employee to deal with these job demands (Blaug, Kenyon
& Lekhi, 2007).
“Stress is a combination of physical and psychological reactions to events that challenge or
threaten us. In normal circumstances, the stress response is a powerful protective mechanism
that allows us to deal with sudden changes, dangers or immediate demands. In abnormal
circumstances, stress overwhelms our protective mechanisms, leading to serious negative health
outcomes” (CUPE, 2003).
The negative impact of job stress on physical conditions and prosperity of workers is a major
issue in the developed nations, the experts from the developed countries like European Union,
Japan and America and even from the developing nations focused on job stress and its impact on
health of employees (Kawakamii & Haratani, 1999).
Stress is a worst condition of emotions in terms of physiological rise when people experience a
negative situation in such a way that they perceive a danger to their prosperity. Perceptions of
people about stress vary. Some people perceive that stress is a situation of negative feelings
which causes depression, antagonism and hostility. While other people may perceive that stress
is a result of negative feelings. The response to negative feelings is physiological which brings
behavioral and emotional changes such as high blood pressure, and muscular strain. From
physiologist point of view, stress involves the perceptions of people which are a result of the
unfavorable feelings. Stress is a state which some one experience when there are unrealistic
deadlines, and less time to complete targets.
Job stress is explained as the adverse physical and mental reactions that appear when the job
demands do not match with the abilities, skills, or requirements of the employee. Bad health and
injury can result from job stress. The idea of job stress is usually mixed up with the challenge,
but these ideas are different from each other. Challenge activates us physically and mentally and
we are excited by it to gain new talents and learn about our jobs. After meeting a challenge, we
feel calm and contented. So, challenge is an essential element for active and profitable job. In our
job lives, there is significance of challenge just like that some portion of stress is fine for us. The
challenge may convert into job demands that cannot be completed, leisure may convert into
tiredness, and a feeling of comfort may convert into stress. Briefly, the result will be bad health,
harm, and loss of job (Sauter et al., 1999). Stress emerges when there is mismatch between
demands of the job and level of control of a worker over job tasks. Sometimes we are facing
positive stress which helps to achieve our goals. But high stress has negative outcomes.
Stress changes the thinking, behavior and feelings of the individual and brings modification in
their physiological functions (Stainbrook and Green, 1983). Most of these changes are ordinary
defects and displeasure is also connected with it. Many of these are not lasting but still destroy to
the quality of life at a certain period of time. Stress at work may lead to social problems, ill
mental and physical health outcomes and bad job performance. The relationship between stress
and its precedents and health is constant but cautious (Baker 1985).
Job Stressors
The word stressor means any tense happening or circumstances emerging from the environment
or from inside the individual. Stressors generate mental or physiological responses which are
mostly harmful and sometimes signs of psychological or physical defects are observed. The
stress response is the result of the stress that occurs from the stressor. Stress is the reaction to a
stressor by which a person is suffered both mentally and physically. The response of stress may
be benign or serious which depends on the type and intensity of the stressor and sensitivity of
individuals to stress (Chay, 1990).
There are three common types of stressors: (1) calamitous occurrence which guides to hasty,
rare, strong distinct circumstances or related happenings by which a large numbers of people are
influenced e.g. natural calamity, war, to move to a different location, (2) Major transitions that
threat flexible abilities of individuals likewise calamitous occurrences but influencing less
number of persons e.g. death of a dear, job lost, sickness, and, (3) daily problems which guides
to constant, steady, and repeated issues e.g. lack of job satisfaction, travelling to work, having
dispute with companion/partner, job clashes between employees. These three categories of
stressors have closeness in the sense all have cruel stimuli (Lazarus & Cohen, 1977). Most
common stress is the job stress which is faced by the employees at workplace.
Research studies on the work stress show that various organizational factors are responsible for
anxiety and negative health outcomes. Literature agrees on the stressors i.e. what are the causes
of stress and strain i.e. outcomes of the stress. Stressors can be of two types: physical or
psychosocial. Both types of stressors can affect health physically and mentally and can work
together may interact with one another (Cox, Griffiths & Rial-González, 2000).
Hence the increased hustle and bustle type of routine because of the pressure in the new era of
large scale companies and an increase in competition could result in a stressful environment.
Many problems can lead to stress like less control at work, a few vacations, increasing duty
hours, less bonus, no security of jobs, and least chances of promotions. Sometime a few other
factors are also responsible like no significant work, less time more work, little help, no
feedback, work not matching to the skills, work conflicts and conflict with other employees
(Griffiths, 1998).
People experience stress commonly. We may feel stress when we have little time to as complete
our important deadlines. Often people experience stress because of problems at job such less
control over job tasks, overwork, unrealistic targets, etc. Some people may feel stress when they
have fear of failure.
Stress is caused by over work which is health and safety issue in an organization. Over work is
categorized as: long duty timings, unfair job demands, various job tasks, to force for overtime, a
few recreation opportunities, pressure to speed up work, to monitor performance, more
expectations and no substitute of the employees during their off days (CUPE 2003).
We cannot avoid stress at workplace and in our personal lives. Some organizations have low
stress and some have high stress which adversely affects the health of its employees. Justice in
an organization is a circumstantial factor at work which creates positive low stress in an
organizational environment. There is negative relationship between workplace stress and health
of an employee. Long working hours and work burden are observed the most important stressors
in this study (Rahman, 2013). Physical working conditions are also causing stress i.e. noise,
insufficient lighting, low or high temperature, less space more employees, badly managed
working environment, improper circulation of air, poor plan of office building, exposure to
dangerous machinery and lack of entertainment facilities. These stressors are causing stress in an
organization (CUPE 2003).
Most common reason of the job stress is the workload. Other reasons of the work stress are long
working hours, alteration, violence, downsizing, job shifts and sexual harassment (Blaug,
Kenyon & Lekhi, 2007). Reorganization, layoffs, job insecurity, poor working conditions can all
lead to stress. Lack of coaching, many job demands, difficult targets, insecurity, office politics,
antagonistic management, rough working conditions, more than one boss, monitoring, low self-
esteem among employees are the main sources of job stress (CUPE, 2003).
A review of the literature show that there are some important factors which are responsible for ill
health of the employee in an organization and these factors are long working hours, work burden,
less control over job tasks, no participation in making decisions, lack of social support, poor
management and ambiguous job description (Michie & Williams, 2003).
CUPE 2003 states that there are various factors at organizational level which cause stress such as
less authority, job demand conflict, less decision making power, lack of briefing, organizational
changes, unfavorable behavior of seniors, less appreciation, repeated and insignificant work,
ambiguous job responsibility, low salary, less chances of promotion, job insecurity, more or less
work, work burden or underutilization of skills, bad communication, new advancements,
deadline pressure, various job reorganization plans and oppressive ways of management.
There are various causes of work stress i.e. workload, poor working conditions, working alone,
job insecurity and other factors are also responsible for work-related stress.
Stress is a phenomenon which differs from person to person. People have different level of stress
even in similar situations because of the various reasons. The intensity of job stress relies on the
degree of the job demands and the ability of the individual to control these job demands or
freedom to make decisions at the job (“Workplace Stress”, 2015).
NIOSH supports the view that working conditions are the basic cause of job stress. Job stressors
(irritating working conditions) can directly affect on the health of employees. Individual and
different situational elements can interfere to enhance or lessen this affect (Sauter et al., 1999).
Almost everyone admits that job stress will result from the relationship between the employee
characteristics and the working conditions. Specific working conditions will lead to stress or not,
depends on the characteristics of the individual i.e. personality and managing habit. We cannot
neglect the value of individual characteristics. A situation which is stressful for one person may
not be an issue for another. Mostly people suffer from stress by certain working conditions for
example: extreme load of work requirements and contradictory expectations (Sauter et al.,
Some persons do well when they face time pressure in life, and they have to perform various
tasks simultaneously and things to do list provided they feel that things are in their control, same
situation may defeat most of us. These persons will be badly stressed by work which is dull and
have no deadlines, enjoyed by others who avoid duties and want to do tasks that they can
perform easily with their abilities (“Workplace Stress”, 2015). Effects of stress on people may
Approaches to Stress
Welford (1973) introduced a specific form of approach to stress, based on stimulus in which he
defined stress in terms of demand. He suggested that human body will perform better in case of
balanced demand and a tranquility of mind is maintained identical to the physiological
homeostasis. If the demand is extremely high or extremely low, performance will be influenced.
According to Cox & Griffiths (1995), majority people are agreed on that there is no specific
definition of stress. Cox and Griffiths (1995) indicate that there are maximum three different
ideas to define the stress. These ideas are engineering approach, physiological approach and
psychological approach.
