Forster N. - Maximum performance (2005)(en)

60 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

Four types of stress have been identified: hypostress, eustress, distress and hyperstress. In order to perform, at any level, individuals need to experience some stress. If not, they experience ‘rust-out’ (hypostress). People experiencing optimum levels of stress (eustress) often describe this as ‘being in the zone’, where their stress levels help them to cope well with the external environment, without being overwhelmed. This type of stress is pleasant and stimulates performance. The third type, distress, results from being continually overstressed and will lead, in time, to reduced personal health, well-being and performance and, potentially, complete burnout (hyperstress). Hence, if people routinely talk about ‘being stressed’ in a negative way they are mistaken, because some stress is essential. To experience some stress means that you are functioning as a normal human being, to experience no stress means that you are asleep, comatose or dead. In fact, as we will see, the real problem is not stress itself but how we interpret it, how we habitually react to it and our ability to recover from it.

Researchers have also documented at least 30 potential stressors at work. These include lack of organizational direction and purpose; poor leadership; role ambiguity; role conflict; poor working conditions and ergonomics; trivial bureaucratic rules; organizational politics; lack of resources; favouritism; inequitable pay and rewards; obstacles to career development; lack of promotional opportunities; work overload and underload; interpersonal conflicts; communication breakdowns; racial, sexual, disability and age discrimination; ‘toxic’ behaviour; bullying; coping with continual change and new technologies; downsizing and mergers; job moves and relocations; increasing job insecurity; and growing conflicts between work and home lives. These stressors all have one thing in common: they create the potential for distress when individuals perceive them as representing demands that exceed their ability to respond and cope (Cooper, 1997, 1999).

A large body of research, conducted in the UK, the USA and other countries, confirms the popular belief that occupational stress was becoming a more significant problem in all western industrialized countries during the last two decades of the 20th century (for example, Forster and Still, 2002; Cooper, 1997, 1999). This increase in reported levels of occupational stress has been generated by a number of factors that have had an impact on organizations over the last 20 years, including the following:

•Fast organizational and technological change, leading to increased job complexity and intensity in all industrial, commercial and service sectors.

•Corporate collapses, rationalization, mergers, downsizing and large-scale redundancies, leading to increasing job insecurity, and the phasing out of the old commitment to ‘jobs for life’ in almost all organizations.

•Labour market restructuring and deregulation, and reforms to industrial relations and employment legislation.

•New demands on public sector employees, resulting from the privatization and/or deregulation of publicly owned organizations.

•Increasing ‘toxicity’ in some workplaces, caused by fears of the threat of redundancy or uncertainties about employment security, and the emergence of ‘machismo’ management styles in downsized organizations.

•Across-the-board increases in the average hours worked by many employees, particularly in white-collar occupations.

•Increasing spillover between work and non-work, resulting from increasing numbers of women entering the workforce and the emergence of larger numbers of dual-career couples.

•New pressures on employees caused by the current transition from industrial economies to ‘Third Wave’ high-tech and knowledgebased economies.

•Growing pressures on all domestic organizations, arising from the increasingly competitive nature of local, regional and overseas markets, and the globalization of trade and commerce.

You may also recall the 1990s movie, Multiplicity, staring Michael Keaton. This told the story of a self-employed builder who was unable to cope with all the competing demands of his work and family life. He was offered the chance to solve his difficulties by cloning himself into a variety of permutations of his original self, with increasingly comic results. There have also been several recent TV series, in a number of countries, which have extolled the benefits of returning to simpler, less cluttered lifestyles. In Australia, one of the most popular ABC series of the late 1990s was Sea Change. The storyline revolved around the main character’s decision to turn her back on a high-pressure legal practice in Sydney, and move herself and her children to what she hoped would be a simpler and less stressful life in a small community on the coast. These TV series and Multiplicity captured the mood of the times, and the growing belief that both work and personal life were becoming increasingly stressful in the 1990s.

Furthermore, it is not coincidental that many of the words and phrases now associated with occupational stress are of recent origin. These include workaholic (1968), work/family conflicts (1970), the three-o’clock syndrome (1980), information overload (1985), time-squeeze (1990), presenteeism (1993), squeezing the pips (1995), death by email (1995), technostress

62 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

(1995), time poverty (1997), hurry sickness (1999), work-addiction (2001), leisure sickness (2002) and downshifting (2003). There has also been a steady growth in manifestations of various types of ‘rage’, including road rage, retail rage, bar rage, techno rage, desk rage, spam rage and telephone rage. We now have 24-hour supermarkets, 24-hour gyms, 24-hour restaurants and, in the USA, 24-hour nurseries, all reinforcing the impression that modern life has indeed become more complex, pressurized and time-deficient in recent years.

