Transforming stress in complexwork environments

Exploring the capabilities of middle managersin the public sector

Jennifer WalingaSchool of Communication and Culture, Royal Roads University,

Victoria, Canada, and

Wendy RoweSchool of Leadership Studies, Royal Roads University, Victoria, Canada

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore how to transform one’s perception of workplacestressors, moving beyond the idea of merely surviving or coping with stress to “thriving” within whatis becoming a non-negotiable level of stress in the workplace.Design/methodology/approach – The researchers generated a working definition of work stressthriving based on current literature, then conducted a content analysis of qualitative interviews todevelop an empirically-grounded understanding of factors differentiating a stress transformationresponse from a coping response to workplace stressors.Findings – The study revealed key characteristics of a stress transformation response to stresschallenges in the work place: systemic cognitive appraisal, inclusive communication strategies,collaborative and sustainable problem solving, individual learning and growth, and organizationalpositive impacts.Research limitations/implications – As a pilot study, limitations to the research include arelatively small sample size and only one type of work environment. More empirical work is neededto test the model, develop and validate measures of stress transformation.Practical implications – Findings provide the foundation for further empirical research into stresstransformation, and will potentially lead to the development of measures, training interventions,organizational structures, and work processes to enhance stress thriving within organizations.Social implications – The findings provide preliminary insights into tools for both organizationalleaders and employees to respond more sustainably to increasingly stressful, fast paced, and complexwork environments.Originality/value – The study provides an original conceptual perspective on the concept of stressmanagement, calling for a paradigm shift that views stress as desirable and conducive to optimalperformance.

Keywords Workplace health, Public sector, Middle managers, Stress, Psychological research,Leadership, Health and productivity

Paper type Research paper

Productive workplaces are often described in terms of high complexity, rapid change,and risk-taking innovation, conditions that can be perceived as debilitatively stressfuldue to high workloads, pressure, uncertainty, and inadequate control (Bacharach et al.,1990; Houdmont et al., 2010). However, stressful conditions are also associated withhigh productivity and optimal performance. As the father of stress, Hans Selye (1970)

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8351.htm

International Journal of WorkplaceHealth ManagementVol. 6 No. 1, 2013pp. 66-88r Emerald Group Publishing Limited1753-8351DOI 10.1108/17538351311312420

The authors have no conflict of interest in conducting this study. This study was supportedin part by the British Columbia Environment and Occupational Health Research Network.

66

IJWHM6,1

articulated: without stress, there is no life! Logan and Ganster (2005) suggest that highdemand environments generate heightened arousal, which increases decision-makingeffectiveness. However, while necessary for growth, stress can also be debilitativeif it becomes chronic or overwhelming to an employee. For workers to be healthy andproductive under stressful conditions, current literature and experts call fororganizational supports (Glicken, 2006; Lang, 2006; Luthans et al., 2007; Siebert,2005), use of good coping strategies (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984a), resilience(Maddi, 2006; Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003), and adaptive learning (Kobasa, 1982; Bennisand Thomas, 2002). It is our argument that healthy and productive workplacesdepend upon our capacity to transform our perception of a stressful condition froma situation to eliminate, avoid, or overcome to a catalyst for learning and growth or“thriving” – defined as increased engagement, learning, growth, and sustainability inthe face of adversity (Carver, 1998; O’Leary, 1998; Spreitzer et al., 2005).

The present research was an exploratory investigation into the occurrence ofstress transformation among public sector managers in British Columbia, Canada.The goal of the study was to determine how thriving outcomes differ from merelycoping or surviving with workplace stress; and the factors characteristic andcontributing to the adaptive response pattern of stress transformation, a processthat leads to stress-related growth or “thriving” as opposed to merely coping orsurviving in the face of stress.

This research was set in the context of mid-level public sector managementbecause these work environments are inherently complex, dynamic, and frequentlystressful. Managers in today’s public sector are expected to cope with the complexityand high demands of a service-oriented environment which includes multiple anddiverse stakeholders, changing government and public policy priorities, continuousorganizational change, and increasing public accountability (Alimo-Metcalfe andAlban-Metcalfe, 2004; Caverley, 2005; Duxbury et al., 2003; Stacey, 2006). The studyanalyzed the adaptive strategies of ten (n¼ 10) mid-level managers in the publicservice in order to formulate a conceptual model for stress transformation at work.The study’s purpose was to move workplace stress research beyond the idea of merelysurviving or coping with stress to learning how to transform one’s perception of stressinto an opportunity for growth, energy, and learning.

Literature reviewThe problem of stress at workDefinition of work stress. Houdmont et al. (2010) cite a lack of theoretical groundingand inconsistency in the measurement of work-related stress as of concern andrisk to valid and reliable estimates of the scale of the work stress problem. For thepurposes of this paper, we define workplace stress in terms of the contemporarytransactional stress theory (Folkman, 1991; Selye, 1970), which considers workplacestress as the product of a dynamic engagement between worker and work andemphasizes cognitive processes and adaptive responses. Many definitions of stresshave been framed by psycho-physiological explanations around a conflictingrelationship between individuals and their environment (Baker, 1985). Thisperspective considers the demands of the environment in relation to the resourcecapabilities of the individual. These models view stress as a dynamic process betweenphysiological, psychological, and behavioral factors that are cognitively interpretedby the individual. A frequently cited definition of workplace stress is the person-environment fit model (Blix and Lee, 1991; Edwards, 1996, 2008). In this model,

67

Transformingstress

debilitative stress occurs when the person-environment fit is dysfunctional.Stress arises when undue pressure is applied as a consequence of tasks orconditions occurring within the work environment during the course of employment.Barrett and Campos (1991) define stress as occurring when an environmentalevent, appraised by the individual as having the potential for exceeding the person’sresources, contributes to a disorganization of the individual’s behavior, and/or thoughtprocesses. In this way, stress is a neutral term which can be considered eitherdebilitative or facilitative depending on the nature of the interaction between workerand work stressors.

Causes and effects of work stress. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) lists the maincauses of stress as: “Overwork, bullying, low job control and satisfaction, jobinsecurity, new ways of working, poor work organization and pace of work can allcause stress” (TUC, 2008). Workplace stress is associated with work overload, roleconflicts, pressure, and job insecurity (Bacharach et al., 1990; Barrett and Campos,1991; Cox and Griffiths, 2010; Houdmont et al., 2010).

Stress in the workplace is increasing along with the pace of global change, andresulting workplace-related stress and psychiatric morbidity has increased over thepast 30 years (Blackmore et al., 2007; Kessler and Frank, 1997; Stansfeld, 2002; Wang,2005). In British Columbia, accepted claims for stress disorders cost approximately 4.7million per year excluding health care and rehabilitation costs (Statistics Canada,2005). As an individual’s psychological and physical resources are overwhelmed,negative symptoms emerge such as depression, memory loss, poor attention, andanger (Blackmore et al., 2007). Sustained stress leads to cynicism, inefficiency, andexhaustion (Maslach et al., 2001; Snyder, 2001) resulting in lost work days, loweremployee productivity, high job turnover rates � conditions that increaseorganizational staffing and health benefit costs. Poor management performance inthe face of stressful demands has serious repercussions for the stability andsustainability of leadership in the organization (Maki et al., 2005) and has negativeimplications for the organization as a whole. It is therefore increasingly important todevelop strategies to help leaders and workers respond to stress in more productive,healthy, and sustainable ways.

The current approaches to stress at workSurviving stress at work. Typically, stress coping techniques involve an attitude ofworking harder or being tougher which can be unsustainable over the long term andplace the full burden on the individual, ignoring organizational factors that can reduceor modify stressors or their negative impact. Some short-term coping strategiessuch as presenteeism – working while ill (Aronsson et al., 2000) or putting in longerhours (Worrall and Cooper, 2004) – actually exacerbate the costs of stress (Caverleyet al., 2007; Goetzel et al., 2004; Kivimaki et al., 2005). One of the mediating factors ofcoping is “the availability of personal and cognitive resources” (Fredrickson, 2001;Gray, 1987). Emotion focussed coping strategies actually divert attentional resourcestoward reducing or eliminating stress (e.g. confrontive thinking, distancing, escape/avoidance, thinking/regret, blaming others, or acceptance/resignation) as opposedto allocating cognitive resources toward developing strategies for growth amidststressful work conditions.