The engineering approach is an approach where stress is considered a feature of the
environment in terms of demands expected from an individual, stress as an independent variable
precedes to the negative health outcomes. Symonds states (1947, cited in Cox & Griffiths, 1995)
that “stress is that which happens to the individual, not that which happens in him”. Stress and
health outcomes are separate but interrelated to each other. Stress is actually a combination of
causes, not a combination of diseases. There are various causes of stress and stress leads to the
health problems.
The physiological approach is an approach where the stress is defined on the basis of biological
or physiological changes which come in an individual as a result of stress. Selye, 1930 (cited in
Cox & Griffiths, 1995) was a leading supporter of this approach, and supposed that negative
physiological responses are occurred in an individual as a result of harmful stimuli of
environment. This happens in three levels: warn, fighting and tiredness.
Selye (1946) stated that stress is flexible in the short run in which one can keep safe himself from
threat and avoid danger but in the current era of modernity; the increasing demands are causing
continuous stress in individuals that lead to negative health outcomes. Selye named this a
“Disease of Adaptation”.
The third approach is the psychological approach by Cox and Griffiths (1995) where stress is
not considered only a reaction, but it’s an active state that happens to an individual as a result of
an interaction with the environment (Cox et al. 2000). Cox (1987) termed this as “the stress
process” and approves a cognitive theory, which is related with the psychological changes that
result when a person is under stress.
Cox and Griffiths (1995) informs that the concepts of engineering and physiological approaches
are weakened, because these theories tell us that people respond to the threat slowly and do not
clarify the certain effects of emotional or situational factors on performance and welfare. For
instance there is the impact of noise on intellectual tasks in which noise type is an important
element for the performance instead the level of the noise. In addition, in psychological
approaches individual differences affect the stress process because of the individualistic elements
like personality, gender, dealing abilities etc. Why some people can deal with stress easily while
the others cannot, will be answered by these individualistic factors. People can deal with stress
according to their personalities or characteristics.
Models of stress
There are various models of job stress, and these vary in fame and statistical support. Some of
these models are discussed here that were powerful in the past research of job stress. These
models are Person-Environment fit and the Vitamin Model. Some currently famous work stress
theories are also discussed i.e. the Demands-Control Support, the framework of occupational
stress and Effort-Reward imbalance model.
The Person-Environment-Fit model
The Person-Environment-Fit model states that the congruence level or fit between an individual
and his working environment can have major effect on health, prosperity and performance
(French, Caplan & Harrision, 1982). The key assumption of the person environment fit theory is
that stress originates when there is misfit between person and environment- from both
components combined because factors of each component relate to another. Stress emerges when
an individual observes that working environment is not good or is not fit according to his desire
and he is not satisfied from work. These inconsistencies create stress which has negative impact
on the health of employees.
If the demands of the job do match with the knowledge, skills and abilities of the individual, the
result will be the healthy working environment. If there is high gap between the person and his
environment, it will create problems. When demands of the job exceed abilities of the individual,
the stress will be the outcome (Sonnentag & Frese, 2003). This model demonstrates the
difference between personal feelings about reality and objective reality and between the
objective working environment (real demands and rewards) and objective person (real skills,
resources and wants). The stress will result if there is any misfit between the combinations of
these elements (Cox et al., 2000).
This model also provides protective system to lessen the subjective imbalance by rejection,
evaluation of wants and managing and objective imbalance can be reduced by learning new
expertise (Buunk, deJonge, Ybema, & deWolff, 1998). Work Environment involves job demands,
duty expectations, and company standards. To be fit with the environment, person has to
respond with his capability (learning, skills, preparation, time, and vigor) to the environmental
demands. The concept of this theory is that the larger the inconsistency between person and
environment, the higher the probability of stress and there will be need to deal with this stress
(Bickford, 2005).
The main focus of this theory is on the wants, beliefs and skills of the individual. Person-
Environment fit model does not explain in detail specific working conditions that lead to stress
because it avoids the role of environmental forces in creating stress. This shows that Person-
Environment fit model is not suitable to the study of factors in working environment (Ganster &
Schaubroeck, 1991). The person environment fit model is advanced but this approach is
imperfect because the harmony between the person and environment is stagnant. It focuses on
the stable relationships and ignores the dynamic process of activity and interplay in the working
environment (Lazarus, 1991). There is limited practical support for this theory (Buunk et al.,
The Vitamin model
Warr (1994) suggested a model which shows the effect of job stressors on the health of an
individual. This model says that impact of stressors is similar to the impact of vitamins. Nine
characteristics of job were highlighted, out of which three elements (safety, salary, and task
significance) are same to C and E vitamins in their impact, just like insufficiency can harm body
but exceed amount will not have damage anything. The rest of the factors (job demands,
autonomy, social support, skill utilization, skill variety and task feedback) are the same to A and
D vitamins in their impact that is excess amounts are risky. This vitamin model is more complex
as compared to other stress models.
The Vitamin model contains powerful feelings and there are three aspects of the health i.e.
dissatisfaction-satisfaction, tense-relaxed, and sadness-happiness. The influence of factors of job
on the health can be moderated by individual differences (Buunk et al., 1998). Warr states (cited
in Buunk et al.1998) that there are the three major kinds of individual differences such as values,
abilities, and baseline mental health and when individual characteristics are matched with the job
factors, moderating influence will be healthy.
The Vitamin model has attractive basis but confirmation of the model is varied and ambiguous
(Sonnentag & Frese, 2003; Buunk et al. 1998). Van Veldhoven, Taris, De Jonge & Broersen
(2005) state that this model needs to be explored experimentally.
The Demand-Control Support Model
The job demand-control model is a model of job stress which is broadly used to show the
relationships between job stress and employee health. The basic theme of this model is that stress
occurs when employees have high demand and low job control. High level of stress will affect
negatively to the health of an employee. When job demand is low and job control is high, the
skills of an employee may decrease. Another aspect of this model was social support at work
(Johnson & Hall, 1988).
The demand control support (DCS) model states that main cause of work stress is work content.
Work content has two components in this model: employee’s feelings about the job tasks that he
has to perform at the job (job demands) and employee’s feelings about the level of control that
he has on these job tasks (job control). These two constituents are related to each other and stress
level of an employee will be determined by these components. In case of high job demands and
less control on these job demands will result in high level of job stress. A third component i.e.
social support is added in an updated version of this model. Social support does not eliminate
stress but protects from it to some extent. This model has been used efficiently to foresee mental
stress and heart diseases threats (Bickford, 2005).
There are two hypotheses in DCS model: strain hypothesis (high stress jobs result in poor health
outcomes, and demands, support and control have high independent effects) and buffer
hypothesis (negative effect of high job demands is moderated by job control and social support).
Strain hypothesis is fully supported by results whereas the support for buffer hypothesis is
ambiguous (Van der Doef & Maes, 1998).
Hypothetical support show that demand control theory clearly explains the working conditions
that are responsible for stress. This model has an ability to accurately anticipate negative effects
on the health (Sharit & Salvendy, 1982). When comparing with Person-Environment fit model,
Baker (1985) states that Karasek’s Demand-Control model is appropriate because of the concept
of control which is different from demand and measured as a separate variable. Demand and
control are separate variables and the originators of stress and the difference between them
permits investigation of their effects jointly and separately. This model explains new variable in
the forecasting of stress as control is not evaluated as an independent variable in Person-
Environment fit model. Another attractive characteristic of this model is the comparative clarity
and stinginess.
Other DCS model issues are that it defines the demand mostly on the basis of work burden, not
on other demand types (Cox et al. 2000) and that the control concept has various dimensions but
this model narrowly defines it (Carayon, 1993 cited in Cox et al. 2000). Parkes (1989) defines
control types which are not mentioned in the DCS i.e. control as an objective component of the
working environment, individual perceptions that how much work can be controlled and faith on
the extent to which serious effects can be managed.
In DCS model high control is always preferable but some persons may not prefer control over
job tasks and control may cause stress in them e.g. if they don’t believe in their abilities. This
model clearly explains job redesign and healthy jobs are those in which there is high control and
less job demands and wide connections of social support. The DCS model is used to provide
practical support for primary level interventions (work characteristics) but this is debatable that it
can give advice for secondary level interventions (measures which focus individuals i.e. to give
training for the stress) (Mark, 2008).
DCS model assumes that some factors are important and ignores the effects of common
organizational issues e.g. Individuals may have high control over job tasks or low job demands
but clashes among subgroups, imperfect managing skills, depends on age or gender bias. The
DCS model does not explain causes of the stress. The DCS model is identified on the basis of job
redesign i.e. in some jobs we can change demand, control and support levels. Nevertheless, most
of the jobs are naturally hard and it is not possible to change the design of these jobs according to
assumptions of DCS Model. It will be reasonable to prepare employees how to cope and to
improve belief on their abilities, management of the time, information of favoritism matters,
giving feedback opportunity and more reward (Mark, 2008).
