Preview (13 of 43 pages)

Preview Extract

Chapter 18 Organizational Change and Stress Management LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, students should be able to: Contrast the forces for change and planned change. Describe ways to overcome resistance to change. Compare the four main approaches to managing organizational change. Demonstrate three ways of creating a culture for change. Identify the potential environmental, organizational, and personal sources of stress at work and the role of individual and cultural differences. Identify the physiological, psychological, and behavioral symptoms of stress at work. Describe individual and organizational approaches to managing stress at work. INSTRUCTOR’S RESOURCES Instructors may wish to use the following resources when presenting this chapter. Text Exercises Career Objectives: How Can I Bring My Team’s Overall Stress Level Down? Myth or Science?: “When You’re Working Hard, Sleep Is Optional” An Ethical Choice: Manager and Employee Stress During Organizational Change Personal Inventory Assessments: Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale Point/Counterpoint: Companies Should Encourage Stress Reduction Questions for Review Experiential Exercise: Mindfulness at Work Ethical Dilemma: All Present and Accounted For Text Cases Case Incident 1: Atos: Zero Email Program Case Incident 2: When Companies Fail to Change Instructor’s Choice This section presents an exercise that is NOT found in the student's textbook. Instructor's Choice reinforces the text's emphasis through various activities. Some Instructor's Choice activities are centered on debates, group exercises, Internet research, and student experiences. Some can be used in class in their entirety, while others require some additional work on the student's part. The course instructor may choose to use these at any time throughout the class—some may be more effective as icebreakers, while some may be used to pull together various concepts covered in the chapter. Web Exercises At the end of each chapter of this Instructor’s Manual, you will find suggested exercises and ideas for researching OB topics on the Internet. The exercises “Exploring OB Topics on the Web” are set up so that you can simply photocopy the pages, distribute them to your class, and make assignments accordingly. You may want to assign the exercises as an out-of-class activity or as lab activities with your class. Summary and Implications for Managers The need for change has been implied throughout this text. For instance, think about attitudes, motivation, work teams, communication, leadership, organizational structures, human resource practices, and organizational cultures. Change was an integral part in our discussion of each. If environments were perfectly static, if employees’ skills and abilities were always up to date and incapable of deteriorating, and if tomorrow were always exactly the same as today, organizational change would have little or no relevance to managers. But the real world is turbulent, requiring organizations and their members to undergo dynamic change if they are to perform at competitive levels. Coping with all these changes can be a source of stress, but with effective management, challenge can enhance engagement and fulfillment, leading to the high performance that, as you’ve discovered in this text, is one major goal of the study of organizational behavior (OB). Specific implications for managers are below: Consider that, as a manager, you are a change agent in your organization. The decisions you make and your role-modeling behaviors will help shape the organization’s change culture. Your management policies and practices will determine the degree to which the organization learns and adapts to changing environmental factors. Some stress is good. Low to moderate amounts of stress enable many people to perform their jobs better by increasing their work intensity, alertness, and ability to react. This is especially true if stress arises due to challenges on the job rather than hindrances that prevent employees from doing their jobs effectively. You can help alleviate harmful workplace stress for your employees by accurately matching work-loads to employees, providing employees with stress-coping resources, and responding to their concerns. You can identify extreme stress in your employees when performance declines, turnover increases, health-related absenteeism increases, and engagement declines. However, by the time these symptoms are visible, it may be too late to be helpful, so stay alert for early indicators and be proactive. This chapter begins with a discussion of change at Hyatt Hotels. While changes can be good, such as finishing school or responding to considerable organizational growth like Hyatt has, many changes bring stress to everyone involved. This chapter is about change and stress. We describe environmental forces that require firms to change, the reasons people and organizations often resist change, and the way this resistance can be overcome. We review processes for managing organizational change. Then we move to the topic of stress and its sources and consequences. In closing, we discuss what individuals and organizations can do to better manage stress levels and realize positive outcomes for organizational behavior (OB), which, after all, is the purpose of this text in its entirety. BRIEF CHAPTER OUTLINE Change Forces for Change Organizations face a dynamic and changing environment. This requires adaptation. Exhibit 18-1 summarizes six specific forces that are acting as stimulants for change. Nature of The Workforce Almost every organization must adjust to a multicultural environment, demographic changes, immigration, and outsourcing. Technology is changing jobs and organizations. It is not hard to imagine the very idea of an office becoming an antiquated concept in the near future. Economic Shocks Led to the elimination, bankruptcy, or acquisition of some of the best-known U.S. companies, including Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, and Ameriquest. Millions of jobs were lost worldwide. Competition is Changing Competitors are as likely to come from across the ocean as from across town. Successful organizations will be fast on their feet, capable of developing new products rapidly and getting them to market quickly. Social trends don’t remain static either. Consumers who are otherwise strangers now meet and share product information in chat rooms and blogs. Consumers, employees, and organizational leaders are more sensitive to environmental concerns. “Green” practices are quickly becoming expected rather than optional. World Politics A global context for OB is required. No one could have imagined how world politics would change in recent years. We’ve seen a major set of financial crises that have rocked global markets, a dramatic rise in the power and influence of China, and dramatic shakeups in government across the Arab world. Planned Change Some organizations treat all change as an accidental occurrence; however, change as an intentional, goal-oriented activity is planned change. There are two goals of planned change: Improve the ability of the organization to adapt to changes in its environment. Change employee behavior. Change agents can be managers, employees of the organization, or outside consultants. Many change agents fail because of organizational resistance to change. Resistance to Change Introduction Our egos are fragile, and we often see change as threatening. These reactions can sap the organization of vital energy when it is most needed. Resistance to change can be positive if it leads to open discussion and debate. Resistance to change does not necessarily surface in standardized ways. Resistance can be overt, implicit, immediate, or deferred. Exhibit 18-2 summarizes the major forces for resistance to change categorized by their sources. It’s worth noting that not all change is good. Overcoming Resistance to Change Communication Resistance can be reduced on two levels through communicating to help employees see the logic of a change. Participation It is difficult for individuals to resist a change decision in which they participated. Prior to making a change, those opposed can be brought into the decision process, assuming they have the expertise to make a meaningful contribution. The negatives—potential for a poor solution and great time consumption. Building support and commitment When employees’ fear and anxiety are high, counseling and therapy, new-skills training, or a short paid leave of absence may facilitate adjustment. When managers or employees have low emotional commitment to change, they favor the status quo and resist it. So firing up employees can also help them emotionally commit to the change rather than embrace the status quo. Develop positive relationships People are more willing to accept changes if they trust the managers implementing them. Implementing changes fairly One way organizations can minimize negative impact is to make sure change is implemented fairly. Manipulation and cooptation Manipulation refers to covert influence attempts. Cooptation is a form of both manipulation and participation. It seeks to “buy off” the leaders of a resistance group by giving them a key role in the change decision. Both manipulation and cooptation are relatively inexpensive and easy ways to gain support. The tactics can backfire if the targets become aware that they are being tricked or used. Selecting people who accept change Research suggests the ability to easily accept and adapt to change is related to personality—some people simply have more positive attitudes about change than others. Individuals higher in general mental ability are also better able to learn and adapt to changes in the workplace. In sum, an impressive body of evidence shows organizations can facilitate change by selecting people predisposed to accept it. Studies have shown that teams that are strongly motivated by learning about and mastering tasks are better able to adapt to changing environments. Coercion Coercion is the application of direct threats or force upon the resisters. Examples of coercion are threats of transfer, loss of promotions, negative performance evaluations, and a poor letter of recommendation. The Politics of Change Change threatens the status quo, making it an inherently political activity. Politics suggests the impetus for change is more likely to come from outside change agents, employees new to the organization (who have less invested in the status quo), or managers slightly removed from the main power structure. Managers who have spent their entire careers with a single organization and eventually achieve a senior position in the hierarchy are often major impediments to change. It is a very real threat to their status and position, yet, they may be expected to implement changes. By acting as change agents, they can convey to stockholders, suppliers, employees, and customers that they are addressing problems and adapting to a dynamic environment. Approaches to Managing Organizational Change Lewin’s Three-Step Model (Exhibit 18-3) Kurt Lewin argued that successful change in organizations should follow three steps: Unfreezing the status quo. Movement to a new state. Refreezing the new change to make it permanent. The status quo can be considered to be an equilibrium state. To move from this equilibrium—to overcome the pressures of both individual resistance and group conformity—unfreezing is necessary. (Exhibit 18-4) Companies that have been successful in the past are likely to encounter restraining forces because people question the need for change. Once the change has been implemented, the new situation needs to be refrozen so that it can be sustained over time. Kotter’s Eight-Step Plan for Implementing Change (Exhibit 18-5) John Kotter of the Harvard Business School built on Lewin’s three-step model to create a more detailed approach for implementing change. Kotter began by listing common mistakes managers make when trying to initiate change. They may fail: To create a sense of urgency about the need for change. To create a coalition for managing the change process. To have a vision for change and effectively communicate it. To remove obstacles that could impede the vision’s achievement. To provide short-term and achievable goals, and to anchor the changes into the organization’s culture. They may also declare victory too soon. Kotter then established eight sequential steps to overcome these problems. They’re listed in Exhibit 18-5. Notice how Kotter’s first four steps essentially extrapolate Lewin’s “unfreezing” stage. Steps 5, 6, and 7 represent “movement, ” and the final step works on “refreezing.” So Kotter’s contribution lies in providing managers and change agents with a more detailed guide for successfully implementing change. Action Research Action research is a change process based on