psychological research, practice, and production: the ... · pdf fileinternational journal of...

International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1999

Psychological Research, Practice, and Production:The Occupational Stress Problem

Maureen F. Dollard1,3and Jacques C. Metzer1

The accumulation of research findings now suggest a significant work stressproblem, with implications for worker health, motivation and productivity, thatwarrants a concerted applied research effort at a local level and a strategy andpolicy response at a national level. Psychologists need to rethink prevailingparadigms that often separate their research and practice. We argue that aconducive production model that emphasizes action and knowledge, and recip-rocal learning between academia, practitioners, and organizations may be theway forward for psychologists to respond effectively to the current work stressproblems and other emergent organizational issues. Failure to do so may resultin exacerbation of problems related to the psychological and social context ofwork, a slowed response to increased demands, and an ever decreasing practi-cal utility of the profession.

INTRODUCTION

Dramatic changes in the way people work are underway. Workers andorganizations face a range of challenges: global competition, changing informa-tion technology, a shift from vertically integrated hierarchies to networks ofspecialists, smaller companies that employ fewer people, a changed paradigmof doing business—from making a product to providing a service—the grow-ing disappearance of "the job" as a fixed bundle of tasks, and increased partici-

KEY WORDS: occupational stress research; models; applied research; psychological research.

'University of South Australia, School of Psychology, Whyalla Campus.2University of South Australia, School of Psychology, City East Campus.3Correspondence should be directed to Maureen F. Dollard, School of Psychology, University ofSouth Australia, Whyalla Campus, 5600 Australia; e-mail: [email protected].

241

1072 5245/99/IOOO-024ISI6.00/O O 1999 Human Sciences Press. Inc.

pation of women (Cascio, 1995). There is no doubt that many of these changesare driven by management imperatives, for increased productivity. However, asCascio (1995) argues, in context of these changes there are great opportunitiesfor industrial and organizational psychologists to contribute to the betterment ofhumanity.

In recent years, occupational stress and workplace health and well-beinghave become issues of central concern both internationally and nationally, formanagement, labor, and the individual worker (Dollard, 1997; Keita & Hurrell,1994). Escalating costs related to stress are reported in industrial countriesworld-wide (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Australian workers are entitled toworkers' compensation for stress (a stress claim) when work is shown to be asubstantial cause of the disorder or illness of the mind (e.g., OccupationalHealth Safety and Welfare Act, 1986 (SA)). According to the National Occupa-tional Health and Safety Commission (1998) the direct cost of workers' com-pensation for new work stress claims in Australia during 1995-96 was esti-mated to be around $49 million (excluding Victoria and Australian CapitalTerritory data), with 4509 new cases (Compendium of Workers' CompensationStatistics, Australia, 1995-96). Stress claims accounted for 3.4% of all newworkers' compensation claims. High costs due to work stress are reported world-wide (Kompier & Cooper, 1999).

This paper will argue that the research agenda for psychologists is to pro-vide research based answers to pressing organizational problems, and providethe impetus for humane change through the practice of applied organizationalpsychology (Cascio, 1995). It will also be argued that the dynamic ConduciveProduction Model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) is a useful way to conceptualisepsychological best practice to reduce the occupational stress problem.

MODELS OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS

It is clear that there is a link between psychosocial aspects of the workenvironment and the health and well-being of workers, although the mechanismby which this occurs is unresolved. In predicting the main sources of workstress, on the one hand, psychosociological models of work stress emphasisethe contextual features of the work environment such as the Demand-Control/Support model (Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) and the Model ofEffort-Reward Imbalance (Siegrist, 1998). On the other hand, psychologicalmodels emphasise individual differences in perceptions (e.g., the cognitive-phe-nomenological model, Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) or the fit between subjectiveperson and the subjective environment (e.g., P-E fit theory, French, Caplan, &Harrison, 1984; Schnall, Landsbergis, & Baker, 1994). For a recent volume ontheories of organizational stress see Cooper (1998).

