Applying the multiaxial model of coping challenges certain assumptions that have been inherent in the basis of coping research to date.
Assumption 1: Perhaps one of the more commonly held assumptions is that it is best to approach goals through active problem-solving.
Particularly in Western cultures, attacking the problem is the valued approach to dealing with almost any situation. Any other approach would most likely be considered weak coping at best. This assumption is likely responsible for the existing literature’s focus on problem-focused and emotion-focused coping. Folkman&Lazarus (1980) defined problemfocused coping as managing the stressor, while they defined emotion-focused coping as dealing with the emotional consequences of the stress. Although it was initially assumed that men were more likely to use problem-focused coping and women were more likely to use emotion-focused coping, subsequent research has failed to consistently support this (e.g. Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Folkman et al., 1986a; Vitaliano et al., 1987).
Despite these findings to the contrary, the perception that men cope in problem-focused manners and women cope in emotion-focused manners has persisted. This perception has often been interpreted as suggesting that men cope actively and directly with whatever stressors they meet, whilewomen cope passively, through onlyworrying about their feelings and thereby failing to cope. Thus, this focus on an individualistic perspective has lent support to positive attitudes toward the ways in which men cope and negative attitudes toward the ways in which women cope.
Approaching the same issue, that of how actively people cope, from a less individualistic perspective results in a less pejorative viewof coping forwomen, while continuing to present men’s coping in a positive way.
Amore communal viewof active copingwould involve approaching goals through shared problem-solving. Shared problem-solving, as it implies, involves people addressing the stressor together, either through joint action or through joint planning. Turning to others for support, either primarily instrumental or primarily emotional, would be included in such efforts. In addition, offering support to others is part of shared problem-solving. Research has supported the assertion that shared problem-solving can be an effective means of coping. Stone & Neale (1984) found that seeking social support was positively correlated with direct action. Hobfoll (1988) reported that perception of social support reinforces personal resources. Sarason et al. (1983) found that use of social support as a means of coping was associated with positive self-concepts, low anxiety, and higher perceived mastery. Thus, it is likely that social support allows those who utilize it to be better able to draw upon their own resources as well as relying on the assistance of others. Further support for the effectiveness of shared problem solving is offered by other studies as well. Vitaliano et al. (1990) found that individuals with psychopathology tend to cope in maladaptive ways, which included less support seeking. McLaughlin et al. (1988) found that for women who hold dual roles (having both a career and a marriage), good marital adjustment was associated with more overall coping and less psychological distress. They suggested that one explanation for this finding may be that shared problem solving in a marriage leads to better outcomes. Additionally, Dunahoo et al. (1998) found that social joining as a means of coping was associated with less anxiety and depression.
Another alternative to the assumption that individualistic action aimed at problem solving is always best is the concept that it is better to be sensitive to the environmental constraints and choose one’s responses according to the situation. The assumption that problem-focused forms of coping are always effective and emotion-focused forms of coping are always ineffective has been shown to be inaccurate. Although direct, individualistic approaches to problem solving may often be valued in a business setting, such approaches would be considered inappropriate in dealing with the types of stressors that typically occur in childrearing, educational, and interpersonal settings. If team play is actually valued in work settings, these same behaviors may be equally counterproductive in the work domain. Pearlin & Schooler (1978) suggest that some problems may not even be responsive to individualistic approaches and may in fact require communal approaches. Lazarus & Folkman have repeatedly asserted that stress and coping need to be considered with a transactional approach where the interaction between the person and the environment is recognized (e.g. Dunkel-Schetter et al., 1987; Lazarus, 1966). Researchers have found that, not only does coping differ by the situation in which the stressful event occurs (Folkman et al., 1986a; Hobfoll et al., 1994), but that the effectiveness of different means of coping differs by situation as well (Forsythe & Compas, 1987; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). For example, problem-focused coping has been shown to be a particularly effective approach only in situations in which people have control or can change the situation (Compas et al., 1988; Folkman&Lazarus, 1980; Forsythe&Compas, 1987; Miller&Kirsch, 1987; Roth& Cohen, 1986). Thus, it appears to be more adaptive and effective for individuals to be flexible in the ways in which that they cope (Parkes, 1990). Gintner et al. (1989) investigated this issue and found that resourceful individuals varied their coping efforts according, to some degree at least, to situational characteristics. These individuals also reported fewer behavioral, cognitive, and physical symptoms of stress.
Assumption 2: An assumption that often goes along with the assumption that direct problem-solving is always the best approach is that it is best to be aggressive. We contend that it is better to be assertive. Assertiveness is defined as behavior that shows confidence and firmness, without being unnecessarily aggressive or belligerent. Aggressiveness, in contrast, is typified by behavior that is both strong and hostile to others. Assertive responses to stressors allow effective coping while still considering the effects one’s behavior has on others. Dunahoo et al. (1998) found that whereas use of assertive action was associated with lower levels of reported depression and anxiety, aggressive and antisocial action were associated with greater anger. In another study, confrontive coping was positively associated with the existence of psychological symptoms (Folkman et al., 1986b).
Lending additional support to the need to consider coping from a communal perspective, Long (1990) found that active coping in the workplace was enhanced when accompanied by assertive action and the perception of interpersonal support in the workplace.
Substituting assertive coping strategies for aggressive ones allows people to cope with their ownstressors without harming others in the process. In fact, assertive responding allows one to cope and still be supportive of others. This leads to better interpersonal relations with co-workers, possibly resulting in more opportunities for shared problem-solving in the future. In addition, better relations with co-workers are likely to result in more shared resources, both instrumental and emotional, being available to everyone in the future. Hobfoll (1988) found that perceived social support reinforces one’s own personal resources for dealing with stress. In addition, having the support of others provides the opportunity to benefit from the strengths and resources of others. Although social support has often been considered a strategy for coping only with problems outside the workplace, several investigators have found that it is an important component of dealing with workplace stress as well. For instance, Long et al. (1992) found that individuals who perceived high emotional support from co-workers reported lower levels of occupational stress, along with better physical and mental health. Lack of workplace social support, when coupled with high work demands, was found to be associated with high work-related stress (Parkes, 1990), while presence of workplace social support was found to enhance active coping strategies (Long, 1990). Similarly, Dunahoo et al. (1998) found that social joining acted as a buffer against depression in situations of high stress, thus leaving those who used social joining strategies to cope with high-stress situations less depressed than those who did not. Assumption 3: Directness is another quality that is valued in individualistic, Western cultures, thus leading to the assumption that it is always best to be direct. Indirectness is often seen as synonymous with inaction.
However, as discussed earlier, in more communal cultures and subcultures, directness is often considered a negative quality. A more acceptable and valued approach to some problems would involve indirect approaches. Direct action is likely to dishonor or anger others. Indirectness would, on the other hand, allow others to “save face” or maintain feelings of independence and self-sufficiency. The perception that indirectness is synonymous with inaction is inaccurate. Indirect approaches can, and often do, involve active coping. For instance, Dunahoo et al. (1998) found that indirectness was positively associated with active forms of coping.
In addition to approaching stressors indirectly because of differing social values, it is also important to recognize that, even in Western cultures, there are situations where direct action is either inappropriate or impossible. When subordinate employees disagree with their supervisors regarding the best approach for dealing with a workplace problem, it would be self-defeating for the employees to contradict their supervisors’ wishes directly. However, there are indirect approaches that could lead to more successful resolution of the problems while still recognizing the supervisors’ authority. In one study, coping withworkplace stress through use of strategies such as withdrawal, restraint, compromise, and ignoring the problem was found to be associated with lower levels of somatic and affective symptomatology (Parkes, 1990). The author interpreted this as suggesting that these suppression strategies were adaptive in low-control situations. Although withdrawal and ignoring the problem would be considered avoidant or passive types of coping, it is possible that restraint and compromise represent indirect means.
There are also situations in which a supervisor may accomplish a lot by approaching a problem indirectly. If the problem is approached in a way that reinforces or increases self-esteem and mastery in the subordinate, while also illustrating appropriate responses, the supervisor can accomplish his or her goals and improve the chances of future problems being solved appropriately by the subordinate.
Assumption 4: It is also assumed that being bold and quick to respond is best. Cautious action is seen as weak.
However, a bold, quick response could also be considered impulsive. In a complicated social setting, cautious action is often the best course. Organizations often allude to sports teams as their model, and to the extent that the spontaneous, instinctive play that is necessary in football is carried to the workplace, this myth is perpetuated. Impulsive responses in situations for which all avenues of action have not been fully considered showpoor judgment and may result in ineffective and possibly negative consequences.
