لخّصلي

1. 
   

   INTRODUCTION
   Stress is a universal phenomenon and references to it can be found as early as the 14th century. Stress is a process in which environmental
   A Theoretical Framework of Stress Management - Contemporary Approaches, Models and Theories events or personal factors pose a challenge to the physical or mental health of an individual and in which the individual tries to face such challenge and saves himself from the danger created by these conditions (Father Bulake, 1971). Stress may be defined as an internal state, which can be caused by physical demands of the body, e.g. , disease conditions, exercise and the like or by environmental and social situations which are evaluated as potentially harmful, uncontrollable or exceeding our resources for coping. has come into wide use in behavioral studies, originating in the physical sciences, the term means a force which, acting on a body, produces strain or deformation. In physical, biological sciences and behavioral study, the concept of stress meant an extreme condition, involving tension, some form of resistance to the straining power or a discomfort or non acceptance towards a situation. Along with the physical responses, psychological responses such as anxiety, hopelessness, depression, irritability, fear and a general feeling of not being able to cope with the work can result from the stress situation. What is stressful to one individual may be refreshing challenge to another depending upon individual's perception of the state of affairs as well as his own aptitude to cope with that situation. Major types, symptoms, associated factors of stress include frustration, depression, conflict and pressure, which ultimately produce physiological and psychological stress.

   
   


2. 
   

   STRESS – INTERPRETATIONS OF RESEARCHERS
   The term stress in Engineering implies an inherent capacity to withstand stress .Research Psychologist Sandi Mann of University of Sal ford (1998) stated that employees who are under in creaming pressure to appear enthusiastic, interested, cheerful, and friendly at all times in their work place are highly A Theoretical Framework of Stress Management - Contemporary Approaches, Models and Theories places.
   Randall and Elizebeth (1994) define occupational stress as the interaction of the work conditions with the characterists of the worker, such that the demands of work exceed the ability of the worker to cope with them:
   Using network technology, Electronic Performance Monitoring (EPM) systems provide managers with access to them employee's computer terminals and telephone, allowing managers to determine at any moment throughout the day, the pace at which employees are working, time taken and so on. Thus the study by John R. Aiello, Karthryn, J. Kolla (1995), which examined how productivity and stress are affected by EPM, showed that EPM is linked with increased stress and therefore decreased productivity. In Physics, stress" is force, which acts on a body to produce strain.
   In Physiology, stress refers to the changes in physiological function in response to the factors causing stress. In Psychology it refers to a state of the organism resulting form serve interaction with the environment in Psycho- Physiology, the term stress" is that stimulus which imposes detectable strain that cannot be easily accommodated by the body and so presents itself as impaired health or behavior. Lazarus, (1966) made tremendous contribution to the study of Psychological stress he suggests a more comprehensive definition of stress as a generic term as a whole area of problems that include the stimuli producing stress reactions. The study of Anita and Carolyn (1995) tested the effects of various demographic and socio-economic variables on perceived stress among bank employees in both work and non-work environment and established significant correlation between perceived stress in the work and non-work environment among the same bank employees.
   Fireman (1979) views stress as a Psychological response state of negative effect, characterized by a persistent and high level of experienced anxiety of tension he further views stress as a condition of organic damage resulting from strain. The businessperson views stress as frustration or emotional tension; the air traffic controller sees it as a problem of alertness and concentration; the biochemist thinks of it as a purely chemical event. The term refers to the environmental stimulus and the term strain refers to individual's response, which can be Physical, Psychological, or Behaivoural indicators of ill health/wellbeing of the individual. Stephen William (1990) in his book kittled -Managing Pressures for Peak performance - posture approaches to stress defines or start of the process of stress, which is the outcome or the possible response to pressures.
   According to Dewe (1991) the concept stress, which dominates current research, is an extension of the appraisal hypothesis, that stress represents a relationship between a stressor and an individual's reaction. Mason (1975) defines stress as a state wherein expected functioning gets disrupted.

   
   


3. 
   

   APPROACHES TO STRESS:

   
   

Welford (1973) introduced a specific form of approach to stress, based on stimulus in which he defined stress in terms of demand. He suggested that human body will perform better in case of balanced demand and a tranquility of mind is maintained identical to the physiological homeostasis. If the demand is extremely high or extremely low,
Performance will be influenced. According to Cox & Griffiths (1995), majority people are agreed on that there is no specific definition of stress. Cox and Griffiths (1995) indicate that there are maximum three different ideas to define the stress. These ideas are engineering approach, physiological approach and psychological approach.

The engineering approach is an approach where stress is considered a feature of the environment in terms of demands expected from an individual, stress as an independent variable precedes to the negative health outcomes. Symonds states (1947, cited in Cox & Griffiths, 1995) that ―stress is that which happens to the individual, not that which happens in him‖. Stress and health outcomes are separate but interrelated to each other. Stress is actually a combination of causes, not a combination of diseases. There are various causes of stress and stress leads to the health problems. The physiological approach is an approach where the stress is defined on the basis of biological or physiological changes, which come in an individual as a result of stress. Selye, 1930 (cited in Cox & Griffiths, 1995) was a leading supporter of this approach, and supposed that negative physiological responses are occurred in an individual because of harmful stimuli of environment. This happens in three levels: warn, fighting and tiredness.

Selye (1946) stated that stress is flexible in the short run in which one can keep safe himself from threat and avoid danger but in the current era of modernity; the increasing demands are causing continuous stress in individuals that lead to negative health outcomes. Selye named this a ―Disease of Adaptation‖.
The third approach is the psychological approach by Cox and Griffiths (1995) where stress is not considered only a reaction, but it’s an active state that happens to an individual as a result of an interaction with the environment (Cox et al. 2000). Cox (1987) termed this as ―the stress process‖ and approves a cognitive theory, which is related with the psychological changes that result when a person is under stress.
Cox and Griffiths (1995) informs that the concepts of engineering and physiological approaches are weakened, because these theories tell us that people respond to the threat slowly and do not clarify the certain effects of emotional or situational factors on performance and welfare. For instance, there is the impact of noise on intellectual tasks in which noise type is an important element for the performance instead the level of the noise. In addition, in psychological approaches individual differences affect the stress process because of the individualistic elements like personality, gender, dealing abilities etc. Why some people can deal with stress easily while the others cannot, will be answered by these individualistic factors. People can deal with stress according to their personalities or characteristics.

