The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP
18,7 Eustress, distress, and
interpretation in occupational
726
stress
Mark Le Fevre, Jonathan Matheny and Gregory S. Kolt
Received May 2003 Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Accepted June 2003

Keywords Stress, Control theory, Individual perception

Abstract We examine the concepts of stress, distress, and eustress and develop three tenets that
are used to relate these concepts to three major theories or models of occupational stress. Selye’s
concept of eustress or “good stress” appears to be largely ignored in the literature, while the Yerkes
Dodson Law is illustrated as a model for management practice. We suggest that the meaning
assigned to the word stress has shifted from Selye’s original formulation, and that this shift, in
conjunction with the use of the Yerkes Dodson Law leads to inappropriate management of stress in
organizations. We conclude that the concept that some stress is good and enhances performance
should be rejected in favour of more useful and accurate concepts.

Occupational stress has been of increasing concern to both employers and

governments for over 20 years. More recently, work stress has assumed greater
importance for employers as their risk of being held legally liable for damages
to stressed staff has increased, and the pace of organisational change has
accelerated (Midgley, 1997; Rees, 1997).
The costs of occupational stress have been variously estimated. The
International Labour Organisation (ILO) reported that inefficiencies arising
from occupational stress may cost up to 10 per cent of a country’s GNP
(Midgley, 1997). Cartwright and Boyes (2000) estimated that, in the UK, over 60
per cent of all workplace absences are due to stress, and although it is difficult
to measure the total cost of occupational stress, estimates in the USA range
from 200 to 300 billion dollars per year (Atkinson, 2000).
At a personal level for employees, the cost of unmanaged stress is nothing
less than an increased risk of morbidity and mortality (Siegrist, 1998). In
response, employees have shown a greater uptake of stress management
training and, in some cases, disengagement from the occupation perceived to be
causing the stress (Salazar and Beaton, 2000).
Occupational stress represents a real threat to quality of life for employees
(Danna and Griffin, 1999; Dyck, 2001). Moreover, stress in the workplace
represents a potential loss of talent for organisations as top performers
Journal of Managerial Psychology disengage from work where occupational stress, its causes, symptoms and
Vol. 18 No. 7, 2003
pp. 726-744
sequelae are prevalent (Cartwright and Boyes, 2000).
q MCB UP Limited
0268-3946
Interestingly, rather than minimising the level of stress in the workplace,
DOI 10.1108/02683940310502412 practical advice has been to manage the stress to optimal levels. Drawing from
Selye’s (1956) influential book, The Stress of Life, the construct of good stress, Occupational
or eustress, has taken on an almost “for granted” status in the literature. stress
Through popular applications of the Yerkes Dodson Law (Benson and Allen,
1980; Certo, 2003; Lussier, 2002), common management practice assumes that a
“reasonable” amount of pressure, anxiety, or fear in the environment leads to
higher performance among employees than if stress is not present. The
application of this lesson encourages managers to attempt to maintain stress at
727
optimal levels for performance rather than endeavouring to minimise stress.
Moreover, the lesson places responsibility on the managers for keeping the
amount of stress on employees at an optimal level. These lessons are not
entirely consistent with Selye’s original work, nor are they well supported by
empirical research.
In light of the costs (human and organisational), and available literature, we
question the wisdom of trying to optimise levels of occupational stress and of
teaching this approach in management students’ texts (e.g. Certo, 2003; Lussier,
2002; Schermerhorn, 2003). We question the utility of having managers take
responsibility for managing a level of stress. We question whether the amount
of stress should be a key focus. Rather, we consider that several characteristics
of stress, in addition to amount, may be important. The overall objective of this
paper is to critically analyse the constructs of stress, distress, and eustress, and
to suggest more useful and accurate conceptualisations.
We begin with a review of the constructs of stress, distress, and eustress.
The initial review of constructs provides a set of tenets that are then considered
in light of three models of stress: person-environment fit theory (Edwards et al.,
1998), cybernetic theory (Cummings and Cooper, 1998), and control theory
(Spector, 1998). The paper concludes with a discussion of research and
practice-based implications of our findings.

