Abstract
Introduction
Occupational stress, a major source of stress for American workers, has escalated progressively over the past few decades. Because of the complex nature of the concept of occupational stress, a unified definition consensus is lacking, because a singular approach may not adequately address the breadth of the phenomenon. This progression in occupational stress has gained attention from organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the American Psychological Association (APA). Occupational stress was declared a global epidemic because of the negative economic, health, and social outcomes. Occupational stress has been linked to adverse individual health outcomes at the psychological (poor emotional and mental health) and physiological levels (poor physical health). Furthermore, occupational stress also leads to organizational symptoms and costs, causing employee turnover and absenteeism, and jeopardizing the safety of other employees. Knowledge of followers’ perceptions of the lived experiences of ineffective leadership and experiences of occupational stress arising from it is needed for organizations to take corrective measures (Shamas-ur-Rehman & Ogunlana, 2009) and employ intervention strategies for occupational stress inside and outside of the workplace.
The Stress Process
Stress arises due to physical or psychological demands (stressors causing strain), and the accumulation of the strain can result in long-term problematic emotional, psychological, physiological, and behavioral outcomes (Dewe, O’Driscoll, & Cooper, 2012; Jayashree, 2010) when an individual’s adaptive capabilities are overextended (Babatunde, 2013; Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Edwards, Franco-Watkins, Cullen, Howell, & Acuff, 2014; Harris, Harvey, & Kacmar, 2011; Jehangir, Kareem, Khan, Tahir, & Soherwardi, 2011; Subramanian & Nithyanandan, 2009). Stressors (e.g., environmental factors such as work demands or chronic work stress) directly influence perceptions of stress (e.g., appraisals or the degree of stress endured), which then follows several potential strains (e.g., emotional, behavioral, physical, and psychological reaction outcomes)—negative consequences of the stressors causing strain and stress (Edwards et al., 2014). It has been shown that high levels of stress and the perception that stress affects health are both associated with ill health (Keller et al., 2012; Rubino, Perry, Milam, Spitzmueller, & Zapf, 2012; Yong, Nasterlack, Pluto, Lang, & Oberlinner, 2013), coronary artery disease (CAD), cardivascular disease (CD), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and an increased risk of premature death (European Society of Cardiology, 2013; Piepoli et al., 2016). For example, consequences to stress have been associated with the six major causes of death, including accidents, heart disease, liver disease, cancer, lung problems, and suicide (Crum, Salovey, & Achor, 2013). Chronic stress has been shown to harmfully affect the body including the musculoskeletal system, respiratory system, cardiovascular system, endocrine system, gastrointestinal system, nervous system, and reproductive system (APA, 2014).
The severity of the stressor influenced both the extent to which people perceived the stressor as a hindrance or challenge and relationships with performance. Stressors perceived as an individual challenge positively related to performance, and conversely, stressors perceived as a personal hindrance negatively related to performance because they are appraised as potentially harming (B. D. Edwards et al., 2014; Lepine, Yiwen, Crawford, & Rich, 2016). It was found that the perceptions of unfairness (unfair leader and or unfair work environment) were significant predictors to strain-related indicators of physical and mental health (outcomes of strains from stress) (Robbins, Ford, & Tetrick, 2012). Furthermore, individual differences and interpretations in perceived stress had a stronger impact on performance than the actual stressors (Edwards et al., 2014). Therefore, stressors and outcomes can be theoretically explained by individual differences in perceived stress and subsequent coping strategies. Researchers have found that worker perceptions, as it relates to the experiences of stress, change over time based on different factors, such as age and experience (Humboldt, Leal, Laneiro, & Tavares, 2013; Lattuch & Young, 2011). Mental symptoms of depression, anxiety, burnout, and cognitive problems are associated with the amount of stress individually experienced and perceived (Edwards et al., 2014; Glise, Ahlborg, & Jonsdottir, 2012).
Occupational Stress
Occupational stress, or stress caused by a working environment, is a mental and physical condition that produces negative organizational and individual outcomes (Babatunde, 2013; Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Dewe et al., 2012; Humboldt et al., 2013; Jehangir et al., 2011; Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Shaw, Erickson, & Harvey, 2011; Subramanian & Nithyanandan, 2009). Occupational stress is the most significant form of stress experienced by people reporting their jobs are very stressful or extremely stressful. Occupational stress has been linked to negative health outcomes at the behavioral, psychological, and physiological levels (Shaw et al., 2011). For that reason, occupational stress has risen to be one of the most serious health issues globally (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013) and has been declared a global epidemic by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration because of the negative economic, health (at both the physiological and physiological levels), and social outcomes (Jehangir et al., 2011; Kasperczyk, 2010; Kelloway, Mullen, & Francis, 2011; Shaw et al., 2011). Nearly 70% of employees rated work as a significant source of stress (APA, 2012); roughly 80% of workers experienced physical symptoms from stress including fatigue (exhaustion); irritability or anger; lack of interest, motivation, or energy; headaches; and dyspepsia (upset stomach or indigestion; APA, 2012; Smith, 2012); almost 75% of workers rated their leader as the most significant source of stress (Sutton, 2010) and 51% of workers reported decreased productivity at work because of stress (APA, 2012). Reports based on a study by the CDC in the United States demonstrated the prevalence of work stress continues to be prevalent as more than 75% of employees believe they are under more occupational stress than the previous generation was (NIOSH, 2014).
Because of the complex nature of the concept, the diverse framework, and the individual perceptions of stress experienced within the workplace, occupational stress has been argued to be a universal phenomenon that has increased adversarial health, performance, and general well-being interests in various organizational and behavioral studies (Babatunde, 2013). Based on the global attention that occupational stress has received, NIOSH (2014) has instituted an interdisciplinary team of researchers and practitioners (from both the labor force and academia) to examine the influence of what are commonly termed “work organization” or “psychosocial” factors on stress, illness, and injury as well as to critically evaluate ways to redesign occupations, designing safer and healthier workplaces. In addition, NIOSH has gathered with APA and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology to discuss the effects of stress in the workplace (Weir, 2013).
Stress effects on employees decrease organizational commitment and productivity leading to increased absenteeism and turnover, costing organizations’ profits (Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Shamas-ur-Rehman & Ogunlana, 2009). A common source of occupational stress for employees is organizational leadership (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Shaw et al., 2011; Smith, 2012; Sutton, 2010). It has been shown that leadership predicts employee stress (Dehue, Bolman, Völlink, & Pouwelse, 2012), and perceived ineffective leadership is correlated with stress and harm to followers (Lopez, Green, Carmody-Bubb, & Kodatt, 2011; Restubog, Scott, & Zagenczyk, 2011). Emotional states of occupational stress (e.g., anxiety, frustration, resentment, and fatigue) were found to be prominent aggravating factors in forming a psychological conflict or emotional disturbance that can develop into a disease or ill health (Huerta-Franco et al., 2013). For example, the mood or emotional experience triggered by an employee can also positively or negatively influence perceptions of stress, leadership, and outcomes as leaders have been identified to be a critical source of negative emotions and job dissatisfaction (Defoe, 2012). Negative emotions were found to be associated with increased stress and decreased job satisfaction with ineffective leader behaviors (Defoe, 2012).
It has also been shown occupational stress leads to employee illness, impairs decision making, and contributes to rising health care costs (Selart & Johansen, 2011). Occupational stress can result from a variety of workplace factors that can range from subtle (e.g., unjustified reprimand by a leader) to more pervasive (e.g., work overload or continuous bullying from a leader). There is substantial empirical evidence to indicate that occupational stress from workplace factors, such as leadership, can cause undesirable physiological conditions (e.g., ill health conditions), psychological responses to employees (e.g., anxiety, depression, and burnout), diminished employee attitudes (e.g., job dissatisfaction and organizational commitment), and employee behaviors that have consequences for organizational effectiveness (e.g., absenteeism, turnover, and reduced job performance) (Babatunde, 2013; Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Dewe et al., 2012; Newton & Teo, 2014; Shaw et al., 2011).
Stress literature revealed a magnitude of challenges of workplace stress (McVicar, Munn-Giddings, & Seebohm, 2013); however, five central organizational factors or sources of occupational stress that have been identified to cause difficulties to employee performance within both the content and context of work are the following: (a) factors intrinsic to the job, including workload (e.g., overload or underload), excessive work demands (e.g., time pressures), lack of job meaningfulness, low work autonomy, external disturbances (e.g., noise and overcrowding), and toxic work systems; (b) factors related to one’s role within the organization, including role ambiguity, role conflict, and level of responsibility; (c) factors related to career development, including lack of job security, job stagnation, and under/over promotion; (d) factors related to relationships at work, including poor relationships with leader or colleagues, discrimination, and bullying; and (e) factors related to organizational structure, formalization, and climate, including leadership, decision-making participation, and office politics (Babatunde, 2013; Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Humboldt et al., 2013; H. Shin et al., 2014). Factors intrinsic to the job role often originate from the content of work and thereby create a mismatch (between person and environment) between demands and individual capabilities to cope with such demands (Babatunde, 2013). Work stressors that are associated with producing strains—such as role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload—resulted in increased tension including (a) diminished job-related attitudes (job satisfaction, intentions to leave or quit, organizational and work-unit commitment), (b) lower levels of psychological health, and (c) burnout (causing emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a diminished personal accomplishment) (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Newton & Teo, 2014).
Ineffective Leadership and Occupational Stress
Ineffective leadership and occupational stress are a major concern for both organizations and the global economy (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013). The view that ineffective leadership has adverse effects for individuals in the workplace has been historically correlated (Day & Hamblin, 1964) to increased levels of employee stress (Humboldt et al., 2013). Increasing evidence has revealed a clear link between ineffective leaders, employee turnovers, and employee health problems influenced by stress (Dehue et al., 2012; Owusu-Bempah, 2014; Padilla, 2013; Savic & Pagon, 2008; Schyns & Schilling, 2013). Followers of ineffective leaders can suffer from social, psychological, and psychosomatic effects due to stress (Schyns & Schilling, 2013); yet, forms of ineffective leadership are often misdiagnosed or mishandled by organizations (Shaw et al., 2011). Sixty-five percent to 75% of employees stated the most stressful and worst aspect of their job was their immediate boss or leader (Sutton, 2010), and 48% of American workers seek new jobs because of ineffective leadership (Deloitte LLP, 2010). Employees with an ineffective leader can suffer from occupational stress, lowering employee morale due to destructive feelings, attitudes, and behaviors, which can decrease organizational productivity and financial gains (Braxton, 2009; Shaw et al., 2011).
