Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

315
experience of stress for employees, which is in contrast to much of the research literature presented in Chapter II,
Section 1b.1.
However, it has been proposed that the JDCS cannot be utilised as a catch-all model for the evaluation of
workplace stress (Theorell, 1996). This argument is supported from the outcomes of the presented study, for
example where Study 1 stepwise linear regression outcomes shows that Change significantly impacts upon
Cynicism, and similarly where Role impacts upon Professional Efficacy. These outcomes are factors which have the
potential to be ignored in JDCS-based occupational research, and so any study which seeks solely to incorporate
Demands, Control and Support alone may be limited in their findings and in the explanation to the causes of stress.
There are two predominant arguments as to how stressors can impact upon individuals: the daily hassle
approach and the major life event approach. The major life event approach is the most often researched approach
to occupational stress – indeed, the JDCS is an example of such an approach. Chronic exposure to these major life
events can overcome individual defences and resources to lead to stress-related outcomes (e.g. Clint, Barry and
Alexia, 2008; Edwards, 2008). The Management Standards Indicator Tool, a 35-item self-report measure of
psychosocial workplace hazards, assesses the major life events approach in the workplace. Indeed, multivariate
stepwise linear regression analysis of the MSIT alongside the MBI-GS indicates that some of the major life events
assessed within the survey play a part in the experience of burnout as a stress-related outcome. The major life
event approach therefore played a part in gaining a strong understanding of the type of major life event stressor
implicit within the organisation, as well as providing an organisational understanding when combined with the
results of the daily hassle approaches.