The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0140-9174.htm

MRN
29,10
Cooperation and stress
Exploring the differential impact of job
satisfaction, communication and culture
618 Rachid Zeffane
Department of Business and Public Administration,
College of Business Administration, University of Sharjah, Sharjah,
United Arab Emirates, and
Dominic McLoughlin
The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the case study was to examine the varying impact of job-level and
organization-level characteristics on team-level cooperation and feelings of stress. In attempting to
highlight the relevance of sub-cultures, it compares these relationships across two departments in an
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) company operating in Australia.
Design/methodology/approach – Uses survey data from a medium size company in the ICT
industry operating in Australia. There were 397 respondents to the survey.
Findings – Statistical analyses show that job satisfaction and positive communication with
managers are strong predictors of feelings of stress and perceived cooperation. Further scrutiny of the
data at sub-unit levels, clearly suggests that the cultural variant is a strong mediator of these
relationships.
Originality/value – Adds to the evidence that the social and organizational aspects of the
workplace are potential explanatory variables in finding lasting cures for workplace stress.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Stress, Organizational culture, Group behaviour, Communication,
Information industry
Paper type Case study

Workplace stress is increasingly recognized as a contributing factor to employee absence,

Management Research News
Vol. 29 No. 10, 2006
pp. 618-631
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0140-9174
DOI 10.1108/01409170610712326
turnover and poor performance. It has been widely recognized as a major managerial and
economic issue (Miller et al., 1990). The main arguments are that stress can be attributed to
a number of causes, the most important of which are the characteristics of the work, the
organizational context/environment and the psychological/behavioural characteristics of
the individual. Initiatives aimed at reducing and preventing stress that have focused on
improvements to the work and organizational environments seem to have met some
success (see for example, Clarke, 2000; Cox and Cox, 1991, 1996; Cox and Flin, 1998). As a
result, the interest has strongly shifted to the social and organizational aspects of the
workplace, as potential explanations for increased stress. In that perspective, management
attitudes, cultures and styles have been found to have significant impact on levels of stress
(see for example, Mikkelsen et al., 2000). Also, amongst the most widely reported
determinants of job stress and organizational effectiveness are feelings of job satisfaction
and perceptions of positive workplace communication including perceptions of cooperation
and teamwork (Forster and Still, 2002; Ernst et al., 2004). For instance Valle and Witt (2001)
found that negative perceptions of organizational effectiveness were strongly related to job
dissatisfaction among individuals who perceive low levels of teamwork.
The purpose of this paper is to provide further evidence and contribute to the debate
on aspects which affect the likelihood of cooperation and stress at sub-unit level. It
draws on survey data from the main Australian subsidiary of a medium-size
multinational Information and Communication Technology (ICT) organization. The Cooperation
data was part of an employee opinion survey conducted in October 2002. It focuses on and stress
the two main (i.e. largest) sub-units of the organization. Based on that data, the present
study is largely exploratory.

Cooperation and organizational culture

For many years, both scholars and practitioners have recognized that cooperation is 619
crucial to the success of organizations (Chen et al., 1998; Jones and George, 1998; Olson
et al., 2001). In an organizational context, cooperation refers to the willingness of
employees to collaborate in expending their efforts towards the successful completion
of organizational tasks. Most researchers would accept that, in an organizational
context, cooperation is inherent in characteristics of the person as well as the
organizational environment, such as the organizational culture (Wagner, 1995; Chen
et al., 1998). Chatman and Barsad (1995) argue and demonstrate that cooperation in a
work context is strongly associated with the organizational culture in which
individuals evolve and behave. In other words, the likelihood of cooperation depends
not only on individual predisposition, but perhaps more so on the formal and informal
control systems that reward individual achievement or cooperative efforts (Petersen,
1992).
One of the most sought after organizational outcomes of cooperation is effective
coordination which is expected to result in higher performance (Smith et al., 1995).
Positive organizational outcomes often require a corporate culture that promotes
collaboration and cooperation amongst members. As Longenecker (2001, p. 22) put
it ‘‘When employees in organizations cooperate and work together, good things
happen’’.
The relevance of organizational culture stems largely from its effects on the self and
the future of the employment relationship (Heriot, 2001). Perhaps less obvious, and
certainly subject to less research, is the relevance of sub-cultures that may exist within
the same organization (Pettigrew, 1979; Hofstede, 1997). One may envisage a situation
where the leadership style and team based structure in one department emphasizes
cooperation while, in contrast, another department promotes individualism through
individually targeted reward systems. Pointing to the relevance of sub-cultures,
a study by Rentsch (1990) found that members of different interaction groups
interpreted organizational events differently, while those in the same interaction
groups interpreted organizational events similarly. It is, therefore, reasonable to
assume that two departments with contrasting cultures would experience different
levels of cooperation. This study sets out to identify the antecedents of cooperation
and examine differential effects of organizational and job-level characteristics on
cooperation.

