The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Ilies, R., Dimotakis, N., & De Pater, I.E. (2010). Psychological and physiological reactions to high workloads: Implications for well-being. Personnel Psychology, 63(2), 407-432.

Daily workload can be defined as employees’ perceptions of the work demands placed on them in a given day. Employee perceptions of high daily workloads occur when they feel that they have been given more work in a given day than they can effectively complete. Perceptions of a high daily workload can negatively impact employee well-being in two major ways:

• Perceived increases in daily workload throughout the work day are related to increases in employee blood pressure during the work day, and when the employee punches out at the end of the day.
• Perceived increases in daily workload throughout the work day are also related to increases in the employee’s emotional distress throughout the work day, and when the employee punches out at the end of the work day.

Because employee perceptions of a high daily workload can have negative consequences for the employee’s well-being, it is important for supervisors to be aware of ways to minimize these negative reactions.

Ways to Alleviate Negative Reactions to High Workloads

It is possible to lessen the negative impact of a high daily workload on employee well-being. Two important considerations for reducing this negative impact are as follows:

• Job Control. Job control is a stable job characteristic that refers to how much freedom an employee has in completing his or her daily work tasks. The more control an employee has over how to complete a high daily workload, the less likely that employee will be to experience emotional distress or increased blood pressure.
• Organizational Support. Organizational support refers to the degree to which employees feel that the organization values their contributions, cares about their well-being, and supports them in carrying out their job successfully and managing a high daily workload when necessary. Employees who feel that they have adequate support from the organization as a whole are less likely to have negative reactions to a high daily workload.

Practical Implications

Because high daily workloads can lead to decreased well-being in employees, supervisors should capitalize on ways to protect the well-being of their employees. Certain job characteristics, such as job control and organizational support, help diminish negative reactions to high daily workloads. Ultimately, by implementing these job characteristics, supervisors can also potentially decrease long-term strain, emotional burnout, and cardiovascular risk in their employees. In return, organizations will also benefit from promoting greater well-being in their employees and minimizing the strain that a high daily workload can place on their employees.

Interpretation by:

Mackenzi Harmon

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when demands are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 965-976.

Should a person’s life revolve around work? High job demands, which are signified by a high level of quantitative job demands reflected in a high workload and time pressure, are very common in present-day jobs, and due to the fact that organizations see positive performance results from very demanding jobs, high job demands are not going anywhere anytime soon.

For employees who are faced with too many job demands, continuously being busy with job-related thoughts during their time off reduces work engagement and drains energy, which will impair their well-being in the long term. Fortunately, psychological detachment is a remedy for such a problem.

Detachment vs. Disengagement

Detachment from work (during off-job time) refers to the process of temporarily disengaging from work while one is not on the job. As a result, detachment provides employees the chance to calm down and rebuild or recover their emotional and energetic resources. Detachment can therefore be viewed as a buffer against the negative effects of having excessive job demands, such as constant mental or physical stress, and job strains.

This is an important distinction from disengagement, which occurs during work hours and can be viewed as a counterproductive work activity. Disengagement could be caused by a general lack of interest in one’s job or in the organization in which one works.

Detachment from High Job Demands

Demanding jobs produce a stressful short-term experience, cause poor well-being over time, and often result in high health care costs. However, detachment from work provides recovery for such impending issues. When organizations provide and encourage detachment outlets for employees, such as vacation days and leisure activities, it facilitates a buffering effect against the negative effects of having too many job demands.

This form of recovery is particularly important because, while high demands might be met with effort and energy investment in the short term, they will eventually lead to negative effects on work engagement in the long term. Excessive job demands are related to an increase in mental and physical complaints and to a decrease in work engagement over a period of time when detachment is low. Lack of detachment from work during off-job time indicates an increase in emotional exhaustion 1 year later.

Practical Implications

These findings are beneficial for those managers who are interested in preventing burnout, or the effects of long-term exhaustion, amongst employees. Managers should also note that factors that relate to job-stress recovery outside of work are important. An unhealthy preoccupation with work during off-job time speeds along employees’ energy depletion processes as well as their likelihood of burnout. Additionally, organizations may have annual training reminding at risk employees to detach from their jobs while away from work. On specific example of this would be for an organization to encourage employees to create an after work competitive intramural sports team that will facilitate detachment.

Employees should detach from work during off-job time, especially when job demands are high. For instance, employees could use rituals such as winding down at the end of the work day or actively use commuting time to disengage from job-related thoughts. Additionally, employees may seek to engage in off-job activities that command their full attention in order to increase their detachment from work during off-job time, such as participating in a special interest group or volunteering iin a church or community service organization.

Interpretation by:

Kandace Waddy

DeGarmo Group

Workplaces are generally thought to be stress-inducing environments on many levels.  Various studies have examined task-related stressors (e.g., high work load), but it is also important to consider the influence of social stressors – psychological/physical strains that are social in nature (e.g., co-worker conflict, poor group climate, unjust treatment, and verbal aggression from customers).

Buffering Social Stressors

It is valuable to understand characteristics of those who can successfully buffer (cope) against social stressors.  Therefore, research has looked toward understanding core self-evaluations.

Core Self Evaluations are individual characteristics that represent fundamental evaluations people form concerning themselves, other people, and the world in general. Core Self Evaluations consist of four distinct individual traits that vary from person to person and include:

• Self-esteem – general confidence and assurance in oneself.
• Locus of control – beliefs about what causes good or bad events (i.e., environmental [external], or individual causes [internal]).
• Generalized self-efficacy – views of individual ability to ascertain goals.
• Neuroticism – tendency to experience more negative emotional states (e.g., anger, anxiety, guilt).

These traits take part in mediating how one copes with stress and can ultimately buffer against unwanted stressors. For example, an individual who has an internal locus of control, has high self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy, while low in neuroticism may, generally, cope with stress/stressors better than an individual who has an external locus of control, is low in self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy, yet high in neuroticism.

Conservation of Resources

Core self evaluations are important to buffering against stressors, therefore one must examine the idea that individuals can gain or lose resources from four principle categories, which include valued resources:

• Object Resources – such as place of dwelling and vehicles.
• Condition Resources – such as status in the organization and place in the community.
• Personal Resources – such as feelings of achievement.
• Energy Resources – interpersonal or time investments.

Social stressors in the workplace (e.g., conflicts with coworkers, unpleasant workplaces, or organizational politics) may threaten and/or cause a depletion of valued resources. However, these stressors can be buffered by higher core self evaluations.

For example, being viewed negatively at work (losing condition resources), experiencing feelings of failure (losing personal resources), or expending energy coping with negative social situations (using up energy resources) can all deplete resources.  These resources can be better maintained with higher levels of core self evaluations and can ultimately lead to higher coping of job strains.

Job Related Outcomes

Social Stressors relate to negative job outcomes such as low levels of job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and a lack of helping behaviors.

Individuals reporting more social stressors at work perceive that their personal resources are being threatened or are expending additional resources (e.g., time and energy).

For example, when social stressors are present in the workplace, an individual spends time thinking about how to manage and possibly avoid these situations. Individuals, therefore, expend time and energy, thus resulting in greater strains and less energy for obtaining goals and helping others.

Again, greater core self evaluations are relevant and necessary as those possessing such characteristics are better equipped and more able to minimize/buffer the aforementioned negative situations (i.e., how to manage and possibly avoid social stressors) that lead to depleted resources and ultimately to negative job related outcomes.

Implications for Practice

When dealing with social stressors in the workplace:

• Promote positive social climates and establish norms against social injustice and/or aggression – this should lead to fewer social stressors and therefore fewer resources needed to maintain/buffer against social stressors.
• Consider employee selection and placement – individual traits such as core self evaluations are stable (i.e., enduring individual characteristics); therefore altering these characteristics may be impractical.  It is important to assess workplace social stressors and hire and/or place appropriate individuals for the job and/or situation (i.e., if there are high social stressors, seek individuals with high core self evaluations).

Ultimately, by understanding the work situation and level of stress, while evaluating (or at least understanding) an employee’s ability to cope through core self evaluations and conservation of resources there exists the possibility of mediating social stressors at work. In addition, by doing so negative job related outcomes and job strains can be avoided – increasing an employee’s resources and focus to achieve organizational goals and uphold organizational values.

