Posts

Type A and Hi-Tech: A Dangerous Mix

Tower of Babel by Bruegel at Stresshacker.comWhat does the relentless push of technology into our lives do to our ability to manage stress and to our health in general? It depends on the personality. For individuals who have a type A personality, multiple e-mail addresses available from any platform, high-speed anywhere Internet access, smart mobile phones, tablets, and e-readers have enabled even greater flexibility and mobility in teleworking and telecommuting. In effect, traditional boundaries between the different roles at work, in the family, at leisure have been blurred or even removed.

In addition to the advancing technology, economic conditions have made short-term employment, work on time-limited projects, and working two or even three part-time jobs simultaneously increasingly more common.

Type A individuals claim that this new rhythm of life has produced beneficial effects in terms of greater task variety and flexibility. Thanks to these ubiquitous and always-on hardware devices and the software tools they provide, there often is no break of continuity between work and non-work states, between being somewhere dedicated to work activities and being somewhere else, where relationships or relaxation are possible. Again, for the type A personality, this is just fine–at least in theory and by their own admission.

Type A Individuals Thrive…At Their Own Peril?

Type A personality is characterized by an extreme sense of time urgency, frequent impatience with one’s self and others, high competitiveness, and more frequent aggression and/or hostility (either in the form of overt outbursts, or constricted and internalized through tight behavioral control). Clinical evidence indicates that there is at least an increased risk of stress in these individuals due to their proneness to work overload, disruption of natural circadian patterns, role conflicts, lack of time for relationships, for sufficient rest and energy replenishment through sleep or relaxation activities.

This particular personality type, given the current availability of communication and connection devices, appears to thrive in this environment that promotes maximum efficiency, high productivity, a faster pace of work output, and competitiveness.

Is this a competitive advantage for individuals who happen to possess these personality traits, or is this a potential problem? Apparently, higher productivity and efficiency are desirable outcomes. From a business efficiency point of view, they most definitely are. This may explain why significant technological resources are being devoted by an increasing number of companies toward making this always-on-the-job state of affairs a reality for their employees. It is seen as a competitive advantage over other companies (which are fewer and fewer) that shut down at a reasonable hour and do not work on weekends.

Most type A individuals proclaim to “love” this uninterrupted access to the marketplace and the instantaneous availability that is demanded of them.

There are however potentially serious health consequences, unless the individual can set and maintain reasonable and appropriate boundaries.

Type A personality have long been known to be at risk in terms of elevated blood pressure, increased heart rate, higher blood lipids, and near-continuous catecholamine (stress hormone) output. Intensive, frequent, and sustained activation of these physiological stress responses can contribute to the atherosclerotic process and to blood clotting. This prolonged state of arousal can cause, with type A behavior, an elevated risk of myocardial infarction. A longitudinal study by Barefoot et al., found that medical students with high scores on the Cook-Medley hostility scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)–which would indicate type A personalities– had a six fold increase in mortality when followed up 25 years later, mainly due to coronary heart disease.

The negative psychosocial and socioeconomic factors in which type A behavior appears to thrive is associated with increased risk of serious illness and mortality because of the elevated activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) system and the increased secretion of the stress hormone cortisol. A very high workload, such as regularly working more than 10 hours of overtime per week, is also associated with markedly elevated cortisol levels. Prolonged and sustained activity of the HPA system is related to a series of endocrine and metabolic effects, causing, among other things, increased storage of fat in the abdominal region.

It is a mixed blessing, to say the least, for type A personality to see modern technology facilitate and indeed augment their relentless rhythm of activity. Is the risk really worth the reward?

Stress and Burnout Endanger Clergy Health

26741243chsma

Members of the clergy are more likely to suffer from stress-related illnesses such as obesity, arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma and depression than most Americans. These are the first published results of the continuing survey of 1,726 ministers, which began in 2007 and is being conducted in North Carolina by the Clergy Health Initiative at Duke University. Researchers Proeschold-Bell and LeGrand report that the obesity rate among clergy aged 35–64 years is nearly 40%, or over 10% higher than among the local population.

A similar survey by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (and cited by the New York Times) reported 69% of its ministers as being overweight, 64% as having high blood pressure, and 13% as taking prescription antidepressants. Similarly, a 2005 survey of Presbyterian clergy had reported that occupational stress and burnout played a factor in 4 times as many ministers leaving the profession during the first five years of ministry, as compared with the 1970s.

What Is Occupational Burnout?

According to its most widely accepted definition, occupational burnout includes:

  1. Emotional exhaustion, which can result in diminished interest in work, fatigue, and detachment.
  2. Depersonalization, or the defensive distancing from the surrounding world, which can result in diminished contact with coworkers and the public, withdrawal of psychological investment, self-absorption, and negative attitude toward others.
  3. Dissatisfaction, or the perception of unsatisfactory personal accomplishment, which can result in feelings of failure, fatalism, diminished competence, and incapacity to respond to further environmental demands.

There are several theories that have been proposed to explain the genesis and development of occupational burnout. Read about them after the jump, with some suggested remedies and a summary of the most recent research.

Read more

Business of Stress: Self-efficacy Predicts Success

StradaCampoImperatore In the demands-control model of occupational stress a situation is created whereby high demands are placed on the individual with little opportunity to exercise control over the work environment or the task design. This is the most common type of workplace stressor and it has been shown to have an impact on cardiovascular health. But is the problem simply a matter of demands/control stress diathesis? Why isn’t everyone succumbing to heart disease? Indeed, many individuals seem to thrive even in work environments where personal control is minimal and job demands are chronically high. How?

At least a partial explanation can be found in self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the perception that personal resources are adequate to meet life’s demands. Even in situations of low control/high demands, adequate self-efficacy can act as an important protective factor.

When personal resources are perceived as lower than perceived job demands, low self-efficacy results. Task demands are felt to exceed coping abilities, which often creates emotional and physiological overload. Prolonged exposure to occupational stress with low self-efficacy increases vulnerability to burnout, which is characterized by physical and emotional exhaustion, interpersonal difficulties, apathy toward personal accomplishment, and occupational disengagement through cynicism about the importance or worth of one’s work contribution.

Individuals with adequate self-efficacy believe that their available personal resources are sufficient and may even exceed what is required by their workloads. In day-to-day work activities, this belief in one’s adequate resources accompanies the process of assessing tasks and personal capabilities: in most instances, the perceived balance is in favor of having more than what it takes and the task is undertaken with vigor and confidence. Read more