On the other hand, cautiously considering one’s options and proceeding only after weighing the alternatives is likely to result in more control over subsequent events and more efficient coping. Planful problem solving has been found to be negatively correlated with psychological symptomatology (Folkman et al., 1986b). Similarly, while cautious coping was positively associated with social joining and support-seeking, making it a prosocial–active coping strategy, it was negatively associated with avoidance, illustrating that being cautious is not the same thing as failing to act (Dunahoo et al., 1998). Furthermore, the same authors found that use of instinctive action as a means of coping was associated with higher levels of depression, while use of cautious action guarded against depression and anxiety at higher stress levels.
Assumption 5: The final assumption that will be addressed here is that people should not be too emotional. An implied component of this assumption is that women are too emotional. Emotionality is typically assumed to interfere with rational responses. Thus, it follows that, if women are assumed to be too emotional, women are also irrational. However, we would contend that emotions are not always a handicap. Being aware of and comfortable with one’s own emotions, as well as with the emotions of others, may allow one to cope more effectively with one’s own problems. In addition, this awareness and comfort may permit one to better support others who are in distress, thus allowing everyone involved to participate more effectively in all types of interpersonal interactions, be they professional or social. In addition, consideration of the emotional side of an issue allows a broader conceptualization. Rather than limiting attention to only the cognitive and behavioral aspects of the situation, all three dimensions of people’s lives receive consideration. This broader evaluation of stressful events may allow a more accurate assessment of the situational constraints, and thus result in more flexible, adaptive coping. Both of these issues have been addressed previously.
Although only a few assumptions regarding coping behavior have been presented here, it is hoped that the process of presenting alternative concepts to each of the assumptions presented has been illustrative. The assumptions in our society are often mirrored in scientific research. These assumptions are often as Eurocentrically-biased as they are male-biased, thus leading to pejorative portrayals of Afrocentric, Hispanic, and Asian cultures as well as women. Consideration of coping from both a communal as well as an individualistic perspective should allow the positive aspects of both perspectives to be valued, rather than valuing one perspective over the other.
IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTION
A more communal perspective has indeed already entered the workplace, albeit in ways that have not been obviously attributed to this approach. These have already included such changes as flextime and flexplace. These programs are communal in that they recognize that individuals are not isolated from families, but rather are integral members of their family. They also tie the workplace and family into a common set of goals, recognizing that satisfaction and well-being in one sphere spread to the other sphere. Flextime allows workers to alter their schedules, usually insuring that the maximum number of employees are available at central times of the day in order to aid communication and meetings. Employees can come to work later and stay later, or come to work earlier and leave earlier. Flexplace has been afforded increased interest by employers with the increase of computers and because many employees can work out of their homes or satellite offices.
This reduces commuter time and also reduces workplace expenses for utilities (e.g. energy costs), square footage, and furnishings. The press for these changes has increased as women enter the workplace, but is advantageous for both men and women, especially given the high percentage of dual-career families. A study by Winett et al. (1982) indicated that employees derived increased satisfaction from such changes, and this can easily translate to less burnout and greater loyalty to their employers. Given expected ongoing shortage of skilled workers, employers should take heed of these changes, as maintaining a satisfied workforce is critical if employers taken the term human resources seriously.
Changes in laws in the USA allowing individuals to take leave time for care of an ill family member is another communally based policy. It allows employees to maintain their connections with the family and the workplace, rather than placing borders between them. It is instructive how aggressively businesses fought this change and lobbied against it. Increased attention to maternity leave, including fathers in maternity leave options, and protection of females who are pregnant from losing their positions are other policy changes that have been successfully instituted. This said, our experience with workers suggests that although such policies are allowed, employers often place those who take them (women or men) on a “mommy track” in which they are less seriously regarded for promotion and responsibilities that might increase the chances of promotion.
What has not changed in theworkplace is the individualistic attitude that accompanies the “survival of the fittest” mentality. In this regard, there continues to be an emphasis placed on individualistic styles of coping related to aggressiveness and even antisocial action. Many Western companies, particularly in the USA, seem to subscribe to a policy of team play. However, it is unclear how they apply this. Rewards are almost uniformly given for individualistic effort and goal attainment, rather than goal attainment by the group. There appears to be very little “team play” in the team concept.
