EAPs and Stress Management. From Theory to Practice to Comprehensiveness
| Pages | 21-32 |
| Date | 01 November 1994 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483489410072217 |
| Published date | 01 November 1994 |
| Author | Philip Dewe |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
EAPs
and Stress
Management
21
EAPs and Stress Management
From Theory to Practice to
Comprehensiveness
Philip Dewe
Faculty of Business Studies, Massey University, Palmerston North,
New Zealand
It is not difficult when reviewing the literature on occupational stress to find a
considerable amount of discussion focusing on the increasing burden carried by
organizations owing to escalating medical care expenditure[1,2] not to mention
the losses in time and productivity due to stress-induced health difficulties[3].
Nor is it difficult to find evidence that the mergers, acquisitions, restructuring
and job losses of the 1980s have led to a fear and uncertainty among
employees[4]. The prediction is that the 1990s will be characterized by a
shrinking and increasingly troubled workforce[5]. This has led to an “explosion
of interest” in the last few years in health and wellness programmes[6] with
more and more organizations becoming involved in promoting health issues[3].
Yet one cannot help noting a faint sense of disbelief with the conventional
wisdom that occupational stress is harmful and must be reduced[7]. The exercise
of attributing human and productivity losses to work stress is as Beehr and
O’Hara point out little more than that – an exercise in attribution and assertion[3,
p. 80]. The fact that a more cynical attitude towards the effectiveness of stress
intervention programmes is emerging[7] neatly fits with the views of some
commentators that work stress and work stress interventions are just another
one of those fads ultimately destined to fail because they can never deliver what
they promise[8]. But, if, as all acknowledge, some aspects of work stress are so
common and widespread they are worth trying to reduce[9] and if there is a
general acceptance that stress intervention programmes, if effective, can be of
benefit to employees and employers then what has gone wrong?
In an attempt to answer this question and to search for reasons why stress
intervention programmes have failed to realize their undoubted potential this
article identifies a number of possible stumbling blocks. These include issues of
power, ethics, theory, methodology, philosophy and skill-practice. Out of the
discussion come a number of directions for future practice. What emerges is
that stress research in general and, in this instance, stress intervention
programmes in particular would all benefit from a period of “quiet
reconstruction”[10]. Issues such as: Where are current methodologies taking
us? and, What can alternative methodologies provide? could then be given the
proper attention they deserve. We begin with a framework for understanding
the issues. Personnel Review, Vol. 23 No. 7
1994, pp. 21-32. © MCBUniversity
Press, 0048-3486
To continue reading
Request your trial