Level 3: Organizational Stressors

Level 3: Organizational Stressors. Characterized by factors that reflect the organizations itself (size, number of levels, rules), as well as factors that relate to position and interaction of people (role conflict and job ambiguity). Organization stress levels are not the same for all organizations and vary from departments to departments by means of workload and assigned task. Clearly, what makes one organization more stress engendering than another depends on the predominance of certain properties. Work overload, underwork, job ambiguity, organizational structure, people management and role conflict.

1. Work overload. Excessive and inconvenient hours, tasks “over one’s head” and constant deadlines all contribute to poor mental and physical

Underworking. Relieving overwork by doing less sometimes provides an agreeable release, but in the long run being underworked leads to dissatisfaction, doubting of one’s abilities and demoralization. And unfulfilled need for achievement causes job tension.

3. Job Ambiguity. Inadequate information about job responsibilities and objectives as well as colleagues’ expectations contribute to stress indicators of depression, low self-esteem, life and job dissatisfaction that resulting to leave the job.

4. Organizational Structure. The presence of hierarchies, lack of participative and decision-making. With respect to organizational structure and stress-producing conflict, a number of research findings suggest that:

a) The more heterogeneous a staff, the greater the conflict (people like to be with others of similar, background and interests)

b) The greater the degree of staff specialization, the greater the conflict (it is more difficult to coordinate with others than to work individually) c) The closer the supervision, the greater the conflict (people become uneasy when others look over their shoulders) d) The greater the organizational structure in terms of rules, the less the interpersonal conflict and the greater the intrapersonal conflict (more rules define territories for employees but inhibit personal

Recently, I read this prescription of the use of an open-door-policy: “An efficient and effective organization has an open door policy… when the door is open, even when other people are present, anyone is welcome.” The spirit of that policy may be better construed to mean that people should be accessible but not regularly available to all physically leaving the door open just invites interruptions from those corridor wanderers who have nothing better to do than take up your time. It results in an incrementally interrupted day which eventually wears down one’s patience. The trouble with patience is, the more one has, the more people want to