Until recently psychological models and the interventions they implied

242 Dollard and Metzer

dominated the work stress literature. According to Baker (1985) the work-stressresearch field was dominated with a clinical perspective of stress as a psycho-physiological phenomenon that arises from an individual's perception of thebalance between environmental demands and response capabilities. When "fit"did not occur (an imbalance), to address individual symptoms, an overwhelm-ing number of person-oriented cures were developed such as relaxation thera-pies, humour therapies, and various other psychotherapies. Further, Baker (1985)argued that P-E fit theory has been used primarily to assign persons to differentjobs, where the individual bears the burden of adjustment, rather than changingthe existing work context to meet the needs of the person. In the past fifteenyears the Job Demand-Control model and recent expansions (the Demand-Con-trol-Support or DCS model) have become most influential. Although the impor-tance of cognitive processes that intervene between environmental exposure andeventual health outcomes cannot be denied, the focus of the research effortshould also be on the working conditions that trigger the process (Ganster &Schaubroeck, 1991). Reviews of the DCS model are generally in favor of fur-ther development (expansion and refinement) along the same ideological lines(Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991; Schnall, Landsbergis, & Baker, 1994). Resultsof intervention studies suggest that although individual interventions are impor-tant and should be included as part of an overall organizational stress reductionprogram (Murphy, 1987), organizational level interventions (as implied by theideology of DCS models) may provide more far reaching change in health,well-being, and productivity (Levi 1990; 1995; Karasek & Theorell, 1990).Changes at the organizational level may include increasing participation/con-trol, providing meaningful jobs, increasing skill utilization, modifying workschedules to avoid conflict with demands and responsibilities unrelated to thejob and providing stable and predictable shifts in a forward rotating direction,modifying workload to match capabilities of the worker, defining and harmo-nizing work roles and responsibilities, improving the social environment, andavoiding ambiguity in job security and career development (Levi, 1995). Morerecently Levi (1998) argued for an ecological model (Kagan & Levi, 1975) forpsychosocially mediated disease to provide a more comprehensive and inte-grated approach to the occupational stress problem, also adopted by the Euro-pean Commission (1997). This approach emphasizes the interaction betweenthe person and the environment in the development of ill-health.

TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO OCCUPATIONALSTRESS MANAGEMENT

Each of the above work stress theoretical models has limitations in anapplied context (i.e., workplace assessment and intervention). A current em-phasis in the literature is on the need for a more comprehensive approach to

The Occupational Stress Problem 243

occupational environmental and health program/action that is participative andinvolves occupational health professionals, management, individual workers,and their representatives. Levi (1990) argued that the overall occupational envi-ronmental and health program/action should aim to be: "(a) systems oriented,addressing health-related interactions in the worker-workplace ecosystem; (b)interdisciplinary, covering medical, physiological, emotional, cognitive, behav-ioral, social, and economic aspects of these interactions; (c) problem-solvingoriented and integrating complementary approaches; (e) health oriented (notonly disease oriented), trying to identify what constitutes and promotes healthand counteracts ill health even in the presence of noxious exposures; (f) inter-sectoral, evaluating health actions administered in other sectors (e.g., work,housing, nutrition, traffic, education); (g) international, including multicentercollaborative projects carried out in different cultural and sociopolitical settings;and (h) participative, trying to involve not only occupational health profes-sionals and management but the individual workers and their representatives aswell" (Levi, 1990, p. 1144).

For any applied work to be linked to change it must involve participationby the stakeholders and be valued and utilized by the stakeholders. It musttherefore recognise the interpersonal and political contexts in which the re-search is undertaken (Rossi & Freeman, 1989). This is a major challenge forresearchers to engage in research which is understandable and useable by arange of people, meets the interests of stakeholders, and withstands the rigorsof scientific enquiry. There are several studies showing that involvement ofworkers in organizational change leads them to be more committed and thechange to be more effective (Jackson, 1983; Scheflen, Lawler, & Hackman,1971). Further, Karasek's (1992) work stress intervention case study evaluationshows the importance of both the strategy of intervention, and the implementa-tion process in achieving successful outcomes in work stress interventions.

