stress and coping in tourist attraction employees

S U T T E R W O R T H E [ N E M A N N

0261-5177(95)00017-8

Tourism Management, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 277-284, 1995 Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0261-5177/95 $10.00 + 0.00

Stress and coping in tourist attraction employees

Jennifer Law Brisbane Visitors and Convention Bureau, PO Box 12260, Elizabeth Street, Brisbane, Queensland4002, Australia

Philip L Pearee and Barbara A Woods Department of Tourism, James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia

Front-line employees in tourism attractions are vital elements in the quest for service quality and visitor satisfaction. The tourism attraction work environment presents a variety of demands and pressures which may become sources of stress for personnel. Stress can have negative impacts on both the employee and the organization. It is therefore important to identify and understand the stressors experienced by employees in order to develop appropriate management methods. The study reported in this article investigated the stressors experienced by 102 front-line attraction personnel in 14 Australian tourist settings. The coping strategies used to deal with stressors were also recorded. The results indicate that although certain structural characteristics of the employee's job caused stress, management and management behaviour was the principal source of stress for respondents.

Keywords: stress, stressors, tourist attractions, coping, managemen t response

The complex and changing environment of the tourism industry presents a never ending array of stimuli, pressures and demands which can become sources of stress for front-line personnel. Individuals in these positions will continue attempts to master and over- come the threats they encounter with whatever unique, diverse methods they can employ. It is clear that some individuals will cope more effectively than others. The failure of those who do not cope effectively will be revealed in the form of absenteeism; alcohol and drug abuse; decrease in productivity and performance; strained interpersonal relationships; and illness. The cost is serious to organizations, devastating to individuals.'

Work-related stress is of growing concern for researchers and management alike. A focus on the identification of current and potential stressors in organizations, and the development of strategies which individuals and management can use to manage and reduce stress effectively, is imperative.

The study reported in this article seeks to identify types of stress and describe individual coping responses of front-line tourist attraction personnel. An assessment of the current and possible management

techniques which can control stress levels and assist workers in coping with stress in tourist attractions is also presented.

What is stress?

Selye 2 has noted that stress is a scientific concept which has suffered from the fate of being widely used and little understood in scientific circles. A definition proposed by Fontana incorporates several important aspects of stress) He defines stress as a 'demand made upon the adaptive capacities of the mind and the body. If these capacities can handle the demand and enjoy the stimulation involved, then stress is welcome and helpful. If they can't and find the demand debilitating then stress is unwelcome and unhelpful. ' This definition is useful in demon- strating that:

• stress can be both positive and negative; • stress can be caused by a wide variety of things

(stressors); • it is not so much the event which causes stress but

human reactions to the event;

277

Stress and coping in tourist attraction employees: J Law et al.

Time

J situation

Appraisal 1

I 2. Perceived ] situation

Decision 1

Performance ,1

I 4. Behaviour I

I

Outcomes

Figure 1 The stress cycle

• stress is a demand made on our capacities, and it is these capacities which determine our response to the demand.

What is coping? As with stress, definitions of 'coping' are many and varied. However, Schuler 4"5 defines coping as 'a process of analysis and evaluation to decide how to protect oneself against the adverse effects of any stress and its associated negative outcomes, and at the same time, take advantage of its positive outcomes'. This definition encompasses several important aspects of the term 'coping':

• Coping in an intentional, cognitive act of analysing the perceived quality or conditions in the environment that are associated with the stressful experience.

• The degree to which the stressor is identified, the uncertainty over the outcomes and its importance determines the challenge and effort involved in the process of analysis and evaluation.

• Stress is associated with uncertain positive and negative outcomes as long as they are important to the individual.

• The costs and benefits of coping strategies imply criteria on which to evaluate the effect of stress.

• The definition applies to a typology of coping strategies.

• Coping (like stress) is highly dependent on the individual's perception of the environment and the transaction with that environment.

Research into stress and coping Stress as a topic has achieved wide recognition in a

multitude of disciplines. A model useful in understanding stress and coping is the one developed by McGrath/ ' He described stress as a process involving four distinct stages. A simplified version of the stress cycle is presented in Figure 1.

