Organizationally‐induced work stress: The role of employee bureaucratic orientation

Abstract

Purpose

This paper offers a model that illustrates the relationship between organizational structure, work stress and perceived strain based on the concept of bureaucratic orientation.

Design/methodology/approach

After a brief review of the stress and structure literatures, a number of propositions are developed concerning organizationally‐induced stressors that are fostered by mechanistic or organic structures. Next, a model is presented illustrating the impact of members' bureaucratic orientation on the organizationally induced stressor‐strain relationship.

Findings

It is argued that highly‐mechanized structures manifest different stressors for employees from highly organic structures. The model also demonstrates how organizationally‐induced stressors such as role conflict and ambiguity mediate the relation between structure and strain. However, the extent to which these stressors result in perceived strain is also dependent on employees' predisposition toward dominance, autonomy, achievement, ambiguity and control. Based on the model and propositions presented, conclusions and suggestions for future research are provided.

Practical implications

Noted implications include more flexible workplace rules for female executives to eliminate stress associated with work‐family conflict as well as improved effectiveness of social support and person‐organization fit based on individual bureaucratic orientation.

Originality/value

This paper uniquely advocates consideration of employee bureaucratic orientation and organizational structure in relation to person‐organization fit and work stress. The propositions offered are of value to practitioners and researchers due to their implications for fostering person‐organization fit and reducing work stress.

Citation

Conner, D.S. and Douglas, S.C. (2005), "Organizationally‐induced work stress: The role of employee bureaucratic orientation", Personnel Review, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 210-224. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480510579439