Leadership has been noted as the most influential psychosocial factor in the workplace for many employees, because it affects employees’ psychological well-being (Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Gavin & Kelley, 1978; Thoroughgood, Padilla, Hunter, & Tate, 2012). Employees’ social, psychological, and psychosomatic social stress symptomatic of ineffective leaders can negatively influence employees’ self-efficacy and abilities to perform his or her job duties (Shaw et al., 2011), and they suffer from anxiety and depression as well as experience low levels of job satisfaction, lower levels of commitment, and psychological distress (Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011). Psychosocial stressors associated with occupational stress increase the risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), which was reported as the leading cause of death in the United States (Slopen et al., 2012). Increased health care expenditures are approximately 50% higher for stressed employees (Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009). Psychological effects of occupational stress on employees include decreased performance, dissatisfaction, burnout, exhaustion, and organization withdrawal, all of which can lead to voluntary turnover (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Davis et al., 2009; Jehangir et al., 2011). Stressed workers reported feeling fatigued, were more prone to mistakes and injuries, and were more likely to practice absenteeism or presenteeism (Gilbreath & Karimi, 2012).
Forms of Ineffective Leadership Related to Occupational Stress
Organizational leadership has been shown to be the most prominent predictor of employee stress, as it was found that ineffective leaders diminish the well-being of followers by causing emotional exhaustion and occupational stress (Dehue et al., 2012; Lopez et al., 2011; Skakon, Nielsen, Borg, & Guzman, 2010). Common forms of ineffective leadership that relate to occupational stress have predominantly been explored as abusive leadership (Boddy, 2011; Harris et al., 2011; Krasikova, 2013; Liu, Liao, & Loi, 2012; Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012; Pelletier, 2010; Rispens, Giebels, & Jehn, 2010; Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011), tyrannical leadership (Ashforth, 1997; Kant, Skogstad, Torsheim, & Einarsen, 2013; Samnani & Singh, 2013), and destructive leadership (Aasland, Skogstad, Notelaers, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2010; Hobfoll, 2011; McCarthy, Darcy, & Grady, 2010; Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Shaw et al., 2011; Starratt & Grandy, 2010; Thoroughgood, Tate, Sawyer, & Jacobs, 2012; Wang, Sinclair, & Deese, 2010). These forms of ineffective leadership are instrumental in cultivating workplace harassment, emotional abuse, bullying, interpersonal conflict, and workplace aggression, all of which are factors leading to a more stressful work environment (Kasperczyk, 2010). Because of the close proximity and time spent in the workplace, ineffective leader behaviors and actions may affect follower behaviors and actions based on the leader’s ability to govern rewards, punishments, and ratings (Tran, Tian, Li, & Sankoh, 2014). For example, bullying, abuse, harassment, tyranny, acting maliciously, exploiting the use of rights and powers, using dishonesty and fraudulent conduct, and hypocrisy by superiors may seriously damage the progress of the followers and the organization (Tran et al., 2014). These behaviors are therefore called destructive leadership behavior because they destabilize or sabotage the well-being, motivation, and satisfaction of employees, as well as target the efficiency of organizational tasks, resources, and goals (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). It has been shown that these types of leader behaviors often alienate the followers who employ passive and aggressive behaviors as a response, which can result in retaliation from the leader or the followers (Yen, Tian, & Sankoh, 2013). Based on the increased incidence of behaviors that create often times hostile work environments, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2016) prohibits retaliation by employers against employees who file or threaten to file charges because of these behaviors even though many workers still experience retaliation from their leaders.
Effects of Occupational Stress on Individuals and Organizations
Occupational stress has been shown to create a variety of detrimental, costly, and debilitating consequences, which affect both individuals and organizations (Babatunde, 2013; Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Newton & Teo, 2014). On the individual level, three main subgroups of strains of occupational stress include unwanted feelings and behaviors, psychological conditions (poor emotional and mental health), and physiological illnesses (poor physical health). Effects of occupational stress can be grouped into two major subgroups—organizational symptoms and regulatory costs. A problem faced by organizations is that stress is inevitable and unavoidable. Occupational stress is a process, which most employees suffer from at differing times and to differing extents. Whereas some stress can create a source of stimulus to achievement, other stress can be a source of impairment on the quality of work life and health (Edwards et al., 2014; Kumar & Pragadeeswaran, 2011). Nevertheless, based on the consequences of occupational stress at the individual and organizational levels, leadership plays a critical role in using initiatives to manage the disastrous effects of occupational stress on employees (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013), as it has been shown that leadership predicts employee stress (Dehue et al., 2012). Organizations must continue to operate to be profitable and successful, regardless of the presence of occupational stress experienced by employees. For that reason, a paradigm shift in organizational leadership in the 21st century is essential to effectively manage occupational stress (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Dehue et al., 2012; Newton & Teo, 2014; Shaw et al., 2011; Smith, 2012; Sutton, 2010).
Effects of occupational stress on the individual
Occupational stress researchers have reliably validated numerous undesirable effects of work stressors on employee adjustment (e.g., job-related attitudes, behaviors, and health) (Newton & Teo, 2014). Unwanted feelings and behaviors within employees have been shown to cause greater job dissatisfaction, depressed motivation, decreased employee morale, lessened organizational commitment, career uncertainty, escalated work-life conflict, diminished overall quality of work life, absenteeism, turnover, intention to quit the job, minimized productivity, declined quantity and quality of work, incapability to make sound decisions, work theft, sabotage and work stoppage, occupational burnout, alienation, and increased smoking and alcohol intake (Babatunde, 2013; Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Dewe et al., 2012; Humboldt et al., 2013; Jayashree, 2010; Newton & Teo, 2014; Subramanian & Nithyanandan, 2009).