the systematic collection of data and then selection of a change action based on what the analyzed data indicate. The process consists of five steps: diagnosis, analysis, feedback, action, and evaluation. These steps closely parallel the scientific method. Diagnosis begins by gathering information about problems, concerns, and needed changes from members of the organization. Analysis of information is synthesized into primary concerns, problem areas, and possible actions. Action research includes extensive involvement of the people who will be involved in the change program. Feedback requires sharing with employees what has been found from steps one and two and the development of a plan for the change. Evaluation is the final step to assess the action plan’s effectiveness. Using the initial data gathered as a benchmark, any subsequent changes can be compared and evaluated. Action research provides at least two specific benefits for an organization. First, it is problem-focused. The change agent objectively looks for problems and the type of problem determines the type of change of action. Second, resistance to change is reduced. Once employees have actively participated in the feedback stage, the change process typically takes on a momentum of its own. Organizational Development Introduction Organizational development (OD) is a collection of change methods that try to improve organizational effectiveness and employee well-being. The OD methods value human and organizational growth, collaborative and participative processes, and a spirit of inquiry. Contemporary OD borrows heavily from postmodern philosophy in placing heavy emphasis on the subjective ways in which people see their environment. There are six interventions that change agents might consider using. They are: sensitivity training, survey feedback, process consultation, team building, intergroup development, and appreciative inquiry. Sensitivity Training It can go by a variety of names—laboratory training, groups, or T-groups (training groups)—but all refer to a thorough, unstructured group interaction. Survey Feedback Everyone can participate in survey feedback. Process Consultation An outside consultant works with clients to understand the process events managers must deal with. Team Building Team building uses high-interaction group activities to increase trust and openness among team members, improve coordinative efforts, and increase team performance. Intergroup Development A major area of concern in OD is dysfunctional conflict among groups. Intergroup development seeks to change groups’ attitudes, stereotypes, and perceptions about each other. Appreciative Inquiry This type of OD brings to light the positive, rather than the conflict. Appreciative Inquiry (AI) asks participants to look forward and project the future based on the positive components of an organization. AI is done in 4 steps Discovery Discovery sets out to identify what people think are the organization’s strengths. Dreaming Employees use information from the discovery phase to speculate on possible futures, such as what the organization will be like in 5 years. Design Participants find a common vision of how the organization will look in the future and agree on its unique qualities. Destiny Participants seek to define the organization’s destiny or how to fulfill their dream, and they typically write action plans and develop implementation strategies. AI has proven to be an effective change strategy in organizations such as GTE, Roadway Express, and the U.S. Navy. The end result of AI was a renewed culture focused on winning attitudes and behaviors. Creating a Culture for Change Introduction We’ve considered how organizations can adapt to change. But recently, some OB scholars have focused on a more proactive approach—how organizations can embrace change by transforming their cultures. In this section, we review two such approaches: stimulating an innovative culture and creating a learning organization. Managing a Paradox In a paradox situation, we are required to balance tensions across various courses of action. There is a constant process of finding a balancing point, a dynamic equilibrium, among shifting priorities over time. From this perspective, there is no such thing as a separate discipline of “change management” because all management is dealing with constant change and adaptation. The idea of paradox sounds abstract, but more specific concepts have begun to emerge from a growing body of research. Several key paradoxes have been identified. Learning is a paradox because it requires building on the past while rejecting it at the same time. Organizing is a paradox because it calls for setting direction and leading while requiring empowerment and flexibility. Performing is a paradox between creating organization-wide goals to concentrate effort and recognizing the diverse goals of stakeholders inside and outside the organization. And finally, belonging is a paradox between establishing a sense of collective identity and acknowledging our desire to be recognized and accepted as unique individuals. Managers can learn a few lessons from paradox theory, which states the key paradox in management is that there is no final optimal status for an organization. The first lesson is that as the environment and members of the organization change, different elements take on more or less importance. There is some evidence that managers who think holistically and recognize the importance of balancing paradoxical factors are more effective, especially ingenerating adaptive and creative behavior in those they are managing. Simulating a Culture of Innovation Definition of innovation Innovation, a more specialized kind of change, is a new idea applied to initiating or improving a product, process, or services. Innovations can range from small incremental improvements, such as netbook computers, to radical breakthroughs, such as Nissan’s electric Leaf car. Sources of innovation Structural variables are the most studied potential source of innovation. First, organic structures positively influence innovation because they facilitate flexibility, adaptation, and cross-fertilization. Second, long tenure in management is associated with innovation. Managerial tenure apparently provides legitimacy and knowledge of how to accomplish tasks and obtain desired outcomes. Third, innovation is nurtured where there are slack resources. Finally, inter-unit communication is high in innovative organizations. There is a high use of committee, task forces, cross-functional teams, and other mechanisms that facilitate interaction. Context and Innovation. Innovative organizations tend to have similar cultures. Within the human resources category, innovative organizations actively promote the training and development of their members so they keep current, offer high job security so employees don’t fear getting fired for making mistakes, and encourage individuals to become champions of change. Idea Champions and Innovation. Once a new idea is developed, idea champions actively and enthusiastically promote it, build support, overcome resistance, and ensure it’s implemented. Champions have common personality characteristics: extremely high self-confidence, persistence, energy, and a tendency to take risks. Idea champions have jobs that provide considerable decision-making discretion; this autonomy helps them introduce and implement innovations. People in collectivist cultures prefer appeals for cross-functional support for innovation efforts; people in high power distance cultures prefer champions to work closely with those in authority to approve innovative activities before work is begun; and the higher the uncertainty avoidance of a society, the more champions should work within the organization’s rules and procedures to develop the innovation. These findings suggest that effective managers will alter their organization’s championing strategies to reflect cultural values. Creating a Learning Organization What is a learning organization? (Exhibit 18-6) A learning organization is an organization that has developed the continuous capacity to adapt and change. All organizations learn—whether they consciously choose to or not; it is a fundamental requirement for their sustained existence. Exhibit 18-6 summarizes the five basic characteristics of a learning organization. Proponents of the learning organization envision it as a remedy for three fundamental problems of traditional organizations: fragmentation, competition, and reactiveness. First, fragmentation based on specialization creates “walls” and “chimneys” that separate different functions into independent and often warring fiefdoms. Second, an overemphasis on competition often undermines collaboration. And third, reactiveness misdirects management’s attention to problem solving rather than creation. Managing learning What can managers do to make their firms learning organizations? Establish a strategy. Redesign the organization’s structure. Reshape the organization’s culture. Organizational Change and Stress Researchers are increasingly studying the effects of organizational change on employees. We are interested in determining the specific causes and mitigating factors of stress in order to learn how to manage organizational change effectively. The overall findings are that organizational changes incorporating OB knowledge of how people react to stressors may yield more effective results than organizational changes that are only objectively managed through goal-setting. Not surprisingly, the role of leadership is critical. A recent study found that transformational leaders can help shape employee affect so employees stay committed to the change and do not perceive it as stressful. Another study indicated that a positive orientation toward change before specific changes are planned will predict how employees deal with new initiatives. Often, organizational changes are stressful because employees perceive aspects of the changes as threatening. These employees are more likely to quit, partially in reaction to their stress. To reduce the perception of threat, employees need to see the organizational changes as fair. Research indicates that those who have a positive change orientation before changes are planned are less likely to perceive changes as unfair or threatening. Stress at Work Introduction Exhibit 18-7 shows work is, for most people, the most important source of stress in life. What Is Stress? Stress is a dynamic condition in which an individual is confronted with an opportunity, constraint, or demand related to what he/she desires and for which the outcome is perceived to be both uncertain and important. Stress is not necessarily bad in and of itself. Recently, researchers have argued that challenge stressors—or stressors associated with workload, pressure to complete tasks, and time urgency—operate quite differently from hindrance stressors—or stressors that keep you from reaching your goals (for example, red tape, office politics, confusion over job responsibilities). Typically, stress is associated with resources and demands. Demands are responsibilities, pressures, obligations, and uncertainties individuals face in the workplace. Allostasis. All this may give you the impression that individuals are seeking a steady state in which demands perfectly match resources. While early research tended to emphasize such a homeostatic, or balanced equilibrium, perspective, it has now become clear that no single ideal state exists. Instead, it’s more accurate to talk about allostatic models in which demands shift, resources shift, and systems of addressing imbalances shift. By allostasis, we work to find stability by changing our behaviors and attitudes. It all depends on the allostatic load, or the cumulative effect of stressors on us given the resources we draw upon. So, much like organizations are in a constant state of change and flux, we respond to stress processes by continually adapting to both internal and external sources, and our stability is constantly redefined. Potential Sources of Stress As the model in Exhibit 18-8 shows, there are three categories of potential stressors: environmental, organizational, and personal. Environmental factors Environmental uncertainty influences stress levels among employees in an organization. Changes in the business cycle create economic uncertainties. Political un certainties in some countries can be stress inducing. Technological uncertainty can cause stress because new innovations can make an employee’s skills and experience obsolete in a very short period of time. Organizational factors Pressures to avoid errors or complete tasks in a limited time period, work overload, a demanding and insensitive boss, and unpleasant coworkers are a few examples. Task demands are factors related to a person’s job. They include the design of the individual’s job (autonomy, task variety, degree of