The Changing Nature of Job Stress: Risk and Resources

The nature of work has changed in the past 30 years but we do not know what these changes have meant for worker job stress. In this chapter we compare data from three surveys of the quality of work life from 1972 to 2002. At the most general level, work today is less stressful than it was in 1972. Workers report fewer job demands, more decision latitude, less job strain, more job security and greater access to job resources and job support. However, these changes have not affected all workers equally. Women, those with less education, non self-employed workers, blue collar workers and workers in manufacturing industries showed the greatest decreases in job stress although levels of job stress remain higher than for comparison groups (men, college educated, white collar, service workers). Changes were not always linear across time suggesting that some aspects of job strain are sensitive to economic cycles. The Changing Nature of Job Stress: Risk and Resources The nature of work has changed considerably in the past 30 years. But there are conflicting interpretations of what these changes have meant for worker job stress. Some argue that work in high performance organizations, for example, is characterized by more stimulating work conducted in a context where workers have considerable say over how the work is done and that this increases decision latitude and reduces job stress (National Research Council 1999). Other analysts have suggested that the growth in the “service economy” would create vast numbers of low-skill low-paying jobs that feature high levels of job demand and low decision latitude, thus increasing job stress (Braverman 1974). Hence, while it is clear that the nature of work has changed, it is not clear whether these changes have increased or decreased job stress among workers. Such an assessment requires comparable data from comparable samples across multiple years. The purpose of this chapter is to provide just such a set of comparisons using data from three surveys of the quality of work life that span 30 years. The data files all utilize representative samples of U.S. workers. These data allow us to document the changing nature of work, the changing nature of workers and changes in job stress and to examine how changes in work and workers have affected changes in job stress. WORK ORGANIZATION AND JOB STRESS Job stress is a property of job structures such as the combination of high demands and low decision latitude (Karasek 1989; Radmacher and Sheridan 1995). Although it is certainly true that personality and psychological characteristics of workers affect stressful reactions to work conditions, it is employers who largely determine the structure and content of work. In particular, Karasek (1979) has argued that two properties of a job, its level of psychological demands and its level of decision latitude jointly determine the stressful nature of a job. Jobs in which demands are high and decision latitude is low are defined as “high strain” jobs. This demand-control model has become the most prominent model for understanding how job structures affect job stress. Substantial research has been conducted using the model with mixed empirical support (Van Der Doef and Maes 1999; de Lange et al. 2003). It has also been extended to include the effects that co-worker and supervisor support have on job stress. Workers who receive support from others are less likely to report experiencing job strain. Thus, some researchers refer to the demand-controlsupport model or the “iso-strain” model (Johnson 1989; Van Der Doef and Maes 1999). There are, of course, other models as well. We will investigate the changing nature of job stress using the demand-control model, examining these and other dimensions of work over time. We conceptualize these dimensions in terms of structural “risks” and “resources” that affect the stressful nature of jobs. Risk, Resources and Stress The demand-control model or iso-strain models can be contrsted with theoretical approaches that incorporate a broader range of organizational risk factors for stress (Sauter and Murphy 1989). Findings suggest that not only does support from co-workers and supervisors play a role in determining job stress, but that other job conditions such as job security and access to adequate information and equipment also must be considered. One way to conceptualize all of these conditions is in the broad context of risks and resources. This perspective has been developed within the Medical Sociology literature as a means for understanding the way in which structural context affects health (Link and Phelan 1995). Structures both place persons (workers) at risk of illness (stress) and provide access to resources that can be used to avoid stress or to deal with its consequences. It seems clear that the demand-control model falls within this conceptualization. However, the conceptualization also lets us bring in those additional job conditions that are part of a broader explanation for job stress. In this broader model, job conditions that increase the risk of job stress, such as a job with high demands and low decision latitude or one with low job security, can be offset by resources such as coworker and supervisor support or access to resources with which one can complete work tasks. We use this perspective simply to trace the changing nature of work structures and job stress across data collected in 1972, 1977 and 2002. THE CHANGING NATURE OF WORK Since the 1970s the nature of work has changed. Major economic, technological, legal, political and other changes have had a substantial effect on the organization of work in the United States (Sauter, Brightwell, Colligan et al. 2002). Manufacturing jobs have declined, there is more “knowledge” work, organizations have downsized, there is greater competitive pressure in the marketplace, unionization has decreased and selfemployment is reported to have increased. As a consequence of these changes, organizations have implemented practices that change work conditions. Many organizations have adopted flatter management structures and lean production technologies that imply a diffusion of decision-making control (greater decision latitude but, perhaps, also increased job demands). Others argue that changes in the economic environment mean that workers are now less protected from changes in labor and product market forces outside of the organization (Cappelli et al 1997). Employees are, thus, more vulnerable to job-loss through downsizing, plant closings and use of temporary or contingent