Work & Stress, April
/June 2005; 19(2): 121
/136

Talking about work stress: Discourse analysis and

implications for stress interventions

AVRIL M. B. HARKNESS1, BONITA C. LONG2, NICOLE BERMBACH2,

KATHRYN PATTERSON2, SHARALYN JORDAN2, & HOWARD KAHN3
1

Community Living British Columbia, 2752 East 41st Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
V5R 2X1, 2Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, University
of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4 and 3School of
Management and Languages, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH4 3HY, Scotland, UK

Abstract
This study used discourse analysis to explore the way in which employees understand work stress.
Twenty-two female clerical workers in a Canadian city participated in focus group meetings where
they talked about and made sense of their experiences of work stress. The womens accounts were
analysed using discourse analysis methods (i.e. an examination of how talk is constructed). The
findings revealed that talking about being stressed provides a socially acceptable way of expressing
discomfort and regaining a sense of importance that is lost through feeling under-valued and underappreciated in the organization. In contrast, admitting to being unable to cope with stress was
considered to be abnormal. The stress discourse fosters a sense of helplessness and ambiguity by not
acknowledging external influences on clerical workers experiences, such as their place within the
power structure of the organization, and by limiting their sense of agency and control over problems
experienced at work. The implications of these findings for organizational culture and interventions
are discussed. For example, employers are encouraged to be conscious of the messages being sent to
employees about how negative emotions or distressing experiences at work are to be addressed (i.e.
how stress is to be managed). Recommendations are made for future research using discourse
analysis, such as the examination of alternative discourses that aim to improve conditions at work.

Keywords: Occupational stress, stress discourse, female clerical workers, discourse analysis,
intervention, focus groups, work stress, stress management, emotion, power, culture

Introduction
Stress has become a general label for a growing number of workplace concerns (Brown,
1999). In academic and self-help literature, magazine articles, and newspaper headlines,
three assumptions are commonly made about the nature of stress: (a) stress can be
beneficial; (b) too much stress will do harm; and (c) stress is inevitable and a necessary part
of life (Doublet, 2000). In essence, stress appears to be everywhere and unavoidable, with
reports of ever increasing stress levels, often described as reaching epidemic proportions in
the western world (Doublet, 2000).

Correspondence: Bonita C. Long, Counselling Psychology Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4. E-mail: bonita.long@ubc.ca
ISSN 0267-8373 print/ISSN 1464-5335 online # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/02678370500160068

122

A. M. B. Harkness et al.

Wainwright and Calnan (2002) regard the high levels of work stress often reported, or
work stress epidemic, as representing an individualized and historically specific response
to adverse experiences at work. These authors posit that workers come to internalize their
problems as emotional or health issues because of a diminished expectation of their
resilience and agency. Workplace problems described as stress are often construed as
disease, or as a cause of disease (Doublet, 2000; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Newton, 1995).
Pollock (1988) states that it is this medicalization of workplace problems that results in
social and political implications for how employees experience work concerns. Employees
experiencing stress are encouraged to use therapeutic interventions and adopt the
subjectivity of a patient. It is of note that there are parallels between the way the stressed
employee is portrayed and how mental health services users are portrayed in the discourse
of psychopathology. This refers to the language used in the field of psychopathology, which
has been considered disempowering to mental health service users (Parker, 1999; Parker,
Georgaca, Harper, McLaughlin, & Stowell-Smith, 1999). Wainwright and Calnan also note
that the identity of the stressed person as victim has achieved a new moral authority and
social status (i.e. stressed people have an almost heroic standing). They conclude that
currently prescribed cures, or therapeutic interventions, for work stress might actually be
accentuating employees sense of vulnerability and powerlessness, especially if the belief
that the workplace is inherently hazardous to health is reinforced. Hence, what is of concern
is that employees who embrace victimhood when stressed may essentially relinquish agency
and potentially increase their feelings of powerlessness.
In essence, stress has become a culturally dominant way of understanding the world and,
as a social science discourse, it has the ability to interest researchers and the public alike
(Newton, 1995). The stress discourse is an historically, socially, and institutionally specific
structure of statements, terms, categories and beliefs that are embedded in institutions,
social relationships, and texts (Scott, 1990, pp. 135
/136). It is acknowledged that the
stress discourse has profound consequences that result not only in constraints and
sanctions, but also in possibilities (Newton, 1995; Shotter, 1993). The purpose of the
present study was to explore the stress discourse by examining how female clerical workers
talk about, understand, and experience stress at work.
Newer approaches to work stress research
Despite the prevalence of organizational stress research, it has been limited in generating
effective interventions for workers (Cooper, Dewe, & ODriscoll, 2000; Parkes & Sparkes,
1998). What is holding us back from improving the well-being of employees, when stress is
seen as a major problem? Is there anything about the way in which we attempt to address
the issue of work stress that may limit or perpetuate the problem? In recent years, some
stress researchers have introduced theoretical and methodological approaches that may
enhance our chances of answering such questions (Briner, 1999; Lewig & Dollard, 2001).
Payne and Cooper (2001) along with others (Newton, 1995, 1999; Wainwright & Calnan,
2002) have acknowledged the limitations of the stress concept as an approach to
understanding problems at work. These authors actively encouraged stress researchers to
critique traditional models and approaches to the study of work stress.
An approach that dominates academic stress literature is the transactional analysis of the
stress process (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), which has stress appraisals (i.e.
the meaning of the potential stressor) and coping strategies as its central focus. The model is
transactional in that the interaction between the person and the environment creates stress
for the individual. Drawing on Lazaruss model and incorporating attribution theory,

Stress discourse

123

Perrewe and Zellars (1999) argued for an examination of subjective rather than objective
work stressors based on evidence that the meanings that individuals attribute to events
determine their stress experience. These authors highlight the importance of research that
focuses on the way that events are appraised, as well as cognitions, attributions, and
emotions, to better understand the complex organizational stress process. Although an
examination of the meaning-making process (i.e. stress appraisals) is critical to understanding individual differences in employees experiences of work stress, the individualistic
approach encouraged in the transactional stress model is likely to overlook the social
relations and institutions that contribute to and define stress (Fineman, 1993).
A critique of research designs that have typically been used to study the transactional
model of stress and coping has resulted in a call for new approaches, such as examining the
stress process closely, in-depth, longitudinally, and contextually (Lazarus, 2000; Somerfield, & McCrae, 2000). Moreover, Folkman and Moskowitz (2000) along with Perrewe
and Zellars (1999) encouraged researchers to use qualitative methods to gain insights into
the meanings that are central to the stress process. The current concentration in work stress
research on quantitative methods, which are based on a hypothetico-deductive framework
(i.e. where hypotheses are tested by generating predictions through scientific experiments),
has led to a limitation to the research questions that can be addressed. Consequently, this
has narrowed our understanding of the stress phenomenon. Researchers who specifically
focus on occupational stress have also identified the need for approaches that complement
traditional quantitative research (Dick, 2000; Payne & Cooper, 2001). For example,
Meyerson (1994, p. 628) argued that researchers should account for the ways in which
concrete meanings of stress vary across, reflect, and reinforce the dominant ideologies of the
institutions in which people work. Moreover, Newton (1995) noted that it is necessary to
view workplace stress and coping as a dynamic process that changes over time, is shaped by
its context, and is politically, socially, culturally, and economically dependent. In order to
redress this imbalance, in the present study we widened the research agenda to examine the
social construction of stress.
The significance of the present study is that it represents a response to this call for stress
researchers to use qualitative research methods, to focus on the construction of meaning,
and to examine dominant ideologies. Hence, it is hoped that the study will stimulate
thought and to support a new perspective on work stress through the use of discourse
analysis to uncover the meanings implicit in clerical workers accounts of work stress. In the
present study, language is viewed as actively constructing meaning within the social world,
rather than as a passive medium through which attitudes and thoughts are expressed
(Henwood & Pidgeon, 1994). Using a discourse analytic approach to analyse female clerical
workers accounts of their experiences of work stress, it is possible to examine: (a) the way in
which women discursively construct work stress (i.e. how they talk about work stress); (b)
the discursive strategies they use in positioning or presenting themselves as stressed; and
(c) what they accomplish through their construction of stress.
Discourse analysis is the close study of language in use, and should be understood as a
field of research rather than as a single practice (Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates, 2001). The
basic premise is that people achieve specific objectives in social interaction through their use
of language (Wood & Kroger, 2000). Discourse has been described as an assemblage of
knowledge, which creates truth effects. That is, the power of a discourse comes from its
claims to truth. Within the stress discourse these effects of truth are produced by the way in
which it proclaims stress as a major problem (an epidemic), and through its definition of the
stressed subject (Newton et al., 1995, p. 7).

124

A. M. B. Harkness et al.

In essence, the discursive approach to research requires major shifts in perspective and a
reversal of research strategy, from a focus on the elimination of variability to a search for
variability as a tool for understanding (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 17). Discursive
psychology represents a turn to language (Willig, 2001), with an interest in describing
how individuals use language in order to negotiate and manage social interactions so as to
achieve interpersonal objectives (e.g. justify an action, attribute blame). Discursive
psychology adds the dimension of seeing all talk as embedded within some kind of
historical context. That is, when people talk they use a repertoire of terms that have been
provided for them by history. However, some discourses are more available than others, and
may be easier to say (Wetherell et al., 2001), such as the stress discourse.
Discourse analysis is an attractive tool as it has been used to question dominant
constructions of concepts (e.g. mental illness, stress and coping) that have become
psychological common sense (Parker, 1999). It also allows alternatives to be created, thus
showing how things could be different and preferable (Willig, 1999). Recently, several
scholars have sought to explain how the stress discourse has come about and why so many
believe in it and find it so saleable (Kranz & Long, 2002; Lewig & Dollard, 2001; Newton,
1995; Pollock, 1988; Wainwright & Calnan, 2002).
Discourse of stress
There is a distinct and recognisable discourse of stress that is influencing the way people
interpret any threat posed to them by particular experiences at work and also their ability to
cope with such experiences (Wainwright & Calnan, 2002, p. 23). This discourse fosters the
notion that individuals define their psychological and physical well-being in terms of their
ability to cope well with stress (Newton, 1999). In this regard, stress management training
and workplace counselling are seen as the tools for maintaining the employees efficiency
and ensuring that they do not break down mentally (Newton, 1999). The image produced
of someone who is stressed (i.e. the subject created in the stress discourse) appears to be
highly individualized because work stress is primarily about the individual worker and his or
her ability to cope (Newton, 1995). This is consistent with recent findings where line
managers emphasized individual responsibility for managing stress, more so than
organizational accountability (Kinman & Jones, 2005). Hence, it is not surprising that
the solutions offered have predominantly been individual counselling or stress management
training.
There are several messages embedded in the stress discourse that are particularly relevant
for employees. For example, Newton (1995) suggested that the fitness of the employee to
do the work is inherent in the stress discourse and this expectation is situated in
longstanding managerial practices and assumptions. Consistent with these values is the
expectation that individuals should take responsibility for change and that gaining
knowledge about stress is empowering. Moreover, messages from the self-help literature
caution employees to just deal with stress; that the key lies in the way individuals approach
or manage stress (Brown, 1999).
Power and the stress discourse
According to Parker et al. (1999) discourses are always focused on power relations. It
follows that dominant discourses such as stress advantage a social reality that legitimates
existing power relations and social structures. Moreover, the inability of organizations to
reduce levels of stress identified through internal stress audits, may be due to issues of