automation), working conditions, and the physical work layout. Role demands relate to pressures that are a function of the role an individual plays in an organization. Interpersonal demands are pressures created by other employees. Personal factors These are factors in the employee’s personal life. National surveys consistently show that people hold family and personal relationships dear. Economic problems can be created by individuals overextending their financial resources. Studies in three diverse organizations found that participants who reported stress symptoms before beginning a job accounted for most of the variance in stress symptoms reported 9 months later. Stressors are additive When we review stressors individually, it’s easy to overlook that stress is an additive phenomenon—it builds up. A single stressor may be relatively unimportant in and of itself, but if it’s added to an already high level of stress, it can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. To appraise the total amount of stress an individual is under, we have to sum up his or her opportunity stresses, constraint stresses, and demand stresses. Individual Differences Four individual difference variables moderate the relationship between potential stressors and experienced stress: perception, job experience, social support, and personality. Perception: Moderates the relationship between a potential stress condition and an employee’s reaction to it. Job experience: The evidence indicates that experience on the job tends to be negatively related to work stress. Social support: Relationships with coworkers or supervisors can buffer the impact of stress. Personality trait: Perhaps the most widely studied personality trait in stress is neuroticism, discussed in Chapter 5. Workaholism is another personal characteristic related to stress levels. Workaholics are people obsessed with their work; they put in an enormous number of hours, think about work even when not working, and create additional work responsibilities to satisfy an inner compulsion to work more. Cultural Differences Research suggests the job conditions that cause stress show some differences across cultures. One study revealed that whereas U.S. employees were stressed by a lack of control, Chinese employees were stressed by job evaluations and lack of training. One study of employees in Hungary, Italy, the United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States found Type A personality traits (see Chapter 5) predicted stress equally well across countries. A study of 5, 270 managers from 20 countries found individuals from individualistic countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom experienced higher levels of stress due to work interfering with family than did individuals from collectivist countries like lAsia and Latin America. Consequences of Stress at Work Physiological symptoms Most early concern with stress was directed at physiological symptoms because most researchers were specialists in the health and medical sciences. Psychological symptoms Job dissatisfaction is an obvious cause of stress. Multiple and conflicting demands—lack of clarity as to the incumbent’s duties, authority, and responsibilities—increase stress and dissatisfaction. The less control people have over the pace of their work, the greater the stress and dissatisfaction. Behavioral symptoms Research on behavior and stress has been conducted across several countries and over time, and the relationships appear relatively consistent. Behavior-related stress symptoms include reductions in productivity, absence, and turnover, as well as changes in eating habits, increased smoking or consumption of alcohol, rapid speech, fidgeting, and sleep disorders. A significant amount of research has investigated the stress–performance relationship. The most widely studied pattern of this relationship is the inverted U.(Exhibit 18-9) The logic underlying the figure is that low to moderate levels of stress stimulate the body and increase its ability to react. Individuals then often perform their tasks better, more intensely, or more rapidly. But too much stress places unattainable demands on a person, which result in lower performance. In spite of the popularity and intuitive appeal of the inverted U model, it doesn’t get a lot of empirical support. So we should be careful of assuming it accurately depicts the stress–performance relationship. Managing Stress Introduction Because low to moderate levels of stress can be functional and lead to higher performance, management may not be concerned when employees experience them. Employees, however, are likely to perceive even low levels of stress as undesirable. What management may consider “a positive stimulus that keeps the adrenaline running” is very likely to be seen as “excessive pressure” by the employee. Individual approaches An employee can take personal responsibility for reducing stress levels. Individual strategies that have proven effective include time-management techniques, increased physical exercise, relaxation training, and expanded social support networks. Many people manage their time poorly. A few of the best-known time-management principles are: Making daily lists of activities to be accomplished. Prioritizing activities by importance and urgency. Scheduling activities according to the priorities set. Knowing your daily cycle and handling the most demanding parts of your job when you are most alert and productive. Avoiding electronic distractions like frequently checking e-mail which can limit attention and reduce efficiency. Physicians have recommended noncompetitive physical exercise, such as aerobics, walking, jogging, swimming, and riding a bicycle, as a way to deal with excessive stress levels. Individuals can also teach themselves to reduce tension through relaxation techniques such as meditation, hypnosis, and deep breathing. Organizational Approaches Several organizational factors that cause stress—particularly task and role demands—are controlled by management and thus can be modified or changed. Strategies to consider include improved employee selection and job placement, training, realistic goal-setting, redesign of jobs, increased employee involvement, improved organizational communication, employee sabbaticals, and corporate wellness programs. Selection and Placement. Certain jobs are more stressful than others but, as we’ve seen, individuals differ in their response to stressful situations. We know individuals with little experience or an external locus of control tend to be more prone to stress. Selection and placement decisions should take these facts into consideration. Obviously, management shouldn’t restrict hiring to only experienced individuals with an internal locus, but such individuals may adapt better to high-stress jobs and perform those jobs more effectively. Similarly, training can increase an individual’s self-efficacy and thus lessen job strain. We discussed goal-setting in Chapter 7. Individuals perform better when they have specific and challenging goals and receive feedback on their progress toward these goals. Goals can reduce stress as well as provide motivation. Employees who are highly committed to their goals and see purpose in their jobs experience less stress because they are more likely to perceive stressors as challenges rather than hindrances. Specific goals perceived as attainable clarify performance expectations. In addition, goal feedback reduces uncertainties about actual job performance. The result is less employee frustration, role ambiguity, and stress. Redesigning jobs to give employees more responsibility, more meaningful work, more autonomy, and increased feedback can reduce stress because these factors give employees greater control over work activities and lessen dependence on others. Role stress is detrimental to a large extent because employees feel uncertain about goals, expectations, how they’ll be evaluated, and the like. Increasing formal organizational communication with employees reduces uncertainty by lessening role ambiguity and role conflict. Some employees need an occasional escape from the frenetic pace of their work. Companies including Genentech, American Express, Intel, General Mills, Microsoft, Morningstar, DreamWorks Animation, and Adobe Systems have begun to provide extended voluntary leaves. Our final suggestion is organizationally supported wellness programs. Summary and Implications for Managers The need for change has been implied throughout this text. For instance, think about attitudes, motivation, work teams, communication, leadership, organizational structures, human resource practices, and organizational cultures. Change was an integral part in our discussion of each. If environments were perfectly static, if employees’ skills and abilities were always up to date and incapable of deteriorating, and if tomorrow were always exactly the same as today, organizational change would have little or no relevance to managers. But the real world is turbulent, requiring organizations and their members to undergo dynamic change if they are to perform at competitive levels. Coping with all these changes can be a source of stress, but with effective management, challenge can enhance engagement and fulfillment, leading to the high performance that, as you’ve discovered in this text, is one major goal of the study of organizational behavior (OB). Specific implications for managers are below: Consider that, as a manager, you are a change agent in your organization. The decisions you make and your role-modeling behaviors will help shape the organization’s change culture. Your management policies and practices will determine the degree to which the organization learns and adapts to changing environmental factors. Some stress is good. Low to moderate amounts of stress enable many people to perform their jobs better by increasing their work intensity, alertness, and ability to react. This is especially true if stress arises due to challenges on the job rather than hindrances that prevent employees from doing their jobs effectively. You can help alleviate harmful workplace stress for your employees by accurately matching work-loads to employees, providing employees with stress-coping resources, and responding to their concerns. You can identify extreme stress in your employees when performance declines, turnover increases, health-related absenteeism increases, and engagement declines. However, by the time these symptoms are visible, it may be too late to be helpful, so stay alert for early indicators and be proactive. EXPANDED CHAPTER OUTLINE Change Forces for Change Organizations face a dynamic and changing environment. This requires adaptation. Exhibit 18-1 summarizes six specific forces that are acting as stimulants for change. Nature of The Workforce Almost every organization must adjust to a multicultural environment, demographic changes, immigration, and outsourcing. Technology is changing jobs and organizations. It is not hard to imagine the very idea of an office becoming an antiquated concept in the near future. Economic Shocks Led to the elimination, bankruptcy, or acquisition of some of the best-known U.S. companies, including Merrill Lynch, Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, and Ameriquest. Millions of jobs were lost worldwide. Competition is Changing Competitors are as likely to come from across the ocean as from across town. Successful organizations will be fast on their feet, capable of developing new products rapidly and getting them to market quickly. Social trends don’t remain static either. Consumers who are otherwise strangers now meet and share product information in chat rooms and blogs. Companies must continually adjust product and marketing strategies to be sensitive to changing social trends, as Liz Claiborne did when it sold off fashion brands (such as Ellen Tracy), deemphasized large vendors such as Macy’s, and streamlined operations and cut staff. Consumers, employees, and organizational leaders are more sensitive to environmental concerns. “Green” practices are quickly becoming expected rather than optional. World Politics A global context for OB is required. No one could have imagined how world politics would change in recent years. We’ve seen a major set of financial crises that have rocked global markets, a dramatic rise in the power and influence of China, and dramatic shakeups in government across the Arab world. Throughout the industrialized world, businesses—particularly in the banking and financial sectors—have come under new scrutiny. Planned Change Some organizations treat all change as an accidental occurrence; however, change as an intentional, goal-oriented activity is planned change. There are two goals of planned change: Improve the ability of the organization to adapt to changes in its environment. Change employee behavior. Who in organizations are responsible for