Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 127 (2014) 559 564

PSIWORLD 2013

Diagnosing occupational stress in Romanian organisations

Adrian Tudor Brate*
Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Bulev. Victoriei Nr. 40, Sibiu-550024, Romania

Abstract
The study investigates the complex topic of occupational stress, based on a comprehensive model of stress diagnosis and
management for romanian employees (N=1026 participants), at individual and organizational level. The following
multidimensional components of the dynamic stress process are measured with the romanian adapted version of Pressure
Management Indicator (PMI, Williams & Cooper, 1998; PMI-RO, Brate, 2004, 2006, 2008): stressors, effects, individual
differences and coping strategies. Specific significant influences and associations between stressors, individual differences,
coping strategies and perceived effects of occupational stress are presented. Further implications and applications of the study are
offered.
2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Society
Applied
Experimental
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Romanian
PSI WORLD
2013ofand
their Guest
Editors: Psychology.
Dr Mihaela Chraif, Dr Cristian
Vasile and Dr Mihai Anitei
Keywords:occupational stress, stressors, effects, individual differences, coping strategies

1. Introduction
Occupational stress in different work settings (Brate, 2003; Pitariu, 2004) is still one of the major topics
investigated in the last years from different perspectives (Brate, 2011), because of the impact of his effects at
individual and organizational level. This increasingly common feature of modern alert life proves to influence and to
be linked to job performance and satisfaction, organizational behavior, acute and chronic health problems, burnout,
aggression in all forms, anxiety, personnel fluctuation, producing high costs for different types of organizations and
socioprofessional categories.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +4.0269.235.804.

E-mail address: adrian.brate@ulbsibiu.ro

1877-0428 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Romanian Society of Applied Experimental Psychology.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.310

560

Adrian Tudor Brate / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 127 (2014) 559 564

In the dynamic and complex process of stress, in different occupational and organizational settings, the impact of
specific stressors (of different intensity, frequency or type) and the perception of the these effects is moderated or
mediated by individual differences (personality dimensions, emotions and coping strategies: Brate, 2007b, 2009).
These variables (moderators/ predictors) could be also crucial in developing, applying or improving stress
management and intervention strategies, at individual and organizational level (Brate, 2007a).
2. The Objective
The main purpose of this study is to use a comprehensive model of diagnosis and management of the main
variables of the occupational/ organizational stress process : stressors, personality factors and coping mechanisms
(individual differences) and effects (Brate, 2008, 2009a, 2011). This paper presents only a part (synthesis) of the
results of the larger study on diagnosing and intervention in occupational stress for Romanian employees, from
different socioprofessional categories (Brate, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009b etc.).
3. Method / Procedure
The Romanian version (PMI-RO, Brate, 2004, 2006, 2008) of the Pressure Management Indicator (PMI,
developed by Williams & Cooper, 1998) was distributed to employed participants from different Romanian
organizations in the public and private sector, after it was translated and adapted. The data collecting, cleaning and
verification of the questionnaires left for now a sample of 1026 individuals with no missing data and each
participant having only completed one administration of the PMI-RO. For statistical processing data and measuring
the variables, the statistical program SPSS was used.
3.1. Participants
The participants who had completed the PMI-RO, were N=1026 employees, from public and private sectors with
different levels of educational and professional background. The age mean for the participants is 36,34 years, 524
(51,1%) were male participants and 502 (48,9%) female participants. 23,8% reported a major event and 9,8%
reported a major illness in the last 3 months.
3.2. Instrument
The Pressure Management Indicator (PMI, Williams & Cooper, 1998, translated and adapted for Romanian
participants by the autor: PMI-RO) is a 120 item self-report questionnaire developed from the Occupational Stress
Indicator (OSI). The instrument contains a biographic questionnaire and provides an integrated multidimensional
diagnosis of the major dimensions of occupational stress, investigated with Likert subscales from 1 to 6, which
measure:
1. Socio-professional sources of pressure: Workload (PW), Relationships (PR), Recognition (PC),
Organizational climate (PO), Personal responsibility (PP), Managerial role (PM), Home/work balance (PH),
Daily hassles (PD) - as independent variables;
2. Personality (individual differences): Drive (TD), Control (LC), Impatience (TI), Personal influence (LI) - as
moderator variables;
3. Coping mechanisms: Problem focus (CO), Life/work balance (CD), Social support (SS) - as moderator
variables;
4. Effects: Job satisfaction (JI), Organizational satisfaction (JO), Organizational security (OS), Organizational
commitment (OC), State of mind (MA), Resilience (MR), Confidence level (MW), Physical symptoms (PA),
Energy levels (PE) - as dependent variables.
This multidimensional and comprehensive diagnostic tool permits to extract a stress profile for the individual,
groups, socio-professional categories, departments, institutions, firms or corporations, organized by different
criteria. Also on its base, specific multidimensional stress diagnosis models and intervention (management)
strategies can be initiated and developed.

561

Adrian Tudor Brate / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 127 (2014) 559 564

3.3. Premise/ hypothesis

Occupational stressors, specific individual differences and coping strategies play a significant role in the
perception of the sources of stress (pressures) and for the awareness and recognition of the effects of occupational
stress.
4. Results
Analysing the mean differences between English (Williams & Cooper, 1998) and Romanian participants,
observations show that Romanian participants have higher scores for satisfaction and organization scales (positive
effects), but lower scores for perceived health in general (negative effects). On the other hand the perceived
socioprofessional pressures are significantly higher for the romanian population. For the individual differences, the
Romanian participants ranked lower only at the type A drive subscale and the personal influence subscale.
Gender differences:
x female participants tend to feel more anxious than men (state of mind);
x female participants tend to feel more worried, have less energy and feels more tired than men, have more feelings
of physical discomfort (confidence level, energy levels, physical symptoms);
x female participants feel less able to influence and control events than male participants (influence and control);
x female participants make much more use of social support than male participants.
Tables 1-3 show the correlation matrixes for each of the subscales within the 3 dimensions measured by the PMIRO: sources of pressure, individual differences, effects.
Table 1. Individual differences and coping strategies scale correlations (PMI-RO)
Subscale
1
2
3
4
1. Type A Drive (TD)
2. Impatience (TI)
-.09
3. Control (LC)
ns
-.165
4. Personal Influence (LI)
-.09
.149
.223
ns
.19
5. Problem Focus (CO)
ns
.081
.074
.104
6. Life - Work Balance (CD)
ns
ns
-.146
ns
7. Social Support (SS)
ns
.076
Note. N=1026. Unless otherwise marked, all correlations are significant at p <.05; ns=Not significant

.341
.19

.210

ns
ns
-.183
ns
-.149
ns
-.180
-.120
-.131

-.077
-.079
-.195
ns
-.235
-.103
-.173
-.159
-.202

Daily
Hassles
(PD)

Home Work
Balance

Outcome Variables
Subscales
ns
ns
ns
-.106
ns
Job satisfaction (JI)
-.075
-.131
-.093
-.146
ns
Organisational satisfation (JO)
-.141
-.129
-.174
-.235
-.18
Organisational security (OS)
-.062
ns
ns
ns
ns
Organisational commitment (OC)
-.192
ns
-.112
-.172
-.174
State of mind (MA)
-.099
ns
-.066
-.069
ns
Resilience (MR)
-.154
-.105
-.118
-.169
-.189
Confidence level (MW)
-.130
ns
-.063
-.122
-.127
Physical symptoms (PA)
-.232
-.08
-.139
-.174
-.205
Energy levels (PE)
Note. N=1026. Unless otherwise marked, all correlations are significant at p <.05; ns=Not significant

Manageria
l Role
(PM)

Personal
Responsib
ility (PP)

Organisati
onal
Climate
(PO)

Recogniti
on (PC)

Relationsh
ips (PR)

Stressors Variables Subscales

Workload
(PW)

Table 2. The Relationship Between the Stressors and the Outcome Variables Scales (PMI-RO)

ns
ns
-.22
ns
-.24
-.115
-.187
-.214
-.210

For this article we will focus on specific significant relationships/ associations between the stressors and effects
variables, individual differences (personality and coping strategies) and the effects variables.
The results show that:

562

Adrian Tudor Brate / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 127 (2014) 559 564

x the coping strategies positively correlate with each other, also the other personality subscales (individual
differences, for ex. personal influence with control), with four exceptions where they correlate negatively: type A
with impatience and personal influence, impatience with control and control with social support (table 1);
x the majority of stressors are significantly negatively correlated with the effects (table 2);
x high levels of organizational satisfaction, security, and mental and physical well-being were negatively correlated
with high pressure (stressors): table 2;
x the outcome variables were positively (significantly) correlated with increased control and influence, the drive
dimension of Type A (with the exception of organisational satisfaction), and greater use of problem focus and lifework balance, as coping strategies: table 3;
x the following individual differences: control (=.410, p<.001), influence (=.401, p<.001) and general coping
=.310, p<.001) are significant predictors for the stress effects in general (cumulative effects).
x drive A type is a significant predictor for state of mind (=.111, p<.001).

.209
.217
ns
.245
.133
.217
ns
ns
ns

ns
.075
-.101
ns
-.125
ns
-.147
-.096
-.160

ns
ns
ns
ns
-.181
ns
-.127
-.203
-.222

Age

.139
.170
.076
.103
.253
.266
.192
.176
.229

Gender / Sex

Social
Support (SS)

.411
.333
.159
.447
.185
.218
.074
.078
.128

Life - Work
Balance (CD)

.174
.252
.360
.121
.363
.130
.235
.239
.309

Problem
Focus (CO)
(CO)y(PP)

ns
-.061
-.084
.113
-.143
.127
-.175
-.096
-.168

Personal
Influence (LI)

ns
-.063
.067
ns
.111
ns
.069
ns
ns

Control (LC)

Outcome Variables Subscales

Job satisfaction (JI)
Organisational satisfation (JO)
Organisational security (OS)
Organisational commitment (OC)
State of mind (MA)
Resilience (MR)
Confidence level (MW)
Physical symptoms (PA)
Energy levels (PE)

Impatience
(TI)

Moderator Variables Subscales

Type A Drive
(TD)

Table 3. The Relationship Between the Moderator Variables and the Outcome Variables Scales (PMI-RO)

.081
ns
-.112
.118
ns
ns
-.110
ns
ns

Note. N=1026. Unless otherwise marked, all correlations are significant at p <.05; ns=Not significant.

5. Discussion
The results led us to the conclusion that the stressors variables have generally a negative impact on the outcome
variables (effects) and that specific individual differences and coping strategies are significantly associated with
outcomes variables of occupational stress, for the romanian participants: for instance, higher levels of control (how
much someone feel able to influence and control events) and personal influence (the extent to which someone is able
to exercise discretion in their job) and efficiently using coping strategies (problem focus, life-work balance and
social support) reduce the negative impact of stressors and influence the perception of socioprofessional stress
effects (in terms of satisfaction, physical and mental state).
This study, conducted on Romanian employees led us to results, that are similar mostly and in accordance with
findings and research tendencies on the predicting/ moderating/ mediating role of individual differences in the stress
process (Baron & Kenny; 1986, Bliese & Jex, 2002; Day & Jreige, 2002; Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Grant &
Langan-Fox, 2007; Mauno, Kinnunen & Ruokolainen, 2006; Probst, 2000; Schmidt, 2007; Williams & Cooper,
1998).
6. Implications and applications of the study
This instrument and stress model offers a good base for diagnosing the stress process, in different work settings
and developing specific intervention/ management strategies at individual and/or organizational level. Efficient

Adrian Tudor Brate / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 127 (2014) 559 564

management stress strategies (including profilaxy, control and intervention) can be applied at individual and
organizational level. In the dynamic stress process, the following three sequences are important:
x Prevention (monitoring);
x Diagnosis (with specific validated and standardised instruments) ;
x Intervention strategies and programs at individual and organizational level;
Relying on his diagnosis at individual and organizational level, as an important stress audit tool, several stress
intervention strategies can be initiated (Brate, 2007a, 2008, 2009b). By analysing the results of this study, after
diagnosing (these or other) interactions between the measured variables for the participants, specialists could initiate
an intervention programme at different levels: individual, organisational or for specific socioprofessional categories,
with goal-specific management strategies.
Future research should take into consideration the multidimensional structure and form of expression of
occupational stress. Managing stress in organisations is in many contexts triggered by a crisis or a conflict at
individual or organisational level. Organisations should consider stress prevention, not only in terms of reducing
costs, but also in terms of maintaining (preserving) and improving organisational health (proactive approach), by
stimulating organisational culture and rethinking the health paradigm.

References
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.K. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in Social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.51, No. 6, 1173-1182.
Bliese, P.D. & Jex, S.M. (2002). Incorporating a multilevel perspective into occupational stress research: Theoretical, methodological and
practical implications. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 3, 265-276.
Brate, A.T. (2011). Modele ale stresului ocupaional organizaional. n: E. Avram (coord.), Psihologia sQWii organizaionale, Ed. Universitar,
Vol. 1, p. 51-73.
Brate, A. (2009a). Agresivitate i stres n organizaii: clarificri conceptuale, experimental-metodologice i metaanalitice. Un model de diagnoz
i intervenie. n: Milcu, M, Cercetarea psihologic modern: Direcii i perspective. Noi valene aplicative ale psihologiei. Ed. Universitar,
p. 51-57.
Brate, A. T. (2009b). A multidimensional measuring of occupational stress of romanian employees. n: D. M. Due, P. D. Brndau & L. D. Beju,
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Manufacturing Science and Education MSE 2009, Vol. II, June 4-6, Ed. Univ. Lucian
Blaga din Sibiu, p. 273-276.
Brate, A.T. (2008). Spre un model comprehensiv-integrativ de diagnozi management al stresului organizaional. n: E. Avram & C.L. Cooper,
Psihologie organizaional-managerial. Tendine actuale, Ed. Polirom, p. 578-591.
Brate, A. (2007a). Direcii de cercetare i strategii de management al stresului ocupaional. n : E. Avram & R. Creu (coord.), Psihologie
organizaional-managerial n context european, Ed. Universitar, 177-187.
Brate, A. (2007b). Measuring Occupational Stress: A Multidimensional And Comprehensive Model of Diagnosis And Management. In: Milcu, M,
Fischbach, A., Rafaeli, A, Schmidt-Brasse, U, Modern Psychological Research. Trends and Prospects, Psihomedia Publishing House, Sibiu,
Romania, p. 55-60.
Brate, A. (2006). Corelate ale agresivitii implicate n perceperea i diagnoza multidimensional a stresului ocupaional. Conferina Naional de
Psihologie, Cluj-Napoca, 18-21 mai.
Brate, A. (2004). Diagnoza multidimensional a stresului ocupaional la manageri. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, Vol. II, Nr. 2, 42-52.
Brate, A. (2003). Investigarea stresului ocupaional la militari i electricieni. n: Pitariu, H. & Sntion, F. (coord.), Psihologia lupttorului.
Teoretic i aplicativ n psihologia militar, Ed. Militar, Bucureti.
Day, L. A., & Jreige, S. (2002). Examining Type A behaviour pattern to explain the relationship between job stressors and psychosocial
outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 109-120.
Edwards J.R. & Lambert, L.S. (2007). Methods for integrating Moderation and Mediation: A General Analytical Framework Using Moderated
Path Analysis. Psychological Methods, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1-22.
Grant, S. & Langan-Fox, J. (2007). Personality and the Occupational stressor-strain relationship: The role of the Big Five. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol.12, No. 1, 20-33.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U. & Ruokolainen, M. (2006). Exploring work- and organization-based resources as moderators between work-family
conflict, well-being, and job attitudes. Work & Stress, July-September; 20(3): 210-233.
Pitariu, H. D. (2004). Stresul profesional la manageri: Corelate ale personalitii n contextul situaiei de tranziie social-economic din Romnia.
n Opre, A. (coord.): Noi tendine n psihologia personalitii. Diagnoz, cercetare, aplicaii. Cluj-Napoca, Editura ASCR, Vol. II, 93-123.
Probst, T.M. (2000). Wedded to the job: Moderating effects of job involvement on the consequences of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 5. No. 1, 63-73.
Schmidt, K.H. (2007). Organizational commitment: A Further moderator in the relationship between work stress and strain ?, Organizational
Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, 26-40.

563

564

Adrian Tudor Brate / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 127 (2014) 559 564
Williams, S. & Cooper, C.L. (1998). Measuring Occupational Stress: Development of the Pressure Management Indicator. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 4, 306-321.