The construct of stress

Selye (1964) was the first to use the term “stress” to describe a set of physical
and psychological responses to adverse conditions or influences. Originally the
syndrome of just being sick (Selye, 1936), covered the stereotypical response of
an organism to a wide range of chemical, biological, or physical stimuli. In later
seeking a term to cover this typical response Selye used the word “stress”, an
engineering term for a force which causes deformation in bodies.
Unfortunately, this term should have been more properly applied to the
various stimuli applied to the organisms. The term “strain”, which in
engineering refers to the manifestation of stress in an actual body, or the
deformation of a material under a stress, should have been used for the
resulting responses. Since this early use of the term stress, there has been
continuing confusion and disagreement on the current nomenclature in the field
(Levi, 1998).
JMP Selye (1956) used the term “stressor” to describe the external force or
18,7 influence acting on the individual and “stress” to denote the resulting reaction,
terminology adopted by many others (e.g. Code and Langan-Fox, 2001;
Maslach, 1998; Quick et al., 2001). Some authors have used stress to denote such
external forces and strain to denote the resulting reaction (e.g. Edwards, 1998),
while others failed to clearly define how they were using the terminology at all
728 (e.g. Smit and Schabracq, 1998; Wiholm et al., 2000). Further, some have simply
used stress as a blanket term covering the whole process of external influence,
appraisal, reaction, and effect (e.g. Deary et al., 1996). Even at the most basic
level of terminology a problem has existed in distinguishing between
independent, intervening, and dependent variables where stress research is
concerned (Cooper, 1998).
As suggested by Cummings and Cooper (1998), a further complication arises
in stress research in that four quite different disciplines (medicine, psychology,
sociology, and management), have been involved in research in this area, each
of which has their own distinct methodology and paradigm. This makes it even
more difficult to compare different concepts of stress, or to develop any
coherent theory.
“Stress”, as used in the literature, may refer to external influences acting on
individuals (Selye’s stressors) (Selye, 1956), physiological reactions to such
influences (Selye’s original stress concept) (Mayer, 2000; Selye, 1956),
psychological interpretation of both the external influences and the
physiological reactions (Code and Langan-Fox, 2001; Selye, 1983), and
adverse behavioural reactions exhibited in work, or social situations, or both
(Richmond and Kehoe, 1999; Vasse et al., 1998). This inconsistency in the use of
stress-related constructs may well have contributed to the even greater
confusion over the concept of eustress.
Thus, for the purpose of consistency, this paper uses the following
terminology, translating where necessary from the original authors. Stressor
will denote the external force or situation acting on the individual, and stress
will denote the deformation or changes produced in the individual as a result of
those forces. The term strain, although deemed more appropriate, will not be
used to maintain consistency with common usage in the management
literature.

The constructs of eustress and distress

Eustress or “good stress” is a term first used and defined by Selye (1964, 1987).
Where Selye defined stress as “. . .the non-specific response of the body to any
demand placed upon it.” (Selye, 1987, p. 17), he differentiated between distress
and eustress. Distress and eustress were originally both subsumed within the
larger definition of stress but were regarded as different and distinct from each
other.
 Stress, as defined by Selye, is an inevitable consequence of living. Distress Occupational
occurs when the demands placed on the body (in the larger sense that includes stress
both the physiological and the psychological aspects) exceed its capacity to
expend energy in maintaining homeostasis. The demand stimulus may be
perceived as pleasant or unpleasant. In Selye’s treatment of distress, the degree
of demand is fundamental. This idea has been well illustrated by the Holmes
and Rahe Social Readjustment Rating Scale (Holmes and Rahe, 1967). Thus, if
729
all stress can be broken into either eustress or distress, and distress is
represented by too much or too little demand, then it follows that eustress
might be considered to be that amount of stress between too much or too little,
an optimal level of stress. This differentiation leads to the idea that both under-
and over-stimulation may lead to distress while moderate stress results in
eustress. This, however, represents only one aspect of the eustress construct,
and in Selye’s work, this is an implicit rather than explicit aspect of what he
defines as eustress.
The concept of an optimal amount of stress arose from the Yerkes Dodson
Law that indicates that increasing stress is beneficial to performance until
some optimum level is reached, after which performance will decline, the
familiar inverted U diagram (Benson and Allen, 1980; Certo, 2003). The
inverted U is often drawn with stress or arousal on the horizontal axis and
performance on the vertical axis. It is interesting to note, that the words stress,
arousal, and performance do not appear at any time in the original paper
(Yerkes and Dodson, 1908). Their work explored the relationship between
strength of stimulus (threat of electrical shock – demand) and task acquisition
(choosing the right box – performance) in mice. It is not at all clear that their
findings should be applied to human work environments. It is even less clear
that the lessons derived from their work should be considered “for granted”
truth regarding the beneficial effects of optimal stress in the workplace. It is
unfortunate, therefore, that the inverted U form, and the principles derived
from it, continue to be included in contemporary management texts (e.g. Certo,
2003; Lussier, 2002; Schermerhorn, 2003).
To clarify the application taken from Yerkes and Dodson’s (1908) work,
Selye (1987) explicitly maintained that the distressful or eustressful nature of
any particular stimulus is governed by how one interprets it and chooses to
react to it. Selye observed that the individual determines whether the stressor is
to be eustress or distress. Harris (1970) equated eustress with pleasure and
Edwards and Cooper (1988) defined eustress as a positive discrepancy between
perceptions and desires (provided that the discrepancy is salient to the
individual). The common point among these authors upholds that eustress is
primarily a result of positive perception of stressors. It follows then that
distress is primarily a result of negative perception of stressors.
Whether a particular demand represents eustress or distress is determined
not only by the amount of demand perceived by the individual, but also the
JMP perception of the individual regarding the demand’s other characteristics. A
18,7 study of stressor characteristics remains conspicuously missing in the
literature. However, drawing from the general literature, we can surmise that a
stressor can be characterised according to its timing, whether it is perceived as
desirable or not, whether it is beneficial or not, whether the demand is
self-imposed or imposed externally, and if imposed externally, what that source
730 (a friend, a manager, a policy, an institutional norm, etc.) represents to the
individual. And again, the over-riding question as to whether a particular
stress is identified as eustress or distress can be answered only by evaluating
what the demand represents to the individual.
Placing the individual in control of the stress he or she experiences, Selye
(1987) suggested that learning to react to stressors with positive emotions (e.g.
gratitude, hope, and goodwill) is likely to maximise eustress and minimise
distress. Conversely, responding with negative emotions (e.g. hatred,
hopelessness, anger, and the urge to revenge) are regarded as largely
accounting for the experience of distress (Selye, 1987). Making the connection
empirically, Simmons and Nelson (2001) used the positive psychological states
of hope, positive affect, and meaningfulness as indicators of eustress in their
study of eustress and health in nurses. This general idea was more recently
supported by Goleman (1995) under the rubric of emotional intelligence.