The first stage is the environmental sources of stress - both physical and social. The next stage is individual perception, recognition appraisal and acceptance of the stressor demand. The third stage is the individual's response to the subjective demand. Finally, there is an array of potential behaviours which occur as a consequence of the coping response.

It is the first and third stages of this model that are of greatest interest to this present study - identifying the major stressors and everyday annoyances in the tourism workplace and revealing the coping mechanisms used to deal with stress.

A number of researchers have provided insights into workplace stressors in a variety of industries. 6-x~ While this list represents a small percentage of a very extensive body of research, the information is scat- tered, uneven and generally not assembled in a way useful for those who most need it, ie the management responsible for the successful operation of organizations and the individual working in stressful environments.

Since reducing stress is the essence of coping, an understanding of coping can aid in attaining the benefits of dealing with stress successfully. ~' As with research into stressors, coping has been the focus of much research. 7n6'17 21 There are however, a number of difficulties associated with research on coping. For example, in a naturalistic setting, coping is more than a static single event. It is a complex, dynamic, changing process which takes place over time. Cop- ing involves multiple sequential strategies, each step affecting the total stimulus. Another problem is that stress and coping studies are mainly descriptive and relate to specific types of workplaces. Although necessary and important groundwork, they offer little in the way of generalities and prediction. In addition, the transfer of useful information from one discipline to another has been difficult. 22 Finally, researchers have not yet developed methods to classify and measure the coping process. 23

The tourism industry By and large, tourism workers have been under- represented in stress and coping research, particularly in the area of stress management. There is a definite and urgent need for research in this area.

The hospitality sector plays a major role within the tourism industry. It is in this sector that at least some studies relating to stress have been carried out. Food service outlets and hotels rank high on the list of stressful environments for both managers and employees. 24 For example, food industry work con-

278 Tourism Management 1995 Volume 16 Number 4

ditions which are often gruelling, hot, dirty and monotonous have been shown to produce job dis- . . . - y ~

satlsfact,on and personal exhaust~on.- A study by McFillen, Reigel and Enz 26 examined

why restaurant managers left the business. The study found that reasons given for turnover were: pay; treatment by supervisors; work hours; and job pressure. It would be appropriate to suggest that these people were experiencing stress of various forms.

Research conducted for Tourism Training Austra- lia (TTA) in 199127 outlined some of the current and future trends in employment within the tourism labour market. A finding of particular relevance to this study was the attitudes of employees. Principle reasons why employees left the industry were: lack of understanding of industry work conditions: being too young to cope (especially in front-line positions); and stress. Four particular job characteristics were identified, but not empirically confirmed, as contri- buting to stress:

• anti-social work hours; • insufficient pay; • poor management; • requirement to deal with the public on a con-

tinuous day-to-day basis.

Ross, 2s in a study of hotel and resort employees, found that the major hospitality industry stressors were co-workers, pressure, working conditions and staff-guest interactions. He suggested that because two of these major stressors involve relationships and interactions with others, there may be a requirement for managers to focus on improving the social climate. Ross 2~ also found that employees suffering from work stress were likely to seek assistance from friends, relatives and employers. However, individuals with low work satisfaction were less likely to approach their employer or supervisor. This may indicate a management problem - those most in need of management assistance were perceiving that management was unable or unwilling to provide assistance.

A good example of a specific tourism industry sector that lacks research on stress and coping is that of the attractions sector. For the purpose of this study, an attraction will be defined as 'a named site with a specific human or natural feature which is the focus of visitor and management attention'. 3° In this study theme parks, fun parks, wildlife sanctuaries, information centres and educational centres were included in this definition. An exhaustive literature search failed to uncover research into stress and coping in such attractions, which confirms earlier statements that research into coping behaviour and stress management in the tourism industry is long overdue.

Three key aims define the present study. These aims are:


• To identify and describe systematically the specific stressors of front-line tourism attractions personnel.

• To record and describe the coping strategies used to deal with these stressors.