Importance and causes of stress

It is widely recognized that stress at work can result in a host of adverse outcomes for
both employees and organizations (Nigam et al., 2003). High levels of job stress can
hobble an organization since pervasive stress often leads to sharp losses in
productivity, increased absenteeism as well as higher health care spending (Murphy,
1995). This is consistent with the findings of a recent study of Dutch truck drivers
which found that stressful work and strain were significant predictors of voluntary
turnover (de Croon et al., 2004).
MRN Because of its impact on important organizational outcomes, the management of
29,10 workplace stress has become a management imperative. Consistent with such
imperative has been a dramatic rise in interest in stress reduction (Nigam et al., 2003).
Despite significant attempts to unravel the main causes of workplace stress, there are
still disagreements on the underlying causes (Fostinatos-Ventouratos and Cooper,
2005). However, a rallying point, the most common contributing factors to stress have
620 been identified as emanating from the nature of the job itself and the work climate
within which interpersonal relationships take place (Schaubroeck and Ganster, 1993;
Barnett and Brennan, 1997; Rodwell et al., 1998; Cooper et al., 2001; Giga et al., 2003;
Kenny and Cooper, 2003). In commenting on ways of reducing and/or averting stress,
Murphy (1995) alludes to the need to encourage cooperation in the workplace. Rodwell
et al. (1998) provided evidence pointing to significant negative correlations between
stress and teamwork. This finding is particularly relevant to our study, given the
similar nature of the organization studied (an ICT company operating in Australia). In
addition to the need for mutual support and collaboration as a potential lever for
reduced stress, a significant body of research evidence points to the relevance of job
satisfaction (see Ho, 1997). That is, the greater the degree of job satisfaction the lesser
the likelihood of stress. Furthermore, perceived communication patterns between
individuals within and across departments can play a crucial part in affecting levels of
stress (see for example, Miller et al., 1990). Adding other dimensions to the issue,
Fostinatos-Ventouratos and Cooper (2005) point to the relevance of structure and work
climates as critical. As Giga and his colleagues put it ‘‘Our understanding of the
individual, the work environment, and situation-specific factors must all be developed
if we are to effectively identify, prevent and reduce workplace stress.’’ (Giga et al., 2003,
p. 294)
All in all, while it seems that stress and cooperation are somehow related, it is not
clear where they would fit in an overall framework. Similarly, while there are strong
indications that job satisfaction, communication and the organizational climate
(usually driven by the dominant culture) are strong contributors to workplace stress,
their place in an overall framework remains unclear. To elucidate this and assist
readers in understanding the essence of this empirical study, we devised a tentative
framework situating and positioning the above variables. This is in essence our
hypothetical framework. That framework is shown in Figure 1.

Job Satisfaction
Stress

Communication
with
Managers

Cooperation
Figure 1.
Factors affecting stress Perceived
and cooperation Company Culture
The context of the study: ICT industry Cooperation
Behavioural and attitudinal outcomes can result from the general climate that an
industry, as a whole, may be experiencing. The context of the ICT industry is therefore
and stress
relevant and worthy of consideration. Although, our study does not incorporate
contextual variables as such in the analysis per se, readers need to appreciate the
pertinent characteristics and trends of that industry.
The OECD (2002) define the ICT industry as ‘‘a combination of manufacturing and
services industries that capture, transmit and display data and information
621
electronically’’. In the Australian context preceding the survey, between 1999 and 2001
the Australian ICT sector grew 20 per cent in employment terms, from 240,539
employees to 289,958. The Australian industry is characterized by fluctuation and this
was demonstrated in the 1990s where the first half of the decade was a period of rapid
growth followed by a remarkable decline in the second half (Houghton, 2001, p. 1).
This declining trend continued into 2002 as seen in a media release from the
Australian Information Industry Association showing that redundancies and
performance related dismissals were 18 per cent between August 2001 and August 2002
(AIIA, 2003). In March 2004 the same figure was reported as 6.3 per cent, down from 9
per cent in 2003 (AIIA, 2004).
The development of new technology and globalization have been commented upon
as changing everyday life and potentially causing significant increases in stress related
complaints (Schabracq and Cooper, 2000) and the Australian ICT industry been
subjected to both new technology and globalization.
The organization considered in this study is part of this trend. The turbulent
environment that it had experienced may have been detrimental. This provides further
reasons for examining the resulting impacts in terms of levels of job satisfaction,
communication, perceived cooperation and degrees of experienced stress.