In basketball terms, it is clear how points for making baskets are tallied, but not how “assists” are recorded and rewarded. But it is assists that result in wins (Melnick, 2001). Inworkshops, one of us (S.E.H.) often asks business executives when the basketball team, the Chicago Bulls used to win. Respondents, believing themselves knowledgeable about sports, uniformly answer, “when Michael Jordan scored points”. The answer is incorrect, as the Bulls tended to lose when Jordan scored big. Rather, they won when he had a balance of points scored and assists made. Assists are when you set up another player to score. It is a critical statistic because it reflects not only points scored, but increasing team motivation. In discussions about how their business scores assists, executives usually state that this is done informally, or not at all. They want to play as a team, but do not apply the metaphor to practice. Yet, it is clear that supportive work climates which emphasize teamwork produce a less stressed and more involved workforce (Shadur et al., 1999).
Communal intervention implies teaching the use of “cautious action,” where the feelings and honor of others is considered paramount. It implies the need to train workers in social joining. This form of coping encourages people to aid others and willingly seek aid of others. To the extent that individualistic models prevail, this will be viewed as a sign of weakness, rather than strength. The change from one way of coping to the other is fundamental to the cultural milieu of the workplace, and is not easily achieved without directed, thoughtful intervention.
Readers will note that some of these differences are already characteristic of theworkplace in some European countries. In that regard, the more socialist leanings of the workplace in Europe have been feared in the USA, with its tradition of rugged individualism. The legal protections afforded workers in such countries as the Netherlands and Sweden are much more communally oriented than what is afforded in the US workplace. Comparing to Japan, these protections may be more cultural, and do not even require laws to uphold them (Fukuyama, 1995).
Future research on stress and coping among women in the workplace will need to change along with the changing roles thatwomen are adopting. Just as theworkplace will inevitably be altered by the increased representation ofwomen, so psychological investigation will have to adopt new perspectives that change the basic assumptions of our approach to the study of workplace stress. Just as inevitably, this will also influence men’s workplace coping and the way we look at men, as they will also need to adjust and adapt to new cultural imperatives.
Our principal thesis is that work will become more communal, and the communal aspects of work that have always existed will become more evident. Instead of viewing successful coping with the challenges of work as dependent on individualistic problem solving, we must gain a perspective that includes both individual and collectivist effort. Masquerading as an action orientation, there has been an accompanying set of behaviors that include aggressive and antisocial action, instinctive “shoot from the hip” response, and indirect, antisocial strategies. Whereas the action aspects of this orientation have been esteemed, the negative companion array of behaviors have been ignored. At the same time, communal action, sensitivity to emotions of the self and others, cautious planning, and reasoned action that takes others’ needs into consideration has been demeaned. Even where past research evidence has been available to challenge the “men’s club” climate in our literature review, it is apparent that this evidence has hardly influenced the way in which researchers construe coping in the workplace.
It appears that psychology has adopted the same agenic, male models of seeing the world as has the field of business. This has influenced not only our results and our interpretations, but also the very questions that we ask. When conducting workshops on these topics in business settings, we found that participants uniformly saw team play as integral to work success and productivity. However, when asked how their companies scored “assists” of others in meeting their objectives no one noted their company as evaluating this aspect of behavior. Similarly, when asked if supervisees were allowed to rate and give feedback to their supervisors (translate to team captains) on their supportive behavior (or lack thereof), a similar silence was experienced. Given this climate, it is no wonder that limited collectivist styles of coping are chanced by employees. Indeed, many participants reported that when they acted communally by covering for each other’s absences or faux pas, it was done covertly, because such behavior was officially discouraged or even punished. Finally, we raise an ethical, value-laden question. In studying the workplace, who is our client and what are our responsibilities? If we discover that communal aspects of coping are palliative for individuals and even lead to workplace productivity and satisfaction, are we bound to advocate these models and confront the male-dominated culture that is omnipresent? Is there a place for our role as social change agents? We cannot attempt to remain safely outside of the fray; failing to make a choice on this issue is not a value-free alternative, because it supports a certain set of values that exists in the status quo. Many psychological consultants have learned that to be invited back to the workplace we must please the purchaser of our services, i.e. senior management—almost uniformly composed of males of a certain social class, ethnicity, and culture. This potentially leads to our serving their value system. Because the senior echelons of our universities resemble the workplaces in which we study and consult in terms of their individualistic, male predominance, this is an especially sensitive issue. We must be introspective enough to realize that it has only been with the rise of women in academia that these questions have been posed.