managing change activities? Change agents can be managers, employees of the organization, or outside consultants. Many change agents fail because of organizational resistance to change. Resistance to Change Introduction Our egos are fragile, and we often see change as threatening. Employees who have negative feelings about a change cope by not thinking about it, increasing their use of sick time, and quitting. All these reactions can sap the organization of vital energy when it is most needed. Resistance to change can be positive if it leads to open discussion and debate. These responses are usually preferable to apathy or silence and can indicate that members of the organization are engaged in the process, providing change agents an opportunity to explain the change effort. Change agents can also monitor the resistance to modify the change to fit the preferences of other members. Resistance to change does not necessarily surface in standardized ways. Resistance can be overt, implicit, immediate, or deferred. It is easiest for management to deal with resistance when it is overt and immediate. Implicit resistance efforts are more subtle—loss of loyalty to the organization, loss of motivation to work, increased errors or mistakes, increased absenteeism due to “sickness”—and hence more difficult to recognize. Similarly, deferred actions cloud the link between the source of the resistance and the reaction to it. A single change of little inherent impact may be the straw that broke the camel’s back because resistance to earlier change was deferred and stockpiled, and what surfaces is a cumulative response. Exhibit 18-2 summarizes the major forces for resistance to change categorized by their sources. Five reasons why individuals may resist change are: Habit. Life is complex, to cope with having to make hundreds of decisions everyday, we all rely on habits or programmed responses. Security. People with a high need for security are likely to resist change because it threatens their feelings of safety. Economic factors. Another source of individual resistance is concern that changes will lower one’s income. Fear of the unknown. Changes substitute ambiguity and uncertainty for the known. Selective information processing. Individuals shape their world through their perceptions. Once they have created this world, it resists change. There are six major sources of organizational resistance: (Exhibit 18-2) Structural inertia. Organizations have built-in mechanisms to produce stability; this structural inertia acts as a counterbalance to sustainability. Limited focus of change. Organizations are made up of a number of interdependent subsystems. Changing one affects the others. Group inertia. Group norms may act as a constraint. Threat to expertise. Changes in organizational patterns may threaten the expertise of specialized groups. Threat to established power relationships. Redistribution of decision- making authority can threaten long-established power relationships. Threat to established resource allocations. Groups in the organization that control sizable resources often see change as a threat. They tend to be content with the way things are. It’s worth noting that not all change is good. Speed can lead to bad decisions, and sometimes those initiating change fail to realize the full magnitude of the effects or their true costs. Rapid, transformational change is risky, and some organizations have collapsed for this reason. Overcoming Resistance to Change Communication Resistance can be reduced on two levels through communicating to help employees see the logic of a change. Participation It is difficult for individuals to resist a change decision in which they participated. Prior to making a change, those opposed can be brought into the decision process, assuming they have the expertise to make a meaningful contribution. The negatives—potential for a poor solution and great time consumption. Building support and commitment When employees’ fear and anxiety are high, counseling and therapy, new-skills training, or a short paid leave of absence may facilitate adjustment. When managers or employees have low emotional commitment to change, they favor the status quo and resist it. So firing up employees can also help them emotionally commit to the change rather than embrace the status quo. Develop positive relationships People are more willing to accept changes if they trust the managers implementing them. One study surveyed 235 employees from a large housing corporation in the Netherlands that was experiencing a merger. Those who had a more positive relationship with their supervisors, and who felt that the work environment supported development, were much more positive about the change process. Implementing changes fairly One way organizations can minimize negative impact is to make sure change is implemented fairly. As we saw in Chapter 7, procedural fairness is especially important when employees perceive an outcome as negative, so it’s crucial that employees see the reason for the change and perceive its implementation as consistent and fair. Manipulation and cooptation Manipulation refers to covert influence attempts, twisting and distorting facts to make them appear more attractive, withholding undesirable information, and creating false rumors to get employees to accept a change. Cooptation is a form of both manipulation and participation. It seeks to “buy off” the leaders of a resistance group by giving them a key role in the change decision. Both manipulation and cooptation are relatively inexpensive and easy ways to gain support. The tactics can backfire if the targets become aware that they are being tricked or used. Selecting people who accept change Research suggests the ability to easily accept and adapt to change is related to personality—some people simply have more positive attitudes about change than others. Such individuals are open to experience, take a positive attitude toward change, are willing to take risks, and are flexible in their behavior. One study of managers in the United States, Europe, and Asia found those with a positive self-concept and high-risk tolerance coped better with organizational change. A study of 258 police officers found those higher in growth-needs strength, internal locus of control, and internal work motivation had more positive attitudes about organizational change efforts. Individuals higher in general mental ability are also better able to learn and adapt to changes in the workplace. In sum, an impressive body of evidence shows organizations can facilitate change by selecting people predisposed to accept it. Besides selecting individuals who are willing to accept changes, it is also possible to select teams that are more adaptable. Studies have shown that teams that are strongly motivated by learning about and mastering tasks are better able to adapt to changing environments. This research suggests that it may be necessary to consider not just individual motivation, but also group motivation when trying to implement changes. Coercion Coercion is the application of direct threats or force upon the resisters. Examples of coercion are threats of transfer, loss of promotions, negative performance evaluations, and a poor letter of recommendation. The Politics of Change Change threatens the status quo, making it an inherently political activity. Politics suggests the impetus for change is more likely to come from outside change agents, employees new to the organization (who have less invested in the status quo), or managers slightly removed from the main power structure. Managers who have spent their entire careers with a single organization and eventually achieve a senior position in the hierarchy are often major impediments to change. It is a very real threat to their status and position, yet, they may be expected to implement changes. By acting as change agents, they can convey to stockholders, suppliers, employees, and customers that they are addressing problems and adapting to a dynamic environment. Of course, as you might guess, when forced to introduce change, these longtime power holders tend to implement incremental changes. Radical change is too threatening. This explains why boards of directors that recognize the imperative for rapid and radical change frequently turn to outside candidates for new leadership. Approaches to Managing Organizational Change Lewin’s Three-Step Model (Exhibit 18-3) Kurt Lewin argued that successful change in organizations should follow three steps: Unfreezing the status quo. Movement to a new state. Refreezing the new change to make it permanent. The status quo can be considered to be an equilibrium state. To move from this equilibrium—to overcome the pressures of both individual resistance and group conformity—unfreezing is necessary. (Exhibit 18-4) The driving forces, which direct behavior away from the status quo, can be increased. The restraining forces, which hinder movement from the existing equilibrium, can be decreased. A third alternative is to combine the first two approaches. Companies that have been successful in the past are likely to encounter restraining forces because people question the need for change. Research on organizational change has shown that in order to be effective, the actual change has to happen quickly. Once the change has been implemented, the new situation needs to be refrozen so that it can be sustained over time. Unless this last step is taken, there is a very high chance that the change will be short-lived and that employees will attempt to revert to the previous equilibrium state. The objective of refreezing is to stabilize the new situation by balancing the driving and restraining forces. Kotter’s Eight-Step Plan for Implementing Change (Exhibit 18-5) John Kotter of the Harvard Business School built on Lewin’s three-step model to create a more detailed approach for implementing change. Kotter began by listing common mistakes managers make when trying to initiate change. They may fail: To create a sense of urgency about the need for change. To create a coalition for managing the change process. To have a vision for change and effectively communicate it. To remove obstacles that could impede the vision’s achievement. To provide short-term and achievable goals, and to anchor the changes into the organization’s culture. They may also declare victory too soon. Kotter then established eight sequential steps to overcome these problems. (Exhibit 18-5) Notice how Kotter’s first four steps essentially extrapolate Lewin’s “unfreezing” stage. Steps 5, 6, and 7 represent “movement, ” and the final step works on “refreezing.” So Kotter’s contribution lies in providing managers and change agents with a more detailed guide for successfully implementing change. Action Research Action research is a change process based on the systematic collection of data and then selection of a change action based on what the analyzed data indicate. The process consists of five steps: diagnosis, analysis, feedback, action, and evaluation. These steps closely parallel the scientific method. Diagnosis begins by gathering information about problems, concerns, and needed changes from members of the organization. Analysis of information is synthesized into primary concerns, problem areas, and possible actions. Action research includes extensive involvement of the people who will be involved in the change program. Feedback requires sharing with employees what has been found from steps one and two and the development of a plan for the change. Action is the step where the change agent and employees set into motion the specific actions to correct the problems that were identified. Evaluation is the final step to assess the action plan’s effectiveness. Using the initial data gathered as a benchmark, any subsequent changes can be compared and evaluated. Action research provides at least two specific benefits for an organization. First, it is problem-focused. The change agent objectively looks for problems and the type of problem determines the type of change of action. Second, resistance to change is reduced. Once employees have actively participated in the feedback stage, the change process typically takes on a momentum of its own. Organizational Development Introduction Organizational development (OD) is a collection of change methods that try to improve organizational effectiveness and employee well-being. The OD methods value human and organizational growth, collaborative and participative processes, and a spirit of inquiry. Contemporary OD borrows heavily from postmodern philosophy in placing heavy emphasis on the subjective ways in which people see their environment. There are six interventions that change agents might consider using. They are: sensitivity training, survey feedback, process consultation, team building, intergroup development, and appreciative inquiry. Sensitivity Training It can go by a variety