Data and sample

The survey data
The data was gathered courtesy of senior management of the ICT organization in this
study. The survey was part of the organization’s need to canvass its employees on
workplace climate and change. The organization is a full service provider of
information technology and communications solutions. Throughout Australia and
New Zealand the ICT organization establishes partnerships with customers to consult,
design, build, operate and support business solutions.
The survey was developed at the chief executive officer’s request by the human
resources department in consultation with senior managers to obtain employee
perceptions of various aspects of their job and the ICT organization. It was conducted
in 2002 throughout the organization, in both Australia and New Zealand. The main
intent of the survey was to capture the general feelings and attitudes of staff on a range
of issues. Following the tradition of employee surveys, the questionnaire comprised a
series of statements and asked respondents to rate their degree of agreement or
disagreement with each statement. A five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree was used. A list of the item questions (or statements)
appears in Table I showing the factor loadings.
The survey was delivered online. Senior management sent out email invitations to
employees asking for their assistance. A small proportion of employees received a
printed version of the survey at their home address, due to their lack of access to the
organization’s network online network facilities (i.e. remote workers).
MRN Components
29,10 Item questions 1 2 3 4 5

My manager encourages open and honest dialogue on

all issues 0.77
My manager develops and encourages a sense of
purpose and unity in our team 0.76
622 My manager sets clear objectives, outlining
requirements and expectations 0.76
My manager motivates team members to set and
achieve high performance standards 0.75
My manager actively seeks a win/win solution on
cross-functional issues 0.71
My manager keeps me informed about what is going
on in the organization 0.63
I believe managers model ICTcomp’s cultural values
through his/her daily actions 0.51
I am encouraged to contribute my ideas and
suggestions 0.49
I believe that the Executive Management Team will
review and act on problems identified through this
survey 0.74
ICTcomp is a great place to work 0.66
ICTcomp’s commitment to quality is apparent in what
we do on a day to day basis 0.60
ICTcomp is committed to maintaining the health and
safety standards at my place of work 0.54
When restructuring and other organizational changes
occur which affect me, the reasons are clearly explained 0.53
ICTcomp is committed to customer satisfaction 0.52
ICTcomp does a good job of keeping employees
informed about matters affecting us 0.44
Taking everything into account, I am satisfied with my
overall pay and benefits package 0.69
There are sufficient opportunities for me to receive
training and development that helps me be more
effective in my current job 0.69
I am satisfied with the opportunity I have to develop
my career with ICTcomp 0.65
Considering everything, I am satisfied with my job 0.52
I am satisfied with the recognition I receive for my
performance (other than pay and benefits) 0.52
I am satisfied that I am treated with fairness and
respect 0.45
I clearly understand ICTcomp’s vision, strategies and
objectives 0.80
I understand how ICTcomp plans to achieve its
objectives 0.73
I understand my current job role and responsibilities 0.38
The people in my work team co-operate to get the job
Table I. done 0.65
Results of principal I do not experience excessive stress in my job 0.58
component analysis
(varimax rotated Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser
component matrix) normalization. A rotation converged in seven iterations
In total, 936 valid responses were received out of 1,361 employees surveyed. This result Cooperation
represents a response rate of 69 per cent, which is a very good response rate for surveys and stress
of this kind.
We were not granted access to the entire data set as it was controlled by the
executive managers of each participating departments. We were, however, given
access to the data of the two largest departments which were part of the major
Australian division employing 766 permanent staff. Hence our focus on that division
and its two sub-units, namely the ‘‘Enterprise department’’ and the ‘‘Services
623
department’’. There were 397 useable responses from the two departments, from a total
number of 669 permanent employees at the time. This represents a 59 per cent response
rate. The response rates for each of the two departments were as follows: Enterprise
department – 194 from 339, 57 per cent and Services department – 203 from 330,
62 per cent.