The DCS is a well-known and effective model of job stress with acceptable anticipated validity
but to summarize the stress process is restricted. This model is generally based on a stimulus-
response pattern which is theoretically unproductive (Dewe, 1991). It will be more productive
when used in combination with the other models of job factors also with individual
characteristics or personal perceptions elements.
The Framework of Occupational Stress
The framework of occupational stress has the same base as in the case of person environment fit
theory. There are two basic arguments in the framework of occupational stress. First, stress
emerges when there is the misfit between person and environment and second, stress is generally
determined by individual perceptions of working environment. The distinction between the two
aspects is the definition of framework. Occupational stress is defined as a process containing the
environmental causes of stress and the perceptions of individuals about them, physical,
emotional, and behavioral reactions in the short run and long run and modifying determinants
that affect the relationship of the variables in the process of stress.
Concept of snowball effect is applied in case of perceiving stress and the resulting stress. Bad
perceptions related to work environment increase stress, which leads to the more bad perceptions
of work. There is interdependent connection exists. Physical, mental and behavioral stress is
created which will lead to the lasting results i.e. depression, alcohol abuse, failure, physical
diseases and other harmful outcomes (Bickford, 2005).
The framework of occupational stress has five stages. The first stage shows the demands of
working environment. The second stage show the perception of an individual of these job
demands related to his ability to manage. Stress is considered a psychic condition which
originates when there is imbalance between the perceptions of job demands and feeling of an
individual about his ability to deal with it. The third stage is linked with the psychological and
physiological changes experienced by an individual as a result of stress and involves secondary
judgment and managing (Mark, 2008). Cox and Ferguson (1991) states that when a person is
facing stress, psychological changes will occur in him like mood variation and emotional
feelings. Anxiety, feeling of broken down and sadness etc are the signs of stress.
If a person has knowledge of obstacles that cause stress, he tries to adjust in the situation or tries
to adjust the situation. If a person is unable to do so, it will lead to adverse health outcomes. The
fourth stage shows the results of managing and final and the fifth stage is response which results
in association with the other stages (Mark, 2008).
There is much research done on the influence of elements of individual characteristics i.e. locus
of control, self-efficacy, hardiness etc, and its connection with the health. Information available
on these elements, functioning as mediating and moderating variables, is considerably
provisional (Cooper, Dewe, O ’Driscoll, 2001; Spector, 2003; Parkes, 1994). Additionally, this
model is very complex so it’s hard to test it practically contrary to the simple model of Karasek
(The Demand-Control Support Model).
The Effort-Reward Imbalance model
The Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model is an alternate of Demand Control Support model.
This model states that if there is imbalance between efforts and rewards of an employee, ill
health will be the result. There are two types of efforts in the ERI model: intrinsic and extrinsic
efforts. Intrinsic effort is motivation level of individuals and their need for control on job
whereas extrinsic effort deals with job demands. Intrinsic effort is also known as “over-
commitment”. Intrinsic effort is related to an individual whereas extrinsic effort and rewards are
related to situation (Van Vegchel, De Jonge, Bosma & Schaufeli, 2005).
There was criticism on the concept of over-commitment in the ERI model. Previously, over-
commitment was the part of intrinsic effort but later it is considered as a separate concept.
The ERI model is dissimilar to the DCS model and reflects the Person Environment fit model in
that it is not the real imbalance between efforts and rewards but the feelings of the imbalance
(Siegrist, 1996). This model indicates different perceptions because of the differences between
the individuals but there is less theoretical explanation of it. The assumptions of the ERI model
are supported by five main studies mentioned by Peter and Siegrist (1999).
There are increased risks of heart diseases in those who are exposed to high efforts-low rewards
situation as compared to the situation of low efforts-high rewards when smoking habits, age
factor, blood pressure and cholesterol are fixed (Siegrist, Peter, Junge, Cremer & Seidel, 1990;
Bosma, Peter, Siegrist, & Marmot, 1998). Van Vegchel et al. (2002) explains powerful impact of
the reward factors linked with dignity and job safety on psychosomatic disorder and tiredness
results and de Jonge, Bosma, Peter, and Siegrist (2000) states that individuals with high efforts
and low rewards experience 21 times more nervous tiredness as compared to those with low
efforts and high rewards.
Tsutsumi and Kawakami (2004) revised ERI model to check validly of the model as a measure of
job stress and reported validity of the ERI model to measure stress. They reported that elements
of job measured by ERI are different from those measured by Demand Control Support model
and negative health outcomes are autonomous of each other. It is suggested that both models
(Effort Reward Imbalance and Demand Control Support) are independent of each other.
ERI model does not explain redesign approach in detail but like the DCS model presents basic
design rules which are based on basic interventions such as proper rewards for work, feedback
processes, bonuses, chances of promotion, etc. (Kompier, 2003). The ERI model studies the
limited number and a priori type of the elements, so its advice for possible secondary mediations
is restricted. It ignores the elements of working environment which are important in Demand
Control Support Model. Research shows that when these models are used collectively, there will
be more scope for these models as each can contribute to the description of difference in mental
and physical health results (De Jonge et al. 2000).
New stress models
New stress models are evolved in which important elements of the current models are included
and they are expanded in different ways. These new stress models are Demand Skill Support
model, Demand Induced Strain Compensation model and the Job Demands Resources model.
Demand Skill Support model
The Demand-Skill-Support model (Van Veldhoven et al., 2005) is based on Demand Control
Support model which is developed to determine how many minimum elements are needed to
properly define stress and health and if such a model could be applied across a variety of
professions and effects. Van Veldhoven et al. (2005) suggested that both quantitative and
qualitative demands are related to stress and health diseases where as skill utilization and social
support are more expected to relate with wellbeing and attitudinal outcomes.
This model can be criticized because of the following reasons. All of the work environmental
elements are evolved from the DCS model and various actual DCS measures are divided into its
sub factors. It is useful to separate forms of control such as skill utilization and task autonomy.
Reasons for the selection of only DCS related factors are not mentioned except current
measurement practices (Veldhoven et al. 2005). At the same time use of three different outcome
variables is helpful (fatigue, task satisfaction, and organizational commitment). The model can
be improved by the addition of emotional health related effects i.e. tension or sadness or
objective effects i.e. absenteeism. The authors admit that only a few elements of the job are
included in it and by adding more elements this model can be improved and conclude that this
model will lead to future research. DCS based model is a good starting point for research (Mark,
The DSS model provides less awareness of the effect of individual characteristics in the stress
process or individual thinking’s of work demands. This model is a basic evaluating technique
which can be used for detailed view of the levels of organizational stress. Further research can be
done in this model by involving other work environmental factors.
Demand Induced Strain Compensation model
De Jonge et al. (2000) supported that sub-factors of the DCS and ERI models had separate
aggregate impact in the forecasting of nervous tiredness, job comfort and psychological and
physiological health disorders. Same outcomes were observed by Rydstedt, Devereaux, & Sverke
(2007). Rydstedt, Devereaux, & Sverke (2007) and De Jonge et al. (2000) stated that in future
research should be done by improving and joining features of these two models. A theory which
tries for this is the demand induced strain compensation model (De Jonge & Dormann, 2003).
This model was especially developed with emphasis on service job’s stress.
This model states that there are different demands and resources and they should be matched in
way that there are emotional resources for emotional demands of the work, cognitive resources
for cognitive demands and physical resources for physical demands (Van Veldhoven et al. 2005).
If there are low behavioral resources for high behavioral demands, low psychological resources
for high psychological demands and low emotional resources for high emotional demands, it will
lead to negative health outcomes. After all, if there are high demands for high resources in every
aspect, it will lead to learning, ambition and improvement. This is called the triple match
principle (De Jonge & Dormann, 2003). In this model, the principles of demand, resources,
equity and mutuality are adopted from the models of ERI and DCS.
There is need of more research in this model especially for the attractive assumption that
resources in a specific field are best offset by resources in the same field.
The Job Demands-Resources Model
The Job Demands-Resources model takes advice from various theories and tries to show the
effect of job demands and resources on health and organizational responsibility (Llorens, Bakker,
Schaufeli, & Salanova, 2006).
Demands are the environmental elements of a job which need exertion and may lead to physical
and psychological disorders. Resources are job elements that help to achieve goals at work,
decrease demands and encourage progress. Therefore in the presence of working environmental
demands and resource, health deterioration and ambition are affected. Burnout (from tiredness
and distrust) and work engagement (from ability and loyalty) are supposed opposite mental
conditions that directs to health lose (Llorens et al., 2006). Organizational responsibility is
negatively affected by burnout because of the bad health or improved by work engagement by
The Job Demands-Resources is an interesting model which assumptions can be used in any
working context irrespective of the specific demands or resources (Llorens et al., 2006). This
model can be enhanced on the basis of DCS model by expressing that the various resources can
lessen the effects of demands on stress related outcomes (Bakker, Demerouti & Euwema, 2005).
