Occupational stress of teachers: biographical differences in a large school system
| Pages | 18-38 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239710156962 |
| Published date | 01 March 1997 |
| Date | 01 March 1997 |
| Author | John McCormick |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Journal of
Educational
Administration
35,1
18
Occupational stress of
teachers: biographical
differences in a large school
system
John McCormick
The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Introduction
Although there has been some criticism of writing which emphasizes negative
aspects of the occupational stress of teachers[1], a number of studies have
suggested that teaching is a particularly stressful occupation[2-4]. Numerous
studies have also shown stress in the workplace to be associated with reduced
productivity, absenteeism, worker turnover and impaired employee health and
wellbeing[5]. It follows that teachers’ occupational stress is a very relevant area
of investigation for educational administrators.
It is apparent that stress is not experienced uniformly by teachers, but varies
from one individual to another[6-8]. A number of studies have provided
evidence that individual personality traits, for example, locus of control and
type-A personality, play substantial roles in occupational stress[9-11]. However,
reported studies of occupational stress, concerned with biographical
differences, such as position and years of service, do not appear to have been as
fruitful[3]. For example, after conducting a meta-analysis of studies
investigating the relationship between sex and occupational stress, Martocchio
and O’Leary concluded that there were no differences in experienced stress
between males and females[12]. It may be that there is virtually no variation in
occupational stress among biographically differentiated groups of teachers.
However, such homogeneity, particularly in a large school system, would
appear unlikely. Moreover, some differences have been reported in a small
number of studies[4,13,14]. It is possible that the failures of some past research
to elicit biographical differences may be accounted for by a lack of suitability of
the particular underlying theories or, for that matter, a lack of theory. Indeed,
Worrall and May[8] considered much of the earlier research into teacher stress
to lack a theoretical focus. A further gap in the literature, with the exception of
some writers who have focused on urban schools[15,16], and in contrast to the
trend in school effectiveness research[17], is the apparent paucity of studies
comparing the stress of teachers in different school contexts.
If differences do exist between groups of teachers, it is likely to be useful to
identify them, for it follows that strategies for stress amelioration which do not
take these differences into account will be relevant only to a proportion of a
heterogeneous population.
Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 35 No. 1, 1997,
pp. 18-38. © MCB University Press,
0957-8234
Received August 1995
Revised February 1996
Accepted February 1996
Occupational
stress of
teachers
19
McCormick and Solman[18] posited an empirically suppor ted attribution-of-
responsibility model for teacher stress which is essentially concerned with how
teachers cognitively organize domains to which responsibility can be attributed
for their occupational stress. As this model is the basis of the research being
reported, and integral to the nature of the data gathered, it shall be outlined
here.
While acknowledging that stress may be a positive experience (eustress)[19],
the occupational stress of teachers has generally been viewed as negative[7,20-
22].
The attribution-of-responsibility model is contextually bound to teaching in
a school system. Weick[23] proposed that schools and school systems may be
conceptualized as loosely coupled systems. This notion may be further
developed when we consider cognitive structures. Lord and Foti[24] suggested
that individuals develop “person-in-situation” schemas. These are established
cognitive structures which relate, or make sense of, the relationships between
self, occupational environment and stress. This approach suggests that
teachers may not think of their schools simply as subsystems of the educational
authority which is a subsystem of the community, and so on. Rather, the latter
may be thought of as distinct domains, at different conceptual “distances” from
each individual teacher. Such distances are not fixed, but may vary in response
to positive and negative affect[25,26]. It is important to emphasize that such
distances are, indeed, conceptual and not metric. Everyday analogies may
assist us in understanding the concept of such distancing. In considering the
state of a dyadic relationship, an individual may conceive that she or he is
drawing closer to a partner, or alternatively, that they are growing apart. We
may also note, perhaps with a little cynicism, when the leader of a political
party “distances” himself or herself from a controversial colleague.
Stress is not value-free, and for some teachers, coping with occupational
stress may be associated with success, and “failing to cope” associated with
failure. Attribution theory is principally concerned with how individuals
attribute causes of individual life events[27,28]. However, attribution theory
does not disregard the contribution of past experiences and established
knowledge to an individual’s attributions[29]. In studies of teacher stress
involving substantial sample sizes, researchers have tended not to be concerned
with specific events, for example, the stress associated with the interaction with
a specific student at a specific time. Rather, they have studied a generalized set
of stressors, which are presumed to have a degree of stability over time. For
example, the stress associated with unco-operative and misbehaving students.
This apparent lack of fit can be readily resolved. The search for explanations of
life events is not motivated by mere curiosity, but rather by the desire to achieve
mastery over self and environment[30]. Thus, a connection can be made with
the earlier discussion of “person-in-situation” schemas. That is, to return to the
earlier example, teachers will develop schemas which cognitively organize their
understanding of stress and misbehaving students, and they do not deal with
each experience as only a discrete, unconnected occurrence.
To continue reading
Request your trial