Full text of DOI:10.1080/02678370117944

This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University]
On: 27 December 2014, At: 06:36
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Work & Stress: An International
Journal of Work, Health &
Organisations
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/twst20
Occupational stress in
universities: Staff perceptions of
the causes, consequences and
moderators of stress
N. A. Gillespie , M. Walsh , A.H. Winefield , J. Dua &
C. Stough
Published online: 26 Nov 2010.
To cite this article: N. A. Gillespie , M. Walsh , A.H. Winefield , J. Dua & C.
Stough (2001) Occupational stress in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes,
consequences and moderators of stress, Work & Stress: An International Journal of
Work, Health & Organisations, 15:1, 53-72
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370117944
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

&
, 2001,
15,
1, 53±72
no.
work stress
vol.
Occupational stress in universities: staV
perceptions of the causes, consequences and
moderators of stress
N. A. GILLESPIE², M. WALSH³, A. H. WINEFIELD§,
J. DUA²² and C. STOUGH³
²The Melbourne Business School & School of Behavioural Science, University of
Melbourne, 200 Leicester Street, Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria 3053, Australia
³Neuropsychology Laboratory, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218,
Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia
§School of Psychology, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide South,
5000 Australia
²²Department of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, New South
Wales, 2351 Australia
Keywords: Job stress; Academic staV; University staV; Lists of stress.
In recent years, the Australian university sector has undergone large-scale organizational change,
including restructuring, downsizing and government funding cuts. At the same time, research from
across the globe reports an alarming increase in the occupational stress experienced by university
staV. We report on the ®rst phase of a longitudinal investigation of occupational stress. A total of 22
focus groups were conducted with a representative sample of 178 academic and general staV from
15 Australian universities. The groups focused on understanding staV ’s experience of occupational
stress, and perceptions of the sources, consequences and moderators of stress. Both general and
academic staV reported a dramatic increase in stress during the previous 5 years. As a group, academic
staV reported higher levels of stress than general staV. Five major sources of stress were identi®ed
including: insuYcient funding and resources; work overload; poor management practice; job insecur-
ity; and insuYcient recognition and reward. The majority of groups reported that job-related stress
was having a deleterious impact on their professional work and personal welfare. Aspects of the work
environment (support from co-workers and management, recognition and achievement, high morale,
¯ exible working conditions), and personal coping strategies (stress management techniques, work/
non-work balance, tight role boundaries and lowering standards), were reported to help staV cope
with stress. The ®ndings provide a timely insight into the experience of stress within universities.
1. Introduction
University teaching has traditionally been regarded as a low stress occupation (Fisher,
1994). Although not highly paid in comparison to professionals in the commercial sector,
academics have been envied for their tenure, light work loads, ¯ exibility, `perks’ such as
*Author for correspondence. e-mail: n.gillespie@ pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
Work & Stress ISSN 0267-8373 print/ISSN 1464-5335 online 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/
DOI: 10.1080/02678370110062449

54
N. A. Gillespie et al.
overseas trips for study and/or conference purposes, and the freedom to pursue their own
research interests. However, during the past two decades many of these advantages have
been eroded. Academic salaries have fallen in real terms in countries such as the USA, the
UK, and Australia. Increasing numbers of academic positions are now untenured, workloads
have increased and academics are under increasing pressure to attract external funds, and
`publish or perish’ (Fisher, 1994).
Research on stress among academic and general staV of universities from across the
globe indicates that the phenomenon of occupational stress in universities is alarmingly
widespread and increasing (Wine®eld, 2000). In his review of the literature, Seldin (1987)
stated that the academic environment of the 1980s had imposed surprisingly high levels of
job stress on academics, and that the level of stress would continue to increase in future
decades. In a study on stress in seven New Zealand universities, Boyd, and Wylie (1994)
reported that half of the academics in their sample of academics `often or almost always’
found their work to be stressful, and 80% believed that their workload had increased and
become more stressful in recent years. In addition, 46% expected further increases in
workload in the future. Similarly, The United Kingdom Association of University Teachers
study (AUT, 1990) found that 49% of university employees reported that their jobs were
stressful and 77% reported an increase in occupational stress over recent years.
Shirley Fisher (1994), author of Stress in Academic Life, stated in relation to British
universities: `The demands on academics have risen rapidly over the last ten years ... there
has been a steady erosion of job control. All the signs are that this will continue’ (Fisher,
1994, p. 61). Dr. Fisher’s prophetic ability was borne out by the government cuts to higher
education funding in Australia, announced in the 1996 budget. As a direct consequence
of these cuts, Australian universities have introduced large-scale restructuring, downsizing
(achieved through voluntary and involuntary redundancies and non-renewal of contracts),
and changes to governance structures (National Tertiary Education Union {NTEU}, 2000).
At the same time there has been an increase in overall student numbers (Department of
Employment, Education, Training and Youth AVairs {DEETYA}, 1996, 1999) and student
to staV ratios (Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee {AVCC}, 1999). Wine®eld (2000)
reports that USA, UK and New Zealand universities are also experiencing increasing
student to staV ratios and levels of work pressure.
University staV play a vital role in the creation and development of knowledge and
innovation, in addition to education and training. It is well documented that high levels
of occupational stress, left unchecked and unmanaged, undermine the quality, productivity
and creativity of employees’ work, in addition to employees’ health, well-being, and morale
(Calabrese, Kling, and Gold, 1987; Everly, 1990; Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1985; Matteson,
and Ivancevich, 1987; Nowack, 1989; Osipow, and Spokane, 1991; Terry, Tonge, and
Callan, 1995). Research has also established that high levels of occupational stress result in
substantial costs to organizations and the community through health care expenses, com-
pensation payments, lost productivity and turnover (Cooper, and Cartwright, 1994). It is
clearly important that universities manage and protect their staV from increasing levels of
stress in order to preserve staV well-being, organizational performance and the intellectual
health of the nation. In order to do this, we ®rst need to understand the experience of
stress on staV within the university sector.
This study constitutes the ®rst phase of a longitudinal investigation of occupational
stress within Australian universities. (The second and third phases of this project will
involve distributing the `University StaV Stress Survey’ developed through this preliminary
study, to all staV in the 17 participating universities. There will be a 2-year interval between
phases 2 and 3). The present study aims to understand and report staV perceptions of:

Occupational stress in universities
55
(1) the level of occupational stress; (2) the causes of occupational stress; (3) the personal
and work-related consequences of occupational stress; (4) the moderating factors that help
staV to cope with workplace stress; and (5) recommendations for reducing stress within
the university sector. To achieve this aim, the study employs a focus group design, drawing
on a representative sample of both general and academic university staV.
The term `general staV’ is used in this paper to refer to all non-academic staV employed
within the university sector, including staV in academic support, administrative support,
library and technical areas.
The following section brie¯ y outlines the conceptualization of stress employed in this
paper. It then describes previous research related to each of the study’s ®ve aims, concluding
with a description of how this study extends previous research.
1.1. Conceptualization of stress
Lazarus and colleagues conceptualize stress as a complex, multivariate process, resulting
from a broad system of variables involving inputs, outputs and the mediating activities of
appraisal and coping (Lazarus, 1990; Lazarus, DeLongis, Folkman, and Gruen, 1985).
According to this transactional approach, the stress process is dynamic, and constantly
changing as a result of the continual interplay between person and environment. To quote
Lazarus (1990, p. 4), `psychological stress, which results from the interplay of system
variables and processes, depends on an appraisal by the person that the person-environment
relationship at any given moment is one of harm, threat, or challenge’. Stress is regarded
as predominantly subjective in nature, rather than an objective phenomenon.
A comprehensive understanding of stress from this perspective involves assessing each
important facet of the stress process (Lazarus, 1990). This includes the key environmental
and personal antecedents (e.g. demands, resources, beliefs), the intervening processes (e.g.
coping, personality), indicators of the immediate stress response (i.e. subjective, behavioural
and physiological evidence of emotion), and the longer term consequences of stress for
individuals and the workplace (e.g. psychological well-being, health and social functioning).
The present study aims to capture staV perceptions of each of these facets of stress.
1.2. Impact of stress
The speci®c impact of occupational stress within the university sector is less well understood
than its well-documented eVects on the general workforce. Bowen, and Schuster (1985)
identi®ed the negative impact of stress on staV morale, reporting that many of the senior
academics they interviewed were angry, embittered and felt devalued and abandoned.
Armour, CaVarella, Fuhrmann, and Wergin (1987) further report that stress among academic
and general staV of universities signi®cantly aVects the quality of both teaching and research,
and results in feelings of detachment, low job satisfaction and low job commitment, which
may be contagious for students and colleagues. They conclude that the consequences of
academic stress may be far more wide ranging than the occasional stress illness.
In a study of New Zealand universities, Boyd, and Wylie (1994) reported that increasing
workloads and work-related stress resulted in less academic time spent on research, pub-
lishing and professional development, decreasing teaching and research standards, and
increasing interpersonal con¯ ict in academic staV relationships. They further report that
stress negatively impacted on the physical and emotional health, family relationships and
leisure activities of both general and academic staV.
Comparative to the level of research conducted overseas, there has been little research

56
N. A. Gillespie et al.
on stress among academic and general staV within Australian universities. Jarrett, and
Wine®eld (1995) surveyed all staV in a South Australian university, reporting that the
overall level of psychological distress was very high, particularly among academic staV,
even though their overall level of job satisfaction was moderately high. In a study of a
Victorian based university, Sharpley, Reynolds, Acosta, and Dua (1996) report that stress
was a major problem for about 25% of staV, with these staV reporting higher levels of
anxiety, days absent, doctors’ visits, injuries, accidents and illnesses, and lower self-reported
physical health. Sharpley (1994, p. 24) concluded that the university sampled `is showing
some real problems in terms of individual and organisational stress-related health’. These
®ndings were almost identical to those reported by Dua (1994) from a New South Wales
university.
While it is recognized that some degree of stress is a normal and inevitable part of daily
living (Costa, and McCrae, 1992), these studies suggest that a signi®cant proportion of
university staV are experiencing maladaptive levels of stress, which is impacting on their
individual physical and psychological health, their interpersonal relationships at work, the
quality of their work, and workplace morale. Wine®eld (2000) provides evidence suggesting
that academics experience higher levels of stress than do individuals in several other
occupations, including engineering employees, prison oYcers, teachers, transport workers
and general university staV.
1.3. Sources of stress among academic and general staV of universities
Research conducted in the UK, USA, New Zealand and Australia has identi®ed several
key factors commonly associated with stress among academic and general staV. These
include: work overload, time constraints, lack of promotion opportunities, inadequate
recognition, inadequate salary, changing job role, inadequate management and/or participa-
tion in management, inadequate resources and funding, and student interaction (Armour
et al., 1987; Blix, Cruise, Mitchell, and Blix, 1994; Boyd, and Wylie, 1994; Brown, Bond,
Gerndt, and Krager, 1986; Daniels, and Guppy, 1994; Dua, 1994; Gmelch, Wilke, and
Lovrich, 1986; Harrison, 1997; Hind, and Doyle, 1996; Jarrett, and Wine®eld, 1995;
Melendez, and de Guzman, 1983; Sharpley et al., 1996; Seldin, 1987).
Other sources of stress, such as high self-expectations (Gmelch et al., 1986; Hind, and
Doyle, 1996; Seldin, 1987), job insecurity (Dua, 1994; Melendez, and de Guzman, 1983),
lack of community and poor interactions with colleagues (Brown et al., 1986; Melendez,
and de Guzman, 1983; Seldin, 1987), inequality in the system (Boyd, and Wylie, 1994),
worries over amalgamations (Dua, 1994; Sharpley et al., 1996), and lack of regular perform-
ance feedback (Boyd, and Wiley, 1994; Dua, 1994; Sharpley et al., 1996) have been
highlighted in only a few studies. This suggests that some sources of stress may be unique
to a university or region. These previous studies have typically sampled only a single
university, sometimes a single department, and have focused heavily on the stress
experienced by academics, with little exploration of stress on general university staV. A
comprehensive understanding of the sources of stress requires research involving both
general and academic staV sampled across a broad range of universities.
1.4. Moderators of occupational stress
Stress researchers have identi®ed a number of moderating factors that can reduce or
eliminate the negative eVects of occupational stress. The most consistently identi®ed
moderators of occupational stress include: an individual’s coping style (Lazarus, and

Occupational stress in universities
57
Folkman, 1984); emotionality (Costa, and McCrae, 1992); level of control (Spector, 1986);
and social support (House, 1981). Johnson, and Hall’s (1988) Job Demand-Control-Support
model (an extension of Karasek’s (1979) Job Demand-Control model) predicts that
employees working in jobs characterized by high demand, low control and low social
support/isolation, experience the lowest well-being. The buVer hypothesis further suggests
that social support and job control moderate the negative impact of demands on well-
being. There is, however, continuing debate and mixed empirical support for the role
these factors play in the stress process (Dollard, Wine®eld, Wine®eld and de Jonge, 2000;
Parkes, 1994; Van der Doef, and Maes, 1999).
Few studies have investigated these potential moderators of stress speci®cally within
the university sector. Notable exceptions include Dua (1994) and Penny, Menec, Struthers,
Hechter, Schonwetter, and Menges (1997), who report that university staV who perceive
high levels of control over their work environment, experience less stress than those who
perceive low levels of control. Even less research has investigated staV perceptions of the
individual and organizational characteristics that buVer stress within universities. Given the
subjective nature of stress (Lazarus, 1990), such an understanding may potentially have
important implications for the eVective management of stress.
1.5. Contribution of this study
This study extends the current literature on stress among university staV in several ways.
First, it investigates the work-related stress experienced by both general and academic staV.
Second, the study examines the occupational stress experienced by staV from a wide range
of universities. This should enable common factors in the experience of stress to be
identi®ed, and separated out from those factors that are peculiar to one or two universities.
Third, the study investigates the moderators of stress, in addition to the level, causes and
consequences of stress. Finally, the study focuses on understanding staV’s experience and
perceptions of occupational stress, and seeks staV’s opinions on the best way to manage
and prevent the negative impact of occupational stress within universities.
Researchers have argued that occupation and industry-speci®c stress scales are more
reliable and valid predictors of stress and its eVects than general occupational stress scales
(Gmelch et al., 1986). For this reason, Gmelch et al. (1986) designed a speci®c university
stress survey for use with US university staV. An important aim of the present study is to
gain an up-to-date and comprehensive understanding of the experience of stress for both
academic and general university staV, to enable the design of a University StaV Stress
Survey that is sensitive and relevant to the Australian context. This survey will then be
distributed to all staV in the participating 17 universities during the second and third phases
of this project.
This will then enable the second important practical objective of this project to be
achieved. That is, to provide government, university management and tertiary education
unions with comprehensive, speci®c, reliable and current information about the experience
of occupational stress, for the development of organizational policies designed to identify
and minimize occupational stress.
2. Method
2.1. Participant selection
To achieve a sample of participants that was representative of Australian university staV,
the researchers calculated the number of general and academic staV participants required

58
N. A. Gillespie et al.
from each occupational level, faculty (academic staV ) and job type (general staV ), at each
university. The university representatives (selected by both the Vice Chancellery and the
National Tertiary Education Union) then generated lists of staV who ®tted the speci®ed
categories, and randomly invited staV from these lists to participate. A total of 178 staV
participated, comprising 74 academic and 104 general staV.
2.2. Procedure
During December 1999, 23 focus groups were conducted across the following 15 universit-
ies: James Cook University, Central Queensland University, University of Queensland,
Queensland University of Technology, University of Newcastle, University of New
England, University of Technology Sydney, University of Canberra, University of
Melbourne, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Swinburne University of
Technology, University of South Australia, University of Adelaide, Murdoch University,
and University of Western Australia. The University of Southern Queensland, Maquarie
University and Deakin University were not sampled in this phase of the research, but will
participate in subsequent phases.
On average, each focus group had eight participants. Separate focus groups were
conducted for general and academic staV at universities employing more than 2000 staV,
or having large multiple campuses (n=8). Resources only allowed for combined groups
of academic and general staV to be conducted at the smaller centralized universities. One
university experienced diYculty with obtaining a representative sample for one of its focus
groups. Hence this focus group was excluded from the analysis.
2.3. Focus group protocol
A focus group is a facilitated group discussion used to collect in-depth information on a
particular topic from multiple participants. The group discussions focused on exploring
staV experiences and perceptions of: (1) the current level; (2) the major causes; (3) the
personal and professional consequences; and (4) the moderators, of occupational stress. The
focus groups concluded with staV recommendations for reducing occupational stress in the
university sector. Table 1 outlines the ®ve broad questions addressed in the focus groups.
The focus group facilitator used a structured process to maximize the quality of
information obtained and to ensure that the opinions of each participant were heard and
recorded. The process involved ®rst posing a broad open-ended question to the group,
seeking each participant’s response in turn, then opening the question for group discussion.
Broad open-ended questions were used to ensure that the information collected was driven
by participants and not overly constrained by the questions asked. A series of probe
questions and questions for clari®cation were used to explore further participants’
experiences and perceptions. At the end of each broad question, the facilitator fed back a
summary of responses, and asked participants for additions or changes to the summary.
This process was repeated for each of the ®ve question areas. Each focus group ran for
90 min and was audio-taped.
2.4. Analyses
In order to establish a set of factors that are grounded both in theory and practice, the data
were coded in several stages. First, focus group summaries were read, and on the basis of
this reading, 33 categories of causes, 26 categories of consequences, 28 categories of

Occupational stress in universities
59
Table 1. Focus group protocol.
Experience and level of stress
1. Describe your experience of occupational stress working at this university.
Probes: How would you describe the level of work stress you experience?
Has your experience of work stress changed over time?
Causes
2. What contributes to your stress at work?
Probes: Are there any causes of stress that are unique to this university?
Are there any causes of stress that are unique to your position or role within the
university?
Consequences
3. How does the stress you experience at work aVect you?
Probes: How does stress at work aVect you professionally?
How does stress at work aVect you personally?
Moderators
4. What helps you to manage your stress at work?
Probes: What personal strategies do you employ to manage your work stress? In what way do
these strategies help you to manage stress?
What aspects of your work and work environment help you to manage your work stress?
In what way do these aspects help you to manage the stress?
Recomm endations for reducing stress
5. What could practically be done to alleviate unproductive levels of stress at this university?
Probes: From your perspective, is it likely that these changes could actually occur?
If not, what would prevent these changes from occurring?
What could this university’s management do to reduce your stress at work?
moderators, and 8 categories of recommendations, were identi®ed. The identi®cation was
carried out by the two leading authors independently, in order to maximize the validity
of the categories. Three additional categories identi®ed in the stress literature but not
identi®ed through this ®rst reading, were added to the category list.
Second, to examine the extent to which the categories were clearly de®ned and
distinguishable, the second author recoded the focus group transcripts using the above
categories. After combining closely related categories, 24 categories of causes, 11 categories
of consequences, 12 categories of moderators and ®ve categories of recommendations
remained. For ease of description, categories were further aggregated into meta-categories.
Table 2 displays these meta-categories, and the percentage of groups that reported each
meta-category.
Finally, to assess the inter-rater reliability of coding, the ®rst author coded all focus
group summaries using the ®nal set of sub- and meta-categories. The inter-rater agreement
was 89% for the sub-categories, and 96% for the meta-categories.
The following section describes each meta-category and the underlying sub-categories
that were raised by a minimum of 20% of groups. `Infrequent issues’ reported by only a
few groups are also brie¯ y described.
3. Results
3.1. Sample descriptives
Table 3 displays the demographic pro®le of the focus group sample, in addition to the
estimated demographic pro®le of the population of Australian university staV (based on

60
N. A. Gillespie et al.
Table 2. Percentage of groups reporting each source, moderator, and consequence of occupational
stress, and recommendation for alleviating stress. All percentages rounded.
Percentages of groups
Academic
staV
General
staV
Mean
Combined (all groups)
Response categories
N=6
N=8
N=8
N=22
Sources
1. Lack of funding, resources and support
services
2. Task overload
3. Poor leadership and management
4. Job insecurity
5. Lack of promotion, reward and recognition
100
100
100
100
100
67
33
67
88
100
88
100
88
75
50
95
86
68
59
63
Consequences
Professional
1. Poor job performance
2. Poor work relationships
3. Low commitment
4. Withdrawal from role
Personal
33
83
33
67
63
38
63
25
63
50
50
50
55
55
50
45
1. Physical health problems
2. Psychological health problems
3. Strained personal relationships
4. Poor quality of life
67
67
50
50
88
50
50
38
63
88
38
50
73
68
45
45
Moderators
Work environment
1. Social support
2. Recognition and achievement
3. High morale
4. Flexible working conditions
Personal strategies
50
0
50
33
88
50
25
13
88
25
13
25
77
27
27
23
1. Stress management techniques
2. Work/non-work balance
3. Tight role boundaries
4. Lower standards
33
50
50
66
33
100
63
38
25
25
75
63
50
50
38
73
59
45
45
31
5. Personal social support
Recomm endations*
1. Increase staV consultation and transparency of
management
N =4
50
N =7
71
N =5
20
N =16
50
2. Increase staV numbers, improve facilities and
resources
75
57
0
44
3. Improve communication within university
4. Develop management skills
5. Develop promotion, recognition and reward
processes
25
25
25
43
57
57
60
20
20
44
38
38
6. Provide greater job security
7. Review workloads
25
50
14
14
40
20
25
25
*Only 16 of the 22 groups made recommendations, due to time constraints.
statistics from the DEETYA report Selected Higher Education Statistics (1999), and the National
Tertiary Education Union Limited Access report (Castleman, Allen, Bastalich and Wright,
1995)). A comparison of these pro®les using Chi-square statistics indicated that the focus

Occupational stress in universities
61
Table 3. Demographic pro®les of the population of Australian university staV (estimated) and the
sample of focus group participants.
Estimate for
all university staV*
Focus group sample
N=178
%
%
Participants
Gender
Male
52
48
41
59
72
106
Female
Academic staV (N=74) occupational level
A
B
C
D/E
20
25
35
20
18
32
32
18
13
24
24
13
General staV (N=104) occupational level
1±3
4±5
6±7
8±10
38
34
19
9
34
37
18
11
35
39
19
11
*Based on statistics for full-time, continuing and ®xed term staV from the Selected Higher Education
Statistics (DEETYA, 1999) and the NTEU Limited Access Report (Castleman, et al., 1995).
group sample was representative of general and academic staV at each occupational level.
The sample was also representative of general staV across the three broad job categories
(i.e. administrative, technical, professional) and of academic staV across eight academic
disciplines. However, the sample over-represented female staV, and hence under-represented
male staV in the university staV population, x (n=178, 1)=9.51, p<.01.
2
3.2. Experience of occupational stress
Academic staV reported experiencing moderate to very high levels of work stress. In
contrast, general staV reported experiencing a wider range of stress levels, with some
general staV reporting very low levels of stress while others reported very high levels. On
average, as a group academic staV reported higher levels of stress than general staV.
In relation to changes in stress levels over time, at least one member of each group
reported a dramatic increase in the level of workplace stress during the past 2 to 5 years.
Several staV described ¯ uctuating levels of stress throughout the year, associated with
periods of higher and then lower workloads. However, many staV described a change from
¯ uctuating periods of acute stress, to constant high chronic stress. Chronic stress, without
periods of relief, was perceived to be more diYcult to manage and to have more severe
negative consequences than acute phases of stress.
3.3. Causes of stress
The ®ve categories of sources of stress identi®ed were: (1) a lack of funding, resources and
support services; (2) work overload; (3) poor management practice; (4) insuYcient recogni-
tion and reward; and (5) job insecurity. Both academic and general staV identi®ed each of
these sources of stress. The following section examines each of these sources in more detail,
and highlights sub-issues that were speci®c to academic or general staV.

62
N. A. Gillespie et al.
3.3.1. Lack of funding, resources and support services: All groups identi®ed diminishing resources
as a primary barrier to carrying out their role eYciently and to an appropriate standard.
Almost all groups referred to the decline in staV numbers, reporting that there was no
longer adequate staV to perform the work required.
A third of groups reported a lack of resources to deliver the necessary support services
to staV and students, such as library and audiovisual services. At some universities valuable
services such as learning centres had been closed down. A third of groups also referred to
a lack of necessary equipment and lack of funding to maintain existing equipment. In
particular, staV referred to a lack of quality teaching aids (e.g. laboratory and classroom
equipment), and general workplace tools (e.g. computer hardware and software). There
was also a shortage of teaching rooms at some universities. A quarter of groups reported
that their IT systems were unreliable, with frequent network and database problems, which
resulted in high levels of lost productivity. A lack of competent IT support staV to assist
with diYculties further contributed to this stress.
Several academic groups reported a lack of research funding and merit-based distribution
of funds, and a lack of funding to attend conferences and travel for research purposes. This
resulted in academics feeling demoralized and disillusioned about conducting research, yet
aware that they must `publish or perish’.
3.3.1.1. Infrequent issues: Four groups reported a lack of transport and/or parking options
at their university as a daily hassle. A few groups from multi-campus universities described
the stress of having to teach and travel between campuses. These groups also reported an
inequitable distribution of resources across campuses. A few groups reported feeling stress
as a consequence of not having the experience, skills or knowledge required to perform
their roles, or having to work with and rely on other staV members who do not have the
required skills or knowledge.
3.3.2. Task overload: Both general and academic staV consistently reported that a major
source of stress was the increasing workload and number of responsibilities that they were
expected to perform. StaV described the diYculty they experienced in trying to complete
any one task properly, due to this task overload. To complete the high volume of work,
many staV reported consistently working a high number of unpaid overtime hours, which
further contributed to their experience of stress.
Several common factors contributing to the rise in workload were discussed. These
included: the decline in staV numbers; an increase in student numbers; the changing nature
of students; the introduction of new technologies; and unrealistic deadlines. StaV reported
that the decline in staV numbers resulted in a loss of skills and knowledge, and an increased
workload for the remaining staV. General staV, particularly in public relations areas, also
reported diYculty in taking breaks (e.g. lunch or morning tea) due to their high workload
and a lack of substitute staV. The increase in student numbers had resulted in a dramatic
increase in the student: staV ratio. StaV described the changing nature of students, referring
to an increase in the number of fee paying and international students, a `poorer standard’
of student, and an increasingly consumer-oriented approach to study by students. StaV
reported that students now had higher expectations of an academic’s availability for
consultation and the support services provided by general staV. In addition, staV reported
that more time and skills were required to deal with the increasing diversity of students.
A third of all groups reported that the introduction of new technologies (e.g. internet
communication, web-based and on-line teaching) and software packages, increased their
workload and contributed to stress. StaV commonly referred to a lack of adequate training

