Stress management in a worker according to the effort
The second model, proposed by Siegrist, explains the work stress in terms of effort – reward, that is, depending on the control that people have about their own future (long -term rewards). These rewards would be determined by three factors: the esteem (others recognize the work, have adequate social support and fair treatment), status control (employment stability and promotion perspectives) and salary and salary. Consider that the worker’s psychosocial risk can be high when there is a high demand for work together with a low control over long -term rewards. In addition to working conditions, certain individual characteristics of the employee are taken into consideration, such as their personal coping strategies, to which it is divided into two categories that lead to opposite results: the vigor (active effort that brings with it a high probability ofObtain positive results) and immersion (react to the situation with negative feelings, which will affect individual vulnerability to high tension and increase it, increasing the possibility that stress and other unwanted effects are generated).
The negative effects generated by the condition of stress in the workplace affect both people in their individuality and companies. According to WHO, prolonged exposure to stress generates a high financial cost for businesses and societies due to physical, mental and behavioral symptoms, diseases and other disorders that originate, in addition to an increase in absenteeism and presentism at work. It is one of the main causes of occupational diseases and has a considerable relationship with absences at work and high sanitary costs. It is a frequent cause of physical and metal saturation, which causes a reduction in the effectiveness, productivity and quality of the life of the subject. In addition, employee’s job satisfaction considerably reduces.
For the worker, among the harmful effects that stress has that is caused by adverse working conditions are problems of cardio – vascular, muscle, endocrine, gastrointestinal systems, increased probability of suffering from type II diabetes, disordersof sleep, disruptions in the work – family relationship and disorders such as depression, anxiety and other minor psychiatric alterations. In the most extreme cases, this work stress can become burnout.
In a study conducted with a sample of 100 male workers from a company dedicated to mining assistance and maintenance, it was found that the vital events that are related to the most frequent stress among the workers of the company were: changes in food habitsand sleep, in living conditions and economic status
It has been found that those workers with high levels of perceived self-efficacy and self-regulation suffer less work stress than those with low levels. It has been proven that self-efficacy modulates the relations between stressors and their consequences, so that Grau, Salanova and Peiró concluded in one of their investigations that “the low workers in generalized self-efficacy manifest greater emotional exhaustion when labor autonomy is greater;While workers in professional self-efficacy manifest higher levels of cynicism when routine and role conflict are high, and lower levels of organizational commitment when they have high levels of role conflict. For high workers at levels of self-efficacy, both generalized and specific, high stressors are not associated with negative stress consequences ”.
In addition to self-regulation, regular physical activity has been found to reduce emotional exhaustion and depersonalization caused by stress and, contrary to what is raised in the well -being of various institutions, it was found in a study conducted at 52Workers of the University of the Costa (Barranquilla, Colombia) that activities such as Mindfulness and Qi Gong do not generate significant differences in the perceived levels of work stress.
There are few validated and standardized psychometric tests that currently exist to evaluate a person’s motivation, especially when specifically reference to labor motivation. In the case of this research, due to the factors it analyzes and that it has been validated in Colombia with populations of significant size, it was decided that the most appropriate tool to measure this construct is the Motivation Questionnaire for Work (CMT) developed byFernando Toro Álvarez. Its application can be made both individual and collective, with a duration of between 20 and 35 minutes, and can be administered to adolescents and adults with a minimum level of education of four years of high school. It has bases in the theories of McClelland (theory of needs learned) and Herzberg (fork theory), in addition to the results of other empirical research carried out by the author of the instrument. It is designed to identify and value 15 motivation factors, grouped into three categories:
- Internal motivation: achievement, power, affiliation, self-realization, and recognition.
- Preferred means to achieve the desired remuneration: dedication to the task, acceptance of the authority, acceptance of norms and values, requisition, and expectation.
- External motivation: supervision, working group, work content, salary, and promotion.
In total, the questionnaire is composed of 75 items organized in groups of 5, which the subject must order according to the importance attributed to each one in their group by assigning them between 5 and 1, so that 5 is one that prefers and1 the one that catches the least attention.