The impact of perception on stress outcome. Alternatively, Gentry and Kobasa (1984)suggest that truly resilient persons may rely on active, transformational coping, whichtransforms stress into a benign experience by means of problem-focussed strategies.

68

IJWHM6,1

It is this transformational process that concerns the present study. According to earlyresearch conducted by Hans Selye (1970, 1976) and Jones and Swain (1992, 1995),a transformation of stress perception is different from resilience or coping withstress in that it does not seek to endure, control, deny, or reduce stressful conditionsbut instead views the stress experience as a neutral phenomenon which can befacilitative or debilitative depending upon how it is interpreted or perceived.Depending upon human interpretation of the stressor, a stressful experiencecan result in debilitated performance or can offer an opportunity for growth,learning, and development Therefore, in order to learn how best to perform understress, it is important to determine what factors may promote a transformationin stress perception.

Thriving. Our challenge is to learn how to confront stress at work in a moresustainable yet still productive manner. Many echo this need to adapt to changingwork conditions (Bennis and Thomas, 2002; Story, 2004), to maintain positiveadjustment under challenging conditions (Kobasa et al., 1982; Luthans et al., 2007;Maddi, 2006; Maddi and Kobasa, 2002; Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003), to learn from failure(Edmondson, 2004; Edmondson and Cannon, 2005), to create coherence and order outof a chaotic situation (Flensborg-Madsen et al., 2005; Surtees et al., 2006), and toflourish, prosper, or experience transformational learning in the face of challenge(Carver, 1998; Cranton, 1994; Mezirow, 1994; O’Leary, 1998; Ryff and Singer, 2003;Tedeschi and Calhoun, 1995). Thriving under stressful conditions has been calledmany names: facilitative stress perception (Jones and Swain, 1992, 1995), stress-relatedgrowth (Tennen and Affleck, 1999), eustress (Selye, 1970), and post-traumatic growth(PTG) (Calhoun and Tedeschi, 1999).

Stress-related growth or “thriving” is theoretically defined as high engagement,learning, and growth in environments of high work-related stress (Carver, 1998).Spreitzer et al. (2005) define thriving as a “psychological state in which individualsexperience both a sense of vitality and a sense of learning at work” (p. 538). There aremany examples of individuals surpassing previous performances when faced withparticularly stressful scenarios, showing increased growth and strength in the face ofadversity. Walinga (2008) found that those who thrived best amidst organizationalchange and adversity possessed a certain “tolerance for lack of control” that allowedthem to better capitalize on stressors and perform even more optimally than before.Carver (1998) observes that flourishing becomes possible when stressors are defined asa growth opportunity, creating the possibility for new perspectives, new strategies,new skills, and new behaviors. Thriving has also been described as an outcome oftransformational learning (Taylor, 1997) involving a re-evaluation of one’s values,assumptions, and behaviors to make possible a new identity and understanding ofoneself (Mezirow, 1991).

Similarly, PTG has been defined as “positive psychological change experienced as aresult of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances or traumatic events”(Calhoun and Tedeschi, 1999, p. 1). As an individual attempts to incorporate the realityof a stressful event into their current schema, PTG may develop (Tedeschi andCalhoun, 2004). PTG encompasses several domains, including greater appreciationfor life, development of meaningful interpersonal relationships, and a sense of greaterpersonal strength (Tedeschi and Calhoun, 2004). Carver (1998) describes thrivingas being “better off after adversity” (p. 247). This research seeks a unique view ofstress within the context of work that aims to optimize human and organizationaldevelopment and sustainability.

69

Transformingstress

Personal and organizational factors influencing adaptive strategiesA review of the current literature reveals three primary domains of adaptive strategieswhen dealing with stressful conditions: first, emotional management strategies (BarOnand Handley, 1999; Barsade and Gibson, 2007; Ciarrochi and Scott, 2006; Mayer andSalovey, 1997; Rosete and Ciarrochi, 2004); second, cognitive action strategies (Siebert,2005; Weick et al., 2005); and third, social support strategies (Glicken, 2006; Lang, 2006;Luthans et al., 2007). In a review of literature on organizational factors mediatingwork stress, key practices found to contribute to improved performance in a stressfulworkplace include: clarity of roles and tasks; opportunity for control andempowerment in relation to work processes; open communication and transparency;supervisory support in terms of providing constructive feedback and learningopportunities; and congruency with vision and values of the organization (Bacharachand Bamberger, 2007; Bell, 2002; Coutu, 2002; Luthans et al., 2007; Norman et al., 2005;Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003).

Emotional management. How individuals manage their emotions is central to theinitial coping response and includes how individuals appraise the situation and itsdegree of threat, how they control the emotional response of fight or flight, and whatactions they take to reach emotional equilibrium (Folkman, 1991; Folkman andMoskowitz, 2000; Garmezy and Rutter, 1983; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984a, b; Skinner,1995). Critical emotive skills include self-awareness and skills in controlling emotionalresponses (BarOn and Handley, 1999; Barsade and Gibson, 2007; Ciarrochi and Scott,2006; Mayer and Salovey, 1997; Rosete and Ciarrochi, 2004). Folkman and Lazarus(1985) argue that the emotional response system is the primary organizing function forthe individual leading to deployment of either behavioral or cognitive problem-focussed strategies.

Cognitive action strategies. The cognitive response directs long-term strategies fordealing with specific stressors. These strategies include: analyzing the problem tounderstand what is happening; establishing who is accountable and over what;analyzing evidence to separate facts from assumptions; and acting to establish controlover events (Stoltz, 2000). Siebert (2005) adds additional mechanisms including:reducing confusion and conflict by improving lines of communication; setting goalsand engaging in learning strategies that support change and growth; and askingquestions, observing what works, and adjusting strategies. These various strategiescan be organized into actions that contribute to sense making, framing goals, andproblem solving.

Sense making. In sense making, meaning is derived from unpredictable situationsthat defy the application of normal routines and behaviors (Coutu, 2002; Lengnick-Halland Beck, 2005; Weick et al., 2005). It requires an awareness that old solutions do notwork, followed by the creation of new, inventive solutions (Weick et al., 2005).Framing goals involve the creation of strategies and goals in response to challengingsituations, as well as re-framing goals based on what is working or not working.How a task is framed, appraised, or constructed can influence allocation of cognitiveresources (Easterbrook, 1959; Eysenck et al., 1987; Mathews and MacLeod, 1994).Stress appraisal has been shown to mediate performance and problem solving in avariety of realms including athletics ( Jones and Swain, 1992, 1995; Jones et al., 1993),academia (Ansburg and Dominowski, 2000; Ohlsson, 1992), and organizations(Das and Teng, 1999; Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). Problem solving involves actionstaken to translate goals into action routines, which requires direction, support,and feedback.

70

IJWHM6,1

Social support. For resilient individuals, social support represents the strongsocial networks used to enhance their use of adaptive strategies (Park, 1998).Individuals demonstrate greater ability to achieve effective control over their emotionsand behaviors when they access social resources through colleagues, supervisors,friends, and perhaps also social services (Glicken, 2006; Lang, 2006; Siebert, 2005;Stoltz, 2000).

Organizational supports. The supports that an organization can offer play asignificant role in fostering or undermining the ability of the individual to adapt tostressful work conditions (Bacharach and Bamberger, 2007; Bell, 2002; Coutu, 2002;Luthans et al., 2007; Norman et al., 2005; Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003). Spreitzer et al.(2005) provide evidence that employees engage in more task focus, exploration, andrelating with others when working in an environment that features discretion,information sharing, and a climate of trust and respect. As Spreitzer et al. (2005) states,thriving is not simply the elimination of stressors but an increase of “specific [y]contextual factors” (p. 539). Such processes allow for open communication includingfeedback, tolerance for conflict and differences, expression of emotion (Connor,1998; Robb, 2000), and a forum to share “ideas, hopes, dreams, and disagreements”(Flach, 2004, p. 205).

Sisley (2010) suggests that organizations which facilitate certain qualities of worksuch as “autonomous motivation” using a variety of management strategies can helpemployees transform stress into eustress. Gilbreath (2008) has proposed that humanresource (HR) development professionals have an important role to play in creatinghealthy psychosocial environments using interventions such as stress audits andaction research. Francis and Keegan (2006) have called for HR professionals to providea distinctive contribution by guarding the well-being of employees, by reducing levelsof employee stress and promoting health and well-being. Other writers have focussedspecifically on work-life balance and the contribution HR professionals can offer inreducing employees’ stress arising from conflicts between work and family life(Grzywacz and Carlson, 2007; Pitt-Catsouphes et al., 2007).

MethodThe central research questions guiding this first area of research are: “In what waysdoes stress transformation differentiate from a coping or non-coping response tostress?” and “What personal and organizational factors help managers to transformtheir stress perception and achieve a thriving outcome in the public sector workplace?”The research followed a qualitative, phenomenological design to explore factorscontributing to a stress transformation response. The objectives of the study were toexplore participant experiences in stressful work situations, looking for evidenceof stress transformation as a distinctly different response to stress in the workplacefrom merely coping, and generating hypotheses as to what factors are contributingto a stress transformation response.

ParticipantsTen (n¼ 10) public sector managers (four female and six male, average age 36) wererecruited through advertisement in government and university executive leadershipprogram offices, and through a “snowball sampling” process, which encouragesparticipants to link to or recommend other participants. The notice specifically askedfor public sector managers who work in complex, stressful environments but have,on occasion, found ways to adapt and thrive. Employees in today’s public sector are

71

Transformingstress

expected to cope with the complexity and high demands of a service-orientedenvironment which includes multiple and diverse stakeholders, changing governmentand public policy priorities, continuous organizational change, and increasing publicaccountability (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2004; Caverley, 2005; Duxburyet al., 2003; Stacey, 2006).

DataOur methodological approach was explicitly qualitative and phenomenological innature and focussed on providing an in-depth description of the “lived” experience ofmanagers’ responses to stress. These accounts provided the grounding for a conceptualunderstanding of the phenomenon of stress transformation. We developed and pre-tested an interview protocol (see Appendix 1), that uses a “critical incident” technique(Flanagan, 1954; Fivars, 1980) to yield concrete, personally impactful examples ofstressful work experiences that can be described in detail.

Participants were provided two sample scenarios of stressful, but typical, worksituations (Appendix 2). One scenario involved an interpersonal conflict at work andthe other involved an organizationally complex situation. Participants were then askedto rate these two scenarios using the Job-Related Tension Index (Kahn et al., 1964)which measures the stressfulness of work in terms of authority, job role clarity,advancement opportunities, conflict processes, perceived competence, understandingof expectations, workload, access to information, acceptance by co-workers,supervisory feedback, work/life balance, and perceived control (Appendix 3). In thisway, the personal narratives of each participant were anchored to standardizedsituations of work that have been rated as moderately to highly stressful.

A total of ten interviews were conducted; a sample size considered sufficient toengage in new exploration into the dimensions of the phenomena (Kvale, 1996).Narratives are sources of “meaning making” and can reveal patterns and relationshipsbetween events, environmental conditions, and people’s attitudes and behaviors thatare not revealed in strictly theoretically driven, quantitative research (Denzin andLincoln, 1994).

ProcedureOnce it was verified that the standardized scenarios met a specified level of stress forthe participant, the individual was then asked to describe their own “lived” worksituation that was similarly stressful. For each of the scenarios, they were asked tothink of a situation which they managed well and a situation which they did not.Participants then wrote a short narrative description for each of four situations (twopositive and two negative scenarios). The interview protocol (Appendix 1) was carriedout with respect to each of the four narratives, and contained a series of open-endedquestions (with probes) designed to elicit detailed descriptions of their responses tothese situations. So as to not bias participant responses, we intentionally did notprovide a definition of stress transformation or thriving but rather looked to see if adefinition emerged from participants’ descriptions of responding well to a stressfulwork situation as distinctly different from the work situations they self-reported ashaving not managed well.

In order to verify that participant’s narratives represented stressful organizationalsituations, participants were asked first to rate the sample stressful scenarios using theJob-Related Tension Index to. The average score was 52 (out of 75) with a SD of 10indicating that all of the participants found the sample scenarios to be moderately to

72

IJWHM6,1

highly stressful. These sample scenarios then provided a frame of reference fromwhich participants could generate their own scenarios, two scenarios in which theyhad a positive outcome and two scenarios in which they had a negative outcome.

Analytical approachThe data were analyzed using framework analysis (Lacey and Luff, 2001), a techniqueinvolving steps of familiarization, coding, and thematic analysis of the textual datasimilar to grounded theory. Framework analysis allowed for the inclusion of an a priorithematic framework as well as emergent theoretical concepts in the coding process.Transcribed interviews were reviewed by participants for accuracy and to serve asa member check for the trustworthiness of the data (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). Eachpositive and negative narrative for each individual was coded in terms of the followinga priori domains, which had been derived from the literature: initial emotionalreactions; primary cognitive appraisal; secondary cognitive appraisal; communicationpatterns; social supports; organizational supports; coping actions and strategies;psychological and physical effects; learning and growth outcomes; and collateralaffects on others and organization. The analysis also sought evidence of thehypothesized interplay between organizational and personal factors as contributors tostress transformation. Two researchers were involved in the analysis to improvevalidity and an inter rater reliability of 98 percent was achieved.

ResultsIn answer to our research questions how do thriving outcomes differ from merelycoping or surviving with workplace stress and what are the factors characteristicof and contributing to the adaptive response pattern of stress transformation? Wedetermined factors differentiating three categories of stress outcome: non-coping,coping, and thriving including health, learning, and growth. Five key themes alsoemerged as contributing factors differentiating the non-coping and coping from thestress transformation responses to workplace stress: personal and community impact,secondary appraisal, communication strategies, and organizational factors.

Three categories of stress outcomeThe study defined three types of stress outcomes: non-coping, coping, and thriving.Factors distinguishing the three outcomes included learning and growth, psycho-emotional, and physical health. The thriving outcome is theoretically defined as highengagement, learning, and growth in environments of high work-related stress (Carver,1998; Park, 1998). Across our 40 interviews, we observed six scenarios whereindividuals articulated evidence of personal learning, growth, and even personaltransformation in facing a stressful work situation – the stress transformationresponse. These responses were distinguishable from narratives in which therespondent reported no change, relief that it was over, resignation, or acceptance –the coping response. Finally both of these types of response were distinguishablefrom the non-coping response in which the respondent described distress, anger,despair, helplessness, or hopelessness.

Non-coping. Non-coping responses showed evidence of despair, negativity, orhopelessness, as illustrated by these comments from a respondent, “My timidnessand unwillingness to face the reality of the situation contributed to a more stressfulwork environment” and “Nothing much has changed. The world is a cruel place,so there you go.”

73

Transformingstress

Coping. A coping response showed acceptance of the situation, whatever it wasmanaging it as best as possible. “Even though you have a good relationship withsomeone, there is a possibility that that can end. In turn, you yourself develop a hardershell. I grew from it because I got through it.”

Thriving. A thriving outcome showed evidence of learning and reframing of thesituation as beneficial. “Knowing you can only prepare so much before taking risks,learning more about being a leader and the stakeholders involved, and that you arethere to create a sense of community or team work.”

Health was also a factor of interest distinguishing non-coping and coping fromthriving outcomes to stressful work situations. While most non-coping and copingresponses involved negative physical or psychological health outcomes, i.e., loss ofweight, sickness, bronchitis, headaches, lots of crying, back problems, moodiness,anxiety, sheer panic, sadness, there would appear to be a lesser severity of healthchallenges confronting thriving individuals, i.e. tension, worry, anxiousness, eatingless, and sleeplessness. Thriving individuals did not report the same physicalhealth challenges as non-coping and coping individuals, experiencing effects morepsychological in nature. One factor that emerged as distinctive was that of “energy.”Those individuals who achieved a stress transformation outcome consistentlyexpressed feeling “energized” despite their stress, wakefulness, or nervousness:

[y] it was not a huge draining issue, my energy levels were still up there. Just some minorheadaches and rise in blood pressure.

I was energetic, even though sad, a bit bitter, very professional. It was important to me to beprofessional.

I felt more energized, more energized to come to work.

[y] felt invincible; not taking things personally; walked confidently, hop in my step; prettygiddy; euphoric; went to gym; worked on reflection time.

Whereas non-copers and copers reported low or loss of energy:

Just wanted to hop in bed and go to sleep.

Bad health, low energy on many fronts. No energy at home either.

[y] no energy; tired; spark in eye was gone.

Secondary appraisal. Secondary appraisal (Lazarus and Folkman, 1987) holdsimportant implications for the stress management process. If an individual’sattentional resources are focussed upon reducing anxiety or gaining control, hiscapacity for problem solving is reduced and the ability to generate strategies orsolutions may be seriously impaired. If, on the other hand, an employee’s cognitiveresources are free, he is ready to address the tasks or challenges that confront him. Inconditions of high demand, individuals who interpret information in a threateningmanner show a bias in the processing of threatening stimuli resulting in a slowerprocessing of this type of information (Mathews and Milroy, 1994; Mathews andSebastian, 1993) and reduced performance. Being more sensitive to threat cues in theenvironment decreases the processing resources available and limits the capability ofanxious individuals to deal with more task-relevant demands.

We defined the thriving outcome resulting from a stress transformation responseabove as growth inspiring, sustainable, and systemic. In examining the study

74

IJWHM6,1

participants along this criteria – differentiating the non-copers, copers and thrivers –we found there were differences in the secondary appraisal functions. The individualswho were able transform their stress to achieve a thriving outcome were capableof accepting a lack of resources or control in a situation and from there, were ableto look beyond their lack of control to personal points of power rather thanfixating on barriers.

Non-coping. Non-copers showed evidence of being unable to move beyond theirinitial state of emotional stress, despair, frustration, or helplessness. As one respondentsaid, “[I was] frustrated that I did not have a choice or sovereignty. Powerless.”

Coping. Copers showed evidence that they were managing their initial reactionsand proceeding with the task at hand, “I continued to communicate – but ourcommunication was never the same. My solution was to do my job and not get myselfin any hot water.”

Stress transformation. Those individuals showing evidence of thrivingdemonstrated a capacity for overcoming their initial reaction and transforming theirperception or reframing the situation. “I had no control over the situation but I had a lot(of power). I knew I could use it well or not. I felt the weight of my power. I was not incontrol of emotional students’ writing, but I could control what media people write, andI could control what we as a council were communicating publicly.” Anotherrespondent said “There was uncertainty about not knowing what to do right away.But, I felt I had control over what I could control. At this time, it was limited but mymain concern was his safety and to try and find out what was going on and keep himfrom killing himself.”

Collateral effects on others. The nature and degree of personal and communityimpact emerged as a most prominent distinguishing factor for the three types of stressoutcomes. Thriving individuals went beyond personal learning and were able togenerate holistic, “systemic,” and sustainable solutions to their stressful situation. Theoutcome for thriving individuals was more enduring and marked not only the growthand high energy of the individual, but the well-being and sustainability of allinvolved as compared to non-coping or coping participants who tended to view theproblem “fix” only in terms of what was better for themselves.

Non-coping. In regards to relationships with others, the non-coper was decidedlynegative about relationships or did not have any to seek out. As one respondentexplained, “there was no relationship with him afterwards. The relationship with thisperson became sour – there was only a tolerance at work.”

Coping. Coping responders were ambivalent in their relationships, neither turningto them for support nor being severely impacted. “Relationships were pretty muchthe same. I got through this issue without any real issue affecting myself or mybusiness or my health.”

Stress transformation. Individuals who demonstrated a thriving outcome appearedto have the capability of moving beyond individual relationships to connectingpositively with a whole social network. “It had large effects in the end. We changedthe whole culture and we intentionally created it so it would endure. To our students,the process was very unified; to our university partners and colleagues, it made usseem we were on our game.” And one respondent said, “I learned a lot, and becomemore engaged. More collegial. I became more engaged in other people’s work so theybecame more engaged in my work.”

Communication and problem-solving strategies. Communication that was bothflexible and aligned with the participant’s problem representation emerged as most

75

Transformingstress

conducive to the stress transformation response and outcome. When stress issueswere viewed systemically rather than personally, communications extended out to allstakeholders involved, using a wide variety of reciprocal and relationship buildingcommunication strategies. Thriving individuals were able to generate integrativeand systemic solutions to their stressful encounter, consider all stakeholders, andbalance a broad array of interests by utilizing a wide variety of communicationstrategies. Non-coping individuals tended to remain in communicative isolation, whilecoping-oriented communications involved a superior or HR person to get specificinstructions on procedures to neutralize the situation. Communications for non-coperswere not inclusive or relationship building.

Non-coping. Typical of the non-coper response was “I had an inability to want tocommunicate with this person. I just closed up. I lost my Christmas holidays.”

Coping. Typical of the copers were those who reached out for social support. “I had ahard time differentiating the roles but I had to take care of my friend. Lots of one on one[y] Lots of chats outside work [y] Tried to step back [y] I used email a lot [y]I tried to copy everyone [y] I would use a diary [y]” Another respondent said, “I justcould not figure out how to solve this. I got embroiled in it. My interventions did notwork. There are policies but there was nothing specific for this kind of situation. I setthem off to figure it out. Then I got more involved.”

Stress transformation. Thriving responses seemed to end in constructive dialogue,not just social support conversation. “We had an open door policy – we were here tolisten to them – we cannot offer solutions. To the group itself – I took the role as anadvocate try to understand where they were coming from. To board members inconfidence, I said more emotionally how this group was more irrational in how theyprotested and dealt with things. To go public, providing an as objective and supportiveposition as possible that was also detached.”

Thriving individuals used communication strategies transformed the initialperception of stress by aligning with a representation of the problem at its core.For instance, a thriving individual was first able to appraise the challenge at itscore rather than as a surface barrier as described above, and then match a specificcommunication strategy to the core challenge as they had represented it. On theother hand, those who were simply coping or enduring the stress, or not copingat all, tended to be more conflicted, random, or grasping in their selection ofcommunication strategies and represented the stressor in terms of surface barriers: apolicy needs changing, I must solve this, they are wrong, etc. Often there was the useof force or coercion in communications with anyone perceived to be contributingto the stress.

Non-coping. Typical of a non-coper, “I was not thinking. It was harsh. I said this isthe task he needed to do and if he did not, I would let him go.” Another respondentsaid “I did not go to the deputy, I went straight to her [y] Pretty brusque and curt. [y]I could have done something else. I could have gone to employee assistance,but I did not.”

Coping. Copers were willing to express their perspective as did this respondent.“I did not really know how to approach it so I would close off, I was not as looseand open, I was honest about my feelings and I expressed my distaste for this partof the contract[y] I was professional – less chatty but [y] I spoke with boardmembers, manager.” Another coper stated he was able to “Talk about what will not betolerated. Direct conversation. Small group conversation as well. No email. Saying ‘getyour shit together’”.

76

IJWHM6,1

Stress transformation. Typical of the stress transformation response was thisindividual, “In order to gather the feedback and opinions of our staff members, togather diversity and opinions [y] we used every means possible, email, speeches,conversations, HR, social support [y] we engaged in workshops and open-forum stylecoffee sessions.” Another respondent stated “Because the challenge was to understandtheir perspective yet convince them that the proper way to lobby for their beliefswere out of our capability, we used tracking points, key issues – whose who, what waswhat. [Communication was] top down in that we as a board were communicating a bigmessage to students below us.”

Social support and organizational factors. Echoing the literature, organizationalfactors also appeared to contribute to the stress transformation response. Individualswho demonstrated stress transformation reported organizational factors such as“open communication across organization,” “leadership from behind, non directiveleadership,” “resources to solve the problem,” “knowing there would be help, support,”“an HR team to guide and help you through these kinds of things,” and “openchannels upward.” Some participants did not point to contributing organizationalfactors directly but these could be surmised from other data. For instance, theparticipant’s effective communication strategies could not have worked withouta climate conducive to open communication channels and directions. Likewise, a lackof organizational support in terms of supportive culture, psychological safety,relationships, open communication, trust, and resources were identified amongnon-coping and coping responses. For many, these negative organizational factorsrepresented the source of work stress. For others, these factors impacted the nature ofor ability to enact their adaptive strategies:

[y] neither side ever voiced anything about the issue making for awkward encounters withthese workers.

I felt let down by my organization and by my boss. I felt pressure to not let down my team thesame way. I felt really stuck.

My boss, I consulted with him numerous times, but he had no solutions.

I learned that although I really like trusting big organizations, you cannot.

Some decisions are made that have nothing to do with your service or quality of your work.

A comparative chart (Table I) outlines the factors differentiating stress outcomesand the factors and strategies distinguishing non-coping, coping, and stresstransformation responses.

DiscussionIn responding to a stressor in the workplace, thriving is different from merely copingbecause it denotes transformative growth and learning as well as systemic andsustainable solution outcomes. The capacity to thrive under stress hinges partially onthe capacity to transform one’s perception of a stressor from debilitative to facilitative.The potential for stress transformation seems to emerge in the secondary appraisalfunctions. All respondents in this exploratory study experienced a sense of alarm aspart of their first appraisal responses to the situation they were experiencing. Theyrecognized the situation as demanding, potentially threatening, and personallyoverwhelming; hence a stress reaction. They recognized the gravity of the situation.

77

Transformingstress

Ou

tcom

efa

ctor

sN

on-c

opin

gC

opin

gT

hri

vin

g

Psy

chol

ogic

alan

dp

hy

sica

lef

fect

sO

ver

wh

elm

ed,

anx

iou

s,fe

arfu

l,an

gry

,n

egat

ive

ph

ysi

cal

effe

cts

(hea

dac

hes

,lo

ssof

slee

p,

wei

gh

tg

ain

orlo

ss,

sick

)

Som

ean

xie

tyan

dd

isco

mfo

rt;

not

over

wh

elm

edF

eel

ener

giz

edan

dco

nfi

den

t

Lea

rnin

gan

dg

row

thou

tcom

esT

oav

oid

New

cop

ing

skil

lsS

elf-

tran

sfor

mat

ive;

mor

eto

lera

nt;

gre

ater

un

der

stan

din

gof

syst

emR

espo

nse

fact

ors

Non

-cop

ing

Cop

ing

Str

ess

transf

orm

ati

onE

mot

ion

al-p

hy

siol

ogic

alre

spon

seA

ng

er,

fear

Su

rpri

se,

fru

stra

tion

Su

rpri

se,

fru

stra

tion

Pri

mar

yco

gn

itiv

eap

pra

isal

Th

reat

tom

eIt

isa

sin

gu

lar

pro

ble

mIt

isa

syst

ems

pro

ble

m,n

eed

mor

ein

form

atio

nS

econ

dar

yco

gn

itiv

eap

pra

isal

Fig

ht

orfl

igh

tT

ake

acti

onto

fix

itor

mak

ep

rob

lem

go

away

Ref

ram

ing

ofev

ents

;m

ean

ing

mak

ing

Col

late

ral

affe

cts

onot

her

san

dor

gan

izat

ion

Su

bst

anti

ald

amag

eto

man

yM

oder

ate

dam

age

toot

her

s;b

enef

its

usu

ally

tofe

wB

enef

its

tom

any

;m

inim

alto

no

dam

age

Com

mu

nic

atio

np

atte

rns

Av

oid

ant

ord

irec

tiv

eco

ntr

olli

ng

Inte

ract

ive

bu

tn

otre

lati

onal

orin

clu

siv

eIn

clu

siv

ean

dl,

rela

tion

alw

ith

mu

ltip

lest

akeh

old

ers

Pro

ble

m-s

olv

ing

stra

teg

ies

Sh

owof

forc

eor

avoi

dan

ceto

pro

tect

self

Fix

spec

ific

pro

ble

m;

min

imiz

ed

amag

e;m

ake

pro

ble

mg

oaw

ayC

olla

bor

ativ

ean

dsy

stem

icac

tion

s;fo

cuss

edon

oth

ers

not

self

Soc

ial

sup

por

tsL

imit

edu

se;

ven

tin

gC

onti

nu

ous

for

pu

rpos

esof

enco

ura

gem

ent

and

sup

por

tC

onti

nu

ous

for

pu

rpos

esof

lear

nin

gan

dg

uid

ance

Org

aniz

atio

nal

fact

ors

Av

oid

ed;

toac

qu

ire

pow

eran

dco

ntr

olT

og

etin

stru

ctio

ns

and

spec

ific

“fix

es”

toth

ep

rob

lem

sT

ob

ecom

eem

pow

ered

and

exp

lore

inn

ovat

ive

solu

tion

sco

llab

orat

ivel

y

Table I.Comparative chart ofoutcomes and adaptiveresponse strategies

78

IJWHM6,1

Yet in their secondary appraisal processing of the situation, something seemed tohappen that created the possibility for a transformation of the stress situation. In thesesituations, the individuals approached the situation differently from copers andnon-copers and were thus able to recognize aspects of the situation that could bemanaged, and look for the resources to accomplish this.

Seeing stressful situations as an opportunity for growth may be the first step in thestress transformation response. A cognitive appraisal that both recognizes the gravityof the stressful encounter, and recognizes one’s limited scope of control are importantsteps toward taking advantage of a stress-related growth opportunity. A humblerecognition of the factors that one cannot control coupled with the confidence to movebeyond immutable factors enables an individual to first frame the stressful challenge ina new and more systemic manner leading to the possibility of generating integrativesolutions. Reframing the stress event is an essential part of the process. For example,an outburst from an employee or a poor employee performance on a criticalorganizational task may only be a symptom of a deeper more systemic issue. It is thedeeper issue that needs framing.

How individuals go about this process of reframing and transformation of thesituation may be a function of both personality traits, past experiences, and availableresources within the organizational context. These are questions to be furtherinvestigated. Nevertheless the respondents describing a stress transformationresponse took a variety of actions to calm themselves, rethink the situation and itscontributing factors, to engage in a variety of social supportive, networking andproblem-solving communication strategies, and to mitigate the stressful conditions.We like to refer to this as a transformative appraisal function, which is adaptive andtransformative – creating opportunity for growth and development.

Based on the results of this study, stress transformation responses indeed seempossible amidst stressful work scenarios. Though the stress transformation response isnot a common one, with only six of our 20 “positive” scenarios illustrating a stresstransformation outcome as defined earlier in the paper, we were able to gain insightsinto the personal and organizational factors that contribute to a stress transformationresponse. Figure 1 illustrates the key factors and their role in the stresstransformation response emerging from the literature and confirmed by the study: astressor triggers an emotional/physiological response, leading to a cognitive appraisalinfluenced by social and organizational factors and addressed using communicationand problem-solving strategies resulting in health outcomes (adaptive or non-adaptive).We believe that it is possible to “jump on this wheel” at any point in order to facilitate thestress transformation response. Points of leverage lie within the following domains:

. cognitive appraisal training can help individuals to recognize and look beyondthat which they cannot control in order to frame the problem more systemicallyand inclusively;

. social and organizational factors which support a culture of open communication,psychological safety, and the capacity to drill down to the core challenge andidentify sources of power are necessary to support the problem solving,communication, and reflection necessary to thrive amidst stress; and

. communication and problem-solving strategies can be developed and enhancedthrough training in processes of communication planning, frameworks,mechanisms, and systems for both problem solving and implementing solutions.

79

Transformingstress

Training in employment of coping strategies that address the underlying issues in asustainable and inclusive manner, rather than simple problem fixing designed to makethe stress problem go away quickly. Positive, growth-inspiring outcomes can then feedinto each of the above capacities by augmenting organizational and personalsustainability and growth.

Conclusions and further researchOne study participant describes stress transformation well when he states: “eventhough it is a negative experience it affects you in a positive way and you see that youhave the ability to do it.” Ensuring that workers thrive rather than just survivestressful encounters or environments may become more crucial in an increasingly fastpaced, constantly changing corporate landscape. Sustainability has moved to theforefront of corporate thinking as the implications of human, environmental, andeconomic strain and depletion become frighteningly apparent. Adversity and changecan also fuel performance. More than ever it is crucial to create a “thriving” culture asopposed to a culture of simply surviving (Carver, 1998; O’Leary, 1998; Spreitzer et al.,2005). Reconciling the costs associated with employee health and well-being with thefinancial demands of running a profitable yet socially conscious organization is a long-standing, systemic challenge. Solving this kind of multi-faceted organizationalchallenge demands a different way of thinking altogether. Managers not only requirea solid grasp of organizational structures and systems, but also insight into thedecision-making process and the effects of stress on both human and organizationalbehavior. An integrated organizational strategy requires an integrated focus.

As a preliminary exploration, limitations of the study include a relatively smallsample size (n¼ 10). Recommendations for further research include expanding thesample in order to test the hypotheses and conceptual model proposed within thecurrent paper. The study needs to be expanded to include a variety of work

Health andwell-beingoutcomes

Stressor

Emotional-physiological

response

Cognitiveappraisal

Social andorganizational

factors

Communicationand problem-solving

strategiesFigure 1.Relationships amongstressors, emotional/physiological response,cognitive appraisal,communication, social andorganizational factors,problem-solvingstrategies, andhealth outcomes

80

IJWHM6,1

environments to explore whether similar factors are at play in both private and publicorganizations and to provide greater insight into more specific organizational orenvironmental factors, and how they might be interact with individual characteristicsand capabilities, to promote stress transformation. Finally, though this study addsthe aspect of “systemic, holistic, and sustainable outcome” to the theoretical definitionof stress transformation, more empirical work is needed to test this model, and developand validate measures of the stress transformation construct.

Stress transformation emerges as an exciting concept that calls for an evolution inthe way we think about and conduct work.

References

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2004), “Leadership in public sector organizations”,in Story, J. (Ed.), Leadership in Organizations: Current Issues and Key Trends, Routledge,New York, NY, pp. 173-202.

Ansburg, P.I. and Dominowski, R.L. (2000), “Promoting insightful problem solving”, Journal ofCreative Behaviour, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 30-60.

Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K. and Dallner, M. (2000), “Sick but yet at work: an empirical study ofsickness presenteeism”, Journal Of Epidemiology And Community Health, Vol. 54 No. 7,pp. 502-9.

Bacharach, S.B., Bamberger, P. and Conley, S.C. (1990), “Work processes, role conflict, and roleoverload: the case of nurses and engineers in the public sector”, Work and Occupations,Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 199-228.

Bacharach, S.B. and Bamberger, P.A. (2007), “9/11 and New York City firefighters’ post hocunit support and control climates: a context theory of the consequences of involvementin traumatic work-related events”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 849-68.

Baker, D. (1985), “The study of stress at work”, Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 6, pp. 367-81.

BarOn, R. and Handley, R. (1999), Optimizing People: A Practical Guide for Applying EmotionalIntelligence to Improve Personal and Organizational Effectiveness, Pro-Philes Press,New Braunfels, TX.

Barrett, K.C. and Campos, J.J. (1991), “A diacritical function approach to emotions and coping”,in Cummings, E.M., Greene, A.L. and Karraker, K.H. (Eds), Life-Span DevelopmentalPsychology, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 21-41.

Barsade, S.B. and Gibson, D.E. (2007), “Why does affect matter in organizations?”, The Academyof Management Perspectives, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 36-59.

Bell, M.A. (2002), “The five principles of organizational resilience”, available at: www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd¼103658 (accessed September 17, 2007).

Bennis, W.G. and Thomas, R.J. (2002), “Crucible of leadership”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80No. 9, pp. 39-45.

Blackmore, E.R., Stansfeld, S.A., Weller, I., Munce, S., Zagorski, B.M. and Stewart, D.E. (2007),“Major depressive episodes and work stress: results from a national population survey”,American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97 No. 11, pp. 2088-93.

Blix, A.G. and Lee, J. (1991), “Occupational stress among university administrators”, Research inHigher Education, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 289-302.

Calhoun, L.G. and Tedeschi, R.G. (1999), “Facilitating post traumatic growth: a clinician’s guide”,Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Carver, C.S. (1998), “Resilience and thriving: issues, models and linkages”, Journal of SocialIssues, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 245-66.

Caverley, N. (2005), “Civil service resiliency and coping”, International Journal of Public SectorManagement, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 401-13.

81

Transformingstress

Caverley, N., Cunningham, J.B. and MacGregor, J.N. (2007), “Sickness presenteeism, sicknessabsenteeism, and health following restructuring in a public service organization”, Journalof Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 304-19.

Ciarrochi, J. and Scott, G. (2006), “The link between emotional competence and well-being: alongitudinal study”, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 231-43.

Connor, D. (1998), Leading at the Edge of Chaos: How to Create the Nimble Organization, Wiley,New York, NY.

Coutu, D. (2002), “How resilience works”, in Harvard Business Review (Ed.), Harvard BusinessReview on Building Personal and Organizational Resilience, Harvard Business School,Boston, MA, pp. 1-18.

Cox, T. and Griffiths, A. (2010), “Work-related stress: a theoretical perspective”, in Leka, S. andHoudmont, J. (Eds), Occupational Health Psychology, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 31-56.

Cranton, P. (1994), Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning: A Guide forEducators of Adults, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Das, T.K. and Teng, B. (1999), “Managing risks in strategic alliances”, Academy of ManagementExecutive, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 50-62.

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, S. (Eds) (1994), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Duxbury, L., Higgins, C. and Johnson, K. (2003), An Examination of the Implications and Costs ofWork-Life Conflict in Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, available at:www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dca-dea/publications/duxbury_e.html (accessed September 12, 2007).

Easterbrook, J.A. (1959), “The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization ofbehaviour”, Psychological Review, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 183-201.

Edmondson, A.C. (2004), “Learning from failure in health care: frequent opportunities, pervasivebarriers”, Quality and Safety in Health Care, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 3-9.

Edmondson, A.C. and Cannon, M.D. (2005), “Failing to learn and learning to fail (intelligently):how great organizations put failure to work to improve and innovate”, Long RangePlanning Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 299-320.

Edwards, J.R. (1996), “An examination of competing versions of the person-environmentapproach to stress”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 292-339.

Edwards, J.R. (2008), “Person-environment fit in organizations: an assessment of theoreticalprogress”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 167-230.

Eysenck, M.W., MacLeod, C. and Mathews, A. (1987), “Cognitive functioning and anxiety”,Psychological Research, Vol. 49 Nos 2-3, pp. 189-95.

Fivars, G. (Ed.) (1980), Critical Incident Technique, American Institute for Research, Palo Alto, CA.

Flach, F. (2004), Resilience: Discovering a New Strength at Time of Stress, Hatherleigh,New York, NY.

Flanagan, J.C. (1954), “The critical incident technique”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 51 No. 4,pp. 327-57.

Flensborg-Madsen, T., Ventegodt, S. and Merrick, J. (2005), “Sense of coherence and physicalhealth: a review of previous findings”, The Scientific World Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 665-73.

Folkman, S. (1991), “Coping across the life span: theoretical issues”, in Cummings, E.M.,Greene, A.L. and Karraker, K.H. (Eds), Life-Span Developmental Psychology, Erlbaum,Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3-19.

Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R.S. (1985), “If it changes it must be a process: a study of emotion andcoping during three stages of a college examination”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 150-70.

82

IJWHM6,1

Folkman, S. and Moskowitz, J.T. (2000), “Positive affect and the other side of coping”, AmericanPsychologist, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 647-54.

Francis, F. and Keegan, A. (2006), “The changing face of HR: in search of balance”, HumanResource Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 231-49.

Fredrickson, B.L. (2001), “The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-andbuild theory of positive emotions”, American Psychologist, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 218-27.

Garmezy, N. and Rutter, M. (1983), Stress, Coping, and Development in Children, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.

Gentry, W.D. and Kobasa, S.C. (1984), “Social and psychological resources mediating stress–illness relationships in humans”, in Gentry, W.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Medicine,Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 87-116.

Gilbreath, B. (2008), “Creating career-conducive organizations: a primary intervention”,Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 8, pp. 9-31.

Glicken, M. (2006), Learning from Resilient People: Lessons We Can Apply to Counseling andPsychotherapy, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Goetzel, R.Z., Long, S.R., Ozminkowski, R.J., Hawkins, K., Wang, S. and Lynch, W. (2004), “Health,absence, disability and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental healthconditions affecting US employers”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 398-412.

Gray, J.A. (1987), The Psychology of Fear and Stress, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Grzywacz, J.G. and Carlson, D.S. (2007), “Conceptualizing work–family balance: implications forpractice and research”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 455-71.

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989), Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Houdmont, J., Cox, T. and Griffiths, A. (2010), “Work-related stress case definitions andprevalence rates in national surveys”, Occupational Medicine, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 658-61.

Jones, G. and Swain, A. (1992), “Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive stateanxiety and relationships with competitiveness”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 74 No. 2,pp. 467-72.

Jones, G. and Swain, A. (1995), “Predispositions to experience debilitative and facilitative anxietyin elite and non-elite performers”, The Sport Psychologist, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 201-11.

Jones, G., Swain, A. and Hardy, L. (1993), “Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive stateanxiety and relationships with performance”, Journal of Sport Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 525-32.

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P. and Snoek, J.D. (with Rosenthal, R.A.) (1964), OrganizationalStress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, John Wiley, New York, NY.

Kessler, R.C. and Frank, R.G. (1997), “The impact of psychiatric disorders on work loss days”,Psychological Medicine, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 861-73.

Kivimaki, M., Head, J., Ferrie, J.E., Hemingway, H., Shipley, M.J., Vahtera, J. and Marmot, M.G.(2005), “Working while ill as a risk factor for serious coronary events: the Whitehall IIStudy”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 98-102.

Kobasa, S.C. (1982), “Commitment and coping in stress resistance among lawyers”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 707-17.

Kobasa., S.C., Maddi, S.R. and Kahn., S. (1982), “Hardiness and health: a prospective study”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 168-77.

Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Lacey, A. and Luff, D. (2001), “Qualitative data analysis”, available at: www.trentfocus.org.uk/Resources/Qualitative%Data%20Analysis.pdf (accessed September 12, 2005).

83

Transformingstress

Lang, D. (2006), “Resilient voices: listening to stories of leadership, resilience, and personalfulfillment at the City of Grande Prairie”, Masters thesis, Royal Roads University, Victoria.Submitted for publication by National Library and Archives Canada.

Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984a), “Coping and adaptation”, in Gentry, W.D. (Ed.), TheHandbook of Behaviour, Guilford, New York, NY, pp. 282-325.

Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984b), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York, NY.

Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1987), “Transactional theory and research on emotions andcoping”, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 141-69.

Lengnick-Hall, C.A. and Beck, T.E. (2005), “Adaptive fit versus robust transformation: howorganizations respond to environmental change”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 5,pp. 738-57.

Logan, M.S. and Ganster, D.C. (2005), “An experimental evaluation of a control interventionto alleviate job-related stress”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 90-107.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Avey, J.B. and Norman, S.M. (2007), “Positive psychological capital:measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction”, Personnel Psychology,Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 541-72.

Maddi, S. (2006), “Turning lemons into lemonade: hardiness helps people turn stressfulcircumstances into opportunities”, available at: PsychologyMatters.org/hardiness.html(accessed August 13, 2006).

Maddi, S. and Kobasa, S. (2002), “The story of hardiness: twenty years of theorizing, research andpractice”, Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 173-85.

Maki, N., Moore, S., Grunberg, L. and Greenberg, E. (2005), “The responses of male and femalemanagers to workplace stress and downsizing”, North American Journal of Psychology,Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 295-312.

Maslach, C., Schaufelo, W. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, American Review of Psychology,Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.

Mathews, A. and MacLeod, C. (1994), “Cognitive approaches to emotions and emotionaldisorder”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 25-50.

Mathews, A. and Milroy, R. (1994), “Processing of emotional meaning in anxiety”, Cognition andEmotion , Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 535-53.

Mathews, A. and Sebastian, S. (1993), “Suppression of emotional stroop effects by fear-arousal”,Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 517-30.

Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997), “What is emotional intelligence?”, in Salovey, P. and Sluyter, D.J.(Eds), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Educators,Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 3-31.

Mezirow, J. (1991), Transformational Dimensions of Adult Learning, Jossey-Bass Publishers,San Francisco, CA.

Mezirow, J. (1994), “Understanding transformation theory”, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 44No. 4, pp. 231-2.

Norman, S., Luthans, F. and Luthans, K. (2005), “The proposed contagion effect of hopeful leaderson the resiliency of employees and organizations”, Journal of Leadership & OrganizationalStudies, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 55-65.

Ohlsson, S. (1992), “Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena”,in Keane, M. and Gilhooley, K. (Eds), Advances in the Psychology of Thinking, Harvester-Wheatsheaf, London, pp. 1-44.

O’Leary, V.E. (1998), “Strength in the face of adversity: individual and social thinking”, Journal ofSocial Issues, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 425-46.

Park, C.L. (1998), “Stress-related growth and thriving through coping: the roles of personality andcognitive processes”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 267-77.

84

IJWHM6,1

Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Smyer, M.A., Matz-Costa, C. and Kane, K. (2007), “The national study report:Phase II of the national study of business strategy and workforce development (ResearchHighlight No. 04)”, The Center on Aging & Work/Workplace Flexibility, Chestnut Hill, MA,available at: http://agingandwork.bc.edu/documents/RH04_NationalStudy_03-07_004.pdf(accessed January 25, 2010).

Robb, D. (2000), “Building resilient organizations”, OD Practitioner, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 27-32.

Rosete, J. and Ciarrochi, J. (2004), “Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplaceperformance outcomes of leadership effectiveness”, Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 388-99.

Ryff, C. and Singer, B. (2003), “Flourishing under fire: resilience as a prototype of challengedthriving”, in Keyes, C.L.M. and Haidt, J. (Eds), Flourishing: Positive Psychology and TheLife Well-Lived, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 15-36.

Selye, H. (1970), “The evolution of the stress concept: stress and cardiovascular disease”, TheAmerican Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 289-99.

Selye, H. (1976), “Forty years of stress research: principal remaining problems andmisconceptions”, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 115 No. 1, pp. 53-6.

Siebert, A. (2005), The Resiliency Advantage, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Sisley, R. (2010), “Autonomous motivation and well-being: an alternative approach to workplacestress management”, New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 28-40.

Skinner, E. (1995), Perceived Control, Motivation and Coping, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Snyder, C.R. (2001), Coping with Stress, Oxford University Press, London.

Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S. and Grant, A. (2005), “A socially embeddedmodel of thriving at work”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 537-49.

Stacey, R. (2006), “Ways of thinking about public sector governance”, in Stacey, R. and Griffin, D.(Eds), Complexity and the Experience of Managing in Public Sector Organizations,Rutledge, New York, NY, pp. 15-42.

Stansfeld, S. (2002), “Work, personality and mental health”, British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 181No. 2, pp. 96-8.

Statistics Canada (2005), “Work absences”, Perspectives on Labour and Income, Vol. 17 No. 1,pp. 75-84.