Psychological diseases (poor emotional and or mental health) and psychosocial problems from occupational stress resulted in psychological distress, emotional exhaustion or fatigue, depression, anxiousness, passiveness/aggressiveness, diminished aspirations, boredom, decreased self-confidence and self-esteem, loss of concentration, feelings of futility, impulsiveness, disregarding of social norms and values, dissatisfaction with job and life, losing contact with reality, and isolation (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Jayashree, 2010). Employees who experienced occupational stress suffered from worry and anxiety, had difficulties sleeping, were often irritable or angry, felt hopeless or helpless including a diminished self-worth or purpose, lacked motivation, and had an increased tendency to think negatively (Paton, 2012). Job dissatisfaction was the most prominent psychological effect of stress reported, which caused employee tension, anxiety, depression, boredom, procrastination, aggression, irritability, and confusion (Beheshtifar, Hoseinifar, & Maghadam, 2011; Newton & Teo, 2014) and other health problems, such as burnout, CVD, and immune disorders (Rubino et al., 2012).
Other dysfunctions in relation to stress found higher levels of psychological distress (Keller et al., 2012), including feeling overwhelmed, tearful, angry, irritable, having difficulty concentrating, impaired cognitive functioning, and lack of motivation (APA, 2012; Ansari, Oskrochi, & Stock, 2013; Crum et al., 2013; National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH], n.d.). It has further been argued that psychological issues such as mood swings and eating disturbances may also be a direct result of psychological stress (Ansari et al., 2013). Similar findings from other researchers reported that chronic stress can lead to sleep problems, anxiety, and depressed mood if untreated effectively (APA, 2012; Ansari et al., 2013; Crum et al., 2013; NIMH, n.d.).
Factors related to occupational stress (stressors) produce psychological stress that affects different physiological functions in the body and harmfully affects the immune system, even increasing the occurrence of the common cold caused by strain (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013). Physiological diseases (poor physical health) caused by occupational stressors have been found to be directly correlated to several health problems, such as gastrointestinal problems, elevated blood pressure and pulse rate, CVDs (e.g., heart attack), raised cholesterol and blood sugar, insomnia and sleep disturbances, eye strain, dizziness, headaches and migraines, infections, skin complications, musculoskeletal pain, suppressed immune system, injuries, and fatigue (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Nixon, Mazzola, Bauer, Krueger, & Spector, 2011; Vahle-Hinz, Bamberg, Dettmers, Friedrich, & Keller, 2014; Yahaya, Yahaya, Tamyes, Ismail, & Jaalam, 2010). For example, the relationship between occupational stress and gastrointestinal tract (GIT) diseases is evident and highly prevalent (Huerta-Franco et al., 2013). It has also been shown that health issues related to occupational stress regarding the head, neck, wrists, and arms account for 7.6 million working days lost in the United States each year alone (Hammond & Harriss, 2012).
Whereas acute and chronic stresses due to occupational stress were found to be major risk factors, particularly for the development and progression of coronary artery disease, job strain was found to be associated with coronary heart disease and hypertension risks (Subramanian & Nithyanandan, 2009). Disturbed sleep, physical illness, and mental ill health such as burnout, depression, and/or anxiety have been associated with long-term stress exposure of employees, influencing a decreased ability for potential recovery (Glise et al., 2012; Nixon et al., 2011; Sahlin, Ahlborg, Matuszczyk, & Grahn, 2014). Somatic symptoms, such as job anxiety and turnover intention, are also prevalent effects of prolonged stress (Sahlin et al., 2014; Vahle-Hinz et al., 2014). Specifically, burnout, a psychological syndrome that occurs in response to uncontrollable occupational stress and stressors (Dunford, Shipp, Boss, Angermeier, & Boss, 2012), is the inability to function effectively in one’s occupation because of prolonged and extensive occupational stress.
Compared with absenteeism, presenteeism, a form of psychological strain whose antecedent is occupational stress and a phenomenon of employees present on the job, but not functioning to their capabilities, is a consequence of occupational stress from a negative work environment (Cooper, Dewe, & O’Driscoll, 2001; Gilbreath & Karimi, 2012). It has been found that passive avoidant leadership increases both absenteeism and presenteeism (Frooman, Mendelson, & Murphy, 2012). Researchers have shown that job stress and presenteeism are positively correlated while negative leader behaviors have the strongest association with employee job-stress-related presenteeism (Gilbreath & Karimi, 2012). For example, abusive leadership, a form of ineffective leadership, is associated with diminished job satisfaction, employee distress, and burnout (Kelloway & Barling, 2010). Burnout, most commonly affecting both individuals and organization, is characterized as consisting of three symptoms: exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced self-efficacy (Hätinen, Mäkikangas, Kinnunen, & Pekkonen, 2013).
Burnout from emotional exhaustion causes individual physical, psychological, and behavioral problems (Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009), including depression, anxiety, and a sense of failure; emotional exhaustion and decreased motivation; depersonalization; and diminished personal accomplishment. Likewise, burnout causes negative outcomes for the organization, including unwanted feelings and behaviors (depression), decreased job performance, work commitment, and job satisfaction; lower motivation, self-esteem, and optimism; absenteeism; and a high turnover rate (Dunford et al., 2012; H. Shin et al., 2014; Van de Ven, van den Tooren, & Vlerick, 2013). Recovery (e.g., a decrease in symptom level) through coping and interventional change from burnout occurred only in the exhaustion stage; cynicism and efficacy did not change during the intervention or revealed additional deterioration in the symptoms, which had already been evaluated as dangerous at baseline (Hätinen et al., 2013). It was reported that all employees experienced exhaustion from occupational stress, at least to some extent (65% serious and 35% mild exhaustion) (Hätinen et al., 2013), and that exhaustion has been shown to affect both individual and the organization outcomes.
