RECOGNIZING STRESS AT WORK.

The word "stress" is derived from the Latin word stringere, which means "to draw tight".

Some believe that stress can and should be defined subjectively (that is, what one says about how one feels); others consider that an objective definition is needed (perhaps physical measures of saliva, blood or heart rate). Some researchers insist that a global definition is more appropriate (that is, there is one general thing called stress); while others emphasize that stress is multidimensional (it is made up of very different features) Also, it can be defined by the outside stimulus factors that cause it or rather how people respond to it. That is, if a person does not experience an event or situation as stressful, can it really be called a stressor?

There are various models or theories that attempt to describe and understand stress. The simplest perhaps is the demand-control theory, which looks at the various psychological and physical demands put on a person to behave in a particular way, and the control or decision lat.i.tude they then have in delivery. High-demand, low-control situations are the worst. Another way of describing this is challenge and support: * Much support, little challenge: People in this role are in the fortunate position of having good technical and social support, but because they are under-challenged it probably means that they underperform. They may actually be stressed by boredom and monotony. Such employees are likely to appear listless or even depressed.

* Much support, much challenge: This combination tends to get the most out of people as they are challenged by superiors, subordinates, shareholders and customers to "work smarter", but are given appropriate support to enable them to succeed. Theoretically, this category of workers should be and look the most happy and satisfied at work.

* Little support, much challenge: This unfortunate, but very common, situation is a major cause of stress for any employee, because s/he is challenged to work consistently hard but is offered only minimal emotional, informational (feedback) and physical (equipment) support. This is the typical stress response that will be considered below.

* Little support, little challenge: People in some bureaucracies lead a quiet and unstressed life because they are neither challenged nor supported, which usually means neither they nor their organization benefits.

Stress is caused by a range of things peculiar to the make-up of the individual, such as their personality, ability and life history. There are also specific features about the environment (job, family, organization), usually but not exclusively considered in terms of the work setting. Consequently, the combination of the two produces an a.s.sorted cl.u.s.ter of even more complex stress factors; that is, how individuals and their immediate social environment perceive, define but more importantly try to cope with stress, strain and pressure.

The individual.

First, there are the anxious worriers, more commonly known by the name of neurotics. They are the people with "negative affectivity", which is a mix of anxiety, irritability, neuroticism and self-deprecation. They tend to be less productive, have less job satisfaction and be more p.r.o.ne to absenteeism.

Other people can be labelled fatalists. This category of employees believes that the events occurring in their lives are a function of luck, chance, fate, G.o.d, powerful others or powers beyond their control, comprehension or manipulation. Not surprisingly, they are much more stressed at work compared to those who believe it is in their power to influence the outcomes of events through their behavior and/or ability, personality and effort.

Compet.i.tive, frantic individuals with spirited drive and an enhanced sense of time urgency also tend to experience more stress. They may have an intense, sustained desire to achieve, an eagerness to compete, a persistent drive for recognition, a continuous involvement in deadline activities, a habitual propensity to accelerate mental and physical functions, and consistent alertness.

The job (organization) or social environment.

Some jobs are more stressful than others. Usually, the greater the extent to which the job requires such activities as making decisions, constant monitoring of machines or materials, repeated exchange of information with others, unpleasant physical conditions, and performing unstructured rather than structured tasks, the more stressful the job tends to be.

Further, some people have to engage in role juggling: switching rapidly from one role and one type of activity to another (from boss to friend, teacher to partner, law enforcer to father confessor). Stress can also result from role ambiguity. This can occur when people are uncertain of the scope of their responsibilities, what is expected of them, and how to divide their time between various duties.

Over- and under-load stress stems from having too little or too much to do. Responsibility for others also often leads to stress. Many people are (or should be) responsible for their subordinates: they have to motivate them, reward and punish them, as well as communicate and listen to them. Lack of social support can also be a powerful stress trigger developing from being socially isolated or ignored. Having friends and supporters in times of difficulty helps managers to see hectic events as being less threatening and more controllable than if they had to deal with them on their own or with little support. Lack of partic.i.p.ation in decisions also causes stress by inducing feelings of helplessness and alienation. Stressful organizations are plain to see: the way people walk, talk and interact shows how brittle, tough and trained they are.