The enterprise and services departments

Although part of the same division, the roles and scopes of the two departments are
different. They operate independently and are considered distinct profit centres. The
Enterprise department is responsible for providing all of the off-site services to
customers such as network monitoring, data hosting and help-desk services. The
Enterprise department obtains efficiencies from pooling the skills of the employees to
support a number of different customers. For this reason the Enterprise department is
arranged in ‘‘competencies’’ so that all Network Engineers are in the same management
grouping as are all of the call centre operators and so on. A matrix structure is
employed so that Service Delivery Managers (SDMs) provide the interface between the
customer and the delivery teams. The average salary for this department is
approximately $70,000.
The Services Department is responsible for providing all of the on-site services to
customers such as desktop support, project services and maintenance. Hardware
problems are advised via the internet or a call centre and an engineer attends the site to
replace the part or fix the problem. The average salary for this department is
approximately $50,000.

Analysis and results

Factor analysis and comparisons
In order to tease out the key dimensions of the survey, we performed principal
component analysis on the data. These results are shown in Table I. That analysis
revealed five main principal components (which are numbered across Table I as
defined below):
(1) communication with managers,
(2) overall job satisfaction,
(3) perceived positiveness of company culture,
(4) clarity of organization objectives, and
(5) reduced stress and increased cooperation.
The average variance explained by each component was over 50 per cent. Having
established the validity of the components, we then compared the two departments on
each of these. To that end, we compared the differences (i.e. differences and variance in
MRN mean scores) by way of one way analysis of variance. The results of that analysis are
29,10 shown in Table II.
As the results show, the differences were most strongly reflected in the following
components:
. communication with managers;
. level of job satisfaction; and
624 . stress and cooperation.
The fact that the differences were pronounced on these dimensions is a strong
indication of the cultural differences between the two departments. The differences are
quite interesting and also reflect the jealousies and tensions that prevailed between the
two departments at the time of the survey. The Services department employees appear
to be rating communication with managers, job satisfaction and the degree of
cooperation and reduced stress in a much favorable way than their counterparts in the
Enterprise department. Thus, one would assume that cooperation is much more
encouraged (or perceived to be so) in the former department.
The lack of significant differences across the two departments on ‘‘perceived
positiveness of the organization’’ and ‘‘clarity of the organization objectives’’ is
understandable and in fact reinforces an important point. The items forming these
dimensions pertain to feelings and perceptions on the organization as a whole (i.e. the
entire organization). In contrast, the above three dimension focus on either the job or
the department – both of which make the department as the unit of analysis.

Justification and interpretation of the differences

The two departments had different management styles, goals and backgrounds, all of
which may contribute to the observed differences. The Enterprise department had
embarked on a move to the competency model in April of 2002 and had run training on
the importance of customer satisfaction and the need to improve it, compared to the
previous year. The customer team concept meant that every person involved in a
customer account would meet regularly (monthly the most common) to discuss
customer issues and possible solutions. These teams were led by the SDM responsible
for the customer. The matrix management structure had caused some initial confusion
and the introduction of customer teams highlighted the need for more cooperation
between areas.

Standard ANOVA
Factors Departments Mean deviation F Sig.

Communication with Enterprise dept 21.76 5.73 3.88 0.050

managers Services dept 20.62 5.87
Perceived positiveness Enterprise dept 17.30 5.24 0.003 0.954
of organization culture Services dept 17.28 4.54
Overall job satisfaction Enterprise dept 15.35 4.01 7.31 0.007
Table II. Services dept 14.28 3.91
Comparison of mean Clarity of organization Enterprise dept 8.44 2.18 0.127 0.722
scores between the two objectives Services dept 8.36 1.94
departments (one way Lack of stress and Enterprise dept 5.62 1.16 4.10 0.043
anova) increased cooperation Services dept 5.37 1.24
These regular meetings provide a possible explanation for the observed phenomena: Cooperation
customer teams meant that every person involved in a customer account would meet
regularly to discuss customer issues and possible solutions. These regular meetings
and stress
could provide a number of benefits including increased problem resolution leading to
greater job satisfaction and stress reduction. In addition these meetings clearly provide
the opportunity for increased communication with both managers and the team
members of other competency groups, possibly leading to better team cooperation.
Finally an increased understanding of each person and their role would be expected to
625
assist cooperation.
The Services Department had two new General Managers in two-and-a-half years
with a major restructure in the last 12 months and many people receiving little to no
pay-rise for 2-3 years. Historically the Services department had been a lucrative part of
the business but the last five years had seen revenues declining and lower levels of skill
needed to do the job. This had resulted in a trend of replacing the highly paid and
highly skilled engineers with cheaper lower level engineers. A new initiative of close
measurement of ‘‘calls resolved’’ had been implemented and there was a concerted
management effort to increase this over time. Another relevant aspect was that
employees in that department were somehow more accepting and accommodating of
the company culture and the work that had to be done. Hence, the company culture
was, by and large, more likely to be perceived as positive and therefore endorsed. This,
in turn may have shaped the likelihood of feelings of stress reduction. In addition, in
Services, a good relationship and good communication with management have built up
over time leading to greater work team cooperation. Another possibility is that the
close measurement of ‘‘calls resolved’’ was recognized as a move that could minimize
redundancies in a shrinking market. This knowledge may have lead to feelings of trust
in management with strong ramification to feelings of job satisfaction. Positive job
satisfaction and satisfaction with communication with managers would have been the
outcome of the clear direction and cooperation to achieve results that were made
a priority in that department. This distinctive profile of the Services department
may also be a reflection of greater transparency in managerial actions through
enhancement of employees’ ability to access results and be able to build confidence in
preserving their jobs.

Regression analysis and comparisons

All in all, the above results clearly indicate that cooperation, stress, communication
with managers and job satisfaction are somehow related and may impact cooperation
and stress. To tease out these relationships, we ran a regression analysis testing for the
impact of job satisfaction, communication with managers and perceived positiveness
of organization culture on stress and cooperation. We ran the analysis by separating
the aggregate items pertaining to stress measures from those relating to cooperation.
Because the separate measures of stress and cooperation were made up of single item
scales, we double checked for consistency of these results by running a logistical
regression (i.e. probit) Thus, we ran regression analysis on each of these item scales
and for each department. Then we ran the same regression using the combined stress-
cooperation dimension.
The results of that analysis are shown in Table III. They are summarized in Figures
2 and 3.
When we examine the results on stress (Figure 2), the factors affecting stress differ
markedly between the two departments. They indicate that positive job satisfaction is
MRN Enterprise dept Services dept Total sample
29,10
Factors affecting stress (results of regression analysis)a (constant)
Overall job satisfaction 0.35* 0.18 0.26*
Perceived positiveness of organization culture 0.09 0.21** 0.15**
Communication with managers 0.000 0.09 0.05
Factors affecting cooperationb (constant)
626 Overall job satisfaction 0.07 0.15** 0.13**
Perceived positiveness of organization culture 0.03 0.03 0.02
communication with managers 0.30* 0.25** 0.28*
Factors affecting stress and cooperationc (constant)
Overall job satisfaction 0.32* 0.21** 0.26*
Perceived positiveness of organization culture 0.05 0.16** 0.10***
Communication with managers 0.18** 0.20** 0.20*

Table III. Notes: aDependent variable: I do not experience excessive stress in my job (*p < 0.001, **p < 0.05,
Factors affecting ***p < 0.10). bDependent variable: The people in my work team co-operate to get the job done
cooperation and stress (*p < 0.001, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.10). cDependent variable: Reduced stress and increased cooperation
(results of regression (PS; Here we use a factor combining stress and Cooperation since these are highly correlated)
analysis) (*p < 0.001, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.10)

most likely to affect stress reduction in the Enterprise department. In contrast,

employees in the Services department are more likely to experience reduced stress as
the resultant of positive company culture. This is quite interesting, for the differences
between the two departments, in terms of their reward systems, seem to support this
finding. The Enterprise department employees, with a relatively less advantageous
reward system, are more likely to respond to job-related characteristics in experiencing
levels of stress. In contrast, Services department employees, with greater concerns for
the overall company culture, are more likely to respond to cultural determinants in
experiencing stress levels. Perhaps explain this point a bit more. It is unclear.
What is even more interesting, is that when we shifted the analysis from stress to
cooperation, the patterns of the relationships were somewhat reversed (Figure 3).

