23-08-2012, 01:00 PM
Effectiveness of a Comprehensive Worksite Stress Management Program: Combining Organizational and Individual Interventions
1Effectiveness of a Comprehensive.pdf (Size: 116.2 KB / Downloads: 36)
A comprehensive worksite stress management program consisting of self-management
training and a stressor reduction process was evaluated in a pre-post,
treatment-control design in four comparable facilities. Results showed that over
a 3-month period those individuals attending self-management training improved
on emotional well-being measures. Organizational data suggested that
their work-units’ productivity increased and absenteeism decreased over the
same period. Results support the value of combining self-management training
and stressor reduction to produce positive individual and organizational outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
Positive affect or emotional well-being has been identified as an important
factor in organizational issues such as productivity (Wright & Bonett, 1997;
Wright & Staw, 1999), extra-role proficiency (George & Brief, 1992; Munz &
Kohler, 1997), absenteeism (George, 1989), and organizational assessment
(Munz, Huelsman, Konald, & McKinney, 1996). Coˆte´ (1999), after reviewing
the recent literature on affect and performance, concluded that affect is a
stronger predictor of job performance than is job satisfaction.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were customer service/sales representatives from a large telecommunications
company. Four comparable work units in four different cities
were selected with two work units receiving the CSMP (self-management training
and stressor reduction process) and two work units serving as a control
group. Each work unit employed approximately 75 employees. A 3-month period
existed between premeasurement and postmeasurement.
For the CSMP group, a total of 55 participants completed self-management
training and the pre- and postmeasures. For the control group, 24 participants
completed the pre- and postmeasures. There were no significant differences between
the CSMP group and control group in terms of how long they had worked
for the company (p > .05) and how long they had held their current job title (p
> .05). Simultaneously with the self-management training, each work unit of the
CSMP group completed the stressor reduction process. Pre- and postmeasures
of sales productivity (revenue per order) and absenteeism were collected for
each work unit.
Self-Management Training
The individual training component of the CSMP provides conceptual information
about the nature of stress, self-assessments to be used as awareness
building tools, and skills training in the use of personal strategies to manage
one’s stress response to work and personal stressors. Conceptual input includes
information about (1) the interactive influence of environmental demands and
personal characteristics on the initial reaction to stressors and how this reaction
affects thoughts, feelings, and action; (2) the stress response as an early warning
indicator of excessive strain in these areas; (3) the escalating nature of the stress
response and stress outcomes because of their effect on environmental demands;
and (4) the value of self-management in minimizing the stress response and
contributing to adaptive behavior.
Measures: Individual Level
At the individual level, the emotional well-being of participants completing
training in the self-management component of the CSMP and those volunteering
to serve as controls was assessed using three measures: the Perceived Stress
Survey (Cohen, Kamarack, & Mermelstein, 1983), the Center for Epidemiological
Studies-Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977), and the Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The Work Assessment Survey
was developed for the current study to assess employee work environment
perceptions.
Work Assessment Survey (WAS)
The Work Assessment Survey was developed for the current study to assess
employee work environment perceptions. The WAS contains 20 items that
are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1” = strongly disagree to “5”
= strongly agree with the statement. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted
to examine the multidimensionality of the scale. All pre-data (CSMP and
control group) were used for a total sample size of 191 cases. The 20 items on
the WAS were analyzed using principal axis factoring (PAF) with varimax rotation.
Based on the results of the screen test (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996), it was
determined that the first five factors would be extracted in a second PAF with
varimax rotation. One question was eliminated from this analysis due to its low
factor loading (< .25) and its failure to sample the construct domain of the five
factors (Nunnally, 1967). A .38 minimum factor loading criterion was used. The
number of items per factor ranged from 2 to 5. The five factors accounted for
52.7% of the total variance. Table 2 displays the results of the factor analysis,
the factor names, and the internal consistencies of the factors.