Coping.

People differ in their typical, habitual ways of coping with the stressful situations in their lives. These coping strategies vary in their effectiveness. One distinction that has been made is between problem-focused coping (aimed at problem-solving or doing something to alter the source of stress) and emotion-focused coping (aimed at reducing or managing the emotional distress a.s.sociated with, or cued by, a particular set of circ.u.mstances). Some emotion-focused responses involve denial, others involve a positive reinterpretation of events, and still others involve seeking social support. Similarly, problem-focused coping can potentially involve several distinct activities, such as planning, taking direct action, seeking a.s.sistance, screening out particular activities, and sometimes stopping the action for an extended period.

Consequences of stress.

These include a noticeable decline in the physical state of the person, such as: * Physical appearance; * Chronic fatigue and tiredness; * Frequent infections, especially respiratory infections; * Health complaints, such as headaches, backaches, stomach and skin problems; * Signs of depression; and * Change in weight or eating habits.

Second, there are emotional symptoms of stress too. These are: * Boredom or apathy: lack of affect and hopelessness; * Cynicism and resentfulness; * Depressed appearance, sad expression, slumped posture; and * Expressions of anxiety, frustration, tearfulness.

The third cl.u.s.ter of stress reactions are behavioral symptoms. These include: * Absenteeism and accidents; * Increase in alcohol or caffeine consumptions; * Increase in smoking; * Obsessive exercising or eating; * Irrationally quick to fly off the handle, lose temper; and * Reduced productivity: inability to concentrate on or complete a task.

The body language of stress is most noticeable. Here are some nonverbal behaviors a.s.sociated with the experience of stress: * Pale complexion; * Thin appearance; * Less smiling; * Struggling to hold the posture; * Appears shaky; * Slouching; and * Lacking energy in gait and overall body movement.

By recognizing and acting on the early warning signs of stress, one could take preventing steps to reduce or cancel out detrimental health consequences a.s.sociated with it.

OFFICE POLITICS.

Politics is a bad word. In polls of public opinion, politicians come between used car dealers and estate agents in terms of their trustworthiness or indeed untrustworthiness. A heady mix of hypocrisy, spin and hubris means that many people have lost faith in their elected representatives' ability to do much for them. Everywhere, except where it is compulsory, the tendency is to reduce, or even to stop, voting for our politicians.

Nevertheless, along with national and local politics, there are also office or workplace politics. This phenomenon is about individual influence, about group conflict and about power struggles. We hear people say things like: "He plays politics all the time"; "Office politics caused the failure"; "She was only promoted because of office politics". It seems that everyone is engaged in some or form or another of extending their immediate job responsibility.

What are the key features of the concept? First, perhaps is the secrecy, the covert agendas, the underhandedness of it all. Politics conducted in smoky rooms, behind closed doors, in private clubs, on the golf course. There are the insiders and the outsiders; the players and the p.a.w.ns; those in the know and those in the dark. Politics are exclusionary. Office politics are about processes, procedures and decisions that are not meant to be scrutinized. Politics are about opaqueness not transparency.

Second, there is impression management. Another word for this may be hypocrisy. Office politicians (all unelected) "speak with forked tongue". The clever ones understand the difference between sins of omission and commission. The others just dissimulate. What you see, hear and read is not what you get. Internal communications (except those carefully encrypted) are half truths, little more than management propaganda. Office politics are about censorship; about disguise.

Third, office politics are about self-interest. They are concerned with power and all the trappings such as money and prestige; about select groups high-jacking activities, processes and procedures to secure their (and only their interests). Covert groupings of individuals based on clan, ideology or simply greed, cooperate with each other to obtain an unfair share of the resources of an organization. In this sense, office politics act against long-term organizational interests, at least from a shareholder perspective.

The negative view is clear. Office politics cause distrust, conflict and lowered productivity. People do not openly share; they are guarded. They spend too much time and energy ingratiating themselves with the in-group and trying to work the system. And the in-group are as much concerned with increasing or holding on to power as steering the company. The opposition is internal, not external. Office politics are dysfunctional.

But there is another perspective and it's much more positive. Office politics are about building and strengthening networks and coalition. About getting together movers and shakers prepared to do the hardest thing of all make change happen. About driving through necessary but unpopular strategies. About identifying those with energy and vision; those who command various const.i.tuencies.

Yes, politics are about power the power to influence, persuade and cajole. Most organizations seek out and admire a chief executive officer (CEO) who is well-respected and well-connected. One who knows how to "play the game"; how to get people (investors, journalists, and "real" politicians) onside. In this sense, being political is about being shrewd, proactive and strategic.

CEOs have to present a positive picture of their organization. And they have to align, steer and change that organization. They often need help, and they turn to those who have a reputation for being helpful.

It's not possible to outlaw office politics. You might want to blame everything from personal failure to falling share price onthem. There is no doubt that some offices are dysfunctional places to be, but better to study and try to understand management power than to condemn it. Powerful people show off their power nonverbally. They display it, but only appropriately. Office politics is the subtle use of power: knowing how and when to flatter others; how to bargain; what to offer. Watch a prime minister or president in public and you will learn about office politics as well as national ones.

BODY LANGUAGE AND WORKPLACE ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS.

How should the corporation cope with corporate cupid? Is s.e.x at work (attraction in organizations, office romances, intimacy at work, co-worker affairs) a matter for human resources (HR) policy? Can, or indeed should, one try to legislate on matters of the heart or hormones? Should romance or affairs be dealt with in an open, adult way or made taboo? How do secret lovers leak their relationship by their body language?

Workplace romances can and do have an impact on organizational dynamics, which in turn affect outcomes productivity, morale and efficiency. Senior people can compromise their integrity. New channels of unofficial communication can be opened up and closed down depending on who is having what sort of relationship with whom. The appointment of favored s.e.xual partners can seriously affect how people perceive the transparency and justice of the selection or promotional system.

It is not easy to obtain evidence on the number of workplace romances within big and small organizations. Studies in large organizations in the USA and Europe found that two-thirds to three-fourths of employees admit to having (closely) observed a workplace romance in their organization. Only about 10 percent of people admit to having had such a romance, but a third of them later agreed that all their romantic relationships had been initiated in the office.

It is really no wonder that they happen. The best predictor of attraction is proximity. If one spends eight hours a day in the presence (or near presence) of others, it is no surprise that one begins to like and possibly feel attracted to them. One meets people of different ages and s.e.xes that one otherwise might not encounter. Why should the office not be a good place to find a partner? People with similar levels of education, interests and values are recruited to organizations, so the process of a.s.sortative mating begins at corporate selection. People in unhappy relationships may be particularly attracted to their colleagues at work.

Workplace relationships can be grouped and categorized in various ways, but two dimensions seem most crucial. The first is whether the two people are at the same level on the corporate ladder or not: these are called lateral or hierarchical relationships. The second is whether the relationship is open (recognized, explicit) or closed (unacknowledged, secret). Thus we have four distinct groups, which are demonstrated in Table 7.4.

Open-lateral refers to, for example, two junior accountants, or nurses, or journalists, who begin to live together and (in time) announce their engagement. Open-hierarchical dimension describes the relationship of the head of marketing, say, who makes no secret of his affair with a new recruit from sales. Two divorced board members, who are romantically linked but trying to keep it quiet, would be an example of a closedlateral dimension. However, the case of the engineering director, say, who is secretly bedding his married secretary, would fall in the closedhierarchical category.

TABLE 7.4 Types of romantic workplace relationships A romance is different from an affair. The latter implies that one or both parties are married/committed to others, infusing the whole problem with an added moral dimension. A charge of nepotism can arise where people (say, husband and wife) are appointed together and acknowledge their relationship. Another concern almost unspeakable is whether couples are having a s.e.xual relationship. The paradox is that the more intimacy they show at work (that is, physical touching, kissing and so on), the less likely they are to be "physical" outside work, and vice versa. Inevitably, employers who are themselves having a workplace relationship are more forgiving or even show a positive att.i.tude towards them. Various studies have shown that female employees are significantly less favorably inclined towards office romance and s.e.xual intimacy than males. It is a.s.sumed that they have more to lose, though of course the opposite case could be made.

There is also some evidence that when in lateral relationships, job performance goes up, but in hierarchical relationships, it goes down.It may be that work motivation improves because workplace romantics increase their enthusiasm for being at work. Equally, workplace relationships can increase employee motivation because the partic.i.p.ants feel better about themselves and are willing to work longer shifts in order to extend their time together. They may even get more involved with their work, since their "partners" are part of the job. Also, the increase in positive affect experienced by people in a workplace relationship "spills over" to increase their general level of satisfaction.

The more popular lay belief is that workplace relationships have a detrimental or deleterious effect on the work of both parties. Energy is wasted in a closed relationship on the effort of keeping the whole thing a secret, and too much time is spent on irrelevancies.

However, there are three factors that determine whether such relationships help or hinder factors relevant to organizational outcomes. The first is how good is the relationship. A good, healthy relationship must boost general morale, energy and enthusiasm, and vice versa. Put pressure on a relationship and you stress individuals.

Second, there are the corporate cultural values regarding relationships. These are different from corporate policy, HR recommendations, or professional guidelines. The more that relationships are countercultural to the organization, the more it is a problem, and vice versa.

Third, there is the resentment among the employees not in relationships, who feel, rightly or wrongly, that favoritism occurs. This therefore means that, while the happy pairs might increase their productivity and morale, these factors decrease for the majority not in a relationship. If nepotism leads to positive discrimination, it can also lead to a lot of people becoming alienated and disengaged. Some couples go to great lengths to show that their relationship does not compromise their decision-making abilities.

The body language question is, what are the behaviors of attraction? How does one "know" two people are attracted to one another? What are the separate, perhaps evolutionary, markers of physical and s.e.xual attraction?

To answer these questions, one needs to distinguish between the stages of a couple's relationship development. Body language of a duo at the courtship or flirting stage differs from the one displayed by an established couple. In line with life wisdom, intimates in an established close relationships show less liking signals since their relationship are already formed and their a.s.sociation is already revealed to others.

The beginning of a romantic relationship is, however, marked by playful signals of availability and attraction. Knapp and Hall (2009) cite three types of gazing that is most typical of flirting: (i) a broad look encircling the whole room; (ii) short, quick glances at a specific person; and (iii) longer glances continuing for at least three seconds. Females also often play with their hair, fiddle with their clothes and accessories, and laugh in response to the comments made by their potential "lovers".

Clothes and make-up also play a part in attracting the mate. A recent study suggests that women who expose 40 percent of their body get the most attention from the opposite s.e.x. In fact, the findings state that women revealing 40 percent of their body attracted twice as many males in a nightclub as those women who carefully covered up. The experimenters counted bare flesh on different parts of the body as worthy of different percentages or, put simply, of different attraction power. Arms counted towards 10 percent, legs 15 percent and torso 50 percent. While the percentage a.s.signment is quite vague (how do you a.s.sign a definite number to different depths of cleavage?), this research raises a number of important points. Showing some skin has the undeniable power of gaining instant attraction, hence societies have always prescribed rules over what is an acceptable amount of skin exposure, and situations and places in which it can be shown. Next, from the evolutionary point of view, both mates have to be certain of each other's fidelity for the attraction to persist and develop. Thus revealing too much usually turns out to be a failing strategy. Finally, it underscores the significance of the issue of dress code and formal attire in the workplace. Changes in the style of dress or excessive body revelation may therefore be attributed to some external influences such as romantic involvement.

It should be pointed out that most research on courtship has been done in the physical environments typical of dating, such as clubs and bars. Studies looking at the nonverbal signals of flirting in more formal contexts (libraries and meetings, for example) reported much less of such amorous behavior. Following the same logic, workplace romantic couples would exhibit less overt flirtation, especially if one is hiding the feelings or relationship, but there would be more discreet, tender signal exchange. The office does not provide extensive opportunities for courtship, while informal outings and after-hours drinks do.

Overall, nonverbal behaviors indicative of attraction or greater liking come in cl.u.s.ters. Albert Mehrabian, a famous body language researcher, correlated the rate of occurrence of certain nonverbal signals and the degree of liking between two people. He found that the frequency of positive signal displays is related to the intimacy between the couple. He labelled this type of closeness behavior "immediacy". Below is the list of the behavioral cl.u.s.ters he studied: * Lean towards/ away from the person; * Proximity or further distance; * Regularity of looking at the person of interest; * Openness or defensiveness of body and arm gestures; * Body orientation (facing or turned away from the other person); * How relaxed or rigid the posture; and * Facial and vocal expressions (negative/positive).

However, in more established couples these behaviors are not as evident. Intimacy is usually conveyed by the quality rather than the quant.i.ty of positive nonverbal signals. Timing, scale and genuineness of immediacy behaviors become much more important the further the relationship progresses. Situational factors also affect the nonverbal display of greater liking in close couples. Partners would, for example, look for, and display more of, immediacy signals in situations threatening to their relationship, perhaps for rea.s.surance. Also, couples tend to acquire more idiosyncratic signals to indicate their allegiance to each other. Nevertheless they would resort to immediacy behaviors to send an explicit message about their level of closeness to new acquaintances, who are not familiar with the couple's bond.

Interestingly, research points to the dominance of women in early attraction signalling. They select an appealing mate and send signs of openness for contact. Men, however, can also gain an advantage over their compet.i.tors to attract females by sending more of particular nonverbal messages. Research shows that men who engage in more glancing at their object of interest, display more body openness, and boost their status by friendly, but unrequited, touching of other males are given more female attention. These findings are perhaps not that surprising when one considers other species' mating behavior. It is usually the male of the species, who develops specific "attraction" markers such as brighter coloring or bigger body parts. It is also usually the male who performs a mating dance or a song routine. All there is left for females to do is to select the most powerful, skilled or attractive partner and signal their readiness to mate or form a bond.

Workplace romances happen for different reasons, can have different impacts on work productivity, and are displayed differently according to the stage of the relationship. It is both reasonable, if not trivial, to state that romantic attraction clearly has no boundaries. On the contrary, work structure seems to increase the power of romance by creating greater opportunities to interact within a more intimate s.p.a.ce over prolonged time periods.

MIND CONTROL.

How do leaders use nonverbal behavior to help them organize and manage groups? The study of cults and their leaders is particularly interesting from a nonverbal perspective. They often behave in heavily prescribed ways: the group members have to dress alike and address each other in a very particular way.

There is a great deal of interest in "cults", which can take many forms: they may be religious or racial, political or mystical, self-help or pseudo-psychological, but they all have half a dozen recognizable characteristics: * Powerful and exclusive dedication/devotion to an explicit person or creed.

* They use of "thought-reform" programmes to integrate, socialize, persuade, and therefore control, members.

* A well thought through recruitment, selection and socialization process.

* Attempts to maintain psychological and physical dependency among cult members.

* Cults insist on reprogramming the way people see the world.

* Consistent exploitation of group members specifically to advance the leaders' goals.

* Cults nearly always opt for milieu control signals: a different, unfamiliar setting with different rules, terms and behavior patterns.

* Ultimately causing psychological and physical harm to cult members, their friends and relatives, and possibly the community as a whole.

Most cults start their inductions by trying to stop both individualistic and critical thinking. Like the army, their job is first to break the new recruit than remake him or her as one of them. This involves the introduction of a "sacred creed" that members have to live by. Through open confession and subordination of the individual to the doctrine, the cult ensures control and "purity". Nearly all nonverbal behaviors, such as how people walk or gesture, are very clearly prescribed. Cults deliberately induce powerful emotions like fear and guilt, but also pride. They tend to develop their own language, dress and signals, which shows their exclusivity. They rejoice in their uniform, and their uniformity of speech, dress and behavior. They are encouraged to look, think and speak alike.

By why do people join cults? Could working for certain organizations be seen as cult following? Some organizations induct people and make behavior requirements of them that are essentially similar to the techniques used by cults.

All too often, we explain strange, unexpected behaviors (such as joining a cult) in terms of the dispositions (personality) of others; they (the poor, gullible, naive, indoctrinated members) have quite defective personalities. But we explain more common behaviors in terms of the appeal of an accepted group's philosophy, leaders or benefits. Thus, sad "inadequates" join cults; but altruistic, caring people become churchgoers.

Rather than trying immediately to blame extremists for being different, it is equally important to try to understand the psychological appeal of cults, extremist groups and political cells, as well as some business organizations. Any a.n.a.lysis of the make-up of individuals in cult groups shows a surprising large diversity in terms of age, career, education, ideology and ability level. They can attract postgraduates and illiterates; teenagers and "senior citizens"; the solidly middle cla.s.s and those on the fringes of society. It is not so much people's demography that is important as their psychological needs.