The links between occupational stress and personal performance

In order that people may be happy in their work, these three things are needed: they must be fit for it; they must not do too much of it and they must have a sense of success in it.

(John Ruskin, author and social commentator, 1851)

Health is so necessary to all the duties, as well as the pleasures of life, that the crime of squandering it is equal to the folly.

(Samuel Johnson, diarist, author and social commentator, 17th century)

Measuring the impact of stress on individuals, and its organizational costs and consequences, remains the subject of continuing debate among researchers. Some sceptics have referred to stress as a ‘weasel word’, or as a generic concept that has become a meaningless catch-all word used to ‘explain’ the negative effects that present-day work and family pressures can have on people. A few researchers have suggested that the connection between stressors and their impact on individuals is mythical, arguing that many of the causes and effects grouped under the broad heading of ‘stress’ should be separated into more specific relationships. It is true to say that the enormous range of possible causes of stress, the variety of personal responses to stress, combined with the intricate task of separating other influencing factors in the workplace, all make a simple assessment of cause and effect less than straightforward. In the past, this may have led some researchers to infer simplistic correlations between the consequences of occupational stress (such as high blood pressure or insomnia) and a stressor (such as overwork), without making sufficient allowance for other potential influencing factors, such as personality differences or lifestyle factors (Briner and Reynolds, 1999). However, while there may be some methodological problems associated with measuring the precise effects and consequences of occupational stress, a balanced reading of this literature leads to just one logical conclusion. There is a considerable body of research, accumulated over two decades by psychologists, epidemiologists, and health and medical researchers, which shows that

occupational stress has become a significant occupational health issue, one that has measurable physiological and psychological effects on employees, as well as negative knock-on effects for the organizations that employ them. Consequently, several general conclusions can be drawn from research on occupational stress over the last 20 years.

First, the incidence of occupational stress increased dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, and its direct and indirect costs are rising year by year in all industrialized countries. Worldwide country–national data indicate that a large proportion of working people now routinely exhibit symptoms of occupational distress. There has been a steady rise in the average number of hours worked per week by most managerial employees and an increase in their workloads – in intensity, complexity and duration. For example, the percentage of Australian professional and managerial employees working more than 50 hours a week rose from 22 per cent in 1983 to 29 per cent in 2003 (ACTU and The Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training, 2003). Second, there has been a marked increase in stress-related illnesses in all industrialized countries throughout the world. In the USA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and the American Psychological Association estimate that the national cost of stress is about $US500 billion a year (Carlopio et al., 2001: 114), with similar pro rata figures being reported in the UK and Australia. It has been estimated that two-thirds of visits to family doctors in the USA, the UK and Australia are attributable to stress-related illnesses (Robbins et al., 2001: 276). Third, there has also been an increase in stress-related compensation claims in all industrialized countries during the 1990s. Stress-related litigation, already widespread in the UK and the USA, has the potential to become the single largest proportion of workers’ compensation claims in these countries during this decade. In some countries, the growth in stressrelated illnesses is imposing further demands, strains and costs on already overstretched and underresourced national health systems (Forster and Still, 2002; Maguire, 2001; Sternberg, 2000; Tabakoff, 1999; Cooper, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1999; ACTU and The Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training, 1999; Beehr, 1995).

Fourth, in some occupations levels of stress have reached epidemic proportions. For example, one study in 1998 reported that 45 per cent of Australia’s army officers were suffering stress-related symptoms that were sufficiently serious to warrant psychological counselling. The report described these officers as ‘psychological time-bombs’. Similar findings were reported in the 2000 Defence Green Paper (Anonymous, 2000). Over the last decade, several studies in the UK and Australia have revealed that young hospital doctors routinely

64 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

work more than 100 hours a week and regularly work 24-hour shifts – without a break. It was alleged that these work hours, described by the Australian Medical Association as being ‘dangerously long’, would lead to patient deaths because of poor decisions made by fatigued doctors (Mitchell, 2000; Taylor, 2000).

