30.1: The Concept of Organizational Stress

The topic of organizational stress in sport has continued to receive interest and increased attention since its induction to sport psychology research almost 20 years ago (Woodman & Hardy, 2001). Organizational stress was first introduced as “work-related social psychological stress” (Shirom, 1982, p. 21). However, most sport psychology research in this area now employs the following definition, which follows Richard Lazarus’ (1966) conceptualization of stress: An ongoing transaction between an individual and the environmental demands associated primarily and directly with the organization within which he or she is operating (Fletcher et al., 2006, p. 329). This definition is often employed to accommodate the ambiguity surrounding the landscape of professional and amateur sport, whereby sport performers and personnel may or may not be paid whilst operating within sport organizations. This ambiguity leaves Shirom’s (1982) aforementioned definition of work-related stress less appropriate for competitive sport contexts. However, the main reason for the adoption of Fletcher and colleagues’ (2006) definition is the theoretical approach that has commonly underpinned organizational stress in sport research to date. The following section outlines the cognitive-motivational-relational theory of stress (Lazarus, 1991a) which has been mainly adopted in understanding organizational stress in competitive sport.

30.1.1. The Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Stress

The cognitive-motivational-relational theory (CMRT) of stress emphasizes understanding the dynamism of the psychological processes of cognitive appraisal and coping that underpin a stressful encounter (Lazarus, 1966, 1991a, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Inherent to this transactional based theory of stress is the view that stress is an ongoing transaction between environmental demands and a person’s resources, with strain resulting from an imbalance between the two (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The CMRT contends several antecedents, processes, and outcomes that encapsulate stress in the organizational environment (Cooper et al., 2001; Lazarus, 1991b). Firstly, antecedents refer to the environmental conditions of a transactional encounter and a person’s characteristics that interact to influence cognitive appraisals of the person-environment relationship (see Chapter 29; Didymus et al., 2021). According to Lazarus (1999), environmental conditions may include demands (i.e., stressors), constraints, opportunities, or the culture in which an individual functions. In addition, imminence, uncertainty, and duration are some of the properties of stressors that provide information about what is being encountered. The main personal characteristics that interact with environmental conditions to influence appraisals are a person’s goals and goal hierarchies, beliefs about the self and the world, and personal resources (i.e., those that are used to cope).

Lazarus’ CMRT asserts that stress is the result of three interacting processes: appraising of stressors, affective responses, and coping (Lazarus, 1999). Cognitive appraisals are the evaluations a person makes in terms of the significance for one’s affective well-being and goals (primary appraisal) and the evaluation of coping options (secondary appraisal). According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984)and Lazarus (1999), if events are perceived to be significant for well-being and goals, they will be appraised as a threat, harm/loss, challenge, or benefit. Threat appraisals refer to the potential for damage, harm/loss appraisals represent damage that has already occurred, challenge appraisals refer to the potential for progressing towards one’s goals, and benefit appraisals refer to gain that has already occurred (Lazarus, 1991a). In secondary appraisals, a person evaluates coping resources and options by questioning what they can do to cope. In so far that primary and secondary appraisals are believed to work in combination, the appraisals are hypothesized to amalgamate in the concept of core relational themes (i.e., an explanatory statement of what a person is thinking) for experiencing different emotions(see Chapter 29; Didymus et al., 2021). In this way, immediate emotional responses can be seen as short-term outcomes to primary and secondary appraisals, through action tendencies that can motivate coping efforts. These coping efforts may serve the function of regulating distressing emotions (emotion-focused coping) or doing something proactive to change the situation causing distress (problem-focused coping). The degree to which an individual is able to appraise and cope with their relationship with their (organizational) environment may influence the type of short-term (e.g., physiological changes, affect) or long-term outcomes of stress (e.g., physical and mental health, burnout, performance; Lazarus, 1991a).

In comparing the CMRT to other approaches used to understand organizational stress (e.g., stimulus-response approaches; Seyle, 1956), the main distinction lies in the former’s emphasis on understanding the adaptive and ongoing flow of events and processes over time, the varied meaning construed by individuals, their adjustment to different antecedents, and their ability to cope with their personal transaction with the environment (Cooper et al., 2001; Lazarus, 1991b). To date, the CMRT and associated transactional approaches to stress (e.g., transactional stress theory, Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) are the most widely employed approaches for underpinning organizational stress in sport psychology, and therefore inform the majority of studies that are reviewed in this chapter.

30.1.1.1. Transactional Based Definitions of Stress-Related Terminology

Before reviewing the origins and development of organizational stress research in competitive sport, it is important to define various organizational stress-related concepts (see Table 30.1):

Table 30.1. Definitions of Organizational-Stress Related Concepts