Organizational level stress interventions have been considered by researchers and organizations alike as the panacea to the presence of stress and burnout in the workplace. However, this is misguided and misplaced as its supporting theory is based on two unfounded assumptions. First, although numerous studies have been conducted, few methodologically sound studies exist to support the notion that negative employee states and behaviors, such as physical illness, absence, poor performance, and turnover, are caused by stress. Briner and Reynolds (1999) admit that it is “difficult to provide a definitive answer to the question of exactly why or how stress (however defined) actually causes undesirable employee states and behaviors.” However, a thorough examination of the literature left these researchers scratching their heads as they discovered that the same researchers who championed the cause and effect relationship between stress/burnout and undesirable employee states and behaviors are the very same individuals who recognize the lack of empirical evidence to support their cause (Ivancevich, Matteson & Freedman, 1990; Cox, 1993; DeFrank,, 1987; and Kahn, 1991). Briner and Reynolds suggest that it is this type of “cock-eyed optimism and general tone of enthusiasm” which drives the glaring research bias for wanting organizational level stress interventions to work.
Second, the assumption that organizational level stress interventions can positively and uniformly target these problem states and behaviors is simply that – an assumption. Here, as with the first assumption, it appears that the same cock-eyed optimism drives the research with blinders on ignoring the methodological weakness of the available evidence; which at best demonstrates organizational interventions to have little to no effectiveness, and when effect is measured results are mixed as to the positive or negative nature of outcomes (Briner & Reynolds, 1999).
The logic and success of a prevention versus treatment-based intervention is questionable. The premise of a preventative approach to stress and burnout uses a stimulus-response supposition, assuming that the removal of the negative stimulus (e.g. role conflict, overload) will alleviate the symptoms (stress and burnout). In addition to the lack of empirical evidence to support the success of preventative organizational level interventions, the prevention paradigm in this reasoning is also fundamentally flawed. Prevention as an intervention is most readily linked to somatic illness (for example public health issues like sanitation) wherein the cause of disease is straightforward and direct (Briner and Reynolds, 1999). Given the multiple psychosocial antecedents, moderators and consequences of stress, it is relatively impossible to classify stress and/or burnout as straightforward concepts. Kasl (1992) supports this view, suggesting the unlikeliness “that the same kind of prevention opportunities are feasible in this context”. Briner and Reynolds (1999) caution that a statement such as Kasl’s does not indicate treatment as a better option than prevention, but rather that either strategy may be suitable to specific situations and that such oversimplification leads to over generalized conclusions and biased research.
In addition to the flaws inherent in causal links to undesirable employee states and behaviors, and the prevention approach to organizational level interventions, the notion of the uniformly positive effects of these interventions can also be questioned.
Briner and Reynolds suggest the adoption of a “systemic view of individuals and organizations” and thus an understanding that stressors and/or interventions cannot be labeled as discrete or easily controllable. Through such a view we can conjecture that interventions are likely to have negative effects that accompany the positive ones. For example, an intervention whose goal is to increase worker autonomy may realize such a change and also inadvertently cause role conflict to increase as the worker’s expectations become distanced from those of their supervisor. Planners of interventions should be cautioned to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of such programs and anticipate systemic shifts, both positive and negative, as resultants of the program.