workers. According to this argument stress from job insecurity now occurs throughout economic cycles and not only during recessionary phases. The occupational structure in the US has also changed significantly and the changes may have implications for the distribution of job stress among occupations. Blue-collar jobs have been lost and service and professional jobs have increased. The National Research Council (1999) suggests that blue-collar jobs now offer workers more autonomy and control and job complexity that might reduce job stress. At the same time, while the number of service jobs has grown, this same report suggests that service jobs have become more routinized and that service workers have lost some control over their work activities. These characteristics are associated with more job stress and, if more workers are employed in service jobs, it would imply an increase in overall job stress. Job structures also change because of changes in the status of the economy. During recessions, for example, firms follow two adjustment strategies. They lay off workers and they restructure jobs (Hachen 1992). Generally this restructuring includes higher demands for productivity and closer supervision-factors that increase job stress. Likewise, in expanding economic periods firms hire new workers and monitor work less closely-factors that decrease job stress. While broad shifts in the occupational and industrial distribution of jobs and other long-term technological and global changes affect job conditions, economic cycles that affect corporate profits and employment levels also affect job conditions. THE CHANGING NATURE OF WORKERS Between 1972 and 2002 (but not beginning or ending with these years) the demographic characteristics of workers changed dramatically. Women entered the labor force in sizable numbers and many of these women are mothers. The labor force has also aged. In addition, the educational attainment of workers is much higher than in 1972. These changes may have implications for the structure of jobs (and job-related stress) and the distribution of jobs with stressful content. CHANGES IN JOB STRESS To document changes in job stress over the past 30 years we need to assess various indicators of job stress in the context of changes in the nature of work and worker changes that have occurred over this same period. Since the nature of work and the nature of workers have changed so much, we need to describe the distribution of risks and resources for job stress in terms of these documented changes. We will examine data from three representative samples of American workers collected in 1972, 1977 and 2002. THE DATA SETS 1972 (Quality of Employment Survey) A national survey of the quality of employment was conducted in January and February, 1973 by the Survey Research Center of the Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. The survey was sponsored by the Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and was intended to provide an overview of working conditions in the American labor force. There were 1496 respondents. The requirements for respondent eligibility were that they be at least 16 years old and work for pay 20 or more hours per week. People were also interviewed if they worked for pay but were currently not working due to strike, sickness, weather, vacation, or for personal reasons. The sample was, therefore, not representative of the American labor force but was instead a sample of the population of employed workers who met the above sample eligibility requirements. Although households were sampled at a constant rate, designated respondents had variable selection rates according to the number of eligible persons within the household. The data for each respondent are, therefore weighted by the number of eligible persons in the household to make the data representative of all workers. 1977 (Quality of Employment Survey) This survey was also undertaken in order to provide an overview of working conditions in the American labor force. Like the 1972 survey, this survey utilized a national probability sample of persons 16 years old or older who were working for pay 20 or more hours per week. Although households were sampled at a constant rate, designated respondents had variable selection rates according to the number of eligible persons within a household. Therefore, data for each respondent was weighted by the number of persons in the household. The 1977 survey was sponsored by the Employee Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Information was obtained from a sample of 1515 respondents. 2002 (Quality of Work Life) The Quality of Work Life (QWL) survey was a module of the General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in 2002. The GSS is a bi-annual representative sample of English-speaking persons 18 years of age and over, living in non-institutional arrangements within the United States. In 2002, a total of 2765 adults were interviewed. The GSS consists of a set of “core” survey items that are asked of all respondents and topical mini-modules of survey items such as the QWL module that are asked of sub-samples of respondents. The QWL module was sponsored by NIOSH. The QWL module was answered by 1777 respondents who indicated that they were employed for pay in the week previous to the survey or temporarily not working because of vacation, illness, etc. Comparing the Surveys: Methodological Considerations To compare the survey responses across the different data sets we must first make the characteristics of the samples comparable. The 1972 and 1977 surveys are based on responses from workers 16 years old or older who were working for pay 20 or more hours each week. By contrast, the QWL is based on the responses of workers 18 years old or older and without the requirement to work 20 hours or more. Hence, we specify that, for all data sets, only workers 18 years old or older and who work 20 or more hours per week will be included. These criteria reduce the size of each sample somewhat. In 1972, the weighted number of respondents is 2048, in 1977 the weighted number of respondents is 2226 and, in 2002, the weighted number of respondents is 3010. The data from each survey is weighted by the number of eligible respondents in each interview household to adjust for biases in the selection of household respondents. The weighted data make the samples representative of all eligible workers. In this study, then, the responses we report and the comparison we perform are based on representative samples of American workers who are at least 18 years old and who work 20 or more hours per week.