There is significant negative relationship between job demands and organizational commitment
which is mediated by burnout and the relationship between job resources and organizational
commitment is mediated by engagement (Llorens et al., 2006). There is little support for Job
Demands-Resources model which is extremely based on the DCS model and only the work
characteristics are focused in most of the studies on this model (Xanthopoulou, Bakker,
Demerouti, and Schaufeli, 2007).
Individual differences are significant in the Job Demands-Resources model but investigation of
work characteristics can also help us to decide elements that are related to individual’s outcomes
(Bakker et al., 2005). Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) added the personal resources in this model to
expand the research. Personal resources are the attributes that help in flexibility and positivism
and that the association between environment and effects should be mediated and moderated by
these resources. The addition of personal factors in this model and also joining important work
environmental factors will lead to productive future research.
Work Stress and Health
Rapidly expanding global empirical research confirms the association between work stress and
its negative physical and psychological health effects (Peter & Siegrist, 2000; Belkic,
Landsbergis, Schnall, & Baker, 2004). Work stress is considered a cause of physical and
psychological disorders. Work stress is a severe health and safety threat that may result in
adverse outcomes.
It is loudly clear from the study or research has been done so far that stress is a worldwide
problem with fewer implications in the developed nations and more implications in developing
nations and under developed nations. Stress can have serious health effects. Work stress affects
employee health badly. The problem of stress becomes more severe and complex when it comes
to developing countries where less attention is paid to the health related issues of an employee in
an organization because of stress.
Most of the diseases result from stress and there are various causes of stress. There is transparent
relationship between job stress and various physical and psychological diseases. The work stress
influence health of an employee negatively in many ways like physical, psychological, emotional
and behavioral (Blaug, Kenyon & Lekhi, 2007).
Many working conditions like noise, work load, deadlines, less control of decision, unclear roles,
clashes with colleagues, etc., are causing stress at work. Severe job stress leads to anxiety, bad
performance, sickness, and absenteeism (Crandall & Perrewe (Eds.), 1995). Rising rates of
stress at work have been observed which can be determined by the concept of keeping limited
control over job tasks and untold job demands. Job stress is related with heart attacks,
hypertension and other diseases. Its the person-environment fit that concerns, not the job
(“Workplace Stress”, 2015).
Work Stress is same for many jobs. Sometimes stress is normal but high stress for a long period
of time can affect employee’s performance, physical and emotional health. If the worker himself
takes care of the level of his stress it will help in decreasing the health problems and will also
cause positive impact on his organization (Bakker, Holenderski, Kocielnik, Pechenizkiy &
Sidorova, 2012). Normal stress arrives, remains for some time and is finally finished. Noxious
stress is different from normal stress which arrives, remains and increases with the passage of
time. Noxious stress is harmful and usually leads to negative physical and mental effects.
Work stress is actually the adverse physical and hysterical reaction that results when there is
clash between job demands and employee’s control on these job demands. Stress occurs when
there are high job demands and less control of an employee over these job demands. When there
is low level of stress at job, it motivates an employee which in turn results in higher performance
of an employee at job. When an employee faces high level of stress which he cannot control, it
becomes very dangerous because high level of stress leads to physical and mental hazards (The
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 2000).
Stress gives warning to the brain, which reacts by preparing the body for protective response.
The nervous system becomes alert and hormones are excreted to arouse the awareness, pulse rate
increases, deep breathing, and muscles are tensed. This reaction is called the fight or flight
reaction which is essential because it helps the body by protecting against alarming situations.
The reaction is programmed in our bodies naturally. Whether the stress is because of job or
home, this reaction is the same. Temporary or rare stress will have fewer threats. But when
alarming situations are not settled, the body is kept in a state of awakening for a longer period of
time, which increases the rate of depreciation in human bodies. Finally, tiredness or injury
results, and body is not able to repair and protect itself against stressful situations. Therefore, the
threat of injury or disease increases (Sauter et al., 1999).
Psychosocial stressors are actually the elements which result in many physical and psychological
health outcomes in employees. These negative health outcomes are cardiac diseases,
gastrological problems, restlessness, unhappiness, absenteeism, exhaustion, accidents,
musculoskeletal problems, work-family issues, and many other complaints (Cox & Griffiths,
1995). These health outcomes will have adverse effects on the employers i.e. high turnover,
absenteeism, strikes, low productivity, job mistakes, accidents, less responsibility, low morale,
and lawsuits by employees.
When a person is having trouble to deal with the stress he is facing, he may experience following
problems: physical, psychosocial, cognitive and behavioral. Physical problems include headache,
bruxism, grasped jaws, chest pain, breathing problem, heart problems, increased blood pressure,
muscular pain, upset stomach, irritable bowel disease, increased sweating, tiredness,
sleeplessness, and constant sickness. Psychosocial problems include tension, irritation,
unhappiness, protectiveness, anger, changes in mood, vulnerability, lack of interest, depression,
decreased thoughts, incompetence, desperation, caught in a trap, and less motivation. Cognitive
problems include unable to concentrate, confined thoughts, consistent inability to remember,
ineffective thinking, less analytical skills, inability to learn, and easily detracted. Behavioral
problems include changes in eating habits, restlessness, readiness for dispute, indecisiveness,
more use of alcohol and drugs, increased smoking, seclusion, irresponsibility, bad job
performance, dirtiness, changes in religious habits, and changes in relationships with family (The
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 2000). Work stress can lead to
psychosocial and physical illness. Stress can cause fatigue, sleep disorders, chest pain, increased
blood pressure, neck and shoulders pains and tensed up muscles. Stress must be managed
properly to avoid its bad consequences.
Stressors are the causes of stress in any individual. Human bodies are equipped with the natural
response system to stress. Continuous low level job stress is always responded by the natural
response system of human body for a long time and this response called “Generalized Stress
Response”. The physiological responses to this stress are: high blood pressure, high rate of
metabolism, slow rate of protein formation, low functioning of digestive and immune system,
high cholesterol level, more fats in blood, body inflammation, quick clotting of blood, faster rate
of blood sugar synthesis and stomach acidity. These symptoms when continually faced by the
individuals show that they under stress (Bickford, 2005). Work stress is a severe health and
safety threat that may result in adverse outcomes.
There is linkage between working hours and health outcomes. Long working hours and work at
night shift has negative health outcomes i.e. heart diseases, bad pregnancy results, colon cancer,
ulcer, ill health and psychological disorder. Noise has adverse effects on health such as sleeping
disorder, anxiety, and cardiovascular diseases (McNamara, 2008).
Today employees are facing more stress at workplace which affects their physical and mental
health. This stress increases the costs for the organizations in the form of the less efficiency,
absenteeism and high turnover rate. Stress leads to death by heart attack, loss of brain function,
high blood pressure and other diseases. Poor working conditions are also affecting employees
both physically and psychologically (Bickford, 2005). Stress can lead to serious mistakes and
damages. Work stress has physiological and emotional responses.
People have sleeping problems, depression, disturbance, tension, nervousness, more intakes of
drugs and alcohol, anger and negligence as a result of stress. Stress may lead to the accidents
when a person is unable to control the risks or threats to his health (The Canadian Centre for
Occupational Health and Safety, 2000). Some companies believe that tense working conditions
are an essential disaster that companies must put the pressure on their employees and health
matters should be abolished to remain rewarding and advantageous in modern economy. But
research results has objection with this point of view. Studies demonstrate that disturbing
working conditions are linked with increased absenteeism, lateness, and employees are willing to
leave their jobs (Sauter et al., 1999).
The stress at work leads to physical and mental hazards. At an extreme, long term stress at work
creates psychological disorders which results in the absence of employees from job. Stress
affects negatively both work and personal life an individual. Immune system is badly affected by
the stress by which an ability of an individual to fight against diseases decreases. Stress at work
also results in bad habits like smoking and more intakes of drugs by employees (WHO, 2004).
Burnout is a constant level of high stress which has physical, psychological and emotional health
effects and in this case employee is unable to achieve the presented targets. Feelings of
desperation, lack of power, distrustful attitude, and feeling of anger, failure and decreased
efficiency are the result of burnout. These responses to stress create depression and sadness in
employees that may destroy their job, relations and health. Burnout is present in every
profession. The reasons of burnout are work load, not being appreciated, not clear about the
goals expected from them, job insecurity, extra motivated to their profession, not satisfied about
the balance between their salary and services (Bickford, 2005).