A principal mechanism for successful intervention, participation, is mostlikely to be achieved in action research paradigms (Karasek & Theorell, 1990).This methodology can be used for both theory development and implementationof change strategies. The reciprocal nature of the relationship between basictheoretical research and social action is a key premise of "action research" asproposed by Lewin (1948). The reciprocal nature of action research is capturedin the following definition: "Action research aims to contribute to both thepractical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to thegoals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethi-cal framework" (Rapaport, 1970, p. 499).

Rather than coming in as experts, researchers may be better positioned toacknowledge the range of possible perspectives of the issue, and propose aresearch process that enables a rather inductive process of theory development,and a participatory process that enables stakeholders to influence mutually theresearch process and the intervention (see Dollard, Heffernan, Winefield, &


Winefield, 1997). The active involvement of organizational members at alllevels is also important. Heifetz and Laurie (1997) propose that "solutions toadaptive challenges reside not in the executive suite but in the collective intel-ligence of employees at all levels" (p. 126).

A growing number of researchers have endorsed an innovative method,Participatory Action Research (PAR), as a process for dealing equitably withpower problems in applied research (Landsbergis et al., 1993). Israel and Schur-man (see DeAngelis, 1993) used PAR in a six year longitudinal study of work-ers in an automobile manufacturing plant in Michigan to solve problems suchas lack of system-wide information and communication, problems with super-visors, and lack of participation and influence over decision making. Accordingto the researchers, evaluation showed improved health for employees (reducedcholesterol levels), and members of the committee felt they were co-workers inthe making of decisions by the team.

Action research allows both the generation of theory and the testing oftheory in the context of practice. Action research may be the most effective wayfor psychologists to achieve the twin criteria of successful implementation ofinterventions, and the opportunity for evaluation of the intervention. Academicresearch psychologists could be involved in collaboration with organizationalclinical psychologists operating at the work site (C. Cooper, see DeAngelis,1993) or as collaborative evaluation researchers (D. Ganster, see Denton, 1993).

The participative/collaborative approach also reflects a devolution of con-trol to workers over decision making, a central tenet of Karasek's Job Demand-Control theory of improving worker well-being. The chances of implementationof components of the program are further enhanced by union involvement (Ka-rasek & Theorell, 1990). Landsbergis (1988) argues that: "collective (union)efforts to increase decision latitude can be the best guarantee against a 'changeof heart' by top management, favoritism, or passivity resulting from paternal-ism, as well as assuring that the fruits of increased productivity will be equita-bly shared (e.g., through increased job security)" (p. 236). Participatory actionresearch approaches with strong union involvement have significant advantagesover expert-dominated or management-dominated intervention programs (Land-sbergis et al., 1993). In a very recent review of case studies of preventing stressand improving productivity in the workplace, Kompier and Cooper (1999) con-cluded by hypothesizing that the "success of stress prevention depends on asubtle combination of two approaches, that is, 'bottom-up' (participation) and'top-down' (top management support)" (p. 335).

THE ROLE FOR PSYCHOLOGY IN WORK STRESS PREVENTION

In 1990 a special edition of the American Psychologist was given to dis-cussing occupational stress and the role of the psychologist. It was clear to


commentators then that psychologists in comparison with other professions, hadlargely ignored one of the most critical contemporary issues in psychology, thatof worker health. Despite significant advances in understanding, treating, andpreventing psychological disorders in the workplace, and despite obvious rele-vance to public interest, it was argued that psychology and psychologists hadpaid little attention to this growing area of research and practice (Keita &Jones, 1990; Ilgen, 1990). Indeed in Australia the percentage of consulting or-ganizational psychologists providing health and safety services was 13.9% in1998 and this percentage has been stable since 1971 (Kirby & Hartstone, 1998).In the context of increasing concerns about health and safety in recent times,the authors commented that "while some companies may have employed otherstaff to address these issues, it would seem that OPs were being under-utilisedin this area" (p. 74).

