Association between departmental stewardship, role stressors and distress among executives

Association between departmental stewardship, role stressors and distress among executives In the past few decades, major evolutions in globalization, technology and social collaboration have transformed the nature of work in all sectors. As work becomes increasingly complex and interdependent, employees are expected to take on many new roles and responsibilities. According to Kahn et al. (1964) it is quite common for employees in complex organizations to experience stress regarding their role, which can lead to negative individual and organizational outcomes. Recently, the field of occupational health has recognized that psychosocial factors inherent in the work environment can have considerable influence on the physical and mental well-being of employees, and studies have begun to model contextual moderators in the process of organizational stress. In this article we introduce organizational stewardship as a contextual factor that may build employee resilience to role demands and protect against adverse symptoms of mental health. Stewardship is defined here as an organizational approach in which communication, collaboration and adaptability between organizational actors and stakeholders is used to generate trust, a shared understanding and a sense of purpose. Using multi-level analysis, this study investigates whether departmental stewardship moderates the relationship between role stressors and psychological distress among public service executives. Role Stress and Mental Health The shift to a more knowledge-based society has resulted in many changes to the design, organization and management of factors within the work environment. As workplaces become more complex and multifaceted, employees are expected to take on multiple roles and responsibilities, and thus, it has become more important than ever to examine the impact of role stressors on employee well-being. Role conflict refers to the occurrence of divergent expectations or when role requirements are incompatible with an employee’s value system, making it difficult to perform their work. Role ambiguity refers to a lack of information or unclear information regarding employee’s roles, such that they are unsure as to what is expected of them. According to Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling and Boudreau (2000) role demands are considered hindrance stressors, meaning they are viewed as obstacles to personal growth or demands that can hinder an employee’s ability to achieve work goals. As a result, the presence of these stressors can prompt negative emotions (e.g., anxiety or fear) and a passive or emotional coping method (e.g., withdrawing from the work). Because role demands are perceived as uncontrollable and threatening to one’s work they are unlikely to be met with increased effort, instead employees may emotionally and cognitively withdraw from their work. While the process of organizational stress has been implicated in a wide range of physical health ailments, mental health disorders are considered to be the most common outcomes. Stress-related mental health disorders like anxiety and depression place a heavy financial burden on organizations. According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC), about 30% of short- and long-term disability claims in Canada are attributed to mental health problems. Moreover, mental health problems and illnesses among Canadian employees cost organizations more than $6 billion in lost productivity (MHCC, n.d). A recent meta-analysis by Schmidt et al., (2014) documented the link between role stressors and depression across a variety of work settings. These authors acknowledged that it is important to examine mental health as a continuous construct since even minor symptoms can lead to impaired health and organizational outcomes. In light of this, psychological distress is an important concept to measure in the context of employee well-being, since it can capture a lower threshold of mental health problems and may be a crucial to reducing illness or disability caused by work stress. Distress refers to â€Å"a set of psychophysiological and behavioral symptoms that are not specific to a given pathology† (e.g., anxious or depressive responses, irritability, trouble sleeping, absenteeism) that can cause impairment in day-to-day functions and one’s ability to carry out normal tasks. From Leadership to Stewardship Worldwide societal and economic changes have challenged organizational scholars to question deeply rooted assumptions about leadership strategies and to re-examine organizational approaches that can more adequately respond to the demands faced by present-day organizations. As a result, scholars have begun to recognize that interdependent and global work can counteract the potential power of leadership, making it challenging for those in positions of authority to have an impact on the work environment regardless of their leadership style or the fit between the leader and situation. Recently, scholars have proposed the notion of stewardship as an organizational approach to guide the collective process in organizations. While leadership has been traditionally examined with a focus on interpersonal exchanges, stewardship can be viewed as a meta-phenomenon, reflected in organizational structures and collaborative processes. In this study, organizational stewardship is positioned as a pote ntial moderator in the relationship between role stressors and psychological distress. Stewardship Historically, stewardship came from the notion of managing or taking care of something that was entrusted to you. This concept is finding renewed resonance in current organizational literature and has been described as an alternative approach to governance models of mandate and force (Block, 1993). Stewardship has also been defined as an organizational approach that emphasizes a sense of purpose through the sharing of power, resources and information across networks to serve the public interest. According to Hubbard and Paquet (2016) stewardship is believed to foster a sense of community through building partnerships and networks, and generate the trust and dialogue necessary to work through complex issues. Furthermore, they argue that stewardship practices connect employees to the larger purpose of their work, fostering their sense of meaning. Based on these conceptualizations, an empirical study by Simpkins and Lemyre (2018) has reframed organizational stewardship as a system featu re through the application of a socio-ecological framework. An Ecological Model of Stewardship Taking a systemic approach inspired by Brofenbrenner’s (1979, 1999) systems theory framework, the Socio-Ecological Model, the social environment is subdivided into various systems and takes into account the cumulative effect of multiple factors of the physical and social environment, as well as situational and personal factors, on employee well-being (Stokols, 1996). Beyond the individual, the microsystem includes close interpersonal relations. Then, the mesosystem is composed of various organizations or services. The most overarching concept in this framework is the macrosystem, which includes the overall patterns of the social context such as economy, laws and political events. While the idea that stewardship can contribute to positive organizational outcomes has been implied, empirical evidence supporting this relationship remains quite limited. A qualitative case study of the Edmonton Public School system by Segal (2012) asked employees to describe organizational processes inherent in the control and reward systems. This study concluded that an organizational culture associated with stewardship theory helped to instil integrity among employees, contributing to organizational efficiency. According to Simpkins Lemyre (2018), the examination of stewardship within a workplace stress framework broadens our understanding of the work environment and has important implications for individuals, organizations and society. This role can be operationalized as an organization level resource contributing to employee well-being examined through the Job-Demands-Resources (JD-R) model. The Job Demands-Resources Model As outlined in the JD-R model, employee health and well-being can result from a balance between psychosocial work factors categorized as either demands or resources. Physical, social or organizational job characteristics that require sustained effort are labeled as job demands. Job characteristics that contribute to meeting organizational objectives, reduce job demands and their accompanying physiological and psychological costs, or that stimulate employee growth and learning are labeled as job resources. Demands and resources are linked to health and well-being outcomes through two underlying psychological processes. An excess in job demands coupled with a lack of resources can deplete an employee’s energy resources in the health impairment process, while job resources can contribute to positive organizational outcomes through the motivational process. Likewise, the JD-R model assumes that job resources can buffer the impact of various demands on stress outcomes. While individual-level resources have been valuable components in the study of stress, Demerouti Bakker (2011) have suggested an expansion of the JD-R model to include multi-level constructs in order to capture the different structural, functional or hierarchical levels of organizational research. Taking a Multi-Level Approach When direct indicators of environmental context are not available, contextual variables can be measured using group averages of individuals’ perceptions, at a cluster level. This is believed to reliably account for non-independence among employees exposed to similar environmental factors, which can influence how they perceive or respond to stress in the workplace. As a result, researchers can more accurately examine how organizational level processes affect individual-level processes and outcomes. Moreover, modeling group-level moderators of stress is particularly important, given its implications for prevention. From a practical perspective, a multi-level approach to stress may result in more effective interventions, as organizations may wish to employ different strategies at each level. Moreover, stress interventions based on group-level moderators can be much easier to implement over individual-based interventions. Thus, identifying contextual factors that can mitigate the stress process, and understanding how they influence this relationship, can contribute to more systemic approach to organizational stress research. Stewardship as a Moderator of Work Stressors As reviewed above, job resources can buffer the negative effects of work demands on perceived job strain through different mechanisms. While stewardship is not anticipated to reduce work demands themselves, the work conditions provided through a context of stewardship may alter employee perceptions and cognitions evoked by work stressors, and moderate the responses that follow. This can potentially reduce the health-damaging consequences of stress. A mission-focused stewardship approach is believed to help employees put their work in a larger context, providing them with a sense of purpose. The alignment between employee demands and the organizational mission may contribute to a sense of coherence among employees, where they perceive their demands as understandable, manageable and meaningful, a strong determinant of successful coping. Moreover, the sharing of information, power and resources can help to develop a common frame of reference, facilitating communication and reducing misunderstandings with regard to work tasks. In this way, stewardship organizations, through the collaboration and the instrumental support of other organizations, may be more resilient to increasingly complex work demands. Thus, a context of stewardship may temper the negative influence of work stressors by repositioning work demands as challenges that can be accomplished collectively, and task completion may seem more achievable in this setting. Stewardship in the Canadian Public Service Canada’s public service is the non-partisan, executive branch of the Canadian government composed of various units, which include departments, agencies, commissions, Crown corporations and other federal organizations. In a typical governmental department there are several levels of leadership at the Executive level (EX position classification). Stewardship as an organizational approach may be especially important in the context of public service work, where many different levels of hierarchy must operate collaboratively and rely on the combined efforts of various departments, agencies, commissions, crown corporations and other federal organizations to deliver quality service to citizens. In summary, there is strong theoretical and empirical basis to consider and formally test organizational stewardship as a potential moderator in the relationship between role stressors and psychological distress among executives. To our knowledge, stewardship has never been tested as a contextual variable using multi-level analysis. This raises the research question: Does a context of stewardship moderate the relationship between role stressors and psychological distress among public service executives? Study Model This study proposes that a context of stewardship reflects the degree to which a department engages in effective collaboration across networks, generating trust, a sense of purpose, and a shared sense of responsibility. We posit that a context of stewardship can help executives manage their perceived role stressors such that when a high degree of stewardship is perceived within one’s department, executives are more likely to experience their work as meaningful, interesting and something to which they wish to devote effort, regardless of stressful demands. In this way, departmental stewardship may help to alleviate the effects of stressors before they become damaging (i.e., psychological distress). Thus, we propose that department-level stewardship moderates the relationship between role stressors (i.e., role conflict and role ambiguity) and distress symptoms. Goal and Objectives The aim in the present study is to investigate the association between departmental stewardship, role stressors and distress among executives. The research goal is to test that there is variance in these relationships that relates to the organizational level above and beyond the idiosyncratic individual perspective. To test the moderation effect, there are two pre-conditions: Condition 1: Executives who report higher role stressors will also report higher distress; and Condition 2 (ecological multi-level effect): Departments with high levels of aggregated stewardship will have a negative relationship with reported distress. Main Hypothesis (Cross-Level Interaction) Moderation effect of the multi-level construct: The relationship between role stressors and distress is moderated by departmental stewardship such that the relationship between role stressors and distress is stronger for departments with low aggregated stewardship, and this relationship is buffered in departments with high aggregated stewardship. Participants and Procedure Data used for this study comes from the pan-Canadian national survey on Work and Health conducted in 2012 in partnership with the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada (APEX). This survey represents the fourth cycle of a multi-phase research project examining the health status of executives, from Director (EX-1) to Deputy Minister (EX-5), in the federal Public Service of Canada. A total of 6688 self-administered anonymous questionnaires were distributed via e-mail to senior-management executives in the Canadian federal public service. Over two thousand respondents returned the questionnaires (N=2314), representing a response rate of 35%. After removing missing data and performing data screening for multi-level analysis the final data set included responses from 1996 executives nested within 59 departments/agencies. Departments, on average, had 34 respondents (range, 2 to 177). The sample comprised 51% male and 49% female executives and maintained fully proportional representation of the actual distribution of executives by gender, executive level, region and age. The average age of participants was 50.2 years. The majority of participants had either a post-grad education (52%) or university education (39%). Participants had been working at the executive level for 7.3 years, on average. While just over half (56%) of executives in this sample worked at the EX-1 level, 24% worked at the EX-2 level, and 20% at the EX-3, EX-4 or EX-5 level.