Stress discourse

125

hierarchy and authority that are present no matter how flat the organization (Smith, 1998).
Thus, the connection between power and stress is an important consideration. As an
occupational group, women employed as clerical workers offer an interesting perspective,
because they generally reside in the lower echelons of organizational power structures.
Given the focus on female clerical workers in the present study, the exploration of power is
particularly accessible.
Women and the stress discourse
In a recent study, Kranz and Long (2002) examined the stress discourse present in two
popular North American womens magazines (Cosmopolitan and Chatelaine ). Their results
illustrated that particular messages are being presented to women through this stress
discourse. Kranz and Long found that within these magazines, stress is normalized as
pervasive and unavoidable in womens lives and is caused by the wear and tear of life in
general (e.g. multiple roles, downsizing). The most common coping strategies offered by
the magazine stories were shopping, consulting experts, and advising women to change how
they think, feel, and behave. These authors concluded that the stress discourse in these
journals ignores contextual factors such as unreasonable work expectations and lack of
affordable childcare provision. As a consequence, the burden of responsibility is placed on
women to cope with stress. The authors also concluded that the stress discourse serves to
support the status quo of our current social structures, by endorsing consumerism as a
means to well-being and by encouraging women to change themselves to fit within their
social contexts. Thus, for working women, the broader stress discourse aimed at women
may reinforce the stress discourse reflected in their work contexts.
Purpose of the study
The aim of the present study was to describe how female clerical workers make sense of
their experiences at work through the stress discourse, while also considering the discursive
world that female clerical workers inhabit. Discourse analysis was used to examine how
clerical workers construct their experience of stress through their talk and the consequences
of different types of language construction. Overall, the goals of the study were to gain
insight into female clerical workers discursive constructions of stress and then to consider
the implications for organizational stress interventions.
Method
Participants and procedures
A total of 22 female clerical workers from a large western Canadian city participated in
seven focus group meetings (averaging 3 to 4 people per group). Ages varied between 25
and 64 years (M /42.9 years; SD /10.7 years). Some 45% were single, 18% were married,
18% were divorced, 14% had a common-law partner, and 5% were widowed. Twenty-three
percent of the women had children. In terms of education, most had post-secondary
education; that is, some college (41%) or university (36%). The rest had graduated from
high school (23%). At the time of the research, 91% of the participants were employed.
Some 50% of the women were members of a union. The number of years in the workforce
ranged from a few months to 24 years (M /4.9 years; SD /5.9 years).

126

A. M. B. Harkness et al.

We recruited participants through advertisements in local newspapers and organizational

newsletters, and by e-mail. Female respondents who self-identified as clerical workers were
screened via telephone to ensure that they met the following criteria: (a) they did not
supervise other workers; (b) they were employed (or had recently been employed) for a
minimum of 20 hours per week; and (c) they said that they were experiencing ongoing
work-related stress.
We gathered data through focus groups meetings, following generally recognized
guidelines (Morgan, 1997). Each focus group meeting lasted for 2 h. A protocol was
used that standardized the procedure and order of events. Participants signed an informed
consent form before questioning commenced. There were three facilitators (i.e. three of the
present authors) at each of the meetings, all of whom were graduate students. One person
moderated the group; another monitored the audio equipment and noted who was
speaking, and the third recorded comments on a flip chart. The moderator ensured that
each participant had a chance to answer each question (or to pass). There were four set
questions, although flexibility was allowed for additional probing questions. The questions
were modified after the first four focus groups meetings, based on preliminary analysis and
the observation that saturation had been reached in the responses being generated. The first
set of questions focused on clerical workers images of work stress, when stress was
experienced, and messages from society about work stress. The second set of questions
focused on the participants response to media portrayals of stress, the consequences of
doing without the word stress, and their experiences related to expressing emotions at work.
The facilitators conducted a debriefing session at the end of each focus group meeting in
order to share preliminary observations and incorporate reflexivity, and to identify factors
that may have affected the research process (e.g. thoughts, feelings, reactions, perceived
comfort levels and interactions between participants). Each focus group meeting was
audiotape recorded and transcribed verbatim, showing pauses and expression. This resulted
in approximately 240 pages of text for analysis.
Data analysis
The data analysis approach we used draws on the principles of both Foucauldian discourse
analysis (Foucault, 1990) and critical discursive psychology (Wetherell et al., 2001).
Foucauldian discourse analysis is concerned with the role of discourse in social processes
related to legitimization and power. This approach assumes that discourses are implicated
in the exercise of power because they make available particular experiences.
We examined the different ways clerical workers talked about stress to understand the
kind of limitations that exist (e.g. what is possible to say and what is not). This was done
through identifying interpretative repertoires, which are the building blocks of conversation used to construct alternative and often contradictory versions of events (Willig, 2001).
Other tools of critical discursive psychology, such as the concepts of ideological dilemmas
and subject positions, were also used. Ideological dilemmas represent the common sense
of a community, which by its nature does not always provide clear indications as to how we
should think and act (Wetherell et al., 2001). Hence, there are often opposing ideals and
contradictions. The concept of subject positions or subjectivity (i.e. the way people
experience and feel about themselves and the world) is central to discursive psychology, and
is created within ideological or discursive regimes.
The dilemmas, or conflicts, that are brought about when people are led to adopt a
psychological concept such as stress were explored in the present analysis (Willig, 2001).
The process of analysis was iterative; however, for pragmatic purposes, the analysis is