of names—laboratory training, groups, or T-groups (training groups)—but all refer to a thorough unstructured group interaction. Organizational interventions such as diversity training, executive coaching, and team-building exercises are descendants of this early OD intervention technique. Survey Feedback Everyone can participate in survey feedback. A questionnaire is usually completed by a manager and all his/her subordinates. Surveys generally probe perceptions held by employees. Data from the survey are calculated for an individual’s “family” (work group). Feedback and discussions should lead to implications. Process Consultation An outside consultant works with clients to understand the process events managers must deal with. This is similar to sensitivity training in its assumption that interpersonal involvement is important to highlight. The consultant coaches his/her client through the problem. Team Building Team building uses high-interaction group activities to increase trust and openness among team members, improve coordinative efforts, and increase team performance. Here, we emphasize the intragroup level, meaning organizational families (command groups) as well as committees, project teams, self-managed teams, and task groups. Team building typically includes goal-setting, development of interpersonal relations among team members, role analysis to clarify each member’s role and responsibilities, and team process analysis. It may emphasize or exclude certain activities, depending on the purpose of the development effort and the specific problems with which the team is confronted. Basically, however, team building uses high interaction among members to increase trust and openness. Intergroup Development A major area of concern in OD is dysfunctional conflict among groups. Intergroup development seeks to change groups’ attitudes, stereotypes, and perceptions about each other. Here, training sessions closely resemble diversity training (in fact, diversity training largely evolved from intergroup development in OD), except rather than focusing on demographic differences, they focus on differences among occupations, departments, or divisions within an organization. In one company, the engineers saw the accounting department as composed of shy and conservative types and the human resources department as having a bunch of “ultra-liberals more concerned that some protected group of employees might get their feelings hurt than with the company making a profit.” Such stereotypes can have an obvious negative impact on coordination efforts among departments. Among several approaches for improving intergroup relations, a popular one emphasizes problem solving. Each group meets independently to list its perceptions of itself and of the other group and how it believes the other group perceives it. The groups share their lists, discuss similarities and differences, and look for the causes of disparities. Once they have identified the causes of the difficulty, the groups move to the integration phase—developing solutions to improve relations between them. Subgroups can be formed of members from each of the conflicting groups to conduct further diagnosis and formulate alternative solutions. Appreciative Inquiry This type of OD brings to light the positive, rather than the conflict. Appreciative Inquiry (AI) asks participants to look forward and project the future based on the positive components of an organization. AI is done in 4 steps: Discovery Discovery sets out to identify what people think are the organization’s strengths. Employees recount times they felt the organization worked best or when they specifically felt most satisfied with their jobs. Dreaming Employees use information from the discovery phase to speculate on possible futures, such as what the organization will be like in 5 years. Design Participants find a common vision of how the organization will look in the future and agree on its unique qualities. Destiny Participants seek to define the organization’s destiny or how to fulfill their dream, and they typically write action plans and develop implementation strategies. AI has proven to be an effective change strategy in organizations such as GTE, Roadway Express, and the U.S. Navy. The end result of AI was a renewed culture focused on winning attitudes and behaviors. Creating a Culture for Change Introduction We’ve considered how organizations can adapt to change. But recently, some OB scholars have focused on a more proactive approach—how organizations can embrace change by transforming their cultures. In this section, we review two such approaches: stimulating an innovative culture and creating a learning organization. Managing a Paradox In a paradox situation, we are required to balance tensions across various courses of action. There is a constant process of finding a balancing point, a dynamic equilibrium, among shifting priorities over time. From this perspective, there is no such thing as a separate discipline of “change management” because all management is dealing with constant change and adaptation. The idea of paradox sounds abstract, but more specific concepts have begun to emerge from a growing body of research. Several key paradoxes have been identified. Learning is a paradox because it requires building on the past while rejecting it at the same time. Organizing is a paradox because it calls for setting direction and leading while requiring empowerment and flexibility. Performing is a paradox between creating organization-wide goals to concentrate effort and recognizing the diverse goals of stakeholders inside and outside the organization. And finally, belonging is a paradox between establishing a sense of collective identity and acknowledging our desire to be recognized and accepted as unique individuals. Managers can learn a few lessons from paradox theory, which states the key paradox in management is that there is no final optimal status for an organization. The first lesson is that as the environment and members of the organization change, different elements take on more or less importance. There is some evidence that managers who think holistically and recognize the importance of balancing paradoxical factors are more effective, especially ingenerating adaptive and creative behavior in those they are managing. Simulating a Culture of Innovation Definition of innovation Innovation, a more specialized kind of change, is a new idea applied to initiating or improving a product, process, or services. So all innovations imply change, but not all changes necessarily introduce new ideas or lead to significant improvements. Innovations can range from small incremental improvements, such as netbook computers, to radical breakthroughs, such as Nissan’s electric Leaf car. Sources of innovation Structural variables are the most studied potential source of innovation. First, organic structures positively influence innovation because they facilitate flexibility, adaptation, and cross-fertilization. Second, long tenure in management is associated with innovation. Managerial tenure apparently provides legitimacy and knowledge of how to accomplish tasks and obtain desired outcomes. Third, innovation is nurtured where there are slack resources. Finally, inter-unit communication is high in innovative organizations. There is a high use of committee, task forces, cross-functional teams and other mechanisms that facilitate interaction. Context and Innovation. Innovative organizations tend to have similar cultures. They encourage experimentation. They reward both successes and failures. They celebrate mistakes. Managers in innovative organizations recognize that failures are a natural by-product of venturing into the unknown. Within the human resources category, innovative organizations actively promote the training and development of their members so they keep current, offer high job security so employees don’t fear getting fired for making mistakes, and encourage individuals to become champions of change. Idea Champions and Innovation. Once a new idea is developed, idea champions actively and enthusiastically promote it, build support, overcome resistance, and ensure it’s implemented. Champions have common personality characteristics: extremely high self-confidence, persistence, energy, and a tendency to take risks. They also display characteristics associated with transformational leadership—they inspire and energize others with their vision of an innovation’s potential and their strong personal conviction about their mission. They are also good at gaining the commitment of others. Idea champions have jobs that provide considerable decision-making discretion; this autonomy helps them introduce and implement innovations. People in collectivist cultures prefer appeals for cross-functional support for innovation efforts; people in high power distance cultures prefer champions to work closely with those in authority to approve innovative activities before work is begun; and the higher the uncertainty avoidance of a society, the more champions should work within the organization’s rules and procedures to develop the innovation. These findings suggest that effective managers will alter their organization’s championing strategies to reflect cultural values. So, for instance, although idea champions in Russia might succeed by ignoring budgetary limitations and working around confining procedures, champions in Austria, Denmark, Germany, or other cultures high in uncertainty avoidance will be more effective by closely following budgets and procedures. Creating a Learning Organization What’s a learning organization? (Exhibit 18-6) A learning organization is an organization that has developed the continuous capacity to adapt and change. Exhibit 18-6 summarizes the five basic characteristics of a learning organization. It’s one in which people put aside their old ways of thinking, learn to be open with each other, understand how their organization really works, form a plan or vision everyone can agree on, and work together to achieve that vision. Proponents of the learning organization envision it as a remedy for three fundamental problems of traditional organizations: fragmentation, competition, and reactiveness. First, fragmentation based on specialization creates “walls” and “chimneys” that separate different functions into independent and often warring fiefdoms. Second, an overemphasis on competition often undermines collaboration. Managers compete to show who is right, who knows more, or who is more persuasive. Divisions compete when they ought to cooperate and share knowledge. Team leaders compete to show who the best manager is. And third, reactiveness misdirects management’s attention to problem solving rather than creation. The problem solver tries to make something go away, while a creator tries to bring something new into being. An emphasis on reactiveness pushes out innovation and continuous improvement and, in its place, encourages people to run around “putting out fires.” Managing learning What can managers do to make their firms learning organizations? Establish a strategy. Management needs to make explicit its commitment to change, innovation, and continuous improvement. Redesign the organization’s structure. The formal structure can be a serious impediment to learning. Flattening the structure, eliminating or combining departments, and increasing the use of cross-functional teams reinforces interdependence and reduces boundaries. Reshape the organization’s culture. To become a learning organization, managers must demonstrate by their actions that taking risks and admitting failures are desirable. That means rewarding people who take chances and make mistakes. And management needs to encourage functional conflict. Organizational Change and Stress Researchers are increasingly studying the effects of organizational change on employees. We are interested in determining the specific causes and mitigating factors of stress in order to learn how to manage organizational change effectively. The overall findings are that organizational changes incorporating OB knowledge of how people react to stressors may yield more effective results than organizational changes that are only objectively managed through goal-setting. Not surprisingly, the role of leadership is critical. A recent study found that transformational leaders can help shape employee affect so employees stay committed to the change and do not perceive it as stressful. Another study indicated that a positive orientation toward change before specific changes are planned will predict how employees deal with new initiatives. Often, organizational changes are stressful because employees perceive aspects of the changes as threatening. These employees are more likely to quit, partially in reaction to their stress. To reduce the perception of threat, employees need to see the organizational changes as fair. Research