job stress, stress-prone type a behaviour, and personal and organizational consequences

Job Stress, Stress-Prone Type A Behaviour, and Personal and Organizational Consequences

hluhanimad Jamal and Syed Waseeq Ahmed Coricordia Uuiaersity

This stuclj exu?tiiws the relationship among ,job stressors (role ambiguity, role o?~?r/oad, role conflict, resource inadequacy, skill underutilization), Type A behaviour pat tem und employees’ psyhosomatic complaints, lafe and job satisfaction, unproducti-cle time ut the job, and absenteeism among middle managers (N = 227) uud amoug blue-collar workers ( N = 285). Job stressors were f o u n d to be signif- icuntlj reluted to a11 outcome variables, except life satisfaction. Type A behaviour ious ussociuted with u number of j o b stressors a& outcome variables. I n addition, 7 j p e A heha-ikmr u u s ,found to be a n important moderator of the stress-outcome w1utionship.s. Iniplicntioxs o j the findings f o r management and fo r fu ture research a w highlighted.

‘l’he symptoms ofjob stress are widespread among managers (Moss, 1981) arid among blue-collar workers (Shostak, 1980), as are the adverse effects of high stress on their well-being, health, and effectiveness. Although job stress has long been a popular topic of research and theorizing in medical and health sciences, it is only over the past six to eight years that it has attracted the renewed attention of many social scientists. Notable recent contributions have been the reviews of Beehr and Newman (1978), Cooper arid Marshall (1976), Matteson and Ivancevich (1979), and Vansell, Brief, and Schuler (1981). In addition, several models of job stress have been proposed in order to identify important predictors of job stress, as well as consequences of that stress (Adams, 1980; Beehr and Newman, 1978; House, 1981; Ivancevich, Matteson, and Preston, 1982; McCrath, 1976; Schuler, 1980).

Two observations can be made about the existing empirical studies in the area of job stress. First, with the exception of a few studies (e.g., Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, and Pinneau, 1975; Ivancevich, Matte- son, and Preston, 1982), most of the empirical studies were restricted to only a single occupational group. Thus, they lacked a comparative perspective, perhaps an important consideration in job stress research because

of well-known occupational differences in job stress. Second, as noted by Beehr and Newman (1978), studies conducted by researchers with a medical science background too often related job stress to individual physical and mental health at the expense of organizational consequences, whereas studies conducted by researchers with a behavioural science background related job stress to job dissatisfaction and other organizational consequences at the expense of individual personal and health-related problems. It was suggested by Beehr and Newman (1978: 691) that “both human and organizational consequences need to be studied in relationship to the same job stressors in the same study.” The present study was de- signed so as to fill the above-mentioned gap in stress research. It examined the relationship of job stress with both human consequence variables (eg., psychosomatic complaints, life satisfaction, and job satisfaction) and organizational consequence variables (e.g., unproductive time at the job and absenteeism) in two, distinctive occupational groups (managers and blue- collar workers) employed by the same organization.

Job stress can be viewed as an individual’s reactions to work environment characteristics that appear threatening (physically and psychologically) to the individual. It indicates a poor fit between the individual abilities and a work environment in which either excessive demands are made from the individual, or the individual is not fully equipped to handle a particular situation (French, 1963). Thus, in the present study, person-environment fit perspective of job stress was utilized. However, others have concep- tualized stress differently, and these conceptualizations have been successfully reviewed in Schuler (1980). Our choice of the P-E fit perspective was based on its popularity in the behavioural sciences as well as its empirical support. Notwithstanding conceptual variation, job stress usually results in disruption of the individual’s psychological and physiological homeostatis, forcing deviation from normal functioning in interactions with job and work environments (Allen, Hitt & Greer, 1982). Individuals’ deviation from normal functioning more often tends to move towards the dysfunctional side from the individual’s perspective, as well as from that of the employing organization (Beehr, Walsh, and Taber, 1976; Blau, 1981; Breaugh, 1980; Caplan et al., 1975; Gupta and Beehr, 1979; Ivan- cevich et al., 1982; Jamal, 1984; Johansson and Aronsson, 1984; Parkes, 1982; Wisdom, 1984). This happens to be the case because, as argued by Gupta and Beehr (1979), most employees are extremely averse to job stress that creates a noxious situation in the work environment.

