Organisations all over the globe are always focused on managing stress among their employees to maintain a high level of productivity and competitiveness. In most instances, work psychologists and human resource managers develop policies and programmes that aim at alleviating stress emanating from factors unique to the job, career growth, and development, interpersonal relationships in the work environment, organisational climate, and role of the organisation. However, the understanding that “people have different tolerance levels for stressful events and, hence, different interpretations of what is stressful” has diverse implications for managers and organisations attempting to manage stress. Some of the most significant implications of this statement for managers and organisations include difficulties in managing and communicating change, excessive costs for organisations, challenges in meeting effective employee demands, and difficulties in defining interpersonal relationships in the workplace. Other vital implications of this statement include challenges in understanding employee motivation and increased levels of absenteeism and turnover in most organisations. This statement implies that human resource managers always have a difficult time coming up with stress management plans and programmes that accommodate all employees within the organisation. There is always a risk of omitting some crucial details relating to employee stress because of the different levels of tolerance and definitions of what is stressful. Therefore, most organisations aim at coming up with standard stress policies and programmes that take into consideration the needs of all employees within the organisation.
The current essay explicates the implications of the statement that “people have different levels of tolerance for stressful events and different interpretations of what is stressful” for managers and organisations attempting to manage stress.
The first crucial implication of this statement for managers is difficulties in managing and communicating change even as they attempt to manage stress within their organisations. The difficulty of managing and communicating change emerges from the obvious understanding that some employees may be more stressed by the intended change. The event of change may be stressful for some employees, hence affecting their level of performance, which threatens the competitiveness of the organisation. Managers attempting to manage stress will face difficulties when inventing effective strategies that would ensure they manage change and communicate it in a manner that works well with all their employees. Incorporating such strategies in the stress management programme would be a massive challenge for such managers as they try to ensure that staff members are not stressed by any upcoming changes within the organisation (Cooper, Dewe & O’Driscoll 2001, p. 205). Managers attempting to manage stress have been forced to face challenges relating to bringing change into their organisations. It emerges from the fact that the change events would be interpreted differently among employees, thus leading to stress in some instances. Coming up with standard and accommodative stress management policies and programmes has remained a daunting task for such managers as they try to accommodate the position of every employee with the aim of having a stress-free staff. Therefore, the fact that people have different tolerance levels for stressful events and different definitions of what is stressful exposes managers to challenges in terms of coming up with stress management programmes that simplify the management and communication of change. This implication has retarded the level of organisational growth because managers have to move at a slower pace that would ensure nobody is stressed by the looming changes.
Exclusive savings! Save 25% on your ORDER
15% OFF your FIRST ORDER (with the code toppapers15) + 10% OFF every order by receiving 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
Another significant implication of the statement for organisations is that they are likely to incur excessive costs in the development of their stress management policies and programmes. Organisations attempting to manage stress would have to incur excessive costs in order to work out stress management strategies that accommodate the needs of their employees. It is worth noting that these organisations may be required to conduct research among their employees focusing on factors that lead to stress and their understanding of stress. This statement implies that organisations attempting to manage stress would have to incur extra costs to understand their employees as this would be an assistive step in coming up with a comprehensive stress management programme that refers to all employees equally. Apart from conducting research, such organisations may also be required to hire experts to guide them in effective stress management and the utilisation of such programmes in achieving their goals (Kompier 2007, p. 138). Employing the services of experts in the development of efficient stress management plans would lead to high costs for these organisations. The failure to incur such costs would mean that they come up with stress management policies and programmes that do not reflect the position of most employees on stress and events that might cause stress. It would be more disastrous to organisational development and achievement of the organisation’s goals. Thus, the implication of this statement is that organisations attempting to manage stress must incur additional costs to understand their employees and come up with a comprehensive stress management programme that would ensure stress management among all employees.
The third implication of this statement for managers and organisations trying to manage stress is challenges in understanding employee demands relating to matters such as work patterns, workload, and work environment. Notably, employees have different interpretations of the factors that stress them in line with these elements. It is not common for employees to be stressed by similar factors emanating from the work environment, work patterns, and work load (Furnham 2012, p. 324). In line with this statement, managers and employees face the challenge of meeting such demands even as they attempt to come up with stress management programmes to facilitate effective operations in their organisations. Managers and organisations cannot understand the exact demands of all employees, thus making it difficult for them to move forward with the emerging levels of stresses in the contemporary work environment. Lack of understanding would lead to the development of inefficient stress management procedures that may not be effective in leading to successful organisational performance and competitiveness. The lack of adequate understanding of the varying patterns of stress among employees implies that managers cannot make firm decisions relating to the development of fixed work schedules because of the fear of stressing some employees. Therefore, this statement implies that managers and organisations trying to come up with stress management plans should try to make employee demands flexible. It would ensure that they are satisfied in accordance with the emerging workloads, work environment, and work patterns.
Make the right choice and get the
TOP quality papers
More so, managers and organisations trying to implement stress management are always faced with difficulties in defining the nature of interpersonal relationships because of this statement. It is a vital implication of the understanding that people cope with stressful events differently and have diverse definitions of what is stressful. Notably, managers and organisations trying to implement stress management have experienced numerous challenges when trying to define the nature of interpersonal relationships in the work environment. It emerges from the fact that some employees might not understand or agree with the stated relationships, hence becoming stressed at the expense of the organisation. Specifically, such managers and organisations experience challenges when trying to define the relationship between ordinary employees and the different levels of management in the organisation (Arnold & Randall 2010). They are always forced to trade carefully to avoid any form of interpersonal relationships that may lead to stress among some employees. This statement implies that managers and organisations must be ready to alleviate stress among their employees by coming up with a clear outline of interpersonal relationships without favouring some employees. Incorporating interpersonal relationships in stress management plans has also remained a challenge to managers and organisations trying to implement stress management programmes. This is because they have to ensure that such relationships are productive in terms of maintaining the psychological strength of employees and assurance of consistent performance among employees. Overall, this statement suggests that managers and organisations trying to implement stress management plans have a difficult task in the definition and incorporation of interpersonal relationships in their organisational structure, thus avoiding any cases of stress.
Additionally, this statement has an implication for managers and organisations trying to implement stress management in the sense that they are not able to have a clear view of what might motivate all employees. Motivation is a crucial element in any organisation that wants to have active employees focused on delivering the set targets. However, the presence of this statement implies that managers and organisations trying to manage stress may experience difficulties when trying to come up with a motivation strategy that would favour all employees, therefore, eliminate any chances of stressful events. For instance, such managers and organisations cannot easily embrace a single motivation strategy such as performance appraisal because it might not sound well for all employees (Schabracq & Cooper 2000, p. 235). It is obvious that employees who cannot manage to access rewards would be stressed, thereby affecting the overall performance of the organisation. It is vital to understand that managers and organisations trying to manage stress must work out the fairest possible means of motivating all employees to avoid the occurrence of stressful events by recognising all employees. The attachment of stress and the nature of motivation would mean that such organisations do not utilise a single policy that might harm the psychological configuration of other employees. Thus, this statement affects the decisions of managers and organisations even as they look forward to managing stress in their work environments. They always have to seek for options that would be easier for everyone to understand and accept without interpreting it as a cause of stress and low performance.
The last implication of this statement for managers and organisations trying to manage stress is that they always have to deal with unexpected absenteeism and high turnover levels among employees. The fact that people cope with stressful events in a different way and have different interpretations of what is stressful means that some of them might leave the organisation unexpectedly. Notably, managers and organisations trying to manage stress experience problems because they have to understand the specific factors that might have led to continued absenteeism and turnover among employees (Kompier 2007, p. 205). They always have to understand these causes and incorporate them into stress management programmes, thus ensuring that most employees remain committed to working within their organisations toward the realisation of the desirable goals. The failure to understand these specific factors means that they would have to lose most employees, and consequently remain irrelevant in the market. This statement has an effect on such managers and organisations because it requires them to act thoroughly and come up with concrete answers that would help prevent absenteeism and high turnover rates emanating from stress. Therefore, managers and organisations trying to implement stress management in their organisations will always face problems of unexpected withdrawals. It requires them to come up with specific problems leading to such situations that are prone to hurting organisational performance.
In conclusion, stress management is crucial for the success of organisations because it gives employees the morale of working toward the set goals. The practice has been gradually embraced by many organisations all over the globe since they focus on improving employee welfare. Nevertheless, the statement that “people have different tolerance levels for stressful events and have different interpretations of what is stressful” has massive implications for managers and organisations trying to manage stress. Managers are likely to face challenges relating to the management and communication of change in the work environment since they lack a clear understanding of the exact events that might stress employees. Additionally, this statement affects organisations in the sense that they are likely to spend more to come up with comprehensive stress management programmes. It is due to the fact that they would be required to conduct research on employees and come up with specific stress management plans that cover the needs of all employees. Managers and organisations trying to manage stress may not find it easier to address employee demands relating to workload and the work environment. It happens because they have different perceptions of such situations and some of them may be stressed by particular work patterns. Moreover, this statement affects organisations and managers in the sense that it makes it difficult for managers to come up with a clear definition of interpersonal relationships in their work environments. Overall, the statement affects managers and organisations in different ways and they have to use reliable information about their employees to succeed in their stress management programmes.