occupational stress within a u.k. higher education institution

International Journal of Stress Management, VoL 2, No. 3, 1995

Occupational Stress Within a U.K. Higher Education Institution

Jennifer B r a d l e f ~ and Peter Eachus 1

Occupational stress in a U.K. higher education institution was investigated dur- ing a period of considerable organizational change. All employees, including academic, support and manual staff, were invited to participate anonymously in the survey. The results, based on the Occupational Stress Indicator, showed that employees reported significantly poorer mental and physical well-being, and greater job dissatisfaction, than a normative group. The findings suggested that female employees were at greater risk from adverse effects of occupational stress. Predictors of distress and job dissatisfaction were identified. The study concluded that occupational stress is a significant problem, and that further investigation is required in other similar institutions.

KEY WORDS: stress; occupational stress; higher education; gender; organizational change.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

There is considerable evidence to suggest that work has an important influence on an individual's health. The 1990 Labour Force Survey found that, in England and Wales, 2.2 million people reported having an illness which was caused by, or made worse by, work (Hodgson et al., 1993). However the recog- nition that work may play an important role in health is not new. For example, Kornhauser, in his seminal work investigating the health of workers in a Detroit car factory, concluded that the way in which jobs were designed had an important impact on employees ' mental health (Komhauser, 1965).

1 School of Health Sciences, Centre for Health Studies, University College Salford, Frederick Road, Salford M6 6PU, United Kingdom.

2 Correspndence should be directed to Jennifer Bradley, School of Health Sciences, Centre for Health Studies, University College, Salford, Frederick Road Salford M6 6PU, United Kingdom.

145

1072-5245/95/0700-0145507,50/0 �9 1995 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

146 Bradley and Eachus

Evans et al. (1994) identify a number of physical and psychosocial aspects of the workplace which may impact on health. Physical aspects include archi- tectural design and the arrangement of space (lighting, meeting places, prox- imity to others), ergonomic factors (equipment design, physical restraint), and ambient factors (noise, air quality). Psychosocial factors include structural factors (job security), organizational factors (role clarity, opportunities for ad- vancement), interpersonal factors (relationships with colleagues, leadership style), and parameters of the task (mental workload, control).

Historically, employers have focused mainly on the control of potential physical hazards at work, such as exposure to noise and chemicals (Webb & Schilling, 1988). Although existing health and safety legislation defines "personal injury" as "any decrease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition" (Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974), risks associated with psychosocial aspects of the workplace, and the psychological health of employees have received less attention. However the evidence suggests that a more holistic approach to understanding health in the workplace is required. For example, the 1990 Labour Force survey found that Stress/Depression accounted for approximately two of every 25 cases of work-related illness, and was the second most commonly self-reported illness (Hodgson et al., 1993).

It has been estimated that in the U.K. worker ill-health costs British Indus- try s billion each year (CBI conference report, 1994). Thus it is clear that employee health is an important economic and social issue, and that preventa- tive measures are likely to be beneficial to both employers and employees.

OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AS A HEALTH ISSUE IN THE WORKPLACE

Occupational stress is one area of employee health which is increasingly on the agenda for work organizations. There is now considerable evidence to suggest that uncontrolled stress in the workplace can have adverse effects on both individual employees and on organizations (Quick et al., 1992). Individual health problems associated with stress, range from an increased risk of minor ailments, such as colds, to life-threating illnesses including coronary heart dis- ease, and some cancers (Cox, 1978; Sutherland & Cooper, 1990). At an organizational level, stress can lead to increased levels of absenteeism, turnover, low morale, and reduced effectiveness, and thus is of direct concern to employers as well as to individual employees.

There is some evidence that the potential adverse effects of stress are now being more widely recognized in the U.K. as a health and safety issue. For example, a small number of employees have received settlements from employers for stress-related conditions (Thomas, 1994) and the High Court has

Stress in Higher Education 147

recently awarded damages to a social services manager against an employer for breach of duty of care "for failing to take reasonable steps to avoid exposing him [the employee] to a health-endangering workload" (Hui Tan, 1994). Addi- tionally, some insurance companies are responding to increased claims for stress-related illnesses by reclassifying some professional occupations into higher risk bands, with associated higher premiums (Drake, 1994).