Many studies have presented an association between job stress and various diseases. Stress
results in the problems like changes in mood, disturbed sleep, headache, upset stomach, and
disputes with the friends and family that rapidly grow and these problems are usually discussed
in these studies. Usually, these initial symptoms of job stress can be observed easily. But it is not
easy to observe the influence of job stress on incurable disorders because incurable disorders
take more time to evolve and can be affected by many elements other than stress. However,
stress plays a crucial role in various types of incurable health issues particularly heart diseases,
musculoskeletal pains, and mental illness. Initial alarming symptoms of job stress are headache,
sleeping disorder, lack of concentration, short temperament, disturbed stomach, lack of Job
satisfaction, and low confidence (Sauter et al., 1999).
Irritating behavior, depression, anxiety, unable to concentrate, sleeping disorder, tiredness, heart
diseases, digestive system problems, headaches, high blood pressure, and muscular-skeleton
problems are the diseases which result a result of stress. If the employees of an organization are
suffering stress, this will ultimately affect the performance of an organization. It will also be
risky for an organization to survive in the market (WHO, 2004).
Stress is the cause of many physical and psychological disorders. When the individual
experiences stress, blood flows from the internal parts of the body and skin to the brain and
muscles, fatty acids and cellulose are activated in the blood to supply energy, eyesight, and
listening skill is enhanced and a person becomes alert. Normal physical support functions i.e.
digestion, immune and curative systems are all weakened. This response to the stress is normal
which develops when the stress is perceived by an individual but when the stress continues for a
long time and it’s severe and not properly managed, it will be a threat for the health of an
individual. The immune system is disturbed as a result of the severe stress and the body is unable
to function normally and becomes sensitive to various diseases and illness. Psychological
diseases which result from job stress badly influence both employee and employer. Depression,
tension and other psychological diseases normally result in absence because of sickness, medical
appointments and malfunction (Blaug, Kenyon & Lekhi, 2007). Toxic stress has more harmful
effects as compared to the normal stress.
CUPE, 2003 reported that work stress increases metabolism, blood pressure, cholesterol level,
production of acids in stomach, muscular tension, sweating and fats in the blood, decreases
protein synthesis, disturbs digestion and immune system. Stress also increases chest, shoulders,
back, and neck pains, depression, apathy, headaches, diabetes, social conflicts, weight
complaints, menstrual and sexual problems.
Employees will suffer stress when they are not doing their job in the way they want to do it. In
case of overwork, the natural response system against stress is adversely affected because of the
tiredness, excessive work pressure and other elements. Stress which is not timely resolved, keeps
mounted and becomes toxic stress. Stress is related to overwork. Performance at job is also badly
affected by overwork. Stress and overwork both are result of poor management of an
organization. Work stressors disturb personal and social life of an employee, cause tiredness,
sleeping disorder, lack of attention and increasing rate of work place accidents. These factors can
also result in high level of stress (CUPE 2003).
Stress at work affects the quality of life and brings negative changes to human nature both
physically and mentally. Stress not only badly affects the health of an employee but also
detriments the performance of an employee in an organization. Ulcer, weak immune system,
rheumatoid arthritis and coronial heart diseases are the results of job stress (Cox, 1993). Stress
influences mental as well as physical health. University of London reported that stress is a major
cause of cancer and heart disease as compared to smoking or cholesterol foods (Cryer, 1996).
Primary focus of any organization has never been to provide the better working environment for
the employees which cause the stress in employees. Poorly managed and without standard
protocols of good working conditions creates extra pressure on employees, the extra load which
is generated for an employee because of the poor management system of an organization causes
the stress among employees. One of the main draw backs of a poorly managed organization is
that the employees cannot enjoy the due and timely favor from each other also causes stress
(WHO, 2004).
According to CUPE (2003), psychological diseases, social and behavioral changes originate
from stress. Stress causes depression, anxiety, tension, fear, disturbed eating and sleeping habits,
tiredness, irritation, mood changes, negativism, failure to concentrate, sexual dysfunction, and
increased use of drugs. In America 20,000 employees experience coronary artery disease because
of work stress and it costs $700 million per year to replace them (Cooper, Cooper, & Eaker,
University employees were experiencing stress which results into poor health outcomes. Stress is
normal to some extent and low level of stress is a motivator. Stress results in lack of sleep,
anxiety, bad performance at job, and affecting personal life because of job stress. Men and old
employees having more experience at job can handle stress efficiently. Social support, advice,
proper planning, and time management can help to handle job stress (Mark, 2008). Stress at work
affects the quality of life and brings negative changes to human nature both physically and
mentally. Stress not only badly affects the health of an employee but also detriments the
performance of an employee in an organization. Ulcer, weak immune system, rheumatoid
arthritis and coronial heart diseases are the results of job stress (Cox, 1993).
Companies which think stress is not a big issue, is a questionable mentality because this is the
point which makes the situation more complex in the sense that the company wants to run away
from moral and ethical responsibilities. The negative approach of the management that stress is
not avoidable will cause serious health problems to the employees. One should also seriously
think about the loud proclamations of the management schemes and other tactics which will
ultimately result in nothing about the stress of employees. The stress management techniques and
the measurements has nothing to do with the stress, it is only about the working environment in
which the employees work because these techniques will never help to eliminate the stress and to
provide the stress free environment to the employees. These techniques are not complete solution
to the stress caused by working environment, but they provide only temporary solution to the
problems of stress (CUPE 2003). Management of stress in a way to provide the temporary
relaxation to the employees is like to hide the issues under carpet.
Better managed organization addresses the legal concerns of the employees and ensures their
participation in decision making of their concerned work because if the work is designed with
the participation of employees they can handle in an easy way that will finally help them not to
experience the stress. Once the work is managed and designed with the participation of
employees, all the stress related hazards are removed automatically. So, once these hazards are
removed and better working environment is provided then there are fewer chances for the
employees to suffer stress (WHO, 2004). Stress is a manageable phenomenon and should be
managed prior to the serious mental and physiological problems.
Job stress has negative impact on the health and happiness of employees and also negatively
affects the efficiency and income of organization. Organizations and individuals himself can take
measures to avoid stress effects. Employees must have the knowledge of symptoms of their
stress and employers must know the impact of stress on the health of their employees (Bickford,
As it is considered that any physical or mental damage to the health of an employee because of
the stress is the loss of an individual not an organization. But the fact of the matter is that
approach (i.e. any physical or mental damage to the health of an employee because of stress is a
loss of an individual not an organization) will then ultimately affect the yield and outcome of an
organization will badly suffer. Ethically and morally the attention should be paid that how any of
the employees can come out of stress so that he can remain out of reach of the stress problem and
the issues of health related to the stress.
Job stress is challenge for both employers and employees of an organization. They should deal
with stress efficiently. As the organizations change, its employees may face stress. Stress
problems at work should be regularly supervised to avoid its consequences (WHO, 2004). Stress
should be properly managed to avoid its adverse effects.
Every organization should take measures (working environment, duty timings etc.) in order to
keep its employees away from an environment of stress which will ultimately create a win-win
situation for both of an employee and an organization. The employee will enjoy good health and
the organization will prosper beyond the boundaries when the organization will provide better
working conditions and in result the employee will work with zeal and zest for the organization.
Conclusion and recommendations
This review of the work stress literature provides us detailed information about work stress, its
reasons and its physical and psychological effects on the health of an employee. Famous stress
models or theories are evaluated critically to explain the work stress and its health related
outcomes. From this review of the literature we can conclude that there is strong relationship
between stress at work and its physical and psychological effects. There are various issues which
need attention i.e. non-job stressors. These non-work stressors and work stressors may have
combined effects on the physical and psychological health of an employee. We have considered
only the work stressors in this review to know their effects on the health. Research can be done
on both stressors (work and non-work) and then their influence can be checked on employee’s
health. Work stressors and non-work stressors both are linked with physical and psychological
health outcomes independent of the each other (Klitzman, House, Israel, and Mero, 1990). We
should not ignore other vulnerable factors that is individual differences or non-work demands
which may intervene in the stress process. More research is needed to measure the experience of
stress and complete stress process. Stress management training is being provided to the
employees, even then there is need of more empirical research in this field. There is need to
apply all stress related theories and frameworks into practice.
Baker, D. B. (1985). The study of stress at work. Annual review of public health, 6(1), 367-381.
Bakker, J., Holenderski, L., Kocielnik, R., Pechenizkiy, M., & Sidorova, N. (2012). Stess@work:
From measuring stress to its understanding, prediction and handling with personalized
coaching. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M.C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job
demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170.