Job Satisfaction
Enterprise Department
0.35***

Communication
with Stress
Managers Reduction

Figure 2.
Factors affecting stress Service Department
(comparisons between Perceived 0.21**
departments) Company Culture
*** p<.001, ** p<.05
Job satisfaction seems to have a significant impact on work-team cooperation, but only Cooperation
in the Services department. However, communication with managers seems to have a
significant impact on cooperation in both departments. This latter relationship is
and stress
understandable and may reflect the likelihood of employees tying cooperation to the
leadership of the department.

Conclusion and discussions

Work-related stress is indeed an important phenomenon in organizations and is
627
increasingly recognized as a contributing factor to employee absence, turnover and
poor performance (de Croon et al., 2004). The causes of stress are multiple and
pertain to an array of individual and organizational characteristics (Cooper et al.,
2001). Some research has focused on personal characteristics and predisposition to
stress, arguing that what one person may perceive as stressful, another may view as
challenging (Schaubroeck and Ganster, 1993; Chatman and Barsade, 1995). At the
job level employees may experience stress as the result of pressures of workload and
increased job demands. However, other important sources of work-related stress
pertain to the wider climate of the dominant culture and work environment (Wagner,
1995; Rodwell et al., 1998). In addressing the latter sources, previous research has
tended to focus on issues of conflict with co-workers or bosses, organizational
change, and threats to job security, such as potential redundancy (Giga et al., 2003).
Admittedly, whether or not a person experiences work-related stress depends on the
job, the person’s psychological make-up, and a series of other work-related factors.
Amongst these factors are job satisfaction, perception of the effectiveness of
communication with superiors (managers), departmental sub-cultures and above all
the perceived degree of cooperation and support that prevails within the work unit
(or sub-unit). Clearly, feelings of isolation that often accompany lack of cooperation
appear to be strongly related to stress (Chen et al., 1998). For people that are not in
executive positions, lack of cooperation means that there would be few people at
their level easily available for open discussions and sharing (Heriot, 2001; Fostinatos-
Ventouratos and Cooper, 2005). Because employees assume that support should just
happen; lack of it would cause them to experience isolation, frustration and therefore
stress (Miller et al., 1990).
The bulk of initiatives aimed at reducing and preventing stress that have tended to
focus on improvements to the work and organizational environments seem to have met
some success (Murphy, 1995; Ho, 1997; Nigam et al., 2003). As a result, the interest in

Service Dept: 0.15*

Job Satisfaction

Enterprise Dept: 0.30***

Communication Work team
with Service Dept: 0.25** Cooperation
Managers
Figure 3.
Factors affecting
Perceived cooperation (comparisons
Company Culture between departments)
*** p<.001, ** p<.05, *p<.10
MRN finding lasting cures to workplace stress has shifted to the social and organizational
aspects of the workplace (including cooperation), as potential explanatory variables
29,10 (Jones and George, 1998; Schabracq and Cooper, 2000). The purpose of this paper was
to examine the relevance of job characteristic and a range of variables pertaining to
workplace climates on feelings of stress and cooperation. The results provide further
evidence to this trend by highlighting the impact of job-level and organization-level
characteristics on team-level cooperation and feelings of stress. They also show that
628 sub-cultures, perceived levels of cooperation, job satisfaction, positive communication
with managers are strongly associated with the likelihood of stress.
These findings have implications for future research and practice. For future
research, the authors acknowledge the weakness of the data and scales utilised in
measuring stress and cooperation. The measurements were dictated by the rationale
and directive of the ICT organization beyond the authors reach. Future research could
consider refining these scales and examining perceptions of cooperation and stress
using more elaborate scales. Also, more emphasis on the relevance of sub-cultures and
even the resultants of friction (including competition) between sub-cultures could prove
valuable in understanding the broader organizational issues that may cause stress. In
incorporating sub-cultures as potential mediators to feelings of stress, future research
could consider exploring the relationships outlined in Figure 4.
The framework shown in Figure 4 is a result of our interpretation of the results of
this study. However, the mediating impact of sub-cultures was not explored
systematically as the number of sub-components (sub-cultures) was limited. What is
needed in that perspective is a wider range of team-based departmental sub-
cultures that could systematically be compared. Combined with refinements of
the measurement methods (more detailed scales), this approach is likely to reinforce the
above findings. Furthermore, it would enhance our understanding of the interface
between organizational culture and stress.
Managers might benefit from the case experience and the results reported in this
study. The case experience clearly shows that departmental diversity (in terms of
levels of cooperation and communication effectiveness) needs careful consideration as
it may strongly affect feelings of stress and therefore performance. The results also
point to the need to encourage and promote cooperative cultures. What is certain is that
the aftermath of what happened in 2002 in the ICT Company shows that the Services
department was the better performer in later years. The superior performance of that