Stress discourse

127

described here as steps 1 to 5. The following steps in the analysis were adapted from the
works of Willig (2001), Wood and Kroger (2000), and Wetherell et al. (2001).
Step 1 :

Coding through reading the transcripts repeatedly and taking note of

illustrative quotes.
Step 2 : Categorizing codes through rereading transcripts repetitively, looking for
patterns, themes, and a limited number of interpretative repertoires (i.e.
alternative ways of describing experiences of stress).
Step 3 : Identifying ideological dilemmas, subject positions, and discursive strategies.
Step 4 : Extracting quotes from the transcripts to support the findings.
Step 5 : Refining the analysis and documentation in parallel.
Results and discussion
The analysis revealed that participants used two main interpretative repertoires to describe
their experience of being stressed at work. These repertoires appeared to be contradictory
and therefore to represent a situational dilemma for the clerical workers that resulted in the
use of discursive strategies, as they described and made sense of their situation. The clerical
workers revealed several subject positions that reflected their sense of self and the
experiences they had at work (e.g. clerical worker, agent, victim, patient). In the following
sections, illustrative quotes drawn from the focus group participants are used to support our
findings followed by the focus group number in brackets (e.g. FG1 to FG7).
Interpretative repertoire: being stressed at work is normal
Throughout the focus groups, participants consistently considered being stressed as a
normal occurrence at work, implying that it would be unusual for someone not to be
stressed. This repertoire describes the experience of stress when there is agreement that
stress is unavoidable and that learning to cope is the answer. For example, one woman said,
everyone has the same stressful situation (FG1), and another stated, stress is everywhere . . . its just how you handle it, how you cope (FG3).
This repertoire reveals that clerical workers discursive construction of stress sets up what
is normal, that is, what is the correct and acceptable way to behave and to speak
(cf. Wetherell et al., 2001). Moreover, talking about stress has become so normal that
effectiveness as a worker is judged by how stressed you appear to be. For example, one
participant stated: Theres pressure to feel stress, if youre not stressed then youre not
working hard, if youre not stressed youre not important (FG3). Another woman
explained: Were only good if were stressed (FG6). These findings are consistent
with Doublets (2000) claim that stress has come to mean effectiveness and being stressed
means you are trying hard; conversely, if you are not stressed, you are not working hard
enough.
Many participants talked with authority about strategies to manage stress, and even
offered lists of strategies they reported had worked for them, such as relaxation and proper
nutrition. The women actively offered their own knowledge and opinions on how to cope
with stress. They described using this knowledge about stress to regain some control over
the situation, while acknowledging the inevitability of stress. This discourse seems to be
shaped by the good employee discourse, in which good employees are constructed as

128

A. M. B. Harkness et al.

competent, responsible, and willing to give their all, while engaging in stress management
practices as a way of maintaining their high level of performance (Newton, 1995).
Interpretive repertoire: showing that you are stressed at work is abnormal
Even though being stressed was seen as a common experience to all, participants described
being silenced in their struggles with stress, expressing a need to hide their experiences of
stress at work: I feel silenced (FG5), I keep it all inside (FG2), I become very quiet . . . I
dont talk to anyone during the day (FG2). One woman stated: I just knew I couldnt falter
emotionally, like show it (FG5). Thus, being unable to cope with stress was considered to
be abnormal, or unacceptable, indicating the presence of a personal weakness or flaw. This
repertoire represents a reaction to being positioned or labelled as stressed, similar to being
labelled as mentally ill. For example, I didnt want anyone to see that it was making me
crumble (FG5), and I think my co-workers would have looked at me like Id just lost my
mind (FG5). Appearing vulnerable, weak, or incompetent was presented as reasons to stay
silent about stress. One woman suggested that [stress] can be viewed as a weakness in that
person, and maybe theyre going to start thinking about eliminating them . . . they just cant
handle it, its a weakness (FG4).
The women indicated that there were unsaid rules regarding the expression of emotion*/
not only was it unacceptable to show negative emotions in the workplace, but being silenced
was distressing. One woman said: The stress seems to come from these unwritten rules
(FG5), and another identified the unwritten rule: Be happy or else (FG6). Some
participants associated showing negative emotions with being female and feeling weak and
vulnerable (FG5). As one woman summarized, Were not supposed to have emotions in the
workplace (FG6). These findings are consistent with the theory that emotions are a socially
conditioned response, governed by unwritten rules about when and where it is appropriate
to express certain emotions (Mann, 1999; Payne & Cooper, 2001). Clerical workers talked
about the need to hide symptoms of stress because they feared being labelled a trouble
maker. For example, one woman reported, People are afraid to speak up because they are
afraid of the repercussions (FG4). Another said, I just broke down and cried at my
desk . . . I think that particular incident sort of put a major black mark by my name . . . [after
that] they reprimanded me for very silly things (FG5).
These findings are similar to those of Kinman and Jones (2005), who describe this need
to remain socially acceptable, through avoidance of emotional expression or behaviour that
could be perceived as pathological, as a plausible reason why the stress concept has become
so popular.
Positioning as a clerical worker
Societal messages about clerical work were reflected in the workers discursive constructions
of their sense of self and their work experiences. The majority of participants talked about
feeling undervalued, not respected, unappreciated, and replaceable. They felt that understanding, acknowledgement, and gratitude for their work was lacking. For example, In a lot
of instances the admin [clerical workers] are undervalued and under-appreciated . . . I think
people dont respect admin (FG3); youre working really hard and you dont get a lot of
credit for things that you do (FG3); everyone is replaceable . . . theres a lack of value
(FG4); there is always someone to take your place (FG4), were a dime a dozen (FG3);
invisible is the message that came to me from society, that this work gets magically done
and there is no understanding of what goes into it (FG4).