Baruch, G. K., & Barnett, R. C. (1987). Role quality and psychological well-being. In: F. J. (Ed)
Spouse, parent, worker: On gender and multiple roles. Yale University Press, New
Haven, Connecticut.
Belkic, K. L., Landsbergis, P. A., Schnall, P. L., & Baker, D. (2004). Is job strain a major source
of cardiovascular disease risk?. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health,
Bickford, M. (2005). Stress in the Workplace: A General Overview of the Causes, the Effects,
and the Solutions. Canadian Mental Health Association Newfoundland and Labrador
Division, 1-3.
Blaug, R., Kenyon, A., & Lekhi, R. (2007). Stress at work: a report prepared for The Work
Foundation’s principal partners. Project Report. The Work Foundation, London.
Bosma, H., Peter, R., Siegrist, J., & Marmot, M. (1998). Two alternative job stress models and
the risk of coronary heart disease. American journal of public health, 88(1), 68-74.
Buunk, B.P., de Jonge, J., Ybema, J.F., & de Wolff, C.J. (1998). Psychosocial Aspects of
Occupational Stress. In P.J.D. Drenth, H. Thierry, & de Wolff, C.J. (Eds). Handbook of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 145-182.
Canadian Union of Public Employees. (2003). Enough Workplace Stress: Organizing for
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. (2000). Workplace stress general.
Retrieved December 30, 2014 from
Chay, Y. W. (1990). Stress, individual differences, and social support. PhD Thesis, University of
Cooper, C., Cooper, R., and Eaker, L. (1988). Living with Stress. Harmondsworth, NY:Penguin
Cooper, C.L., Dewe, P.J., & O’Driscoll, M.P. (2001). Organizational Stress: A Review and
Critique o f Theory, Research, and Applications. Sage Publications.
Cox, T. (1987). Stress, coping and problem solving. Work & Stress, 1(1), 5-14.
Cox, T., & Griffiths, A. (1995). The nature and measurement of work stress: theory and
practice. The evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Cox, T. (1993). Stress research and stress management: Putting theory to work (Vol. 61).
Sudbury: HSE Books.
Cox, T., Griffiths, A., & Rial-Gonzalez, E. (2000). Research on work-related stress. Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg.
Cox, T., & Ferguson, E. (1991). Individual Differences, Stress and Coping. In C.L. Cooper, & R.
Payne (Eds.). Personality and Stress: Individual Differences in the Stress Process. New
York: Wiley.
Crandall, R., & Perrewe, P. L. (Eds.). (1995). Occupational Stress: A Handbook. CRC Press.
Cryer, B. (1996). Neutralizing workplace stress: The physiology of human performance and
organizational effectiveness. Presented at: Psychological Disabilities in the Workplace,
The Centre for Professional Learning, Toronto, CA. June 12, 1996.
Dewe, P. (1991). Primary appraisal, secondary appraisal and coping: Their role in stressful
work encounters. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64(4), 331-351
De Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2003). The DISC model: Demand-induced strain compensation
mechanisms in job stress. Occupational stress in the service professions, 43-74.
De Jonge, J., Bosma, H., Peter, R., & Siegrist, J. (2000). Job strain, effort-reward imbalance and
employee well-being: a large-scale cross-sectional study. Social science & medicine,
50(9), 1317-1327.
Fletcher, B.C. (1994).The epidemiology of occupational stress. In: C.L. Cooper and R. Payne
(Eds). Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work. Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
French, J. R., Caplan, R.D., & Harrision, R.V. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain
(Vol. 8). New York: Wiley.
Griffiths, A. (1998). The psychosocial work environment. In R.C. McCaig & M.J. Marrington
(Eds.), The changing nature of occupational health, 213-232.
Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of
Management, 17(2), 235-271.
Johnson, J. V. & Hall, E.M. (1988). Job strain, workplace social support, and cardiovascular
disease: A cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population.
American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1336- 1342.
Kawakami, N., & Haratani, T. (1999). Epidemiology of job stress and health in Japan: review of
current evidence and future direction. Industrial health, 37(2), 174-186.
Klitzman, S., House, J. S., Israel, B. A., & Mero, R. P. (1990). Work stress, nonwork stress, and
health. Journal of behavioral medicine, 13(3), 221-243.
Kompier, M. (2003). Job design and well-being. The handbook of work and health psychology,
Lazarus, R. S., & Cohen, J. B. (1977). Environmental stress. In Human behavior and
environment (pp. 89-127). Springer US.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Psychological Stress in the Workplace. In P.L. Perrewe (Ed.) Handbook on
job stress [Special Issue]. Journal o f Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 7, 1-13.
Llorens, S., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2006). Testing the robustness of the
job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(3), 378.
McNamara, R. (2008). Combined and selective effects of environmental and psychosocial
workplace hazards: associations with health and well-being in public sector
employees (Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff University).
Mark, G. M. (2008). The relationship between workplace stress, and job characteristics,
individual differences, and mental health. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.
Michie, S., & Williams, S. (2003). Reducing work related psychological ill health and sickness
absence: a systematic literature review. Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
60(1), 3-9.
Peter, R., & Siegrist, J. (2000). Psychosocial work environment and the risk of coronary heart
disease. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 73(1), S41-S45.
Peter R, & Siegrist J. (1999). Chronic psychosocial stress at work and cardiovascular disease:
the role of effort-reward imbalance. International Journal o f Law Psychiatry, 22, 441-
Parkes, K. R. (1994). Personality and coping as moderators of work stress processes: Models,
methods and measures. Work & Stress, 8(2), 110-129.
Parkes, K. (1989). Personal control in an occupational context. In A. Steptoe, & A. Appels
(Eds.), Stress, personal control and health, 21-48. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Rahman, H. (2013). Job Stress-Employees Performance and Health: A Study on Commercial
Bank in Bangladesh. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 13(4).
Repetti, R.L., Matthews, K.A., & Waldron, I. (1989). Employment and women's health: Effects
of paid employment on women's mental and physical health. American Psychologist,
44(11), 1394-1401.
Rydstedt, L. W., Devereux, J., & Sverke, M. (2007). Comparing and combining the demand-
control-support model and the effort reward imbalance model to predict long-term
mental strain. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 261-
Selye, H. (1946). The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases of adaptation 1. The
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 6(2), 117-230.
Sauter, S., Murphy, L., Colligan, M., Swanson, N., Hurrell, J., Scharf, F. S., ... & Tisdale,
J. (1999). Stress... at work (DHHS NIOSH Publication No. 99101). NIOSH.
Sharit, J., and Salvendy, G. (1982). Occupational Stress: Review and Reappraisal. Human
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 24(2), 129-162.
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of
occupational health psychology, 1(1), 27.
Siegrist, J., Peter, R., Junge, A., Cremer, P., & Seidel, D. (1990). Low status control, high effort
at work and ischemic heart disease: prospective evidence from blue-collar men. Social
science & medicine, 31(10), 1127-1134.
Spector, P. E. (2003). Individual differences in health and well-being in organizations. In D.A.
Hoffman, & L.E. Tetrick (Eds). Health and Safety in Organizations: A Multilevel
Stainbrook, G. L., and Green, L. W. (1983). Role of psychosocial stress in cardiovascular
disease. Houston Heart Bulletin, 3, 1-8.
Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in Organizations. In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen & R. J.
Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook o f psychology.
Tsutsumi, A., & Kawakami, N. (2004). A review of empirical studies on the model of effort
reward imbalance at work: reducing occupational stress by implementing a new theory.
Social science & medicine, 59(11), 2335-2359.
Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1998). The job-demand-control (-support) model and physical
health outcomes: A review of the strain and buffer hypothesis. Psychology & Health,
13(5), 909-936.
Van Vegchel, N., De Jonge, J., Bosma, H., & Schaufeli, W. (2005). Reviewing the effort- reward
imbalance model: Drawing up the balance of 45 empirical studies. Social Science &
Medicine, 60(5), 1117-1131.
Van Veldhoven, M., Taris, T. W., de Jonge, J., & Broersen, S. (2005). The relationship between
work characteristics and employee health and well-being: how much complexity do we
really need?. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(1), 3.
Veldhoven, M. V., Jonge, J. D., Broersen, S., Kompier, M., & Meijman, T. (2002). Specific
relationships between psychosocial job conditions and job-related stress: A three-level
analytic approach. Work & Stress, 16(3), 207-228.
Warr, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work &
Stress, 8(2), 84-97.
Welford, A. T. (1973). Stress and performance. Ergonomics, 16(5), 567-580.
World Health Organization. (2004). Work organization & stress: Systematic problem
approaches for employers, managers and trade union representatives. Stavroula Leka,
Amanda Griffiths, Tom Cox.
Workplace Stress. (2015, January 13). Retrieved from
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of
personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress
Management, 14(2), 121.