Job Satisfaction

Cooperation
Communication
Sub-Unit &
with
Culture Stress
Managers
Reduction

Figure 4.
Factors affecting stress
and cooperation (sub-unit Perceived
culture as mediator) Company Culture
department was conveyed to the authors informally by senior management. No Cooperation
factual data was divulged though as the organization was undergoing change and
understandably, at the time, senior management considered that releasing such results
and stress
formally would be too compromising.

References
AIIA (2003), ‘‘ICT industry stabilises’’, available at: http://new.aiia.com.au/cgi-bin/dpms/dpr.cgi/
dpmsref948/dpms/html/choose%20preferred%20format (accessed 30 March 2003).
629
AIIA (2004), ‘‘ICT industry shows positive growth’’, available at: www.aiia.com.au/mail/
AIIA_Media_Release_12Mar04.htm (accessed 10 June 2004).
Barnett, R. and Brennan, R. (1997), ‘‘Change in job conditions, change in psychological distress,
and gender: a longitudinal study of dual-earner couples’’, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 253-74.
Chatman, J.A. and Barsade, S.G. (1995), ‘‘Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation:
evidence from a business simulation’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 423-44.
Chen, C.C., Chen, X.P. and Meindl, J.R. (1998), ‘‘How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural
effects of individualism-collectivism’’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 285-304.
Clarke, S. (2000), ‘‘Safety culture: under-specified and overrated?’’, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 65-90.
Cooper, C., Dewe, P. and O’Driscoll, M. (2001), Organizational Stress: A Review and Critique of
Theory, Research, and Applications, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Cox, S.J. and Cox, T.R. (1991), ‘‘The structure of employee attitudes to safety: a European
example’’, Work and Stress, Vol. 5, pp. 93-106.
Cox, S.J. and Cox, T.R. (1996), Safety, Systems and People, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Cox, S. and Flin, R. (1998), ‘‘Safety culture: philosopher’s stone or man of straw?’’, Work and
Stress, Vol. 12, pp. 189-201.
de Croon, E., Sluiter, J., Broersen, J., Blonk, R. and Frings-Dresen, M. (2004), ‘‘Stressful work,
psychological job strain, and turnover: a 2-year prospective cohort study of truck drivers’’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 442-54.
Ernst, M.E., Franco, M., Messmer, P.R. and Gonzalez, J.L. (2004), ‘‘Nurses’ job satisfaction, stress
and recognition in a pediatric setting’’, Pediatric Nursing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 219-28.
Forster, N. and Still, L. (2002), All Work and No Play? The Effects of Occupational Stress on
Managers and Professionals in Western Australia, The Centre for Women and Business,
Perth.
Fostinatos-Ventouratos, R. and Cooper, C. (2005), ‘‘The role of gender and social class in work
stress’’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 14-23.
Giga, S., Cooper, C. and Faragher, B. (2003), ‘‘The development of a framework for a
comprehensive approach to stress management interventions at work’’, International
Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 280-96.
Heriot, P. (2001), The Employment Relationship: A Psychological Perspective, Routledge, East
Sussex.
Ho, J.T. (1997), ‘‘Corporate wellness programmes in Singapore: effect on stress, satisfaction and
absenteeism’’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 177-89.
Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Houghton, J. (2001), ‘‘Information industries update 2001’’, www.cfses.com/documents/
Information%20Industry%20Report%20Highlights.pdf (accessed 30 March 2003).
MRN Jones, G. and George, J. (1998), ‘‘The experience and evolution of trust: implications for
cooperation and teamwork’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 531-46.
29,10 Kenny, D. and Cooper, C. (2003), ‘‘Introduction: occupational stress and its management’’,
International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 275-79.
Longenecker, C. (2001), ‘‘Building high performance management teams’’, Industrial
Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 21-6.
630 Mikkelsen, A., Saksvik, P.O. and Landsbergis, P. (2000), ‘‘The impact of a participatory
organizational intervention on job stress in community health care institutions’’, Work and
Stress, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 156-71.
Miller, K.I., Ellis, B.H., Zook, E.G. and Lyles, J.S. (1990), ‘‘An integrated model of communication,
stress, and burnout in the workplace’’, Communication Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 300-26.
Murphy, L.R. (1995), ‘‘Managing job stress: an employee assistance human resource management
partnership’’, Personnel Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 41-50.
Nigam, J., Murphy, L. and Swanson, N. (2003), ‘‘Are stress management programs indicators of
good places to work? Results of a national survey’’, International Journal of Stress
Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 345-60.
OECD (2002), ‘‘Measuring the information economy 2002’’, available at: accessed www.oecd.org/
pdf/M00035000/M00035986.pdf (accessed 30 March 2003).
Olson, E.M., Walker, O.C., Ruekerf, R.W. and Bonnerd, J.M. (2001), ‘‘Patterns of cooperation
during new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: implications for
project performance’’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 258-71.
Petersen, T. (1992), ‘‘Individual, collective, and systems rationality in work groups: dilemmas and
market-type solutions’’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 98, pp. 469-510.
Pettigrew, A. (1979), ‘‘On studying organizational cultures’’, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 24, pp. 570-81.
Rentsch, J. (1990), ‘‘Climate and culture: interaction and qualitative differences in organizational
meanings’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 668-81.
Rodwell, J., Kienzle, R. and Shadur, M. (1998), ‘‘The relationships among work-related
perceptions, employee attitudes, and employee perceptions and employee performance: the
integral role of communication’’, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 No. 3-4, pp. 277-93.
Schabracq, M.J. and Cooper, C. (2000), ‘‘The changing nature of work and stress’’, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 227-41.
Schaubroeck, J. and Ganster, D. (1993), ‘‘Chronic demands and responsivity to challenge’’, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 73-85.
Smith, K., Carroll, S. and Ashford, S. (1995), ‘‘Intra- and interorganizational cooperation: toward a
resear’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Valle, M. and Witt, L.A. (2001), ‘‘The moderating effect of teamwork perceptions on the
organizational politics–job satisfaction relationship’’, The Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 141 No. 3, pp. 379-88.
Wagner, J.A.I. (1995), ‘‘Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation’’, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 152-72.

