Е-Публикации
Технически университет - София

Abstract: As a result of stressor exposure, the human response includes physiological, psychological, and behavioural responses, like stress. And, in the literature and on the internet, there are numerous suggestions and methods for monitoring and addressing stress in workplaces. Most of these models have been inspired by the Person-environment fit and demand-control models. The first evaluates stress by matching the personal characteristics and the workplace conditions, whereas the second by combining job demand and the controllability of the work task. Also, the “effort-reward imbalance model”, which observes a possible mismatch between the cost an employee spends at work and the gain and reward, which is received in return, is seen as a prominent model for stress measuring. All models measure, either subjectively or objectively, the stress level of the individuals as responses to stressors. It is not always clear enough which stressors cause each specific stress response. In some studies, however, reasons like the workload and poor management are quoted as the reason for stress, but no models or known studies relate these stressors to specific work functions or specific business drivers. Businesses have different reasons for measuring stress, one being preserving performance and competitiveness. However, none of the models makes a distinctive linkage and an explanation between perceived stress and business performance. The way individual employees contribute to the various business drivers determines the business result. Knowing that persons respond differently to the same stressor, it would be beneficial to any business to clarify which stressors prevail in the single and decisive business drivers, and how these stressors impact the stress level on the individual employee’s performance, and ultimately on the general business results. A method to address this challenge is presented in this paper.

References

1. Anforderungs-Kontroll-Modell. https://www.bad-gmbh.de/glossar/anforderungs-kontroll-modell/(accessed Jul. 27, 2023).
2. Bui, T., Zackula, R., Dugan, K., Ablah, E. (2021). Workplace Stress and Productivity: A Cross-Sectional Study. – Kans J Med, vol. 14, pp. 42-45, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.17161/kjm.vol1413424.
3. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., Mermelstein, R. (2014). Perceived Stress Scale. American Psychological Association, Feb. 10, 2014. doi: 10.1037/t02889-000.
4. Colosio, C., Mandic-Rajcevic, S., Godderis, L., G. van der Laan, Hulshof, C., van Dijk, F. (2017). Workers’ health surveillance: implementation of the Directive 89/391/EEC in Europe. – Occupational Medicine, Vol. 67, N 7, pp. 574-578, doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqx113.
5. Fahlén, G. (2008). Aspects of the effort-reward imbalance model of psychosocial stress in the work environment. Doctoral Thesis Sundsvall
6. fd_ssos.pdf. (SSOS, 2008). Accessed: Jul. 28, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.workplacementalhealth.org/getmedia/83a58e25-7d9c-43d7-b5b1-81f24abf54e6/fd_ssos?ext=.pdf.
7. Inc, G. (2023). Globally, Employees Are More Engaged – and More Stressed. – Gallup.com, Jun. 13, 2023. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/506798/globally-employees-engaged-stressed.aspx (accessed Jul. 13, 2023).
8. Leka, S., et al. (2014). Evaluation of policy and practice to promote mental health in the workplace in Europe – Final Report. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Evaluation+of+policy+and+practice +to+promote+mental+health+in+the+workplace+in+Europe&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8.
9. Leka, S., Jain, A., World Health Organization. (2010). Health impact of psychosocial hazards at work: an overview. p. 126.
10. Leka, S., Jain, A., Iavicoli, S., Tecco, C. Di. (2015). An Evaluation of the Policy Context on Psychosocial Risks and Mental Health in the Workplace in the European Union: Achievements, Challenges, and the Future. – BioMed Research International, Vol. 2015, p. e213089, doi: 10.1155/2015/213089.
11. McCumber, A. (2020). Understanding Work Stress: Causes, Symptoms and Solutions. CSP Global, https://online.csp.edu/resources/article/work-stress
12. Perceived Stress Scale.pdf. (PSS). Accessed: Jul. 28, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.das.nh.gov/wellness/Docs%5CPercieved%20Stress%20Scale.pdf.
13. Practical Use of the HSE Management Standards Indicator Tool. (MSIT, 2017). https://timelesstime.co.uk/knowledgebase/practical-use-of-the-hse-management-standards-indicator-tool/.
14. Psychosocial risks and stress at work | Safety and health at work EU-OSHA. https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/psychosocial-risks-and-stress.
15. Ren, C. Li, X., Yao, X., Pi, Z., Qi, S. (2019). Psychometric Properties of the Effort-Reward Imbalance Questionnaire for Teachers (Teacher ERIQ). – Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, [Online] Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02047.
16. Shea, T., Cieri, H. (2011). Workplace-stress-evaluation-tools-snapshot.pdf. Accessed: Jul. 31, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://research.iscrr.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/297758/Workplace-stress-evaluation-tools-snapshot.pdf.
17. Shikiar, R., Rentz, A., Halpern, M., Khan, Z. (2008). The health and work questionnaire (hwq): an instrument for assessing workplace productivity in relation to worker health. – Value in Health, Vol. 4, pp. 181-181, doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.40202-294.x.
18. Start, R. (2021). Two-thirds Of European Employees Experience Excessive Work-stress. – Lepaya EN, Jul. 27, 2021. https://lepaya.com/en/stress-at-work/.
19. Stress at work. (1999). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, doi: 10.26616/NIOSHPUB99101.
20. Third European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER 2019): Overview Report How European workplaces manage safety and health | Safety and health at work EU-OSHA.” https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/esener-2019-overview-report-how-european-workplaces-manage-safety-and-health.

Issue

Copyright Bulgarska Akademiya na Naukite