The Handbook of Work and
Health Psychology
Second Edition
Edited by
Marc J. Schabracq
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Jacques A.M. Winnubst
University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Cary L. Cooper
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK
....................................A FIT APPROACH TO WORK STRESS AND HEALTH (stralcio)
the P-property ratings. This makes E-properties even more difficult to investigate, if they
exist.
Many researchers may disagree, but for me the assumption of effect means that it is
virtually nonsensical to do stress research that does not have P-properties as its basic focus.
Moreover, the P-properties investigated must have some claim to considering a meaningful
aspect of the “whole person” and not just their perception of a small aspect of themselves
or their environment. This suggests that the study of individual or personal differences, not
job property differences, would be a more fruitful direction for stress research. Moreover,
this is likely to be true at both the theoretical and practical level. If one wants to maximise
the pragmatic benefits of research it should have action lever consequences at the
person-level, not at the job-factor or job level. This is because manipulations of the objective
work environment are only going to be effective to the degree that P-, not E-, properties
are affected. It is no surprise, then, that some commentators have been very critical of
the ability of stress researchers to effect any real changes in strain levels through interventions
that have manipulated job (E-) factors and have not focused on individual-level
change (e.g. Briner, 1997, 2001, Briner & Reynolds, 1999; Payne et al., 1999). On the other
hand, individual-level interventions that do change the way people perceive and behave
(e.g. cognitive behavioural training) can be very effective in changing self-esteem, attributions,
motivation for work, life satisfaction, job seeking success and mental health
(Proundfoot et al., 1997). They can also dramatically lower subsequent morbidity and mortality
rates (Eysenck & Grossarth-Maticek, 1991).
Of course, practitioners, consultants, job analysts and even managers, cannot believe
that the organisational interventions that cost considerable money make little difference
in the long term. The workers whose jobs are changed also sometimes report positive
perceptions, albeit only in the short term (e.g. Wall et al., 1986). Why do organisational
interventions and job redesigns not have the sustained power to improve things for workers?
I suggest they do not provide any persisting benefits unless the individual is fundamentally
transformed to some degree by the intervention. I do not mean that they see some aspects of
their work differently, but that a core self-concept needs to be affected. By this I mean the
way the individual perceives the world, decides and behaves accordingly—their cognitive
architecture. I propose that most organisational initiatives (re-engineering, Kaizen, total
quality management, job redesign, Investors in People, culture change etc.) do not work at
all in the way assumed, and fail in the long term (Stacey et al., 2001) precisely because they
fail to change the individuals within the working systems. It simply makes more sense to
focus directly on individual change and transformation—albeit it in the collective context
of the organisation or the team where the individuals can support each other—rather than
making it a hoped-for consequence of an organisational change.
It is not just a greater individual-level perspective that is required in stress research. It is
also necessary to do the research within a framework that encompasses a broad spectrum
of factors that might be related to decisions and behaviours. That is, the individual level
needs to measure the individual and not just a minor component of them. A specific focus
on just a small part of them (e.g. job satisfaction or strain) or the way they perceive things
(e.g. job characteristics) will not work because they will not provide E-P distinctions to be
made with any validity.
The FIT approach below attempts to focus more on the individual envelope and the core
self-concept (or at least a meaningful aspect of the person that is potentially changeable).
558 THE HANDBOOK OF WORK AND HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
It also tries to do so in a parsimonious manner. FIT tries to measure things that, if changed,
might make the person see things fundamentally differently, to empower them at their core,
and to change the way they think and do things. However, the FIT approach suggests that
traditional personality traits are unlikely to be useful factors to consider in this context,
even though they are “individual level”. On the contrary, personality traits can be considered
the gaolers or resistors of change and appropriate behaviour. They also play a central
role in person–environment misfit (Fletcher & Stead, 2000a, discuss this in greater detail).
In general, personality traits change very little with time except to become more and
more fixed with age, and “the child is the man” (e.g. Caspi, 2000; Roberts & DelVecchio,
2000). Personality research and theory offers little guidance to assist individual change and
development.
26.2.2 Stress Research and SCIchange
The FIT framework is based on a positive view that people can change and do not need to
be the prisoners of their own personalities, their habits, or their own illusions of intention
(Ouellette & Wood, 1998). It is not Panglossian or a universal curative; it is a different and
no less rigorous or scientific perspective. I have called the science necessary to investigate
many practical change issues “SCIchange”, to signify that its emphasis is on the analysis of
circumstances that are most conducive to improving or changing a state of affairs. SCIchange
presents slightly different criteria for doing science and evaluating it. The methodological
approach is also different to the traditional scientific methods. In traditional science the
emphasis is on understanding the theoretical mechanisms which underlie a phenomenon or
explain an aspect of theworld. Models, tests and an emphasis on falsification and refinement
do this where such issues as methodology, experimental design, robustness, detachment,
simulation and control are the watchwords and determinants of quality. SCIchange does not
emphasise such aspects—they are secondary to the change and influence in any situation.
The emphasis is on the context that will effect most change in the object of the study (this
might be in terms of health, scores on a psychological or medical test, changes in performance,
reductions in negative things like strain, smoking, or whatever). In the FIT context
it might be improved well-being, health and organisational performance. Table 26.1 shows
the difference in emphasis between traditional approaches to science and the SCIchange
framework.
SCIchange is not an appropriate framework for all scientific studies because for some
areas of ‘pure’ science it may be necessary to learn about the actual mechanisms underlying
the object of investigation. This may be an essential aspect of some branches of medicine,
but for work stress and health research a SCIchange, as opposed to a traditional scientific
approach, would be more useful. It is, I believe, time for stress research to be judged by
its ability to effect real improvements in people, their self-reports and health. This should
change the type of research that is done, as well as the thrust of the theories. The criteria of
SCIchange, not traditional science, should be applied towork stress research. It is interesting
to note that in some basic areas of occupational theory such as job analysis, consequential
outcomes—rather than the illusory search for accuracy—are increasingly seen as important
(e.g. Sanchez & Levine, 2000).
Traduttore
