Demand-Control-Support and Effort-Reward Imbalance Models of Occupational Stress - Coursework Example

Compare and contrast the Demand-Control-Support and Effort-Reward Imbalance models of occupational stress. Are these models complementary Introduction Before going on to compare and contrast the "Demand-Control-Support" and "Effort-Reward-Imbalance" models of occupational stress, let us briefly define occupational stress and understand its sources and consequences. Despite lack of consensus on the exact definition of occupational stress, and the fact that 'occupational stress', 'job stress' and 'work stress' is often used interchangeably, it is generally believed that occupational stress is "associated with aversive or unpleasant emotional states that people experience as a consequence of their work. For example, Kiryacou and Sutcliffe (1978) defined occupational stress as the experience of unpleasant emotions, such as tension, frustration, anxiety, anger and depression (as referred in Anderson 2001: 94). George Bernard Shaw distinguished labour and leisure thus: "Labour is doing what we must; leisure is doing what we like". In economically advanced societies, work and occupation take on a central position in adult life. Occupation defines the most important criterion for social stratification in advanced societies. Occupational settings produce the most pervasive continuous demands during one's lifetime, and they absorb the largest amount of time in adult life (Albrecht et al 2003). Contemporary definitions of stress favour a transactional perspective; this emphasises that stress is located neither in the person, nor in the environment, but in the relationship between the two (Cooper et al, quoted in Clarke & Cooper 2004:5) Selye(1981, quoted in Grant et al 1995) said that work is an essential need for everyone. The question is not whether we should or should no work, but what kind of work suits us best. Consequently, external and internal sources of stress and their subsequent strain has a cause and effect relationship, and are experienced and suffered by employees and workers in their societies. "Occupational stress is a growing problem that results in substantial stress to individual employees and work organizations around the globe. The changing nature of work has placed unprecedented demands on employees and fuelled concerns about the effect this change is having on the well being and the health of their employees and their work organizations" (Anderson et al 2001:93). As social inequalities in health continue to be a key public health problem, scientific theories that explain these inequalities are needed (Siegrist and Marmot 2003). Thus, there are many approaches to occupational stress. They involve types of causal and affected variables, and also different labels are used (Cooper 1998). The two most significant models of occupational stress put forth are the (i) Demand-Control-Support Model by Robert A. Karasek, and further developed by T. Theorell as well as by Johnson and Hall and the (ii) Effort Reward Imbalance model introduced by Johannes Siegrist. Comparison and Contrast: The Demand-Control-Support (DCS) Model : Salient Features The demand-control-support model was developed by Karasek and his colleagues during the 1980s. According to this model, psychological demands (both qualitative and quantitative) have more averse consequences if they occur jointly with lack of possibility to influence decisions regarding the job, ie, low decision latitude. Low decision latitude has two components- (i) authority over decisions (the immediate possibility that the individual has to influence decisions regarding what to do and how to do it at work and (ii) intellectual discretion, which is the opportunity that the organization gives the individual to use and develop skills at work so that s/he can develop the possibility of control in the work situation (Moon and Sauter 1996). According to Karasek, who introduced this model, psychological distress is influenced by high demand/low control combinations. Conversely, an increase in control increases job satisfaction. According to this theory, control buffers the effects of demands (Stamatios et al, 2005). Control provides the worker with the choice of how to do the job, its pace, timing, etc. therefore, the DSC model has four types of occupational situations: high demand/high control, high demand/low control, low demand/high control and low demand/low control. In addition, Johnson and Hall, in 1988, expanded the DCS model to include a support component incorporating co-worker and supervisor social support. Social support has positive effects on well being and buffers the impact of occupational stressors on psychological distress. Low support has been associated with greater symptomatology, and a significant interaction with demand and control has been observed for job dissatisfaction. High demand/low control/low support combinations produce the greatest risk to workers. Highlight: Control is the central tenet of the DCS model. The Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) Model : Salient Features The Effort-Reward Imbalance model was introduced by Johannes Siegrist in 1996. The ERI model focuses on rewards, especially on the threats to or violations of (perceived) legitimate rewards. The ERI model is concerned with both the work environment and personal characteristics of workers. The ERI model states that people exchange efforts for rewards (money, self-esteem, job security, career opportunities). Imbalance arises when there is lack of reciprocity between costs and gains and this imbalance results in emotional distress that creates psychological arousal (arousal of the autonomous nervous system) and job strain. In addition, it also recognises the coping style of workers described as over-commitment, the third factor, which Cooper (1998) calls 'presenteeism'- excessive striving and diligence, and the need for approval. The imbalance between (high) extrinsic effort and (low) reward causes occupational stress. These imbalances are compounded by the labour markets scene, when few job alternatives exist, so workers have to accept unfair job arrangement to maintain their employment. Studies Carried out on the DCS Model and Current Relevance Although primarily concerned with job characteristics rather than personality characteristics, the majority of the studies of the DCS model rely on self report of the workers to determine the degree of demand and control in their jobs. Cooper argued that two-three dimensional models are inadequate to account for the complexities of job related strain outcome. The work nature is also changing, which simultaneously