Another parallel stream of research in occupational stress is focused on understanding the stress-prone behaviour called Type A behaviour pattern. Friedman and Rosenman (1974) describe Type A behaviour as an action-emotion complex that can be observed in any person who is aggressively involved in a chronic, instant struggle to achieve more and more in less and less time, and if required to do so, against the opposing efforts of other things and other persons. Some of the overt indicators of Type A struggle include explosive, accelerated speech, high achieve-

36 1

ment ambitions, heightened pace of living, dissatisfaction with life, un- dertaking two or more activities simultaneously, impatience with slowness, a tendency to challenge and to compete with others, free-floating hostility, and the general appearance of tension. Type B behaviour is generally characterized by opposite qualities. Many of the above-mentioned characteristics of Type A / B have been empirically verified among different samples of people in various occupational settings (Burke and Deszca, 1982; Matthews, 1982).

Although the examination of Type A J B differences in cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, psychological, social, behavioural, and work-related do- mains have been quite extensive (Burke and Deszca, 1982; Friedman and Rosenman, 1974; Howard, Cunningham, and Rechnitzer, 1977; Jenkins, Rosenman, and Zyzanski, 1974; Sanders and Malkis, 1982), only limited attention has been devoted to examining how job stress and stress-prone Type A behaviour interact to affect employees’ well-being as well as that of organizations (Caplan and Jones, 1975; Ivancevich et al., 1982; Keenan and McBain, 1979; Orpen, 1982). Type A people not only experience high job stress (Kittel, Kornitzer, Backer, Dramaix, Sobolski, Degre, and Denolin, 1984; Matteson and Ivancevich, 1982), but they are also attracted to work environments which are fast-paced, competitive, and have excessive work loads (Burke and Deszca, 1982; Matteson, Ivancevich, and Smith, 1984). The few available studies which employed both job stress and Type A behaviour measures were generally, with the exception of one study (Ivancevich et al., 1982), restricted to a single occupation and used only a few job stressors and outcome variables. Thus, the present study attempted, as Ivancevich et al. (1982) would have called it, to fill an important gap in the knowledge ofjob stress and research by examining the relationship between several job stressors and Type A behaviour with a number of dependent variables in two distinct occupational groups. The following hypotheses were tested in the present study:

Hypothesis 1: J o b stress will be inversely related to job satisfaction and life satisfaction, and positively related to psychosomatic complaints, unproductive time at the job, and absenteeism among managers and blue- collar employees.

Hypothesis 2: Type A employees will experience high job stress and lower job and life satisfaction than Type B employees. Because of their strong work commitment and job involvement, Type A employees will engage less in “goofing off ” (unproductive time at the job) and be less absent from work than Type B employees.

Hypothesis 3: Type A behaviour will be an important moderator of job stress and personal and organizational consequences. That is, Type A employees with high job stress will have the least favourable consequences.

362

Method

Research Setting The present study was done in a large Canadian work Organization having its head office in a metropolitan city on the east coast. The organization had branches in all major Canadian cities from the Maritime provinces to the West Coast. But the major production facilities were located in the city where the head office was situated. Therefore, the company managers were dispersed in different cities, whereas the blue-collar employees were primarily located at one place. The present study included both managerial and blue-collar employees working in the same organization. De- scriptions of blue-collar and of the managerial sample are presented below.

Blue-collar sample The organization had over 2,000 full-time, blue-collar employees on the payroll at the time of the survey. Because of some practical constraints, a sample of 550 employees was randomly selected from the list provided by the organization. The selected employees were given copies of the questionnaire and, with one follow-up, 283 (51 per cent) usable questionnaires were returned. The average age of the respondents was thirty- four years; average length of service was eleven years; and the average educational accomplishment was Grade 10. The majority of the employees were married (58 per cent); were male (82 per cent); were unionized (78 per cent); and had French as a mother tongue (62 per cent).

Managerial sample At the time of the survey, the organization had approximately 290 middle- level managers located in different cities, including the head office. All middle-level managers were given copies of the questionnaire and, with one follow-up, 227 (78 per cent) usable questionnaires were returned. The average age of the managers was forty-three years; average length of service was nineteen years; and the average educational accomplishment was Grade 15. The majority of the managers were married (75 per cent); were male (87 per cent); and had English as a mother tongue (57 per cent).

Measures

Job stress Five job stressors were assessed in the present study. They were: role ambiguity (four items); role overload (four items); role conflict (three items); resource inadequacy (four items); and skill underutilization (three items). The first four stressors were assessed with the job-related tension scale (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal, 1964). This scale was chosen because of its proven psychometric properties (Mackinnon, 1978), as well as because of its broader scope than other job stress scales. The

363

last ,job stressor was assessed with the scale presented in the Caplan et al. (1975) study. All five stressors had five response categories, from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” and a higher score on these scales indicated high job stress. A note of caution is warranted about the measurement of job stressors in the present study. All stressors were based on respondents’ self-perception and might have been subjected to response biases.