Studies of those who have signed up for all sorts of cults and extremist groups have, however, shown that all cults have similar and sophisticated recruitment promises, induction techniques and agendas of social influence. They use methods of "indoctrination" and "mindcontrol" no different from many respectable groups, though these may be applied much more intensely. The mind-controlling techniques of extremist groups are little different form those of the army, religious organizations and prisons. These techniques are in fact well known; demanding total, consistent compliance and conformity; using heavy persuasive techniques; creating dissonance; and involving emotional manipulation. These techniques can easily be observed in the nonverbal behaviors of people "signing up" to cults. They differ only in intensity and duration, and thus in effectiveness.

What do all groups (cult and non-cult) and organizations offer to a potential recruit? The answer is friendship, ident.i.ty, respect and security. Organizations also offer money, security and something to do. And they offer a world-view: a way of discerning right from wrong; good from bad. Hence all the talk of vision and mission, both of which are essentially cult words. These are powerful incentives for all people, whatever their background. They offer more: a structured lifestyle and the ability to acquire new skills. Through their (very different) ideologies, and products and processes, they also offer moral explanations of how the world works, what is important, and what is desirable.

Essentially, five aspects make extreme groups dangerous to their members: * First, they demand that group members sever all ties with other people (family, friends) and organizations (schools, churches). This naturally makes them more dependent on the cult itself and helps to create the person's new ident.i.ty. They start again, wipe the slate clean. This rule is also found in extreme Christian monastic orders.

* Second, the members are required to show immediate and unquestioning obedience to rules and regulations which may be arbitrary, petty or pointless, and many of which are body language rules. The idea of this is to ensure allegiance and obedience. This strategy is used to "break-in" army recruits. It is the very stuff of boot camps.

* Third, group members often have to do long hours of tedious work. It may be drilling, begging for money or cooking, followed by compulsory reading, chanting or mediating. Recruits usually become physically, emotionally and mentally exhausted. Sleep deprivation is a good start. It's all part of the induction process.

* Fourth, all groups need money to exist. Some are very much into money, both as an end and as a means. This may therefore quickly involve recruits getting involved in illegal or semi-legal activities. Groups that are state supported or those with a long history of operation may, however, be different. Members need to understand how, when and why money is required, and to set about getting it quickly.

* Fifth, groups make "exit costs" very high. Leaving is a.s.sociated with failure, persecution and isolation. It is more than just a waste of time and effort. They make the member feel as if nothing will ever be the same and s/he will be an outcast. Leaving the cult is made to sound a very unattractive, indeed impossible, option.

But it is true that certain individuals are more receptive to the message of cults than others? Recruiters know that what they appear to have in common is they are at some transitional phase in their life: something has gone and not been replaced. The person might have moved location, or given up work or education. They may have just left the bosom of their family because of age or poverty or divorce. They may have drifted away from their religion or ideological roots. They are dislodged from their social group ... and looking for another.

In short, such people often feel alienated; they experience all the meaninglessness, powerlessness and helplessness that goes with the state. They can feel increasingly isolated from the commercial, political and technical world that offers little to them. Disaffected, often angry and resentful, they can seek each other out.

Enter the group recruiter. S/he is introduced into a group with simple (but "sensible") answers. Simple rules and a simple lifestyle and social support are offered. Most recruits are happy to trade off their liberty (and a.s.sets such as they have) for the (illusory) glory, power and security of that group. The group (cult) appears to offer all the recruits what they need and want.

Rather shy, una.s.sertive people who seem inhibited and awkward in social situations are particularly attracted to groups with formulaic interaction patterns, with their predictability and rule following.

People who join extreme groups are not strange, disturbed, sheeplike idiots. We are all social animals and members of many groups. But the more secretive the group, the more we are likely to label it a cult. The more zealous the members, the more likely we are to call them deviants. And if they are involved in quasi-military activity, they are labelled terrorists.

No one sees themselves as a cult member. Indeed, even members of fairly extreme groups such as Trappist monks or Amish farmers would never think of themselves as cult members. But they owe their survival to many of the principles outlined above.