Effects of occupational stress on the organization
It has been found that leaders of medium-to large-sized companies reported mental health as the leading threat to the well-being of their employees; yet, some companies are still lacking a strategy for employee health and well-being, especially for mental health issues associated with occupational stress (Paton, 2016). Organizational symptoms associated with occupational stress that have been found include dissatisfaction and poor morale among the workforce; diminished performance and disruptions in productivity; low-quality products and services; poorer relationships with clients, suppliers, partners, and regulatory authorities; customer losses; negative publicity; damage to the corporate image and reputation; missed opportunities; increased accident, mistake, and sick-leave rates; high labor turnover, continuous vacancies, and early retirement; diminished cooperation; ineffective internal communications; heightened internal conflicts with colleagues and leaders; dysfunctional workplace climate; and purposefully destructive behaviors (Babatunde, 2013; Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Dewe et al., 2012; Humboldt et al., 2013; Jehangir et al., 2011; Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Shaw et al., 2011; Subramanian & Nithyanandan, 2009). It has also been shown that occupational stress influences ethical decision making in organizations: Approximately half of all workers (48%) claimed to respond to job pressure by participating in unethical or illegal activities, whereas 58% of workers claimed thinking of acting unethically or illegally on the job due to workplace pressures (Selart & Johansen, 2011). Occupational stress moderates the relationship between deviant behaviors and emotional exhaustion along with the relationship between emotional exhaustion and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) (Golparvar, Kamkar, & Javadian, 2012). Similarly, elevated risks of injury in the both military and civilian occupations were associated with personal and occupational stress because the safety of employees can be affected when even one employee experienced stress (Bedno et al., 2014; Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013).
Organizational costs that have been found to be correlated with occupational stress include costs of moderated productivity and performance (lack of added value to product and/or service); unnecessary replacement costs based on labor turnover for recruitment, training, and retraining costs; increased sick pay; escalated health care costs and disability payments; above average grievance, litigation, compensation costs; and costs for damaged equipment (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013). Occupational stress is a critical determinant of employee turnover and absenteeism because of the direct effects on the performance of leaders and followers in an organization (Jayashree, 2010). Organizational stress that decreases employee organizational commitment and minimizes productivity leading to increased absenteeism and turnover (Jayashree, 2010; Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Shamas-ur-Rehman & Ogunlana, 2009) has been shown to cost organizations over US$300 billion annually in profits (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012).
Theoretical Framework
The Person–Environment (P-E) fit theory, postulating strains result when there is a misfit or incongruence between a follower (person) and an ineffective leader (environment) (Caplan, 1983, 1987; Caplan & Van Harrison, 1993; Edwards, 2008; Edwards & Cooper, 1990; French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1984; Liu-Qin, Hongsheng, & Spector, 2008), can be used as a general interpretation of the connection between ineffective leaders (creators of stress) and followers (receptors of stress). Another theoretical model of the stress process, similar to the P-E fit theory, is the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2001), where resources are anything considered important to the person, contribute to well-being, and enable adjustment. Both approaches examine the interaction of the person and the environment, and the degree of correlation between demands in the environment and the individual’s resources to deal with those demands. A key difference is that whereas the P-E fit theory focuses primarily on the perception of fit, the COR theory incorporates more objective indicators of fit. A key feature of COR theory is the concern of both environmental elements and the individual’s cognitions (Hobfoll, 2011).
Questions
The following research questions guided the proposed study:
Research Methods and Design
The purpose of this study was to explore the meaning or essence of the phenomenon of ineffective-leader-induced occupational stress within and outside of the workplace. The exploration was based on the perceptions of ineffective leaders through the lived experiences of the followers. The research method for this study was a qualitative method, as it promoted a deeper understanding of the lived experiences from the perspective of the followers. An expert panel review of the interview guide was conducted to assure credibility and dependability of the instrument (Reiter, Stewart, & Bruce, 2011). The methodology included a brief preliminary presurvey to determine eligibility, and those individuals who met the eligibility requirements were asked a series of questions using a standardized open-ended interview guide using visualization in line with phenomenological inquiry (Englander, 2012; Hays & Singh, 2012; Jacob & Furgerson, 2012; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; Moustakas, 1994; Natarajan, 2013; Turner, 2010).
Participants
Ten participants were purposefully and passively recruited for the study in the Midwest United States, as two to 10 participants were recommended for the phenomenological method in human science and were sufficient to reach saturation (Boyd, 2001; Englander, 2012). Participants were recruited using an advertisement (recruitment flyer) posted on community bulletin boards. Each participant was screened for eligibility by completing the pre-interview questions. Based on the eligibility screening, nine participants were interviewed individually and then each transcript was read to obtain an objective understanding of each individual’s experience. Participant responses from the interviews were transcribed, examined, and analyzed to expose essence statements relating to the lived experiences in the context of the workplace to explore followers’ perceptions of ineffective-leader-induced occupational stress within and outside of the workplace. Assumptions, limitations, and delimitations of the study were identified in an analysis of the methods and conditions for the proposed study. Threats to validity were recognized through the use of measures to ensure credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability. Ethical issues were identified as they related to the presentation of researcher, disclosure and exchange, risk assessment, and security for the interviews, recordings, and documents of the participants was presented along with confidentiality issues.
Five of the nine participants were males and four were females. Ages of participants ranged from 24 to 51 years of age (
Results
RQ1: What Are the Lived Experiences of Occupational Stress, Within the Workplace, From Having an Ineffective Leader?
Findings from this study revealed the following two common themes for this question: mitigating the effect of (a) stressors and (b) strain. The study demonstrated that perceived ineffective leadership resulted in occupational stress, within the workplace, from all of the participants. Participants reported that a leader enabling a counterproductive and nonsupportive working environment was a major source of stress for employees and had the following negative or aversive emotions: tension, frustration, anger, depression, and anxiety. Consistent with previous findings, evidence has shown a clear link between ineffective leaders, employee turnovers, and employee health problems influenced by stress (Dehue et al., 2012). It has been shown that employees’ social, psychological, and psychosomatic social stress symptomatic of ineffective leaders can negatively influence employees’ self-efficacy and abilities to perform his or her job duties (Shaw et al., 2011), which was also reported by the participants.
Both stressors and strains perceived as threats made to an employee’s well-being (Finney, Stergiopoulos, Hensel, Bonato, & Dewa, 2013) were discussed by all nine participants as a result from the perceived ineffective leaders. It was found that strain, as a workplace stressor, affects an employee’s psychological, physiological, and behavioral well-being, causing health conditions (Rubino et al., 2012), which was reported by the participants. It has been shown that four typical workplace excessive stressors of leaders have been identified: role overload, interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, and experience of injustice (Wang et al., 2010). Each of the nine participants reported experiencing some or all of these stressors. As a result, the participants experienced social, psychological, and psychosomatic stress. Consistent with previous findings, participants discussed that the work stressors that are associated with producing strains, such as role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload, resulted in increased tension including (a) diminished job-related attitudes (job satisfaction, intentions to leave or quit, organizational and work-unit commitment), (b) lower levels of psychological health, and (c) burnout (causing emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a diminished personal accomplishment; Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Newton & Teo, 2014).
Findings of this study support the P-E fit theory, suggesting strains result when there is a misfit between a follower (person) and an ineffective leader (environment; Liu-Qin et al., 2008). Consistent with this theory, it was shown that ineffective leaders were viewed as the creators of stress and followers as the receptors of stress (Ahmad, 2010; Dewe et al., 2012; Edwards & Cooper, 1990; Edwards & Harrison, 1993; French et al., 1984; Liu-Qin et al., 2008; van Vianen, Shen, & Chuang, 2011). Employees who experienced occupational stress suffered from worry and anxiety; had difficulties sleeping; were often irritable or angry; felt hopeless or helpless, including a diminished self-worth or purpose; lacked motivation; and had an increased tendency to think negatively (Paton, 2012). It has been found that job dissatisfaction was the most prominent psychological effect of stress reported, which caused employee tension, anxiety, depression, boredom, procrastination, aggression, irritability, confusion (Beheshtifar et al., 2011; Newton & Teo, 2014), and other health problems, such as burnout, CVD, and immune disorders (Rubino et al., 2012).
Consistent with previous findings in relation to stress, it was found that higher levels of psychological distress (Keller et al., 2012), including feeling overwhelmed, tearful, angry, irritable, having difficulty concentrating, impaired cognitive functioning, and lack of motivation (APA, 2012; Ansari et al., 2013; Crum et al., 2013; NIMH, n.d.), resulted. It has further been argued that psychological issues such as mood swings and eating disturbances have been demonstrated in the research and may also be a direct result of psychological stress (Ansari et al., 2013). Similar literature reported that chronic stress can lead to sleep problems, anxiety, and depressed mood if untreated effectively (APA, 2012; Ansari et al., 2013; Crum et al., 2013; NIMH, n.d.). All of the participants reported suffering from one or all of the symptoms of chronic stress: anxiety, depression, and sleep problems.
It has been shown that factors related to occupational stress (stressors) produce psychological stress that affects different physiological functions in the body. Physiological diseases (poor physical health) caused by occupational stressors have been found to be directly correlated to several health problems such as gastrointestinal problems, elevated blood pressure and pulse rate, CVDs (e.g., heart attack), raised cholesterol and blood sugar, insomnia and sleep disturbances, eye strain, dizziness, headaches and migraines, infections, skin complications, musculoskeletal pain, suppressed immune system, injuries, and fatigue (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Nixon et al., 2011; Vahle-Hinz et al., 2014; Yahaya et al., 2010).
Participants reported that not all stress experienced was long term; some stress was short term. Chronic stressors reported by participants—such as destructive or ineffective leadership, communication problems, conflicts, and difficulties in balancing work–home life—occurred over periods of time. Acute stressors identified as short-term were role ambiguity, role conflict, or role overload. These findings were consistent with research that found a direct correlation on the influence of perceived laissez-faire leadership—characterized by the superiors’ avoidance and inaction when subordinates experienced a situational need for
All nine participants reported some level of absenteeism, presenteeism, and burnout from working with the perceived ineffective leader. Research has shown that job stress and presenteeism are positively correlated while negative leader behaviors have the strongest association with employee job-stress-related presenteeism (Gilbreath & Karimi, 2012). Burnout, reported by the participants as most commonly affecting both individuals and organizations, is characterized as consisting of three symptoms: exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced self-efficacy (Hätinen et al., 2013). It has been shown that burnout from emotional exhaustion causes individual physical, psychological, and behavioral problems (Schaufeli et al., 2009), including depression, anxiety, a sense of failure, emotional exhaustion and decreased motivation, depersonalization, and diminished personal accomplishment. Likewise, burnout causes negative outcomes for the organization, including unwanted feelings and behaviors (depression), decreased job performance and work commitment, lowered job satisfaction; diminished motivation, self-esteem, and optimism; increased absenteeism; and increased turnover rate (Dunford et al., 2012; H. Shin et al., 2014; Van de Ven et al., 2013). Findings from this study are consistent with the findings that have shown workers experience physical symptoms from stress (Smith, 2012), including fatigue (exhaustion), irritability, or anger; lack of interest, motivation, or energy; headaches; and dyspepsia (upset stomach or indigestion) (APA, 2012).