Occupational stress in universities
63
and time allocated to developing the required skills and knowledge to use these systems
eYciently. Unrealistic deadlines imposed by management and administration further con-
tributed to task overload at speci®c times of the year. For example, despite a rise in the
number of students and a decrease in the number of staV, deadlines for ®nalizing student
grades were reported to have remained the same, placing enormous pressure on academics.
Academic staV reported diYculty in meeting their multiple research, teaching and
administrative responsibilities, as each component had become more demanding. With
regard to research, the requirement for staV to become `entrepreneurial’ in their research
and consulting activities to generate income, had substantially increased their workload.
With regard to teaching, the increasing number of courses that staV are expected to design
and teach, coupled with the introduction of new teaching modalities (e.g. web-based),
rapid continuous advances in research knowledge, and in some universities the introduction
of year round teaching, had substantially increased this workload. Academics also described
an increase in the administrative component of their role.
One-quarter of groups reported that a contributing factor to task overload was an
inequitable division of workloads within departments. This inequity was typically due to
either poor performance by some staV of the responsibilities delegated to them (i.e. `not
pulling their weight’), or an inequitable delegation of responsibilities by department
management.
3.3.2.1. Infrequent issues: A few groups reported stress arising from information overload
due to an increasing amount of electronic mail, coupled with the expectation to respond
immediately. Stress associated with having managerial responsibility over staV was also
reported.
3.3.3. Poor leadership and management: Both academic and general staV groups reported a
number of issues relating to the quality of management at both the departmental and senior
levels. These issues included a lack of consultation and staV input, a lack of management
transparency, the level and management of organizational change, and poor general manage-
ment skills.
A major source of stress reported by all groups was the lack, or limited nature, of staV
consultation by management. StaV expressed their resentment at the lack of opportunity
to contribute to important decisions that would impact upon them. In cases where
consultation had taken place, staV frequently believed that it was not a genuine endeavour
on the part of management, as management remained committed to its existing agenda
and failed to consider the feedback from staV in decision making. Such behaviour has led
staV to feel cynical about the consultation process.
Half of the groups expressed the view that decisions made by management were based
too heavily on corporate and ®nancial considerations, with little consideration of teaching,
research and staV interests, and needs. Such decision-making has contributed to staV ’s
distrust of senior management. As a consequence of their limited inclusion in the decision-
making process, staV reported feeling that they no longer had any autonomy or control
over their role, and felt `powerless’ and `helpless’. Some staV further reported that they had
considerably less `good will’ towards management now than in the past, and no longer saw
the university as a `caring employer’.
In addition to the lack of consultation, half of the groups reported a lack of transparency
surrounding management policies and decisions, which further contributed to their experi-
ence of stress and distrust towards management. In particular, the processes used by

64
N. A. Gillespie et al.
management to make promotion and performance appraisal decisions were reported to
be unclear.
StaV expressed frustration at the extent of organizational change (e.g. restructuring,
mergers and technological changes) during recent years and the poor management of this
change. StaV perceived a lack of direction and vision in the planning of change, a lack of
consideration of its impact on staV, and poor communication of the rationale for change
(i.e. the intended bene®ts) and `forewarning’ of its implementation. Some staV had experi-
enced many consecutive `rounds of change’ and felt that there was little opportunity to
consolidate one change process, and gain the intended bene®ts, before the next was
implemented. Organizational change was commonly perceived to waste staV ’s time and
to reduce the quality of their work.
A third of all groups reported that managers were not adequately trained in leadership,
managerial, human resources and communication skills, and believed that managers were
selected on the basis of scholarly aptitude, as opposed to their ability to manage people
and budgets. In particular, staV reported a lack of consistent direction and vision from
university leaders, and a lack of demonstrated commitment from management to achieving
the espoused goals of the university. These groups described management’s people skills
and communication with staV as ineVective. These perceptions of poor management
contributed to an attitude of distrust towards management.
3.3.3.1. Infrequent issues: A few groups described feeling stressed and demoralized by having
unrealistic goals set by university management, without the resources or funding to achieve
the goals. A few groups also reported stress due to poor timetabling, describing having to
run from one lecture to the next. The reliance on e-mail as a means of communication
between management and staV rather than staV meetings, was also perceived as a source
of stress and frustration by a few staV who believed that this limited staV discussion,
consultation and input into decision making.
3.3.4. Job insecurity: Two-thirds of the groups described feeling anxious and stressed about
the security of their jobs as a consequence of redundancy cycles. The management of the
redundancy process was described as poor and often resulted in the ill-treatment of
redundant staV (often colleagues), which further contributed to a climate of stress within
the workplace. General staV in particular described the diYculty and stress associated with
working on a contractual basis, reporting that they frequently did not know if their contract
would be renewed until the last moment.
One-quarter of groups described the negative impact that high levels of job insecurity
had on their work environment. Academic staV reported that job insecurity contributed
to a cut throat `look after number one’ competitive environment amongst colleagues,
which further contributed to academic stress. Several academics described the limited
options for ®nding work outside the university system due to the extent of their specializa-
tion. StaV also described feeling that they could not talk honestly about problems in their
workplace, say no to unmanageable workloads, or take leave at the close of a contract, for
fear of losing their jobs. Several employees reported not having a break from their job
over long periods of time and being careful about what they said and did, as a consequence.
3.3.5. Lack of promotion, reward and recognition: Just over one-half of the groups identi®ed
the limited opportunities for promotion and high level of competition within their work-
place, as a source of stress. The process of applying for promotion was also perceived to
be stressful by several staV. Many staV referred to a lack of recognition and appreciation
of staV achievements and contributions within their workplace. Academics in particular

Occupational stress in universities
65
reported feeling undervalued and underpaid for the nature of the work performed and the
hours worked.
Several groups reported inequity in the reward system, reporting that the system
rewards research over teaching excellence, academic over general staV, and in some areas
male over female staV.
3.3.5.1. Infrequent issues: A few groups reported that performance evaluation processes were
very stressful. A few academics reported that part of this stress is associated with the poor
design of the evaluation system, claiming that student evaluations are based on the entertain-
ment value and ease of the course. Some staV reported that performance evaluation, when
designed well, helped to alleviate stress by increasing communication, planning, and
role clarity.
3.4. Consequences of occupational stress
3.4.1. Professional consequences: StaV reported that occupational stress impacted on them
both professionally and personally. Professionally, staV reported that the current levels of
occupational stress negatively impacted on their job performance, interpersonal work
relations, their commitment to the university, and their extra-role performance. Each of
these are described in more detail below.
With regard to job performance, just over one-half of the groups, particularly the
general staV, reported diYculty in organizing their work eYciently as a consequence of
high levels of stress. StaV reported that they constantly felt that they were not able to
deliver the quality of work personally and professionally expected of them, which impacted
negatively on their self-esteem. Delivering poorly on the job and having to lower one’s
work standards became an additional source of stress for many staV, forming a destructive
cycle of increasing stress and poor performance. Academics reported that they no longer
had time to develop innovative or creative work.
Stress was reported by one-half of the groups to contribute to strained relationships
and interpersonal con¯ ict in the workplace. StaV described not having time to talk to
colleagues and provide support and assistance to them. Academic staV in particular reported
a loss of collegiality, collaboration and support in their workplace.
Another common consequence of stress, particularly for general staV, was withdrawal
from work in the form of absenteeism, leave due to stress, reduced working hours (e.g.
dropping to a part-time load), exploring job opportunities outside the university, and
resignation. Academic staV reported the impact of stress on their extra-role performance,
describing establishing tighter boundaries around their role. For example, staV reported
`closing down’ from their role both intellectually, and in terms of their eVort and commit-
ment. StaV further described learning to say `no’ to extra-role requests and tasks (e.g. being
a committee member, commenting on a publication submission for a colleague), making
conscious decisions to cut down overtime hours, and refusing to work at the weekends.
In addition to reporting the negative professional consequences of stress, several staV
reported that stress sometimes had a positive eVect on their eYciency and performance
at work.
3.4.2. Personal consequences: At a personal level, staV reported that the current levels of
occupational stress resulted in a range of physical and psychological health problems, and
strained family and personal relations. Three-quarters of the groups reported suVering
physical health eVects as a consequence of work-related stress. These health symptoms
included: headaches and migraines; sleep disorders; back and neck pain; constant muscle