affords workers more control but less job security. So the basic assumptions of DCS are no longer current. As we can see, under the new set of emerging working conditions, low demand jobs (for example, typists, etc) are disappearing. As work environments become more competitive, Karasek's two by two matrix of job classification may reduce to high/low control jobs, with all high demands. Let us take some examples of jobs in this matrix. High strain occupations such as machine-paced work, service sector like waiters, bus drivers who have to adhere to strict timings have deleterious effect on health. But executives and professionals have higher demands placed on them, but also greater control on how to manage their timings, pace and work (Stamatios et al, 2005). Studies Carried out on the ERI Model and Current Relevance A study was conducted to assess the relationship between Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) and employee adverse health. The Effort-Reward Imbalance model was extended by discriminating three specific rewards separately- ie. salary, self-esteem and job security. The results indicate that the health outcomes of ERI vary depending on the specific reward that was used. Generally, the most adverse health effects were found for employees who reported both high efforts and low rewards, thus supporting the ERI model. Moreover, the strongest effects of ERI on employee health were found when esteem was used as a reward indicator. Job security also was an important reward in this respect, whereas salary did not have strong effects as a result of ERI (Van Vegchel et al 2002). The empirical evidence supporting ERI model is growing rapidly and this indicates that this model is still relevant and current. Comparative Studies: A study was conducted, which aimed to (a) compare the predictive powers of the two models for explaining perceived job stress and mental distress amongst workers as a whole, (b) identify whether a model which combines dimensions of the DCM and ERI might have more predictive power than either of them separately, and (c) ascertain whether the models make distinct contributions to explaining stress at work in specific occupational settings. The results were that: There was little support for combining the models as the combined model was dominated by the predictive power of dimensions from the ERI. However, the results also showed that the models or dimensions of the models made distinct contributions to explaining perceived work stress in different types of occupation. Conclusions: There is little evidence to support a combined model of work characteristics. The ERI appears to be the stronger of the two models although the DCM has explanatory value for specific occupations (Calnan et al, 2004). Therefore, study of the above two models of occupational stress makes for the following inferences: Inference 1: The DCS and ERI models are totally different from each other. The coordinates used to assess worker distress are not comparable. Even though they share commonalities on the surface, they differ in significant ways. While control is the essential dimension in the DCS model, the ERI model focuses on rewards. It is also concerned with both work environment and personal characteristics of workers (Stamatios et al, 2005). Inference 2: In the DCS model, the effect of occupational stress is measured or defined in terms of psychological distress, where as ERI talks of emotional distress (which causes psychological distress). Inference 3: The third factor that is brought into the DCS model is 'support', where as the third factor in the ERI model is 'overcommitment' (which Cooper calls Presenteeism) Inference 4: While DCS takes into account only job characteristics, the ERI model considers personality characteristics also. Inference 5: DCS is more a job classification; ERI is a relationship between work environment and personality characteristics. Inference 6: Although these modes vary considerably, what they share in common is that they take as the starting point, the specification of a list of environmental conditions, labelled stressors (Barling et al, 2005). Inference 7: Overall, while the DCS model does explain employee distress, in the present work scenario, it is no longer current. However, the ERI model is still relevant, with several empirical studies continuing to support this model. Conclusion : In conclusion, it may be said that the Demand-Control-Support and Effort-Reward Imbalance models are not complementary, but are fundamentally different. Works Cited Albrecht, Gary L., Fitzpatrick, Ray & Scrimshaw, Susan C., 2003. Social Studies in Health and Medicine. London: Sage. Anderson, Neil, Ones, Deniz S., Sinangil, Handan Kepir & Visweswaran, Chockalingam, 2001. Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology, Volume 2 Organizational Psychology. London: Sage. Barling, Julian, Kelloway, Kevin E., Frone, Michael R., 2005. Thousand Oaks: Sage, p 95. Calnan, Michael, Wadsworth, Emma, Andrew, Margaret May & Wainwright, David, 2004. Job Strain, Effort-Reward Imbalance, and Stress at Work: Competing or Complementary Models Scandanavian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 32, No.2, 84-93. Clarke, Sharon & Cooper, Cary l., 2004. Managing the Risk of Workplace Stress. London: Routledge. Cooper, Cary L., 1998. Theories of Organizational Stress. New York: Oxford University Press. Grant, George F., Ali, Elvis A., Thorsen, Elizabeth J., Die, George J. & Kathryn, 1995. Occupational Stress among Canadian College Educator: A Review of the Literature. College Winter 1995-Volume 3 Number 2. Available on: http://www.senecac.on.ca/quarterly/1995-vol03-num02-winter/grant_ali_thorsen_dei_dickie.html. [Accessed March 17, 2010] Moon, S.D. & Sauter S.L., 1996. Beyond Biomechanics: Musculoskeletal Disorders in Office Work. London: Taylor & Francis. Siegrist, Johannes & Marmot, Michael, 2003. Health Inequalities and the Psychosocial Environment- Two Scientific Challenges. Social Science & Medicine, Volume 58, Issue 8, April 2004. Stamatios, Alexander, Antoniou, G., Cooper, Cary L., 2005. Research Companion to Organizational Health Psychology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Van Vegchel, Natasja van, Jonge, Jan de, Bakker, Arnold D., Schaufeli, Wilmar D., 2002. Testing Global and Specific Indicators of Rewards in the Effort-Reward Imbalance Model: Does it make any difference European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2002,// (4), 403-421. Available on http://www.fss.uu.nl/sop/Schaufeli/189.pdf [Accessed March 17, 2010] Bibliography http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-occupational-stress.htm. Read More