Stress discourse

129

One participant in particular described in detail her frustration at the popular belief that
clerical workers have not made anything of their life:
[people say] why dont you be somebody? Ive had that said to me so many times . . . I get
tired of it and become defensive . . . Like they wont let us be admin and be proud of it.
Admin is seen as we didnt make it... its that something kept us from moving on. Were so
bright, were so smart, how come you didnt go to university? Admin have always been
seen as, you know, um subservient type of occupation . . . Thats the mindset . . . its truly
horrible . . . Im a good admin, so why dont you leave it at that you know . . . Thats really
undermining, you walk away feeling a failure . . . Thats more stressful than any
paperwork . . . nothing is going to change until that value changes. (FG3)
In summary, being positioned as a clerical worker was associated with not being valued,
respected, or appreciated, and being disposable. These constructions of self and the
womens experiences of stress and work were associated with the use of various discursive
strategies.
Discursive strategies
Although learning to cope was recognized as important, the women did not accept the
stress management training they were offered, through the media or their organization, as
the solution (e.g. taking your breaks, taking time out to organize and plan each day).
Moreover, they did not consider suggestions from experts for coping with stress at work as
helpful or realistic, and described them as leading to negative consequences, such as getting
a black mark on your name, or being labelled as a trouble maker. The most commonly
mentioned advice the participants had for fixing work stress was that of promoting
harmony and being respectful to each other at work. The rationale for this solution was
based on the feeling that weve lost perception of what it is to interact, relate with people on
a daily basis (FG3). Thus, the dominant construction of stress was being in conflict with
each other at work.
The women shared a common discursive strategy for making sense of workplace stress.
They considered management the cause of stress and blamed them for their lack of
organizational and people skills, for inconsistency in the rules for expressing emotions, and
in the treatment of employees. For example, the women stated: They [managers] can
certainly get angry with you, they can shout at you . . . [they] are given more latitude to
express emotions (FG5). Participants also stated: In a lot of cases I think its a
management thing . . . the responsibility should go back to them (FG); theres a lot of
management skills lacking in all this (FG3); not having good management, I think its
what makes it really stressful for me (FG3). Most participants stated that management was
responsible for improving the work environment, particularly because of the potential
health consequences of stress. For example, the onus should be on the managers because
its a health issue (FG5), I think that management has to step in and play a bigger
role . . . being direct in what their expectations are . . . structure is good, people I think need
boundaries (FG3).
Ideological dilemma
The ideological dilemma created by the use of these interpretative repertoires is reflected in
the contradiction between stress being normal and the need to conceal inner struggles and

130

A. M. B. Harkness et al.

negative feelings. According to the clerical workers, concealment is necessary because it is

not safe to show that you are stressed to other workers or to management and there are
negative repercussions for doing so. As a result, clerical workers discursive constructions
may be an attempt to regain their dignity and sense of competence by blaming stress on the
incompetence of management. In this way, the clerical workers constructed a means of
deflecting self-blame, thus re-positioning responsibility for stress in a way that made more
sense to them (e.g. the source of stress is poor management practice, not a lack of ability to
cope).
Benefits of the stress discourse
The clerical workers acknowledged that by using stress as an explanation for their
experiences at work they have produced a socially acceptable way of expressing negative
feelings or discomfort without hurting peoples feelings or causing offence. However, to do
so silenced talk of emotional negativity that might be perceived as a weakness by others, or
to be labelled as mentally ill. For these clerical workers, the language of stress provides a
strategic advantage as it helps them to maintain a normative, or commonly used, way of
communicating and behaving within the workplace. Thus, clerical workers constructed the
experience of stress as normal, a perspective that they recognized would not be met with
adversity. In fact, it may even help them to connect with others. This type of connection was
witnessed during a focus group, when initially a participant stated: I dont usually get
stressed (FG3), and then later on in the discussion stated: Thats the stress Ive been
dealing with for the past 4 years, and that really stresses me (FG3). This change could be
seen as an example of joining in on the stress talk in order to feel included and be
construed as normal.
A further advantage of the stress discourse is that it offers clerical workers a strategically
useful means of gaining a sense of empowerment. By constructing themselves as stressed
employees, clerical workers experienced a greater sense of importance, which was
contrasted with their talk of being undervalued, under appreciated, and generally less
significant in their role within the organization. For example, the clerical workers
acknowledged the attention that stress receives in the media, and applauded the medias
portrayal of stress as a concern that deserves attention. This sense of empowerment was
also enhanced through the participants understanding of stress and stress management
strategies and techniques. For example, the clerical workers were proud of their knowledge
and use of stress management practices, which they considered successful in maintaining
their health and in coping with stress.
Limitations of the stress discourse
A limitation of the stress discourse for clerical workers is the word stress itself. The term
stress has been overused to the point where it almost doesnt mean anything anymore, its
just too vague . . . I dont think you really even listen to it anymore (FG6), I dont think
that the word [stress] itself implies enough of the enormous feelings that you have (FG5).
Participants comments echo those of researchers who have expressed concern and
frustration with the ambiguity of the term stress (Doublet, 2000; Kinman & Jones,
2005; Pollock, 1988). The abstract nature of the term accounts for the inability of the stress
discourse to provide specific details about the context of a particular psychological or
physical reaction, making it difficult to provide a solution to the problem. As a participant
described so poignantly, you feel like youre going to have a heart attack in the middle of

Stress discourse

131

the day and you dont know why, you dont know whats bringing this on . . . is this my
imagination? (FG5). Hence, although the stress discourse provides a discursive means for
clerical workers to express negative feelings or distress in a non-threatening and socially
acceptable manner, this strategy may conceal (i.e. silence) other feelings and experiences.
The medicalization of stress was prevalent throughout the focus group meetings, with
participants describing stress as epidemic and having an impact on their health. For
example: For me its a plague (FG5) and definitely there is a health link (FG7). One
woman felt that stress and the bodys reaction to it is a very real issue (FG7). The
medicalised construction of workplace problems, in which clerical workers viewed
themselves as patients, is a subject position (i.e. the way people experience and feel about
themselves) that has previously been associated with the experience of being powerless and
having a lack of control (cf. Parker et al., 1999). The clerical workers in this study reported
feeling helpless, hopeless, and not in control of what was happening.
The subject position prominent in the repertoire showing you are stressed is abnormal
was that of victim. Participants said: Theres a feeling of hopelessness when youre not in
control over certain things, for me thats what causes stress (FG2), I think the focus is
wrong, its kind of victim-oriented (FG5), it assumes that people can do something about
stress . . . [yet] there is nothing we can do personally (FG6). These findings are consistent
with the victim stance that others have found within the stress discourse (Lewig & Dollard,
2001; Wainwright & Calnan, 2000). Adopting the stance of a helpless victim may lead to
the development of practices and policies that are based on the idea of a helpless employee
who is victim to the stresses of the workplace.
Finally, the clerical workers gave accounts of how expressions of negative emotions were
silenced, while noting that there were different emotion rules for managers. This
discrepancy suggests that power relations are implicated in clerical workers experience of
the stress discourse (cf. Foucault, 1990) and that employees react to issues of power (Smith,
1998). This is consistent with the assertion that the stress discourse glosses over the
inequalities of power reflected in existing social structures (Newton et al., 1995, p. 11).
Moreover, the relative silence in the womens discursive constructions of stress regarding
the broader influences of society, culture, and power structures is a further limitation of the
stress discourse.
Although learning the language of stress was described as empowering by the clerical
workers, their construction of an individualized stressed subject fails to acknowledge the
external influences that shape a persons experience. Clerical workers talked about the
prevalence of stress interventions that were individually focused, interventions they
considered to be irrelevant. They also described being discouraged about using individual
stress management techniques (e.g. taking breaks periodically throughout the day, or taking
an hour at the end of each day to makes lists and to organize their work) because they did
not consider them realistic in their workplace culture and position within the hierarchical
structure.
Clerical workers solutions
In the present study, female clerical workers own interpretations (i.e. discursive constructions) of work stress were the basis for analyses. This provided a way of including context
and hence of gaining significant insights into preferable solutions. In other words,
participants introduced intuitive accounts of what they perceived to be the issues with
regard to workplace stress.

132

A. M. B. Harkness et al.

Were workshopped to death on this stuff and it comes down to common sense and just
being nice to people . . . I think we are creating, um, more stress for ourselves by buying
into all these workshops . . . its ridiculous. I think its feeding into keeping it going instead
of stopping. (FG3)
In essence, participants reported that disrespectful communication was the crux of the
problem. As one participant stated: I think that what were dealing with here
are . . . problems of communication (FG7). Workplace relationships were identified as
influencing the quality of the workers experiences. For example, I think thats the most
important thing [relationships], especially with your supervisor . . . if you have a good
rapport with that individual . . . thats what makes it easier to work (FG2), and if you can
make friends with people in your office, the people you work with, then you are going to feel
comfortable . . . I think thats really necessary (FG4). Participants also emphasized that its
hard to say something bad about somebody and that compassion and kindness are
certainly more positive (FG3). Thus, clerical workers invoked respectful or harmonious
communication as a means to minimize feelings of conflict and confrontation. As one
woman said:
The more open and honest and real people can be with each other at work while keeping
a respectful, distant demeanour . . . the better off it is for absolutely everybody. And of
course if people are more comfortable, levels of every type are going to go down,
but respect and communication are of absolute importance and are being neglected.
(FG6)
Of note, the main solution to work stress offered by participants was the need for respect
and compassion in the workplace and the importance of communication. Although the
stress discourse was described by clerical workers as an acceptable means of communicating
negative experiences at work without overtly blaming or offending anyone, the vagueness of
the term stress silences alternative constructions of work stress, and hence finding
solutions becomes more difficult.
Implications, limitations and conclusions
Implications for practice
We tentatively present alternative possibilities for the work stress experience that we
acknowledge are based on an interpretative position and are positioned as an alternative
truth to the dominant work stress discourse. Although discourse analysis, as a product of
the postmodern period, leads to new understandings, these alternative possibilities cannot
be understood as real, given that its postmodern position holds that all constructions of
truth and knowledge are contingent and multiple, and produced within a historicized/
politicised discourse (Meyerson, 1998, p. 110).
In considering stress interventions in the workplace, the results of the present study point
to the need to change our views regarding how we help and support employees at work. The
language of stress can encourage a powerless or victim stance, therefore what may be
required are new discourses that take more of a human agency perspective; where experts,
instead of teaching workers to cope with stress, facilitate accountability and respectful
communication (Parker et al., 1999; Rosenberg, 1999). Parker et al.s (1999) characterization of respectful therapy is particularly helpful in describing the quality of desirable