66
N. A. Gillespie et al.
tension; weight loss or gain; physical fatigue; lowered immunity to colds and viruses;
hypertension; heart problems; and skin disorders (e.g. itches, psoriasis, rashes). A few staV
reported increased work-related injuries during stressful periods, and four academic staV
reported taking heart medication due to work-related stress.
Two-thirds of the groups reported that stress impacted on them psychologically,
describing feelings of anxiety, depression, burnout, anger, irritability, helplessness, and
being overwhelmed, in addition to forgetfulness, an inability to switch oV, and frustration
towards oneself, other staV, and/or management. Several staV indicated that they were
seeking professional counselling or psychological services to help them to deal with their
stress, and a few staV reported relying on alcohol or medication for help.
Half the groups reported that their stress impacted on the quality of their family life,
describing often having to forgo time with their family due to the amount of overtime
required to ful®l their work responsibilities. They also described poorer communication
and increased con¯ ict with family and friends when stressed. Several staV reported being
constantly exhausted or feeling anti-social due to the stress of their work, which impacted
on their ability to ful®l personal goals, to develop and maintain personal relationships, and
on their general quality of life.
3.5. Moderators of occupational stress
3.5.1. Aspects of the work environment: StaV reported that support from co-workers and
management, recognition and achievement, high morale, and ¯ exible working conditions,
helped them to cope with work-related stress.
Three-quarters of staV groups referred to the value of drawing on support in the
workplace as a way of dealing with stress. This included talking to co-workers about work
and `having a whinge’ and a laugh together, sharing one’s workload with co-workers,
being able to ask for help, and being able to rely on support staV and support services (e.g.
a help desk for students). Many staV emphasized the importance of support from their
departmental management and/or senior management in moderating their stress. Some
groups, however, reported that such support networks with colleagues were being eroded
due to the increasing competitiveness and lack of time.
Predominantly general staV described the stress-moderating bene®ts of achieving in
their work, observing others in their workplace achieve, seeing students (particularly post-
graduates) develop, and celebrating such successes. Receiving recognition from manage-
ment, colleagues and students was also identi®ed as an important stress buVer. In addition,
several groups suggested that a high level of morale in the workplace minimized the eVects
of stress.
Predominantly academic staV reported that ¯ exible working conditions helped them
to cope with stress. This included being able to work from home one day a week, not
having to `clock in and out’, working part-time, and taking study leave. Attending confer-
ences was also mentioned as a stress moderator and morale builder by a few staV, although
resources for conference attendance were reported to have diminished.
3.5.1.1. Infrequent issues: A few groups reported that support and representation of staV
interests by the union helped them to cope with stress, particularly during enterprise
bargaining negotiations. Attending training and development programs was also reported
to moderate stress by a few groups.
3.5.2. Personal strategies: Personal strategies for coping with work-related stress included:
practising stress management techniques, maintaining a work/non-work balance, estab-

Occupational stress in universities
67
lishing tight role boundaries, lowering standards and self-expectations, and relying on
personal sources of social support. Each are described in more detail below.
Three-quarters of all of the groups, predominantly general staV, reported practising
stress management techniques, such as learning to recognize and understand stress, managing
expectations, planning and prioritizing, taking regular breaks from the work station, regu-
larly exercising, and seeking alternative therapies for stress relief (e.g. yoga, massage). Some
staV reported learning these techniques through stress management workshops conducted
at their university.
Maintaining a balance between work and non-work included making a clear distinction
between work and personal life (e.g. leaving work on time, not taking work home),
switching oV from work, and focusing on non-work-related interests (e.g. gardening and
sport). However several staV reported diYculty in switching oV from work, even at
weekends, describing feelings of anxiety and guilt, and believing that it would limit their
chances of promotion if they did not work at weekends.
In addition to being a consequence of high levels of stress, establishing tight boundaries
around one’s role in the form of avoiding all forms of `voluntary’ contribution (e.g. leaving
committees) and withdrawing from all non-essential staV and student contact, was reported
as a means of managing stress. Predominantly academics reported managing their stress by
lowering their self-expectations and work standards.
A third of groups reported relying on personal sources of social support, such as family
and friends, to help them to cope with work-related stress.
3.6. Recommendations for reducing stress
Each of the following seven recommendations for reducing stress among both academic
and general staV were made by at least one-quarter of groups.
3.6.1. Increase staV consultation and transparency of management: Half the groups highlighted
the need for open and honest consultation of staV by management, particularly in regard
to proposed organizational changes. As one participant put it, `management needs to give
staV a voice’. It was recommended that management inform staV about the reasons,
processes and anticipated bene®ts of organizational change in a timely manner, and consider
the realistic impact of changes on staV. StaV further recommended that organizational
change processes be designed with the clear aim of facilitating teaching and research. The
need for greater transparency of decision making and general openness of management was
heavily emphasized. A greater management presence and accessibility to staV was also
suggested.
3.6.2. Increase staV numbers and improve facilities and resources: Increasing the number of staV
was recommended as the most eVective way to address the high workload problem.
Upgrading teaching facilities, providing greater funding for research, increasing IT and
administrative support services, increasing professional development opportunities, and
developing staV orientation processes, were also recommended.
3.6.3. Improve communication: StaV recommended developing and improving two-way com-
munication processes between departments and various units of the universities, as well as
between management and staV.
3.6.4. Develop management skills: One-third of all groups recommended formal training in
leadership skills, human resources management and communication skills for staV (particu-

68
N. A. Gillespie et al.
larly academic) who rise to management positions, and for staV currently in these positions.
StaV emphasized that management needs to provide a stronger direction and vision at both
the departmental and university level, and needs to demonstrate their own commitment
to achieving goals set. StaV recommended making management more accountable by
introducing regular evaluation of management driven changes and initiatives, and commun-
icating the outcome of such evaluations to staV. StaV also emphasized the need for
management to acquire a greater understanding of the work performed by staV, improve
their people management skills and to learn to build trust and respect.
3.6.5. Develop promotion, recognition and reward processes: Just over one-third of all groups,
particularly the general staV, recommended that career paths, reward structures and
mentoring schemes be designed for all university employees. Both staV groups recom-
mended that adequate pay levels be adopted. In addition, staV recommended improving
the way in which staV and team achievements are recognized and rewarded.
3.6.6. Provide greater job security: One-®fth of the groups recommended that the university
develop strategies and processes to provide staV with greater job security.
3.6.7. Review workloads: One-®fth of groups recommended that management develop
processes to review workloads, with the aim of making them more realistic and equitable.
However, some academic staV raised concerns about the diYculty of accurately assessing
academic workloads.
4. Discussion
This paper reports on the ®rst phase of a longitudinal investigation of occupational stress
across a broad range of Australian universities. The aim of this phase was to identify and
describe staV experiences and perceptions of occupational stress, and their perceptions of
its causes, moderators and consequences.
The results of the focus group discussions indicate a high degree of overlap between
the causes, consequences and moderators of occupational stress across the 15 universities
sampled, despite the wide variation in their history, geographic location, and specializations.
It is clear that this representative sample of staV perceived a dramatic increase in the level
of occupational stress experienced during the previous 5 years, a time marked by major
funding cuts to the tertiary education sector, large-scale organizational change and signi®cant
redundancies.
With few exceptions, academic staV reported high levels of occupational stress, with a
signi®cant proportion reporting debilitating levels of stress. Overall, general staV reported
lower levels of stress than academic staV. The ®ndings of the widespread prevalence and
intensity of work-related stress amongst university staV, particularly academic staV, is in
accordance with other recent studies of stress in universities (Boyd, and Wylie, 1994; Dua,
1994; Harrison, 1997; Jarrett, and Wine®eld, 1995; Sharpley, 1994).
This research identi®ed ®ve major sources of occupational stress that were common
to the universities, and among both general and academic staV. These included: (1) a lack
of funding, resources and support services; (2) task overload; (3) poor leadership and
management; (4) a lack of promotion, recognition and reward; and (5) job insecurity.
Underlying these ®ve sources, staV are describing a story of high work demand, and eroding
levels of individual control and workplace support. The Job Demand-Control-Support
model ( Johnson, and Hall, 1988) predicts that these job characteristics result in the most

Occupational stress in universities
69
negative outcomes for staV well-being, a prediction supported by the high levels of stress
reported by university staV.
These factors encompass the majority of causes of stress in universities identi®ed in
previous research (Blix et al., 1994; Boyd, and Wylie, 1994; Gmelch et al., 1986; Sharpley,
1994). However the current study also identi®ed `job insecurity’ as a major source of stress.
This can be explained by the downsizing and cycles of redundancies implemented since
1996 in many of the universities sampled.
Interestingly, four of the causes identi®ed in this study (including job insecurity) overlap
with the major causes of stress identi®ed in a national study of Australian workers from a
range of occupational groups and industries (ACTU, 1998). This suggests that at a broad
level, universities are experiencing similar sources of stress to other organizations and
industries. The notable unique sources of stress for university staV were a lack of recognition
and reward, and clear promotion paths for general staV.
The ®ndings highlight the signi®cant impact that occupational stress was having on
the university staV, both at a professional and a personal level. StaV reported that their
current level of stress aVected their ability to perform their work eYciently and to a high
standard, and impacted on the level of collegiality and commitment in the workplace. StaV
further reported not being able to ful®l their roles and responsibilities adequately and
`closing down’ in the eVort they put into their roles. At a personal level, the extent to
which occupational stress was reported to be aVecting the physical and psychological health
of this random and representative selection of staV, is alarming. Occupational stress was
clearly perceived to be impacting negatively on the quality of their family and personal
lives. Although based on staV perceptions, these ®ndings are consistent with previous work
examining the consequences of stress among university staV (Boyd, and Wylie, 1994;
Jarrett, and Wine®eld, 1995; Sharpley, 1994).
A unique feature of this study was the examination of staV perceptions of factors that
helped them to manage and to cope with stress. The moderators identi®ed by staV
emphasize social support, professional recognition, workplace morale, ¯ exible working
conditions, active practice of stress management techniques, and establishing greater control
and tighter boundaries around work. It is noteworthy that no academic groups reported
professional recognition as a moderator of stress, and only one-third of academic groups,
in comparison to all general staV groups, reported managing their stress through stress
management techniques such as taking regular breaks. In contrast, two-thirds of academic
groups, compared to only a quarter of general staV groups, reported lowering their standards
and self-expectations to moderate their stress. Given the higher level of stress reported by
academic than general staV in both this and previous studies (e.g. Jarrett and Wine®eld,
1995), further research exploring how academic and general staV both experience and deal
with occupational stress is warranted. The intense personal investment and ownership
typical of academic work may pose particular barriers and diYculties to academics when
it comes to managing their stress.
This study suggests that both general and academic staV may share the same broad set
of causes, consequences and moderators of occupational stress, despite diVerences in their
job roles. The study also provides preliminary evidence that the prevalence of certain
causes, consequences and moderators may diVer for general and academic staV. A limitation
of this ®rst phase of the project is the inability to report accurately the actual number and
type of staV who made comments in each category. Rather, only the number of academic
and general groups reporting each category is provided. The use of combined academic
and general groups further limits the ability to identify factors that relate solely to academic
or general staV. The second and third phases of this project will enable rigorous analysis

70
N. A. Gillespie et al.
of the similarities and diVerences in the experience of occupational stress across job types,
occupational levels, gender and age.
We caution the reader not to infer the importance of a factor in the stress response,
on the basis of the number of focus groups reporting the factor. There are two reasons for
this. First, the assumption that frequency of reporting implies importance of the factor
needs to be tested. Second, previous research into occupational stress suggests that there
are other important factors that signi®cantly contribute to, and moderate, occupational
stress, which were not commonly identi®ed by staV in the focus groups. For example,
personality factors, such as neuroticism and extraversion have been shown to contribute to
and moderate an individual’s experience of occupational stress (Cassar, and Tattersall, 1998;
Hart, and Wearing, 1995). Similarly, an individual’s coping style has been shown to
moderate stress (Parkes, 1990, 1994). The subsequent questionnaire-based phases of this
research will incorporate these additional factors identi®ed in the literature, to enable a
comprehensive examination of the causes of stress within universities, and their relative
importance.
Consistent with the conceptualization of stress as a complex, dynamic system of variables
(Lazarus, 1990), there was some overlap in the factors that participants identi®ed as causes,
consequences and moderators of occupational stress. For example, poor quality work and
lower standards were identi®ed as consequences of stress, which in time became additional
sources of stress. Similarly, the absence of morale and support in the workplace were
identi®ed as consequences of stress, and the presence of morale and support as important
moderators of stress. These examples illustrate the compounding downward spiral that is
characteristic of high levels of occupational stress, as the consequences of stress compound
existing sources of stress and erode mechanisms that buVer stress.
It is evident that participants clearly placed much of the responsibility for increasing
levels of occupational stress on university management. StaV commonly expressed anger,
cynicism and distrust towards senior management, and in some cases middle management
(e.g. School, Department or Unit management). The most common recommendations for
reducing staV stress emphasized the need for management to increase staV consultation and
the transparency of management decision making, improve university intra-communication
processes, develop stronger leadership and management ability, improve promotion, recog-
nition and reward processes, and source more funding to increase staV numbers and
improve facilities.
In conclusion, these qualitative results highlight the pertinent need to address the issue
of occupational stress within universities. Reports by staV clearly suggest that occupational
stress is having a debilitating impact on the personal and professional welfare of a signi®cant
proportion of university staV, and in their opinion, is clearly aVecting the quality of
education and research produced in the universities. The second quantitative phase of this
project will provide a prime opportunity for government, university management, and
tertiary education unions to gain a detailed understanding of the causes of occupational
stress. In addition, the two-year period between the second and third phases of this project
provides these parties with the opportunity to design and implement strategies to reduce
occupational stress, and then to evaluate the eVectiveness of such strategies through
comparisons of staV stress levels pre- and post-intervention.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grants C79943002 and C79943021 from the Australian
Research Council, funding and in-kind support from the (Australian) National Tertiary

