Work, Vacation and Well-being

Who's afraid to take a break?

Dalia Etzion

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781134505562
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Betriebswirtschaft
• Sous-sujet: Personalmanagement

Based on a twenty-year research study, Work, Vacation and Well-being delves into the ubiquitous yet often-underestimated issues surrounding vacation and respite. Providing an original outlook on how breaks from work can be beneficial for the well-being of employees, this book also addresses the potential negative impacts of vacation.

Taking into account factors concerning the nature of the break and the person taking it, Etzion delves into the benefits and drawbacks of workplace breaks, from annual leave to maternity leave and sabbaticals. Work, Vacation and Well-being looks at breaks from work through various social and cultural lenses, to present a balanced and well-researched perspective on all angles of taking a break.

Perfect for students of Organizational and Health Psychology, Work, Vacation and Well-being also widely appeals to those studying Social Policy, Management Studies, Occupational Health and Research Methods.

1

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF RESPITE

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Genesis 2:2 (King James Version)

The problem

When people complain of pressure or fatigue, the advice most commonly dispensed to them is to “take a break” (Cherniss, 1981; Etzion, 1995; Freudenberger, 1974; Mattes, 1992; Pines & Aronson, 1988). It is often assumed that such breaks allow people to relax, to distract themselves from their day-to-day responsibilities, to engage in more pleasurable activities, and to replenish their energy resources. Despite the general belief that breaks help people to cope with stress, there has been little empirical research on the topic until recent decades (Etzion, 1999).

Since the establishment of the modern work practices of the Industrial Age, the nature and demands of work have continuously changed. Economic crises, wars, globalization, and technological advancement are just a few markers of transformation for the employed population. Since the early days of organized work, employers had been interested in increasing productivity thereby increasing pressures on employees. It was thought that working longer and harder would yield greater productivity. In response to World War I, for example, British workers were required to work longer hours, including on their day off. The surprising outcome, however, was a decrease in overall output, which was alleviated shortly after, when Sunday was reinstated as a rest day and the work day was restored to ten daily hours. It became clear, then, that productivity was “not only a function of how long people worked but also of how long they did not work” (Rybczynski, 1991, p. 56). Despite this experience, the last few decades saw a continuous rise in working hours throughout the world, and especially in developed countries in response to the global economy that is operational 24/7, 365 days of the year. The world of employment is rapidly changing. Globalization, mergers, acquisitions, privatization, downsizing, and technological advancements all influence the workplace. Traditional industries are transforming, and industries that were once considered stable and long-lasting are exposed to economic crises. In an interconnected world, crises occurring in one location affect other localities. Employers additionally opt for working contracts, such as outsourcing and human resource contractors, that reduce organizational obligation toward employees. It is thus no wonder that the industrial world is plagued with waves of employee dismissal resulting from organizational downsizing flood different industries, leading to the voluntary addition of working hours as a sign of organizational commitment (Fox & Chaney, 1998; Leise, Mundt, Dell, Nagy, & Demure, 1997; Moore, Grunberg, & Greenberg, 2004; Sparks, Faragher, & Cooper, 2001; Tennat, 2001). This, according to some researchers, had also led to the development of the phenomenon of presenteeism (Avni, 2007).

At the social level, changes in employment in recent decades have increased employees’ need to cope with conflicting work and family demands. On the one hand, employees are required to work longer hours, travel more extensively, accept relocation, and generally be more available to address needs of employers and customers who are often located at a different time zone. On the other hand, social norms regarding family and child rearing involve greater financial and time resources. Additionally, the lengthening lifespan results in a growing population that requires attention due to age and age-related illness. This is known as the work–family or work–life conflict that employees often find challenging to resolve satisfactorily. This is a major social concern addressed by society at large as well as organizations, employers, and employees (Frenkel, 2011). An important facet of these social and organizational conditions is the dilemma faced by many women, who are traditionally responsible for child rearing and therefore refrain from entering the work force. Not only does this entrench gender inequality, but it also robs the workforce of an important pool of talent. An imminent care crisis is unavoidable with parental absence in children’s lives due to work engagements, leading to a growing behavioral social problem involving violence (which further burdens nationalities with correctional costs) (Frenkel, 2011).

At the organizational level, the work–family conflict results in high employee turnover that robs the organization of both talent and experience that is specific to the organization. Uncertainty, dissatisfaction, and burnout are among key factors negatively influencing employee productivity. To avoid gender bias, a primary trait of the work–family–life conflict, employees (mostly in the US) have recently begun to introduce policies that facilitate better management of conflicting needs within and outside the organization (Frenkel, 2011).

At the personal level, two coping strategies of employees are to settle for undesirable and underpaid jobs or quit the workforce altogether. Such employees may lose their personal autonomy by becoming dependent on spouses and other family members or the State. When electing to stay an active part of the workforce filling jobs that are adequate to their talent, experience, and education, such employees face physical and psychological stress that often lead to fatigue and compromise health. Diminished job satisfaction and productivity often ensue (Frenkel, 2011). The phenomenon of absenteeism may also be related to the various pressures placed upon employees as a stress-reducing coping mechanism (Westman & Etzion, 2001).

As a result of these problems, job-related stress and burnout as well as the work–family–life conflicts increasingly grow as research areas. It is unsurprising, then, that researchers are also seeking ways to attenuate these phenomena. Personal welfare and the quality of leisure time have gained growing attention in the current millennium as crucial resources for employees’ quality of life and success (Levi, 2002). Work, non-work, and their relations with well-being have thus become of central theoretical and empirical interest in the past several decades, continuously developing and branching into related issues. Research on respite, usually conceptualized as any form of absence from the work setting when job stressors are presumably absent or diminished (Westman & Etzion, 2002), may be considered as such a branch, which has focused on the manifold effects of respite from work on well-being. Therefore, most of the research on the effects of a respite that has been carried out has focused on the workplace and has addressed such general issues as its effect on job-related stress and burnout, as well as on job and general life satisfaction (Etzion, 1999).