Psychosomatic complaints Psychosomatic complaints assessed in the present study included head- aches, upset stomach, gas or bloated feeling, and trouble getting to sleep (Caplan et al., 1975). Each complaints had response categories from “1 to 5,” and a higher score indicated a high level of psychosomatic complaints. A psychosomatic complaint score was derived by combining the four items, and that score is used in the present study as an index of psychosomatic complaints. A recent study has exhibited a high degree of internal and external validity in assessing psychosomatic complaints through a psychosomatic symptom checklist (Attanasio, Andraski, Blanchard, and Arena, 1984).

Life satisfaction Life satisfaction was assessed by a 9-item scale reported by Kornhauser (1965). The items of the scale had five response categories ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” A higher score indicated a high level of life satisfaction.

Job satisfaction J o b satisfaction was assessed by the Brayfield and Rothe (1951) scale. The scale had 18 Likert-type items with response categories varying from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” in each item. A higher score on this scale indicated a higher degree of job satisfaction.

Unproductive time at the job Unproductive time, or as some like to call it, “goofing of f” was assessed with a single question. Respondents were told that all jobs presumably have some free time during a normal work day, excluding the usual lunch and coffee breaks, during which time employees can do some personal things not essentially required by their jobs (e.g., make a telephone call to a friend, spouse, agency, etc.; read a newspaper, magazine or book; dispose of personal mail; or simply unwind or procrastinate, and other similar activities). They were asked to estimate how many minutes of free time they get in a normal work day. N o response categories were provided, and the respondents were free to report the amount of free time they experience at their jobs. Since this measure was developed for the present study, no comparative data on reliability or validity is available at present. However, steps are being taken in future studies by the authors for its validation.

364

Absenteeism Absenteeism data were available only for the blue-collar employees. Ab- senteeism was assessed by the actual incidence of absenteeism reported in the organization records for each respondent, for four months from the day the questionnaires were distributed. In the present study, absenteeism measure assessed the frequency of absences rather than the du- ration.

Type A / B behaviours Type A I B behaviour pattern was assessed with the 9-item Sales’ Type A scale (Caplan et al., 1975). The scale had five response categories, varying from “very true of me” to “not at all true of me.” The scoring on this scale was done in such a way that a high score indicated the Type A behaviour and a low score indicated the Type B behaviour pattern. Psy- chometric properties of the scale reported in the literature are reasonable (Caplan et al., 1975). In the present study, reliability coefficients (alpha) were .83 and .87 for managers and blue-collar workers, respectively.

Results The means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) of job stressors and the criterion variables are presented in Table 1. Reliability coefficients of various scales are quite reasonable, except for the scale of role conflict.

An interesting thing to note in Table 1 is the occupational differences between managers and blue-collar workers on almost all variables under study. Mangers experienced significantly (t-test) higher job stress than blue-collar workers. Managers were also significantly (t-test) higher on psychosomatic complaints, life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and unproductive time at the job than were the blue-collar workers.

Intercorrelations among job stressors and outcome variables are pre-

TABLE 1 Means, standard deviation and reliability coefficients of‘ independent and dependent variables

Number Standard Variable of items Mean deviation Reliability

1 Role ambiguity 4(4) 2 Role overload 4(4) 3 Role conflict 3(3) 4 Resource inadequacy 4(4) 5 Skill underutilization 3(3) 6 Psychosomatic complaints 4(4) 7 Life satisfaction 9(9) 8 Job satisfaction 18(18) 9 Unproductive time1

10 Absenteeism

12.38(8.94) 12.67(8.84) 9.03(7.32)

13.26(8.23) 7.83(9.01) 9.3 l(7.83)

29.31(27.89) 74.31(67.29) 23.1 l(16.81) -( 1.39)

2.93(3.79) 2.96(3.02) 2.39(2.68) 2.3 3( 3.73) 3.21(3.39) 2.93( 2.73) 7.63(6.98)

12.81(10.30) 11.5 1 ( 14.62) -( 1.99)

.82(.87)

.SO( .84)

.73(.68)

.81(.88)

.89( .86)

.83(.87)

.78(.80)

.92(.87) -(-I 4-4

1 Free time in minutes on an average work day. Note: Numbers without parentheses are from the managerial sample, and numbers with

parentheses are from the blue-collar sample.