Stress discourse

133

workplace relationships. In healthy relationships, there is an absence of domination of one

person over the other, and no attempts at conversion to a right way of living and thinking.
Clients, or in this case employees, are seen as the experts in establishing what practices
facilitate a sense of their own well-being. From this perspective, problems exist when
employees interact or talk in ways that lead to the experience of loss of control, failure, and
incompetence. Moreover, the solution to this problem is to address and eliminate these
forms of thinking and speaking. By framing the problem and solution in terms of
interactions, the clerical workers talk resists a focus on the individual within the stress
discourse.
Our findings indicate that explanatory value is lost when the dominant stress discourse is
used instead of specific emotions or external events (Doublet, 2000; Putnam & Mumby,
1993). The study of emotion at work has increased in recognition and popularity (Fineman,
1993; Mann, 1999) and offers a rich basis for understanding workplace problems (Ashforth
& Humphrey, 1995; Jones & Bright, 2001). From this perspective, psychosocial stress is
considered to be a dysfunctional emotional response. This approach potentially can provide
a stronger theoretical and practical base for stress management interventions and also
contribute towards addressing the ambiguity of stress.
An individualized stressed employee*/one who is characterized as being stressed */fails
to acknowledge external influences that shape workplace experiences. In the present study,
clerical workers indicated that they did not use stress management strategies because they
were not seen as realistic in their workplace culture or their position within the hierarchical
structure. Moreover, secondary and tertiary stress management interventions (e.g.
Employee Assistance Programmes and counselling) rarely address the influence of
environmental stressors, and may exacerbate the problem for female clerical workers who
may lack the resources or positional power to facilitate change. Although Richard Lazaruss
(2000) stress and coping theory focuses on the transaction between the individual and the
external environment, stress interventions have failed to incorporate this concept except by
attending to the individuals immediate milieu, such as the availability of social support
(Newton, 1995). In addition, stress interventions ignore the extent to which our
experiences are affected by broader socio-cultural discourses, such as the stress discourse,
which affect how we construct our beliefs about our self and manage our mental and
emotional life. Given that stress management programmes do not acknowledge the
influence of the stress discourse and tend to place responsibility for change on the
individual, alternative interventions need to be found.
From our results, we noted some key employment practices of importance in developing
healthier organizational cultures. First, being stressed or looking busy is seen as normal for
female clerical workers. Unfortunately, being busy does not always mean being productive.
Therefore, it is important for an organization to foster productivity through an examination
of perceived stress levels and how these could be reduced through a change in
organizational culture (e.g. expressing value for engaged and creative employees, instead
of a reactive environment that is deadline driven). Second, the present study has shown that
stress is discursively constructed as normal and negative emotions are concealed at work in
order to help female clerical workers maintain a feeling of social acceptability, agency, and
control over their work experiences. However, by so doing there is avoidance of conflict at
the cost of finding organizational or collective causes and solutions to problems being
experienced at work. Of note, the female clerical workers in the present study identified a
collective solution to work stress, that is, the need to promote harmony, communicate

134

A. M. B. Harkness et al.

respectfully, and to acknowledge the importance of relationships in improving well-being at

work.
Implications for research: alternative discourses
Moving away from a discourse that relies on conceptualizing the employee as stressed
creates an opportunity to promote different discourses as a means of describing and
addressing workplace problems. Ideally, an alternative discourse would focus on the
recognition that employees have agency and are part of a wider community. For example,
rather than looking at individual weaknesses, attitudes, or ability to cope with stress, which
could be described as a deficit model, we could move towards more collective responses and
dialogues that focus on more respectful communication and on assisting individuals and
groups to realize their strengths and passions. Hence, changing the culture of the
organization would be the focus and outcome, as opposed to treating individual employees
who may be experiencing difficulties. Although some discourses become so entrenched that
it is difficult to challenge them, it is the nature of language that counter-discourses can and
do emerge eventually (Willig, 2001, p. 107). Hence, being proactive in creating new
dialogues and in effect new discourses could be an effective solution to the perceived needs
for dealing with work stress.
Having completed this discourse analysis of work stress, we considered what the next
dominant discourse might be, which describes workplace problems and distressing
experiences. A direction for future research could be to examine alternative discourses
that aim to improve conditions at work. For example, Brown (1999) suggested that his
critical readings of self-help books on stress could be used to construct very different
popular texts about work stress, for example, by emphasizing the historical neglect of
childcare provision, rather than framing the problem as juggling home and work. Moreover,
stress management could be construed as building community, which implies mutual
support and continuity (Brown, 1999). This may facilitate workplace harmony, an aspect of
workplace culture that the clerical workers talked about in valued terms. Thus, research
would benefit from exploring alternative discourses that may be healthier and which
encapsulate the ideology of harmony and respectful communication.
Limitations of the study
The intention of this discourse analysis was to examine the discursive constructions of work
stress as experienced by female clerical workers. Therefore, the findings of this study may
not represent male employees, or other types of employees experience of stress. Moreover,
only women reporting ongoing work stress participated in the study, thus the extent to
which these findings apply to clerical workers who do not identify themselves as stressed is
unknown. It also needs to be acknowledged that the questions explored within the focus
groups shaped the clerical workers responses. Future research might benefit from more indepth interviews with a wider segment of employees. Even though the participants were
Canadian working women, many of the findings are compatible with claims made from
research in the UK (Newton, 1995; Wainwright & Calnan, 2002). The analytical themes
and conclusions of the present study came directly from the participants responses,
therefore validity can be judged on its merit as an inductive qualitative study.
It is important to consider that although relationships were identified by the female
clerical workers as both the problem and the desired solution to the problem, this view may
reflect a gendered perspective (Fletcher, 1999). Relational empowerment was a term