4. MODELS OF STRESS
   4.1 Systematic theory: Selye's Theory of Stress Hans Selye has been regarded as the founder of modern stress theory (Capel & Gurnsey, 1987).One of the first attempts to explain the process of stress related illness was given in Selye (1976) whereby the individual experiences three stages during the stress response. The stereotypical response pattern, called the General Adaptation Syndrome' (GAS), proceeds in three stages. The three stages were referred to as GAS or the Generalized Adaptation Syndrome and are as follows: 1. Alarm Reaction: In this first phase, resistance is lowered and is followed by a counter shock whereby the individual's defense mechanisms become more active.GAS is essentially a defence mechanism of the human body, a means of coping with stimuli which threaten its homeostasis or stability. If the stress continues and defence mechanisms do not work, the individual moves to the third stage. Selye's views also emphasize the physiology of stress due to his use of animals in his research, neglecting the aspects unique to humans, such as perception and interpretation of stressful experiences (Brannon & Feist, 1997). Critics of Selye's work indicate that it ignores the psychological impact of stress on an individual and his/her ability to recognize stress and to act in ways to change the situation or the impact of that stress (Cartwright & Cooper, 1997).Resistance Stage: this is the stage of maximum adaptation and should ideally represent are turn to equilibrium for the individual. Exhaustion: - In this stage the adaptive mechanisms collapse.2.3. 4.2. Psychological Stress: The Lazarus Theory Two concepts are central to any psychological stress theory: appraisal, i.e., individuals' evaluation of the significance of what is happening for their well-being, and coping, i.e., individuals' efforts in thought and action to manage specific demands (Lazarus 1993).In the latest version (see Lazarus 1991), stress is regarded as a relational concept, i.e., stress is not defined as a specific kind of external stimulation nor a specific pattern of physiological, behavioral, or subjective reactions. Within primary appraisal, three components are distinguished: goal relevance describes the extent to which an encounter refers to issues about which the person cares.Psychological stress refers to a relationship with the environment that the person appraises as significant for his or her well being and in which the demands tax or exceed available coping resources' (Lazarus and Folkman 1986, p. 63).Lazarus recognized that individuals use three kinds of appraisal to analyze situations namely: Primary appraisal, Secondary appraisal and Reappraisal.Since its first presentation as a comprehensive theory (Lazarus 1966), the Lazarus stress theory has undergone several essential revisions (cf.This definition points to two processes as central mediators within the person-environment transaction: cognitive appraisal and coping.Goal congruence defines the extent to which an episode proceeds in accordance with personal goals.Lazarus,,s research (in Brannon & Feist, 1997) revealed that the ability of people to think and evaluate future events makes them more vulnerable in ways that animals are not.A stressful appraisal would indicate the
   individual sees the situation as harmful or threatening.This type of interpretation is likely to generate an emotion or what Lazarus refers to as -harm?Type of ego- involvement designates aspects of personal commitment such as self- esteem, moral values, ego-ideal, or ego-identity.Three secondary appraisal components are distinguished: blame or credit results from an individual's appraisal of who is responsible for a certain event.Thus the effect that stress has on the individual is based on that individual's feelings of vulnerability and ability to cope.Primary Appraisal concerns the first encounter with the stressful event. Reappraisal does not always reduce the stress; it can increase it since a previously non-threatening situation may be viewed as threatening once more information has become available.as the individual's confidence in overcoming the demands of the situation. After the individual's appraisal of the event, he /she forms an impression of his or her ability to control or cope with the situation, be it -harm? This stage is referred to as a secondary appraisal. This implies that the individual's appraisals of the situation may change as new information becomes available. Lazarus 1991, Lazarus and Folkman 1984, Lazarus and Launier 1978).Instead, stress is viewed as a relationship (`transaction') between individuals and their environment.
   4.3. Cox’ s Theory of Stress
   According to Cox (1978, 1985) the individual becomes stressed when a discrepancy occurs between the perceived level of the stressful demands and his/her perceived ability to respond to and to cope with the demands. Ox (1985) emphasizes that the stress phases experienced by the individual involve a complex interactive process with various levels of appraisal, emotion and response, with the immediate response to a stressful situation being in the form of negative emotion, propelling the individual into flight or fight action. This view would suggest that if the individual can perceive environmental and psychological demands made on him, he can learn (for example, through counselling as a form of intervention to recognize which are the best resources to call upon when confronted with perceived stressful demands. Ox (1978, 1985) maintains that stress is an imbalance between a perceived demand and a perceived capability, with the demands changing at various levels of appraisal during the phases of the stress process. The individuals makes an assessment of the social support available (external factors) and appraises his or her internal strengths or limitations in order to deal with the stressor. There is thus an imbalance between a perceived demand and a perceived capacity to cope. Ox (1985) notes that: The classic stressful situation is one in which the person's resources are not well matched to the level of demand and where there are constraints on coping and little social support. It is to do with the person's perception of the work environment and the emotional experience of it. Cox (1978, 1985) maintains that perception plays an important role in recognizing stressors.

