Introduction
Stress has been linked to multiple physical and mental challenges for individuals experiencing its adverse effects. However, it is important to consider organizational stress as a barrier to productivity and a healthy work environment. Researchers define organizational stress as circumstances in which the organizational requests succeed the individual’s abilities to succeed in the aforementioned tasks (Cannizzaro et al., 2019). While not all stress correlates with negative outcomes, it is essential to differentiate positive stress (deadlines, work objectives, and policies) from negative stress (conflicts, unattainable expectations, and a lack of work-life balance). Thus, there are various potential sources of stress that ultimately impact one’s performance, job satisfaction, and motivation. As a result, employees experiencing such difficulties negatively impact organizational goals (Cooper and Pestonjee, 2021).
Sources of Organizational Stress
While work-related stress factors are less numerous compared to sources of personal stress, it is essential to highlight the complexity of the issue. For example, the research exemplifying the sources of stress reported by pilots highlights irregular hours, anti-social hours, and divergence of values as the main stressors (Cahill et al., 2020). A fellow study illustrates that challenging relationships between clients and employees, professional interpersonal relationships, a lack of management, and inefficient leadership support are additional disruptors of the organizational process (Ryan et al., 2019). Based on the aforementioned information, it is certain that work-related stress is a limitation that can occur on multiple levels, including the work environment, schedule, leadership, and team management. However, a distinction is made between stress and the presence of control. Hence, a level of discipline and guidance, while perceived as a barrier, is positive stress.
Positive vs. Negative Stress
The distinction between positive and negative stress is the effects of organizational goals. As exemplified in the image correlating stress and performance, too few restraints create circumstances in which employees are inactive and do not fulfill demands (Stein, 2021). Thus, a project with no deadlines is less likely to create motivation for team members toward high performance. Drivers for positive stress include autonomy, ambiguity, and certain restraints (Albort-Morant et al., 2020). Negative stress, on the other hand, is illustrated as correlating with similar performance levels as its lack, as it creates burnout and anger. It relates to more complex issues such as conflicts within the organization, a lack of efficient and supporting leaders, and expectations that cannot be fulfilled by the workforce. The presence of such stressors is linked to a variety of adverse outcomes.
Organizational Stress and Negative Outcomes
The image relates to one of the main outcomes of work-related stress. Namely, stress creates work impairment, which, in turn, is experienced through financial losses (Street et al., 2018). It is certain that the economic barriers implemented based on stressors can create major challenges for the company in which employees cannot succeed in fulfilling their professional objectives. Moreover, restraints have also been linked to adverse health outcomes for employees (Cooper and Pestonjee, 2021). Such factors impact both the individuals affected by the phenomenon and the organizations where they operate. On the one hand, team members are faced with potentially life-threatening conditions. On the other hand, the absenteeism and economic losses correlating with health insurance companies and the need for training of new employees is a barrier that the organization is to tackle. The relation between stress and performance is another element that is to be illustrated.
Stress and Performance
As exemplified in the graph, COVID-related stress has negative effects on contextual performance if not mediated by the presence of a safety culture (Saleem et al., 2021). Thus, performance is highly affected by the presence of well-being disruptors within companies with an unbalanced environment. The findings are supported by multiple studies highlighting different industries, such as aviation (Cahill et al., 2020). Performance is a variable that affects most corporate elements, including profit, productivity, innovation, and development. As a result, under the condition that stress induces circumstances that affect performance, it correlates with overall business processes and outcomes. However, the graph also implied that intervening in the phenomenon with elements such as the establishment of a safety culture can positively impact results. Furthermore, minimizing stress can potentially address limitations such as low profitability, performance, and low competitiveness in the market.
Outcomes of Stress Interventions
The image illustrates that stress creates circumstances in which employees lose close to 30 minutes every day due to stress and miss days because of the need to take time off due to stress-induced barriers (AIS, 2022). Thus, it is certain that by addressing the strain and work pressure experienced by team members, organizations will experience less absenteeism and a lack of productivity. Moreover, companies can combat economic challenges if effective interventions are implemented (Hassard et al., 2018). As mentioned previously, stress also affects well-being and least to burnout. Hence, employees are more likely to be motivated and satisfied with their professional positions as limitations are minimized through corporate initiatives. As a result, combating stressors and various elements leading to tension facilitates the establishment of a balanced and productive workplace in which team members are willing to highlight their best performance to fulfill their work goals.
Recommendations
The graph presents interventions that have most extensively been implemented in European companies. As exemplified in the image, counseling, organizational culture, and coping mechanisms have been applied most commonly within companies (Molek-Winiarska and Molek-Kozakowska, 2020). Thus, allowing employees to access resources related to psychological help can minimize organizational stress. Moreover, implementing a corporate culture based on workplace safety and communication facilitates benefits. Employees can participate in extracurricular training related to coping mechanisms, physical exercise initiatives, and health promotion interventions to address stressors correlating with their work environment. The recommendations are evidence-based frameworks that reduce professional stress and, as a result, facilitate positive outcomes such as increased profit, productivity, and motivation. Companies that adhere to the elements mentioned previously will not only assist employees in achieving a balanced overview of challenges and issues but also achieve positive outcomes in regard to financial and organizational goals.
Conclusion
Stress is not necessarily an organizational barrier since positive stress is linked to positive outcomes. Implementing guidelines, deadlines, and performance management creates standards that employees are to follow. However, negative stress correlates with low productivity and performance. Thus, it is certain that implementing interventions that allow employees to confront limitations facilitating stressors is recommended. As a result, companies adhering to such corporate elements are able to address negative outcomes, including absenteeism, low job satisfaction, lack of motivation, and decreased efficiency. Stress prevention is important to be considered from an evidence-based perspective. Various programs and initiatives can combat the adverse implications and lead to beneficial changes. Combating negative stress generates the establishment of a healthy work environment, competitiveness in the market, and an organizational culture that aims to limit potential disruptors.
References
AIS, 2022. Workplace stress. The American Institute of Stress. Web.
Albort-Morant, G. et al. (2020) ‘How does positive work-related stress affect the degree of innovation development?’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), p.520.
Cahill, J. et al. (2020) ‘The requirements for new tools for use by pilots and the aviation industry to manage risks pertaining to work-related stress (WRS) and wellbeing, and the ensuing impact on performance and safety’, Technologies, 8(3), p.40.
Cannizzaro, E. et al. (2019) ‘Work-related stress, physio-pathological mechanisms, and the influence of environmental genetic factors’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(20), p.4031.
Cooper, C.L. and Pestonjee, D.M. (2021) ‘Organizational stress around the world’
Hassard, J. et al. (2018) ‘The cost of work-related stress to society: a systematic review’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(1), pp.1–17.
Molek-Winiarska, D. and Molek-Kozakowska, K. (2020) ‘Are organizations committed to stress management interventions?’, Employee Relations: The International Journal, 42(6), pp.1309–1325.
Ryan, C., Bergin, M. and Wells, J.S.G. (2019) ‘Work-related stress and well-being of direct care workers in Intellectual Disability Services: a scoping review of the literature’, International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 67(1), pp.1–22.
Saleem, F., Malik, M.I. and Qureshi, S.S. (2021) ’Work stress hampering employee performance during COVID-19: is safety culture needed?’, Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
Stein, K. (2021) The tipping point of stress. BHP Blog – Behavioral Health Partners (BHP) – University of Rochester Medical Center. Web.
Street, T., Lacey, S. and Somoray, K. (2018) ‘Employee stress, reduced productivity, and interest in a Workplace Health Program: a case study from the Australian Mining Industry’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(1), p.94.