Interpretation by:

Adam Bradshaw

The DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Grzywacz, J.G., Arcury, T.A., Marin, A., Carrillo, L. Burke, B., Coates, M.L., & Quandt, S.A. (2007). Work-Family Conflict: Experiences and Health Implications Among Immigrant Latinos. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1119-1130.

While the premise of what is termed “work-family conflict” is simple – demands from, and responsibilities to, work and family interfere with each other –  the way different populations are affected is more complicated.

Work-family conflict explained

There are three major types of work-family conflict:

• Time-based conflict – missing a family event due to work responsibility

• Strain-based conflict – mistreating family after a stressful day at work

• Behavior-based conflict – treating family members like subordinates at work

The demands naturally associated with both work and family life consume a person’s limited resources, leaving individuals with too little time or energy to attend to activities with family.

How work-family conflict affects people

There are a number of serious health-related consequences associated with the stress related to work-family conflict: depression, anxiety, somatic symptoms, obesity, high blood pressure, etc.

Having to attend to these health-related issues can then cause even greater conflict, due to the increase in demands and time away from both work and family.

The missing link

While there is a wealth of knowledge on work-family conflict, a missing link remains on how different populations are affected. The majority of research studying work-family conflict has focused on white, educated, working professionals – and until recently there has been a lack of research focusing on any other ethnic or socioeconomic group. The different cultural and social circumstances surrounding populations may be instrumental in the way they are affected by work-family conflicts.

How the Latino population differs

There are some specific ways in which the work-family conflict differs for the Latino population.

• Cultural orientation

The Latino culture tends to have a more collectivist (group/family) focus, where hard work is seen as a way to secure the well-being of the family (immediate and extended), not just the individual. Immigrants from Latin countries have tended to come to the United States to attain greater financial wealth for their families. Because of the cultural emphasis on and expectation of working hard, many traditional episodes of work-family conflict may not be viewed as stressful by Latino workers. In essence, Latino families tend to accept the fact that the job comes first for the family.

• Gender expectations

The expectations of women in Latino populations tend to remain traditional: their primary responsibilities are child-rearing and household maintenance. The virtual necessity of two-income households can cause greater amounts of work-family conflict for females in Latino cultures, resulting in more harmful physical and mental effects for women.

• Job type

The nature of jobs filled primarily by immigrants tends to be non-professional, low-paying, manual labor positions. Work of this type tends to require long hours and multiple shifts – meaning many people are working both nights and weekends. This increased time spent at work can lead to greater time- and strain-based work-family conflicts for Latinos. Additionally, the high physical demands of many of the jobs filled by Latino immigrants can be exhausting, resulting in free time being spent resting rather than with family. These effects tend to be felt more strongly for Latino women than men, because of the heavy cultural emphasis on women as family caretakers.

Implications for practice

Understanding how different populations may view and be affected by work-family conflicts can assist organizations in creating and promoting policies aimed at mitigating or decreasing the negative effects of work-family conflict.

Organizations employing Latino, and particularly immigrant, populations may want to consider how instituting family-friendly policies, such as flex-time or on-site childcare could help mitigate the stress experienced by staff.

Interpretation by:

Kathleen Melcher

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., and Prussia, G. E. (2008). Employee coping with organizational change: An examination of alternative theoretical perspectives and models. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 1-36.

Employees are key players in executing organizational change initiatives. However, employees often feel great stress during these changes which may result in withdrawal from the organization through absenteeism and turnover. These actions can hinder change effectiveness and prove to be very costly to an organization, as the knowledge, skills, and abilities of their employees are lost, possibly to a competing organization. For these reasons it is important to evaluate the process by which employees appraise and handle organizational change so that steps can be taken to increase the likelihood that employees will remain committed to the organization throughout the change initiative.

How Employees Appraise Change

Often, employees will negatively appraise change, seeing it as a harm or threat to some aspect of their job. The harm is that the change has negatively affected an aspect of their work life (e.g., additional workload), and the threat is of something in their future being negatively affected (e.g., loss of job security). Many would describe feeling a sense of helplessness during these times.

Coping with Negative Appraisals?

Employees use control coping and escape coping as means of alleviating the stress related to their negative appraisal of the organizational change. Control coping occurs when an employee actively engages in the organizational change. For example, an employee who tries to see the change as a time to grow and develop is using a control coping strategy.