Consistent with previous findings, ineffective leadership behaviors result in consequences including destructive effects on work relationships (i.e., low quality); negative affectivity; withdrawing or avoiding work situations, the leader, or the situation; and increasing stress levels (Erickson, 2007). Most all participants reported a common avoidance coping strategy in dealing with the stress and strain by avoiding the leader as much as possible to minimize the interactions and conflict-related stress. Empirical studies have demonstrated that an individual’s coping strategy is an important factor in increasing or decreasing occupational stress (Marroquin, Fontes, Scilletta, & Miranda, 2010; H. Shin et al., 2014). Similar to previous findings, participants reported that the impairment of recovery from occupational stress may result in physiological diseases, including harmful physical health and psychological diseases, including deficient emotional/mental health (Nixon et al., 2011; Subramanian & Nithyanandan, 2009; Vahle-Hinz et al., 2014). Coping involves continuously changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage demands that are perceived as threatening because the individual does not have the capability to manage those stressors (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Dewe et al., 2012; Edwards et al., 2014; H. Shin et al., 2014). Coping strategies have been argued to be a personal resource because they can potentially moderate the relationship between stressors and strain as their effect is contingent on need: Strategies can be applied when demands are high but not when demands are low (Searle & Lee, 2015).
In addition, fundamental physical responses were consistent with a previous finding where participants reported distancing or avoidance to limit interactions with the leader or organization (absenteeism) and leaving or quitting the job to cope (Starratt & Grandy, 2010). It has been shown that followers who perceived their leaders as abusive were more inclined to leave their jobs, and for those followers who continued to work for ineffective leaders, a low job and life satisfaction and psychological distress resulted from it (Tepper, 2000). It has been found that when ineffective leadership is perceived as tolerated in an organization, employees (followers) quit causing higher turnover rates, have higher absenteeism, or engage in counterproductive work behaviors to cope with the stress (Galanaki & Papalexandris, 2013; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011). Four of the nine participants reported career changes because of the overall dissatisfaction with the leader and the stress that resulted.
RQ2: What Are the Lived Experiences of Occupational Stress, Outside of the Workplace, From Having an Ineffective Leader?
Findings from this study revealed the following two common themes for this question: (a) managing work–life balance and (b) maintaining and sustaining well-being. The study demonstrated that perceived ineffective leadership resulted in occupational stress outside of the workplace from all of the participants. When the work environment hinders well-being and participants are unable to achieve a work–life balance, it was a primary reason for burnout as reported by the participants. Participants discussed how positive experiences within the workplace equated with positive well-being (beneficial to well-being) and negative experiences within the workplace equated with negative well-being (harmful to well-being). All nine participants reported that too much stress was viewed as a demotivating and negative factor that affected their overall well-being (cognitively and affectively), health, as well as satisfaction and quality of both work and home life. Followers of perceived leadership ineffectiveness reported lower performance effort, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychological well-being, and satisfaction with the leader. The present study finding was consistent with previous findings that have shown ineffective leaders demoralize and undermine the well-being, motivation, and job satisfaction of followers, all of which can cause adverse health outcomes, through systematic and repeated behavior, violating the authentic interests of the organization (Aasland et al., 2010; Bennis, 2010; Shamas-ur-Rehman & Ogunlana, 2009). It was found that ineffective leaders diminish the well-being of followers by causing emotional exhaustion and occupational stress (Lopez et al., 2011). Most all participants reported feeling exhausted and fatigue from the occupational stress.
It has been found that leader behaviors and styles can have a direct effect on job well-being, affective well-being, and employee stress (Dehue et al., 2012; Skakon et al., 2010). Inhibitory leader behaviors are called destructive leadership behavior because they destabilize or sabotage the well-being, motivation, and satisfaction of employees, as well as target the efficiency of organizational tasks, resources, and goals (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). It has been shown that these types of leader behaviors often alienate the followers who employ passive and aggressive behaviors as a response, which can result in retaliation from the leader or the followers (Yen et al., 2013). The effects of ineffective leadership on followers were consistent with a previous finding, which found feelings of depression, belittlement, humiliation, and a sense of meaninglessness about their role in an organization (Pelletier, 2010) with the followers. Inhibitory leadership behavior caused stress in all of the participants.
Consistent with previous findings, ineffective and destructive leadership has been associated with diminished well-being and job satisfaction, employee distress, and burnout (Harris et al., 2011; Kelloway & Barling, 2010); workplace bullying was associated with depression, feelings of helplessness, irritability, low self-esteem, maladjustment, mood swings, paranoia, physical symptoms, social isolation, anxiety, burnout, decreased job satisfaction, and well-being (Galanaki & Papalexandris, 2013); and destructive leadership has been shown to decrease the effectiveness, well-being, motivation, and job satisfaction of followers (Aasland et al., 2010; Starratt & Grandy, 2010). Research has shown that leadership predicts employee stress (Dehue et al., 2012), causing effects on follower performance, job well-being (Lopez et al., 2011), health, and sickness absence due to overstrain and fatigue (Westerlund et al., 2010). Each of the participants reported overstrain, fatigue, and negative personal well-being as a direct result of working with the perceived ineffective leader (Dehue et al., 2012; Kelloway & Barling, 2010; Lopez et al., 2011; Restubog et al., 2011; Schyns & Schilling, 2013). It has been shown that employees who perceive their leaders as ineffective suffer from psychosomatic symptoms, anxiety, and depression as well as experience low levels of job satisfaction, lower levels of commitment, and psychological distress (Tepper, 2000, 2011), which was also reported by the participants.
