2 Constructions of occupational stress: nuisances, nuances or novelties? Dianna Kenny and Dennis McIntyre we should make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein) Overview The concept of stress is as elusive as it is pervasive. Discourses of stress in general and occupational stress in particular are so powerful that they are ‘seemingly written into and all over our daily lives’ (Newton, 1995, p. 1). But what is stress? Is it a stimulus or a response? Is it an objective, quantifiable, environmental demand or a subjective cognitive appraisal of environmental conditions? Is stress universal or personal? Does stress need ‘managing’ and, if so, is it a public responsibility or a private concern? In order to answer some of these questions, it is necessary to deconstruct the concept and find its core. This is no easy matter. Heisenberg (1958) reminds us that even ‘natural science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves; it describes nature as exposed to our method of questioning’. A construct like occupational stress has been shaped not only by our method of questioning, but by powerful political, cultural, social and economic forces in which work occurs and in which people respond to their work experiences. In this chapter, we will briefly review the major ways of con- structing occupational stress, with particular focus on emergent issues, problematic areas, and less used paradigms, before attempting a synthesis of this difficult and complex field. Occupational stress was initially explained and managed within a psychomedical model. This model focused on personal attributes such as personality traits (Type A behavior pattern, neuroticism, negative affectivity, extraversion, introversion, hardiness, locus of control) and coping styles (active, passive, problem or emotion focused and so on) rather than job and organizational characteristics. This construction of work stress made it a ‘personal trouble’ rather than a ‘public concern’ and several professions (medi- cine, psychology, psychiatry, human resource management) have greatly benefited from such an approach. In this model personality deficits or vulnerabilities were considered to be causal, or at least precursors to the experience of occupational stress. On the other hand, the stressor and strain approach attributed the cause of psychological and behav- ioral strain to work stressors. This view of occupational stress was adopted by the Scandinavian school (see for, example, Levi, 1999). It focuses primarily on work charac- teristics and the epidemiology of occupational health. Rather than treating the individu- al, the focus of intervention is work reform. Research into the role of organizational factors in the etiology of occupational stress has followed a similar trajectory to the psy- chomedical model. Ever lengthening lists of putative factors have been identified. In two early reviews of occupational stress, Cooper (1983; 1985) summarized and categorized six groups of organizational variables, outlined below, that may cause stress in the workplace: 20 9128 ANTONIOU txt Make up 11/10/04 2:02 pm Page 20 PHIL'S G3 MAC PHIL'S G3 MAC: PHIL'S JOBS:9128 - EE