4.4. Resource Theories of Stress: A Bridge between Systemic and Cognitive Viewpoints

Unlike approaches discussed so far, resource theories of stress are not primarily concerned with factors that create stress, but with resources that preserve wellbeing in the face of stressful encounters. Several social and personal constructs have been proposed, such as social support (Schwarzer and Leppin 1991), sense of coherence (Antonovsky 1979), hardiness (Kobasa 1979), self-efficacy (Bandura 1977), or optimism (Scheier and Carver 1992).The recently offered conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll 1989, Hobfoll et al. 1996) assumes that stress occurs in any of three contexts: when people experience loss of resources, when resources are threatened, or when people invest their resources without subsequent gain.whereas self-efficacy and optimism are single protective factors, hardiness and sense of coherence represent tripartite approaches.Four categories of resources are proposed: object resources (i.e., physical objects such as home, clothing, or access to transportation), condition resources (e.g., employment, personal relationships), personal resources (e.g., skills or self-efficacy), and energy resources (means that facilitate the attainment of other resources, for example, money, credit, or knowledge).Similarly, sense of coherence consists of believing that the world is meaningful, predictable, and basically benevolent.
4.5. Different Perspectives, Different Theories
Attempt is not made to cover all of the (numerous) theories relating to stress, but rather to discuss a few major ones that have highlighted, different, albeit complementary, different perspectives. While acknowledging the definitional difficulties surrounding terms like happiness and unhappiness, and the preference at times to use the term well-being, Warr (Warr & Clapperton, 2010) suggests that happiness should be considered not just in terms of its energising and tranquil forms, but also in terms of whether it is being used in a contextual (work) sense or even a facet (work component) sense.Similarly, when individual differences are considered in terms of how they trigger positive beliefs, these authors point to how such beliefs aid individuals, create positive appraisals, develop resources for managing demanding encounters, and shift the focus towards those aspects of the work environment that help create the context for positive opportunities.(Cooper) which, when focused at the individual level, suggests a complex cycle connected by four processes: the appraisal process (interpreting events); the choice process (the choice of a coping response); the performance process (the coping phase); and the outcome process (the consequences for the individual; Shupe & McGrath, 2000).While Warr (2007) and Warr and Clapperton (2010) point out the way different personality traits in fl uence happiness, and how happiness also depends on the different sorts of comparisons individuals make about themselves in relation to others, they also raise the issue of whether individuals have a consistency in their levels of happiness---a baseline?Shupe and McGrath go on to outline the complexity of these interconnected process and the implications this complexity has for researchers in terms of measurement and interpretation.Another approach is offered by Nelson and Simmons (2003, 2004) and Simmons and Nelson (2007), who integrate into their holistic stress model the positive qualities of eustress and propose that the appraisal of any encounter can produce positive or negative meanings. When considering the environment, Warr (Warr & Clapperton, 2010) identifies 12 sources of work happiness, but recognizes that there is no correct number of work sources, as these will differ across and within jobs, and will depend also on individual differences.This brief overview cannot capture the level of analysis, the scope of the research or the complexity that resides within Warr's ( 2007 ) vitamin theory. that fl ows from this approach, however, is that happiness-unhappiness comes not just from the different work sources, but is also derived from within and that -possible improvements must be sought for both directions?While arguing that it is now time to include the positive as well as the negative into our theories of stress, these authors suggest that studying work stress should be -best thought of as a constellation of theories and models that each addresses a meaningful process or phenomenon? For instance, the theory of stress outlined by Shupe and McGrath (2000) describes -a dynamic, adaptive process theory? Each of the theories discussed offers a different perspective for understanding the transaction between the individual and the environment. When exploring work and happiness, Warr (2007) draws attention to the transaction between the person and the environment. Similarly, Cummings and Cooper (2000) offer a -cybernetic theory? The role of individual differences also plays a part in the work-happiness equation. Interestingly, these authors go on to point to their concept of-savouring the positive?(Warr & Clapperton, 2010, p. 177).5.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
   The different theories reflect a number of perspectives, but all offer a lens through which the person-environment transaction can be explored. So, it is important for researchers to continually evaluate whether current measurement practices allow these meanings to emerge, expressed in a way that captures their explanatory richness.as seems generally agreed, is initiated through the process of appraisal, then perhaps by focusing on these meanings that individuals give to demanding encounters will help us identify an-organizing concept? It is the appraisal process that has the potential to provide a rich explanatory pathway, and one that enables us to begin the process of working towards the role of discrete emotions and away from the troublesome concept of stress fulfilling our moral responsibility to those who's working lives we explore. Each offers a dynamic view of the stress process, emphasizing the importance of the context within which the transaction between the person and the environment takes place. Many of these theories draw attention not just to the -contribution of the person as opposed to the environment, in creating organizational stress? Capturing the meaning individuals give to stressful encounters cannot, of course, be separated from measurement. For the future.