Rlchard Pettlnger

COLLECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL ATTITUDES

Strategic approaches to the management of stress depend on the collective view initially taken. This can be seen from the following points of view.

Roots in Theory X and Y (McGregor, 1960)¹

Theory X exists where organizations take the view that their staff have to be bullied, bribed or threatened if any productive work is to be gained from them. This almost prescribes a stressful organization and environment as a precondition of doing anything constructive at all.

Theory Y states that organizations take the view that effective and productive work is dependent on creating conditions in which achievement will then follow; that staff have the need and desire to achieve and gain intrinsic, as well as extrinsic, rewards.

This looks overtly simple. However, it does not tell the full story as witness many overtly high value, highly satisfying, and high achieving organizations, occupations, professions, and individuals – who also experience high levels of stress. The collective attitude is therefore a starting point only. If an adversarial or confrontational approach is taken to staff, stress will be present. If a non-adversarial approach is taken, stress may nevertheless be present.

This is reinforced by understanding and attending to environmental factors, role and occupation content, and management style.

THE STATE OF THE ART 57

Change

A major cause of stress is change. This is for two reasons. The change itself may either be collectively or individually desirable, or not; and secondly change means moving from the known, under- stood, and familiar to the uncertain and unknown. The latter problem is compounded when no clear end is in sight. The protagonists of creating organizations that are in a constant state of change, and therefore flexible and responsive to every market, technological, and occupational development, very often fail to realize that those involved do at least need to be able to see mileposts, signs, and badges of achievement along the way. Otherwise, everything is perceived to be simply chaotic and uncertain and this, in itself, is extremely stressful.

Even where change is known and understood to be desirable, it still causes stress and therefore has to be managed effectively. Stress management requires that the aims and objectives of what is proposed are stated clearly and unambiguously together with dates and deadlines. Collective and individual effects on staff, occupations, work, and behavior patterns have also to be stated. Mechanisms are required in which individual and collective concerns can be addressed and remedied.

This must include addressing wider attitudes and beliefs. The management of change has come to be more or less synonymous with downsizing, resizing, rightsizing, and re-engineering, all of which are perceived to lead to redundancies, job losses, and lay-offs. If this is the case then people need to know. This causes stress, which can then be managed on the basis that people do at least understand the situation. If this is not the case, then this too should be stated clearly so that people’s minds are set at rest.

If the organization is not yet sure what the outcomes will be, then stress caused by uncertainty will occur. Organizations and their managers need to understand that staff assume that ‘‘no news is bad news,’’ and should take steps to ensure that effective communications are in place on an open and regular basis. As soon as it becomes clear one way or the other, people must be told. This part of stress management can be addressed effectively whatever the circumstances. Language used must be clear and direct. It is much better to commu- nicate along the lines of: ‘‘We will issue an update on Friday even if