Escape coping is avoiding or withdrawing from the change process and taking no action to influence it. For example, an employee is escape coping when he retreats from discussing the change and believes he is powerless in it.

Both control and escape coping have important relationships with emotions in the workplace, in that control coping more often results in positive emotions whereas escape coping often results in negative emotions.

It must be noted that both coping strategies can function to produce positive emotions. For example, an employee can be hopeful in the sense that she sees the change as a time to grow (control), or she can be hopeful in the sense that, in time, things will work themselves out (escape).

Most detrimental to an organization is when employees use escape coping strategies that lead to negative emotions and associated work outcomes such as work withdrawal, abusing sick leave, and turnover.

What Can Managers Do?

The relationship between employees’ negative appraisals of organizational change and workplace outcomes is fully mediated by coping and emotions. This means negative appraisals lead to employee coping and emotions, which in turn cause either positive or negative work outcomes. Therefore, managing employees’ appraisals, coping strategies, and emotions is essential to reduce the negative workplace outcomes such as employee withdrawal, absenteeism, and turnover.

Managers can impact employees’ appraisal of organizational change by:

• Communicating organizational change information in a way that will reduce employee concerns about important job aspects (e.g., job security, job changes, reduced possibility for advancement)
• Articulating a clear vision for the changes and delineating employee roles in the new changed environment allowing employees to clearly understand their new function
• Giving employees a sense of influence and control by involving them in the change process

Managers should attempt to lessen withdrawal by acting as a role model and directly influencing employees’ likelihood to engage in escape coping and associated negative emotions. Managers may do this by:

• Demonstrating more productive nonescape-oriented coping strategies (i.e., viewing the change as an opportunity for growth)
• Answering questions and initiating discussions about the change initiative
• Sharing their own concerns and experiences

In addition, managers should celebrate small victories throughout the change process. By building in these small victories, managers will yield more positive emotions in their employees, therefore reducing withdrawal, and possibly even increasing employee commitment.

Interpretation by:

Lexy Adkins

DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Bulger, C. A., Matthews, R.A., & Hoffman, M.E. (2007). Work and Personal Life Boundary Management: Boundary Strength, Work/Personal Life Balance, and the Segmentation—Integration Continuum. Journal of Occupational Health and Psychology, 12 (4), 305-375.

Employees hold multiple roles in their lives, which can often conflict with one another. Multiple role conflict negatively impacts both job and life satisfaction and causes stress outcomes such as work withdrawal.

Multiples roles may also positively impact employees’ lives. Researchers are beginning to look at the positive impacts of holding multiple roles, including work and personal life enhancement. Furthermore, researchers have been investigating how role boundaries relate to both negative and positive impacts.

What are Role Boundaries?

Role boundaries are how individuals organize themselves in each of their multiple roles. A boundary can vary in strength depending on its permeability and flexibility.

Permeability is the extent to which one role intrudes or penetrates into another. A work boundary can be considered permeable if the employee receives calls from family while at work. A personal life boundary can be considered permeable if the employee takes work home to complete.

Flexibility is the extent to which one role can be relaxed to meet the needs of another role. There are two aspects of flexibility in relation to role boundary strength: ability and willingness.

• One may be able to flex a personal life role but is not willing to do so.
• Another person may be willing to flex a work role to meet personal life role needs but is not able or allowed.
• In other cases, a person may be both unable and unwilling or both able and willing to be flexible.

Boundary Management Profiles

The strategies that individuals use to manage their work and personal life role boundaries fall along a continuum of being fully segmented to fully integrated.

Segmentation refers to when a role is low on flexibility and permeability, maintaining a complete separation of work and personal life.

Integration refers to when a role is high on flexibility and permeability. Such an individual would be likely to bring work home or leave a family event to attend to work matters.

There are 4 basic boundary management profiles that fall along this continuum. Most individuals fall into Profile 2.

Profile 1.      Able and willing to flex both work and life boundaries, with high permeability of both.

Profile 2.      Able and willing to flex work boundary, with low work permeability; also able, but less willing to flex the personal life boundary, with low personal life permeability.