365

sented in Table 2. All five stressors showed a significant positive relationship with psychosomatic complaints, both in managerial and in blue-collar samples. N o consistent relationship was found between job stress and life satisfaction in either sample. Role overload was the only stressor which showed a significant relationship with life satisfaction in both samples. Role ambiguity and skill underutilization were also related to life satisfaction for blue-collar workers. All five job stressors showed a significant negative relationship to job satisfaction in both samples. Similarly, unproductive time was related to five stressors in both samples. Absenteeism showed a consistent, but modest, relationship with job stressors among blue-collar workers. I n general, the pattern of the relationship between job stressors and outcome variables in both samples supported Hypothesis 1 of the present study.

I n order to test our second hypothesis of Type A / I3 differences in job stress and outcome variables, respondents were divided on Sales’ Type A scale from the median. Respondents above the median were considered as I’ype As, and respondents below the median were called Type Bs. This procedure was adopted in order to be consistent with Matthews’ (1982) recommendation that Type A pattern should be considered as a typology rather than as a continuum. In the present study, distribution of the respondents on the Type A scale in both samples approximated normal distribution. Moreover, the mean scores on the Type A scale among managers (Mean = 4.03; s.d., 1.23) and among blue-collar workers (Mean = 3.69; s.d., 1.39) were quite similar to the mean(s) observed for managers and blue-collar workers in Caplan et al.’s (1975) study.

Type A / B differences in job stressors and outcome variables are presented in Table 3. Results presented in Table 3 only partially supported our second hypothesis. Type As reported higher work overload than Type Bs, both among managers and blue-collar workers. Among blue-collar workers, Type As experienced more role conflict and skill underutilization than Type Bs. Type As reported more psychosomatic complaints than l’ype Bs, both among managers and blue-collar workers. Among blue- collar workers, Type As experienced lower job satisfaction and life satisfaction than Type Bs. i n general, the findings indicated Type A / B differences in stressors and outcome variables more clearly for blue-collar workers than for managers.

Subgroup analysis was performed in order to test our third hypothesis which concerned the moderating effects of Type A / B on job stress and outcome relationship. Zedeck (1971) suggested the use of this technique when the proposed moderator variable discriminates among relatively discrete groups such as Type A and Type B pattern. Pearson correlations between job stressors and outcome variables for Type A and Type B in both samples were computed and compared. Only significant correlations are reported in Table 4. Out of a possible forty-five comparisons in two samples, Type A significantly (p<.05) moderated nineteen (42 per cent) of the comparisons. For managers, 50 per cent of the comparisons (ten

366

TA

BL

E 2

Int

erco

rrel

atio

n am

ong

job

stre

ssor

s an

d ou

tcom

e va

riabl

es

1 R

o!~

am

bigu

ity

2 R

ole

over

load

3 R

ole

conf

lict

4 R

esou

rce

inad

equa

cy

5 Sk

ill

unde

rutil

iza-

tio

n 6

Psyc

hoso

mat

ic

Com

plai

nts

7 Li

fe

satis

fact

ion

8 Jo

b sa

tisfa

ctio

n 9

Unp

rodu

ctiv

e tim

e 10

Abs

ente

eism

11 T

ype

a be

havi

our

-

(-)

.33

(.4 1

) .3

7 (.5

3)

.46

(.48)

.3

1 ~

23

)

~2

7)

.2

3

- .0

9 (-

.17)

- .2

9 (-

.38

) .2

1 (.

16)

(32)

(.06

)

-

.04

-

(-)

.38

- ~

42

) (-1

.2

1 .1

3 (.2

0)

(.15)

.I6

.29

(.19)

(.

36)

- .0

3 .0

6 (-

.07)

(.

07)

-.21

-.

32

(- .

29)

(- .

36)

.13

.I9

(.09

) (.

23)

(.27

) (.

18)

.02

.01

(.26

) (.

01)

-

-

-

(-)

.30

-

-.09

-.

27

(- .

29)

(- .

24)

-.23

-.

I6

(-.2

6)

(-.1

3)

.24

.2 1

(.29

) (.

29)

(.18)

(.1

7)

.02

.4 1

(.33

) (.4

3)

(.35)

(-1

-

-

-

(-)

.27

(.I9

1 .0

7 - (-

.24

) .0

3 (-

.39

)

-

(-1

(-1

(.21

)

(-.2

9)

(.18)

.0

6 .0

0 (-

.38)

(.

01)

(-

.11

-

-

-

Not

e: C

orre

latio

ns w

ithou

t pa

rent

hese

s ar

e fr

om th

e th

e m

anag

eria

l sa

mpl

e: N

= 2

27, r

= .

I 1, n

< .0

5, r

= .

16, p

< .0

1;

corr

elat

ions

with

in p

aren

thes

es a

re f

rom

the

blue

-col

lar

sam

ple:

N =

285

, r =

.09

, p <

.05,

r =

.1

4, p

< .0

1.

1 ABLE 3 <:omparisotis of type A and type €3 employees on job stressors and outcome variables

TFpe A Type €3 N = 108 N = 107 (N = 131)’ ( N = 132) F-ratio

1 R o l e ambiguity

2 Role overload

3 Role conflict

4 Resource inadequac)

5 Skill undcriitiliratiori

(j 1’s)chosomatic complaints

7 Life satisl’iction

8 ,Job satisfaction

9 Cnproductive time’

10 Absenteeism

12.08 (9.5 2) 14.07

(10.25) 9.18

(8.37) 13.31 (8.2 3 ) 7.94

( 1 0.29) 11.29 (9.65) 29.23

( 2 .i .5 ti) 73.82

((55.26) 23.00

( 1 6.87)

(1.44) -

12.69 (8.37) 11.07 (7.43) 8.89

(6.27) 13.20 (8.22) 7.72

(7.73) 7.33

(6.0 I ) 29.39

(30.2 2) 74.80

(69.32) 2Y.2 I

(16.76)

(1.33) -

0.89 (1.27)

7.67** (6.98)** 0.55

(5.1 I ) * 0.13

(0.00) 0.39

(6.01)** 10.13** (9.88)** 0.04

( 12.6 1)** 1.24

(10.87)* 0.17 0.13

0.29 -

Sote: Numbers without parentheses are from the managerial sample, and numt)ers with parentheses are from the blue-collar sample.

* p < .05 ** p < .01

I Sample variation is due t o the missing data on Type A scale. ‘L Ft-ee time in minutes on an average work day.

out of twenty) were significant, whereas for blue-collar workers, 36 per cent of the comparisons (nine out of twenty-five) were found statistically significant. According to the test suggested by Brozek and Tiede (1952), the probability of this number of differences occurring by chance is less than ,0005.

Type A appeared to be an important moderator of job stress and psychosomatic complaints and absenteeism. When faced with stressors, Type A employees appeared to be more adversely affected than Type B, especially in terms of poor physical health and absenteeism from work. With regard to life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and unproductive time at the ,job, Type A as a moderator showed only modest importance. However, in all significant comparisons between Type A and Type B involving these three outcome variables, Type A employees appeared to be more adversely affected with the dysfunctional consequences of job stress than Type B employees. ’Thus, the results from the moderator analysis partially supported our third hypothesis. Support for the hypothesis was stronger in the managerial sample than in the blue-collar sample.

Discussion The results of the present study indicate that the job stressors “role am-

368

TABLE 4 Moderating effects of type A behaviour pattern on J o b stressors and outcome variable correlations

Correlationsa

TY Pe B N = 107

Type A N = 108 (N = 131) (N = 132)

Role ambiguity and psychosomatic Complaints Role ambiguity and absenteeism Role overload and psychosomatic Complaints Role overload and life satisfaction Role overload and unproductive time

Role overload and absenteeism Role conflict and job satisfaction Role conflict and absenteeism Resource inadequacy and psychosomatic complaints Resource inadequacy and job satisfaction Resource inadequacy and unproductive time Skill underutilization and psychosomatic Complaints Skill underutilization and life Satisfaction Skill underutilization and unproductive time Skill underutilization and absenteeism

.38* (.43)** (.48)* .4 1 *

(.43)* - .36*

.28*

(.40)* - .32*

(.39)* .42)*

(.51)**

- .49** .31*

.44*

( - .4l)* .34*

(.29)*

( .35)*

Note: Correlations without parentheses are from the managerial sample. and correlations in parentheses are from the blue-collar sample.

* Correlations for Type A and Type B groups significantly different

** Correlations for Type A and Type B groups significantly different beyond p < .05.

beyond p < .0 1 .

biguity,” “role overload,” “role conflict,” “resource inadequacy,” and “skill underutilization” were significantly related to various outcome variables. The relationship between job stressors and psychosomatic complaints, unproductive time at the job, and absenteeism was positive, whereas the relationship between job stressors and life satisfaction and job satisfaction was negative. It was encouraging to note that the general pattern of the relationship between stressors and outcome variables was similar for managers and blue-collar workers, despite some striking differences between the two occupational groups on job stressors and criterion variables.

The findings on job stress and psychosomatic complaints (physical health) observed in the present study are in agreement with the empirical literature (Beehr et al., 1976; Parkes, 1982). Although self-reported measures of physical health were employed in our study, it is encouraging to note that the magnitude of relationships appears to be comparable with studies which used objective measures of physical health (Caplan et al., 1975; Hennigan and Wortham, 1975; Ivancevich et al., 1982; Reeder, Schrama, and Dirken, 1973). In addition, our findings are also comparable to studies

369

which employed objective or non-self-reported measures of job stress in studying employees’ physical health (Parkes, 1982; Sales, 1970; Schar, Reetler and Dirken, 1973). A fruitful area of future research would be to examine in a single study the relationship of objective and perceived measures of stress on employees’ physical health, by using both objective and subjective measures of health.

In general, the findings on life satisfaction and job satisfaction in both samples indicate that job stressors were more strongly related to job satisfaction than they were related to life satisfaction. Other studies have found sirnilar results. In a study of manufacturing employees, Beehr ( 1976) found thatjob stress was more strongly related tojob dissatisfaction than to life dissatisfaction. Similarly, another study found that work-related variables accounted for greater portions of the variance in job satisfaction than in life satisfaction (Hunt, Near, Price, Graham, and Gutterbridge, 1977). These findings suggest that employees’ life satisfaction may be influenced by non-work factors such as family satisfaction, social participation, changes in life events, etc. N o such non-work factors were assessed in the present study, therefore the relative importance of these factors in life satisfaction could not be empirically verified.

Both unproductive time at the job and absenteeism may be considered as employees’ coping mechanisms for high job stress. The findings indicate that both were positively related to job stressors, though the magnitude of‘ their relationship was not very impressive. To the best of our knowledge, no one has previously used “unproductive time” either as an independent variable or as a dependent variable. Therefore, these findings niay be construed as being unique to the present study. A word of caution is warranted about the measurement of unproductive time. This variable was assessed with respondents’ self-reports and, therefore, may have been influenced by respondents’ biases. Development of some objective criteria of unproductive tinie (like time-budget in non-work daily activities) may be an important step because it is estimated that “goofing o f f” costs the organization an enormous amount of money. Notwithstanding measurement problems, it is encouraging to note that the magnitude of correlation and the direction of the relationship between stressors and unproductive time were identical among managers and blue-collar workers. It is felt that both absenteeism and “goofing o f f” are logical reactions to high job stress because job stress, being noxious to most employees, forces them to stay away from harmful situations as much as possible or permissable (Gupta and Beehr, 1979; Jamal, 1984; Margolis, Kroes, and Quinn, 1974).

Type ‘4 behaviour pattern was found to be independently related to various job stressors and outcome variables among managers and among blue-collar workers. It was also found to be an important moderator of the relationship between job stress and outcome variables. Although it moderated a higher proportion of relationships in the managerial sample than in the blue-collar sample, the moderating effects of Type A behaviour in both samples were in the same direction. That is, Type B employees

370

were “better of f” than Type A employees in terms of the dysfunctional consequences ofjob stress. Type A behaviour has been successfully linked to coronary heart disease and other physical ailments (Glass, 1977; Caplan et al., 1975; Friedman and Rosenman, 1974; Ivancevich et al., 1982).

A note of caution is warranted about the assessment of Type A behaviour pattern in the present study. Since the identification of Type A behaviour in the health sciences, it has been recommended for assessment by patterned (clinical) interviews (Friedman and Rosenman, 1974). How- ever, as it attracted the attention of researchers in behavioural sciences, it became quite apparent that the clinical assessment of Type A behaviour might not be quite feasible in the behavioural sciences because of time and monetary constraints. In addition to this, and at the same time, a number of paper-and-pencil measures have been developed for assessing Type A behaviour in survey-type research. Until such time as these measures are sufficiently validated, the findings of the studies utilizing such measures should be treated cautiously.

The findings of the present study from two occupational groups in conjunction with other studies present a rather “unhappy picture” of Type A employees. Not only are they pushed by their personality dispositions to jobs which are fast-paced, competitive, and challenging (Burke and Deszca, 1982; Chesney and Rosenman, 1980), but they probably experience adverse consequences of job stress more severely than other employees. Perhaps a more careful selection and placement of Type A individuals is needed at the time ofjob assignment. In addition, a system- atic program of educating Type As about the personal and health dangers they may encounter in their work environments may prove useful. A regular auditing of employees’ health (like an annual physical examination), especially of Type A individuals, may be necessary to detect early symptoms of high job stress, so that appropriate action can be taken. Job stressors assessed in both our studies were of the nature that is affected mainly through management actions. Therefore, management diagnosis should identify these and similar factors as stressors and take action to minimize them as much as possible for the sake of better human and organizational consequences.