A set of tenets
From this literature on stress, distress, and eustress we have developed a series
of three tenets. First, stress is the response to stressors in the environment, and
stress, by definition, is either eustress or distress or a combination of the two.
Second, in addition to the amount of stress they cause, stressors can be
identified by a series of characteristics: the timing of the stressor, the source of
the stressor, the perceived control over the stressor, and the perceived
desirability of the stressor. Third, whether stressors result in eustress or
distress depends on the individual’s interpretation.
What follows is a review of three models widely used to understand
occupational stress. At the conclusion of each review, we will evaluate the
model in light of our three tenets.

Models of occupational stress

There are several models and theories of occupational stress (Cooper, 1998). We
have included the following three models in our analysis:
(1) Person-environment fit theory (Edwards et al., 1998).
(2) Cybernetic theory (Cummings and Cooper, 1998).
(3) Control theory (Spector, 1998).
These three models were chosen as we believe they are prevalent and central to
the literature on occupational stress. Moreover, they are representative of the
range of theories in that they tend to emphasise different sources and Occupational
interactional models for the induction of stress, and different outcome measures stress
for the management of stressors.

Person-environment fit theory

According to Edwards et al. (1998) in person-environment fit (P-E fit) theory 731
stress and stressors are not defined in terms of either the individual or the
environment, but rather in terms of the degree to which there is “misfit”
between the two. P-E fit theory incorporates three basic distinctions. The first
and most basic is that between the person, their abilities and needs, their
environment and the demands it makes on them, and that which their
environment supplies to them. The second distinction is that between the
subjective and objective representations of the person and their environment
(Edwards et al., 1998). The subjective representation includes the person’s
perceptions of themselves and their environment, and the objective
representation includes the person and environment as they actually exist.
As shown by Harrison (1978), the objective and subjective representations are
causally related through the constructs of “contact with reality” and “accuracy
of self-assessment”. Later work (Harrison, 1985) suggested that objective P-E
fit had little relationship to stress unless the individual had a clearly accurate
self-assessment and good contact with reality, thus yielding primacy to
subjective fit as the main determinant of stressors and resultant stress.
Accuracy in self-assessment is, however, liable to be distorted by limitations on
the human ability to perceive and process information (March and Simon,
1958). The third distinction in P-E fit theory incorporates two types of P-E fit,
or misfit and may be considered a sub-set of the first major distinction. The
first type of fit or misfit is that between the demands the environment places on
the individual in terms of the job requirements, role, and group norms, and
their abilities to fulfil those demands in terms of their skill, energy, training,
and time perceptions. The second is the fit or misfit between the needs of the
individual in terms of their physiological and psychological requirements
(Herzberg and Mausner, 1959; Maslow, 1943), and the ability of the
environment to supply those needs in terms of extrinsic rewards such as pay
and conditions and intrinsic reward, such as involvement and ability to achieve
(Herzberg and Mausner, 1959).
According to P-E fit theory when there is mismatch between the person and
their environment (in any of the above constructs), stressors exist and stress
results. The P-E fit theory leads to three basic relationships between stressors
and stress. In terms of the demand-ability dichotomy, as demand exceeds
ability, stress is likely to increase. As demand reduces below the individual’s
ability to deliver, stress may decrease or increase. This may depend on whether
or not environmental demands go down to a level that causes boredom and
inhibits the individual’s ability to fulfil high-level needs (Maslow, 1943). In
JMP terms of the needs-supplies dichotomy, stress is likely to be at a low level where
18,7 the environmental supply exceeds the individual’s needs. Conversely, stress
tends to increase as the individual’s needs progressively fail to be met, either
because their needs are increasing or because their environment’s ability to
supply is reducing. The final relationship is a combination of the
demand-ability and needs-supplies constructs, in that there appears to be an
732 area of minimal stress in which the individual’s needs are met and their
abilities are not over-stretched. Outside this area, stress increases. These
relationships have been hypothesised by Kulka (1979) to lead to three potential
models (see Figure 1).
As Edwards et al. (1998) stated, these models indicate that P-E misfit is a
cumulative and continuous stressor so that stress increases as P-E misfit
increases.