• To detail management 's influence on stress and coping in attractions.

Methodology A total of 102 front-line staff from 14 Australian attractions were studied using direct interviews with open-ended questions. Open-ended questions were used to allow respondents to describe their feelings about particular situations, compared with fixed- response questions where a selection of predeter- mined answers would be required. Questions were asked in order to obtain information to fulfil the three aims of the study.

The attractions from which respondents were drawn represent a wide range of facilities, types of visitors and staff levels. Attractions included three of Australia's major theme parks (with up to 1 million visitors per year), educational centres, wildlife sanctuaries, cultural centres and information centres.

The tourist flow for these attractions was evalu- ated based on the flow of visitors per hour. For example, a heavy flow was a continuous flow all day, while a light flow was less than five visitors per hour. In some cases this was determined on an average for the day because of peak-time variations.

Of the respondents in the sample, 58% were aged 25 years or younger and 42% were older than 25 years. All respondents had worked in their current position for at least one month. From the sample drawn, 58% of respondents had been at their job for two years or less, 42% for greater than two years. The respondents were informed by their respective supervisor/manager of the study, and participation was voluntary.

Results

Stressors for tourist attraction employees In terms of the major job stressors, 98 respondents identified 46 categories of stress at work, generating a total of 415 responses. Four respondents indicated that they experienced no stress. Figure 2 illustrates the 10 categories of stressor most frequently mentioned by front-line staff. Respondents felt that being very busy (20%) and arrogant people (34%) were important stressors in their job, but just over 65% of all respondents indicated that management was the chief source of stress in their work.

Of the 61 respondents who mentioned management as a stressor, 28% gave lack of communication as an element of stress. Lack of recognition (17%) and lack of interest (7%) were other factors contri-

Tourism Management 1995 Volume 16 Number 4 279


60

50

v40 u , l

30

20

10

,,,ca*° O ^~.'°

Work stressors

Figure 2 Top ten stressors for tourist attraction employees

buting to stress at work. Figure 3 demonstrates areas of management practices which led to a feeling of stress by most respondents.

A chi-square analysis was conducted to detect whether there was any significant difference between the type of stress experienced and (1) the sex of the respondent; (2) the age of the respondent (< = 25, >25); (3) the length of time at the job (<= 2 yrs, > 2 yrs); and (4) the size of visitor flow to the attractions (low, medium, high).

A significant difference was recorded between the type of stress experienced and (a) the length of time at the job ()~2 = 26.3, P < 0.05) and (b) the size of visitor flow (X 2 = 15.25, P < 0.05). Employees who had spent less than two years in the tourist attraction workplace reported more stress relating to organizational processes than those who had worked in their job for over two years. This indicates that with familiarity and experience, stressors such as job security and performance are less important. Em- ployees in high visitor flow workplaces experienced more work condition stressors such as crowding and litter than did their light/medium flow counterparts.

A 'trend' in the results indicated that some difference is present between males and females and the type of stress experienced (g2=15.23, P < 0.05). Male respondents indicated more stress relating to organizational processes such as performance, making mistakes and job security, while females recorded higher frequencies for stress relating to role characteristics such as conflicting duties, lack of assistance and confusion with service. There was no

No consideration Confusion oriorities

Watching t No1

Think self kn, Dmunication %)

Talk no/actior

System cumbersome

Distant

Lack tck inten cognition

7%)

Others

Figure 3 Management induced stressors as perceived by tourist attraction employees

significant difference between the source of stress and the age of respondents.

Coping behaviour Given that numerous forms of stress were experienced by 98 of the 102 respondents, what coping mechanisms did they use? Figure 4 illustrates that 45% of all respondents coped by talking to their co-workers. Other popular coping behaviours were: reporting to the supervisor (36%); trying to enjoy oneself and make the most of the situation (33%);

45

40

35

~ 30

'~ 25

20

r~ 15

10

Coping behaviours

F igure 4 T o p ten cop ing b e h a v i o u r s used by tour i s t

attraction emptoyees


Stress arid coping in tourist attraction employees: J Law et al.