Thus it is clear that uncontrolled stress is potentially costly. In Britain, recent changes in legislation mean that employers now carry a greater financial burden for employee sick pay. However, as Karasek and Theorell (1990) note, it is difficult to reliably estimate the cost of occupational stress in monetary terms. Although the direct costs of health care for preventable conditions, and the cost of absenteeism and turnover, can be relatively easily translated into money, it is more difficult to assess the indirect costs of reduced performance, poor decision-making, poor quality, or lack of innovation. This does not take into account the financial and personal cost to individual employees and their families.

Cox (1993) identifies a number of stressful characteristics of work. These include aspects of both the work content (workload, pace of work, design of work) and the work context (relationships at work, role ambiguity, nonsuppor- tive organizational culture). Similarly, Landy (1992) describes four categories of psychosocial demands in the workplace. These include lack of control over the work, the presence of uncertainty, work and task demands and dysfunctional conflict. Although, studies of occupational stress have revealed risk factors, which may be common to a number of occupational groups, there is also a need to examine the problem in the context of the unique and specific demands of a particular organization, and the occupational groups represented within that organization.

STRESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

The study described in this paper, presents the results of a stress audit, which involved all the employees within a higher education institution. Al- though there is considerable evidence of significant stress-related problems among teachers (Hart, 1994) research examining stress among university staff has been described as sparse (Daniels et al., 1994).

Nevertheless, there is some evidence to suggest that occupational stress among employees in higher education may be a cause for concern. A recent study, in a British university, of academic, research, administrative, clerical and technical staff, using the General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg & Williams, 1988) as a self-report measure of wellbeing, found that more than a third of respondents reported clinical symptoms of psychological disorder (Daniels &


Guppy, 1994). The main sources of stress identified in this study were described as quantitative overload/managerial stressors, and role stressors.

Higher education in the United Kingdom has undergone major changes at both national and local levels in recent years. These include changes in management style and structure, and increased competitiveness, for example as a result of incorporation in 1989. Other changes include mergers with other institutions, changes in working conditions, increasing student numbers in the context of decreased expenditure per student, higher student staff ratios, modularization of courses, and the introduction of quality monitoring systems (Court, 1994).

Recent surveys have found that academic staff report an increase in workload (NATFHE, 1994) and are working longer hours (Early, 1994). Factors identified as contributing to an increase in workload include increased student numbers, general administration, and administration for new courses. Fisher (1994) describes the role overload experienced by academic staff in response to job demands which require one to be a teacher, researcher, organizer, and ad- ministrator. In addition, the experience of overload may be complicated by role ambiguity as illustrated by the ongoing debate about the relative status of teaching and research (MacFarlane, 1994), in the context of current career stuctures which may mean that a high research profile is necessary for promotion.

Thus there are a number of factors which suggest that employees working in the higher education sector may be at risk from the adverse effects of occupational stress. However, if occupational stress is to be effectively managed within an organization, it is essential that the problem is carefully analyzed. This stress audit aims to investigate occupational stress within a particular higher education institution in North-West England, which has undergone rapid change in recent years, and is experiencing ongoing change in preparation for merger with a nearby university. This aim of this study is to examine employees' experience of occupational stress, and to analyse the risk through an assessment of possible effects of stress on employee well-being and job satisfaction.

M E T H O D

The Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) (Cooper et al., 1988) was selected for use in this study. This is a self-report questionnaire, which has been widely used in the study of occupational stress. Sources of stress are measured using a 61-item scale, rated on a scale of 1 (very definitely not a source of pressure) to 6 (very definitely a source of pressure). Items are combined to describe six aspects of work which may be stressful. These include "factors intrinsic to the job" (having far too much work to do), "role stress" (ambiguity in nature of the role), "stress from relationships" (feeling isolated; office politics), "career and


achievement" (threat of redundancy; over/underpromotion), "organizational structure and climate" (lack of consultation and communication) and "home- work interface" (taking work home). The OSI also measures physical and mental health, and job satisfaction. Factors which may moderate stress are also measured, including Type A behavior, locus of control, and coping strategies.