It was reported that when the participants felt that their work life and personal life were out of balance, stress resulted. A major issue discussed regarding this balance was an unclear boundary between work and home due to technology (via, increased communication and work demands). Participants reported that they were unable to leave the stress at work when returning home, causing tension, time pressure, and conflicts in work–life balance. Most notably, fatigue and poor health were found to be experienced by all participants who were unable to achieve and manage a work–life balance.
Limitations
A limitation surrounding perceptivity was one to consider, as perceptions may have been dissimilar or even flawed. While one employee (follower) may perceive a leader as effective, another employee may perceive the same leader as ineffective, thus having different experiences. The goal of the study was to collect individual perceptions of what is perceived as effective or ineffective leaders by the followers and their experiences with those leaders perceived to be ineffective and resulting in occupational stress. Therefore, the perceptions from lived experiences of individual followers were vital to understanding occupational stress resulting from ineffective leaders, regardless of whether the leader was perceived as effective by others. To mitigate this possible limitation, a description of what each participant perceived to be an effective leader and an ineffective leader was sought during the interview prior to describing their lived experiences. It was assumed that responses could be both positive and negative regarding their experiences with leaders (effective and ineffective). The definition of stressful events, such as the experience of an ineffective leader, may have differed across individuals and would be those that the individual believes to be both threatening and overwhelming. Similarly, events perceived to be threatening, but able to be managed adequately, may not have been regarded as stressful. Events perceived to be threatening may have only been considered stressful if the individual had inadequate personal or environmental resources upon which to use in his or her coping efforts (Beheshtifar & Nazarian, 2013; Dewe et al., 2012; Edwards et al., 2014; H. Shin et al., 2014).
The scope of this study was limited by the inclusion criteria. The study sample was limited to followers who have experienced ineffective leadership and occupational stress, as it has been shown that followers play an active role in the leadership–followership relationship and ineffective leadership is a notorious predictor of follower (occupational) stress (Lopez et al., 2011; Skakon et al., 2010). The participants, therefore, were limited to those who were eligible and had experienced the phenomenon to optimally address the research questions based on the problem and purpose. By not limiting the participation by occupation, a more comprehensive overview of perceived ineffective leadership was obtained to capture diverse levels of leader–follower interactions and different stressors through the lived experience of ineffective leadership and occupational stress. Although it has been found that followers of ineffective leaders can suffer from social, psychological, and psychosomatic effects due to stress (Schyns & Schilling, 2013), a clear understanding and adequate empirical research of the phenomenon of ineffective leadership was lacking (Thoroughgood, Hunter, & Sawyer, 2011).
Conclusion
The present study provides qualitative evidence, from the followers’ perspective, that ascertained the usefulness of understanding the effects of the lived experiences of ineffective-leadership-induced occupational stress in regard to individual and organizational outcomes. It has been found that there are successful leaders who are perceived as effective, and there are successful leaders who are perceived as ineffective. In other words, leaders may be successful in some areas such as achieving organizational results; however, the path executed to achieve those results may be perceived as ineffective by the followers.
Participants were able to describe the lived experiences of occupational stress, within the workplace, of having an ineffective leader. A reiterated frustration reported by participants included the leader enabling a counterproductive and nonsupportive working environment, which was a major source of stress that evoked negative or aversive emotions. Participants reported that when their basic needs in work were denied from a perceived ineffective leader, stress resulted. Participants identified several stressors as work-related characteristics, events, or situations that created stress from ineffective leadership. Furthermore, participants identified physiological and psychological responses to stress as strain from working with the perceived ineffective leaders.
Finally, participants were able to describe the lived experiences of occupational stress, outside of the workplace, of having an ineffective leader. All of the participants identified work environments with ineffective leaders resulted in occupational stress which disrupted their health, well-being, and work–life balance. Data revealed that contextual factors, such as perceived ineffective leadership, exerted a strong influence on follower well-being and were described as an operational stress risk factor at the organizational and individual level. Cumulatively, these results reveal the importance of follower perceptions in leadership effectiveness. The phenomenon of ineffective leadership resulting in occupational stress for the followers is therefore an organizationally wide problem. It is the role of the organization, the leaders, and the followers as a whole to understand the perceptions of others and work toward finding exemplary approaches where both leaders and followers play active, vital roles in organizational success and minimize occupational stress.
To facilitate healthy employees and work environments, there was a need to critically explore organizational stressors (Finney et al., 2013). There was also a need for understanding ineffective leadership in organizations (Higgs, 2009) from the perception of the followers to identify ineffective leader behaviors which are generally difficult to detect (Pienaar, 2009). Knowledge of the detrimental effects of ineffective leadership was critical for developing theories and intervention strategies to reduce harm on the followers (Pelletier, 2010; Shamas-ur-Rehman & Ogunlana, 2009; Skakon et al., 2010). A more thorough understanding of the lived experiences of ineffective leadership is vital to executing intervention strategies to repudiate the stress epidemic affecting organizations.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
ORCID iD