Opportunities continue to exist for psychologists to expand existing knowl-edge and to conduct psychological research on occupational health issues (Offer-man & Gowing, 1990; Terborg, 1988). Psychologists can apply their knowledgeof research methods and intervention and contribute to making organizations bothmore productive and humane (Offerman & Gowing, 1990). There is a role forpsychologists to engage in developing occupational stress theory, and to contrib-ute to the application of solutions to organizational problems and the treatment ofoccupational stress and the evaluation of interventions. Hesketh, Rawlings, andAllen (1996) provide a cogent argument about this in relation to correctionalservices generally, and specifically to elucidate the preventive proactive potentialof psychological work: "We believe that psychologists should take a more proac-tive stance within the corrective services environment, and this may mean includ-ing a focus on the institution as a client. It means trying to help managementcreate a positive human environment, and in the process of doing this, hopefullyreducing the need for reactive crisis interventions" (p. 13).

Psychologists who continue to treat work stress client problems individu-ally and outside of the context of their work environment may be in the serviceof the status quo and unsuccessful in effecting long term change in the allevia-tion of stress. Also, individual treatments may erroneously assume that upset-ting emotions attached to difficult work conditions are not adaptive.

Psychologists need to strengthen links between research and practice torespond effectively to the work stress problem. Specifically the gap betweenresearch and practice has led to "little awareness of research findings by practi-tioners (managers, consultants, clinicians), little intervention activity being un-dertaken at the organizational level, little research being undertaken to deter-mine the effectiveness of individual level interventions, and only modest use ofwork research findings for intervention and policy development" (Burke, 1993,p. 85). A recent survey of Australian organizational psychologists revealed thatthe most frequent criticism of tertiary training courses in organizational psy-chology was a lack of practicality (Kirby & Hartstone, 1998). Bridging the gap


between research and practice could in turn produce knowledge and methodsappropriate for graduating students to deal with emerging demands in organiza-tional psychology.

Specific areas for work to reintegrate the research and practice componentsof work stress psychology include more intervention activities undertaken at theorganizational level, as in job redesign. Paradoxically, Cordery (1997) notesthat organizational psychologists' interest in work redesign has declined signifi-cantly in the past 10 years, just when organizations have begun to consider itseriously in attempts to increase competitiveness and productivity (Campion,1996). Kompier and Cooper's (1999) case studies of preventing stress and im-proving productivity in the workplace, provide a good example of interventionat both the individual and organizational level. But this research needs to beextended beyond the Northern Hemisphere-European populations. Further, anintegration of research findings for intervention and policy development is alsorequired (Burke, 1993; Karasek, 1992).

Contemporary issues that need to be researched by psychologists includeamong others: assessing how prevailing economic rationalism translates at thetask level, and how these changes impact on performance and worker well-being;the impact of job insecurity and casual work conditions; the changing character ofhome and work life and the potential influences from one domain to another;assessing whether job strain is equally dangerous to men and women (Karasek &Theorell, 1990); and cost-benefit analyses of the work stress problem for not onlylarge enterprises but also small- and medium- sized enterprises.

Researchers need to use methodologies likely to result in adaptive changeand not just in improving the knowledge base, and to use both cross-sectionaland longitudinal analysis to understand more fully the nature of the work stressprocess (Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996). Further, in order to capture the diver-sity of variables thought to be important in the work stress process, triangula-tion of different research methods is required (Israel, Schurman, & House,1989). Use of both quantitative and qualitative data, enables a more detailedperspective of the person interacting with the environment. Across a range ofother areas (e.g., unemployment, rehabilitation) social scientists are also beingchallenged to use multiple research methods to provide new insights and greaterunderstanding of the phenomenon under study (Fryer, 1992; Kenny, 1995).

What kind of model might psychologists need to improve their perfor-mance in reducing the occupational stress problem?