Profile 3.      Individuals who are neutral on most of the boundary flexibility and permeability measures.

Profile 4.      Able and willing to flex the work life boundary but not the personal life boundary.

Boundaries and Role Interference & Enhancement

The way in which individuals manage their role boundaries affects their experiences of work and personal life balance. A less flexible and permeable role boundary generally results in individuals experiencing more role interference.

In terms of enhancement, individuals who are able to leave work to attend to their personal lives and who are more willing to be flexible with their personal life boundary report higher work enhancement of their personal life. Flexibility has been shown to be a major predictor in role enhancement. Particularly, the more flexibility individuals have in one role, the more successful their performances are in other roles.

Implications for Practice

Deepen your understanding of employees’ boundaries. Because work and personal life balance continues to be an important issue for employees, employers must deepen their understanding of the boundaries workers set up for their competing roles.

Demonstrate your respect for multiple roles. Individuals’ perceptions that their employer encourages segmentation of work and personal life roles is negatively related to organizational commitment, whereas perceived organizational respect for multiple roles leads to organizational commitment.

Encourage flexibility in your employees’ role boundaries. This will likely enhance work and personal life balance while increasing job and life satisfaction and decreasing stress-related outcomes.

Interpretation by:

Lexy Adkins

The DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Hunter, L., Thatcher, S.M. (2007). Feeling the heat: Effects of stress, commitment, and job experience on job performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4),953-968.

It has long been acknowledged that job stress plays a role in employee performance.  This notion has its roots in what is called Attention Theory.  Simply put, Attention Theory asserts that the experience of stress has the effect of reducing an individual’s ability to concentrate on multiple tasks.  Attention is thus focused on a few critical tasks and all of an individual’s energies into completion of those tasks.  Anyone who has worked feverishly to meet a deadline understands this relationship intimately.  It has been standard fare in basic management training to point out there exists some optimal level of stress below which employees are unmotivated and above which they are overwhelmed.

Understanding types of stress

Unfortunately, managers who attempt to find an optimal stress level for their work groups frequently find their efforts produce inconsistent or downright negative results.  One reason for this may be that stress comes in more than one flavor.  Red tape, organizational politics and bureaucracy are classified as “hindrance-oriented” stressors.  These sources of stress do not usually contribute to the overall mission fulfillment of an organization but rather serve as distractions to it.  “Challenge-oriented” stressors include things such as high work load, deadlines and time pressure and directly contribute to the purpose of the organization.   Even if we identify the sources of stress, how can managers be expected to use this knowledge in their quest to increase the effectiveness of their employees?

So what is missing?

The answer may lie in a deeper understanding of attention theory and how other, perhaps less obvious considerations, may play into the relationship between stress and productivity.  Research has identified these considerations and suggests that managers can have a role in preparing for periods of high stress. Some of the factors that impact individual employees’ responses to stress may be both understandable and controllable.  In addition to stress level, organizational commitment and experience in the job interact to impact an employee’s productivity level.

Commitment

Individuals with high levels of organizational commitment view the goals, tasks and mission of the organization as important and worthwhile.  They experience a sense of satisfaction when they believe that their efforts help to achieve organizational goals.  This commitment provides the motivation for employees to expend effort but not necessarily the know how to direct their energies in the most productive way.

Practice doesn’t always make perfect

Of course, experience alone does not equal greater productivity.  While experience on a job provides an opportunity for skill improvement and mastery, it may also result in bad habits becoming more and more ingrained.  Most everyone can remember a college instructor whose numerous years of experience were overshadowed by a painfully obvious inability to effectively communicate the subject matter to students.  Experience that leads to greater productivity is defined by a mastery of important skills and the knowledge about which tasks are truly important to goal attainment.

When both organizational commitment and experience are high, job stress tends to focus employees motivation on tasks critical to goal attainment and energies toward those value rich tasks over which they have mastery.

What can be done?

Managers who try to manipulate the stress level of a position may be missing the boat in terms of employee motivation and subsequent productivity.  Managers can engage in the following proactive tasks to maximize performance:

• Identify and Buffer Employees Against “Hindrance-Oriented” Stressors

No one is motivated by red tape, politics, or bureaucracy.  Managers can help keep employees directed toward goal attainment by shielding them from distractions that do not add value to the organization.  Ask yourself, “Does what we are asking our employees to do contribute to the overall value of the end product?”  If the answer is no, find a way to eliminate or reduce it.

• Facilitate Mastery of Skills Which Contribute to Attainment of Organizational Goals

Managers can break the “experience = excellence” fallacy by identifying “critical-to-goal attainment” skills and designing training and mentoring programs to improve them.  In addition, communicating to employees what the mission and goals of the organization are and linking these skills and their efforts to organizational outcomes helps employees to understand the relevance of their activities.

• Increase Organizational Commitment Through Employee-Centered Behaviors

Managers are often the face, voice, and tone of the organization to their employees.  The way that you treat your employees can impact how they perceive their value to the organization.  Ensuring that employees feel valued by being active in their development and career path, being empathetic to their needs, and creating an environment in which they feel they belong are a few of the areas where managers can contribute to increased organizational commitment.  While often dismissed as “soft skills,” these behaviors and efforts can pay off when employees are in stressful situations.

Creating a workplace environment conducive to employee commitment and professional development may be important to inoculating employees against “feeling the heat” in periods of high stress.

Interpretation by:

Mark Baker

DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Gilboa, S. et al. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects, Personnel Psychology, 61, 227- 271.

Organizations today are under more pressure than ever to remain efficient and  to  reduce   barriers   to   employee performance. At the same time, employees are faced with an increasing number of work-related stressors. Since these stressors can negatively impact employees’ job performance, it is important for organizations to be aware of the sources as well as how to effectively address stressors.

How Stressors Impact Performance

Stressors can detract from employee performance in three ways.

1. If an employee perceives a stressor to be threatening or harmful, they will use up their energy coping with the stressor.
2. Threatening stressors produce adverse physiological effects.
3. High levels of stressors can result in “information-overload,” in which employees experience a reduced ability to recognize job-related cues and information apart from the stressor.

Dimensions of Stress

Stressors contain two dimensions: threat and challenge. Stressors can contain elements of both threat and challenge. Threat occurs when an employee perceives the stressor to be beyond his or her control or ability to cope with the situation. This level is what we typically think of when we think about “stress;” threat is negatively associated with performance.  Challenge, on the other hand, might be considered “good” stress. Challenge is often positively associated with performance.

Types of Stressors

There are several different types of work-related stressors.

1. Role Ambiguity: uncertainty and lack of clarity about the tasks to be performed for a particular job.
2. Situational Constraints: an employee’s immediate work environment inhibits or constrains performance, for example, if the employee has inadequate skills or supplies needed to do the job.
3. Role Conflict: an employee is required to take on multiple, incompatible roles.
4. Role Overload: work demands exceed the resources available to meet them.
5. Job Insecurity: uncertainty about the permanence of one’s job.
6. Work-family Conflict: conflict between work and family demands.
7. Environmental Uncertainty: lack of security in the organizational environment (i.e. market uncertainty).

High levels of role ambiguity and situational constraints have the strongest negative impact on job performance. This is likely because they are threatening stressors that employees have little control over; they contain little of the challenge component that can lead to increased performance.

The other stressors have a more complex relationship with job performance; these stressors can contain more of a challenge component and therefore may not be as detrimental to performance. For example, role overload can have negative effects on performance, but in some situations an employee may choose to take on additional responsibilities; in this case, role overload would be more of a challenge than a threat.

The Importance of Perception

Not all individuals will perceive a stressor in the same way. For example, some people prefer a highly structured job in which their responsibilities and tasks are explicit. For these individuals, having a job where little direction is given would be very stressful. On the other hand, an individual who prefers a more ambiguous job might find a highly structured job very stressful.  What is important is whether the employee perceives a situation as stressful.

The Importance of Organizational Context

In addition to individual differences, the organizational context can affect the way a stressor is perceived. For example, in an organization that rewards and values challenging initiatives and innovations, role ambiguity may be perceived as a challenge and  actually improve performance. On the other hand, in an organization that emphasizes standardization and well-established procedures, role ambiguity would more likely be perceived as a threat and therefore more negatively affect job performance.