Stress discourse

135

coined by Surrey (1987) who found that relationships were a means to empowerment for
women. She posited that relationships provide a way of establishing power with rather than
power over others, which is the predominant model in our society. Thus, for female clerical
workers, mutually respectful relationships may help to overcome feelings of powerlessness.
Conclusion
Employers need to be conscious of their organizational culture, specifically in terms of the
discourses used, or messages being conveyed to employees about how negative emotions or
distressing experiences at work are to be addressed (i.e. how stress is to be managed).
Given the vagueness of the term stress and its abstract nature, it is important to encourage
the use of more specific terms and frameworks that allow us to understand the wider
societal and cultural influences on how we understand and experience our environment.
Furthermore, employees, such as the female clerical workers in this study, may benefit from
processing their experiences of power discrepancies both individually and together, rather
than denying their feelings or counselling them in isolation. Finally, we hope that this
deconstruction of the stress discourse will generate additional possibilities, practices, and
experiences that will enhance employees well-being.
Acknowledgement
This project was supported in part by funds from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada.
References
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations , 48 , 97
/
124.
Briner, R. (1999). The neglect and importance of emotions at work. European Journal of Work and Organisational
Psychology, 8 , 323
/346.
Brown, S. D. (1999). Stress as regimen: Critical readings of self-help literature. In C. Willig (Ed.), Applied discourse
analysis: Social and psychological interventions (pp. 23
/43). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & ODriscoll, M. P. (2000). Organisational stress: A review and critique of theory, research
and applications . London: Sage.
Dick, P. (2000). The social construction of the meaning of acute stressors: A qualitative study of the personal
accounts of police officers using a stress counselling service. Work & Stress , 14 , 226
/244.
Doublet, S. (2000). The stress myth . Chesterfield, MO: Science & Humanities Press.
Fineman, S. (1993). Emotion in organisations . London: Sage.
Fletcher, J. K. (1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work . London: MIT Press.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist , 55 ,
647
/654.
Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality. Translated from French by Robert Hurley. London: Penguin.
Henwood, K., & Pidgeon, N. (1994). Beyond the qualitative paradigm: A framework for introducing diversity
within qualitative psychology. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 4 , 225
/238.
Jones, F., & Bright, J. (2001). Stress: Myth, theory and research . Essex: Pearson Education.
Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2005). Lay representations of workplace stress: What do people really mean when they
say they are stressed? Work & Stress , 19 , 101
/120.
Kranz, K. C., & Long, B. C. (2002). Messages about stress in two North American womens magazines: Helpful?
We think not! Feminism & Psychology, 12 , 527
/532.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 , 1
/13.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist , 55 , 665
/673.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping . New York: Springer.
Lewig, K. A., & Dollard, M. R. (2001). Social construction of work stress: Australian newsprint media portrayal of
stress at work, 1997
/1998. Work & Stress , 15 , 179
/190.

136

A. M. B. Harkness et al.

Mann, S. (1999). Emotion at work: To what extent are we expressing, suppressing or faking it? European Journal of
Work and Organisational Psychology, 8 , 347
/369.
Meyerson, D. (1994). Interpretations of stress in institutions: The cultural production of ambiguity and burnout.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 , 628
/653.
Meyerson, D. (1998). Feeling stressed and burned out: A feminist reading and re-visioning of stress-based
emotions within medicine and organizational science. Organizational Science , 9 , 103
/118.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research . London: Sage.
Newton, T. (1995). Managing stress: Emotion and power at work . London: Sage.
Newton, T. (1999). Stress discourse and individualisation. In C. Feltham (Ed.), Controversies in psychotherapy and
counselling (pp. 241
/251). London: Sage.
Parker, I. (1999). Deconstructing psychotherapy. London: Sage.
Parker, I., Georgaca, E., Harper, D., McLaughlin, T., & Stowell-Smith, M. (1999). Deconstructing psychopathology.
London: Sage.
Parkes, K., & Sparkes, T. (1998). Organizational interventions to reduce stress */Are they effective? Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Payne, R. L., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Emotions at work: Theory, research and applications in management .
Chichester: John Wiley.
Perrewe, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of attributions and emotions in the transactional approach
to the organizational stress process. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 20 , 739
/752.
Pollock, K. (1988). On the nature of stress: Production of a modern mythology. Social Science Medicine , 26 , 381
/
392.
Putnam, L. L., & Mumby, D. K. (1993). Organizations, emotion, and the myth of rationality. In S. Fineman (Ed.),
Emotion in organizations (pp. 36
/57). London: Sage.
Rosenberg, M. (1999). Non-violent communication: A language of compassion . CA: Puddle Dancer Press.
Scott, J. W. (1990). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the use of poststructuralist theory for feminism.
In M. Hirsch, & E. F. Keller (Eds.), Conflicts in feminism (pp. 134
/148). New York: Routledge.
Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language . London: Sage.
Smith, J. (1998). Organisational stress and employee well-being: New perspectives. Stress News , 10 (2). Retrieved
21 April 2001 from http://www.isma.org.uk/stressnw/orgstress1.htm
Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological challenges, theoretical
advances, and clinical applications. American Psychologist , 55 , 620
/625.
Surrey, J. L. (1987). Relationship and empowerment. Work in progress . Wellesley, MA: Stone Center.
Wainwright, D., & Calnan, M. (2002). Work stress: The making of a modern epidemic . Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (2001). Discourse as data: A guide for analysis . London: Sage.
Willig, C. (1999). Applied discourse analysis: Social and psychological interventions . Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method . Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text . London:
Sage.