Table 1 Positive and negative management actions as perceived by tourist attraction employees

Positive actions % resp. Negative actions % resp.

Approachable managemen t 52.9 Lack of communicat ion 33.3 Casual mgt/good a tmosphere 35.3 Ill infl~rmed 32.4 Good job security 27.4 Slow reaction to complaints 26.5 Training 22.5 Too high status 24.5 Good pay 22.5 No recognition/appreciation 17.6 Rotation lg.6 No incentives 17.6 Easy to contact 12.7 All talk no action 13.14 Good emergency provision I 1.8 Mgt no direct experience 11.8 Good communicat ion 1 l.g Unapproachable 9.8 Flexible 9.14 Casuals treated as insignificant 14.14

taking home problems to friends and family (27%); and working harder (16%).

The chi-squared statistic was again applied to discover any significant difference between the coping behaviours used and the variables: (1) sex; (2) age (>=25, <25); (3) length of time at the job (<=2yrs , >2yrs); and (4) the size of visitor flow into the attraction (low, medium, high). No significant difference was recorded between any of the variables and coping behaviours.

Management actions Considering that over 65% of all respondents indicated that management was a source of stress in their work, it is important to review management actions that were seen as positive or negative by employees. Table 1 lists the positive and negative actions most frequently mentioned by employees.

Over 50% of respondents stated that approachable management was a positive aspect. Casual management and a good atmosphere (35%); good job security (27%); training and good pay (both 22.5%) were positive management actions. Con- versely, a lack of communication (33%) and ill- informed staff (32%) were most frequently mentioned by respondents as negative actions.

Finally, respondents made a total of 40 suggestions regarding what management could do to assist them in making their job more enjoyable. The 10 suggestions most frequently mentioned are illus- trated in Figure 5.

Over 40% of respondents said management needed to improve the communication levels between management and workers, while 32% suggested management needed to show greater recognition of workers and 27.5% suggested the need to provide some incentives.

Discussion

Stressors

One of the primary aims of this research was the systematic identification and description of the specific areas of stress for front-line tourism attraction personnel. As previous research has identified,

stress can differ from work situation to work situation. Thus the list of stressors generated from the interviews is relevant to the specific work conditions and unique characteristics of tourist attractions.

From analysis of this list, it is possible to identify that the stressors originate from two general areas. One relates to the organization as a whole, and the other relates to the immediate role characteristics and work demands.

Organizational characteristics and processes Management was a source of stress for 61% of respondents. This was a somewhat surprising result as management was rarely mentioned as a source of stress in previous research in other industries. However, 'poor management' was identified as con- tributing to stress in the work conducted for Tourism Training Australia. 27 The lack of reference to management as a source of stress in other research may

4O

35

30 t-, -~ 25 t- o ~" 20

15

10

o,>-o i • ,o<" f i .~: o+ .,@o ~,< _a> ,+> o,o

ooO<> ,< oo+¢ , .+, / o.~ °0 o4,.

Recommended management actions

Figure 5 Recommended management actions



be because 'management ' encompasses many different descriptions which would relate to stress. As Figure 3 illustrates, a lack of communication, recognition and interest were important management- induced sources of stress for many respondents. Front-line workers felt they were always the last to receive information regarding organizational change and generally felt they were not informed of, let alone allowed to participate in, any of the decision- making process.

Respondents felt they needed to receive information or feedback regarding performance. Front-line workers usually realized that they are an integral part of the overall operation but, too frequently, respondents felt that management did not understand or acknowledge their importance. Lack of recognition was perceived as a major management- induced stressor (Figure 3).

Job security was also one of 'top ten sources of stress' for respondents in this study. Some respondents felt they needed to work hard at their jobs in order to stay on the payroll. High employee turnover is common in attractions, often due to the fact that much work revolves around peak and seasonal variations. Job loss can become a significant source of concern, frustration and loss of motivation. 3~

Job demands and role characteristics Demands placed on employees as a result of their job characteristics can be sources of stress. Job demands were mentioned by over 40% of respondents, indicating that these are a prominent source of work stress. The major stressors identified were uncooperative clients and personal responsibility. This is a similar result to that identified by Tourism Training Australia, which found the 'requirement to deal with the public on a continuous day to day basis' to be a major stressor. ~7 Tourists pay a considerable amount of money to enter attractions and pressure is placed on the front-line staff to ensure visitors are satisfied with their experiences. Given the high volume and variety of interpersonal contact in attractions, stressful situations associated with people are inevitable. Indeed, significant results from this study indicate that front-line employees in high visitor flow workplaces experienced more work condition stressors such as crowds, litter and equipment problems than did those with fewer visitors. It is suggested that training programmes designed to assist employees to handle difficult clients and to manage visitor-related stress be implemented, particularly in attractions with high visitor pressure. In addition, attraction managers must ensure that employees are provided with adequate breaks in keep- ing with their workload.

Bad weather conditions were a source of stress for 12% of workers as they made the job extremely uncomfortable. This was particularly a problem in attractions where employees worked outdoors. They

generally felt that management were often unaware of or insensitive to how difficult it is to maintain performance under adverse physical conditions.

Together, boredom and repetitive duties were mentioned by 29% of respondents as sources of stress in their work. Boredom and repetitive work have been found to be closely linked. 32 Research indicates that these two stressors can produce stress as fast as, perhaps even faster than, the more traditional type of stressor (eg long hours, heavy workloads). Solutions to these problems may include increasing the number of breaks or rotating staff, although the appropriate strategies would de- pend on the individuals and the situation.

Although many of the jobs may be repetitive, 36% of respondents indicated that they were very busy, there was a lack of assistance and there was not enough staff. Management need to assess this situation immediately before the quality of service is affected and visitor dissatisfaction results.

Coping The second aim of this study was to record and describe the coping strategies used to deal with the stressors experienced by respondents when at work. The diverse array of behaviours are all potentially effective strategies depending on the individual and the circumstances.

'Talking to others' is the most prominent coping strategy used by respondents in this study. Often assistance or guidance from others who have helpful information related to the stressful situation, or even talking to people who will listen, can be an effective strategy to reduce stress. However, this strategy may not change the stressor situation and may be described as a short-term solution.

Talking to others may be more effective where the employee speaks to his or her supervisor about the problem, lodges a formal complaint or undertakes a problem-solving discussion with co-workers. As a coping strategy, talking to supervisors was adopted by just over 36% of the respondent employees in this study.

A number of respondents used self-discipline to assist them in coping with stressful situations. Such coping strategies have not received a great deal of recognition in previous research but, as the results indicate, 28% of respondents used them. For example, faced with a stressful situation such as long queues and hot weather, workers might try to enjoy themselves and make the most of the situation by taking the opportunity to meet new people.

Some of the respondents in this study indicated that working harder and 'taking the challenge' re- duced stress. In the short term, these strategies can be very effective (eg a heavy workload is solved by working harder) but there is a fine line between 'digging in intelligently' to progress work, and over- working. It is suggested that, over a long period of


time, this coping behaviour could be detrimental, in a sense becoming a source of stress for the individual.

A number of respondents changed their strategy or analysed the situation in order to cope with stress. Examples of this sort of behaviour included being organized and prepared, adapting to changed conditions, clarifying the situation and thinking logically or 'mindfully'. 33 As the results indicate, these methods were commonly used by respondents.

Physical diversion describes an array of strategies which cope with stress through physical forms of control. As a coping behaviour, it can be both constructive and destructive. A constructive behaviour is one where the actions and attitudes prom- ote health, enjoyment and increase productivity and development, ks For example, deep breathing, going for a walk, relaxation and exercise are constructive coping strategies. In a situation of job overload, some respondents suggested that to sit back, take a few deep breaths and relax, even if momentarily, can help to regain control of the situation.

Other respondents chose to 'switch off', perform another activity or think non-work thoughts in order to cope with stress. Winnubust 34 and Schafer 2s describe the individuals who use these strategies as 'avoiders' as opposed to 'copers'. The coper seeks out stress situations in order to cope with them, whereas the avoider solves his or her stress by simply denying them.

Posit ive and negative managemen t actions

Referring to Table 1, it can be observed that a range of different opinions exist among the respondents. What were positive management actions for some respondents were viewed as negative management actions by other respondents. Nevertheless, the information collected is important because it does identify specific areas in which managers in tourist attractions are perceived as helpful (thereby making the workplace better) or not helpful (thereby creat- ing areas of stress for the respondents).

Lack of communication was reported by respondents as being a major source of stress. This result is highlighted again as over 30% of respondents mentioned lack of communication as a negative action of management. These results simply imply that this is an area which managers need to recognize and address as causing stress for workers.

One positive aspect of management identified in the sampled attractions, and mentioned by over 50% of respondents, was that management was approachable. It is interesting to note that the management actions which respondents indicated as being a positive aspects in the workplace were those that related to general work conditions and career development. In comparison, the management actions which were considered negative and made the work situation difficult were those generally associated with the


organization as a whole (ie the structure, policies and processes).

Suggested managemen t actions

Respondents in this study have identified a wide range of actions that management can take in order to improve the workplace and assist them to cope with stress. Essentially, the list developed in this study is useful because it provides direction, from the front-line employee point of view, to specific management strategies which can help to alleviate the amount of stress experienced at work.

Of greatest importance is the need to improve communication levels. This is an area which has received relatively little consideration in previous stress research, but one which has been strongly highlighted throughout the results in this study. In addition, a considerable number of respondents indicated that they require some form of incentive and recognition for their work and achievements. Tourist attraction managers need to recognize the important role these front-line employees play in the success of the attraction, and provide incentives for future success.

Conclusions

Previous research has emphasized the need to identify and understand the specific relationship between stress and coping. However, in the first instance it is useful to describe the types of stressors and coping behaviours used, particularly in a new field of study. The present study adds to previous research on stress in the workplace which has tended to focus on factories or machine-dominated environments, not the 'people orientated' tourism industry. Job positions in the tourism industry, in particular front-line personnel, involve constant interaction with people, requiring effective interpersonal and communication skills. The results from this study detail specific types of stressors and coping behaviours used by employees in such positions, at least within the limita- tions of a range of major Australian tourist attractions.

Further studies could assist in understanding the relationships between stress and coping. Examples of such research could include attempts to discover links between coping behaviours and types of stressors; an examination of the effectiveness of coping strategies; or an investigation of the influence of personality on perceptions of stress and coping behaviours used.

Arguably, the identification of managers and management behaviour as a principal source of stress may reflect on the lack of training/education of managers in the attractions sector. This line of thinking suggests the need for further research to explore the perceived effectiveness of management in terms of experience and education, an opportun-



ity which should develop as more college and university graduates find management positions in the attractions sector.

The results of these research studies could further assist management in understanding and dealing with work stress, making the tourism industry a better place in which to work. After all, the ultimate objectives are satisfied, energetic, innovative and high-performing employees, the maintenance of quality service and a high level of visitor satisfaction.

