Problems of Work Adjustment How do you recognize the symptoms of stress in yourself and in others? Failure to adjust to work represents a major problem in industry today. It has been estimated that between 80 and 90 percent of industrial accidents are caused by personal factors. S. Yolles, “Mental Health at Work,” in A. McLean, ed., To Work Is Human (New York: Macmillan, 1967); R. Poe, “Does Your Job Make You Sick?” Across the Board, January 1987, pp. 34–43. Turnover, absenteeism, drug abuse, alcoholism, and sabotage remain relatively permanent fixtures of most contemporary work organizations. To the extent that individuals are unable to adjust to work, we would expect them to persist in counterproductive behavior. W. S. Neff has identified five types of people who have problems adjusting to work. He suggests that each of the five types represents a “clinical picture of different varieties of work psychopathology”: W. S. Neff, Work and Human Behavior (New York: Atherton, 1968), p. 208. Type I: People who lack motivation to work. These individuals have a negative conception of the work role and choose to avoid it. Type II: People whose predominating response to the demand to be productive is fear or anxiety. Type III: People who are characterized predominantly by open hostility and aggression. Type IV: People who are characterized by marked dependency. These people often exhibit the characteristic of helplessness. They are constantly seeking advice from others and are unable to initiate any action on their own. Type V: People who display a marked degree of social naïveté. These individuals lack perception when it comes to the needs and feelings of others and may not realize that their behavior elicits reactions from and has an effect on others. Typically, these individuals are socially inept and unaware of appropriate behavior in ordinary social situations. Several important points follow from this analysis. First, note that failure to adjust to a normal job or work schedule does not automatically imply that an individual is lazy or stupid. Several deeply ingrained psychological problems keep people from making normal adjustments in many cases. Second, note that only one of the five types (Type I) exhibits a motivational problem. Managers must look beyond motivation for answers to the psychopathology of work. One type (Type V) exhibits a form of personality disorder, or at least social immaturity. But the remaining three types—those exhibiting anxiety, aggression, or dependency—all have problems relating not only to personality, but more importantly, to how the nature of the job affects that personality. In fact, anxiety, aggression, and dependency are major factors inherent in stressful jobs in organizations. Hence, it seems that at least three of the five reasons for failure to adjust to work relate to the extent to which the job is experienced as stressful and causes the individual to want to withdraw. It has been wisely observed that “if, under stress, a man goes all to pieces, he will probably be told to pull himself together. It would be more effective to help him identify the pieces and to understand why they have come apart.” R. Ruddock, Six Approaches to the Person (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972), p. 94. This is the role of the contemporary manager in dealing with stress. Managers cannot simply ignore the existence of stress on the job. Instead, they have a responsibility to understand stress and its causes. We will explore the topic of work-related stress in several stages, first examining major organizational and personal influences on stress, then considering several outcomes of stress, and finally exploring methods for coping with stress on the job. Throughout, emphasis will be placed on how stress and its consequences affect people at work and what role managers can play in attempting to minimize the effects of stress on both the individual and the organization. We will make liberal use of practical examples, and, as usual, you will be given an opportunity to evaluate yourself on several aspects of stress and wellness in organizations. Work-Related Stress For our purposes here, stress will be defined as a physical and emotional reaction to potentially threatening aspects of the environment. This definition points to a poor fit between individuals and their environments. Either excessive demands are being made, or reasonable demands are being made that individuals are ill-equipped to handle. Under stress, individuals are unable to respond to environmental stimuli without undue psychological and/or physiological damage, such as chronic fatigue, tension, or high blood pressure. This damage resulting from experienced stress is usually referred to as strain . Before we examine the concept of work-related stress in detail, several important points need to be made. First, stress is pervasive in the work environment. J. McGrath, “Stress and Behavior in Organizations,” in M. D. Dunnette, ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976). Most of us experience stress at some time. For instance, a job may require too much or too little from us. In fact, almost any aspect of the work environment is capable of producing stress. Stress can result from excessive noise, light, or heat; too much or too little responsibility; too much or too little work to accomplish; or too much or too little supervision. Second, it is important to note that all people do not react in the same way to stressful situations, even in the same occupation. One individual (a high-need achiever) may thrive on a certain amount of job-related tension; this tension may serve to activate the achievement motive. A second individual may respond to this tension by worrying about her inability to cope with the situation. Managers must recognize the central role of individual differences in the determination of experienced stress. Often the key reason for the different reactions is a function of the different interpretations of a given event that different people make, especially concerning possible or probable consequences associated with the event. For example, the same report is required of student A and student B on the same day. Student A interprets the report in a very stressful way and imagines all the negative consequences of submitting a poor report. Student B interprets the report differently and sees it as an opportunity to demonstrate the things she has learned and imagines the positive consequences of turning in a high-quality report. Although both students face essentially the same event, they interpret and react to it differently. Third, all stress is not necessarily bad. Although highly stressful situations invariably have dysfunctional consequences, moderate levels of stress often serve useful purposes. A moderate amount of job-related tension not only keeps us alert to environmental stimuli (possible dangers and opportunities), but in addition often provides a useful motivational function. Some experts argue that the best and most satisfying work that employees do is work performed under moderate stress. Some stress may be necessary for psychological growth, creative activities, and the acquisition of new skills. Learning to drive a car or play a piano or run a particular machine typically creates tension that is instrumental in skill development. It is only when the level of stress increases or when stress is prolonged that physical or psychological problems emerge. General Adaptation Syndrome The general physiological response to stressful events is believed to follow a fairly consistent pattern known as the general adaptation syndrome . H. Selye, The Stress of Life (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956). General adaptation syndrome consists of three stages (see ). The first stage, alarm, occurs at the first sign of stress. Here the body prepares to fight stress by releasing hormones from the endocrine glands. During this initial stage, heartbeat and respiration increase, blood sugar level rises, muscles tense up, pupils dilate, and digestion slows. At this stage the body prepares basically for a “fight or flight” response. That is, the body prepares to either get away from the threat or to combat it. Following this initial shock, the body moves into the second stage, resistance. The body attempts to repair any damage and return to a condition of stability and equilibrium. If successful, physical signs of stress will disappear. If the stress continues long enough, however, the body’s capacity for adaptation becomes exhausted. In this third stage, exhaustion, defenses wear away, and the individual experiences a variety of stress-related illnesses, including headaches, ulcers, and high blood pressure. This third stage is the most severe and presents the greatest threat both to individuals and to organizations. The General Adaptation Syndrome (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Types of Stress: Frustration and Anxiety There are several different ways to categorize stress. However, from a managerial perspective, it is useful to focus on only two forms: frustration and anxiety. Frustration refers to a psychological reaction to an obstruction or impediment to goal-oriented behavior. Frustration occurs when an individual wishes to pursue a certain course of action but is prevented from doing so. This obstruction may be externally or internally caused. Examples of people experiencing obstacles that lead to frustration include a salesperson who continually fails to make a sale, a machine operator who cannot keep pace with the machine, or even a person ordering coffee from a machine that fails to return the correct change. The prevalence of frustration in work organizations should be obvious from this and other examples. Whereas frustration is a reaction to an obstruction in instrumental activities or behavior, anxiety is a feeling of inability to deal with anticipated harm. Anxiety occurs when people do not have appropriate responses or plans for coping with anticipated problems. It is characterized by a sense of dread, a foreboding, and a persistent apprehension of the future for reasons that are sometimes unknown to the individual. What causes anxiety in work organizations? Hamner and Organ suggest several factors: “Differences in power in organizations which leave people with a feeling of vulnerability to administrative decisions adversely affecting them; frequent changes in organizations, which make existing behavior plans obsolete; competition, which creates the inevitability that some persons lose ‘face,’ esteem, and status; and job ambiguity (especially when it is coupled with pressure). To these may be added some related factors, such as lack of job feedback, volatility in the organization’s economic environment, job insecurity, and high visibility of one’s performance (successes as well as failures). Obviously, personal, nonorganizational factors come into play as well, such as physical illness, problems at home, unrealistically high personal goals, and estrangement from one’s colleagues or one’s peer group.” W. C. Hamner and D. Organ, Organizational Behavior (Dallas: BPI, 1978), p. 202. What are the 5 types of people identified by W. S. Neff? What is work related stress? How do you recognize the symptoms of stress in yourself and in others? Stress is a physical and emotional reaction to potentially threatening aspects of the environment. The damage resulting from stress is called strain. The general adaptation syndrome is the common pattern of events that characterizes someone who experiences stress. The three stages of the syndrome are alarm, resistance, and exhaustion. Two primary types of stress can be identified: frustration and anxiety. anxiety A feeling of inability to deal with anticipated harm. frustration Refers to a psychological reaction to an obstruction or impediment to goal-oriented behavior. general adaptation syndrome Consists of three stages: the first stage, alarm; the second stage of resistance; and the third stage, exhaustion. strain The damage resulting from experiencing stress. stress A physical and emotional reaction to potentially threatening aspects of the environment.

Business


Organizational Influences on Stress What are the underlying causes of stress in a particular situation? We will now consider several factors that have been found to influence both frustration and anxiety; we will present a general model of stress, including its major causes and its outcomes. Following this, we will explore several mechanisms by which employees and their managers cope with or reduce experienced stress in organizations. The model presented here draws heavily on the work of several social psychologists at the Institute for Social Research of the University of Michigan, including John French, Robert Caplan, Robert Kahn, and Daniel Katz. In essence, the proposed model identifies two major sources of stress: organizational sources and individual sources. In addition, the moderating effects of social support and hardiness are considered. These influences are shown in . Major Influences on Job-Related Stress (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) We begin with organizational influences on stress. Although many factors in the work environment have been found to influence the extent to which people experience stress on the job, four factors have been shown to be particularly strong. These are (1) occupational differences, (2) role ambiguity, (3) role conflict, and (4) role overload and underutilization. We will consider each of these factors in turn. Occupational Differences Tension and job stress are prevalent in our contemporary society and can be found in a wide variety of jobs. Consider, for example, the following quotes from interviews with working people. The first is from a bus driver: “You have your tension. Sometimes you come close to having an accident, that upsets you. You just escape maybe by a hair or so. Sometimes maybe you get a disgruntled passenger on there who starts a big argument. Traffic. You have someone who cuts you off or stops in front of the bus. There’s a lot of tension behind that. . . . Most of the time you have to drive for the other drivers, to avoid hitting them. So, you take the tension home with you. Most of the drivers, they’ll suffer from hemorrhoids, kidney trouble, and such as that. I had a case of ulcers behind it.” S. Terkel, Working (New York: Avon, 1972), p. 275. Or consider the plight of a bank teller: “Some days, when you’re aggravated about something, you carry it after you leave the job. Certain people are bad days. (Laughs.) The type of person who will walk in and say, ‘My car’s double-parked outside. Would you hurry up, lady?’ . . . you want to say, ‘Hey, why did you double-park your car? So now you’re going to blame me if you get a ticket, ’cause you were dumb enough to leave it there?’ But you can’t. That’s the one hassle. You can’t say anything back. The customer’s always right.” Ibid., p. 348. Stress is experienced by workers in many jobs: administrative assistants, assembly-line workers, foremen, waitresses, and managers. In fact, it is difficult to find jobs that are without some degree of stress. We seldom talk about jobs without stress; instead, we talk about the degree or magnitude of the stress. The work roles that people fill have a substantial influence on the degree to which they experience stress. C. Cooper and R. Payne, Stress at Work (London: Wiley, 1978); K. Hall and L. Savery, “Tight Rein, More Stress,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1986, pp. 160–162, 164. These differences do not follow the traditional blue-collar/white-collar dichotomy, however. In general, available evidence suggests that high-stress occupations are those in which incumbents have little control over their jobs, work under relentless time pressures or threatening physical conditions, or have major responsibilities for either human or financial resources. A recent study attempted to identify those occupations that were most (and least) stressful. L. Krantz, The Jobs Rated Almanac (New York: Pharos Books, 1988). The study results are presented in . As shown, high-stress occupations (firefighter, race car driver, and astronaut) are typified by the stress-producing characteristics noted above, whereas low-stress occupations (musical instrument repairperson, medical records technician, and librarian) are not. It can therefore be concluded that a major source of general stress emerges from the occupation at which one is working. The Most and Least Stressful Jobs High-Stress Jobs Low-Stress Jobs Source: Adapted from The Jobs Rated Almanac by Les Krantz. 1988 Les Krantz. Firefighter Race car driver Astronaut Surgeon NFL football player City police officer Osteopath State police officer Air traffic controller Mayor Musical instrument repairperson Industrial machine repairperson Medical records technician Pharmacist Medical assistant Typist/word processor Librarian Janitor Bookkeeper Forklift operator (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) A second survey, by the American Psychological Association, examined the specific causes of stress. Stress in the Workplace, American Psychological Association , March, 2011. The results of the study showed that the most frequently cited reasons for stress among administrative professionals are unspecified job requirements (38 percent), work interfering with personal time (36 percent), job insecurity (33 percent), and lack of participation in decision-making (33 percent). Finally, a study among managers found that they, too, are subject to considerable stress arising out of the nature of managerial work. D. Zauderer and J. Fox, “Resiliency in the Face of Stress,” Management Solutions , November 1987, pp. 32–33. The more common work stressors for managers are shown in . Typical Stressors Faced by Managers Stressor Example Source: Adapted from D. Zauderer and J. Fox, “Resiliency in the Face of Stress,” Management Solutions , November 1987, pp. 32–33. Role ambiguity Unclear job duties Role conflict Manager is both a boss and a subordinate. Role overload Too much work, too little time Unrealistic expectations Managers are often asked to do the impossible. Difficult decisions Managers have to make decisions that adversely affect subordinates. Managerial failure Manager fails to achieve expected results. Subordinate failure Subordinates let the boss down. (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) These stressors range from task ambiguity and role conflict to overwork and the possibility of failure. Indeed, responsibility for others may be the greatest stressor of all for managers. Studies in the United States and abroad indicate that managers and supervisors consistently have more ulcers and experience more hypertension than the people they supervise. Responsibility for people was found to be a greater influence on stress than responsibility for nonpersonal factors such as budgets, projects, equipment, and other property. As noted by French and Caplan: “If there is any truth to the adage that ‘man’s greatest enemy is himself,’ it can be found in these data—it is the responsibility which organizational members have for other organizational members, rather than the responsibility for impersonal aspects of the organization, which constitutes the more significant organizational stress.” J. French and R. Caplan, “Organizational Stress and Individual Strain,” in A. Marrow, ed., The Failure of Success (New York: Amacom, 1972), p. 48. Thus, a person’s occupation or profession represents a major cause of stress-related problems at work. In addition to occupation, however, and indeed closely related to it, is the problem of one’s role expectations in the organization. Three interrelated role processes will be examined as they relate to experienced stress: role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload or underutilization. Role Ambiguity The first role process variable to be discussed here is role ambiguity . When individuals have inadequate information concerning their roles, they experience role ambiguity. Uncertainty over job definition takes many forms, including not knowing expectations for performance, not knowing how to meet those expectations, and not knowing the consequences of job behavior. Role ambiguity is particularly strong among managerial jobs, where role definitions and task specification lack clarity (refer to ). For example, the manager of accounts payable may not be sure of the quantity and quality standards for her department. The uncertainty of the absolute level of these two performance standards or their relative importance to each other makes predicting outcomes such as performance evaluation, salary increases, or promotion opportunities equally difficult. All of this contributes to increased stress for the manager. Role ambiguity can also occur among nonmanagerial employees—for example, those whose supervisors fail to make sufficient time to clarify role expectations, thus leaving them unsure of how best to contribute to departmental and organizational goals. How prevalent is role ambiguity at work? In two independent surveys of employees, it was found that 35 percent of one sample (a national random sample of male employees) and 60 percent of the other sample (primarily scientists and engineers) reported some form of role ambiguity. Ibid. Hence, ambiguity of job role is not an isolated event. Role ambiguity has been found to lead to several negative stress-related outcomes. French and Caplan summarized their study findings as follows: “In summary, role ambiguity, which appears to be widespread, (1) produces psychological strain and dissatisfaction; (2) leads to underutilization of human resources; and (3) leads to feelings of futility on how to cope with the organizational environment.” Ibid., p. 36. In other words, role ambiguity has far-reaching consequences beyond experienced stress, including employee turnover and absenteeism, poor coordination and utilization of human resources, and increased operating costs because of inefficiency. It should be noted, however, that not everyone responds in the same way to role ambiguity. Studies have shown that some people have a higher tolerance for ambiguity and are less affected by role ambiguity (in terms of stress, reduced performance, or propensity to leave) than those with a low tolerance for ambiguity. Cooper and Payne, op. cit. Thus, again we can see the role of individual differences in moderating the effects of environmental stimuli on individual behavior and performance. Role Conflict The second role-related factor in stress is role conflict . This may be defined as the simultaneous occurrence of two (or more) sets of pressures or expectations; compliance with one would make it difficult to comply with the other. In other words, role conflict occurs when an employee is placed in a situation where contradictory demands are placed upon her. For instance, a factory worker may find himself in a situation where the supervisor is demanding greater output, yet the work group is demanding a restriction of output. Similarly, a secretary who reports to several supervisors may face a conflict over whose work to do first. One of the best-known studies of role conflict and stress was carried out by Robert Kahn and his colleagues at the University of Michigan. Kahn studied 53 managers and their subordinates (a total of 381 people), examining the nature of each person’s role and how it affected subsequent behavior. As a result of the investigation, the following conclusions emerged: Contradictory role expectations give rise to opposing role pressures (role conflict), which generally have the following effects on the emotional experience of the focal person: intensified internal