Stoltz, P. (2000), The Adversity Response Profile, Peak Learning, New York, NY.

Story, J. (2004), “Changing theories of leadership and leadership development”, in Story, J. (Ed.),Leadership in Organizations: Current Issues and Key Trends, Routledge, New York, NY,pp. 173-202.

Surtees, P.G., Wainwright, N.W., Willis-Owen, S.A., Luben, R., Day, N.E. and Flint, J. (2006),“Social adversity, the serotonin transporter (5-HTTLPR) polymorphism and majordepressive disorder”, Biological Psychiatry, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 224-9.

Sutcliffe, K. and Vogus, T. (2003), “Organizing for resilience”, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. andQuinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline,Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 94-110.

Taylor, E. (1997), “Building upon the theoretical debate: a critical theory of the empirical studiesof Mezirow’s transformational learning theory”, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1,pp. 34-59.

Tedeschi, R.G. and Calhoun, L.G. (1995), Trauma & Transformation: Growing in the Aftermathof Suffering, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Tedeschi, R.G. and Calhoun, L.G. (2004), “Post-traumatic growth: conceptual foundations andempirical evidence”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Tennen, H. and Affleck, G. (1999), “Finding benefits in adversity”, in Snyder, C.R. (Ed.), Coping:The Psychology of What Works, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 279-304.

85

Transformingstress

Trades Union Congress (TUC) (2008), Stress, Trades Union Congress, London, available at:www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/index.cfm?mins¼ 37 (accessed January 2, 2008).

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981), “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice”,Science, Vol. 211 No. 4491, pp. 453-8.

Walinga, J. (2008), “Change readiness: the roles of appraisal, focus, and perceived control”,Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 315-47.

Wang, J. (2005), “Work stress as a risk factor for major depressive episode(s)”, PsychologicalMedicine, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 865-71.

Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K. and Obstfeld, D. (2005), “Organizing and the process of sense making”,Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 409-21.

Worrall, L. and Cooper, C.L. (2004), “Managers, hierarchies and attitudes: a study of UKmanagers”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 41-68.

Further reading

Cameron, K., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (2003), “Foundations of positive organizationalscholarship”, in Cameron, K., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive OrganizationalScholarship, Berrett Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-13.

Crowne, D.P. and Marlowe, D. (1960), “A new scale of social desirability independent ofpsychopathology”, Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 349-54.

Czaja, R. and Blair, J. (2005), Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decisions and Procedures, Pine ForgePress, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Health & Safety Executive (2008), Health and Safety Statistics 2007/08, National Statistics,London.

Lazarus, R. (1990), “Theory-based stress management”, Psychol Inq, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-13.

Marchand, A., Demers, A. and Durand, P. (2005), “Do occupation and work conditions reallymatter? A longitudinal analysis of psychological distress experiences among Canadianworkers”, Sociology of Health & Illness, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 602-27.

Tedeschi, R.G. and Calhoun, L.G. (1996), “The posttraumatic growth inventory: measuring thepositive legacy of trauma”, Journal of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 455-70.

Appendix 1. Interview questionsInitial reactions

1. What was your initial reaction to this situation? What did you focus on initially? Whatmade it important or significant to you? What did you believe at the time? What botheredyou most about the situation? Describe your sense of power or control in this situation? Didyou have the tools or resources to handle this situation?

Cognitive response

2. What was the “problem” in this situation as you saw it? What were your initial solutions orstrategies? What was the result? What did you see as the biggest barrier for you in thissituation? What did you find yourself focusing on/what was most important? What was thereal or core problem would you say? What strategy seemed to work best? What strategydid not work at all or produced the worst result? What decisions did you make?

Emotional response

3. What did you believe at the time? What bothered you most about the situation? Describe yoursense of power or control in this situation? Did you believe you had the tools or resources tohandle this situation? Describe your feelings or emotions in this situation? Describe anyphysical response you had to this situation? What was your level of emotional engagement inyour work situation?

86

IJWHM6,1

Communication response

4. What kinds of things did you say? With or to whom did you talk? For what purpose? Whatcommunication tools or strategies did you use? What channels did you follow in yourcommunication? How would you describe your “style” of communication? What kinds ofcommunication processes or mechanisms were available through your workplace to helpyou in this situation? What communication processes or mechanisms do you believe aremissing or got in the way in this situation?

Behavioural response

5. Describe your actions throughout this situation, what you did? How did you cope with thissituation, what were some of the personal strategies you employed to help you get throughthe challenge? How would you describe yourself through this situation in terms of yourcharacter, your personality, your demeanor?

Outcome questions

6. How would you describe your personal development after this scenario? What did you learnwhile engaged in this situation? What changed about your work view? Describe your healthand energy throughout this scenario. Describe the effects or outcomes of your actionsthroughout this scenario – what impact did you have on the wider community? How didothers react to your solutions to this challenge? How did this scenario and its outcome affectothers? Describe your relationship with others after this scenario. What had changed ordeveloped? How are things going now? What has happened since? Did your strategies work?With what overall effect?

Appendix 2. Sample scenariosInterpersonal conflict stress situationI manage a policy shop. Every day we coordinate the development and implementation ofvarious long-term, medium and short term policy initiatives. Staffing resources are alwayslimited; yet we are constantly impacted by emergent and urgent issues which pre-empt the longerterm initiatives, putting us behind schedule. We are accountable to different stakeholders –different branches of the government, external agencies and the taxpayer – which are oftendemanding and have different needs. Each day often feels like a juggling act – or perhaps moredescriptively as dodge ball – keeping our work moving forward while balancing competinginterests. Deadlines emerge suddenly so as a consequence I often have to work nights andweekends. I have to carry my blackberry day and night so that my ED can reach me quickly.It seems like there are constantly issues to address. It’s hard to find time to think and focus; evenkeep clear what our my priorities. In order to manage immense projects that require differenttalents, we work in teams – but not everyone gets along or wants to work together. SometimesI feel like I am herding cats.

Organizational stress situation

The Deputy Minister brought me in to this unit to bring some order to things, get rid of a fewpeople and improve client services. That sounds fine on the surface but not so easy to put intopractice. My boss seems to think I can figure out what needs to happen but I am not so sure aboutthat. I have spent long hours trying to figure out what is going on in our unit and last monthstarted making some changes. However assignments I gave my staff were not consistentlyfollowed, which meant I had to spend extra time on nights and weekends reviewing their reportsand redirecting their activities. It seems like a bottomless pit and not much light at the end ofthe rainbow.

I have heard that some of my staff resent my presence and do not agree with my decisions.One individual even told me I wasn’t qualified for the job, and didn’t understand the pressuresthey were under. I don’t think many people in my unit like me much. Yet I know my boss iscounting on me to navigate this minefield. I am concerned that my career may be on the line if Idon’t succeed.

87

Transformingstress

Appendix 3. Stress rating scale (Job-related tension index; Kahn et al., 1964)

Corresponding authorJennifer Walinga can be contacted at: Jennifer.walinga@royalroads.ca

1. Authority to carry out the responsibilities assignedVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

2. Clarity as to just what the scope and responsibilities of the job areVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

3. Knowledge of opportunities for advancement or promotionVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

4. A feeling that there is too heavy a workload, one that cannot possibly be finished in the workdayVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

5. A sense that it is not possible to satisfy the conflicting demands of various peopleVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

6. Feeling unqualified to do the jobVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

7. Knowledge of what the supervisor is thinking, how s/he evaluates performanceVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

8. Ability to get the information needed to carry out the jobVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

9. Having to decide things that affect the lives of individuals, people that you knowVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

10. Feeling disliked or unaccepted by co workersVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

11. Feeling unable to influence immediate supervisor’s decisions and actions that affect your lifeVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

12. Knowing just what co workers and supervisors expectVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

13. Thinking that the amount of work there is may interfere with how well it will get doneVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

14. Feeling that there are things that need to be done on the job that go against better judgmentVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

15. Feeling that the job interferes with family lifeVery little 1 2 3 4 5 Very much

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

88

IJWHM6,1