... Lee and Ashforth (1996) find a strong correlation between stress at work and psychological well-being. Overall, prior research agrees that work stressors demonstrate modest to strong direct and indirect correlations with health and well-being (Ganster and Schaubroeck, 1991;Ganster and Rosen, 2013;Sohail, 2015). These work stressors include the working hours and working time flexibility but also other job characteristics such as job insecurity, job demand and control as antecedents of stress at work (Klitzman et al., 1990;Ganster and Rosen, 2013). ...
... Prior research found that different work stressors directly and indirectly affect an individual's health and well-being (Ganster and Schaubroeck, 1991;Ganster and Rosen, 2013;Sohail, 2015). These work stressors include different aspects of working time quality, such as working hours and working time flexibility, but also other job characteristics such as job insecurity, job demand and control (Klitzman et al., 1990;Ganster and Rosen, 2013). ...
... We use data from waves 5 and 6 of the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS 2010 and2015) for the EU-28. This survey is carried out every five years by the EU Agency Eurofound ...
Full-text available
Research shows that stress at work can affect the health of individuals. In particular, working time quality (the extent and flexibility of the working time) has been found to be an important antecedent of stress at work. Prior entrepreneurship research further shows that not only job demands and control but also working time quality differ between self-employed and wage-employed individuals affecting stress at work. However, so far, we know little about how working time quality and stress at work differ between different types of entrepreneurs. Our study closes this gap. By investigating around 47,000 self-and wage-employed individuals in the EU-28, we find that self-employed individuals have longer working hours, more flexibility but also higher perceived stress levels than wage-employed individuals. Comparing different groups of self-employed individuals, we find that self-employed individuals with employees work the most, have the lowest flexibility and the highest perceived stress levels. Contrary to our expectations, we do not find differences regarding working hours, flexibility and perceived stress between independent and dependent self-employed individuals. Our results have important implications for entrepreneurship research and practice. JEL codes: J22, J81, I10, L26, M50, O52
... Some positions also need workers to change their work environments quite often, engage effectively in activities that cut across several locations, and communicate regularly with workers in other facilities. Jobs with these duties are shown to increase symptoms such as tension, depression, and disinterest (Lamovšek et al., 2022;Sohail & Rehman, 2015). ...
... Indeed, recent studies call for focusing on differences between sub-groups of relationship-status groups such as living apart together (LAT) and cohabiting couples (Carter et al., 2016;Funk & Kobayashi, 2016). Findings presented in Table 2 show that unlike some previous studies (see : Sohail & Rehman, 2015;Scott et al., 2015), unmarried individuals with partners were less satisfied with their WLB than married couples. ...
Full-text available
Marriage rates are declining in prevalence in the Western world, and relationship formats are more varied. These significant demographic changes demand new, more nuanced analyses sensitive to relationship-status variations. Moreover, the different groups may have differing work-behavior patterns, influencing and interacting with their work-life balance differently. Thus, using longitudinal analyses of a representative sample of the German population (25,871 observations, 6,280 unique individuals) from the Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics (pairfam) studies, this study disentangles work-life factors and shows their different effects on four marital/relationship-status groups: married people, singles, LAT couples, and cohabitating couples. In addition, four different work mechanisms are modeled here to estimate their separate effect on the four groups: after-hours working, workload, weekly working hours, and meeting colleagues after work. Following this four-on-four matrix, findings show that all unmarried groups are less affected by weekly working hours compared with the married group, singles with a partner are less affected by working after 7 PM compared with unpartnered singles and married people, all groups are negatively affected by workload, and meeting colleagues after work has a relatively positive effect on unpartnered singles. Thus, this study advances the understanding of unmarried people within the labor market.
... Si bien establece que el trabajo, el estrés como condición de constancia que genera discontinuidades psicológicas y físicas, las cuales pueden afectar las emociones, procesos de pensamiento y condiciones de una persona, este es ocasionado por el ambiente laboral en el que se encuentran los empleados o dicho una condición de tensión que genera un tipo de desequilibrio físico y psicológico que afecta las emociones, los procesos de pensamiento y las condiciones de un empleado (Sohail & Abdul, 2015). Se puede decir que el estrés laboral es un estado emocional de los empleados que se ven influenciados por diversos factores: cumplimiento del trabajo, carga de trabajo, jornada laboral y factores de conflicto individuales. ...
Full-text available
El recurso humano de las empresas es uno de los aspectos primordiales a ser tomados en cuenta por parte de toda organización, ya que de la salud física y mental dependerá su desempeño laboral en el día a día y el adecuado cumplimiento de sus actividades. El objetivo del presente trabajo es comprender de forma conceptual de estrés y calidad de vida en el entorno laboral de los empleados de áreas comerciales en función a la literatura relacionada. Este marco integrado consiste en un mapeo de temas de investigación clave resultantes de una revisión sistemática de la literatura, que incluye investigación en estrés y calidad de vida laboral. Para seleccionar estudios relevantes, utilizamos los criterios PEO (población, exposición, resultado) que se aplican con frecuencia en la investigación basada en evidencia. Se concluye que, aunque el estrés se considera una característica rutinaria de la vida moderna, si el estrés se vuelve continuo y creciente, la mayoría de los individuos muestran signos y síntomas problemáticos que pueden poner en peligro su salud y la sociedad que los rodea. Por otra parte, la determinación del alcance de la calidad de vida en el trabajo en una organización es una tarea de percepción, como tal, está muy influenciada por las características personales de quienes la determinan.
... People's faults are inherited and educated (22,28). So, elimination of a visual domino caused the effect not to happen, and it is possible by training employees and making them aware of hazards in the work environment (29,30). The ABC Theory states that the attitude, behavior, and conditions that follow due to risk factors encountered result in a change of behavior. ...
Full-text available
A hazardous work environment creates critical concerns, and resultantly, workers may suffer from job-related stress. So, this study aimed at identifying the nature of hazards prevailing in dental hospitals and their role in increasing job-related stress. The study also assumes that awareness of the existence of health hazards and their possible risk will originate the stress. To conduct the study, close-ended questionnaires were administered to 300 workers having more than 1 year of experience in Oral and Dental Health Services provided by the Kingdom of Bahrain. In total, 222 responses with an acceptable level of accuracy were included for statistical treatment. Results confirmed the prevalence of ergonomic, biological, physical, and, to some extent, chemical hazards in the workplace. Results revealed that stress befalls the employees as they know their exposure to these hazards. Ergonomic hazards have the highest prevalence, chemical hazards are the least prevalent, while biological and physical hazards fall in between. This study enriches the related bank of literature by tapping the hazards specifically in the dental hospitals' environment with the degree of intensity of their prevalence within the context at hand. The study of the impact of these workplace health hazards on occupational stress with mediating effect of awareness is also an addition to the existing literature. The findings may help hospital administrators to take correct measures to manage job-related stress that is counterproductive and take remedial steps to mitigate these hazards.
... Work-related stress is the first cause of long-term sickness absence and the second reason for sickness leave shorter than four weeks in public service workers in the UK (4). Moreover, the literature has revealed that chronic exposure to hostile working conditions leads to stress (5) and several mental disorders and physical diseases, which have differential impacts on protected groups (6)(7)(8)(9). Stress accounts for 45% of all working days lost due to poor health (Health and Safety Executive, 2016). It has also been shown that the roots of stress are more related to personal factors for females in the UK IT sector (10). ...
Full-text available
Digital mental health applications promise scalable and cost-effective solutions to mitigate the gap between the demand and supply of mental healthcare services. However, very little attention is paid on differential impact and potential discrimination in digital mental health services with respect to different sensitive user groups (e.g., race, age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status) as the extant literature as well as the market lack the corresponding evidence. In this paper, we outline a 7-step model to assess algorithmic discrimination in digital mental health services, focusing on algorithmic bias assessment and differential impact. We conduct a pilot analysis with 610 users of the model applied on a digital wellbeing service called Foundations that incorporates a rich set of 150 proposed activities designed to increase wellbeing and reduce stress. We further apply the 7-step model on the evaluation of two algorithms that could extend the current service: monitoring step-up model, and a popularity-based activities recommender system. This study applies an algorithmic fairness analysis framework for digital mental health and explores differences in the outcome metrics for the interventions, monitoring model, and recommender engine for the users of different age, gender, type of work, country of residence, employment status and monthly income. Systematic Review Registration: The study with main hypotheses is registered at:
When stress is improperly managed over time, it may lead to various medical, psychological, and behavioral problems. This chapter proposes applying artificial intelligence models in the workplace to control and manage workers’ stress through the heart rate. However, many of the devices used in the research literature to measure heart rate are too invasive, uncomfortable, or expensive. Therefore, we reviewed the state-of-the-art to find non-invasive wearables to measure the heart rate and the potential architectures to send the data to a server for stress detection in a workplace environment. This search identified a direct Wi-Fi connection as the most recommendable architecture and Samsung Galaxy Watch 3, Active 2, and Mobvoi TicWatch Pro 3 are the recommended wearables that allow this architecture. Moreover, we presented a methodology to configure, train, and evaluate different artificial intelligence models. We applied this methodology in the research dataset Smart Reasoning Systems for Well-being at Work and at Home-Knowledge Work (25 subjects) after performing a search of the literature of open biometrics dataset for stress detection. AdaBoost and Random Forest stand out with higher performances, with a macro F1 of 72.78% and 74.54% and balanced accuracy of 79.31% and 78.31%, respectively employing a leave-one-subject-out evaluation. We believe that this stress detection approach can be applied in the workplace in the future, helping to improve the overall employee well-being and their self-regulation capabilities in the future.KeywordsStressWearablesArtificial intelligenceMachine learningWorkplace
Full-text available
In universities, teachers are the most important assets who contributes in the holistic growth and development of the system. Teachers are occupied with a bunch of responsibilities including both teaching and administrative task which creates the stress at work. An individual personality plays a significant role in the happiness level. Happier employees are more productive. Organisations across the industry, no doubt try to improve their employee's happiness with the objective to improve their employee's happiness with the objective to achieve higher profitability and company value. The present study aims to investigate the effect of big five traits on workplace happiness of university teachers in Delhi/NCR and to understand how personality can be used as an intervention to foster workplace happiness.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
ABSTRACT The government is committed to improving the health system by providing universal coverage to all South Africans as articulated in national health policies. The biggest threat facing the health sector today is the shortage of well-trained healthcare workers and the increasing demand for healthcare services. A quantitative study was used to examine the role of task-shifting as response to human resource crisis facing the Ngwelezana Tertiary Hospital in KwaZulu-Natal. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests of association and the Cramer’s V test. The results show that task-shifting was adopted to address staff shortages, delays in serving patients, long waiting periods for patients, increased risks of error and patient mortality. However, task-shifting presented its own challenges such as legal and professional risks and staff morale issues. The paper concludes that task shifting should be used as a relief measure for reducing the impact of staff shortages in hospitals.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Procuring and Disposing Entities (PDEs) in state departments are challenged with missing records, inadequate training, poor enforcement mechanisms, limited funding and poor reports. Taking into account the huge government investment into public contracts, research to understand factors enabling contract compliance is imperative. This study explored the enabling factors for contract compliance in PDEs in Uganda. A qualitative study of twenty-nine telephone interviews and focus group discussions via Zoom were conducted. Thematic and content analysis were used to identify the fourteen major themes. Findings suggest capacity building, funding, reporting, evaluation, contract management, records management, institutional structure, enforcement, legal and regulatory framework, communication, openness, compliance checks, ethical orientation and stakeholder involvement as enablers for a suitable contract compliance environment in state departments in Uganda. The proposed conceptual framework serves as a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners especially those involved in public procurement.
Full-text available
This article reviews the role of individual differences in work stress processes, with particular reference to personality and coping as moderator variables. Vulnerability/resilience and person-environment fit (congruence) models of moderator effects are contrasted and relevant issues of methodology and analysis are outlined. Personality traits (locus of control, hardiness, Type A, optimism, and neuroticism) that act as moderators of stress/strain relations are reviewed; the characteristics and limitations of available measures are described. Associations between personality and coping, inventories for the assessment of coping, and the dimensions of coping behaviour, are then considered. The implications of structural and transactional models of stress for coping assessment are discussed with reference to dispositional versus situational approaches and other psychometric issues. The need for research into coping flexibility and consistency is emphasized. No attempt is made to provide a comprehensive account of empirical research into individual difference moderator effects, but relevant review articles are cited, together with some recent studies. Finally, several areas which would merit further attention (including specificity of moderator effects, conjunctive and disjunctive patterns, and moderation of relations between objective and perceived stressors) are identified.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The problem of job stress is generally recognized as one of the major factors leading to a spectrum of health problems. People with certain professions, like intensive care specialists or call-center operators, and people in certain phases of their lives, like working parents with young children, are at increased risk of getting overstressed. For instance, one third of the intensive care specialists in the Netherlands are reported to have (had) a burn-out. Stress management should start far before the stress starts causing illnesses. The current state of sensor technology allows to develop systems measuring physical symptoms reflecting the stress level. We propose to use data mining and predictive modeling for gaining insight in the stress effects of the events at work and for enabling better stress management by providing timely and personalized coaching. In this paper we present a general framework allowing to achieve this goal and discuss the lessons learnt from the conducted case study.
Full-text available
This article reviews empirical evidence concerning the effects of paid employment on women's mental and physical health, with special attention to variations in the effects of employment depending on the characteristics of women and their jobs. We highlight methodological issues and focus primarily on studies with longitudinal data for representative samples of women. We conclude that women's employment does not have a negative effect on their health, on the average. Indeed, employment appears to improve the health of unmarried women and married women who have positive attitudes toward employment. Possible mediators linking employment to health outcomes are discussed. Current evidence suggests that increased social support from co-workers and supervisors may be one important mediator of the beneficial health effects of employment. Given the paucity of available longitudinal studies, we encourage additional prospective research examining the mental and physical health consequences of employment according to job characteristics, personal characteristics, and disease outcome. We also recommend research on several promising mediators of employment–health relationships. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Three things make stress an important area of study for a variety of disciplines. First, stress emotions and their effects are of the greatest importance to satisfaction and morale. Second, stress emotions strongly influence every aspect of adaptive functioning, including, for example, problem solving, social competence, and somatic health/illness. Third when stress emotions such as anxiety, fear, guilt, anger, sadness-depression, and jealousy occur, we can certain that some important transaction has been taking place between the person and the environment; in other words, we have response evidence of a psychological event that is anything but trivial in the eyes of the affected person.
This paper outlines the developing consensus on the nature of stress. It offers a definition of stress as a psychological state derived from the person's appraisal of their ability to cope with the demands which are made of them. The paper then examines the concept of coping and explores its role in stress theory. It contrasts two different approaches to the study of coping: the classification of coping strategies, and the investigation of the process of coping—coping as ‘problem solving’. The paper focuses on the latter and in doing so it describes the nature of rational models of problem solving, considering their utility and application to stress management.
We review and summarize the literature on work stress with particular emphasis on those studies that examined the effects of work characteristics on employee health. Although there is not convincing evidence that job stressors cause health effects, the indirect evidence is strongly suggestive of a work stress effect. This evidence comes from occupational studies that show differences in health and mortality that are not easily explained by other factors and within-subject studies that demonstrate a causal effect of work experiences on physiological and emotional responses. We argue that studies relying on self-reports of working conditions and outcomes, whether cross-sectional or longitudinal, are unlikely to add significantly to the accumulated evidence. Finally, we make recommendations for how organizational researchers are most likely to contribute to this knowledge.
A first purpose of this prospective study was to investigate whether the levels of mental strain and the working conditions included in the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model and the Demand-Control-Support (DCS) model differed for managers/professionals (n = 658) and manual workers (n = 343). An additional purpose was to compare the predictive power of the DCS and ERI models in the regard to long-term mental strain for these two groups. The study further aimed to investigate whether combining the models would improve the predictive power of long-term mental strain. Managers/professionals reported higher job demands and intrinsic efforts than did the manual workers, as well as slightly higher mental strain, but also higher decision latitude, social support, and rewards from work. Both models explained small albeit significant proportions of variance in mental strain for both occupational groups. A tentative conclusion from the study is that combining the two models may slightly increase the explanatory power to predict work-related mental strain.
This book explores the relationship between certain personality characteristics and stress. It examines the role of personality and individual differences in the stress process, highlighting their relation to coping and health behaviours. This volume includes consideration of Type A behaviour, neuroticism, locus of control, hardiness and salutogenesis, cognitive style and cognitive ability, and other individual differences factors such as sex, age, gender and social class. The relationship between physiological and individual differences in coping is also discussed. This book brings together this research in one volume, not only through reviewing the significant studies but also by critically assessing their methodological approach, and indicating the direction of future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Developed a research framework that reflects the way work stress is defined, the adequacy of work-stressor measurement, and the role of coping in work-stress research. 144 insurance company workers completed questionnaires about an event that had been stressful during the last month. Data show that, overall, significant relationships were established between primary appraisal, coping, and emotional discomfort. That primary appraisal was the significant contributor to explaining variance in the discomfort measures tends to support the notion that measuring how a person thinks in a particular encounter is the key to determining how he/she copes. Tentative support for the mediating role of secondary appraisal was also present. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)