Advertisement

General Conclusion

  • Marc Loriol
Chapter

Abstract

What does social constructionism tell us about understanding and managing stress problems at work? The conclusion will bring together the various ideas and arguments put forward in the previous chapters and will discuss the theoretical and practical implications of interest to both academics and practitioners. Informal meetings and discussions about work should not be considered a waste of time. Disputes over work and working conditions express the difficulties of cooperation and the divergent interests of organizational stakeholders. To ignore them will only make matters worse and risk turning them into personal failings. Establishing and facilitating newer and less formal modes of communication among different organizational stakeholders may help clarify compromises between quality and productivity. All of these processes are likely to facilitate the emergence of a new and more flexible collective response to the problems currently diminishing people’s ability to engage in work, in ways that are beneficial for both the employer and the employee.

References

  1. Allard-Poesi, F., & Hollet-Haudebert, S. (2017). The sound of silence: Measuring suffering at work. Human Relations, 70(12), 1442–1463.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717703449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). The new accountability, student failure, and teachers’ work in urban high schools. Educational Policy, 17(3), 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, D. (2013). One nation under stress the trouble with stress as an idea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, M. K. (1988). Working the street: Police discretion and the dilemmas of reform. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Delaunois, M., Malchaire, J., & Piette, A. (2002). Classification des méthodes d’évaluation du stress en entreprise. Médecine du travail & ergonomie, XXXIV(1), 13–28.Google Scholar
  6. Delmas, C. (2017). Psychosocial risks at work: Performative speech act. In S. Cassilde & A. Gilson (Eds.), Psychosocial health, work and language: International perspectives (pp. 37–54). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Durkheim, E. (1897). Le suicide. Étude de sociologie. Paris: Felix Alcan.Google Scholar
  8. Goodchild, M., & Duncan-Jones, P. (1985). Chronicity and the general health questionnaire. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Graefe, S. (2017). Talking about job burnout in Germany: The disappearance and reemergence of conflicts in subjective narrations. In S. Cassilde & A. Gilson (Eds.), Psychosocial health, work and language: International perspectives (pp. 113–127). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Länsisalmi, H., Peiro, J. M., & Kivimäki, M. (2000). Collective stress and coping in the context of organizational culture. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(4), 527–559.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320050203120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Loriol, M. (2012). La construction du social. Rennes: PUR.Google Scholar
  13. Loriol, M. (2017). The collective regulation of SMAC workers’ passion and involvement. Sociologia Del Lavoro, 145, 168–183.  https://doi.org/10.3280/SL2017-145010.
  14. Newton, T. (1995). ‘Managing’ stress: Emotion and power at work. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Schabracq, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Toward a phenomenological framework for the study of work and organizational stress. Human Relations, 51(5), 625–648.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679805100503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schacter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of gregariousness. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Triandafyllidou, A. (2003). Immigration policy implementation in Italy: Organisational culture, identity processes and labour market control. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29(2), 257–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tummers, L. G., Bekkers, V. J., Vink, E., & Musheno, M. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099–1126.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. VanderPlaat, M. (2016). The use of labels such as ‘at-risk’ and ‘resilient’ children locates the problem and the solution in the child and steers the gaze away from systemic culpability. School Psychology International, 37(2), 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wagenaar, H. (2004). “Knowing” the rules: Administrative work as practice. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 643–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weiss, J. M. (1971). Effects of coping behavior with and without a feedback signal on stress pathology in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 77(1), 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Loriol
    • 1
  1. 1.Institutions et Dynamiques Historiques de L’Économie et de la Société (IDHES)Panthéon-Sorbonne UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations