國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5
Chapter 2 Literature Review
This chapter consists of 5 sections. Section 2-1 introduces the occupational stress model that served as the theoretical framework of the current study. Section 2-2 introduces career plateau and its role in occupational stress model. Section 2-3 introduces the psychological processes that mediate the relationships between career plateau and employee outcomes. Section 2-4 introduces the construct of workplace spirituality and how it moderates the relationship between career plateau and psychological processes. The last section summarizes the proposed research framework of this study.
2-1 Occupational Stress
Although the popular press may use stressor, strain, and stress interchangeably, these terms reflect different aspects related to the process of occupational stress in the academic literature. Specifically, stressors are events or conditions that could result in stress (Beehr & McGrath, 1992); strains are the responses of stressor, which are harmful to individuals in terms of health and well-being (Beehr, 1998); and stress more commonly known as a term which describes situations where stressors and strains exist (Beehr, 1998).
2-1-1 Stress
The concept of stress did not occur in social sciences until Selye (1956) first observed it from a medical and health science aspect. Selye (1956) first defined stress broadly as “the rate of all the wear and tear caused by life” and later more simply as
“the non-specific response of the body to any demand” (Selye, 1979). Over the years, many definitions of stress have developed and definitions of stress from different
‧
perspectives have been given. For example, McGrath (1970) defined stress
furthermore by including the environmental factor on a person-environment (P-E) -fit basis. He believed that stress results “when there is substantial „imbalance‟ between environmental demand and the response capability of the focal organism” (p. 17).
Stress is, as he put it, “an interaction of person and environment” because the
environment provides attractive demands that offer rewards to individuals when they achieved them but at the same time challenge their capabilities in the process of meeting these demands (McGrath, 1976).
Schuler (1980), on the other hand, defined stress from another perspective.
Specifically, he defined stress as a “dynamic condition” where an individual encounters an opportunity, a constraint and/or a demand on which he/she desires having. The confrontation with these factors will pose a feeling of uncertainty to the individual and will have important impact on him/her once these factors have been resolved. This definition highlights two important characteristics of stress. First, an individual is motivated when he/she has a desire for a opportunity, a constraint or a demand. Additionally, stress involves a feeling of uncertainty and a perception of importance of outcomes. Stress occurs because there is doubt whether an opportunity can be grasped, a constraint can be eliminated, or a demand can be met. Feeling of stress is also influenced by how important individuals hold for the desired outcomes (McGrath, 1976). Since the degree of uncertainty and the perception of importance may change from time to time, stress is thus described as a „dynamic‟ condition.
From the above definitions, it can be drawn that stress results from an imbalance between a individual and the demand of the environment. An individual is challenged to accomplish the demand, and undergoes uncertainty. Feelings of stress will
intensify as he/she lays greater importance on the desired outcomes.
‧
Furthermore, occupational stress is one of the most important areas of stress research in that people spend a tremendous amount of time on their work. According to French, Rogers, and Cobb (1974), occupational stress occurs when there is a misfit between an individual and his/her working environment. This misfit results when an individual is unable to meet specific demands of work, or when his/her needs cannot be met due to insufficient supplies. The following section elaborates more on
occupational stress by introducing its models.
2-1-2 Beehr’s (1998) Refined Facet Occupational Stress Model
Popular models of occupational stress include Institute for Social Research (ISR) Model (French & Kahn, 1962; Katz & Kahn, 1978) and House‟s (1974) occupational stress model, which both present stress as a one-way process with specific elements (e.g., environmental factor, psychological perception, individual response to stress, personal and situational characteristics). McGrath (1976), on the other hand, focused more on individuals‟ cognitive aspect and presented stress process in a four stage loop.
Beehr and Newman (1978) later developed a more complete meta-model based on previous theoretical models and practical studies. This model, later refined by Beehr (1998), encompasses essential elements common in stress processes and is said to be consistent with many of the hypotheses and research of occupational stress. Hence, this study chooses to elaborate on the refined occupational stress model (Beehr, 1998), as to provide a more detailed description on the process of occupational stress.
In the refined facet model (Figure 2.1), individuals first find themselves in a workplace where stressors and strains are present. However, they do not experience strain unless they go through human psychological or physical processes, which are responsible for transforming stimuli (i.e., stressor) and producing personal strain and
‧
organizational outcomes (Beehr & Newman, 1978). Physical processes refer to
“psychological, physiological, chemical or neurological events in human organism”
(Beehr & Newman, 1978). Despite the efforts of several researchers (Mason, 1975;
Selye, 1975), a solid physical process has not been agreed upon and related studies have been rare.
Psychological processes, on the other hand, can be understood through two activities: individuals‟ perception of the situation and appraisal of the situation.
Individuals‟ perception of the situation refers to the notion that individuals must first perceive the stimuli to be stressful or successfully identify stressors so that it will cause them strains or affect their job attitudes. Individuals‟ appraisal of the situation occurs after they‟ve identified stressors. They compare the perceived situation with their personal resources such as abilities, values or needs. It is based on such
comparisons that determine the amount of stress experienced. For instance, a person would perceive work overload as a stressor, only after he/she has compared his/her abilities and realize that such workload is making him/her feel stressful (Beehr &
Newman, 1978).
Strains to the person are categorized into three types, namely psychological, physical and behavioral strains (Beehr, 1995; Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison, &
Pinneau, 1975; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992 ). Previous studies have successfully examined the relationship between occupational stressors and psychological strains such as anxiety, depression or dissatisfaction (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992 ). Probable physical strains include job stress-heart attacks or catecholamine secretions. Studies that examine physical strains, however, are not easily conducted because such variables are hard to measure and such studies need longer periods of time to carry out (Beehr & Newman, 1978). Similarly, behavioral strains such as illegal drug abuse,
‧
smoking and suicide have been less discussed because it is difficult to determine whether these behaviors stem solely from stress at work (Beehr, 1998).
Organizational outcomes refer to consequences caused by stressful employees which eventually have impacts on the company. Typical organizational outcomes related to stress are employee withdrawals such as absenteeism, tardiness or turnover (Beehr, 1998; Beehr & Newman, 1978).
Both personal and situational characteristics are said to be moderators between stressor-process relationship (and hence also moderators between stress-strain relationship) in that they are potential factors that strengthen or weaken the relationship between stressor and strain. Personal characteristics refer to stable individual characteristics such as demographic traits, ability, personality traits or needs. Specifically, personality traits includes Type A/B behavior, individuals‟ ego needs, self esteem, human or religious values (Beehr & Newman, 1978).
Situational characteristics include characteristics and conditions of the organization that may influence individuals‟ perception of stress. Size of the company, organizational structure, communication systems, organizational climate, social support and opportunities for career advancement provided are all considered to be elements of this category (Beehr, 1998; Beehr & Newman, 1978). Unfortunately, many of these personal and environmental elements have often been ignored in stress literature (Beehr & Newman, 1978). It is then of great significance to take these factors into consideration when conducting research of occupational stress.
Other facets of the model are approaches to coping and adaption and time facet.
Coping approaches can be adopted either from the individual level (e.g., mediation, relaxation training or counseling) or organizational level (e.g., job redesign, changes in organizational structure or marking clear career paths and promotion criteria).
‧
Time factor, though rarely studied, is considered to be an essential factor in causing stress (Beehr, 1976, 1998)
The present study selects Beehr‟s (1998) refined occupational stress model as the foundation for its research framework for two reasons. First, unlike other models, this model not only takes personal responses to stress into consideration, but also
emphasizes the importance of organizational consequences. Second, this model is helpful to this study in that it clearly depicts personal and situational characteristics as moderators between stressor and processes. Other models have failed to provide a clear explanation on how or at what stage could these characteristics affect the stress process. The setting of this criteria provides a simpler and yet solid foundation in investigating potential moderators for stressor-strain relationship.
Stresses in the
Figure 2.1 Refined facet model of occupational stress (Beehr, 1998) 1
2
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
11
2-2 Career Plateau
Career plateau was originally defined as a point in one‟s career where the chances of hierarchical promotion is low (Ference, et al., 1977). Bardwick (1986) further categorized career plateau into two types, one is hierarchical (i.e., structural) plateau, in which an individual‟s chances of further promotion seem unlikely, the other is job content plateau, in which an individual no longer receives new
responsibilities, and no longer feels challenged by his/her job. Hence, career plateau is considered a point in one‟s career where future promotion opportunities or increase in job responsibilities no longer seems likely.
Over the years, measurements used to differentiate career plateaued employees from non-plateaued employees have also evolved. Initially, career plateau was measured using individuals‟ job tenure or age (Evans & Gilbert, 1984; Gould &
Penley, 1984). Chao (1990), however, argues that plateau should be measured by individuals‟ perceptions of their career. If an individual believe that there is no further opportunities for promotion or is no longer challenged by his/her job, he/she is considered as plateaued. Furthermore, Chao (1990) disagrees with the concept that career plateau can be dichotomized; there should be a range difference among employees who are plateaued or non-plateaued. Based on Chao‟s (1990) idea, Milliman (1992) developed items to measure individuals‟ perceptions of hierarchical plateau and job content plateau, which has been used widely in several recent career plateau studies (Allen, et al., 1998; Allen, Russell, Poteet, & Dobbins, 1999; Lentz &
Allen, 2009; McCleese & Eby, 2007).
‧
2-2-1 Career Plateau and Employee outcomes
Although career plateau is not always destructive to employees‟ job
performance or effectiveness (Ference, et al., 1977; Levinson & Super, 1977), many scholars agree that it is a stressful experience for individuals (Allen, et al., 1998;
Elsass & Ralston, 1987; McCleese & Eby, 2007). Specifically, perceived
underpromotion and poor career opportunities are sources of stress for employees who are experiencing career plateau (Cooper, 2001; Rotondo, 1999; Sonnentag &
Frese, 2002). Elsass and Ralston (1989) also proposed that career plateau is an ambiguous state that can be stressful to employees because they cannot specifically recognize when promotion truly becomes unlikely. As a consequence, career plateau gradually causes stress when they feel threatened of not achieving desired career advancement, or are continuously exposed in a perception of career discrepancy (Elsass & Ralston, 1987). Moreover, McCleese and Eby‟s (2007) found that
individuals who are either hierarchical or job content plateaued have higher levels of stress than the general population.
Under the above premises that career plateau is a stressful experience (Elsass &
Ralston, 1989; McCleese & Eby, 2007), which can lead to strain experience by individuals, emotional exhaustion is used in this study to measure strain. Emotional exhaustion refers to “feelings of being emotionally overextended and exhausted by one‟s work.” (Wright & Cropanzano, 1985, p. 486), and is the essential component of burnout and a chronic form of stress (Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Maslach, 1982)
Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Individuals‟ perception of career plateau is positively associated with emotional exhaustion.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
13
Hypothesis 1a: Individuals‟ perception of hierarchical plateau is positively associated with emotional exhaustion.
Hypothesis 1b: Individuals‟ perception of job content plateau is positively associated with emotional exhaustion.
Career plateau not only makes individuals feel stressful, but is often correlated with unfavorable job attitudes or behaviors (Allen, et al., 1998; Allen, et al., 1999;
Chao, 1990; Ettington, 1992; Milliman, 1992). The present study chooses job satisfaction, job involvement and affective organizational commitment as
organizational outcomes in that they are the most common and effective indicators of job attitudes or behaviors in plateau research (Allen, et al., 1998; Allen, et al., 1999;
Chao, 1990; McCleese & Eby, 2007). Past studies have showed that both plateaus are related with lower job satisfaction, lower organizational commitment (Chao, 1990;
Davenport, 1993; Ettington, 1992; Milliman, 1992; Stout, et al., 1988; Tremblay &
Toulouse, 1995), and lower job involvement (Allen, et al., 1999). Consequently, it is assumed that:
Hypothesis 2: Individuals‟ perception of hierarchical plateau is negatively associated with organizational outcomes such as (a) job satisfaction, (b) job
involvement, and (c) affective organizational commitment. Similarly, individuals‟
perception of job content plateau is negatively associated with (d) job satisfaction, (e) job involvement, and (f) affective organizational commitment.
‧
2-3 Psychological Processes of Career Plateau
Although career plateau is often regarded as undesirable experiences among individuals and organizations, research that investigates psychological processes is scarce. However, based on previous studies, psychological processes for the two types of career plateau can be inferred.
First, hierarchical plateau tends to be an ambiguous state, and the question whether employees will be promoted is always unclear because companies will not inform them that they are plateaued (Elsass & Ralston, 1989; Near, 1980). It is then likely that individuals experience a sense of uncertainty about their future career as they await the outcomes of promotion. In addition, numerous studies proposed that uncertainty is an essential element and a common mediator of stress (Beehr, 1998; Ito
& Brotheridge, 2001; McGrath, 1976; Schuler, 1980). It is probable that individuals‟
uncertainty of future career would lead to personal strains. Furthermore, individuals with such uncertainty may be dissatisfied with jobs, have lower job involvement and less commitment to their organizations because they are no longer optimistic about obtaining preferable career advancements and don‟t know if it is worthwhile to make contributions to companies. Taken together, individuals‟ future career uncertainty could be the psychological process for hierarchical plateau as well as the mediator for the relationship between hierarchical plateau and employee outcomes. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 3: Individuals‟ future career uncertainty is a mediator for the relationship between their perception of hierarchical plateau and employee outcomes: (a) emotional exhaustion, (b) job satisfaction, (c) job involvement, and (d) affective organizational commitment.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
15
Job content plateaued individuals are employees who no longer receive new responsibilities and are unchallenged by their jobs. Such employees are often in a certain role for some time that they feel there is “nothing new to master and the responsibilities and problems felt repetitive.” (Bardwick, 1986, p. 69). Accordingly, studies in the past have shown that workers who are engaged in repetitive work or work underload (i.e., employees‟ capabilities are underestimated in their current job content) report high levels of perceived boredom about their work (Caplan, et al., 1975). Hence, it is suggested that individuals‟ subjective monotony should be the psychological process for job content plateau. Perceived boredom at work is also related with negative outcomes such as absenteeism, job dissatisfaction and stress (Caplan, et al., 1975; Gardell, 1971; O'hanlon, 1981). Therefore, it is proposed that subjective monotony serves as mediator between job content plateau and related employee outcomes.
Hypothesis 4: Individuals‟ subjective monotony is a mediator for the relationship between their perception of job content plateau and employee outcomes: (a) emotional exhaustion, (b) job satisfaction, (c) job involvement, and (d) affective organizational commitment.
‧
Workplace spirituality is a concept that cannot be well understood without first recognizing the meaning of spirituality. Thus, in this section, spirituality is first introduced, followed by workplace spirituality and its value of research.
2-4-1 Spirituality
There are various definitions of spirituality. Spirituality is a word that everyone can feel or seems to understand, but is extremely difficult to describe with just a couple of sentences. The origin of the word is the Latin word spiritus, which means
“breath”. This means that whoever has spirituality must be conscious of the breath of life in oneself and in all creation (1993). Researchers initially defined spirituality as a sacred experience with a higher power. For instance, McCormick (1994) used Clark‟s (1958) definition, defined spirituality as “the inner experience of the individual when he senses a Beyond, especially as evidenced by the effect of this experience on his behavior when he actively attempts to harmonize his life with the Beyond.” This Beyond is said to be in control of everything, though the names of the high power may be different to different individuals.
Recent researchers further described spirituality focusing more on individuals‟
behaviors. Howard (2002) believes that spirituality begins with a “hidden yearning”
within human beings, which spontaneously draws individuals to seek meaning or purpose in their lives. It also involves a “sense of interconnectedness with the world,”
including the universe and all humanity (Mitroff & Denton, 1999b). Such meaning-seeking nature and attempts to be connected with surroundings will result in a more balanced and fulfilled life, and individuals will perform virtues such as love, joy, peace, and wholeness (Howard, 2002).
‧
Summarizing the above definitions, spirituality is the belief that there is a higher power in this world, with which meaning-seeking individuals come into contact, and experience a personal feeling of harmony and connectedness with all creation and nature.
2-4-2 Spirituality and Religion
People may be misled to think that spirituality is very much like religion, because they both engage in a greater power. However, spirituality and religion are very different in concept (McCormick, 1994; Mitroff, 2003; Mitroff & Denton, 1999b;
Saucier & Skrzypińska, 2006). Unlike spirituality, the word religion comes from the Latin word religio, which means “to bind or tie” (Saucier & Skrzypińska, 2006). It is, according to Argyle and Beit-Hallahmi (1975), “a system of beliefs in a divine or superhuman power, and practices of worship or other rituals directed towards such a power.” People with religions would practice rituals, abide by dogmas and attend services (Roof, 1993) in order to worship the one who they believe to have
supernatural power.
Several researchers further made efforts in differentiating the two. Howard (2002), for instance, believes that spirituality and religion are two different things that can be dependent upon each other. She defines spirituality as a highly personal and unseen desire which covers how a person “lives out his or her sense of
interconnectedness with the world through an ability to tap into deep resources.”
Religion, on the other hand, is a systematic mean to become connected with the unseen spirit. It is, in Howard‟s (2002) words, “a route to developing greater
spirituality.” Through practicing religious rituals, abiding by dogmas and attending services, a person is actually creating a path to his or her spirituality.
‧
Religion and spirituality differs not only in definition but also in its appropriateness in the workplace. Whereas most people regard religion as an inappropriate topic in the workplace, spirituality is perceived more acceptable for discussion because it does not divide groups of people from the other (Cash, 2000;
Mitroff, 2003; Mitroff & Denton, 1999a). Mitroff (2003) specifically identified and listed the distinction between spirituality and religion and concluded that unlike religion, spirituality is seen to be tolerant, open-minded and available to everyone.
Spirituality differs from religion in that it is neither formally structured nor organized;
it is simply “non-denominational”.
2-4-3 Elements of Workplace Spirituality
Like spirituality, it is difficult to describe spirituality at work with only a few
Like spirituality, it is difficult to describe spirituality at work with only a few