Fifth, research in the USA, the UK and Australia reveals that stress has a number of negative effects on employees and organizations. The health of employees experiencing occupational stress declines over time, resulting in poorer work performance. They are more likely to be involved in accidents at work, are more likely to be absent from their jobs and will be less productive when at work. There can be other outcomes, including physical effects such as insomnia, higher cholesterol levels, increased blood pressure, heart disease and heart attacks, and psychological effects such as lowered self-esteem, increased anger and anxiety, greater marital problems and an increased likelihood of drug and alcohol abuse (Carlopio et al., 2001:115–19). Studies in the USA have found that employees who work more than 48 hours per week double their chance of developing heart disease. In a few cases, this can lead to complete psychological burnout and even death (Tobler, 2002; Jex, 1998). Organizations exhibiting high systemic stress levels suffer from increased rates of staff turnover and reduced staff loyalty, and may also incur additional costs when replacing employees who have succumbed to stress-related illnesses or who claim unfair dismissal. Organizations that exhibit sustained and high levels of stress are likely to show more signs of toxic behaviour amongst their employees and bullying of staff (Bachelard, 1999). There are also indications that suicide rates in the corporate world are increasing because of increased workplace pressure and uncertainty. In Japan, Karoshi (‘death from overwork’) claims at least 10 000 lives a year (Petersen, 2000; Kageyame, 1998).

There have also been some more bizarre indications of the effects of occupational stress. Evidence from Brazil, for example, indicates that the stress caused by fear of impending job losses and redundancies had actually shrunk the size of some male penises by an average of two centimeters. The worst affected groups were professional and whitecollar workers (cited in The Australian, 10 October 1998). Conversely, there is some evidence that women have begun to experience more ‘male’ stress symptoms, such as hair loss, as a result of ‘testosterone overload’. Women, having taken on an increasing number of traditionally male roles in the workplace, have adopted more aggressive and competitive working styles. In turn, this has made them more sensitive to the male hormone testosterone, with consequent thinning of their hair and even baldness (Norton, 1997).

The effects of occupational stress

One of the problems with distress is that its negative effects can start to take hold before people start to recognize that this is happening. It may take a crisis in an individual’s life to trigger the realization that something is going wrong, such as an extremely negative performance appraisal, being avoided by colleagues at work, extreme weight gain, alcohol or drug abuse, being shunned by friends, the collapse of a relationship or children having behavioural problems. Warning signs that may indicate the existence of significant levels of distress include the following:

•losing your sense of humour or joie de vivre,

•losing concentration or experiencing memory losses,

•having more difficulties solving problems or making decisions at work,

•feeling that you always have too much work to do or failing to meet work deadlines,

•increasing level of complaints from customers or clients that you deal with,

•becoming more irritable or aggressive with the people you work with,

•wondering why you bother doing your current job,

•constantly taking work home,

•feeling that you are losing control over your life,

•becoming aware that friends seem to be avoiding you,

•increasing tension or arguments with your partner, spouse or children,

•abusing alcohol, smoking or using recreational drugs,

•regularly chewing or biting your fingernails,

•waking up tired and/or suffering from insomnia,

•using sleeping tablets on a regular basis,

•not caring about your appearance,

•binge eating or putting on weight,

•loss of libido and sexual drive,

People experiencing more than a third of these symptoms may be starting to suffer from the effects of occupational distress and should consider developing strategies to deal with these. If they ignore them, the situation may worsen. Research has shown that, once ‘activated’, the human stress response goes through three distinct phases.

An alarm phase

The sympathetic nervous system gives the body an ‘all stations’ alarm. This is an emergency response and can only endure for a few hours at

66 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

most. The heart will start to beat faster to pump blood to supply more energy, particularly to the muscles. This also forces the body to pump stress hormones, such as adrenaline, cholesterol and cortisol, into the bloodstream creating a burst of energy and arousal.

A resistance phase

This is where the body tries to adjust itself to the stress. At this stage, a lot of energy is burnt up just coping with the attempt to function normally. Managers may become aware of feelings of tiredness, a lowered sense of well-being and experience more difficulties with decision making.

An exhaustion phase

If fight–flight responses occur frequently, over a period of time the body’s defence mechanisms will start to weaken. At this point, an individual may develop physical symptoms such as fatigue, headaches and insomnia, and psychological symptoms such as impatience and aggression. Over extended periods, they may then develop medical problems, such as a weakened immune system, high blood pressure and psychological changes such as depression.

High levels of distress have the potential to affect all three major sub-systems of an individual’s physiology: the central and peripheral nervous systems, the endocrine system (which deals with hormonal balances in the body) and the immune system, the body’s defence against external infections. High and sustained levels of stress levels also cause cortisol to be pumped into the bloodstream. Over time, this steadily weakens the human immune system, and reduces the body’s ability to fight off the production of cancer cells (Sternberg, 2000).