Initial studies of respite effect focused on job stress (mainly physiological) symptoms and related to time off work as a “control occasion” to be compared with time on the job, as a field “experimental manipulation” of stressful occasions (Eden, 2001). In the past decade, respite research has progressed and developed an extensive perspective, integrating physiological, psychological, and behavioral aspects. The annotated bibliography offered at the end of this volume reflects this wide scope of the field.

Occupational stress

Given the nature of human conditions worldwide, both within and outside workplaces, stress appears to be an inseparable phenomenon of our lives. A certain degree of stress could be seen as beneficial, driving the individual to mobilize energy in order to meet a challenge at hand. The study of occupational stress, however, had gained momentum due to the relationship between stress and organizational productivity, including absenteeism, turnover, job satisfaction, and outputs (Shirom, 1982). An additional reason for this growing interest lies in the extent of time individuals invest in their work and hence the significance of their work in establishing their self-identity and self-worth (Schaufeli & Greenglass, 2001). Finally, research is driven by a disconcerting relationship between stress and chronic illness (Yoffe, 1997).

Stress

Most studies on vacation fall under the heading of respite research and are imbedded in stress theory (Eden, 2001; Etzion et al., 1998; Westman & Eden, 1997). The study of stress nevertheless evolved over the years, taking turns according to the discipline in which it was studied. Stress was first defined by Walter Bradford Cannon (1932), author of the “fight-or-flight” adage. Coming from life sciences, Cannon perceived stress as a physiological reaction of the organism to external, environmental stressor stimuli, leading to breakdown the further away from homeostasis it grew. Still in life sciences, Selye (1956), viewing stress as a biological response to noxious stimuli, noted three phases of response: alarm, resistance, and exhaustion, each characterized by a dwindling in coping resources facing a stressor of longer duration. Following Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome model, the body’s initial response to a stressor is a general arousal known as the alarm stage. Under continuously straining conditions, the body adapts to the persistent stressor while maintaining elevated levels of physiological arousal known as the resistance stage. Finally, under chronically straining conditions, while the body remains chronically overactive and resistance fails, the body then transitions to the exhaustion stage, in which it becomes vulnerable to disease and even death.

Researchers then sought to define stress as a stimulus rather than a response, which would allow them to seek preventive measures. Stress acts as a stimulus based on the intensity and duration of an individual’s different life events. Acute events are typically short-lived, intensive, and significant events that have a clear start and end; despite their short duration, the outcomes of these events may be long term. Chronic stress is a continuous state that is characterized by the difficulty to terminate it. Finally, hassles are low in intensity but high in frequency (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Pratt & Barling, 1988). Chronic stress may be further divided into stressful event sequences that are either continuous or intermittent (Elliot & Eisdorfer, 1982). Findings are inconclusive regarding the significance of one type of stress over the other (Holmes & Rahe, 1967; Kanner, Coyne, & Lazarus, 1981).

Criticism against the generality of these two models led researchers to investigate stress from a more personalized perspective, as a function of personality, perceptions, and contextual settings, allowing for a reciprocal relationship between the person and their environment (Cox & Mackay, 1981; Griffiths, 1981; Hobfoll, 1989). The person-environment (P-E) fit approach views stress as the outcome of a gap between personal traits, such as values and competencies, and environmental conditions, such as demands and supply (Beehr & Newman, 1978; Caplan, 1983; Cummings & Cooper, 1979; Edwards, 1988; Etzion, 1987; 1988; Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993; House, 1980; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Loftquist & Dawis, 1969; McGrath, 1976; Schuler, 1980; Shirom, 1982). Where a gap exists, negative psychological, physiological, and behavioral emerge, invoking stress and straining the individual. Specifically, stress emerges when the individual is faced by environmental demands, which they are unsure they can meet, whether because of their shortcomings or because the situational factors do no provide adequate resources for the completion of the task (French, Caplan, & Van Harrison, 1982). According to one approach, for stress to emerge demands must be higher than ability (Shirom, 1989). Thus, it is not only the objective environmental conditions that invoke feelings of stress but also the individual’s cognitive, perceptual, and interpersonal characteristics that determine the extent of stress felt (McGrath, 1976). An individual would opt to cope with the stressing stimulus when facing the challenge is perceived to be more rewarding than turning away from it. Stress would thus emerge when the individual’s needs is incongruent with the demands and the reward offered by the environment or when the individual perceives incongruence with the resources available to them and the environmental demands. This view of stress confers an advantage upon the person-environment fit model in predicting variance among responses to workplace stressors (Caplan, 1983; Etzion, 1987; Schuler, 1980; Shirom, 1982).

Stress occurs when the individual perceives the environmental demands as a threat over their own psychological, physiological, or social well-being; it has been defined as the “relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 19). Individuals thus first appraise whether the situation with which they are faced is threatening to them and then assess the resources available to them to resolve the situation. Stress is influenced by the degree of frustration (past factors of the individual), conflict (current situation), and threat (future factors).

The fit, however is not all subjective. Subjectivity of the person compared to the objectivity of the environmental conditions is based on self-awareness, whereas subjectivity of the environment compared to the objectivi...

Table des matières

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgement
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1. Theoretical Background of Respite
• 2. Characteristics of the break
• 3. Personal characteristics
• 4. Policies and norms Organizational and environmental conditions
• 5. Outcomes
• 6. Discussion and conclusions
• Appendix 1
• Appendix 2
• Appendix 3
• Index