How to Reduce Negative Impacts of Stressors

1. Focus efforts on alleviating role ambiguity and situational constraints.

Since these stressors are more consistently related to lowered job performance, organizations should focus their efforts here. Situational constraints can be addressed by providing adequate training and ensuring that the proper supplies and equipment are available to employees.  Role ambiguity can be improved by clarifying and discussing job expectations, goals, and evaluation standards with employees.

1. Stay informed about which stressors are most prevalent and detrimental to performance in your organization.

Employees’ perceptions of stressors may change over time due to turnover or shifting organizational goals. It is important to be aware of changes and to use resources to reduce the most relevant stressors in order to improve employee performance.

1. Include several dimensions of job performance in evaluations.

Because of the complicated relationships stressors have with job performance, include several dimensions of performance in evaluation to ensure that you are getting a clear picture of the impact of stressors. For example, you may want to use supervisor-rated performance, self-rated performance, and objective measures of performance (when applicable) such as sales data.

1. Keep in mind the importance of individual perception as well as organizational context.

Not all individuals will react in the same way to stressors, and stressors do not always have the same meaning across organizations.

Interpretation by:

Michelle Toelle

The DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Gajendran, R.S., & Harrison, D.A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524-1541.

Telecommuting is a non-conventional work arrangement where employees work away from the office, usually at home, and communicate with their organization using technology like PCs and the internet. This type of work arrangement is popular with many businesses and employees because of the flexibility it affords to both. Telecommuting is becoming more and more mainstream and accepted in today’s business world (with an estimated 45 million American telecommuters in 2006), yet the research supporting telecommuting’s positive and negative effects on organizations and individual employees has shown mixed results. Also, many people worry that telecommuting may lead to social isolation or work-family conflict.  This article will discuss what research has found about the benefits and short-comings of telecommuting.

Telecommuting has been found to have a generally small to moderate relationship with several important business-relevant outcomes, including:

• Increased employees’ perceived autonomy, or how much control employees feel they have over their jobs
• Decreased work-family conflict
• Increased interpersonal relationships between telecommuting employees and their supervisors
• Increased job satisfaction
• Increased supervisor ratings and archival records of job performance (but not greater self-ratings of performance than non-telecommuters)
• Less employee turnover intention
• Less employee role stress

It was also discovered that some of telecommuting’s effects appear to depend on:

Intensity

Intensity is number of days per week an employee telecommutes. Employees who telecommute more than half a week tended to have more negative relationships with their coworkers (but not supervisors).

One reason why supervisor relations are not affected with increasing telecommuting, while coworker relations are not, might be self-selection into telecommuting. In other words, employees who are already doing well probably have better relations with their supervisor, who would be more willing to let them telecommute. At the same time, employees might want to telecommute because they already have negative relationships with their coworkers and would not mind spending work time away from them.

Additionally, high intensity telecommuters tend to have even less role-stress than employees who telecommute less often.

Gender

Telecommuting samples that had higher proportions of women had greater objective and supervisor ratings of performance and also had greater perceived career prospects (rather than feeling like career prospects were being hurt by telecommuting).

Experience

Experience, as it relates to telecommuting, is conceptualized as how long an employee has telecommuted for work. Employees who have telecommuted for more than a year had even less role stress and work/family conflict than those employees with less experience.

Practical Implications

• If feasible, consider offering telecommuting as an option to help retain or recruit more talented and qualified employees.
• Be clear with your employees about how telecommuting may affect their future career prospects with your organization.
• Employees who are just starting to telecommute may have a more difficult time learning to balance their work-family life at first. Consider offering some type of training or counseling to help ease the transition to telecommuting and make the experience more likely to be successful for both employees and your organization.
• Take steps to ensure that telecommuting does not lead to or enhance negative relationships between telecommuting and non-telecommuting employees. Holding regular meetings or work lunches that include both your telecommuting and non-telecommuting employees may help ease tensions. Ensuring telecommuting seems normal and not just a special privilege can help reduce negative feelings between employees.

Telecommuting may offer your organization a great deal of flexibility in coming to a satisfying arrangement with your employees that takes into account both parties’ needs. The suggestions provided here can aid in successfully implementing telecommuting as a viable option for your organization!

Interpretation by:

Don Johnson

DeGarmo Group