Figure 1.
Cumulative difference
curves
Kulka’s (1979) model may appear to contradict the Yerkes Dodson Law Occupational
(Benson and Allen, 1980; Certo, 2003) but it should be remembered that, as stress
usually quoted, the inverted U shape of Yerkes Dodson’s law refers to
performance increasing as stressors (usually interpreted to mean some external
pressure or demand) increase until some maximum tolerable value of stress is
exceeded. At that point performance decreases. If one accepts the premise that
increasing stress beyond optimal levels is related to a resultant decrease in
733
performance, then the two models do seem to be in agreement. Yerkes and
Dodson’s (1908) construction, as usually interpreted in current literature, does
suggest that lack of outside pressure results in lowered performance. This
supports Kulka’s (1979) curve “C”.
P-E fit theory suggests a lack of fit may result in physiological stress, or
psychological stress, or both. These stresses are likely to be expressed as
physical symptoms such as raised blood pressure, raised serum cholesterol,
and lowered immunity, and psychological symptoms including sleep
disturbances, anxiety, panic attacks, dysphoria, and restlessness (Edwards
et al., 1998). These stresses may result in behavioural changes of the kind
frequently monitored in stress management interventions such as increased
absenteeism (Murphy and Sorenson, 1988), insurance claims (Heeringa, 1996),
and use of health care services (Code and Langan-Fox, 2001). Good P-E Fit may,
however, confer positive health benefits (Edwards and Cooper, 1988; Harrison,
1978, 1985).
A second outcome set of P-E fit theory consists of the individual’s potential
reactions to misfit, which can be characterised as either coping or defence.
Coping reactions consist of actions taken to reduce the misfit by altering either
the person or the environment (e.g. training to increase skills or negotiating
some change in the objective environment itself). Defence reactions consist of
cognitive restructuring of the subjective person, or environment, or both, (e.g.
repression, projection, denial), (French et al., 1974). Coping and defence are both
potentially adaptive, neither being necessarily better or more effective than the
other (Edwards et al., 1998).

P-E fit approaches to occupational stress in light of the three tenets

The P-E fit approach does not relate well to the three tenets we derived from the
literature on stress. First, P-E fit approaches generally refer to the construct
stress with little or no attention paid to whether or not stress is characterised as
eustress or distress. Implicitly, however, it appears that a lack of fit in any
direction is considered undesirable, and thus seen as distress. To extend P-E fit
theory, it would be interesting to test whether or not an excess of ability or
supply results in eustress.
Regarding the second tenet, P-E fit seems to focus exclusively on the amount
of stress caused by a lack of fit between the person and environment. Using the
term “demand” strips the stressor of any characterisation beyond the implicit
JMP amount by which demand exceeds ability. Similarly, reference to needs does
18,7 not characterise the stressor beyond the implicit amount by which needs
outstrip supply. Thus, P-E fit theory provides no characterisation of stressors
beyond implicit reference to the degree of misfit.
With regard to the third tenet, the P-E fit literature provides limited links.
The raw analysis of demands-to-abilities and needs-to-supplies, does not take
734 into account the individual’s interpretation. However, the individual’s reaction
to misfit, coping, or defence behaviour links to the primacy of individual
interpretation. Any individual’s response to misfit is moderated by the
individual’s interpretation of the environment. The individual is thus placed in
the position of an agent of his or her own response, implicitly acknowledging
the individual’s interpretation of the situation. Explicitly, the defence responses
clearly identify the individual as actor, even empowering the individual to
cognitively re-structure his or her interpretation of the environment.
In summary, the P-E fit approach to occupational stress implicitly assumes
stress is distress and does not address the concept of eustress. It does not
include characteristics of stressors aside from the amount implied by the
degree of misfit. Extensions and applications of P-E fit do, however, provide a
role for individual interpretation of the stressors. Overall, the P-E fit is only
marginally consistent with the tenets derived from the literature.

Cybernetic theory of occupational stress

In the cybernetic theory of occupational stress (Cummings and Cooper, 1998),
the concepts of cybernetics or system control are used to emphasise the
temporal dimensions of the development, response, and possible resolution of
occupational stress. Cybernetic theory deals with the response of systems to
information using feedback (Ashby, 1954). It is based on the idea that systems,
in this case individuals, seek to maintain some equilibrium state, and will act to
re-establish equilibrium when some external force disturbs it. This basic idea is
hardly new, and is reflected in Cannon’s (1914) early work on physiological
responses to threat (generally referred to as the fight or flight response), his use
and definition of the term homeostasis (Cannon, 1932), and also in the general
adaptation syndrome of Selye (1956, 1964, 1983).
Cybernetic theory has the potential to add to an understanding of
occupational stress with its emphasis on the temporal path of stressor and
stress development. Its inclusion of the idea of perceived threat (Edwards, 1998)
as a source of stress, as well as the more common assessments of the objective
environment and subjective assessments of current situations used in P-E fit
models (Edwards et al., 1998), also expands the definition of stress and may
allow for the inclusion of the eustress concept. By acknowledging the role of
perception in the assessment of both the desired state and the degree of
discrepancy between that desired state and current reality, cybernetic theory
permits individuals to react differently to situations that are objectively similar.
For example, one individual may perceive a wide gap between desired and Occupational
current reality, which would induce stress, while another may perceive a stress
narrow or even no gap. For the second individual this may represent a
eustressful situation, for the first, distress. When cybernetic principles are
applied to living systems they can be used to illustrate how organisms seek to
maintain homeostasis against conditions that tend to disrupt it (Miller, 1965).
As Cannon (1932) showed, such considerations are relevant to an individual’s 735
reaction to stress, although that term is not mentioned in his work.
Cybernetic theory could also be applied to organisational systems
themselves. This application has implications for occupational stress
measurement and management, as it suggests that occupational stress can
act on the organisational environment by influencing the forces that constitute
the organisation’s social structure (Lewin, 1951).

Cybernetic approaches to occupational stress in light of the three

tenets
The cybernetic approach relates only partially to the three tenets we derived.
First, the cybernetic approach addresses stress but does not specify whether
the stress is distress or eustress. Second, cybernetic explanations focus
primarily on maintaining a systemic equilibrium such that any degree of
imbalance (i.e. the stressor) results in a related degree of stress. The cybernetic
approach does provide for some characterisation of the stressor beyond
objective degree of imbalance through the inclusion of the idea of perceived
threat. Finally, cybernetic approaches, unlike the P-E fit approaches, do, to
some extent, address the potential for individuals to interpret stressors
(threats). Therefore, if one accepts that individuals have a subjective capacity
in response to perceiving stressors, the theory could accommodate an
interpretive element.
Overall, the cybernetic approaches to occupational stress only partially
encompass the three tenets. It is possible to infer the existence of eustress from
the individual’s capacity to interpret stressors, but the theory itself does not
provide explicit links.

Control theory of occupational stress

Control theory (Spector, 1998) is based around the idea that the degree to which
the individual perceives they have control over the variables that have
potential to cause stress in their environment effects the likelihood that they
will experience stress. This is shown in Figure 2.
Control may be defined as the ability of an individual to make choices
between two or more alternatives (Ganster and Fusilier, 1989). Control in the
workplace may range from effective complete autonomy, and personal control
over schedule and workload, to complete servitude, and no personal control
over schedule or workload. An alternative position exists outside the above
JMP
18,7

736

Figure 2.
Control theory

continuum where there is a degree of autonomy over aspects of the

organisation’s global schedule and workload, but only partial control over the
personal situation.
As seen in Figure 2, perception is an important variable. Locus of control
and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982) may have a major impact on perceived
stressors and resultant stress. The model posits control as an intervening or
moderating variable although empirical support for this stance is weak
(Dollard et al., 2000; Spector, 1998).

Control approaches to occupational stress in light of the three tenets

Control theory relates fairly well to the three tenets we derived. That the control
theory approach includes stress without noting either eustress or distress is not
consistent with our first tenet. However, allowing a separate emotional
response to the stressor clearly allows for the individual to experience the
stress as eustress or distress.
 Second, control theory does not focus on amount, and in fact provides no Occupational
characterisations of the stressor. Rather, it simply acknowledges that stress
environmental stressors exist and, related to our third tenet, provides a set
of factors that may influence the interpretation of the individual with regard to
how that stressor is personally experienced as stress. How the stressor is
experienced is noted to be influenced by the individual’s self-efficacy, perceived
locus of control, and affective disposition. While these three variables are not 737
entirely consistent with our tenets, they underlie an interpretive process that
makes the individual the primary actor in the experience of stress.

Summary of findings
To bring these three analyses together, we considered the models against our
three tenets once again. A summary of our findings appears in Table I.
Neither the first nor the second tenet received treatment in the three models
reviewed. First, none of the three models of stress provided adequate treatment
of the separate entities, stress, eustress, or distress. Second, of the three models
reviewed, none provides characterisations of stressors beyond the amount of
stress they evoke. Regarding the third tenet, only control theory recognises the
individual’s interpretation of stressors as central to the experience of stress.

Discussion and implications

Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide an explanation of how
and when it happened, the distinction between eustress and distress seems to

Theory Basis Relation to tenets 1, 2, and 3

P-E fit theory A lack of fit between the person and 1. No explicit treatment of distress
environment is a stressor and eustress
Fit can be evaluated on two 2. Focus on amount of stress
dimensions: 3. Does not directly address person’s
1. Degree of fit amid demand and interpretation of stressor;
ability indirectly addressed in subjective
2. Degree of fit amid support and PE-fit form
need
Cybernetic theory The absence of equilibrium is a 1. No distinction between distress
stressor and eustress
When a force disrupts equilibrium 2. Focus on amount of stress
(stressor), the system (individual) 3. Does not directly address person’s
will act to restore equilibrium interpretation of stressor;
indirectly addressed through
perception of threat
Control theory The person’s perception of control 1. No distinction between distress
over stressors moderates the stress and eustress Table I.
experienced 2. Does not address amount of stress Summary of reviewed
3. Addresses person’s interpretation literature with regard to
of stressor the three tenets
JMP have fallen out of consideration. What follows are our views regarding how the
18,7 two terms are used in the literature today. This section is informed by the
review of the construct of stress that appeared earlier in the paper and our
analysis of the three models of occupational stress against the three tenets. At
the conclusion of this discussion, we present a revised model of occupational
738 stress and then extend our discussion to the implications for research and
practice derived from the paper.