Occupational stress in universities
71
Education Union, and contributions from the Vice Chancellors of 19 Australian
Universities.
References
Armour, R. A., Caffarella, R. S., Fuhrmann, B. S., Wergin, J. F.
& (1987). Academic burnout:
Faculty responsibility and institutional climate. In P. Seldin (Ed.), Coping with Faculty Stress
(pp. 00±00). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Association of University Teachers
London: AUT.
{AUT}(1990). Goodwill under Stress: Morale in UK Universities.
Australian Council of Trade Unions
Stress at Work. Melbourne, Victoria: ACTU.
(1998). A Report on the 1997 ACTU National Survey on
Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee
Canberra: AVCC. (www.avcc.edu.au)
(1999). AVCC Key Statistics on Australian Universities.
Blix, A. G., Cruise, R. J., Mitchell, B. M.,
university teachers. Educational Research, 36, 157±169.
Blix, G. G
. (1994). Occupational stress among
&
Bowen, H. R., Schuster, J. H.
&
(1985). Outlook for the academic profession. Academe, 71 (5), 9±15.
(1994). Workload and Stress in New Zealand Universities. Wellington: New
Boyd, S.,
Wylie, C.
Zealand Council for Educational Research and the Association of University StaV of New
&
Zealand.
Brown, R. D., Bond, S., Gerndt, J.,
Krager, L.
&
(1986). Stress on campus: An interactional
perspective. Research-in-Higher-Education, 24 (1), 97±112.
Calabrese, J., Kling, M., Gold, P.
&
(1987). Alterations in immunocompetence during stress,
bereavement, and depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1123±1134.
Cassar, V., Tattersall, A
&
. (1998). Occupational stress and negative aVectivity in Maltese nurses:
Testing moderating in¯ uences. Work and Stress, 12, 85±94.
Castleman, T., Allen, M., Bastalich, W., Wright, P.
&
(1995). Limited Access: Women’s
Disadvantage in Higher Education Employment. Melbourne: National Tertiary Education Union.
Cooper, C. L., Cartwright, S.
&
(1994). Healthy mind, healthy organization: A proactive approach
to occupational stress. Human Relations, 47, 455±471.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R
&
. (1992). NEO PI-R (Professional Manual). Odessa, Florida:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Daniels, K., Guppy, A
&
. (1994). An exploratory study of stress in a British University. Higher
Education Quarterly, 48, 135±144.
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs
Selected Higher Education Statistics. Canberra: DEETYA.
{DEETYA} (1996).
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs
Education Statistics. Canberra: DEETYA.
(1999). Selected Higher
Dollard, M. F., Winefield, H. R., Winefield, A. H.
strain and the productivity of human service workers: A test of the demand-control-support
de Jonge, J. (
).
2000 Psychosocial job
&
model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 501±510.
J. (1994). Job stressors and their eVects on physical health, emotional health, and job satisfaction
in staV at the University of New England. Journal of Educational Administration, 32, 59±78.
Dua,
Everly,
G. S. (1990). A Clinical Guide to the Treatment of the Human Stress Response. New York:
Plenum Press.
Fisher, S.
(1994). Stress in Academic Life: The Mental Assembly Line. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Gmelch, W. H., Wilke, P. K., Lovrich, N. P
&
. (1986). Dimensions of stress among university
faculty: Factor-analytic results from a national study. Research-in-Higher-Education, 24, 266±286.
Harrison
, D. (1997). First-degree concern. People Management, 3 (25), 36±39.
Hart, P. M., Wearing, A. J.
&
(1995). Occupational stress and well being: A systematic approach
to research policy and practice. In P. C. Ed (Ed.), Psychological Health in the Workplace:
Understanding and Managing Occupational Stress (pp. 185±216). Carlton: Australian
Psychological Society.
Hind, P., Doyle, C
&
higher education. Paper presented at the XXVI International Congress of Psychology,
. (1996). A cross-cultural comparison of perceived occupational stress in academics in
Montreal, Canada.
J. (1981). Work and Stress and Social Support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
House,

72
Occupational stress in universities
Jarrett, R. J.,
Winefield, A. H.
&
Adelaide, Adelaide.
(1995). Unpublished report on climate survey, University of
Johnson, J. V., Hall, E. M.
&
disease: A cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population.
(1988). Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular
American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1336±1342.
Karasek, R. A. (
1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285±308.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. L., Stephens, R. E., Lipetz, P. D., Speicher, C. E.,
Glaser, R.
&
(1985).
Distress and DNA repair in human lymphocytes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 8, 311±320.
Lazarus, R. S
. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1 (1), 3±13.
Lazarus, R. S., DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., Gruen, R
&
. (1985). Stress and adaptational outcomes:
The problem of confounded measures. American Psychologist, 40, 770±779.
Lazarus, R. S., Folkman, S
&
. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer.
Matteson, M. T., Ivancevich, J. M
&
. (1987). Controlling Work Stress: EVective Human Resource and
Management Strategies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Melendez, W. A., de Guzman, R. M.
&
(1983). Burnout: The New Academic Disease. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Research Reports, no. 9. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of
Higher Education.
National Tertiary Education Union
{NTEU} (2000). Unhealthy Places of Learning: Working in
Australian Universities. Melbourne, Victoria: NTEU.
Nowack, K. M.
(1989). Coping style, cognitive hardiness, and health status. Journal of Behavioural
Medicine, 12, 145±158.
Osipow, S. H., Spokane, A. R
&
. (1991). Occupational Stress Inventory: Manual (Research Version).
Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Parkes, K. R.
(1994). Personality and coping as moderators of work stress processes: Models, methods
and measures. Work and Stress, 8, 110±129.
Parkes, K. R
. (1990). Coping, negative aVectivity, and the work environment: Additive and
interactive predictors of mental health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 399±409.
Penny, R. P., Menec, V. H., Struthers, C. W., Hechter, F. J., Schonwetter, D. J.,
&
(1997). Faculty in transition: A longitudinal analysis of the role of perceived
Menges, F. J.
control and type of institution in adjustment to postsecondary institutions. Research in Higher
Education, 38, 519±556.
Seldin, P
. (1987). Research ®ndings on causes of academic stress. In P. Seldin (Ed.), Coping with
Faculty Stress (pp. 13±24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sharpley, C. F
. (1994). A Report of a Survey of Stress and Health at Monash University. Melbourne:
Centre for Stress Management and Research, Monash University.
Sharpley, C. F., Reynolds, R., Acosta, A., Dua, J. K. (
&
1996). The presence, nature and eVects
of job stress on physical and psychological health at a large Australian University. Journal of
Educational Administration, 34, 73±86.
Spector, P. E.
(1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning
autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005±1016.
Terry, D. J., Tonge, L., Callan, V. J.
&
(1995). Employee adjustment to stress: The role of coping
resources, situational factors, and coping responses. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 8, 1±24.
Van der Doef, M., Maes, S.
&
(1999). The Job Demand-Control (-Support) model and psychological
well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work and Stress, 13, 87±114.
Winefield,
A. H. (2000). Stress in academe. Some recent research ®ndings. In D. T. Kenny,
J. G. Carlson, F. J. McGuigan, & J. L. Sheppard (Eds.), Stress and Health: Research and Clinical
Applications (pp. 437±446). Sydney: Harwood.