Re ferences

ISethi, A S and Schuler, R S (eds) Handbook of Organisational Stress and Coping Strategies Ballinger, USA (1984) 2Selye, H 'Stress and health: a perspective on aging and retire- ment', in Sethi, A S and Schuler, R S (eds) Handbook of Organisational Stress and Coping Strategies Ballinger, USA (1984) 3Fontana, D Managing Stress British Psychological Society and Routledge, London (1989) 3 4Schuler, R S 'Integrative transactional process model', in Beehr, T A and Bhagat, R S (eds) Human Stress and Cognition in Organisations: an Integrated Perspective Wiley, New York (1985) 5Schuler, R S 'Organisational stress and coping: a model and overview', in Sethi, A S and Schuler, R S (eds) Handbook of Organisational Stress and Coping Strategies Ballinger, USA (1984) 6McGrath, J E Social and Psychological Factors in Stress Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York (1970) 7Kahn, R L, Wolfe, P M, Quinn, R P and Snoek, J D Organisa- tional Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity Wiley, New York (1964) 8Hackman, J R, 'Task and task performance in research on stress', in McGrath, J E (ed) Social and Psychological Factors in Stress Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York (1970) 9Warr, P and Wall, T Work and Wellbeing Penguin, Harmonds- worth (1984) U~Yates, J E, Managing Stress Library of Public Congress, New York (1979) UFrench, J R P and Chaplan, R D 'Organisational stress and individual strain' in Adams, J D (ed) Understanding and Manag- ing Stress: a Book of Readings Uni Associates, San Diego (1980) 12Beehr, T A and Bhagat, R S (eds) Human Stress and Cognition in Organisations: an Integrated Perspective Wiley, New York (1985) ~3Mitchel, T R, Dowling, P J, Kabanoff, B V and Larson, L R People in Organisations McGraw-Hill, Australia (1988) ~4Zeithaml, V A, Berry, L L and Parausuraman, A, 'Communica-

tion and control processes in the delivery of service quality' J Marketing 52 (2) 35-47 tSSmith, J C Stress Scripting Praeger, USA (1991) ~'Schuler, R S 'Organisational stress and coping: a model and overview', in Sethi, A S and Schuler, R S (eds) Handbook of Organisational Stress and Coping Strategies Ballinger, USA (1984) ~7Burke, R J and Belcourt, M L "Managerial role stress and coping responses' J Business Administration 1974 5 55-68 ~SBurke, R J and Weir, T 'Coping with the stress of managerial occupations', in Cooper, C L and Payne, R (eds) Current Concerns in Occupational Stress Wiley, New York (1980) 19Murphy, L R, 'Individual coping strategies' in Cooper, C L and Smith, M J (eds) Job Stress and Blue Collar Work Wiley, New York (1985) 2°Pearlin, L T and Schooler, C, "The structure of coping" J Health and Social Behaviour 1978 24 17%193 21Benner, P E Stress and Satisfaction on the Job Praeger, USA (1984) 22McLean, A A Work Stress Addison Wesley series on Occupa- tional Stress (1979) 23Burke, R J and Weir, T "Coping with the stress of managerial occupations' in Cooper, C L and Payne, R (eds) Current Concerns and Occupational Stress Wiley, New York (1980) 24Sarabahksh, M, Carson, D and Lindgren, E 'Hospitality managers' stress and quality of life: recommendations for change' Hospitality Education and Research J 1989 13 (3) 23%244 25j Ashton, 1980 cited in Sarabahksh, M, Carson, D and Lind- gren, E 'Hospitality managers' stress and quality of life: recommendations for change' Hospitality Education and Research J 1989 13 (3) 23%244 Z6McFillen, J M, Riegel, C D and Enz, C A 'Why restaurant managers quit and how to keep them" Cornell HRA Quarterly 1986 27 (3) 37-43 27KPMG Peat Marwick Management Consultants The Tourism Labour Market: Constraints and Attitudes Sydney (1991) 51 2SRoss, G F 'Type, severity and incidence of work stressors among Australian hospitality industry employees" Australian J Leisure and Recreation 1993 3 (4) 5-12 29Ross, G F 'Help-seeking responses to work stress among rural and regional hospitality industry workers' Regional J Social Issues 1993 (27) 92-98 3°Pearce, P L 'Analysing tourist attractions' J Tourism Studies 1991 2 46-55 (quote p 46) 3~Schafer, W Stress Management for Wellness Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York (1987) 32Cox, T 'Repetitive work' in Cooper, L L and Payne, R (eds) Current Concerns and Occupational Stress Wiley, New York (1980) ~3Langer, E J Mindfulness Addison Wesley, Reading, MA (1989) 34Winnubust, J A M 'Stress in organisations' in Drenth, P J D, Thierry, H and deWolfe, C J (eds) Handbook of Work and Organisational Psychology Vol 1, Wiley, New York (1984)


stress and coping in tourist attraction employees

Documents