The constructs of eustresss and distress today

Eustress receives very little treatment in the literature. As Mesler (1996) stated
there are “relatively few studies, and no adequate models, proposing the
concept of eustress and its associated regenerative qualities”. Moreover, it is
interesting to note that three major reviews of occupational stress and
management interventions (De Frank and Cooper, 1987; van der Hek and
Plomp, 1997; van der Klink et al., 2001) made no mention of any possible
positive aspect or effect of stress. Finally, a search of PsycINFO for the years
1960 to 2003 using stress as a keyword yielded 72,689 citations. A search using
eustress as a keyword yielded 26 citations nine of which were unpublished
dissertations. The concept of eustress appears to be outside the realm of
consideration in scholarly literature.
However, quite to the contrary, the concept of eustress gains significant
coverage in the popular press. Unfortunately, the popular treatment of eustress
appears to rest on a limited view of the “Yerkes Dodson Law” (Yerkes and
Dodson, 1908) and does not reflect a distinction between distress and eustress.
Rather, it is frequently covered in basic management texts (e.g. Certo, 2003;
Lussier, 2002; Schermerhorn, 2003) as that amount of stress that increases
performance. Popularly speaking, eustress has taken “for-granted” status
among managers as the optimum amount of stress.
Distress receives some treatment in the popular and scholarly literature.
However, there would seem to be no systematic treatment of distress as
contrasted with eustress. Thus, as usually employed in research or in common
parlance, the broader construct of stress has become synonymous with
distress.
With stress and distress operating as synonyms, the distinction Selye
intended between distress and eustress is lost. In this light, stress and distress
are used interchangeably and eustress is another entity altogether. Continuing
this line of thought, the idea of “good stress” can be re-stated as the oxymoron
“good distress”. The semantic shift away from rigorous consideration of
eustress and distress leads to popular lessons about managing stress to
optimum levels and providing “good distress” to employees.
A new model of occupational stress Occupational
Of the three models reviewed, the control theory of occupational stress holds stress
the most promise for inclusion of the three tenets. It provides adequate scope
for characterising stressors beyond “amount”. It provides adequate scope for
interpreters of stress to identify distress and/or eustress rather than simply
stress. Also, control theory is the only approach reviewed that places 739
individuals in the key role as interpreters of stressors. With its emphasis on
perception, Spector’s (1998) model could easily be revised to explicitly address
all three tenets. Such a revised version of the control theory appears in Figure 3.
The model emphasises the interface of environmental stimuli and individual
perception of those stimuli. Control is included as one characteristic of the
individual, among many, that may impact his or her interpretation of stressors.
Stressors are characterised by a raft of properties beyond amount. Thus, the
revised model in Figure 3 integrates our three tenets with control theory in a
parsimonious and powerful model.
This is a simple model. The model doesn’t differentiate moderating and
mediating variables. It doesn’t provide an exhaustive list of what
self-perceptions may influence an individual’s interpretation of a stressor nor
does it provide an exhaustive list of what characteristics of that stressor may
influence the perception. Rather, we are suggesting a re-consideration, a
stepping back if you will, of what we know about occupational stress. The

Figure 3.
Revised version of
Spector’s (1998) model
which incorporates all
three tenets drawn from
the literature on
occupational stress
JMP model simply provides a powerful foundation of core elements, some of which
18,7 have not received the attention they deserve in the research on stress.

Implications for research

We agree with Mesler (1996), that eustress appears to have received little
740 rigorous attention in the published literature. Given that, as usually proposed,
eustress would constitute a serious methodological threat to any study seeking
to link stress reduction with physical, psychological, or performance
improvements, this is rather surprising. If the Yerkes Dodson Law is
considered seriously then stress or stressor reduction may result in decreases
or increases in physical or psychological outcomes, and/or performance. For
example in a mixed group of subjects, who may be anywhere along that
inverted U curve at the beginning of intervention, positive and negative
changes may combine to produce an overall insignificant effect if distress and
eustress are not differentiated. In the absence of adequate models of eustress
this seems almost inevitable.
We believe it is important that research addresses the lack of adequate
models and definitions of eustress and distress. We question whether eustress
and distress represent positions on a quantitative continuum of stress as
suggested by the Yerkes Dodson Law. Creating a new set of operational
definitions to extend our understanding and use of the constructs would be
helpful. It may very well be that there are interactions among characteristics of
environmental stressors that give rise to patterns in experiences of eustress or
distress. Identifying these characteristics seems an important endeavour.
However, developing environmental explanations will go only so far in
accounting for variance in the experience of stress across individuals. Thus, we
also suggest that research focuses on how people interpret environmental
stimuli and how these interpretations lead to experiences of eustress or
distress. Essentially, we recommend a research concentration on the individual
interpretation of environmental stressors and a research concentration on
characteristics of environmental stressors associated with the experience of
stress as eustress or distress.

Implications for practice

Given this discussion we reject the concept that stress is something to be
managed to any tolerable or ideal level in the workplace. This is not to suggest
that organisational demand is not legitimately within the ambit of managerial
authority, but that the relationship between demand and stress can be known
and managed only by the individuals concerned. In Selye’s wider definition,
stress is an inescapable facet of life, and so is it an inescapable facet of
employment in any capacity. When one experiences stress, however, whether
that stress represents distress or eustress may be managed by the individual.
Thus, experiencing stress is inevitable but experiencing distress is not. As
distress appears to have no positive effects either in life or employment, we Occupational
recommend that efforts be taken to lessen the experience of distress and stress
increase the experience of eustress in the workplace.
From the point of view of the individual, it is only they themselves who can
manage, through perception and interpretation, to what degree they experience
their organisational environment, including its demands and resources, as
distress or eustress. They are themselves responsible for their eustress or
741
distress. As such, it is the individuals’ responsibility and choice to reflect on,
and manage their interpretation of the stressors inherent in their occupation,
and to endeavour to make interpretations that increase eustress and decrease
distress.
From the management standpoint, it seems to us that a key contribution of
management lies in assisting employees to experience the stressors of the
workplace as eustress. First, when employees can be supported to make
positive interpretations of their environment, support should be given. This
may necessitate investment in coaching and a variety of related personal
development interventions. Second, when demand and resources can be
modified to reduce stressors identified by employees as distress, then
management should seek to address these stressors. Management should not
assume that any particular stressor is experienced as eustress or distress but
should rather engage in understanding the employees’ experience of the
stressor. Finally, and we feel this message must be heard, management must
not seek to manage stress to an optimal level, much less induce stress in their
employees, as part of any endeavour to increase performance. There is no
convincing evidence, not in the rigorous literature on stress nor in the three
models of occupational stress we reviewed that supports this “taken for
granted” myth.

Conclusion
This paper provides a fresh look at some of the seminal sources of stress
literature. From that and more recent research, we have derived three tenets of
stress. We believe these tenets reflect elemental components of early and
contemporary thought about stress. However, through an analysis of leading
models of occupational stress, we found that these tenets are not well
represented.
We provided a discussion regarding the use of eustress and distress in the
literature and suggested that a semantic shift has occurred which may explain
their lack of representation in the models of occupational stress. To
re-introduce the tenets, we provided a revised model based on Spector’s
(1998) control theory and discussed the implications of our work for research
and practice.
Finally, there would appear to be little or no evidence in the occupational
stress literature to support the assertion that a reasonable amount of stress,
JMP pressure, or anxiety in the workplace leads to high performance as suggested
18,7 by the Yerkes Dodson Law. We suggest, therefore, that it may be time to
explicitly reject this stance.

References
742
Ashby, W.R. (1954), Design For a Brain, Chapman & Hall, London.
Atkinson, W. (2000), “When stress won’t go away”, HR Magazine, Vol. 45 No. 12, pp. 104-10.
Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37,
pp. 122-47.
Benson, H. and Allen, R.L. (1980), “How much stress is too much?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 86-92.
Cannon, W.B. (1914), “The emergency function of the adrenal medulla in pain and the major
emotions”, American Journal of Physiology, Vol. 33, pp. 356-72.
Cannon, W.B. (1932), The Wisdom of the Body, Norton, New York, NY.
Cartwright, S. and Boyes, R.F. (2000), “Taking the pulse of executive health in the UK”, The
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 16-24.
Certo, S.C. (2003), Supervision: Concepts and Skill Building, 4th ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Code, S. and Langan-Fox, J. (2001), “Motivation, cognitions and traits: predicting occupational
health, well-being and performance”, Stress and Health, Vol. 17, pp. 159-74.
Cooper, C.L. (1998), Theories of Organizational Stress, Oxford University Press Inc, New York,
NY.
Cummings, T.G. and Cooper, C.L. (1998), “A cybernetic theory of organizational stress”, in
Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Theories of Organizational Stress, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY, pp. 101-21.
Danna, K. and Griffin, R.W. (1999), “Health and well being in the workplace: a review and
synthesis of the literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, p. 357.
De Frank, R.S. and Cooper, C.L. (1987), “Worksite stress management interventions: their
effectiveness and conceptualisation”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 4-10.
Deary, I.J., Blenkin, H., Agius, R.M., Endler, N.S., Zeally, H. and Wood, R. (1996), “Models of job
related stress and personal achievement among consultant doctors”, British Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 3-29.
Dollard, M.F., Winefield, H.R., Winefield, A.H. and de Jonge, J. (2000), “Psychosocial job strain
and productivity in human service workers: a test of the demand-control-support model”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, p. 501.
Dyck, D. (2001), “The toxic workplace”, Benefits Canada, Vol. 25 No. 3, p. 52.
Edwards, J.R. (1998), “Cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being: review and extension
to work and family”, in Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Theories of Organizational Stress, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY, pp. 122-52.
Edwards, J.R. and Cooper, C.L. (1988), “The impacts of positive psychological states on physical
health: a review and theoretical framework”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 27,
pp. 1447-59.
Edwards, J.R., Caplan, R.D. and Van Harrison, R. (1998), “Person-environment fit theory:
conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research”, in Cooper,
 C.L. (Ed.), Theories of Organizational Stress, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, Occupational
pp. 28-67.
stress
French, J.R.P., Rogers, W.L. and Cobb, S. (1974), “Adjustment as person-environment fit”, in
Coelho, G., Hamburg, D. and Adams, J. (Eds), Coping and Adaptation, Basic Books, New
York, NY, pp. 316-33.
Ganster, D.C. and Fusilier, M.R. (1989), “Control in the workplace”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson,
I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, John Wiley, 743
Chichester, UK.
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, Bloomsbury, London.
Harris, D.V. (1970), “On the brink of catastrophe”, Quest Monograph, Vol. 13, pp. 33-40.
Harrison, R.V. (1978), “Person-environment fit and job stress”, in Cooper, C.L. and Payne, R.
(Eds), Stress at Work, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 175-205.
Harrison, R.V. (1985), “The person-environment fit model and the study of job stress”, in Beehr,
T. and Bhagat, R.S. (Eds), Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations, Wiley, New
York, NY, pp. 23-55.
Heeringa, V. (1996), “Stress makes a dangerous scapegoat”, The Independent, 13 September, p. 18.
Herzberg, F. and Mausner, B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Holmes, T.H. and Rahe, R.H. (1967), “The social readjustment rating scale”, Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 11, pp. 213-18.
Kulka, R.A. (1979), “Interaction as person-environment fit”, in Kahle, L.R. (Ed.), New Directions
for Methodology of Behavioral Science, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 55-71.
Levi, L. (1998), “Preface: stress in organizations – theoretical and empirical approaches”, in
Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Theories of Organizational Stress, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper, New York, NY.
Lussier, R.N. (2002), Human Relations in Organizations: Applications and Skill Building, 5th ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Maslach, C. (1998), “A multidimensional theory of burnout”, in Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Theories of
Organizational Stress, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 68-85.
Maslow, A.F. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50, pp. 370-96.
Mayer, E.A. (2000), “The neurobiology of stress and gastrointestinal disease”, Gut, Vol. 47, p. 861.
Mesler, R. (1996), “A model of eustress: health and healing at the individual level” United States
International University.
Midgley, S. (1997), “Pressure points (managing job stress)”, People Management, Vol. 3 No. 14,
p. 36.
Miller, J. (1965), “Living systems: basic concepts”, Behavioral Science, Vol. 10, pp. 193-237.
Murphy, L.R. and Sorenson, S. (1988), “Employee behaviors before and after stress
management”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 9, pp. 173-82.
Quick, J.C., Nelson, D.L., Quick, J.D. and Orman, D.K. (2001), “An isomorphic theory of stress: the
dynamics of person-environment fit”, Stress and Health, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 147-57.
Rees, D.W. (1997), “Managerial stress: dealing with the causes not the symptoms”, Industrial and
Commercial Training, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 35-40.
JMP Richmond, R.L. and Kehoe, L. (1999), “Quantitative and qualitative evaluations of brief
interventions to change excessive drinking, smoking, and stress in the police force”,
18,7 Addiction, Vol. 94, p. 1509.
Salazar, M.K. and Beaton, R. (2000), “Ecological model of occupational stress: application to
urban firefighters”, AAOHN Journal, Vol. 48, p. 470.
Schermerhorn, J.R. (2003), Organizational Behavior, 8th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
744 Selye, H. (1936), “A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents”, Nature, Vol. 138, p. 32.
Selye, H. (1956), The Stress of Life, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Selye, H. (1964), From Dream to Discovery, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Selye, H. (1983), “The stress concept: past, present, and future”, in Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Stress
Research, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 1-20.
Selye, H. (1987), Stress without Distress, Transworld, London.
Siegrist, J. (1998), “Adverse health effects of effort-reward imbalance at work: theory, empirical
support, and implications for prevention”, in Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Theories of Organizational
Stress, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 190-204.
Simmons, B.L. and Nelson, D.L. (2001), “Eustress at work: the relationship between hope and
health in hospital nurses”, Health Care Manager Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 7-18.
Smit, I. and Schabracq, M. (1998), “Team cultures stress and health”, Stress Medicine, Vol. 14,
pp. 13-19.
Spector, P.E. (1998), “A control theory of the job stress process”, in Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Theories of
Organizational Stress, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 153-69.
van der Hek, H. and Plomp, H.N. (1997), “Occupational stress management programmes – a
practical overview of published effect studies”, Occupational Medicine, Vol. 47, pp. 133-41.
van der Klink, J.J.L., Blonk, R.W.B., Schene, A.H. and van Dijk, F.J.H. (2001), “The benefits of
interventions for work-related stress”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 91, p. 270.
Vasse, R.M., Nijhuis, F.J. and Kok, G. (1998), “Associations between work stress alcohol
consumption and sickness absence”, Addiction, Vol. 93, p. 231.
Wiholm, C., Arentz, B. and Berg, M. (2000), “The impact of stress management on computer
related skin problems”, Stress Medicine, Vol. 16, pp. 279-85.
Yerkes, R.M. and Dodson, J.D. (1908), “The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of
habit-formation”, Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, Vol. 18, p. 459.