The study was publicized in the in-house newsletter approximately 1 month before commencement. Questionnaires were distributed, via the Personnel Department, to almost a thousand employees, which included all full and part- time academic, associated professional/technical/clerical, and manual staff. The questionnaire pack included an explanatory letter with a contact telephone number for further information if required, a copy of the Occupational Stress Indi- cator, and a short biographical questionnaire, seeking information on occupation, department, age, gender, and employment status. Questionnaires were completed anonymously, and returned directly to the researchers, in a pre-ad- dressed envelope, by internal mail. A reminder was sent to all staff after 4 weeks, requesting that they return the questionnaire if they had not already done so.

RESULTS

A total of 306 usable questionaires were returned, including 24 (7.8%) received after the reminder letter. The overall response rate was 36%. Of the employees who responded, 80% were employed on a full-time basis and 15% on a part-time basis. Fifty-four percent of the respondents were academic staff, 36% were associated professional, technical and clerical staff, and 10% were manual staff. The age of respondents ranged from 16 to 64, with a mean age for the sample of 37 years (SD = 11.63). The average length of time working in the organization was 5.34 years (SD = 5.71).

Stressors and Stress Outcomes

Table 1 presents the OSI mean scores for the sample, in comparison to a normative group combining different types of occupation (n = 8038). Analysis of the internal consistency of the OSI scales, using Cronbach's alpha, found that reliability coefficients ranged from .73 to .89, apart from the Locus of Control measure which had a reliability coefficient of .59. Measures of sources of stress found that the sample reported levels of stress which were higher than the normative group for four of the six areas of occupational stress measured by the OSI ("factors intrinsic to the job," "relationships with other people," "career and achievment," and "organizational structure and climate").


Table 1. Mean Scores for OSI Stressors: Comparison of Sample with Normative Group"

Sources of stress

Sample mean Population mean (standard deviation) (standard deviation)

(n=306) (n=8038)

Factors intrinsic to the job

The managerial role

Relationships with other people

Career and achievement

Organizational structure and climate

Home/work interface

aHigh score = more pressure from this source. ~ignificantly higher p<.05.

31.37 b 30.22 (6.20) (6.48) 35.54 35.55 (8.50) (8.47) 31.53 b 30.31 (7.44) (7.51) 30.51 b 28.40 (7.93) (8.11) 41.07 ~ 38.99 (8.67) (9.21) 31.18 30.99

(11.11) (10.26)

There was also some evidence of gender differences in the experience of stress, as female employees reported higher levels of stress from relationships (t = 2.69; p < .05) and career and achievement (t = 3.09, p<.05).

Comparison of mean health scores for the sample, with a normative group, show that employees report both poorer mental health and more frequent symptoms of physical ill-health. In addition female employees reported higher levels of physical ill-health than male employees (t = 4.11, p<.05).

Overall employees were less satisfied with their jobs than the normative group of employees. Although there was no significant differences in job satisfaction between the different occupational groups, comparison of the subscale measures showed that non-academic staff were less satisfied with "achievement and growth" than academic staff. Thus non-academic staff were dissatisfied with perceived opportunities for personal and career development.

DIFFERENCES IN MEASURES OF PERSONALITY AND COPING STRATEGIES

Results also showed significant individual differences in the personality factors measured by the OSI in comparison to the normative group (see Table 2). Employees were more likely to report Type A behavior, and a more external locus of control. In addition, a comparison of academic and non-academic staff, found that academic staff had a more external locus of control (t=2.36;


Table 2. Mean Scores (Standard Deviations) for OSI Measures of Health, Job Satisfaction, and Individual Differences: Comparison of Sample with Normative Group

Sample Population (n = 306) (n = 8038)

Health measures

(high score = ill-health)

Overall job satisfaction (high score = more satisfied)

Individual difference measures (high score = more Type A behavior)

(high score = external locus of control)

Coping strategies (high score = more frequent use of strategy)

"Difference significant p<.05.

Mental health

Physical health

Job satisfaction

Type A behavior

Locus of control

62.18" 55.51 (11.90) (12.95) 33.16 29.88

(11.06) (9.70)

78.14" 80.95 (17.94) (16.69)

52.94" 50.88 (8.23) (7.65) 45.13" 43.24 (5.98) (5.73)

Social support 15.84 15.07 (3.46) (3.26)

Task strategies 25.25 25.30 (3.64) (3.74)

Use of logic 12.23 12.46 (2.15) (2.11)

Home and work relationships 15.29 15.54 (4.07) (3.64)

Effective use of time 14.35 14.34 (2.18) (2.14)

Involvement 23.70 23.18 (3.38) (3.43)

p< . 05 ) . A comparison of full and part-time staff, showed that full-time staff reported significantly higher levels of Type A behavior (t = 2.41, p< .05 ) .

Results of measures of coping strategies show very little difference between the sample and the normative group. However there was some evidence of differences within the sample in the use of coping strategies. A comparison of full and part-t ime staff found that full-time staff were less likely to report using task strategies, such as planning and setting priorities, (t = - 2.97; p < . 0 5 )

and non-work resources, such as home support and hobbies (t = - 2.56; p < . 0 5 ) as a means of coping with stress. Comparisons between occupational groups revealed that non-academic staff were more likely to report the use of task

strategies ( t = - 2 . 1 7 , p < . 0 5 ) as ways of coping with stress.

There was also evidence of gender differences in the use of coping strategies. Female staff reported more extensive use of social support ( t = - 8 . 0 0 ;


p<.05), task strategies ( t= -2 .37 ; p<.05), non-work resources ( t= -2 .79 ; p<.05), and involvement, which included for example, recognizing limitations and accepting the situation, (t = - 1.96; p<.05) as ways of ways of coping. On the other hand, male employees were more likely than female employees to report that they coped by trying to be unemotional and logical (t=2.03; p<.05).

FACTORS PREDICTING OUTCOMES OF STRESS

Multiple regression analysis (stepwise, varimax rotation) was carried out to identify predictors of mental health, physical health, and job satisfaction. The OSI stressors, locus of control, Type A, age, and number of years in the institution, were entered with the dependent variables of mental health, physical health, and job satisfaction entered separately. Table 3 presents the predictors for mental ill-health which accounted for a total of 23% of the variance. As Table 4 shows the main predictor of physical ill-health was stress from the structure and climate of the organization which accounted for 10% of the variance. Organizational structure and climate was also a major predictor of job dissatisfaction (Table 5) and accounted for more than a quarter of the variance for job.

DISCUSSION

Sources of Stress

In comparison to a normative group of approximately 8000 employees of varied occupations, employees in this organization report experiencing signifi-

Table 3. Multiple Regression Analysis of OSI Stressors, OSI Individual Differences, Age, and Number of Years in Institution, with Mental Health as the Dependent Variable

Percentage Variable Multiple R R square F* Beta of variance

Stress from relationships .27 .07 20.02 .27 7 Locus of control .35 .13 18.31 .26 6 Use of logic as a coping strategy .40 .16 15.71 - . 1 9 3 Type A behavior .43 .19 14.50 .18 3 Stress from home-work interface .45 .20 12.82 .19 2 Stress from career and achievement .47 .22 11.92 - , 1 8 2

"All differences significant p<.05.


Table 4. Multiple Regression Analysis of Stressors, OSI Individual Differences, Age, and Number of Years in Institution, with Physical Health as Dependent Variable

Percentage Variable Multiple R R square F" Beta of variance

Stress from organizational structure .31 .10 27.10 .31 10 and climate

Use of involvement as a coping .35 .13 18.26 - .17 3 strategy

Stress from home-work interface .39 .15 15.32 .18 2 External locus of control .43 .18 14.19 .18 3 Use of logic as a coping strategy .45 .20 12.60 - .14 2 Age .46 .21 11.32 - .11 1


cantly greater pressure from their jobs. The areas which were found to be particularly stressful were "factors intrinsic to the job," "relationships with other people," "career and achievement," and "organizational structure and climate." The sources of stress described by "factors intr insic to the j ob" relate ma in ly to aspects of the work content (Cox, 1993), and include, for example, excess workload and long hours, condi t ions of work such as pay, the demands of keeping up with new ideas, and the accumulat ive effects of minor tasks. The

other three stressors might be described as aspects of the work context (Cox,

1993) and includes for example at tending meetings, office politics, isolat ion and lack of support, feel ing undervalued, absence of potential career advance-

ment , lack of consultat ion, administrat ive tasks, lack of resources, morale, and

structure of the organization.

Table 5. Multiple Regression Analysis of OSI Stressors, OSI Individual Differences, Age, Years in Institution, with Job Satisfaction as the Dependent Variable

Percentage Variable Multiple R R square F* Beta of variance

Stress from organizational structure .52 .27 90.25 - .56 27 and climate

External locus of control .57 .33 60.56 - .23 6 Stress from factors intrinsic to the job .62 .38 51.03 .32 5 Use of social support as a coping .63 .40 41.23 .20 2

strategy Use of logic as a coping strategy .64 .42 34.86 .16 2 Use of home support as a coping .65 .43 31.06 - .14 1

strategy Stress from career and achievement .67 .45 27.88 - .15 1



The use of standardized psychometric measures of occupational stress, such as the OSI, are particularly useful in the analysis of occupational stress, since they facilitate meaningful comparisons with normative groups. Employees in this study reported that they experienced higher levels of pressure from four of the six areas of occupational stress measured by the OSI, as described above. However, since the size of these differences were relatively small, it is difficult to further isolate specific problems from these data.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note some overlap with the findings of Daniel and Guppy (1994) who identified "inadequate resources," "having too much work to do," and "a feeling that the organization does not care about its staff" as the three most frequently cited sources of stress among university staff. Workload surveys of academic staff have also indicated that staff perceive a significant increase in the administrative burden as a result of changes in higher education (Court, 1994; Early, 1994). It is clear that further empirical study is required to gain a better understanding of the specific nature of the stressors experienced by employees in higher education. This is likely to require a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, particularly if one wants to understand the differences between the experiences of different occupational groups within an organization.

Effects o f Stress

The consequences of stress may be considered in terms of effects on the individual, for example increased risk of ill-health, and effects on the organization, such as the effects of reductions in employee performance. Of course, effects on the individual and the organization are interlinked. For example, an individual who suffers the distress of stress-related illness, is also likely to under-perform, or to be absent from work, and thus the organization is also affected.

The results of this study show that, in general, employees in this organization were suffering considerably poorer physical and psychological health than other occupational groups. Physical symptoms of stress measured include sleep problems, headaches, feelings of exhaustion, and palpitations. Psychological symptoms include mood changes, irritability, worrying, reduced confidence, and feeling unable to cope. These findings suggest that employees are experiencing considerable personal distress as a result of poor health. This study confirms the findings of Daniels and Guppy (1994) of significant levels of psychological disorder among university staff. This is clearly a cause for concern, not only for individual employees, but also for managers within the organization, since this level of ill-health, if sustained, is likely to be detrimental to organizational performance.

An examination of the predictors of health shows that aspects of the work context (Cox, 1993) were particularly related to ill-health. The main predictor of mental ill-health was "stress from relationships" which accounted for 7% of


the variance. The main predictor of physical health was organizational structure and climate, which accounted for 10% of the variance. These findings suggest that any measures to reduce the adverse effects of stress on health should focus not just on the individual employee, but should also address stress-related problems at the group and organizational level.

Home-work interface was identified as a predictor of both mental and physical health. Objective measures of time use by academic staff support this finding. For example a study, based on an analysis of diary records of academic and related staff in "traditional" universities, found that more than a third of research and scholarship work was done outside office hours (Court, 1994). If employees are working long hours, and taking work home, they are less likely to be able to recover from the negative effects of stress.

In general, employees in this study are relatively dissatisfied with their jobs, in comparison to other occupational groups. The main predictor of job dissatisfaction was stress experienced as a result of the structure and climate of the organization, which accounted for more than a fifth of the variance. Other stressors which were related to job dissatisfaction included stress as a result of perceived lack of opportunities for personal and career development.

It is interesting to note that employees who experienced greater pressure as a result of "factors intrinsic to the job" were also more satisfied. Although this may seem surprising, there has been considerable debate within the literature about the nature of the relationship between occupational stress and job satisfaction (Robertson et al., 1990). In this case, the high levels of pressure from factors related to the content of work (Cox, 1993) may be perceived as a chal- lenge, in contrast to stress resulting from aspects of the work context, such as the climate of the organization.

Levels of job satisfaction were also influenced by individual differences, in particular, employees with an external locus of control were less satisfied. In addition, the use of social support and logic as coping strategies predicted higher job satisfaction. On the other hand, job dissatisfaction was associated with the use of home support as a means of coping. One reason for this might be that this strategy focuses attention on conflict between home and work, and thus dissatisfaction increases.

Although employees who perceive their jobs as stressful are not neces- sarily dissatisfied, it seems likely that job dissatisfaction will have adverse outcomes for the organization, since it may contribute to poor morale, and problems such as reduced performance, and high turnover.

Individual and Group Differences

Of course it is true that the same experiences in the workplace do not have the same consequences for all employees, thus it is important to take the possi-


ble effects of individual differences into account when investigating stress in the workplace. Such measures may also be useful in identifying individuals or groups at particular risk in the organization. Individual diffferences may affect how the employee appraises a situation which is potentially stressful, and/or may moderate the extent to which the experience of stress affects the individual's health (Cox, 1993).

Type A behavior and Locus of Control are two important dispositional factors which may influence the consequences of stress (Payne, 1988). Both of these factors were identified as risk factors in this study. An external locus of control, or perceiving that one has relatively little influence over events, was found to be a predictor of poorer mental and physical health. Type A behavior was also related to poorer mental health. Thus employees who regarded them- selves as more ambitious, hard-driving, competitive, and impatient were at greater risk from mental ill-health.

There was also some evidence that health outcomes of stress was moder- ated by the coping strategies used, in particular the use of logic, which was related to better mental and physical ill-health. Similarly the use of involvement predicted better physical health. This included strategies such as "recognizing limitations," "not bottling things up," and "learning to live with the situation."

The findings also suggested that female employees in the organization were at particular risk. In comparison to male employees, they reported greater experienced pressure as a result of stress from relationships with other people, and stress from perceived lack of opportunities for career and achievement. In addition, female staff also had poorer physical health.

Some researchers have suggested that women may experience unique pres- sures in the workplace, such as discrimination, and stereotyping, social isola- tion, and home-work conflict (Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990; Nelson & Hitt, 1990). There is also some evidence to suggest that women suffer greater adverse effects of stress than men, and that there are gender differences in symptoms of stress, for example that women report greater overall levels of psychological distress. However the research is inconclusive. For example, Martocchio and O'Leary (1989), in a meta-analytical review found no evidence for gender differences in either the experience or manifestations of occupational stress.

One of the difficulties in interpreting research on gender differences in occupational stress, is that it is difficult to separate the effects of gender from the effects of the differences in the types of jobs occupied by women, since women are more likely than men to occupy lower status jobs. Most of the research to date has focused on women who occupy relatively high status jobs, for example women managers. In this study, 38% of respondents from the academic staff group were female, while 73% of the non-academic employees (clerical, support, and manual staff) were female. Nevertheless there was no evidence of health differences based on occupational group. Thus there is a


need for further research among a wider range of occupational groups to clarify gender differences in occupational stress.

Athough no differences in health measures were found between different occupational groups, the small number of repondents from the manual staff group should be noted. The evidence suggests that employees in unskilled and semi-skilled occupations are particularly at risk from adverse effects of occupational stress (Cooper & Smith, 1985). An examination of sickness absence records over a 5-year period showed that manual staff were almost twice as likely to take time off work due to illness in comparison to other groups of staff. The lowest level of absenteeism was for academic staff. Some of the differences in these data may be due to more flexible contracts and different monitoring systems for this group of staff.

C O N C L U S I O N

This stress audit provides evidence of levels of ill-health among employees which are likely to be detrimental both to the individual employee, and to the overall performance of the organization. Factors contributing to the causes and consequences of stress include both organizational and individual issues. Thus there is a need to recognize the potential adverse effects of uncontrolled stress, and to plan stress reduction strategies which are based on a shared respon- sibility between the organization and the individual employee.

R E F E R E N C E S

Confederation of British Industry (CBI) (1994). Improving health in the workplace: CBI conference special report. British Safety Council, 9(10), p. 9.

Cooper, C. L., & Smith, M. J. (Eds.) (1985). Job stress and blue collar work. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Cooper, C. L., Sloan, S. J., & Williams, S. (1988). Occupational stress indicator management guide. Windsor: NFER Nelson.

Court, S. (1994). Long hours, little thanks: A survey of the use of time by full-time academic and related staff in traditional UK universities. London: Association of University Teachers (AUT).

Cox, T. (1978). Stress. London: Macmillan. Cox, T. (1993). Stress Research and Stress Management: Putting Theory to Work. Health and

Safety Executive (HSE) Contract Research Report No. 61/1993, HMSO, London. Daniels, K. & Guppy, A. (1994). An exploratory study of stress in a British University. Higher

Education Quarterly, 48(2), 135-144. Drake, L. (1994). Professionals pay more to guard against stress. Sunday Times, 4, p.1, November

27. London: Times Newspapers. Early, P. (1994). Lecturers' Workload and Factors Affecting Stress Levels: A Research Report from

the NFER. National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). Berkshire. Evans, G. W., Johansson, G., & Carrere, S. (1994). Psychosocial factors and the physical environ-

ment: Inter-relations in the workplace. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9, 1-29.


Fisher, S. (1994). Stress in academic life: The mental assembly line. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Goldberg, D. E & Williams, E (1988). A user's guide to the General Health Questionnaire: GHQ. Windsor: Nelson.

Hart, E M. (1994). Teachers quality of work life: Integrating work experiences, psychological distress and morale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 109-132.

Health and Safety at Work Act (1974). London: HMSO. Hodgson, J. T., Jones, J. R., Elliott, R. C., & Osman, J. (1993). Self-Reported Work-Related Illness:

Results from a Trailer Questionnaire on the 1990 Labour Force Survey in England and Wales. Health and Safety Executive, research paper 33, HMSO, London.

Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.

Komhauser, A. (1965) Mental health of the industrial worker: A Detroit study. New York: Wiley. Landy, E J. (1992). Work design and stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Work and well-

being: An agenda for the 1990's (pp. 119-158). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

MacFarlane, A. (1994). Time to Get Teaching on Board. The Times Higher Education Supplement, The Supplements, Ltd., London, May 13, 1994, p. 14.

Martocchio, J. J., & O'Leary, A. M. (1989). Sex differences in occupational stress: A metanalytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 495-501.

Morrison, A. M., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1990). Women and minorities in management. American Psychologist, 45(2), 200-208.

Nelson, D. L., & Hitt, M. A. (1992). Employed women and stress: Implications for enhancing women's mental health in the workplace. In J. C. Quick, L. R. Murphy, & J. J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.), Stress and well-being at work: Assessments and interventions for occupational mental health (pp. 164-175). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Payne, R. (1988). Individual differences in the study of Occupational Stress. In C. L. Cooper, & R. Payne, (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work (pp 209-231). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Quick, J. C., Murphy, L. R., & J. J. HurreU, Jr. (Eds.), (1992). Stress & well-being at work." Assessments and interventions for occupational mental health. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Suthedand, V. J., & Cooper, C. L (1990). Understanding stress: A psychological perspective for health professionals, psychology and health series 5. London: Chapman and Hall.

Tan, H. Y. (1994). Council liable for mental breakdown: Law report. The Independent, November 18, p. 15. London: Newspaper Publishing PLC.

Webb, T., & Schilling, R. (1988). Health at Work? A Report on Health Promotion in the Workplace. Research report no. 22, Health Education Authority, London.

occupational stress within a u.k. higher education institution

Documents