’

References Adams, J.D. Understanding and Managing StreAs. LaJolla, CA.: University Associ-

ates 1980 Allen, R.D., A.M. Hitt, and C.R. Greer. “Occupational stress and perceived or-

ganizational effectiveness in formal groups: An examination of stress level and stress type.” Personnel Psychology 35 (1982): 359-70

properties of the SUNYA Revision of the psychosomatic symptom checklist.” Journal of Behavioral Medicine 7 (1984): 247-58

Beehr, T.A. “Perceived situational moderators of the relationship between subjective role ambiguity and role strain.” Journal of Applied Psychology 6 1 ( 1 976): 3 5 4 0

Attanasio, V., F. Andraski, E.B. Blanchard, and J.G. Arena. “Psychometric

37 1

Beehr, T.A., and J.E. Newman. ‘Job stress, employee health and organizational ef‘f‘ectiveness: A facet analysis, model and literature review.” Personnel Psychol- OAT 3 1 ( 1978): 665-99

ually- and organizationally-valued states: Higher order needs as moderator?” ,Journal of Applied I’schology 6 1 (1976): 41-7

Blau, C;. “An empirical investigation of job stress, social support, service length, arid Job strain.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 27 (1981): 2 7 9-302

Brayfield, A.H., and F.H. Rothe. “An index of job satisfaction.” Journal of Ap- plird P ~ ~ c h o l o g ~ 35 ( 1 9.5 1): 307-1 1

Breaugh, J.A. “A comparative investigation of three measures of role ambiguity.” Journal of Applied Psycholog?! 65 (1980): 584-89

BroLek, J.. and K. Tiede. “Reliable and questionnable significance in a series of statistical tests.” P.~~chological Bulletin 49 (1952): 339-41

Burke, R.J., and E. DesLca. “Preferred organizational climates of Type A individuals.” Journal 11f Vocational Behavior 2 1 (198‘2): 50-9

Caplan, R.D., S. Cobb, J.R.P. French, R. Harrison, and S.R. Pinneau. Job De- mandi and lit’orker Health: Main Effects and Occupational Differences. Washing- ton, 1) (:.: U.S. Government Printing Office 1975

Caplan, R.D., and K.W. Jones. “Effects of‘ work load, role ambiguity, and Type A personality on anxiety, depression and heart rate.” Journal of Applied Psy- rttology 60 (1975): 713-19

Chesney, M A . , and R.H. Kosenman. “Type A behavior in the work setting.” In Current Concern., i n Occupational Stress, eds C.L. Cooper and R. Payne. Lon- don: John Wiley and Sons 1980, 187-212

Cooper, C.L., and J. hlarshall. “Occupational sources of stress: A review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental health.” Journal of Occupationul PsycholoD 49 (1976): 11-28

French, J.R.C. “The social environment and mental health.” Journal of Social Issues 19 (1963): 39-56

Friedman, M . , and R.H. Rosenman. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. New York: Knopf 1974

Glass, D.C. Behuvior Patterns, Stress and Corona? Disease. New York: Halstead 1977

Gupta, N., and T.A. Beehr. ‘:Job stress and employee behavior.” Organizational Behauiour and Human Performance 23 (1979): 373-87

Hennigan, J.K., and A.W. Wortham. “Analysis of’ workday stresses on industrial managers using heart rate as a criterion.” Ergonomics 18 (1975): 675-81

House, J.S. Work Strns and Social Support. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 1981

Howard, J .H. , D.A. Cunningham, and P.A. Rechnitzer. “Work patterns associ- ated with Type A behavior: A managerial population.” Human Relations 30 (1977): 825-36

Hunt, R.G., J.P. Near, R.W. Price, T.D. Graham, and T.G. Gutterbridge. ‘Job satisfaction and life satisfaction: Survey results on work and nonwork related correlates.” Journal Supplement Abstract Seruice 7 (1977): 55-6

Ivancevich, J.M., M.T. Matteson, and C. Preston. “Occupational stress, Type A behavior and physical well-being.” Academy of Management Journal 25 (1982): 373-91

ment.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 33 (1984): 1-21

Human Stress 11 (1985): no 2 60-8

Beehr, T.A., 3.7’. Walsh, and T.D. Taber. “Relationship of stress to individ-

Jamal, M. “Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical assess-

- “Type A behavior and job performance: some suggestive findings.”Journal of

372

Jenkins, C.D., R.H. Rosenman, and S.J. Zyzanski. “Prediction of clinical coronary heart diseases by a test for the coronary-prone behavior pattern.” New England Journal of Medicine 23 (1974): 1271-75

Johansson, G., and G. Aronsson. “Stress relations in computerized administra- tive work.” Journal of Occupational Behavior 5 (1984): 159-81

Kahn, R.L., D.M. Wolfe, R.P. Quinn, J.D. Snoek, and R. Rosenthal. Organiza- tional Stress: Studies in Role ConJEict and Ambiguity. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1964

Keenan, A., and G.D.M. McBain. “Effects of Type A behavior, intolerance of ambiguity and locus of control on the relationship between role stress and work-related outcomes.” Journal of Occupational Psychoha 52 (1979): 277-85

Kittel, F., M. Kornitzer, G. Backer, M. Dramaix, J. Sobolski, S. Degre, and H. Denolin. “Type A in relation to iob stress, social and bioclinical variables: The Belgian physical fitness stuGy.” Journal of Human Stress (Dec 1983): 37-45

Kornhauser, A. Mental Health of the Industrial Worker. New York: John Wiley I965

MaiKinnon, N.J. “Role strain: Assessment of a measure and its invariance of factor structure across studies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (1978): 32 1-28

Margolis, G.L., W.H. Kroes, and R.P. Quinn. ‘Job stress: An unlisted occupational hazard.” Journal of Occupational Medicine 16 (1974): 659-61

Matteson, M.T., and J.M. Ivancevich. “Organizational stressors and heart disease: A research model.” Academy of Management Review 4 (1979): 347-57

Matteson, M.T., J.M. Ivancevich, and S.V. Smith. “Relation of Type A behavior to performance and job satisfaction among sales personnel.” Journal of Voca- tional Behavior 25 (1984): 203-14

Matthews, K.A. “Psychological perspectives on the Type A behavior pattern.” Psychological Bulletin 91 (1982): 293-323

McGrath, J.E. “Stress and behavior in organizations.” In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed M.D. Dunnette. Chicago: Rand-McNally 1976

Moss, L. Management Stress. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 1981

Orpen, C. “Type A personality as a moderator for the effects of role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload on individual strain.” Journal of Human Stress 8 (1982): no 2 8-14

Parkes, K.R. “Occupational stress among student nurses: A natural experi- ment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 67 (1982): 784-96

Reeder, L.G., P.G. Schrama, and J.M. Dirken. “Stress and cardiovascular health: An internationai cooperative study.” Social Sciences and Medicine 7 (1973): 573-84

Sales. S.M. “Org.anizationa1 role as a risk factor in coronarv heart disease.” Ad- ministrative Szence Quarterly 14 (1969) 325-36

and Human Performance 5 (1970): 592-608

tions to group participation.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance

- “Some effects of role overload and role underload.” Organizational Behavior

Sanders, G.S., and F.S. Malkis. “Type A behavior, need for control and reac-

30 (1982): 71-86 Schar, M., L.G. Reeder, and J.M. Dirken. “Stress and cardiovascular health:

An international cooperative study: 11. The male population of a factory of Zurich.” Social Science and Medicine 7 (1973): 585-619

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 24 (1 980): 184-2 15

Company 1980

Schuler, R.S. “Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations.”

Shostak, A. Blue-Collar Stress. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley Publishing

373

Viirisell, M., A.P. Brief, and K.S. Schuler. “Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration of the literature and directions for future research.” Human RPlntiori.\ 34 (198 1): 43-7 1

Wisdom, B.1,. “Primary sources of hospital administrator stress.”Journal of Orciipalzotiol Uchuilior 5 (1984): 229-32

Zedeck, S. “Problems with the use of ’moderator’ variables.” Psychological Bulle- [ i p t 76 (1971): 29.5-310

Resume Cette etude examine la relation entre les facteurs de stress au travail (ambigui’te des rdes, surcharge de travail, conflits relies au r61e, ressources inadequates, sous- utilisation des conipetences), le comportement de type A et les plaintes psycho- soniatiques, la satisfaction au travail, la faible productivite au travail et I’absen- t6isme chez les cadres moyens (IS = 227) et les cols bleus ( N = 285). Les resultats deitiontrent que les facteurs de stress sorit definitivement relies a toutes les variables sauf le degre de satisfaction generale. Le comportement de type A est associe 2 u n certain iiombre de facteurs de stress et de variables resultantes. De plus, le comportenient de type A semble @tre un moderateur important dam les rapports stress / resultat. L’iinpact de ces decouvertes dans le domaine de la gestion et pour 1. . . iecherche future est mis en relief.

374

job stress, stress-prone type a behaviour, and personal and organizational consequences

Documents