PSYCHOLOGY AND THE CONDUCIVE PRODUCTION MODEL

It is clear that psychologists need to be able to respond to the changingneeds of the contemporary world of work. Psychologists need to developknowledge that can be translated into practice that is directly useful to organiza-


tions (Cascio, 1995). To achieve this there needs to be stronger communicationbetween theoretical psychologists and those involved more directly in interven-tion. This means more intradisciplinary teams, bringing skills and knowledge ofboth research and practice psychologists together, to focus on the problem.Alternatively, psychologists may develop stronger skills in both research andpractice, or an interdisciplinary approach to capture other levels of the problem.But more than this it will require greater dialogue with organizations aboutwhat psychologists can do. How this can be achieved has generally been notbeen adequately addressed in the literature. The aim of the next section is tooutline a paradigm for increasing the responsiveness of psychologists to thework stress problem.

New production models are currently being proposed that are more hu-mane than previously known in most industrialized societies. Organizational/occupational psychologists may look to these new models to guide their ownwork within organizations, to help the organization achieve improved function-ing and individual development (Porras & Robertson, 1992). These samemodels can be applied to the organization of "psychologists" who desire toimprove their service. Let us refer to this collection of psychologists (re-searchers and practitioners) as the "Psychological Service Industry" (PSI). Amodel proposed by Karasek and Theorell (1990), the Conducivity Model, isparticularly applicable to service sectors of the economy and as such is directlyrelevant to the PSI. If principles of the conducivity model are applied to thePSI, improvements may be gained on both the research and practice front, inways that have mutual benefits for workers, organizations, and the psycholo-gists (see Figure 1).

Conducive productivity refers to a new productivity that results when ser-vice providers (psychologists) and consumers (work organizations) communi-cate effectively about what service is required, that is, how the needs of theclient/consumer can be met. Psychologists and organizations will need to createa user friendly dialogue so that needs and services can be reciprocated andimproved. In this model psychologists will be guided in their interventions inpart from the prevailing knowledge, but also from enhanced communicationwith consumers. As a result the client will learn to be more proficient (smarter)at specifying their requirements for service as their knowledge of the PSI isenlarged. In turn the psychologists' skills in evaluation will evolve as feedbackfrom clients is an integral part of the growth of new skills and creativity in thePSI. The link between research and practice is forced in this model, because theprocess is driven by client demand for applied services that are effective. Themodel assumes that the production is conducive as it results in mutual learning,innovation, and increased satisfaction of both the organization and the psychol-ogist. Although some theorists (e.g., John, 1994) argue that the researcher andthe practitioner of psychology may be separate people engaged in different


The Occupational Stress Problem

activities, they are still part of the overall organization (PSI) that necessarily hasto develop stronger links between the entities in order to respond more effec-tively to the work stress problem. Although we have been talking about themodel as it relates to the field of organizational psychology it could easilyapply to other areas of psychology (e.g., health and community psychology).

249

Fig. 1. Conducive production.

Products of applying the conducivity model are likely to include moreflexible approaches, increased creativity in methods, increased learning for psy-chologists, and increased learning for organizations (workers and management).These results should contribute to a greater understanding of work stress fororganizations, workers, and psychologists, and should also contribute more gen-erally to methodological knowledge, to possible intervention taxonomies, to anunderstanding of the politics of intervention, and the development of workstress theory. In many ways the conducive production model embraces similarprinciples to PAR, adding value to the client, reciprocal learning and also topsychologists' knowledge and skills, and participation. The conducive produc-tion model is also about adaptive work and emulates ideas in current manage-ment literature that to successfully face the challenges of multiple change is todo adaptive work (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997).

Psychologists can help organizations develop "local theories and solu-tions" (Trierweiler & Strieker, 1991) to their problems, and also contribute tothe debate at a national policy level. For example, Sweden has created a strongplatform for humane work environment change with full attention to both phys-ical and psychosocial hazards, with an institutional and legislative program thatcontributes to industrial productivity. In this way local action strategies aresupported and complemented by action at a national level (Karasek, 1992).

It is hoped that this paper can contribute to the resolution of the workstress problem by its efforts to highlight some gaps between research and prac-tice, examine the principal theories of occupational stress, their methodological,

1.2.3.

4.

5.

6.7.8.

9.

Become more knowledgeable about client needsCreate products that encourage clients to develop new usesCommunicate more with organizations and communities in ways thatare conducive to clients gaining a better understanding of psychologyand its methodsProvide mechanisms to facilitate feedback from the client about theextent to which needs were met and for providing information relatedto evolving needs of the clientProvide more information to the public and policy makers about theproblems of work stress and possible solutionsDevelop stronger links between academics and practitionersEvaluate change effortsDevelop teams of psychologists with practical, theoretical, and meth-odological knowledgeDevelop and lead multidisciplinary teams


To significantly reduce the work stress problem the productive psycholo-gist will be required to:

practical and political implications, and outline a new model of production forthe Psychology Service Industry. A conducive production model that empha-sizes action and knowledge, and reciprocal learning between academia, practi-tioners, and organizations may be the way forward for psychologists to respondeffectively to current work stress problems and other emergent organizationalissues. In this way stronger links will be built between industry and academia,which in turn may lead to alternative funding sources for research on this im-portant issue—timely as government funding for research decreases (Cooper &Cartwright, 1997). Failure to do so may result in exacerbation of problemsrelated to the psychological and social context of work, a slowed response toincreased demands, and an ever decreasing practical utility of the profession.

REFERENCES

Baker, D. B. (1985). The study of stress at work. Annual Review of Public Health, 6, 367-81.Burke, R. J. (1993). Organizational-level interventions to reduce occupational stressors. Work and

Stress, 7, 77-87.Campion, M. A. (1996). Reinventing work: A new era of I/O research and practice. Presidential

address to the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, San Diego.

Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world ofwork? American Psychologist, SO, 928-939.

Compendium of workers' compensation statistics, Australia, 1995-96. National OccupationalHealth & Safety Commission, Canberra, 1998.

Cooper, C. L. (Ed.). (1998). Theories of organizational stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Cooper, C., & Cartwright, S. (1997). An intervention strategy for workplace stress. Journal of

Psychosomatic Research, 43, 7-16.Cordery, J. (1997). Reinventing work design theory and practice. Australian Psvchologist, 32, 185-

190.DeAngel is, T. (1993). Workplace stress battles all over the world. APA Monitor, January, p. 5.Demon, L. (1993). Stress conference looks at findings and next steps. APA Monitor, January, p. 23.Dollard, M. F. (1997). Work stress: Conceptualisations and implications for research methodology

and workplace intervention. (PhD Thesis). Whyalla: Work and Stress Research Group, Univer-sity of South Australia.

Dollard, M. F, Heffernan, P., Winefield, A. H., & Winefield, H. R. (1997). Conducive production:How to produce a PAR worksite proposal. New Solutions, Winter, 58-70.

European Commission (1997). Report on work-related stress. The Advisory Committee for Safety,Hygiene and Health Protection at Work. Luxembourg.

French, J. R. P., Jr., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1984). The mechanisms of job stress andstrain. New York: Wiley.

Fryer, D. M. (1992). Editorial: Introduction to Marienthal and beyond. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 65, 257-268.

Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of Manage-ment, 17, 235-271.

Hall, E. M. (1992). Double exposure: The combined impact of the home and work environments onpsychosomatic strain in Swedish men and women. International Journal of Health Services,22, 239-260.

Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, Jan-uary-February, 124-134.


Hesketh, B., Rawlings, R., & Allen, R. (1996). Organisational psychology applied to forensic is-sues. Australian Psychologist, 31, 9-14.

Ilgen, D. R. (1990). Health issues at work: Opportunities for industrial/organizational psychology.American Psychologist, 45, 273-283.

Israel, B. A., Schurman, S. J., & House, J. S. (1989). Action research on occupational stress:Involving workers as researchers. International Journal of Health Services, 19, 135-155.

Jackson, S. E. (1983). Participation in decision making as a strategy for reducing job related strain.Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 3-19.

John, I. D. (1994). Constructing knowledge of psychological knowledge: Towards an epistemologyfor psychological practice. Australian Psychologist, 29, 158-163.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for jobredesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.

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

Karasek. R. (1992). Stress prevention through work reorganization: A summary of 19 internationalcase studies. In ILO, Conditions of work digest on preventing stress at work, 11, 23-41.

Keita, G. P., & Jones, J. M. (1990). Reducing adverse reaction to stress in the workplace: Psychol-ogy's expanding role. American Psychologist, 45, 1137-1141.

Keita, G. P., & Hurrell, J. J. (Eds.). (1994). Job stress in changing workforce: Investigating gender,diversity, and family issues. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kenny, D. T. (1995). Occupational rehabilitation in New South Wales. Work and RehabilitationResearch Unit: Sydney.

Kirby, N., & Hartstone, M. (1998). The Australian organisational psychologist: An update. Austra-lian Psychologist, 33, 68-76.

Kompier, M., & Cooper, C. (Eds.). (1999). Preventing stress, improving productivity: Europeancase studies in the workplace. London & New York: Routledge.

Landsbergis, P. A., Schurman, S. J., Israel, B. A., Schnall, P. L., Hugentobler, M. K., Cahill, J., &Baker, D. (1993). Job stress and heart disease: Evidence and strategies for prevention. NewSolutions, Summer, 42-58.

Landsbergis, P. L. (1988). Occupational stress among health care workers: A test of the job de-mands-control model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 217-239.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.Levi, L. (1998). Preface: Stress in Organizations—Theoretical and empirical approaches. In C. L.

Cooper (Ed.). Theories of organizational stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Levi, L. (1995). Global review and state of the art approaches in stress management and preven-

tion. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Stress at the workplace: Healthand productivity, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.

Levi, L. (1990). Occupational stress: Spice of life or kiss of death? American Psychologist, 45,1142-1145.

Lewin, K. (1948). Action research and minority problems. In K. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving SocialConflicts (pp. 201-216). New York: Harper & Row.

Murphy, L. R. (1987). A review of organizational stress management research: Methodologicalconsiderations. In J. M. Ivancevich & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Job stress: From theory to sugges-tion (pp. 215-227). New York: Hawarth Press.

Offerman, L. R., & Cowing, M. K. (1990). Organizations of the future: Changes and challenges.American Psychologist, 45, 95-108.

Porras, J. L., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory, practice, and research.In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organisational psychol-ogy (2nd ed., 3, pp. 719-822). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Rapaport, R. N. (1970). Three dilemmas of action research. Human Relations, 23, 499-513.Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1989). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.Sauter, S. L., Murphy, L. R., & Hurrell Jr., J. J. (1990). Prevention of work-related psychological

disorders. American Psychologist, 45, 1146-1158.Scheflen, K. C., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1971). Long-term impact of employee participa-


tion in the development of pay incentive plans: A field experiment revisited. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 55, 182-186.

Schnall, P. L., Landsbergis, P. A., & Baker, D. (1994). Job strain and cardiovascular disease. AnnualReview of Public Health, 15, 381-411.

Siegrist, J. (1998). Adverse health effects of effort-reward imbalance at work: Theory, empiricalsupport, and implications for prevention. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.). Theories of organizationalstress (pp. 190-205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Terborg, J. R. (1988). The organization as a context for health promotion. In S. Spacapan & S.Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health (pp. 129-174). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Trierweiler, S. J., & Strieker, G. (1991). The research and evaluation competency: Training the localclinical scientist. In R. L. Peterson, J. D., McHolland, R. J. Bent, E. Davis-Russell, G.E.Edwall, K. Polite, D. L. Singer, & G. Strieker (Eds.), The core curriculum in professionalpsychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Zapf, D., Dormann, C, & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: Areview of the literature with reference to methodological issues. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, I, 145-169.


psychological research, practice, and production: the ... · pdf fileinternational journal of...

Documents