About the authors

Rachid Zeffane is Associate Professor in Management and Organizational Behaviour at the
College of Business and Management (University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates). He was
formerly Associate Professor in Management at the Bowater School of Management and
Marketing of Deakin University in Australia. He also held academic (lectureship and senior
lectureship) positions at Griffith University (Qld, Australia) and at the University of Newcastle
(NSW, Australia). Rachid has a wealth of national and international experience in teaching
Organizational Behaviour and Management at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. He Cooperation
also led several executive programs. He has over 50 publications in international journals,
including two important papers selected for the prestigious Classic Research in Management and stress
edited by Professor Derek Pugh (1998). His research work appears in leading international
journals such as The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Employee Relation,
The Journal of Management Studies, Social Science Research, Human Relations, Organisation
Studies, Information and Management, Human Systems Management and the International
Journal of Employment Relation. He has also consulted to major Australian organizations on a 631
variety of management-related issues and projects. Rachid Zeffane is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: zeffaner@sharjah.ac.ae
Dominic McLoughlin runs his own business, providing consulting services in HRM and
Industrial Relations to the private sector. He received his Bachelor degree in Commerce from the
University of Newcastle (Australia) and his Master of Business (Employment Relations) from the
University of Technology Sydney. He is currently pursuing a Doctoral research program (PhD) in
Management at UNSW. Dominic has developed a wealth of experience in HR and HR related
fields. His research interests include leadership, organizational change, organizational culture
and company performance. He has worked in a number of industries including IT, healthcare,
education and retail.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints