Posted By fats van den raad
"There's no such thing as stress"

Discuss

Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Whether there is such a 'thing' as 'stress' depends on assumptions you make about the human mind, emotions and body.

If you adopt a radical behaviourist stance, along the lines of B F Skinner who asserted you can't make a meaningful statement about minds and emotions, you can validly assert that there is no such 'thing' as stress.

If you adopt a 'cognitive behabioural' approach, such as that used in NLP, solution-focused and cognitive-behavioural counselling/therapy, you can observe that people express relief about less stress when you conduct verbal and mental exercises of particular kinds.

If you adopt a 'medical' model, such as the DSM-IV or the ICD10, you can prescribe medication which may result in changes in symptoms of distress.

If you adopt a 'social interactionist' model, you can classify some behaviour in terms of 'bullying' and 'harassment' that many in society experience as stressful.

If you choose a 'cultural' model, such as that embedded in the HSE Occupational Stress Management Standards, you can propose values, many endorsed in laws and regulations, which employers and employees have some obligation to express in behaviour.

If you choose a 'constructivist' model, you can design competencies which enable managers to build Human Capital in ways that converts stressful experiences into occasions for learning. This model also encourages all concerned to recognise that 'stress' like other human linguistic conventions has varying meanings (or none) to different folk, depending on their own experiences, beliefs, values and quality of humour.

Posted By Hilary Charlton
I always understood that stress was a result of a build up a pressure to a point that the person finds unacceptable.

The amount of pressure required to cause stress is very much dependent on the person and, likewise, stress relievers the same.

I was reading a study in the Environment Magazine the other day about the positive effect 5 minute walk in the countryside can have on stress levels - apparently it is excellently good for you as it gives you some uninterrupted unwinding time from the pressures of life.

However, I was also given to understand that there was a fundamental difference between stress and pressure.

A little pressure keeps the adrenelin pumping and keeps you fired up, whereas too much pressure is classified as stress.

So, yes, I do think stress actually exists.

Hilary

Posted By PaulA
FATS is only trying to gain a 'personal best’ and beat the 161 replies to the last thread!!!! Don’t bite...!!!! your taking the bait...!!!! The last thread was embarrassing for the H&S professionals……. knowing that ‘outsiders’ read some of the inane drivel that came from the few!!
Or…. FATS is actually Mr Jeremy Clarkson and having a right laugh now!!!!!????

Posted By Richard Spencer
Neuroticism has been associated with psychological distress and a stress driver.

It has been observed that neuroticism is associated with the use of emotion-focused coping strategies such as escapist fantasy, self blame, and withdrawal. For instance in studies conducted on student nurses, it was observed that a number were found to be highly neurotic, low on extraversion and coped less well than others with stress in their new roles.

From my research, a concept which appears similar to neuroticism and depression is negative affectivity and individuals with highly negative feelings were more likely than others to respond negatively to almost anything and to report stress even in the absence of any objective stressor or health related problem. From the research it would appear this tends to suggest a root cause of an enduring personal trait.

It appears the existence of such a personal disposition, among some people poses problems in trying to identify and eliminate these stressors encountered in the work environment. In any case the research concludes that it cannot be assumed that any process will eliminate or reduce stress for some people.

In respect of coping, most people have some method of coping with stress. Notionally there is a distinction between ‘problem focused people’, that is, an ability to deal directly with a problem, and ‘emotion focused people’, who deal with their feelings about the problem.

Active problem solving is held to have a positive effect upon one’s personal well being, whilst emotion-focused coping has been linked with poorer psychological adjustment in long term issues.

Of course, some basic study of psychology is need to try comprehend the enormity of human behaviour traits and in seeking answers to the human condition, it is clear that there is indeed the need for more research in understanding one’s own condition.

In some cases this was approached on sub-elementary level in the original thread.

Richard

Posted By Hilary Charlton
Actually, I think Richard's response was pretty good - now I know that no one ever thought that I would concur with his views but full credit where it is due. A reasoned and intelligent response with good points and a good understanding of the limitations that most of us H&S people face when dealing with stress.

I totally agree that a basic understanding of psychology is required but personally feel that this should be complemented by a basic understanding of sociology so that you can understand the external factors that may have given rise to the enduring personal trait in the first place.

Stress, as we have been told, is an illness. An MD can diagnose it, but can he really treat it? Perhaps the question should not be "is there such a thing as stress" but "how should we be dealing with stress". The normal response is "get the Company Doctor", but perhaps we should be sending for the Company counsellor instead? Perhaps a person suffering from stress would be better off being counselled than given drugs.

Just my thoughts on it but would like to know what others think.

Hilary

Posted By David J Bristow
Hi Fats

In the treatment of stress -- a well know doctor is quoted as saying:

It is better to treat the man who has the syptom than treat the syptom of the man!

Perhaps Kieran will clarify if this is correct/incorrect.

Regards



David B

Posted By Richard Spencer
Interesting observations by Kieran, I concur with the statement that it is a challenge for those that are employed in OHS to come to terms with.

It could even be that Universities will include in the curriculum a subject dealing with the psychology of the working environment at the undergraduate and postgraduate level as it would appear to be core to the topic of OHS.

Little has been said so far about the economic and other factors affecting acceptance of risk. In countries that are in economic recession or when unemployment is high and there are a few jobs available, people are often obliged to work in jobs with high physical risk. Or conversely where there is a buoyant economy and an over supply of aging workers, who are often cast aside in favour of youth.

Given that all jobs carry some degree of risk to a person’s health and safety the decision has to be made by each worker as to whether to accept the risk and how much to increase or decrease the risk associated with a particular job. Eldridge and Kaye’s occupational stress model shows economic and other circumstances may lead to a worker becoming stressed at work. This stress may give rise to a number of outcomes, one of which is accidents.

The question then is why should OHS professionals be concerned with psychological stress? Is it because it presents a mental hazard? Psychological stress is a component of health and safety and there is at least a reasonable ethical requirement to safeguard this element in employees.

It is known that beyond a certain point individuals under stress perform poorly and stress therefore has a negative effect on worker productivity, quality and safety.

A distinction should also be drawn between eustress - positive arousal and motivation, and distress - extreme anxiety, depression, and low self esteem.

It has been shown that issues which cause employees to become stressed are those associate with organisation change, resulting form such things as mergers, relocations, and staff reductions.

A significant amount of stress is caused at work, which is the primary reason for this thread. Within organisational culture and relationships, stress is a problem for organisations not merely for individuals. From my observations, stress and it’s management is widely recognised as a workplace problem.

Stress is multi-dimensional and complex having both objective - having physiological measures and, subjective - having cognitive appraisal or perceived components.

Stress is experienced by individuals and has links with motivation and personality as previously outline in the thread on neuroticism. however many of the origins of stress often referred to as stressors, are generally held to be found external. This is not clear cut, because stress is experienced a result to an interaction between individual variables such as personality, coping style, attitudes, and expectations and environmental factors such as - organisation culture and rate of change.


One method of coping is to approach the cause of stress directly; this is known as problem-focused coping. The alternative approach is for the person to change the manner in which they feel about a situation – this is called emotion focused coping.

Richard

Posted By Neil Pearson
There's a good reason why people in the medical profession resist using the word "stress". I'm under alot of stress at work, as many of us are, and sometimes it gets the better of me. But to say I'm suffering from stress is like someone who's been in a road accident saying "I'm suffering from car". They're not, they're suffering from a broken leg. In the same way, some people exposed to stress suffer depression, anxiety and various other conditions.

I find it helpful in H&S to think of stress as just another hazard, like a dangerous chemical. Most substances can be tolerated at certain levels, but too much causes harm, and some people are more tolerant of it than others. Some people thrive (or appear to thrive) on levels of stress that cause harm in others. There can be a tendency for those who thrive on stress to be intolerant of those who are more susceptible.

Do I win £5?

Posted By Jez Corfield
Stress is not in itself an illness, it is a state of mind, and if you are there it might make you ill with a whole range of physical and mental illness, some short term and some long term.

Of course the way different people react to stress is different, some people will be ill, and some will not. The big problem for H&S professionals is to try and put some systems in place around an almost intangible and invisible hazard.

As far as I can see the HSE approach is sound, in that plain and simple good management within organisations should prevent undue stress, and deal with it appropriately when it does occur.

We went down the road of doing an organisational stress risk assessment based upon the HSE standards, and we identified three areas where we needed to improve (role, change and targets), and we hope to do this by linking the assessment directly to our management development programme. Sounds easy but it isn’t!

Jez

Posted By Rob Todd
Hello - I tried very hard, not to stick my twopennyworth into this subject - either on this stream or the last one however, I thought that there is one point worth making (without upsetting anyone hopefully).

Stress (if it exists) is a medical condition that requires medical diagnosis. The HSE are not medically trained (except EMAS who aren't quoted in the guidance), and nor are the majority of H&S professionals. Stress should not therefore fall under the remit of our responsibility to any degree more than the lay managers in our company's.

All the pseudo interlectual postings purporting to come from the knowledgeable, are just excerpts from medical practitioners who can't agree amongst themselves. I say leave it to the Doctors and let's get on with some other H&S matters where we can really help.

Cheers

Rob

Posted By Rob Todd
Hi Kieran,

The very fact that you have said that the doctors are involved and that medical opinion is ..... etc. suggests that I was right!! I don't expect doctors to get involved in accident reporting on the same basis that I don't think that I am able to comment on someone's mental stability. When someone suffers from excessive stress do you diagnose? Or, would you refer to a doctor/pschologist/Psychiatrist?

Let's not get beyond ourselves. Everything is starting to get tacked onto safety - first it was safety then H&S then H&S&E then H&S&E&Q and now we should stick MD on the end - I don't think so!

I do however stand corrected if EMAS were the main drivers for this but that said - it just adds to my argument.

Cheers R

Posted By Nick Higginson
I'm with Rob.

Pages and pages of drivel on this subject - people obviously upset with each other, tons of time wasted in trying to keep up.

What has been achieved? Nothing, thats what. Not a carrot.

I sincerely hope that Jeremy Clarkson is not reading, or I fear another article about the usefulness of safety practitioners.

Regards

Nick

Posted By Gareth Bryan
Just out of interest. How many of you, who have contributed to this thread and the previous thread, have actually sufered from stress related symptoms to the extent that you have required some form of medical intervention?.

The threads so far have been a mix of good information, hot air and the odd Troll thrown in for good measure. But I do wonder how many of you really know what you are talking about.

Posted By Zoe Barnett
Thank you Kieran, that's very helpful. I'll add them to my reading list!

Posted By Ron Young
Have to agree with Rob. The vast majority of Safety professionals, I surmise, are not medical specialists/experts. Therefore how can they competently assess someone who complains of suffering from stress? Risk assessments are only as good as the competence of the people who conduct them and the competence of the people who action them. Yes, we can flag up the known "stressors" but I'm blowed if we can competently diagnose whether the person is actually suffering from stress related conditions. Occupational Health, if you have it, must be involved in any stress risk assessment and their specialist advice should be accepted and actioned. I also agree with Rob that we appear to be wearing more and more hats that no other department seems to want. I agree that some of them are warranted but all of them?

Posted By Merv Newman
Earlier in this thread someone tried to get across the real definition of stress.

Stress may be a part of the workplace environment, in the same way as high noise levels, which may have an adverse effect on employee health. The actual health effects can only be identified/verified/measured by medically qualified persons.

We can, if we want to and are up to it, identify and quantify those environmental factors which may lead to health impairment.

However, my personal opinion is that this should not be part of OUR job. Unless specifically related to unsafe working conditions I regard psychological stress factors as a Human Relations or management matter.

Discuss

Merv Newman

Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Doctors, like members of the IOSH, CIPD and of other professional societies, are often understandably chary about being held to account legally for assessing occupational stress due to the ambiguities involved.

In my experience, even good occupational doctors (qualified by exam for membership of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine) profess to have a limited repertoire when it comes to stress as compared to other workplace medical matters. They are uniquely positioned to conduct an organic medical assessment and to prescribe drugs (but often reluctant to do so in relation to occupatioanl stress); they are also in a good position to refer on to another medical specialist in consultation with the employee's g.p. Often they are more inclined to refer an employee for counselling but medical expertise is seldom necessary for this.

In expert witness cases about occupational stress that I personally have been involved in, the distinctive contribution of the occupational doctor (an AFOM) was to formally advise the employer to arrange for someone else to conduct a 'mental health risk assessment'. After the person responsible for occupational safety made 3 bodged attempts, the employee claimed damages for personal injury. The Employment Tribunal found in the employee's favour and savaged the employer (of 10,000 people) for not ensuring that they had not appointed someone competent to conduct a mental health risk assessment, which their own medical specialist had explicitly, in writing, declined to do.

At the same time, employers are simply not legally in a position avoid their responsibility to assess and manage risks on the grounds that the OSH professional or HR professional (if they employ either) is not competent to do it. In court proceedings that I have observed, the employer's representatives have been cross-examined on para. 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and challenged to explain why they didn't ensure that the employer appointed a suitable assessor, when THEIR OWN DOCTOR formally declined to assess levels of stress of the employee.

Perhaps distinctive advantages that interested OSH professionals can bring to assessment and management of risks of occupational stress (as distinct from other forms of stress) is a comparatively good understanding of processes of identifying hazards and calibrating risks. Even if he or she is not equipped to formally conduct a mental or psychological health risk assessment, he/she is in a position to promoted health of employees and of the organisation.

Posted By Ron Young
Neil,

You state "For myself, I intend to get stress managed in the tried and tested way, i.e. through risk assessment, awareness, management training and individual job appraisals".

Where is the tried and tested way of risk assessment for stress when it appears that there are so few people competent or willing to admit to being competent to complete the risk assessment? Aren't you hiding behind the stock answer of "your risk assessment will identify significant risk"? It will, only when the risk assessment involves competent people in the first place and thats the crux of the matter. I do agree with your other points though.

Posted By Neil Pearson
Hi Ron. I see what you mean - I'm certainly no more competent than anyone else on this forum. But who is competent? It seems to me that the best we can do is provide some level of training to line managers and give them a formal process to follow.

I think it's a bit harsh to suggest I'm "hiding behind" risk assessment. On the contrary, I'm using risk assessment to actually take action and make improvements. Okay, there's a chance that the lack of technical expertise will introduce flaws in the assessments. But no-one else will take ownership of the issue in most organisations, and at least I am competent to co-ordinate the various people involved, including semi-experts such as OH physicians.