For stress measurement, it was considered appropriate to choose the third version of the stress evaluation questionnaire, which is part of the instrument battery for the evaluation of the psychosocial risk developed by the Javeriana University and the Ministry of Social Protection in 2011. This instrument seeks to identify the physiological, social and labor, intellectual and psycho -emotional behavior symptoms of stress, collecting subjective information from the worker who responds. The third version consists of an update of scales and an adjustment to the way in which the stress levels of the previous version are calculated based on a sample of 4521 workers affiliated with the general system of professional risks belonging to the six regions of the country, divided into workers with headquarters, professionals or technicians and workers with positions of auxiliaries and operators, in order to adapt the interpretation of results to make it homologable with the criteria used in the other battery instruments.
It is composed of 31 items that must be answered by a Likert scale, with the "always", "almost always", "sometimes" or "never" options, it can be applied both individually and collectively and its average duration is 7 minutes. The questions are distributed in four categories, according to the type of stress symptoms: physiological (8 items), social behavior (4 items), intellectual and labor (10 items), and psycho -emotional (9 items).
The CMT qualification consists in adding the values that appear in each of the variables. To prepare the profile, this gross score (PB) becomes a standard score (PT) consulting the corresponding scales table according to the population. This value is taken and located in the chart of the response sheet, joining the points for a continuous line to obtain the individual profile.
Standard scores between 0 and 20 mean that the motivation of a person by the way specific factor is well below the average. Between 21 and 40, it indicates that the tendency to motivate by that factor is below average. A standard score between 41 and 60 means that it is in the average. Between 61 and 80 it represents a tendency of the individual to motivate itself by a specific factor more than the average of people. Finally, a standard score between 81 and 100 implies that the person is motivated by a specific factor well above the average.
The third version of the stress evaluation questionnaire is similar to that of the CMT. It consists of the calculation of the gross score, its transformation and comparison with the scales tables.
If an item was not answered or presents a double marking, that data is taken as lost and is not qualified in any way.
Then the average of the results of the items from 1 to 8 is obtained and the result is multiplied by 4, the average of the items 9 to 12 is multiplied by 3, the average of the items 13 to 22 are multiplied by 2, andThe average of the results of items 23 to 31. All these results are added to obtain the total gross score. From this the transformation is carried out to obtain results that are on a scale of 0 to 100.
"It will be in the company’s job motivation profile in general that the motivational factor with a higher average will be the salary, and the least will be the content of the work": it was indeed found when performing the general motivational profile of the company thatThe salary is the motivational factor with the highest score, while the content of the work has the lowest score (39). Our results contradict Hernández Herrera’s research, according to which are the motivating factors for the content of work that have the greatest influence on job motivation and satisfaction. However, a greater amount of investigations have obtained results similar to those raised in this work, such as those of García Sedeño, Barbero García, Ávila CarreterGiraldo, and Londoño Ardila, Restrepo Botero and Flórez Gutiérrez.
"A high score in the motivational expectation factor of the CMT will have a correlation with a high general score in the stress evaluation questionnaire": there is no significant correlation between the two factors.
"Low scores in the motivational factors of self-realization and affiliation will correlate with a high general score in the stress evaluation questionnaire": there is no significant correlation between affiliation and the level of stress presented by the employees of the operational level of thebusiness
However, there is a significant positive correlation between the level of stress and self-realization (0.705). This means that, contrary to what is proposed in the hypothesis, a high score in the self-realization factor is usually accompanied in this specific population by a high level of stress. This could be explained if the company does not provide spaces to employees in which they can feel that they reach that self-realization that they seek, influencing the level of stress, high or low, of the employee. Herzberg’s bifactorial theory contradicts this finding since he proposes that self-realization (motivating factor) is associated with the worker’s satisfaction, but has no influence on dissatisfaction.
This means that, even if the person does not find self-realization in his work, the level of stress caused by the position and dissatisfaction of the person should not be affected by this fact. However, Maslow’s theory of motivation supports the results of this investigation since he postulates self-realization as the ultimate need of the human being, to which all people tend, and frustrate the individual’s search to reach to satisfy it can lead him tolose the valid sense of your life, causing symptoms, such as stress, which can even become psychopathological.
Leave feedback