Sustained distress and exhaustion phases can then lead to the following:

•Reduced higher-order brain functioning, leading to lower cognitive and creative functioning abilities. The fight–flight response effectively shuts down an individual’s higher-order and creative faculties until the threat has passed.

•Greater intolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty, leading to an inability to cope with ‘fuzzy’ situations.

•Reduced ability to deal with complex problems, slower decisionmaking capabilities and an increased chance of making mistakes at work.

•Greater anger, impatience and hostility towards others.

•A reduced ability to manage time, leading to the classic ‘headlesschicken’ mode of polyphasia (trying to do too many things at once). This means that tasks may not be completed on time, and the emergence of a self-perpetuating vicious circle with an increasing number of tasks to complete in less and less time.

•Insomnia, and even more stress as a result of feeling perpetually tired, but not being able to sleep well and recover at night.

In summary, distress can have a number of negative effects. These range from minor problems, such as fatigue, insomnia and irritability, to full-blown depression. Some consequences, such as poorer concentration, forgetfulness, mental blocks and lowered attention span, may also be cognitive. Other effects of stress can include greater risk of accidents, alcohol and drug abuse and explosive temper losses. Increased occupational stress may also have an impact on marital relationships. In some cases, sustained exposure to high levels of distress can lead to complete psychological burnout. In a few extreme cases, severe distress can eventually kill people (Lazarus, 1999; Levi et al., 1998; Levi, 1984; Toates, 1995; Asterita, 1985; Staw et al., 1981; Selye, 1974).

Personality and stress

While stress can have generic effects on people, individual differences have a major influence on the way people react to and cope with stress. Consequently, stressors do affect people in very different ways. For example, at the British Psychological Society’s conference in London in December 1999, researchers reported that stress levels amongst men shopping with their partners or wives were as high as those of fighter pilots and policemen – in action. In contrast, their partners/wives reported experiencing optimum levels of stress during these ‘shopping episodes’. A survey of European police forces, conducted in 1996, revealed that one-quarter of UK police personnel reported being ‘highly stressed’ because of the pressures of their work, the nature of the people they dealt with, conflicting work demands and very long working hours. The survey also looked at Swedish anti-terrorist police personnel. They too reported being ‘highly stressed’, but this was caused by a lack of work (Forster and Still, 2002: 12). Before reading the next section, please complete Exercise 2.2.

68 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

Exercise 2.2

Personality and stress

Please read through the statements below. Then, on the 1–5 scale, rate which of the two statements best describes how you behave at work and how you use your leisure time. There are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers and first-response answers are best.

Please add up your total score ______

Interpreting your score

10–20: You have many characteristics of the Type B and Hardy personalities.

21–30: You have many characteristics of the Type B and Hardy personalities, with a few Type A traits.

31–40: You have several characteristics of the Type A personality, with a few Type B and Hardy traits

41–50: You have many characteristics of the Type A personality.

Please note that these scores are indicative only.

Source: adapted from Friedman and Rosenman (1974).

Pure ‘Type A’ personalities never seem to have enough hours in the day and often have poor time-management skills. They usually feel rushed and under pressure. They are often very competitive, ambitious and impatient. They often exhibit polyphasic behaviour, and are sometimes described as ‘hot reactors’. They may have underdeveloped interpersonal skills and be toxic in their dealings with fellow employees. They talk fast and find it difficult to listen to others. Consequently, they often interrupt other people during conversations and like to finish their sentences for them. Feelings, emotions or self-disclosure play no part in their management style and they believe that they have to ‘kick butts’ or ‘bang heads’ to get results from employees. They may have few interests outside work and find it hard to relax and simply ‘be’. There is a sub-set of the Type A, the ‘Type D’ personality, who is aggressive, gets angry quickly and is humourless and exploitative. While many Type A personalities would attribute their success to many of these traits (and these are often associated with ‘macho’ management styles), it is precisely because they thrive on aggression, arousal and competition with others that they are unable to develop resiliency to stress. This personality type is also more prone to stress-- related illnesses and heart attacks when compared to Type B personalities.

At the other extreme are pure ‘Type B’ personalities. They are much more easy-going, monophasic (focused on one task at a time) and better time managers. While they may be ambitious, they are less overtly competitive than Type As. They rarely feel rushed, even when under pressure. They are better delegators and people managers. They speak slowly and enjoy listening to other people. They have interests outside work. Type B personalities may also have some of the characteristics of what psychologists have described as ‘Hardy Personalities’. Such personalities have a high internal locus of control. This means that they believe that they are in control of their lives, and are not the