Workplace Stress Management Interventions: What Works ... - Blog.de

2008 Research Briefs
111
Workplace Stress Management
Interventions: What Works Best?
Research Brief by Stuart D. Sidle, Assistant Professor,
Department of Psychology, University of New Haven
Have you ever experienced the stress of having
too many choices? Ironically, managers who
want to reduce the stress levels of their employees
may feel overwhelmed by the many stress
management interventions they have to choose
from. Adding to the selection challenge is that
interventions often differ tremendously in terms
of cost, time, and practicality.
Considering the effort and expense involved, it
would be helpful to know which intervention
approaches are most effective at reducing employee
stress. Fortunately, new research helps us
sort through the many approaches to stress management.
In their recent study, Katherine Richardson
and Hannah Rothstein of Baruch College
compare the outcomes of a variety of workplace
stress management interventions.
Specifically, Richardson and Rothstein examined
the results of 36 experimental studies of stress
management interventions from a variety of work
environments and synthesized the findings. Their
synthesis of results across these studies, known as
a meta-analysis, allowed Richardson and Rothstein
to compare the efficacy of various workplace
stress management interventions. In doing so,
they classified interventions as primary, secondary,
or tertiary.
Primary interventions attempt to alter the
source of the workplace stress by making changes
such as redesigning jobs to give employees greater
flexibility or more decision control. Secondary
interventions help employees better recognize and
manage stress symptoms as they occur. Examples
of secondary interventions include courses that
teach skills such meditation or time management.
Finally, tertiary interventions are designed to help
employees recover from stressful events. For example,
an organization may have an Employee
Assistance Program (EAP) providing employees
access to counseling to help them recover from
challenging circumstances.
Richardson and Rothstein’s meta-analysis included
several studies of primary interventions
aimed at altering stressful work environments, but
most of the studies they examined focused on
secondary interventions such as relaxation training.
None of the studies in this meta-analysis
involved tertiary interventions such as EAPs.
That said, Richardson and Rothstein were able to
sort through the outcomes of stress management
interventions across a large number of participants
representing diverse occupations and nationalities.
For example, one study included office workers
in the United Kingdom, another looked at
hazardous waste workers in the United States, and
a third focused on nurses in Taiwan.
In gathering these experiments for their analysis,
Richardson and Rothstein created a diverse
list of primary and secondary stress management
interventions. These were further divided into
one of five subcategories for comparison purposes:
cognitive-behavioral, relaxation, organizational,
alternative, and multimodal.
Cognitive-behavioral approaches are secondary
interventions that help employees rethink their
beliefs about challenging situations. Specifically,
individuals learn to recognize how their pessimistic
and often distorted thoughts of gloom and
doom lead to stress. Next, they learn to replace
their overly pessimistic thinking with more realistic
or more optimistic thinking.
Relaxation approaches such as meditation,
deep breathing, and progressive muscle relaxation
are also secondary interventions. They teach individuals
to calm their thoughts and become
aware of their tension. These interventions do not
usually remove the source of stress. Instead, they
help individuals remain calmer and focused in the
face of workplace stress.
Organizational approaches are primary interventions
in that they focus on workplace changes
to create a less stressful work environment, usually
by increasing employee control and peer support.
Some studies used unique or unusual workplace
interventions, such as journaling or biofeedback
techniques, that did not clearly fit into the other
categories. Consequently, these were put in the

112 Academy of Management Perspectives
August
alternative category. Finally, some studies included
in the meta-analysis used a combination of
techniques—a multimodal approach. For example,
one multimodal study involved health education,
cognitive-behavioral skills, goal setting, and
relaxation.
Richardson and Rothstein’s results were compelling.
Although all five categories of stress management
interventions are effective at reducing
workplace stress, some are more effective than
others. Overall, cognitive-behavior interventions
tend to be the strongest at combating workplace
stress. Interestingly, despite this they are not the
most popular approach for combating workplace
stress.
Richardson and Rothstein explain that managers
may consider the cognitive-behavioral techniques
more challenging than other approaches to
implement. Typically, cognitive-behavioral interventions
require the hiring of a professional to
lead a group session. Consequently, managers may
gravitate toward interventions that are easier to implement
and require a smaller investment of resources
(e.g., relaxation training). As a matter of
fact, relaxation training interventions are one of the
most popular approaches to stress management. Indeed,
relaxation techniques are perceived as one of
the easiest and least expensive approaches to implement,
primarily because they can be self-taught with
DVDs or the internet.
To better understand why cognitive-behavioral
interventions were more effective than the more
popular technique of relaxation training, Richardson
and Rothstein compared the goals of the two
methods. Relaxation programs aim to increase
participants’ awareness of the tension in their
bodies and minds, and then reduce this tension by
helping them quiet their minds and let go of their
stress. But while relaxation approaches may help
people feel calmer, they don’t change stressful
aspects of their lives. On the other hand, cognitive-behavioral
interventions encourage people to
actively change the way they think and behave in
stressful situations. People will deal with stress
head-on and may actually solve problems rather
than just passively coping with them—with the
result being lower stress.
Considering the variety of effective interven-
tions available in the stress management marketplace,
managers may be tempted to try hybrid
approaches that mix elements of various stress
reduction programs. However, based on this research
such an approach may backfire. As a matter
of fact, more resource-intensive techniques such as
cognitive-behavioral skills training tend to be less
effective when bundled with other approaches. On
the other hand, less complex interventions such as
relaxation training do not lose their effectiveness
when bundled with other approaches.
Essentially, Richardson and Rothstein show us
that employees can be taught techniques to improve
how they cope with stress. Cognitive-behavioral
skills training would be an excellent
choice for a manager looking to help stressed-out
employees. Moreover, managers choosing this approach
should consider implementing it independent
of other stress management approaches—at
least if they want their employees to reap the
maximum benefits of cognitive-behavioral training.
Source: Richardson, K.M., & Rothstein, H.R. (2008).
Effects of occupational stress management intervention programs:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
13(1), 69–93.
Understanding the Knowledge-Sharing
Challenge: Is a “Bottleneck” Perspective
the Answer?
Research Brief by Linda L. Brennan, Professor of
Management, Mercer University
“ You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t
make it drink” is an adage that applies to many
situations. Take, for example, the act of serving
me green beans or trying to persuade me to write
poetry. In neither case will simply “creating an opportunity”
motivate me to make something happen.
No matter how many legumes are put on my plate,
I will not be motivated to eat them. And while I
might want to write poetry, and have the opportu-