indicates that those who have a positive change orientation before changes are planned are less likely to perceive changes as unfair or threatening. Stress at Work Introduction Exhibit 18-7 shows work is, for most people, the most important source of stress in life. What Is Stress? Stress is a dynamic condition in which an individual is confronted with an opportunity, constraint, or demand related to what he/she desires and for which the outcome is perceived to be both uncertain and important. Stress is not necessarily bad in and of itself. Individuals often use stress positively to rise to the occasion and perform at or near their maximum. Recently, researchers have argued that challenge stressors—or stressors associated with workload, pressure to complete tasks, and time urgency—operate quite differently from hindrance stressors—or stressors that keep you from reaching your goals (for example, red tape, office politics, confusion over job responsibilities). Although research is just starting to accumulate, early evidence suggests challenge stressors produce less strain than hindrance stressors. Researchers have sought to clarify the conditions under which each type of stress exists. It appears that employees who have a stronger affective commitment to their organization can transfer psychological stress into greater focus and higher sales performance, whereas employees with low levels of commitment perform worse under stress. And when challenge stress increases, those with high levels of organizational support have higher role-based performance, but those with low levels of organizational support do not. Demands and Resources. Typically, stress is associated with resources and demands. Demands are responsibilities, pressures, obligations, and uncertainties individuals face in the workplace. Resources are things within an individual’s control that he or she can use to resolve the demands. To the extent you can apply resources to the demands on you—such as being prepared, placing an event into perspective, or obtaining social support—you will feel less stress. Research suggests adequate resources help reduce the stressful nature of demands when demands and resources match. If emotional demands are stressing you, having emotional resources in the form of social support is especially important. Thus, under the demands-resources perspective, having resources to cope with stress is just as important in offsetting it as demands are in increasing it. Allostasis. All this may give you the impression that individuals are seeking a steady state in which demands perfectly match resources. While early research tended to emphasize such a homeostatic, or balanced equilibrium, perspective, it has now become clear that no single ideal state exists. Instead, it’s more accurate to talk about allostatic models in which demands shift, resources shift, and systems of addressing imbalances shift. By allostasis, we work to find stability by changing our behaviors and attitudes. It all depends on the allostatic load, or the cumulative effect of stressors on us given the resources we draw upon. So, much like organizations are in a constant state of change and flux, we respond to stress processes by continually adapting to both internal and external sources, and our stability is constantly redefined. Potential Sources of Stress As the model in Exhibit 18-8 shows, there are three categories of potential stressors: environmental, organizational, and personal. Environmental factors. Environmental uncertainty influences stress levels among employees in an organization. Changes in the business cycle create economic uncertainties. Political uncertainties in some countries can be stress inducing. Technological uncertainty can cause stress because new innovations can make an employee’s skills and experience obsolete in a very short period of time. Organizational factors Pressures to avoid errors or complete tasks in a limited time period, work overload, a demanding and insensitive boss, and unpleasant coworkers are a few examples. Task demands are factors related to a person’s job. They include the design of the individual’s job (autonomy, task variety, degree of automation), working conditions, and the physical work layout. Role demands relate to pressures that are a function of the role an individual plays in an organization. Role conflicts create expectations that may be hard to reconcile or satisfy. Role overload is experienced when the employee is expected to do more than time permits. Role ambiguity is created when role expectations are not clearly understood. Interpersonal demands are pressures created by other employees. A rapidly growing body of research has also shown that negative coworker and supervisor behaviors, including fights, bullying, incivility, racial harassment, and sexual harassment, are especially strongly related to stress at work. Personal factors These are factors in the employee’s personal life. Primarily, these factors are family issues, personal economic problems, and inherent personality characteristics. National surveys consistently show that people hold family and personal relationships dear. Economic problems can be created by individuals overextending their financial resources. Stressors are additive. When we review stressors individually, it’s easy to overlook that stress is an additive phenomenon—it builds up. A single stressor may be relatively unimportant in and of itself, but if it’s added to an already high level of stress, it can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. To appraise the total amount of stress an individual is under, we have to sum up his or her opportunity stresses, constraint stresses, and demand stresses. Individual Differences Four individual difference variables moderate the relationship between potential stressors and experienced stress: perception, job experience, social support, and personality. Perception: Moderates the relationship between a potential stress condition and an employee’s reaction to it. Stress potential doesn’t lie in objective conditions; it lies in an employee’s interpretation of those conditions. Job experience: The evidence indicates that experience on the job tends to be negatively related to work stress. Two explanations: First is the idea of selective withdrawal. Voluntary turnover is more probable among people who experience more stress. Second, people eventually develop coping mechanisms to deal with stress. Social support: Relationships with coworkers or supervisors can buffer the impact of stress. Social support acts as a palliative, mitigating the negative effects of even high-strain jobs. Personality trait Perhaps the most widely studied personality trait in stress is neuroticism, discussed in Chapter 5. As you might expect, neurotic individuals are more prone to experience psychological strain. Evidence suggests that neurotic individuals are more prone to believe there are stressors in their work environments, so part of the problem is that they believe their environments are more threatening. They also tend to select less adaptive coping mechanisms, relying on avoidance as a way of dealing with problems rather than attempting to resolve them. Workaholism is another personal characteristic related to stress levels. Workaholics are people obsessed with their work; they put in an enormous number of hours, think about work even when not working, and create additional work responsibilities to satisfy an inner compulsion to work more. In some ways, they might seem like ideal employees. That’s probably why when most people are asked in interviews what their greatest weakness is, they reflexively say, “I just work too hard.” There is a difference between working hard and working compulsively. Workaholics are not necessarily more productive than other employees, despite their extreme efforts. The strain of putting in such a high level of work effort eventually begins to wear on the workaholic, leading to higher levels of work-life conflict and psychological burnout. Cultural Differences Research suggests the job conditions that cause stress show some differences across cultures. One study revealed that whereas U.S. employees were stressed by a lack of control, Chinese employees were stressed by job evaluations and lack of training. It doesn’t appear that personality effects on stress are different across cultures, however. One study of employees in Hungary, Italy, the United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States found Type A personality traits (see Chapter 5) predicted stress equally well across countries. A study of 5, 270 managers from 20 countries found individuals from individualistic countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom experienced higher levels of stress due to work interfering with family than did individuals from collectivist countries like Asia and Latin America. The authors proposed that this may occur because, in collectivist cultures, working extra hours is seen as a sacrifice to help the family, whereas in individualistic cultures, work is seen as a means to personal achievement that takes away from the family. Evidence suggests that stressors are associated with perceived stress and strains among employees in different countries. In other words, stress is equally bad for employees of all cultures. Consequences of Stress at Work Physiological symptoms Most early concern with stress was directed at physiological symptoms because most researchers were specialists in the health and medical sciences. Their work led to the conclusion that stress could create changes in metabolism, increase heart and breathing rates and blood pressure, bring on headaches, and induce heart attacks. Evidence now clearly suggests stress may have harmful physiological effects. One study linked stressful job demands to increased susceptibility to upper-respiratory illnesses and poor immune system functioning, especially for individuals with low self-efficacy. A long-term study conducted in the United Kingdom found that job strain was associated with higher levels of coronary heart disease. Still another study conducted with Danish human services workers found that higher levels of psychological burnout at the work-unit level were related to significantly higher levels of sickness absence. Many other studies have shown similar results linking work stress to a variety of indicators of poor health. Psychological symptoms Job dissatisfaction is an obvious cause of stress. Multiple and conflicting demands—lack of clarity as to the incumbent’s duties, authority, and responsibilities—increase stress and dissatisfaction. The less control people have over the pace of their work, the greater the stress and dissatisfaction. Behavioral symptoms Research on behavior and stress has been conducted across several countries and over time, and the relationships appear relatively consistent. Behavior-related stress symptoms include reductions in productivity, absence, and turnover, as well as changes in eating habits, increased smoking or consumption of alcohol, rapid speech, fidgeting, and sleep disorders. A significant amount of research has investigated the stress–performance relationship. The most widely studied pattern of this relationship is the inverted U.(Exhibit 18-9) The logic underlying the figure is that low to moderate levels of stress stimulate the body and increase its ability to react. Individuals then often perform their tasks better, more intensely, or more rapidly. But too much stress places unattainable demands on a person, which result in lower performance. In spite of the popularity and intuitive appeal of the inverted U model, it doesn’t get a lot of empirical support. So we should be careful of assuming it accurately depicts the stress–performance relationship. As we mentioned earlier, researchers have begun to differentiate challenge and hindrance stressors, showing that these two forms of stress have opposite effects on job behaviors, especially job performance. A meta-analysis of responses from more than 35, 000 individuals showed role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, job insecurity, environmental uncertainty, and situational constraints were all consistently negatively related to job performance. There is also evidence that challenge stress improves job performance in a supportive work environment, whereas hindrance stress reduces job performance in all work environments. Managing Stress Introduction Because low to moderate levels of stress can be functional and lead to higher performance, management may not be concerned when employees experience them. Employees, however, are likely to perceive even low levels of stress as undesirable. It’s not unlikely, therefore, for employees and management to have different notions of what constitutes an acceptable level of stress on the job. What management may consider “a positive stimulus that keeps the adrenaline running” is very likely to be seen as “excessive pressure” by the employee. Individual approaches An employee can take personal responsibility for reducing stress levels. Individual strategies that have proven effective include time-management techniques, increased physical exercise, relaxation training, and expanded social support networks. Many people manage their time poorly. The well-organized employee, like the well-organized student, can often accomplish twice as much as the person who is poorly organized. So an understanding and utilization of basic time-management principles can help individuals better cope with tensions created by job demands. A few of the best-known time-management principles are: Making daily lists of activities to be accomplished. Prioritizing activities by importance and urgency. Scheduling activities according to the priorities set. Knowing your daily cycle and handling the most demanding parts of your job when you are most alert and productive. Avoiding electronic distractions like frequently checking e-mail which can limit attention and reduce efficiency. These time-management skills can help minimize procrastination by focusing efforts on immediate goals and boosting motivation even in the face of tasks that are less desirable. Physicians have recommended noncompetitive physical exercise, such as aerobics, walking, jogging, swimming, and riding a bicycle, as a way to deal with excessive stress levels. These activities increase lung capacity, lower the at-rest heart rate, and provide a mental diversion from work pressures, effectively reducing work-related levels of stress. Individuals can also teach themselves to reduce tension through relaxation techniques such as meditation, hypnosis, and deep breathing. The objective is to reach a state of deep physical relaxation, in which you focus all your energy on release of muscle tension. Deep relaxation for 15 or 20 minutes a day releases strain and provides a pronounced sense of peacefulness, as well as significant changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and other physiological factors. A growing body of research shows that simply taking breaks from work at routine intervals can facilitate psychological recovery and reduce stress significantly and may improve job performance, and these effects are even greater if relaxation techniques are employed. As we have noted, friends, family, or work colleagues can provide an outlet when stress levels become excessive. Expanding your social support network provides someone to hear your problems and offer a more objective perspective on a stressful situation than your own. Organizational Approaches Several organizational factors that cause stress—particularly task and role demands—are controlled by management and thus can be modified or changed. Strategies to consider include improved employee selection and job placement, training, realistic goal-setting, redesign of jobs, increased employee involvement, improved organizational communication, employee sabbaticals, and corporate wellness programs. Selection and Placement. Certain jobs are more stressful than others but, as we’ve seen, individuals differ in their response to stressful situations. We know individuals with little experience or an external locus of control tend to be more prone to stress. Selection and placement decisions should take these facts into consideration. Obviously, management shouldn’t restrict hiring to only experienced individuals with an internal locus, but such individuals may adapt better to high-stress jobs and perform those jobs more effectively. Similarly, training can increase an individual’s self-efficacy and thus lessen job strain. Goal Setting. We discussed goal-setting in Chapter 7. Individuals perform better when they have specific and challenging goals and receive feedback on their progress toward these goals. Goals can reduce stress as well as provide motivation. Employees who are highly committed to their goals and see purpose in their jobs experience less stress because they are more likely to perceive stressors as challenges rather than hindrances. Specific goals perceived as attainable clarify performance expectations. In addition, goal feedback reduces uncertainties about actual job performance. The result is less employee frustration, role ambiguity, and stress. Redesigning Jobs. Redesigning jobs to give employees more responsibility, more meaningful work, more autonomy, and increased feedback can reduce stress because these factors give employees greater control over work activities and lessen dependence on others. But as we noted in our discussion of work design, not all employees want enriched jobs. The right redesign for employees with a low need for growth might be less responsibility and increased specialization. If individuals prefer structure and routine, reducing skill variety should also reduce uncertainties and stress levels. Employee Involvement. Role stress is detrimental to a large extent because employees feel uncertain about goals, expectations, how they’ll be evaluated, and the like. By giving these employees a voice in the decisions that directly affect their job performance, management can increase employee control and reduce role stress. Thus, managers should consider increasing employee involvement in decision making, because evidence clearly shows that increases in employee empowerment reduce psychological strain. Organizational Communication. Increasing formal organizational communication with employees reduces uncertainty by lessening role ambiguity and role conflict. Given the importance that perceptions play in moderating the stress–response relationship, management can also use effective communications as a means to shape employee perceptions. Remember that what employees categorize as demands, threats, or opportunities at work is an interpretation and that interpretation can be affected by the symbols and actions communicated by management. Employee Sabbaticals. Some employees need an occasional escape from the frenetic pace of their work. Companies including Genentech, American Express, Intel, General Mills, Microsoft, Morningstar, DreamWorks Animation, and Adobe Systems have begun to provide extended voluntary leaves. These sabbaticals—ranging in length from a few weeks to several months—allow employees to travel, relax, or pursue personal projects that consume time beyond normal vacations. Proponents say they can revive and rejuvenate workers who might otherwise be headed for burnout. Wellness Programs. Our final suggestion is organizationally supported wellness programs. These typically provide workshops to help people quit smoking, control alcohol use, lose weight, eat better, and develop a regular exercise program; they focus on the employee’s total physical and mental condition. Some help employees improve their psychological health as well. A meta-analysis of 36 programs designed to reduce stress (including wellness programs) showed that interventions to help employees reframe stressful situations and use active coping strategies appreciably reduced stress levels. Most wellness programs assume employees need to take personal responsibility for their physical and mental health and that the organization is merely a means to that end. Summary and Implications for Managers The need for change has been implied throughout this text. For instance, think about attitudes, motivation, work teams, communication, leadership, organizational structures, human resource practices, and organizational cultures. Change was an integral part in our discussion of each. If environments were perfectly static, if employees’ skills and abilities were always up to date and incapable of deteriorating, and if tomorrow were always exactly the same as today, organizational change would have little or no relevance to managers. But the real world is turbulent, requiring organizations and their members to undergo dynamic change if they are to perform at competitive levels. Coping with all these changes can be a source of stress, but with effective management, challenge can enhance engagement and fulfillment, leading to the high performance that, as you’ve discovered in this text, is one major goal of the study of organizational behavior (OB). Specific implications for managers are below: Consider that, as a manager, you are a change agent in your organization. The decisions you make and your role-modeling behaviors will help shape the organization’s change culture. Your management policies and practices will determine the degree to which the organization learns and adapts to changing environmental factors. Some stress is good. Low to moderate amounts of stress enable many people to perform their jobs better by increasing their work intensity, alertness, and ability to react. This is especially true if stress arises due to challenges on the job rather than hindrances that prevent employees from doing their jobs effectively. You can help alleviate harmful workplace stress for your employees by accurately matching work-loads to employees, providing employees with stress-coping resources, and responding to their concerns. You can identify extreme stress in your employees when performance declines, turnover increases, health-related absenteeism increases, and engagement declines. However, by the time these symptoms are visible, it may be too late to be helpful, so stay alert for early indicators and be proactive. Career Objectives How can I bring my team’s overall stress level down? My coworkers and I are under a lot of pressure because we have a huge deadline coming up. We’re working a lot of extra hours, and tensions are starting to ramp up to arguments. Is there any way I can get my team to chill out? — Hakim Dear Hakim: It sounds like you’re facing some of the core issues that produce stress at work: high demands, critical outcomes, and time pressure. There’s no question that tempers can start to flare under these conditions. While it may not even be desirable to get your team to relax, or chill out, as you say, lowering your team’s aggregate stress level will increase your group’s effectiveness. Fortunately, there are some well-established ways to help lower stress in groups. Some of the most effective are directly related to getting people to recommit to the team: To help minimize infighting, get the group to focus on a common goal. Shared objectives are one of the most effective ways to reduce conflict in times of stress, and they remind everyone that cooperation is key. Review what the team has done and what steps toward the goal remain. When the team can see how much work they have accomplished, they will naturally feel better. When the team feels most tense, take a collective temporary break. It can be difficult to step away from a project with heavy time demands, but working at a point of maximum tension and conflict is often counterproductive. A chance to stop and gain perspective will help everyone recharge and focus. Remember that minimizing team stress shouldn’t happen through lowering standards and accepting lower-quality work, but by reducing counterproductive organizational behavior. A positive work environment with high member engagement will do a lot to move the group forward. A combination of focus, progress, and perspective will ultimately be the best approach to limiting your stress. Sources: P. M. Poortvliet, F. Anseel, and F. Theuwis, “Mastery-Approach and Mastery-Avoidance Goals and Their Relation with Exhaustion and Engagement at Work: The Roles of Emotional and Instrumental Support, ”Work & Stress 29 (April 2015): 150–70; J. P. Trougakos, D. J. Beal, B. H. Cheng, I. Hideg, and D. Zweig, “Too Drained to Help: A Resource Depletion Perspective on Daily Interpersonal Citizenship Behaviors," Journal of Applied Psychology 100 (2015): 227–36; and J. P. Trougakos, I. Hideg, B. H. Cheng, and D. J. Beal, “Lunch Breaks Unpacked: The Role of Autonomy as a Moderator of Recovery During Lunch,” Academy of Management Journal 57 (2014): 405–21. Myth or Science? “When You’re Working Hard, Sleep Is Optional” This is false. Individuals who do not get enough sleep are unable to perform well on the job. A recent study found that sleeplessness costs U.S. employers $63.2 billion per year, almost $2, 300 per employee, partially due to decreased productivity and increased safety issues. Sleep deprivation has been cited as a contributing factor in heart disease, obesity, stroke, and cancer. It can also lead to disastrous accidents. For example, U.S. military researchers report that sleep deprivation is one of the top causes of friendly fire (when soldiers mistakenly fire on their own troops), and 20 percent of auto accidents are due to drowsy drivers. More than 160 people on Air India Flight 812 from Dubai to Mangalore were killed when pilot Zlatko Glusica awoke from a nap and, suffering from sleep inertia, overshot the runway in India’s