conflicts, increased tension associated with various aspects of the job, reduced satisfaction with the job and its various components, and decreased confidence in superiors and in the organization as a whole. The strain experienced by those in conflict situations leads to various coping responses, social and psychological withdrawal (reduction in communication and attributed influence) among them. Finally, the presence of conflict in one’s role tends to undermine her reactions with her role senders and to produce weaker bonds of trust, respect, and attraction. It is quite clear that role conflicts are costly for the person in emotional and interpersonal terms. They may be costly to the organization, which depends on effective coordination and collaboration within and among its parts. R. Kahn, D. Wolfe, R. Quinn, J. Snoek, and R. Rosenthal, Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity (New York: Wiley, 1964), pp. 70–71. Other studies have found similar results concerning the serious side effects of role conflict both for individuals and organizations. J. Quick and J. Quick, Organizational Stress and Preventive Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984); R. Sutton and A. Rafaeli, “Characteristics of Work Stations as Potential Occupational Stressors,” Academy of Management Journal, June 1987, pp. 260–276. It should again be recognized, however, that personality differences may serve to moderate the impact of role conflict on stress. In particular, it has been found that introverts and people who lack flexibility respond more negatively to role conflict than do others. French and Caplan, op. cit. In any event, managers must be aware of the problem of role conflict and look for ways to avert negative consequences. One way this can be accomplished is by ensuring that their subordinates are not placed in contradictory positions within the organization; that is, subordinates should have a clear idea of what the manager’s job expectations are and should not be placed in “win-lose” situations. Role Overload and Underutilization Finally, in addition to role ambiguity and conflict, a third aspect of role processes has also been found to represent an important influence on experienced stress—namely, the extent to which employees feel either overloaded or underutilized in their job responsibilities. Role overload is a condition in which individuals feel they are being asked to do more than time or ability permits. Individuals often experience role overload as a conflict between quantity and quality of performance. Quantitative overload consists of having more work than can be done in a given time period, such as a clerk expected to process 1,000 applications per day when only 850 are possible. Overload can be visualized as a continuum ranging from too little to do to too much to do. Qualitative role overload, on the other hand, consists of being taxed beyond one’s skills, abilities, and knowledge. It can be seen as a continuum ranging from too-easy work to too-difficult work. For example, a manager who is expected to increase sales but has little idea of why sales are down or what to do to get sales up can experience qualitative role overload. It is important to note that either extreme represents a bad fit between the abilities of the employee and the demands of the work environment. A good fit occurs at that point on both scales of workload where the abilities of the individual are relatively consistent with the demands of the job. There is evidence that both quantitative and qualitative role overload are prevalent in our society. A review of findings suggests that between 44 and 73 percent of white-collar workers experience a form of role overload. Ibid. What induces this overload? As a result of a series of studies, French and Caplan concluded that a major factor influencing overload is the high achievement needs of many managers. Need for achievement correlated very highly both with the number of hours worked per week and with a questionnaire measure of role overload. Ibid. In other words, much role overload is apparently self-induced. Similarly, the concept of role underutilization should also be acknowledged as a source of experienced stress. Role underutilization occurs when employees are allowed to use only a few of their skills and abilities, even though they are required to make heavy use of them. The most prevalent characteristic of role underutilization is monotony, where the worker performs the same routine task (or set of tasks) over and over. Other situations that make for underutilization include total dependence on machines for determining work pace and sustained positional or postural constraint. Several studies have found that underutilization often leads to low self-esteem, low life satisfaction, and increased frequency of nervous complaints and symptoms. G. Gardell, Arbetsinnehall och Livskvalitet (Stockholm: Prisma, 1976). Both role overload and role underutilization have been shown to influence psychological and physiological reactions to the job. The inverted U-shaped relationship between the extent of role utilization and stress is shown in . As shown, the least stress is experienced at that point where an employee’s abilities and skills are in balance with the requirements of the job. This is where performance should be highest. Employees should be highly motivated and should have high energy levels, sharp perception, and calmness. (Recall that many of the current efforts to redesign jobs and improve the quality of work are aimed at minimizing overload or underutilization in the workplace and achieving a more suitable balance between abilities possessed and skills used on the job.) When employees experience underutilization, boredom, decreased motivation, apathy, and absenteeism will be more likely. Role overload can lead to such symptoms as insomnia, irritability, increased errors, and indecisiveness. Taken together, occupation and role processes represent a sizable influence on whether or not an employee experiences high stress levels. One job where the profession and its required roles almost guarantee significant stress is air traffic control. Consider for a moment whether you would want to have this job. Are the Japanese Working Themselves to Death? Karoshi literally means death from overwork, and unofficial estimates are that as many people die each year from karoshi as from traffic accidents in Japan—approximately 10,000. In 2016, the legal claims of karoshi rose to a record high of 1,456 according to government figures. Additionally, just under 2,000 suicides linked to work-related causes were reported. In October 2017, the latest employee death that shook the media was 31-year-old journalist Miwa Sado, and before that 24-year-old Matsui Takahashi, an employee working at Dentsu advertising agency, leapt from the roof on Christmas Day 2015. These incidents are just two of many that occur more frequently in Japan due to the culture of overtime and stress within the work environment. Each of these women logged over 100 hours of overtime over the course of one month. Often the causes of death include heart failure, stroke, and suicide due to the stress, lack of sleep, and sleep deprivation that is caused by being overworked. Takahashi posted on Twitter, “It’s 4 a.m. My body’s trembling, I’m going to die. I’m so tired.” Soon after her death, the president of Dentsu resigned from his post. Many reports suggest that performance reviews are marked negatively for those that don’t work lots of overtime, while others suggest employees must strive to make good impressions on their bosses, and staying late or working extra is perceived as loyalty to their jobs and companies. The Japanese government has taken strides since the two incidents to implement policies to help to combat karoshi for good. One attempt implemented in 2016 is A Premium Friday plan, where Japanese workers are allowed the chance to leave at 3 p.m. on the last Friday of each month. This has only made some employees busier because some companies have organized their monthly finances to hit sales goals before the end of the month. Little success has been seen from this initiative. One Tokyo-best IT Service company forced employees to wear purple capes on the third Wednesday of the month if they worked late, which was a very bold and visual tactic to showcase the “working late is not cool” vibe. This shaming tactic worked, decreasing the overtime worked by 50 percent. Some companies have implemented individual changes such as breakfast offerings and allowing time off as needed. Changing the Japanese work culture will take time. Although these small changes have not made a large impact yet, the discussion is widening, and workplaces are becoming more aware of the need for drastic changes in policy to counteract the growing issue of stress in the workplace. Questions: What measures can a manager take in order to counteract the stress-related issues within the work environment? What considerations should a manager take before implementing changes to a work environment and policies when managing a global team? What environmental and cultural factors can affect an employee’s work ethic and their level of stress in their workday? Sources: C. Weller, “Japan is facing a 'death by overwork' problem — here's what it's all about,” Business Insider , October 8, 2017, https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-karoshi-japanese-word-for-death-by-overwork-2017-10?r=UK&IR=T; E. Warnock, “Japan by the Numbers: ‘Karoshi’,” Tokyo Review , October 12, 2017, http://www.tokyoreview.net/2017/10/japan-numbers-karoshi-overwork/; (Why Japanese Workers Keep Working Themselves to Death,” CBS News , October 20, 2017, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/karoshi-japan-deaths-persist-japanese-overwork/; D. Demetriou, “Death for Overworking Claims Hit Record High in Japan,” The Telegraph , April 4, 2016, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/04/death-from-overworking-claims-hit-record-high-in-japan/; D. Hurst, “First step in changing Japan's workaholic culture: less overtime,” NBC News , January 8, 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/first-step-changing-japan-s-workaholic-culture-less-overtime-n833051. The Underload-Overload Continuum Source: Adapted from Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes 14 th edition by James L. Gibson, John M. Ivancevich, and Robert Konopaske, McGraw Hill, 2013. (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Personal Influences on Stress The second major influence on job-related stress can be found in the employees themselves. As such, we will examine three individual-difference factors as they influence stress at work: (1) personal control, (2) Type A personality, and (3) rate of life change. Personal Control To begin with, we should acknowledge the importance of personal control as a factor in stress. Personal control represents the extent to which an employee actually has control over factors affecting effective job performance. If an employee is assigned a responsibility for something (landing an airplane, completing a report, meeting a deadline) but is not given an adequate opportunity to perform (because of too many planes, insufficient information, insufficient time), the employee loses personal control over the job and can experience increased stress. Personal control seems to work through the process of employee participation. That is, the more employees are allowed to participate in job-related matters, the more control they feel for project completion. On the other hand, if employees’ opinions, knowledge, and wishes are excluded from organizational operations, the resulting lack of participation can lead not only to increased stress and strain, but also to reduced productivity. The importance of employee participation in enhancing personal control and reducing stress is reflected in the French and Caplan study discussed earlier. After a major effort to uncover the antecedents of job-related stress, these investigators concluded: “Since participation is also significantly correlated with low role ambiguity, good relations with others, and low overload, it is conceivable that its effects are widespread, and that all the relationships between these other stresses and psychological strain can be accounted for in terms of how much the person participates. This, in fact, appears to be the case. When we control or hold constant, through statistical analysis techniques, the amount of participation a person reports, then the correlations between all the above stresses and job satisfaction and job-related threat drop quite noticeably. This suggests that low participation generates these related stresses, and that increasing participation is an efficient way of reducing many other stresses which also lead to psychological strain.” French and Caplan, op. cit., p. 51. On the bases of this and related studies, we can conclude that increased participation and personal control over one’s job is often associated with several positive outcomes, including lower psychological strain, increased skill utilization, improved working relations, and more-positive attitudes. These factors, in turn, contribute toward higher productivity. These results are shown in . R. Schuler and S. Jackson, “Managing Stress Through P/HRM Practices,” in K. Rowland and G. Ferris, eds., Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1986), pp. 183–224. Related to the issue of personal control—indeed, moderating its impact—is the concept of locus of control . It will be remembered that some people have an internal locus of control, feeling that much of what happens in their life is under their own control. Others have an external locus of control, feeling that many of life’s events are beyond their control. This concept has implications for how people respond to the amount of personal control in the work environment. That is, internals are more likely to be upset by threats to the personal control of surrounding events than are externals. Recent evidence indicates that internals react to situations over which they have little or no control with aggression—presumably in an attempt to reassert control over ongoing events. C. Carver and D. Glass, “Coronary Prone Behavior Pattern and Interpersonal Aggression,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, pp. 361–366; M. Fusilier, D. Ganster, and B. Mayes, “The Social Support and Health Relationship: Is There a Gender Difference?” Journal of Occupational Psychology, June 1986, pp. 145–153. On the other hand, externals tend to be more resigned to external control, are much less involved in or upset by a constrained work environment, and do not react as emotionally to organizational stress factors. Hence, locus of control must be recognized as a potential moderator of the effects of personal control as it relates to experienced stress. Consequences of High Personal Control (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Type A Personality Research has focused on what is perhaps the single most dangerous personal influence on experienced stress and subsequent physical harm. This characteristic was first introduced by Friedman and Rosenman and is called Type A personality . M. Friedman and R. Rosenman, Type A Behavior and your Heart (New York: Knopf, 1974). Type A and Type B personalities are felt to be relatively stable personal characteristics exhibited by individuals. Type A personality is characterized by impatience, restlessness, aggressiveness, competitiveness, polyphasic activities (having many “irons in the fire” at one time), and being under considerable time pressure. Work activities are particularly important to Type A individuals, and they tend to freely invest long hours on the job to meet pressing (and recurring) deadlines. Type B people, on the other hand, experience fewer pressing deadlines or conflicts, are relatively free of any sense of time urgency or hostility, and are generally less competitive on the job. These differences are summarized in . Profiles of Type A and Type B Personalities Type A Type B Highly competitive Lacks intense competitiveness “Workaholic” Work only one of many interests Intense sense of urgency More deliberate time orientation Polyphasic behavior Does one activity at a time Strong goal-directedness More moderate goal-directedness (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Type A personality is frequently found in managers. Indeed, one study found that 60 percent of managers were clearly identified as Type A, whereas only 12 percent were clearly identified as Type B. J. Howard, D. Cunningham, and P. Rechnitzer, “Health Patterns Associated with Type A Behavior: A Managerial Population,” Journal of Human Stress, 1976, pp. 24–31. It has been suggested that Type A personality is most useful in helping someone rise through the ranks of an organization. The role of Type A personality in producing stress is exemplified by the relationship between this behavior and heart disease. Rosenman and Friedman studied 3,500 men over an 8 1/2-year period and found Type A individuals to be twice as prone to heart disease, five times as prone to a second heart attack, and twice as prone to fatal heart attacks when compared to Type B individuals. Friedman and Rosenman, op. cit. Similarly, Jenkins studied over 3,000 men and found that of 133 coronary heart disease sufferers, 94 were clearly identified as Type A in early test scores. C. Jenkins, “Psychologic Disease and Social Prevention of Coronary Disease,” New England Journal of Medicine, 1971, 284, pp. 244–255; T. Beehr and R. Bhagat, Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations: An Integrated Perspective (New York: Wiley, 1985). The rapid rise of women in managerial positions suggests that they, too, may be subject to this same problem. Hence, Type A behavior very clearly leads to one of the most severe outcomes of experienced stress. One irony of Type A is that although this behavior is helpful in securing rapid promotion to the top of an organization, it may be detrimental once the individual has arrived. That is, although Type A employees make successful managers (and salespeople), the most successful top executives tend to be Type B. They exhibit patience and a broad concern for the ramifications of decisions. As Dr. Elmer Green, a Menninger Foundation psychologist who works with executives, notes, “This fellow—the driving A—can’t relax enough to do a really first-rate job, at the office or at home. He gets to a level that dogged work can achieve, but not often to the pinnacle of his business or profession, which requires sober, quiet, balanced reasoning.” Business Week , October 17, 1977, p. 137. The key is to know how to shift from Type A behavior to Type B. How does a manager accomplish this? The obvious answer is to slow down and relax. However, many Type A managers refuse to acknowledge either the problem or the need for change, because they feel it may be viewed as a sign of weakness. In these cases, several small steps can be taken, including scheduling specified times every day to exercise, delegating more significant work to subordinates, and eliminating optional activities from the daily calendar. Some companies have begun experimenting with retreats, where managers are removed from the work environment and engage in group psychotherapy over the problems associated with Type A personality. Initial results from these programs appear promising. Ibid. Even so, more needs to be done if we are to reduce job-related stress and its serious health implications. Rate of Life Change A third personal influence on experienced stress is the degree to which lives are stable or turbulent. A long-term research project by Holmes and Rahe has attempted to document the extent to which rate of life change generates stress in individuals and leads to the onset of disease or illness. T. H. Holmes and R. H. Rahe, “The Social Readjustment Rating Scale,” Journal of Psychosomatic Research, August 1967, pp. 213–218. See also O. Behling and A. Darrow, “Managing Work-Related Stress,” in J. Rosenzweig and F. Kast, eds., Modules in Management (Chicago: SRA, 1984). As a result of their research, a variety of life events were identified and assigned points based upon the extent to which each event is related to stress and illness. The death of a spouse was seen as the most stressful change and was assigned 100 points. Other events were scaled proportionately in terms of their impact on stress and illness. It was found that the higher the point total of recent events, the more likely it is that the individual will become ill. Apparently, the influence of life changes on stress and illness is brought about by the endocrine system. This system provides the energy needed to cope with new or unusual situations. When the rate of change surpasses a given level, the system experiences overload and malfunctions. The result is a lowered defense against viruses and disease. What are the major influences of work related stress? What impact do different occupations have of the stress levels of workers in those jobs? What impact do role ambiguity, job overload or underutilization have on stress levels? What are Type A and Type B personalities and how does stress affect each personality type What are the underlying causes of stress in a particular situation? Four organization influences on stress can be identified: (1) occupational differences, (2) role ambiguity, (3) role conflict, and (4) role overload or underutilization. Three personal influences on stress are (1) personal control, or the desire to have some degree of control over one’s environment; (2) rate of life change; and (3) Type A personality. Type A personality refers to individuals characterized by impatience, restlessness, aggressiveness, competitiveness, and polyphasic activities (that is, attempting to do several activities at the same time). locus of control The concept that much of what happens in one’s life is either under or outside of their own control. personal control Represents the extent to which an employee actually has control over factors affecting effective job performance. Type A personality Type A personality is characterized by impatience, restlessness, aggressiveness, competitiveness, polyphasic activities, and being under considerable time pressure. rate of life change The variety of life events were identified and assigned points based upon the extent to which each event is related to stress and illness. role ambiguity Occurs when individuals have inadequate information concerning their roles. role conflict The simultaneous occurrence of two (or more) sets of pressures or expectations; compliance with one would make it difficult to comply with the other. role overload A condition in which individuals feel they are being asked to do more than time or ability permits. role underutilization Occurs when employees are allowed to use only a few of their skills and abilities, even though they are required to make heavy use of them. tolerance for ambiguity Individuals measure and affect by role ambiguity (in terms of stress, reduced performance, or propensity to leave) than others with a low tolerance for ambiguity.

Business


Buffering Effects of Work related Stress How do managers and organizations minimize the dysfunctional consequences of stressful behavior? We have seen in the previous discussion how a variety of organizational and personal factors influence the extent to which individuals experience stress on the job. Although many factors, or stressors, have been identified, their effect on psychological and behavioral outcomes is not always as strong as we might expect. This lack of a direct stressor-outcome relationship suggests the existence of potential moderator variables that buffer the effects of potential stressors on individuals. Recent research has identified two such buffers: the degree of social support the individual receives and the individual’s general degree of what is called hardiness. Both are noted in . Social Support First, let us consider social support. Social support is simply the extent to which organization members feel their peers can be trusted, are interested in one another’s welfare, respect one another, and have a genuine positive regard for one another. When social support is present, individuals feel that they are not alone as they face the more prevalent stressors. The feeling that those around you really care about what happens to you and are willing to help blunts the severity of potential stressors and leads to less-painful side effects. For example, family support can serve as a buffer for executives on assignment in a foreign country and can reduce the stress associated with cross-cultural adjustment. Much of the more rigorous research on the buffering effects of social support on stress comes from the field of medicine, but it has relevance for organizational behavior. In a series of medical studies, it was consistently found that high peer support reduced negative outcomes of potentially stressful events (surgery, job loss, hospitalization) and increased positive outcomes. S. Cohen and T. Wills, “Stress, Social Support, and the Buffering Hypothesis,” Psychological Bulletin, September 1985, pp. 310–357. These results clearly point to the importance of social support to individual well-being. These results also indicate that managers should be aware of the importance of building cohesive, supportive work groups—particularly among individuals who are most subject to stress. Disconnecting from the “Always On” Work Culture It is very rare that you are farther than an arm’s length away from your smartphone. You get anxious when there is no Wi-Fi in a hotel room, and if your battery is running low, the stress skyrockets through the roof just imagining what you could miss out on. All of these stresses, combined with an increasing demand for being reachable for your work, can relate to high stress and other negative health effects. Many workplaces, such as medical professionals, have a high importance to the response rate they employ. Others, such sales teams, may require certain response times to e-mails, calls, or texts, with explanation of why they were not achieved. According to the recent study by the Academy of Management, “employees tally an average of 8 hours a week answering work-related emails after leaving the office.” This also could include regularly taking work home or working while on scheduled time off and vacation, and all can cause stress and lack of sleep and greatly reduce focus and engagement during office hours. In the UK, surveys have uncovered the impact of technology, with 72.4 percent of respondents admitting that they were performing work tasks outside of regular work hours (https://businessadvice.co.uk/hr/employment-law/always-on-culture-affecting-employees/). Increasing the stress and potential negative affects is when the smartphones are being accessed: mainly before bed and right when they wake up. Feeling groggy in the morning and not getting a good night’s sleep could be due to the exposure to cell phones, computers, and TVs during the two hours before bed. Further studies have also shown that the blue light from devices can disrupt circadian rhythms and the internal clock the helps determine when to sleep and when to wake. (https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/evening-screen-time-can-sabotage-sleep) Other countries outside of the U.S. have changed their ways and implemented policies to counteract the “always on” cultural norm that pervades the modern workplace. As of January 1, 2017, French employees now have a new law with the “right to disconnect.” This law allows employees to walk away from their smartphone technology and does not allow employers to fire individuals that do not respond to work-related inquiries while out of office. Questions: What are some ways as a new manager that you can help positively impact your new team to counteract the “always on” mentality? What are some negative workplace behaviors that could arise from promoting an “always on” work culture? Sources: S. Caldwell, “Revealed: How Britain’s always-on culture is really affecting employees,” Business Advice , May 15, 2018, https://businessadvice.co.uk/hr/employment-law/always-on-culture-affecting-employees/; J. M. O’Connor, “The Always on Smartphone Culture, Turn it Off,” Forbes , September 8, 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2017/09/08/the-always-on-smartphone-culture-turn-it-down/#236c2e7521c0; M. Kitchen, “How to Disconnect From ‘Always On’ Work Culture,” The Wall Street Journal , October 5, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-disconnect-from-always-on-work-culture-1538740171?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2; M. Wall, “Smartphone stress: Are you a victim of 'always on' culture?,” BBC , August 14, 2014, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28686235. Hardiness The second moderator of stress is hardiness. Hardiness represents a collection of personality characteristics that involve one’s ability to perceptually or behaviorally transform negative stressors into positive challenges. These characteristics include a sense of commitment to the importance of what one is doing, an internal locus of control (as noted above), and a sense of life challenge. In other words, people characterized by hardiness have a clear sense of where they are going and are not easily deterred by hurdles. The pressure of goal frustration does not deter them, because they invest themselves in the situation and push ahead. Simply put, these are people who refuse to give up. S. Kobasa, S. Maddi, and S. Kahn, “Hardiness and Health: A Prospective Study,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, January 1982, pp. 168–177; J. Hull, R. VanTreuren, and S. Virnelli, “Hardiness and Health: A Critique and Alternative Approach,” Journal of Personality and social Psychology, September 1987, pp. 518–530. Several studies of hardiness support the importance of this variable as a stress moderator. One study among managers found that those characterized by hardiness were far less susceptible to illness following prolonged stress. And a study among undergraduates found hardiness to be positively related to perceptions that potential stressors were actually challenges to be met. Thus, factors such as individual hardiness and the degree of social support must be considered in any model of the stress process. Consequenses of Work Related Stress In exploring major influences on stress, it was pointed out that the intensity with which a person experiences stress is a function of organizational factors and personal factors, moderated by the degree of social support in the work environment and by hardiness. We come now to an examination of major consequences of work-related stress. Here we will attempt to answer the “so what?” question. Why should managers be interested in stress and resulting strain? As a guide for examining the topic, we recognize three intensity levels of stress—no stress, low stress, and high stress—and will study the outcomes of each level. These outcomes are shown schematically in . Four major categories of outcome will be considered: (1) stress and health, (2) stress and counterproductive behavior, (3) stress and job performance, and (4) stress and burnout. Major Consequences of Work-Related Stress (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Stress and Health High degrees of stress are typically accompanied by severe anxiety and/or frustration, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol levels. These psychological and physiological changes contribute to the impairment of health in several different ways. Most important, high stress contributes to heart disease. Cooper and Payne, op. cit. The relationship between high job stress and heart disease is well established. In view of the fact that well over a half-million people die of heart disease every year, the impact of stress is important. D. Glass, “Stress, Competition, and Heart Attacks,” Psychology Today, July 1976, pp. 55–57. High job stress also contributes to a variety of other ailments, including peptic ulcers, arthritis, and several forms of mental illness. In a study by Cobb and Kasl, for example, it was found that individuals with high educational achievement but low job status exhibited abnormally high levels of anger, irritation, anxiety, tiredness, depression, and low self-esteem. S. Cobb and S. Kasl, “Blood Pressure Changes in Men Undergoing Job Loss: A Preliminary Report,” Psychosomatic Medicine, January-February 1970. In another study, Slote examined the effects of a plant closing in Detroit on stress and stress outcomes. Although factory closings are fairly common, the effects of these closings on individuals have seldom been examined. Slote found that the plant closing led to “an alarming rise in anxiety and illness,” with at least half the employees suffering from ulcers, arthritis, serious hypertension, alcoholism, clinical depression, and even hair loss. A. Slote, Termination: The Closing of Baker Plant (Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1977). Clearly, this life change event took its toll on the mental and physical well-being of the workforce. Finally, in a classic study of mental health of industrial workers, Kornhauser studied a sample of automobile assembly-line workers. Of the employees studied, he found that 40 percent had symptoms of mental health problems. His main findings may be summarized as follows: Job satisfaction varied consistently with employee skill levels. Blue-collar workers holding high-level jobs exhibited better mental health than those holding low-level jobs. Job dissatisfaction, stress, and absenteeism were all related directly to the characteristics of the job. Dull, repetitious, unchallenging jobs were associated with the poorest mental health. Feelings of helplessness, withdrawal, alienation, and pessimism were widespread throughout the plant. As an example, Kornhauser noted that 50 percent of the assembly-line workers felt they had little influence over the future course of their lives; this compares to only 17 percent for nonfactory workers. Employees with the lowest mental health also tended to be more passive in their nonwork activities; typically, they did not vote or take part in community activities. A. Kornhauser, Mental Health and the Industrial Worker (New York: Wiley, 1965). In conclusion, Kornhauser noted: “Poor mental health occurs whenever conditions of work and life lead to continuing frustration by failing to offer means for perceived progress toward attainment of strongly desired goals which have become indispensable elements of the individual’s self-esteem and dissatisfaction with life, often accompanied by anxieties, social alienation and withdrawal, a narrowing of goals and curtailing of aspirations—in short . . . poor mental health.” Ibid., p. 342. Managers need to be concerned about the problems of physical and mental health because of their severe consequences both for the individual and for the organization. Health is often related to performance, and to the extent that health suffers, so too do a variety of performance-related factors. Given the importance of performance for organizational effectiveness, we will now examine how it is affected by stress. Stress and Counterproductive Behavior It is useful from a managerial standpoint to consider several forms of counterproductive behavior that are known to result from prolonged stress. These counterproductive behaviors include turnover and absenteeism, alcoholism and drug abuse, and aggression and sabotage. Turnover and Absenteeism. Turnover and absenteeism represent convenient forms of withdrawal from a highly stressful job. Results of several studies have indicated a fairly consistent, if modest, relationship between stress and subsequent turnover and absenteeism. D. Allen and P. Bryant, Managing Employee Turnover: Dispelling Myths and Fostering Evidence-Based Retention Strategies , (Chicago: Business Expert Press, 2013); W. Mobley, Managing Employee Turnover (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1982); S. Rhodes and R. Steers, Managing Employee Absenteeism (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1990). In many ways, withdrawal represents one of the easiest ways employees have of handling a stressful work environment, at least in the short run. Indeed, turnover and absenteeism may represent two of the less undesirable consequences of stress, particularly when compared to alternative choices such as alcoholism, drug abuse, or aggression. Although high turnover and absenteeism may inhibit productivity, at least they do little physical harm to the individual or coworkers. Even so, there are many occasions when employees are not able to leave because of family or financial obligations, a lack of alternative employment, and so forth. In these situations, it is not unusual to see more dysfunctional behavior. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. It has long been known that stress is linked to alcoholism and drug abuse among employees at all levels in the organizational hierarchy. These two forms of withdrawal offer a temporary respite from severe anxiety and severe frustration. One study by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare reported, “Our interviews with blue-collar workers in heavy industry revealed a number who found it necessary to drink large quantities of alcohol during lunch to enable them to withstand the pressure or overwhelming boredom of their tasks.” U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Work in America, 1973. p. 85. A study in New York revealed a surprising amount of drug abuse by young employees on blue-collar jobs—especially among assembly-line employees and long-haul truck drivers. A third study of a UAW local involving 3,400 workers found 15 percent of the workforce addicted to heroin. And, finally, there is an alarming increase of drug and substance abuse among managers. T. Rosen, “Identification of Substance Abuse in the Workplace,” Public Personnel Management, Fall 1987, pp. 197–207; S. Flax, “The Executive Addict,” Fortune, June 24, 1985, pp. 24–31. Both alcohol and drugs are used by a significant proportion of employees to escape from the rigors of a routine or stressful job. Although many companies have begun in-house programs aimed at rehabilitating chronic cases, these forms of withdrawal seem to continue to be on the increase, presenting another serious problem for modern managers. One answer to this dilemma involves reducing stress on the job that is creating the need for withdrawal from organizational activities. Aggression and Sabotage. Severe frustration can also lead to overt hostility in the form of aggression toward other people and toward inanimate objects. Aggression occurs when individuals feel frustrated and can find no acceptable, legitimate remedies for the frustration. For instance, a busy secretary may be asked to type a stack of letters, only to be told later that the boss changed his mind and no longer needs the letters typed. The frustrated secretary may react by covert verbal abuse or an intentional slowdown on subsequent work. A more extreme example of aggression can be seen in the periodic reports in newspapers about a worker who “goes berserk” (usually after a reprimand or punishment) and attacks fellow employees. One common form of aggressive behavior on the job is sabotage. As one study found: “The roots of sabotage, a frequent aspect of industrial violence, are illustrated by this comment of a steelworker. ‘Sometimes, out of pure meanness, when I make something, I put a little dent in it. I like to do something to make it really unique. Hit it with a hammer deliberately to see if it’ll get by, just so I can say I did it.’ In a product world where everything is alike, sabotage may be a distortion of the guild craftsman’s signature, a way of asserting individuality in a homogeneous world—the only way for a worker to say, ‘That’s mine.’ It may also be a way of striking back against the hostile, inanimate objects that control the worker’s time, muscles, and brain. Breaking a machine in order to get some rest may be a sane thing to do.” U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, op. cit. The extent to which frustration leads to aggressive behavior is influenced by several factors, often under the control of managers. Aggression tends to be subdued when employees anticipate that it will be punished, the peer group disapproves, or it has not been reinforced in the past (that is, when aggressive behavior failed to lead to positive outcomes). Thus, it is incumbent upon managers to avoid reinforcing undesired behavior and, at the same time, to provide constructive outlets for frustration. In this regard, some companies have provided official channels for the discharge of aggressive tendencies. For example, many companies have experimented with ombudsmen, whose task it is to be impartial mediators of employee disputes. Results have proved positive. These procedures or outlets are particularly important for nonunion personnel, who do not have contractual grievance procedures. Stress and Job Performance A major concern of management is the effects of stress on job performance. The relationship is not as simple as might be supposed. The stress-performance relationship resembles an inverted J-curve, as shown in . At very low or no-stress levels, individuals maintain their current levels of performance. Under these conditions, individuals are not activated, do not experience any stress-related physical strain, and probably see no reason to change their performance levels. Note that this performance level may be high or low. In any event, an absence of stress probably would not cause any change. On the other hand, studies indicate that under conditions of low stress, people are activated sufficiently to motivate them to increase performance. For instance, salespeople and many managers perform best when they are experiencing mild anxiety or frustration. Stress in modest amounts, as when a manager has a tough problem to solve, acts as a stimulus for the individual. The toughness of a problem often pushes managers to their performance limits. Similarly, mild stress can also be responsible for creative activities in individuals as they try to solve difficult (stressful) problems. The Relationship Between Stress and Job Performance (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Finally, under conditions of high stress, individual performance drops markedly. Here, the severity of the stress consumes attention and energies, and individuals focus considerable effort on attempting to reduce the stress (often employing a variety of counterproductive behaviors as noted below). Little energy is left to devote to job performance, with obvious results. Stress and Burnout When job-related stress is prolonged, poor job performance such as that described above often moves into a more critical phase, known as burnout. Burnout is a general feeling of exhaustion that can develop when a person simultaneously experiences too much pressure to perform and too few sources of satisfaction. S. Jackson, R. Schwab, and R. Schuler, “Toward an Understanding of the Burnout Phenomenon,” Journal of Applied Psychology , November 1986, pp. 630–640. Candidates for job burnout seem to exhibit similar characteristics. That is, many such individuals are idealistic and self-motivated achievers, often seek unattainable goals, and have few buffers against stress. As a result, these people demand a great deal from themselves, and, because their goals are so high, they often fail to reach them. Because they do not have adequate buffers, stressors affect them rather directly. This is shown in . As a result of experienced stress, burnout victims develop a variety of negative and often hostile attitudes toward the organization and themselves, including fatalism, boredom, discontent, cynicism, and feelings of personal inadequacy. As a result, the person decreases his or her aspiration levels, loses confidence, and attempts to withdraw from the situation. Research indicates that burnout is widespread among employees, including managers, researchers, and engineers, that are often hardest to replace by organizations. As a result, it is estimated that 70 percent of the largest U. S. companies have some form of antiburnout/stress reduction training. B. Dumaine, “Cool Cures for Burnout,” Fortune, June 20, 1988, pp. 78–84. Influences Leading to Job Burnout (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) What role does health, social support and hardiness have on the level of stress? What can managers do ro reduce stress levels in employees that can harm productivity and can lead to counterproductive behavior in the workplace, absenteeism, as well as alcoholism and drug abuse. How do managers and organizations minimize the dysfunctional consequences of stressful behavior? The effects of potential stress can be buffered by two factors: (1) social support from one’s coworkers or friends and (2) hardiness, or the ability to perceptually and behaviorally transform negative stressors into positive challenges. Sustained stress can lead to (1) health problems; (2) counterproductive behavior, such as turnover, absenteeism, drug abuse, and sabotage; (3) poor job performance; and (4) burnout. burnout A general feeling of exhaustion that can develop when a person simultaneously experiences too much pressure to perform and too few sources of satisfaction. hardiness Represents a collection of personality characteristics that involve one’s ability to perceptually or behaviorally transform negative stressors into positive challenges. social support The extent to which organization members feel their peers can be trusted, are interested in one another’s welfare, respect one another, and have a genuine positive regard for one another.

Business


Coping with Work related Stress What are the remedies for job-related stress, and how can managers motivate employees to participate actively in health promotion efforts for the benefit of all concerned? We come now to the most important question from a managerial standpoint: What can be done to reduce job-related stress? Many suggestions for coping with stress are implicit in the previous discussions. However, it is possible to summarize several important actions employees and managers can take in order to provide a more desirable work environment and improve employee adjustment to work. Individual Strategies There are many things people can do to help eliminate the level of experienced stress or, at the very least, to help cope with continuing high stress. Consider the following: Developing Self-Awareness. Individuals can increase awareness of how they behave on the job. They can learn to know their own limits and recognize signs of potential trouble. Employees should know when to withdraw from a situation (known to some as a “mental health day” instead of absenteeism) and when to seek help from others on the job in an attempt to relieve the situation. Developing Outside Interests. In addition, individuals can develop outside interests to take their minds off work. This solution is particularly important for Type A people, whose physical health depends on toning down their drive for success. Employees can ensure that they get regular physical exercise to relieve pent-up stress. Many companies sponsor athletic activities, and some have built athletic facilities on company premises to encourage employee activity. Leaving the Organization. Sometimes an employee may be unable to improve her situation and, as a result, may find it necessary (i.e., healthful) simply to leave the organization and find alternative employment. Although this is clearly a difficult decision to make, there are times when turnover is the only answer. Finding a Personal or Unique Solution. Another means individuals can use to cope with stress is through a variety of personal or unique solutions. For instance, here is how one manager described his reaction to a stressful situation: “If someone finally bugs me, I politely hang up the phone and then pound the hell out of my typewriter, saying all the things on paper I wanted to say to that person on the phone. It works every time. Then, I rip up the paper and throw it into the trash can.” Cited in U. S. News & World Report, March 13, 1978, p. 81. If an employee cannot leave a stressful situation, this may be a good temporary way out of it. Physical Exercise. Because part of the cause of the fatigue resulting from stress is the body’s physical reaction, exercise can be an effective means of enabling the body to more effective deal with the physical components of stress. Regular exercise can be an important and effective individual strategy. Cognitive Perspective. Finally, because stress is in part a function of how events are perceived and interpreted, controlling one’s cognitive perspective of events can also be an effective strategy. Although one would not want to go so far as framing a truck speeding toward you as an opportunity rather than a threat, positively framing situations as well as distinguishing factors that are within as well as outside your control and influence can be effective means of reducing stress. Organizational Strategies Because managers usually have more control over the working environment than do subordinates, it seems only natural that they have more opportunity to contribute to a reduction of work-related stress. Among their activities, managers may include the following eight strategies. Personnel Selection and Placement. First, managers can pay more attention in the selection and placement process to the fit between job applicants, the job, and the work environment. Current selection and placement procedures are devoted almost exclusively to preventing qualitative role overload by ensuring that people have the required education, ability, experience, and training for the job. Managers could extend these selection criteria to include a consideration of the extent to which job applicants have a tolerance for ambiguity and can handle role conflict. In other words, managers could be alert in the job interview and subsequent placement process to potential stress-related problems and the ability of the applicant to deal successfully with them. Skills Training. Second, stress can be reduced in some cases through better job-related skills training procedures, where employees are taught how to do their jobs more effectively with less stress and strain. For instance, an employee might be taught how to reduce overload by taking shortcuts or by using new or expanded skills. These techniques would only be successful, however, if management did not follow this increased effectiveness by raising work quotas. Along with this could go greater effort by managers to specify and clarify job duties to reduce ambiguity and conflict. Employees could also be trained in human relations skills in order to improve their interpersonal abilities so that they might encounter less interpersonal and intergroup conflict. Job Redesign. Third, managers can change certain aspects of jobs or the ways people perform these jobs. Much has been written about the benefits of job redesign. Enriching a job may lead to improved task significance, autonomy, responsibility, and feedback. For many people, these jobs will present a welcome challenge, which will improve the job-person fit and reduce experienced stress. It should be noted, however, that all people do not necessarily want an enriched job. Enriching the job of a person with a very low need for achievement or external locus of control may only increase anxiety and fear of failure. Care must be taken in job enrichment to match these efforts to employee needs and desires. In addition to job enrichment, a related technique aimed at reducing stress is job rotation. Job rotation is basically a way of spreading stress among employees and providing a respite—albeit temporary—from particularly stressful jobs. Job rotation is particularly popular in Japan as a means of allocating the more tedious or boring tasks among a large set of employees so prolonged stress is reduced. Japan is also finally working toward a reduced workweek as a means of reducing job-related stress. C. Smith, “Labor: Working on a Change,” Far Eastern Economic Review, April 14, 1988, pp. 62–63. Company-Sponsored Counseling Programs. Several companies have begun experimenting with counseling programs, the fourth strategy suggested here. For instance, Stanford University’s executive program includes a module on coping with stress, and the Menninger Foundation conducts a one-week anti-stress seminar in Topeka. In one experiment among police officers, the value of a stress management program was examined. I. Sarason, J. Johnson, J. Berberich, and J. Siegel, Helping Police Officers Cope with Stress: A Cognitive-Behavioral Approach, Technical Report, University of Washington, February 1978. In the program, which consisted of six two-hour sessions, officers were told about the nature and causes of stress, were shown useful relaxation exercises, and were put through several simulated stressful situations—such as role playing the handling of an arrest. Throughout, emphasis was placed on reinforcing the officers’ confidence that they could, in fact, successfully cope with on-the-job stress. The results of the program showed that those officers who went through the program performed better, exhibited greater self-control, and experienced less stress than officers in comparable positions who did not go through the program. Similar findings have emerged in a variety of business organizations. Once again, much work-related stress can be reduced simply by encouraging managers to be more supportive and to provide the necessary tools for people to cope with stress. Increased Participation and Personal Control. Fifth, managers can allow employees greater participation and personal control in decisions affecting their work. As noted above, participation increases job involvement and simultaneously reduces stress by relieving ambiguity and conflict. However, although the benefits of increased participation are many, it should be noted that being more participative is no easy task for some supervisors. One study, for example, found significant differences in the extent to which different supervisors would allow their subordinates to participation in decision-making. R. M. Steers, “Individual Differences in Participative Decision Making,” Human Relations, 1977, 30 , pp. 837–847. Females were found to allow more participation than males. Supervisors with high achievement needs, high levels of confidence in the abilities of their subordinates, and low feelings of being threatened by others allowed more subordinate participation. The issue of participation does not appear to be whether subordinates desire it; instead, it appears to be whether superiors will allow it. Stress Ball Stress balls have been used for centuries, particularly in Chinese culture, to help relieve anxiety and improve hand coordination. These days, people still turn to stress balls for reliable anxiety relief. (Attribution: Katy Warner/ Flickr/ Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)) Work Group Cohesiveness. Sixth, managers can attempt to build work group cohesiveness. Team-building efforts are common in industry today. These efforts focus on developing groups that will be both more productive and mutually supportive. A critical ingredient in the extent to which stress is experienced is the amount of social support employees receive. Team building represents one way to achieve this support. Improved Communication. Managers can open communication channels so employees are more informed about what is happening in the organization. With greater knowledge, role ambiguity and conflict are reduced. Managers must be aware, however, that communication is a two-way street; they should allow and be receptive to communication from subordinates. To the extent that subordinates feel their problems and complaints are being heard, they experience less stress and are less inclined to engage in counterproductive behavior. Health Promotion Programs. Finally, many companies have recently embarked on a more systematic and comprehensive approach to stress reduction and wellness in the workplace. These programs are usually referred to as health promotion programs , and they represent a combination of diagnostic, educational, and behavior modification activities that are aimed at attaining and preserving good health. M. Matteson and J. Ivancevich, “Health Promotion at Work,” in C. Cooper and I. Robertson, eds., International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (London: Wiley, pp. 279–306). A typical program includes risk assessment, educational and instructional classes, and counseling and referrals. Health promotion programs tackle a wide array of health-related concerns, including physical fitness, weight control, dietary and nutritional counseling, smoking cessation, blood pressure monitoring, alcohol and substance abuse problems, and general lifestyle modification. Companies involved in such programs usually feel that the costs invested to run them are more than returned through higher levels of productivity and reduced absenteeism and stress-related illness. M. Roberts and T. Harris, “Wellness at Work,” Psychology Today, May 1989, pp. 54–58. Moreover, many companies have found that providing such services serves as an attractive incentive when recruiting employees in a tight job market. Stress is a function of the objective environment but also of individuals’ subjective interpretation of events and their consequences. Both body and mind are involved the process. It is important for both firms and individuals to take preventive measures before the cumulative effects of stress manifest themselves in ways that cost both the individual and the company. Eustress is a term that signifies beneficial stress, either psychological, physical. The term was coined by using the Greek prefix “eu”, meaning "good", and stress, literally meaning "good stress". Eustress was originally explored in a stress model by Richard Lazarus. It is the positive cognitive response to stress that is healthy, or gives one a feeling of fulfilment or other positive feelings. D. L. Nelson; B. L. Simmons. P. L. Perrewé; D. C. Ganster, eds. Eustress: An Elusive Construct an Engaging Pursuit, 1 st edition (Oxford, UK: Elsevier Jai., 2004); and Lazarus, R. S. Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1966). What are some things that managers can do ro reduce stress in the organization? What are the remedies for job-related stress, and how can managers motivate employees to participate actively in health promotion efforts for the benefit of all concerned? Burnout is defined as a general feeling of exhaustion that can develop when a person simultaneously experiences too much pressure to perform and too few sources of satisfaction. Individual strategies to reduce stress include (1) developing one’s self-awareness about how to behave on the job, (2) developing outside interests, (3) leaving the organization, and (4) finding a unique solution. Organizational strategies to reduce stress include (1) improved personnel selection and job placement, (2) skills training, (3) job redesign, (4) company-sponsored counseling programs, (5) increased employee participation and personal control, (6) enhanced work group cohesiveness, (7) improved communication, and (8) health promotion programs. Chapter Review Questions Discuss the five types of problems related to employee work adjustment. Define stress. How does it differ from strain? Describe the general adaptation syndrome. Contrast frustration with anxiety. Identify the major categories of variables that have been found to influence stress. What role does social support play in the process? What role does hardiness play? In the chapter, the plight of assembly-line workers was discussed. What realistic suggestions would you make to relieve the tension and stress of this job? Compare and contrast role conflict and role ambiguity. How does a manager achieve a useful balance in a person-job fit so neither role overload nor role underutilization occurs? How should a manager deal with a subordinate who is clearly a Type A personality? How should a manager who is a Type A personality handle her own stress? Of what utility is the rate-of-life-change concept? In organizations with which you are familiar, which of the many suggestions for coping with stress would be most applicable? Are the strategies you selected individual or organizational strategies? Managerial Skills Application Exercises You may wish to see if you have experienced stress in your present (or previous) part- or full-time job. To do so, simply complete this self-assessment. When you have finished, refer to the scoring procedures in Appendix B . How Stressful Is Your Job? Instructions: This instrument focuses on the stress level of your current (or previous) job. Think of your job, and answer the following items as frankly and honestly as possible. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree I am often irritable with my coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 At work, I constantly feel rushed or behind schedule. 1 2 3 4 5 I often dread going to work. 1 2 3 4 5 I often experience headaches, stomachaches, or backaches at work. 1 2 3 4 5 I often lose my temper over minor problems. 1 2 3 4 5 Everything I do seems to drain my energy level. 1 2 3 4 5 I often interpret questions or comments from others as a criticism of my work. 1 2 3 4 5 Time is my enemy. 1 2 3 4 5 I often have time for only a quick lunch (or no lunch) at work. 1 2 3 4 5 I spend considerable time at home worrying about problems at work. 1 2 3 4 5 Are you interested in determining whether you are a Type A or Type B? If so, simply complete this self-assessment. When you have finished, score your results as shown in Appendix B . Are You a Type A? Instructions: Choose from the following responses to answer the questions below: Almost always true Usually trued. Seldom true Never true Answer each question according to what is generally true for you: Source: Adapted from “Are You a Type A?” The Stress Mess Solution: The Causes and Cures of Stress on the Job, by G. S. Everly and D. A. Girdano. Reprinted by permission of the authors. ——— I do not like to wait for other people to complete their work before I can proceed with my own. ——— I hate to wait in most lines. ——— People tell me that I tend to get irritated too easily. ——— Whenever possible I try to make activities competitive. ——— I have a tendency to rush into work that needs to be done before knowing the procedure I will use to complete the job. ——— Even when I go on vacation, I usually take some work along. ——— When I make a mistake, it is usually due to the fact that I have rushed into the job before completely planning it through. ——— I feel guilty for taking time off from work. ——— People tell me I have a bad temper when it comes to competitive situations. ——— I tend to lose my temper when I am under a lot of pressure at work. ——— Whenever possible, I will attempt to complete two or more tasks at once. ——— I tend to race against the clock. ——— I have no patience for lateness. ——— I catch myself rushing when there is no need. The Holmes and Rahe “Schedule of Recent Experiences” is shown here in this self-assessment. You are encouraged to complete this scale by checking all those events that have occurred to you within the past year. Next, follow the scoring procedures described in Appendix B . How Stable Is Your Life? Instructions: Place a check mark next to each event you experienced within the past year. Then add the scores associated with the various events to derive your total life stress score. Source: Adapted from “Scaling of Life Change: Comparison of Direct and Indirect Methods” by L. O. Ruch and T. H. Holmes, Journal of Psychosomatic Research 15 (1971): 224, 1971. Life Event Scale Value ——— Death of spouse 100 ——— Divorce 73 ——— Marital separation 65 ——— Jail term 63 ——— Death of a close family member 63 ——— Major personal injury or illness 53 ——— Marriage 50 ——— Fired from work 47 ——— Marital reconciliation 45 ——— Retirement 45 ——— Major change in health of family member 44 ——— Pregnancy 40 ——— Sex difficulties 39 ——— Gain of a new family member 39 ——— Business readjustment 39 ——— Change in financial state 38 ——— Death of a close friend 37 ——— Change to a different line of work 36 ——— Change in number of arguments with spouse 35 ——— Mortgage or loan for big purchase (home, etc.) 31 ——— Foreclosure of mortgage or loan 30 ——— Change in responsibilities at work 29 ——— Son or daughter leaving home 29 ——— Trouble with in-laws 29 ——— Outstanding personal achievement 28 ——— Spouse begins or stops work 26 ——— Begin or end school 26 ——— Change in living conditions 25 ——— Revision of personal habits 24 ——— Trouble with boss 23 ——— Change in work hours or conditions 20 ——— Change in residence 20 ——— Change in schools 20 ——— Change in recreation 19 ——— Change in church activities 19 ——— Change in social activities 18 ——— Mortgage or loan for lesser purchase (car, etc.) 17 ——— Change in sleeping habits 16 ——— Change in number of family get-togethers 15 ——— Change in eating habits 15 ——— Vacation 13 ——— Christmas 12 ——— Minor violations of the law 11 Total Score = ——— If you are interested in your own potential for burnout, you may wish to complete this self-assessment. Simply answer the ten questions as honestly as you can. When you have finished, follow the scoring instructions shown in Appendix B . Are You Suffering from Burnout? Instructions: Check whether each item is “mostly true” or “mostly untrue” for you. Answer as honestly as you can. When you have finished, add up the number of checks for “mostly true.” Mostly True Mostly Untrue I usually go around feeling tired. ——— ——— I think I am working harder but accomplishing less. ——— ——— My job depresses me. ——— ——— My temper is shorter than it used to be. ——— ——— I have little enthusiasm for life. ——— ——— I snap at people fairly often. ——— ——— My job is a dead end for me. ——— ——— Helping others seems like a losing battle. ——— ——— I don’t like what I have become. ——— ——— I am very unhappy with my job. ——— ——— Critical Thinking Case Managerial Leadership, Sustainability, and Responsible Management: Mindfulness at Google Inc. Even though the outside appearance of Google headquarters may be filled with stereotypical visions of nap pods and scenes from “The Internship,” there is still a lot of work that is accomplished by those working there. With work, there can come stress, and job-related stress is a huge issue, with studies by the Behavioral Science and Policy Association stating that working long hours has been shown to increase mortality by 20 percent. No matter how many cushy perks you can get, they won’t make everyone happy, and Google is combating this with creativity. They attempt to counteract the stress-related issues by offering specific classes—for example Meditation 101 and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction. They also encourage their employees to join their online and in-person community called gPause. This specific group helps support and encourage meditation practice. The key to this stress-reducing revolution at Google is that they have a company culture that supports the behavior. The company also promotes day meditation retreats at a handful of their locations. This type of creativity is sure to take hold at other companies across the globe. Questions: Google is one of the leading tech companies in the world. What do you think of their approach to handling stress within the workplace? Do you think that this approach will be effective? Why or why not? A company culture that supports stress reduction is key to the success of any program within the company. What are some obstacles that can arise when handling stress within a workplace? What are some methods that you would employ as manager to counteract these obstacles and implement stress-reduction programs within your workplace? Sources: J. Goh, J. Pfeffer, S. A. Zenios, “Workplace stressors & health outcomes: Health policy for the workplace,” Behavioral Science and Policy Association , February 15, 2017, https://behavioralpolicy.org/articles/workplace-stressors-health-outcomes-health-policy-for-the-workplace/; J. Porter, “How Google And Others Help Employees Burn Off Stress In Unique Ways,” Fast Company , November 16, 2015, https://www.fastcompany.com/3053048/how-google-and-other-companies-help-employees-burn-off-stress-in-unique-ways. Eustress Beneficial stress. health promotion programs Represent a combination of diagnostic, educational, and behavior modification activities that are aimed at attaining and preserving good health.

Business


Introduction (Credit: Marco Verch /flickr / Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)) Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to answer these questions: What are some different types of entrepreneurship? What characteristics lead individuals to become entrepreneurs? How can the business model canvas help us to describe and assess a business model? How do entrepreneurs finance their new business ideas? How can entrepreneurs leverage design thinking to solve complex problems and navigate uncertain environments? How can government support entrepreneurship? Maria Rose Belding, MEANS Database One day while volunteering at her local food shelter in Iowa, middle school student Maria Rose Belding was forced to throw out hundreds of boxes of expired macaroni and cheese. While Maria carried the boxes to the trash, she walked past hungry families waiting for food, and she considered the sheer size of the world’s hunger problem. In the United States alone, over 133 billion pounds of food is thrown out annually, and there are over 45 million Americans who do not have enough to eat. Belding’s experience led her to create MEANS (Matching Excess and Need for Stability) Database, a nonprofit organization that creates an online network for food pantries and shelters to communicate with anyone that may have extra food, such as restaurants, grocery stores, and caterers. Through MEANS’s app and website, excess food that would be discarded is instead sent to a shelter or food pantry. Belding knew that she needed to create a platform to connect food pantries to food surpluses, but she did not know how. Grant Nelson, a law student at George Washington University, cofounded MEANS with Belding. Nelson led the data science and technology components and built the cloud infrastructure that MEANS needed to be successful in Belding’s goal of connecting people or organizations with extra food to those who need it. MEANS Database uses cloud-based software and e-mail-based communications to match food pantries with surplus food. Many people donate food to shelters with good intentions, but it often is not the right type of food for a certain shelter. For example, some shelters predominantly serve senior citizens with health issues such as hypertension, mandating a low-sodium diet. When a food pantry receives a ramen noodle donation, the staff should not give it to the elderly, and might instead throw the ramen away. MEANS allows pantry staff to post the unwanted food so that another pantry can claim the donation. For both food recipients and donors, the process is straightforward, and it is free to create an account with MEANS. The shelter provides its location, needs, and distance willing to travel for a food dimension. On the donation end, a shelter, restaurant, or any other potential donor of extra food can report the type and amount of food they are trying to give away, and MEANS e-mails the local pantries looking for that type of food. The MEANS technology enables the transactions in which both parties must agree for the food to be transferred. Belding continued to build MEANS Database during her high school studies and later as a premedical undergraduate student at American University. She received several honors for her efforts, including L’Oréal Women of Worth and one of CNN’s top ten recipients of “Hero of the Week” of 2018. Belding plans to pass daily management of MEANS to her staff and remain on the board during her medical school studies. MEANS Database has moved over two million pounds of food across 48 states and is exploring international possibilities. Sources: Maria Belding, “Math matters (but actually): We Can Solve Hunger With Numbers,” December 02, 2015, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-rose-belding/math-matters-but-actually_b_8698146.html; Ykaie Du, “Feeding the Hungry with Data Science - The Possibility Report,” 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/vmware-2017/hungry-data-science/1796/; Nancy Dunham, “How a Once-Bullied Student Created a Network to Feed Thousands: 'We Want to Get Wasted Food to People Who Need It,'” March 17, 2016, http://people.com/human-interest/maria-rose-belding-bullied-student-created-a-network-to-feed-thousands/ Ron Fournier, “Fighting Hunger the Millennial Way,” December 22, 2015, Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/fighting-hunger-the-millennial-way/461856/ Terrence McCoy, “The revolutionary technology helping to fight food waste,” December 6, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/the-revolutionary-technology-thats-helping-end-americas-chronic-food-waste/2015/12/06/0a491cb8-9a9c-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d4f9663f5cfc MEANS Database - a nonprofit food rescue platform, 2019, https://www.meansdatabase.com/ Maria Rose Belding is one of millions of the world’s entrepreneurs—that is, individuals who recognize and pursue opportunities, take on risk, and convert these opportunities into value-added ventures that can survive in a competitive marketplace. Entrepreneurs hail from many backgrounds and age groups—with Belding representing young middle school, high school, and college entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs have in common a drive to achieve and grow and a willingness to take initiative and personal responsibility. Entrepreneurs frequently require other resources such as cofounders and teams, and then must build a large network of customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders. While MEANS Database is a registered nonprofit, MEANS has many for-profit competitors and partners.

Business