💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 5997.gmi captured on 2023-06-16 at 17:44:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2016-04-29 09:04:43
Sarah DamaskeMatthew J. ZawadzkiJoshua M. Smyth
April 25, 2016
High-status jobs are known to bring with them a number of benefits: higher
incomes, greater job autonomy, and even, according to some research, longer
lives. Yet there may also be some downside to these jobs: greater stress levels
and less happiness at work.
Although social scientists have long assumed that low-status jobs brought
higher stress, research in recent years has suggested otherwise: those in
high-status jobs appeared to be more stressed. But the research was incomplete
as it relied on people s memories of how stressed they had generally been over
the past few days or weeks. This could be problematic as people may misremember
how stressed out they were or conflate stress experienced at a different
location (like home) with stress on the job.
In order to investigate differing stress levels for high-SES (socioeconomic
status, measured in our study by someone s education and income) and low-SES
workers in the workplace, our research used a novel data collection technique
in which workers, using handheld devices we provided, reported their stress
levels on the spot when prompted by an audio signal several times a day while
going about their daily life. This let us repeatedly measure stress levels and
work perceptions on the job in real time so that we could better understand how
they might change over time. We also asked participants to collect a saliva
sample at the time of the prompt in order to measure whether their cortisol
levels (a biological measure of stress) had also risen, which would show an
increase in stress.
The data collected using these novel methods allowed us to confirm in our
research (forthcoming in Social Science & Medicine) that, indeed, high-status
workers report greater stress on the job than do low-status workers. They also
reported being less happy at work. We did not, however, find differences in
cortisol levels in stress at work between those with high- and low-status jobs.
What could explain these differences in stress? Our data collection included
three sets of in-the-moment questions that asked participants about their
perceptions of work at the time of the prompts. The workers answers what we
call their momentary perceptions suggest some important clues.
Perhaps surprisingly, at the time of the prompts, individuals with higher-SES
reported significantly less ability to meet job demands at work and fewer
resources to do their jobs than did individuals with lower-SES. High-SES
individuals also were slightly more likely to report that their jobs were less
positive than lower-SES workers. In other words, despite having jobs that
confer higher incomes, higher-SES workers appear to feel less able to complete
work tasks, more likely to lack the resources they need to complete those
tasks, and somewhat less positive about their workplaces.
Stress and happiness rose and fell with these momentary experiences. For
example, when workers reported more resources they also reported being happier
and less stressed. Similarly, at moments when the workplace was seen as more
positive, workers were happier, less stressed, and had lower cortisol levels.
In contrast, the experience of meeting work demands was more complicated
moments in which workers reported meeting lots of demands were associated with
less happiness, more stress, and more cortisol. Although meeting workplace
demands may be important and valuable, the act of doing so may entail physical,
emotional, and cognitive costs as individuals expend effort to meet these
demands. Our momentary assessments may have captured these subjective costs
of productivity. This is not to say that failing to meet demands would not also
be stressful, but there may be different costs associated with each. Future
research should assess whether the stress of getting everything done may be
more or less stressful than not getting all of one s work done
Additionally, not having the resources to do one s job was associated with
lower levels of happiness and greater stress. Our findings suggest that
high-SES workers more often report that they lack the resources needed to do
their job. One explanation may be because their jobs are more demanding and
require more resources than are available; alternatively, high-SES workers may
expect more resources than are available, which leads to the perception of lack
of support at the workplace.
We would caution that we would not interpret these findings to suggest that
low-status jobs are more beneficial to workers. In fact, we wonder if some of
the stresses of low-status jobs play out more directly at home than at work,
even while experiences at work are less stressful. For example, a low-status
worker s job may be more predictable while working, but there are likely to be
more concerns about shift changes or unstable scheduling, or low wages and
their relationship to food or housing security. Future research should
carefully address these and related questions. Of course, our findings speak to
these differences between job types on average, and don t directly address any
individual case.
For now, employers might consider asking employees two simple questions based
on our findings:
Do you have the necessary resources to do your job?
Do you feel able to meet the demands of your job?
Based on how employees answer these questions, employers may decide to
reconfigure the work itself or find ways to compensate for insufficient
resources. Taking such steps may in turn lead to a happier and less-stressed
workforce.
Sarah Damaske is Assistant Professor of Labor and Employment Relations and
Sociology at Pennsylvania State University.
Matthew J. Zawadzki is Assistant Professor of Psychological Sciences at the
University of California, Merced.
Joshua M. Smyth is Professor of Biobehavioral Health and Medicine at
Pennsylvania State University.