third-deadliest air crash. Sleeplessness is affecting the performance of millions of workers. According to a recent study, one-third of U.S. employees in most industries, and over more than one-quarter of workers in the finance and insurance industry, are sleep-deprived, getting fewer than 6 hours of sleep per night (7 to 9 are recommended). More than 50 percent of U.S. adults age 19 to 29, 43 percent age 30 to 45, and 38 percent age 46 to 64 report that they rarely or never get a good nightly rest on weekdays. Research has shown that lack of sleep impairs our ability to learn skills and find solutions, which may be part of the reason law enforcement organizations, Super Bowl-winning football teams, and half of the Fortune 500 companies employ “fatigue management specialists” as performance consultants. Meanwhile, managers and employees increasingly take prescription sleep aids, attend sleep labs, and consume caffeine in efforts to either sleep better or reduce the effects of sleeplessness on their performance. These methods often backfire. Studies indicate that prescription sleep aids increase sleep time by only 11 minutes and cause short-term memory loss. The effects of sleep labs may not be helpful after the sessions are over. And the diminishing returns of caffeine, perhaps the most popular method of fighting sleep deprivation (74 percent of U.S. adults consume caffeine per day), require the ingestion of increasing amounts to achieve alertness, which can make users jittery before the effect wears off and leave them exhausted. When you’re working hard, it’s easy to consider using sleep hours to get the job done, and to think that the stress and adrenaline from working will keep you alert. It’s also easy to consider artificial methods in attempts to counteract the negative impact of sleep deprivation. However, research indicates that when it comes to maximizing performance and reducing accidents, we are not even good at assessing our impaired capabilities when we are sleep deprived. In the end, there is no substitute for a good night’s sleep. Sources: M. J. Breus, “Insomnia Could Kill You—By Accident, ” The Huffington Post, May9, 2015, http: //www.huffingtonpost.com/ dr-michael-j-breus/insomnia-could-kill-you-byaccident_b_7235264.html; D. K. Randall, “Decoding the Science of Sleep, ” The Wall Street Journal, August 4–5, 2012, C1–C2;M. Sallinen, J. Onninen, K. Tirkkonen, M.-L. Haavisto, M. Harma, T. Kubo, et al., “Effects of Cumulative Sleep Restriction on Self-Perceptions While Multitasking, ” Journal of Sleep Research, June 2012, 273–81; and P. Walker, “Pilot Was Snoring before Air India Crash, ” The Guardian, November 17, 2010, www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/17/sleepy-pilot-blamed-air-india-crash. Class Exercise Divide the class into groups of three to five students. Ask them to discuss their sleep habits. Have they ever felt sleep deprived? Did they feel their performance at work or school was negatively affected as a result? Ask students to identify jobs where sleep deprivation is likely to occur and where it is likely to negatively affect performance. Then ask students to research how organizations are helping to reduce sleep deprivation in the workplace. Finally, ask the groups to share their findings in a class discussion. Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http: //www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. An Ethical Choice Managers and Employee Stress during Organizational Change When organizations are in a state of change, employees feel the stress. In fact, a recent study indicated that job pressures, often due to downsizing and other organizational changes, are the second leading cause of stress. Dealing with that stress has long been in the domain of workers, who could turn to constructive (counselors, health professionals, support networks) or destructive (alcohol, gossip, counterproductive work behaviors) options as coping mechanisms. Employees who couldn’t cope with stress suffered job burnout and headed to the unemployment line. Beneficent employers provided employee assistance programs (EAP) through subcontracted counselors or in-house HR departments to counsel employees dealing with stress. Managers simply steered individuals toward these resources when workplace problems indicated a need for intervention. This help often arrived too late to mitigate the negative outcomes of stress such as lost productivity and burnout—and sometimes too late to save the employee’s job. Research suggests that continually occurring job stressors, such as when organizations are in the midst of change, reduce employee engagement because workers are deprived of recovery periods. Employee stress thus needs to be addressed proactively at the manager level if it is to be effective, even before there are negative work outcomes. On the one hand, managers are responsible for maximizing productivity and realize that organizations increase profitability when fewer employees perform increased work. On the other hand, overwork will increase employee stress, particularly when the organization is in a state of change due to downsizing or growth. Managers who keep head count low and workloads high may find short-term gains from lower workforce costs but long-term losses from negative stress outcomes, such as increased turnover and lowered productivity. Experts recommend that managers consider hiring the workers they need to keep employee workloads reasonable, adding reward programs to keep top employees engaged, and cutting non-workforce costs to maintain profitability. Smaller methods, such as teaching employees stress reduction techniques and creating a “greenery room” for a nature retreat from the office environment, can also be helpful. Managers must make the ethical choice between spending more money now on labor costs and stress reduction methods versus later on the more hidden but salient costs of employee stress. As research increasingly indicates, when employees react to stress, they and their organizations suffer the consequences. Managers must, therefore, consider their opportunity to help alleviate the stress before it’s too late. Sources: E. Frauenheim, “Stressed & Pressed, ” Workforce Management (January 2012), pp. 18–22; J. B. Oldroyd and S. S. Morris, “Catching Falling Stars: A Human Resource Responses to Social Capital’s Detrimental Effect of Information Overload on Star Employees, ” Academy of Management Review 37 (2012), pp. 396–418; and S. Sonnentag, E. J. Mojza, E. Demerouti, and A. B. Bakker, “Reciprocal Relations Between Recovery and Work Engagement: The Moderating Role of Job Stressors, ” Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (2012), pp. 842–853. Class Exercise Divide the class into teams of three to five students each. Ask the student teams to share information with each other about stress they have experienced in school. They might mention such things as project deadlines, group dysfunction, dating, bullying, social networking, and others. Have the students discuss how they managed the stress, if they did. Have the groups create an action plan using concepts from the chapter to improve their stress management skills. Ask the teams to report to the class on what they believe to be good approaches to managing stress. Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http: //www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Personal Inventory Assessments Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale How well can you tolerate the ambiguity that change brings? Take this PIA to learn more about your tolerance level for this challenge. Point/Counterpoint Companies Should Encourage Stress Reduction Point Companies make substantial investments in their employees, so the health and well-being of the workforce is a central concern. One of the most direct ways to provide assistance to employees is to engage in one of the stress-reduction interventions described in this chapter. One major financial benefit of stress reduction programs is a reduction in health-related costs. Workplace stress leads to dozens of negative and expensive health-related consequences. Stress weakens the immune system, leading to increased illness and sickness absences. If employees feel extreme stress related to work, they may be more likely to come in when they are contagious, leading to sickness for many others. Over the long run, stress levels can also contribute to conditions like heart disease that ultimately result in very expensive medical treatments. These medical treatments, in turn, increase employer health insurance expenses. Reductions in employee stress can facilitate job performance. Employees who are overburdened have difficulty concentrating, can lose energy and motivation at work, and find it difficult to come up with new and creative ideas. Stress can also create conflicts with coworkers and lead to rude or hostile treatment of clients or customers. Ultimately, employees who are experiencing high levels of stress may leave, so all the costs associated with turnover are incurred. Stress reduction programs also have an ethical component. The workplace generates a great deal of stress for many employees, so employers have a certain responsibility to offset its negative consequences. Stress reduction programs are a direct way to help employees feel better. Finally, when employers show concern for employees by helping reduce stress, employees feel more committed. Counterpoint While employers may have a direct financial interest in certain elements of stress reduction, it’s worth asking whether investing in stress reduction programs is actually a good idea. The first problem is operational. Some stress reduction interventions are expensive, requiring professional facilitators or exercise equipment. These can take a long time to show financial returns, and the up-front costs of researching, designing, and implementing them are substantial. A growing number of corporations report that the expected returns on investment in wellness programs have failed to materialize. And the time employees spend on stress reduction interventions is time they spend not working. Another problem is that stress reduction programs are invasive. Should your boss or other individuals in the workplace tell you how you're supposed to feel? Many stress reduction programs step even further into employees’ personal lives by encouraging open discussions about sources of stress. Do you really want your manager and coworkers to know why you’re experiencing stress? The more sensitive topics related to stress are discussed, the harder it is to keep work relationships professional. A final concern is that it is too hard to draw the line between stress from work and general life stress. A company’s stress reduction program tries to target problems of work overload or social conflict, but these issues often affect other areas of life. How should a stress reduction program operate when the reasons for employee stress come, say, from a sick relative or conflicts with family members? Sources: L. Vanderkam, “The Dark Side of Corporate Wellness Programs,” Fast Company, June 8, 2015, http://www.fastcompany.com/3047115/the-dark-side-of-corporate-wellness-programs ; D. R. Stover and J. Wood, “Most Company Wellness Programs Are a Bust,” Gallup Business Journal, February 4, 2015, http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/181481/company-wellness-programs-bust.aspx; A. Frakt and A. E. Carroll, “Do Wellness Programs Work? Usually Not, ” New York Times, September 11, 2014, http: //www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/upshot/do-workplace-wellnessprograms-work-usually-not.html. Class Exercise Choose two teams of three to five students each. (The rest of the class will act as a jury.) Have them prepare, outside of class, one side of the issue to debate in class, Point or Counterpoint. Create a controlled debate, giving each side up to 8 minutes to make its case, 3 minutes to cross-examine the other side, 5 minutes in class to prepare a 3-to-5 minute rebuttal, and then a final 1-minute closing argument. Have the remainder of the class vote on who made the stronger case. Close with a discussion of the issue, leading the students to understand that this is not an either/or situation, and that the best response incorporates elements of both positions. This will take approximately 45-60 minutes. Instructor Manual for Organizational Behavior Timothy A. Judge Stephen P. Robbins 9781292146300, 9780133507645, 9780136124016

Document Details

Related Documents

person
Jackson Garcia View profile
Close

Send listing report

highlight_off

You already reported this listing

The report is private and won't be shared with the owner

rotate_right
Close
rotate_right
Close

Send Message

image
Close

My favorites

image
Close

Application Form

image
Notifications visibility rotate_right Clear all Close close
image
image
arrow_left
arrow_right