High Job Control - Assignment Example

Ability of high job control to protect employees from adverse impacts of high work demands Job control refers to the decision making authority given to an employee to perform a job and the skills that he is allowed to utilize. One of the prime concerns for many organizations in recent years has been the mental and physical well being of its employees – it has been recognized that highly motivated employees who are contented with their word are a more productive resource, alongside being a major bonus for companies. High job control is considered by many to be a practice that empowers the employee and grants him this job satisfaction. It is seen as a practice that protects employees from the detrimental impacts of high work demands. High work demands refer to the complexity of the character of the job, alongside the possibility of the immense pressure an employee feels in getting the job done. The following essay critically analyzes the extent to which such a consideration is true, that is, does high job control help employees deal with high work demands or is it in fact detrimental? Theory: Demands-control model Karasek (1979) affirms that it is mainly a low job control that leads to high job stress which in turn negatively impacts an employee’s health. He uses his job demands-control model to explain the impact of high and low job control on an individual based on the high or low demands made on him by the job. When it comes to scenarios where the demand is on the higher side while the control is on the lower side, higher levels of stress are felt by the individual leading to deteriorating health conditions. High demand from a job that is accompanied by high job control is termed ‘active’ because it allows the individual to learn and develop as well as use and enhance multiple skills; average levels of strain are felt. Low demand from a job along with high job control is seen as inducing little or no stress for the individual while low demand from the job accompanied by low job control is seen as ‘passive’, as causing average levels of stress and as contributing towards a loss of skills. The important feature to note of this model is the fact that it is fundamentally the lack of job control and not the high demand from the job that is leading to the stress. The model explains how high job control will be used to counter the negative impacts of high job demand, thus acting like a buffer. Karasek & Theorell (1990) look at some developments that have been made to this model, one of which has been to include support (that is help and guidance from supervisors) as a moderator of work demands. A critical question to ask is why an ‘active’ job (a job that has high demand and high job control) would move forward to the increased understanding and lower stress levels. The explanation given is that an ‘active’ job promotes learning which leads to the individual to perceive the job as less stressful, which in turn leads to increased confidence levels. The individual is better able to deal with the high demanding nature of the job; he becomes more willing and able to take up new challenges and this in turn promotes positive learning. Jonge & Dormann (1990) argue that it is not enough to simply provide employees with this control; rather it is the execution of that support which is critical to helping employees with high work demands. Thus both control and support, need to be applied in a manner that supports solving work based problem. Role of self- efficacy Although Karasek’s (1979) model accounts for individual differences that impact the effect of job demand on an individual’s health, the experiments of the demand-control model have not addressed the existence of such differences. Ganster (1989) explains how control perception is the way an individual perceives an objective situation while self-efficacy is the individual’s analysis of his own abilities to exercise that control. Litt (1988) analyzes the importance of the concept of self-efficacy, arguing that it is not the quantity or matter of job control given that is significant but truly the discernment of the employee (individual) as to the control given to him and his appraisal of himself being able to exercise that control; high control would only benefit those who feel confident that they can use it. Thus, in high demand and high job control situations, it would be people with high self efficacy and high confidence in their own abilities, who would have better psychological reactions. Those with low self efficacy on the other hand might experience increased distress and anxiety if they are incapable of using the control that has been given to them. This can be considered a valid criticism of the demand control model which has not succeeded to sufficiently take into consideration the individual perception of self. Research Schaubroeck & Merritt (1997) make use of various researches of human and animal studies of control which shows that for a number of people, high job control actually leads to stress levels increasing rather than decreasing. The reason given is that the high difficulty level of the task at hand negatively impacts the self efficacy of the individual. Such claims are further backed up by the research of authors such as Ohman and Bohlin (1989) who found high difficulty jobs coupled with high job control as inducing increased levels of stress. Fisher (1984) discovered in his studies that low levels of control in situations of a highly demanding job can be better in term of psychological health and stress levels for those with lower self efficacy as this provides protection to their self esteem. It is found through these recent researches that self efficacy is a key factor that influences the linkage between job demand and job control which impacts blood pressure. It was found that the demand control model stands valid for the individuals who have high level of self efficacy; the individuals were confident in their abilities and so high control made them capable of dealing with difficult tasks. For such people, low control would be detrimental to their health because uncontrollable situations would challenge their self perception. The control demand model was not seen to hold though, for those with lower self efficacy i.e. the individuals who are found not to be very confident in their capabilities and abilities. For them, a job that is highly demanding combined with greater control and hence responsibility and expectations would create immense anxiety and distress. Thus, such research shows us that it is critical not only to enhance the job control but also increase the employee’s self efficacy in order to help deal with highly challenging work. There has a growing body of literature on ways in which employee’s self efficacy can be increased. Seligman (1991) suggests that one way in which self efficacy can be increased is to train employees to attribute successes internally while making external attributions for failures. This would boost the confidence level of the employee, preparing him for more challenging work in the future. Ito & Brotheridge (2003) found research that supported the claim that job control and social support improved the aptitude of individuals to be a problem solver. The support for colleagues and autonomy in job were seen to lead to an environment where employees could consult others and obtain useful advice and guidance; this was seen as positively impacting the mental health of the individual and was seen as facilitating a problem solving coping approach. Other research however, does not find similar findings; Buunk & Hoorens (1992) found that increased support and control actually lead to higher levels of stress. DCS Model According to Lazarus and Folkman (198), when faced with threats such as that of high work demand, people consider the various options they have for coping with the problem at hand. Coping function refers to the aim that one wishes to achieve through coping. It also includes being focused towards the problem, emotions, appraisal, and avoidance. Being focus towards the problem, tries to come up with alternate ways to manage the issue or the problem. Being focused towards emotion, attempts to manage or deal effectively with the emotions being felt. Appraisal focused approach tries to change the mind frame and way of perceiving the situation, for example by redefining expectations. Lastly, avoidance focused coping tries to distance itself from thoughts that perceive the situation to be stressful. The coping behavior is what individuals do in order to achieve the coping function. It is significant to realize that the efficacy of each coping function needs to be analyzed in the framework of the different stressful encounters that one may face. Having looked at all the research and theory we can conclude that high job control can in many work situations and for many individuals be an effective way of dealing with challenging work and high demands. However, we must keep in mind that it does work out like this in all circumstances and for all individuals. Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that although job control is a major factor that can help an employee deal with increased pressure, there are other factors too, equally or sometimes more important that can be used to help an employee deal with difficult tasks and challenging jobs. References Buunk, B. P & Hoorens, (1992). Social support and stress: The role of social comparison and social exchange processes, British Journal of Clinical Psychology 31. pp. 445–457. Fisher, S. (1984). Stress and the perception of control. Hillsdale, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ganster, D. C. (1989) Measurement of worker control. Cincinnati: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Ito, J. K & Brotheridge, C. M. (2003) Resources, coping strategies, and emotional exhaustion: A conservation of resources perspective, Journal of Vocational Behavior 63. pp. 490–509. Jonge, J. & Dormann, C. (2002) The DISC model: Demand induced strain compensation mechanisms in job stress In: M.F. Dollard, H.R. Winefield and A.H. Winefield, Editors, Occupational stress in the service professions, Taylor & Francis, London (). Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demand, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 285-309. Karasek, R. A & Theorell, T. (1990) Healthy work, Basic Books, New York Lazarus, R. S &. Folkman, S. (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping, Springer, New York Litt, M. D. (1988) Cognitive mediators of stressful experience: self efficacy and perceived control. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12(3): 241- 260 Ohman, A., &Bohlin, G. (1989) The role of controllability in cardiovascular activation and cardiovascular disease: help or hindrance? In A Steptoe & A Appels (Eds.), Stress, personal control and health: 257-276. Brussels: Wiley. Schaubroeck, J & Merritt, D. E. (1997) Divergent Effects of Job Control on Coping with Work Stressors: The Key Role of Self-Efficacy. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 738-754. Published by: Academy of Management Seligman, M. E. P. (1991) Learned optimism. New York. Knopf. Read More