1

An Assessment Of Sources And Moderators Of Stress For Project Managers

Author: Affiliation Address Phone
Email

Chitra Singh Associate member, AIPM 26, Dunbar Rd, Claremont 6010, Western Australia, (08) 9385 3006 chitra.singh@watercorporation.com.au

INTRODUCTION

A certain amount of stress is associated with almost all occupations. Project management, however, can expose managers to more stress than most with endless list of demands, deadlines, and problems (Dinsmore et al.1997: 54). Stress is a big occupational health problem (Veysey 2001: 15-17; Fletcher & Jones 1994; Kenny et al. 2000: 397). The cost of unmanaged stress is extraordinarily high for individuals as well as organisations (Weiskkott 2001:88; Beder 2001: 44; Veysey 2001: 15-17; Whetten & Cameron 1991:100; Fletcher & Jones 1994; Kenny et al. 2000: 397). Stress in employees costs organisations not only through direct absence but also through lost time because of indirect absence due to reduced productivity and turnover (Weiskkott 2001:88; Beder 2001: 44; Veysey 2001: 15-17; Whetten & Cameron 1991:100; Fletcher & Jones 1994; Kenny et al. 2000: 397). A better understanding of sources of stress can help to manage problems of stress at individual as well as organisation level. This study was conducted to find the answers to the following questions: 2 What are the common sources of stress for project managers? Why, under similar situations, are some project managers more stressed than others? STUDY METHODOLOGY

The literature was reviewed to determine the existing body of knowledge regarding sources of stress in general and construction project management in particular. The data for t e study was gathered by structured interviews conducted with total seventeen project h managers from private and public types of client organisations involved with the construction industry. Eight project managers were from a public organisation and nine from a private organisation. A qualitative approach was adopted which enabled the researcher to capture the subjective nature of the human behaviour and study reality from inside. It facilitated in getting the respondents comments on the existing body of knowledge in addition to their own initial responses. 3 LITERATURE REVIEW

A literature review on the subject of 'stress' in the areas of project management, construction management, business management and psychology was conducted. It was found that in the literature on project management, cursory references are made to sources of stress and identification of stress situations. It lacks explanation of questions like why one person feels stress in a particular situation whereas another doesn't. The literature in other areas provided an understanding to what is stress, what are the occupational sources of stress and what factors act as moderators that determine how these sources of stress impact a person. The term stressor is used extensively in the literature. Stressors are defined as "Events or circumstances that we perceive as threatening or harmful, thereby producing feelings of tension." (Sarafino 1994: 74). About 75 stressors, and 22 moderators were compiled from all the literature reviewed. They are discussed later in section 4.

What is stress? There are three views to explain stress. The first view considers stress as the property of the environment and is described as a stimulus in a person as a consequence of the environment (Sarafino 1994: 74; Mathews et al. 2000: 162). The stressors could be catastrophic events such as drought or floods, major life events such as loss of spouse and chronic circumstances such as the nature of the job. The second view perceives stress as the persons response to a stressor and is within a person (Quinn et al. 1996: 272, Sarafino, 1994 #20: 74, Mathews, 2000 #18: 162). The response in the person could be psychological, physiological and behavioural (Sarafino 1994: 74, Sutherland, 2000 #21: 47). For example if a person is stressed at the time of giving a speech, the physiological component consists of pounding of heart, dry mouth, tight stomach, perspiration and the psychological component is thoughts and emotions like when a person feels nervous (Sarafino 1994:74) The third view explains stress as a process. According to this definition, stress is the condition in a person that results when we perceive a discrepancy between the demands and availability of the amount of our biological, psychological and social (biopsychosocial) resources that the stressors in the situation appear to require to cope (Sarafino 1994: 74; Sutherland & Cooper 2000: 56; Fletcher & Jones 1994).]. For example, biopsychosocial resources required by an individual when he/ she is injured in an accident (Sarafino 1994: 74). Thus, the personal meaning of the situation determines the emotional experience and tendencies towards action (Lazarus 1991). Specifically, stress reactions depend on the person's appraisals of environmental demands, and of their own competence in coping with those demands. A stressor is only stressful to the individual if it is appraised as likely to tax or exceed the person's coping skills (Lazarus & Folkman 1984). Hence, stress is not only a property of external stimuli, because appraisals of stimuli will vary across people and contexts (Mathews et al. 2000). Likewise, stress is not simply a response, because it reflects a dynamic interaction between the person and environmental pressures (Mathews et al. 2000: 162). This view does not imply that emotion is necessarily the result of prolonged, conscious deliberation (Mathews et al. 2000: 162). It is likely that at least some of the appraisal processes involved are unconscious, and there may be several distinct processing systems involved. (Mathews et al. 2000: 162). 4 THE STUDY

Interview results on sources of Stress in Project Management When project managers were asked if they had ever experienced work- related stress, all of them answered in the affirmative. When asked what did they think are the sources of stress in project management, the number of sources identified by the respondents were in the range of 4-15 against 75 identified in the reviewed literature. Later, when suggesting the sources from the list compiled from the literature review, the respondents gave their comments based on their first hand experiences, or experiences of others which were in their knowledge. It appeared that most of the respondents were not consciously aware of the factors contributing to stress. The results of the intervie ws were entered into a spreadsheet for analysis. Table 1 presents the list of stressors compiled from literature review and the interview responses against each stressor. Categories of stressors in project management Fletcher and Jones (1994:594) have suggested work-factors that lead to stress. It was found that most of the stressors identified through literature review could be grouped within the work-factors suggested by these authors. However, some of the stressor identified were related to project environment and project managers skills and experience which couldnt be grouped within these work-factors. Also, the analysis revealed that

in the context of project management, some of these factors could be further grouped in broader areas. Thus, all the identified stressors were grouped in the following categories:

Workload Project Environment Time Pressure Project Manager's role factors Job discretion/ autonomy Work Conditions Responsibility Job dissatisfaction Finance/ resources Project organisation factors Role conflict / ambiguity Change Interpersonal demands Organisational Lack of experience/ skills

Table 1: Responses regarding sources of stress Sources of Stress

Response in % Area Factors Stressors Public Privat e Workload Attempting to do too much 100 100 Having innumerable roles 75 67 Risks associated with project management 75 67 Technological change 88 44 Necessity for perfection 75 67 Having to manage innumerable diverse aspects like 75 56 engineering, procurement, construction, finance, cost, time, quality Necessity to keep up with information explosion, 25 56 technological breakthrough Attempt to get back on track due to change in schedule. 100 44 Multiple shifts in project execution 63 33 Project Having to manage inflexible constraints in: Environment Customer 100 56 Environment 100 56 Political issues such as government ruling 100 56 Social issues 100 56 Technological 100 56 Time Pressure Project Deadlines 100 56 Sudden panics of work 100 67 Irregular workload 75 44 Unsocial work hours 75 44 Attempt to catch-up the delay. 100 56 Project Job discretion/ autonomy Cutting down the project resources but expected to 100 56 Manager's role deliver the project on schedule factors Project manager working with ill-defined authority 100 22 Inability to get right people in project team 88 78 Arbitrary work rules 88 44

Table 1: Responses regarding sources of stress Sources of Stress

Response in % Area Factors Stressors Public Privat e Insufficient control over various features of job such as 88 22 work procedures. Office policies 88 11 Decision-making latitude regarding assigned tasks 100 33 Limited authority over project resources 75 56 Restriction of choices like project staffing 75 33 Having to share personnel with other projects 63 33 Conflict is likely to result from the decision 100 44 Work Conditions Unpleasant working conditions 88 11 In the physical environment there is high level of noise, 75 56 temperature, humidity, illumination Responsibility Responsibility without authority 88 66 Full responsibility of desired results with no scapegoat 75 44 in case of failure Project manager feels pressure if the circumstances of making decision constitute: not enough time to make decision 88 78 lack of relevant information 88 67 decision is important 88 56 decision is time-bound 88 33 Responsibility for the action of team members 75 44 Project Job dissatisfaction Financial insecurity 75 78 Manager's role Not getting well-deserved promotion 75 67 factors Change in responsibility without consultation or 88 66 explanation Relocation 75 67 Long hours due to over-utilisation 100 44 Self paid or salaried 63 56 Taken for granted 75 44 Undervalued 63 56 Inadequate advancement like no career prospects 63 56 Inadequate recognition 63 33 No opportunity to learn 50 33 Capabilities not fully utilised 38 22 Finance/ resources Lack of resources 88 0 Cost constraints 75 0 Increased costs and competition 38 0 Project Role conflict/ ambiguity Project team members responsible to different people 88 89 organisation for different things Staff working for project manager and department 75 67 manager at the same time. Change Change in the project organisation structure during 88 67 project life cycle Interpersonal Dependency on: demands superiors 88 66 subordinates 88 66 peers 88 66 Having to deal with suppliers, subcontractor, internal 100 67 and external customer, government Task & people oriented approach simultaneously 63 67 The superior is :

Table 1: Responses regarding sources of stress Sources of Stress Area Factors Stressors

Organisational

Lack of experience/ skills

abrasive overcritical insensitive to others needs The peers are: abrasive 100 overcritical 100 insensitive to others' needs 100 Having to deal with variety of support personne l 25 Time away from home 100 Micro management for top ranks 75 Restructuring and downsizing 100 Rapid discontinuous change 50 Internal and external business processes 75 High level of inter-group conflict in the organisation 100 causes pressure. No consistent set of procedures and techniques to 100 manage the work Inability to see early signs of forthcoming issues 100 Misinterpretation of the signs of issues 88

Response in % Public Privat e 100 89 100 89 100 78 67 67 67 44 67 67 78 89 56 56 56 67 56

Most common stressors identified by respondents in both types of organisations The five most commonly identified sources of stress by project managers in both types of organisations are as shown in Table 2. Table 2: Five most commonly identified sources of stress Stressors Attempting to do too much Restructuring and downsizing in organisation Sudden panics of work Inability to see early signs of forthcoming issues Time away from home

Response in % Public Private 100 100 100 78 100 67 100 67 100 67

All interviewed project managers identified excessive workload as a stressor. One respondent explained it by drawing a graph showing that the performance of a project manager improves as the work increases to a maximum point after which the slightest increase in work can cause a steep drop in the performance because projects are target driven. This could be because work overload causes a feeling of being burnt-out leading to stress (Sutherland & Cooper 2000; Smith & Lipsedge 1995). The role overload was also identified as a stressor. As one respondent from the private organisation put it, "Having to deal with issues like human resources, industrial relations, technical issues, government approvals, uncooperative suppliers and corporate management can lead to stress". Restructuring and downsizing is a common condition in modern organisations leading to stress (Meredith & Mantel 1995; Smith & Lipsedge 1995). Fletcher & Jones (1994) are of the opinion that, much work in bursts and irregular workload acts as stressors because it brings sudden panic of work. Interestingly one respondent said that some people thrive in these working conditions. The majority o the respondents said that inability to see early signs of issues might eventually lead to f stressful situations. (Dobson 2001) supports this view when he says that if the project manager is inexperienced, the project manager may find himself or herself in panic because he/she might miss the early signs of the forthcoming issues or misinterpret them with the result that the issue may worsen. One respondent stated that time away from home is particularly hard in the case of project managers with young families. Comparison of most common stressors identified by respondents in both types of organisations It was noted that other than as listed in Table 2, generally the most commonly identified sources of stress among project managers of the two types of organisations were different. The results are shown in Tables 3 and 4. In each table, the most common stressors listed for that type of organisation are shown in bold, and the comparative figures for the other type of organisation in italics. Table 3: Most commonly identified sources of stress (public organisation) Stressors Response in % Private Public Deadlines 56 100 Attempt to catch-up delay. 56 100 Project manager working with ill-defined authority 22 100 Decision-making latitude regarding assigned tasks 33 100 Conflict is likely to result from the decision 44 100 Cutting down the project resources but expected to deliver the 100 56 project on schedule

Table 3: Most commonly identified sources of stress (public organisation) Stressors Response in % Private Public Having to deal with social, environmental, political and 100 56 technological issues High level of inter- group conflict in organisation 56 100 Long hours due to over-utilisation 44 100 No consistent set of procedures and techniques to manage the 100 56 work Superior and peer are overcritical, abrasive and insensitive to 100 67-69 others needs

Table 4: Most commonly identified sources of stress (private organisation) Stressors Response in % Public Private Project team members responsible to different people for different 88 89 things Rapid discontinuous change 50 89 Inability to get right people in project team 88 78 Not enough time to make decision 88 78 Financial insecurity 75 78 lack of relevant information 88 67 Change in the project organisation structure during project life 88 67 cycle Risks associated with project management 75 67 Necessity for perfection 75 67 Staffs working for project manager and department manager at the 75 67 same time. Micro-management for top ranks 75 67 Relocation 75 67 Well-deserved promotion 75 67 Task & people oriented approach simultaneously 63 67 From Tables 3 and 4 it is evident that more project managers from public organisation identified the sources of stress than their counter parts in private. Also that generally only 22-56% of the respondents from private organisation identified the sources of stress that were most commonly identified by the project managers from public type of organisation. Further, generally a very high percentage of project managers from public organisation identified the sources of stress that were most commonly identified by the project managers from private organisation. It was observed that the majority of the stressors identified by respondents from public organisation were regarding constraints in executing the project and issues regarding work related conflict. As one respondent pointed out that gaining all the necessary approvals relating to project funding, environment, public and government can become stressful because the processes involved are rigid. Another respondent from the same type of organisation said that scope changes, contractual problems, variations, forecasting, post- and pre-award contract negotiation and getting necessary approvals when all put together can become stressful. In comparison, the commonly identified stressors by respondents from private organisation were related to a range of factors. These stressors were mainly related to issues regarding project organisation, their perceived job dissatisfaction, competing project factors such as time versus quality and the associated risks. One respondent said that having to deal with people not having the appropriate skills could be stressful. Another said that because the company is focused on profit and the project manager is focused on the success of the

project, at times it could cause conflict with the top management, which can be stressful. Six out of nine project managers in the private organisation said that the interface with people over whom there is no control (e.g. of different companies, corporate management, staff, government agency etc) is a source of stress. One respondent said that relocation could be stressful if its not expected. The majority of the respondents identified that not getting well-deserved promotion, being undervalued and receiving inadequate advancement and recognition are stressors. Some of the respondents said that these factors could be frustrating but are not stressors. One respondent said that inadequate advancement and recognition could be a stressor for particularly young people. Two schools of thought were found in the literature on stressors related to job satisfaction. Sales (1971) states that the degree of perceived work satisfaction can contribute significantly to stress in the work place, whereas Theorell (1971) states that there is no consistent association between measures of job satisfaction and the incidences of stress-related heart disease. The reason for less recognition of work-related stressors among respondents from private organisation could be because, as one participant put it, Because of the past hard experiences, the organisation has now put in a very structured project management system to ensure that there is front end planning with robust engineering, cost estimates and a project schedule in place". Another added that in their organisation, since robust project management procedure are in place, stress levels are down because it ensures sound project definition and thorough front-end planning. Regarding working long hours, two respondents were of the opinion that it is a symptom of stress rather than a stressor. Personality Traits as Moderators to stress When asked if in their opinion experience of stress is affected by a person's personality,16 of a total of 17 respondents replied in the affirmative. The respondent who disagreed said that instead of the personality trait, it is the self-esteem and mental health of a person that makes the difference. Table 5 shows all the identified personality traits from reviewed literature that make a person susceptible to stress and corresponding response rate. Table 5: Identified personality traits that make a person susceptible to stress Personality traits making susceptible to stress Response in % Public Private Low self-confidence/ self-esteem/ assertiveness 100 100 High defensiveness 100 78 High need for power 88 33 Aggressiveness, strong and sudden hostility 88 44 Impatience and irritable 88 89 High need for affiliation 88 67 Task-oriented attitude 63 22 Responding to time pressures 63 44 Competitive drive 63 78 Live around goals, objectives, deadlines 50 56 High need of achievement 50 67 Low self-disclosure 50 78 Low display of feelings 50 78 Low emotional involvement 13 33

Table 6 shows the most commonly identified personality traits by project managers from both types of organisations that make a person susceptible to stress. Table 6: The five most commonly identified personality traits that make a person susceptible to stress Personality traits making susceptible to stress Response in % Public Private Low self confidence/ self esteem/ assertiveness 100 100 High defensiveness 100 78 Impatience and irritable 88 89 High need for affiliation 88 67 Competitive drive 63 78

It was noted that 88% of respondents from public type of organisation identified high need for power, aggressiveness, strong and sudden hostility as personality trait that may make a person more susceptible to stress. In contrast, only 33 to 44% respondents from private type of organisation identified these factors. In contrast, 78% of respondents from private type of organisation identified low self-disclosure and low display of feelings as personality factors that may make a person more susceptible to stress whereas only 50% of their counterpart from public type of organisation identified these factors. Table 7 shows all the identified personality traits from the literature review that make a person resilient to stress with corresponding response rate. It is worth noting that majority of the respondents identified these factors. Table 7: Responses regarding personality traits making a person resilient to stress Personality traits making resilient to stress Response in % Public Private Ability to adapt in situations of uncertainty and ambiguity. 100 89 Calm & easygoing 100 High internal control instead of feeling powerless 100 Strong personal commitment & involvement in what one chooses 88 to do. Viewing change as a challenge instead of as a threat to security 88 and comfort. 89 89 89 89

It was observed that in addition to the factors listed in Table 5 & Table 7, about 70% of the respondents in both types of organisations mentioned experience as a factor which could make a person more susceptible or resilient to stress. Family and Social conditions as Moderators to stress When asked if, in their opinion, family and social conditions impact stress, all the respondents replied in the affirmative. One respondent went to the extent that he felt that stress is not driven by the job but by the family conditions. Another participant said, " Any family issue, whether its a fight, break-up or death, preys in people's mind to the extent that work suffers". Table 8 shows the factors related to family conditions that act as moderators to stress with the response rate.

Table 8: Responses regarding family conditions as moderators to stress

10

Family conditions as moderators to stress Pressure when demands of work and family get mixed. Family can be source of stress when there is: Interpersonal conflict with other family member. Sickness in the family Disability in the family Death in the family. Financial issues Support when there is stable family life

Response in % Public Private 100 100 100 100 100 100 38 50 100 100 100 100 44 67

It is interesting to note that whereas the majority of the respondents concurred on certain family conditions that may compound the work-related stress, contradictory views were observed on the issue of support provided by the family during stress conditions. One participant said, "If you have a major problem at work, you may get limited relief at home, but I don't think you have a cure". Alternatively another participant said, "family and social factors are the drivers for success in business and work. We need family to live a happy life". Sixteen out of seventeen interviewed respondents stated that our social conditions provide support when we feel stress. This is consistent with Cohen (1984) who says that social resources can provide emotional support boosting self-esteem and sense of belonging. Social support provides a sense of acceptance and worthiness that leads to a belief of personal control (Avison & Gotlib 1994: 158-159). Interestingly, only one participant said that social conditions could impact on the level of stress in a negative way: "I don't think social conditions help with work related stress; it may make it worse". 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Respondents from public organisation identified more sources of stress than their counterparts from private. The most common stressors identified by the respondents from both types of organisations were attempting to do too much, restructuring and downsizing in organisation, sudden panics of work, inability to see early signs of forthcoming issues, and time away from home. Respondents from public organisation most commonly (100%) identified stressors related to lack of job discretion and autonomy, time pressure due to deadlines, management of constraints due to inflexible social, environmental, political and technological issues and interpersonal demands from superiors and peers. However, less than 56% of the project managers from the private organisation identified these as stressors. Respondents from private organisation most commonly (67 - 89%) identified stressors related to rapid discontinuous change, project organisational change, interpersonal demands due to team members responsible to different people for different things, decision making with lack of information and time and job dissatisfaction due to financial insecurit y, relocation or not getting well deserved promotion. A similar range of respondents from public organisation identified these factors as stressors. All project managers from both types of organisations stated that the occupational stress is related to an individual's personality as well as family and social conditions. Further, all project managers interviewed said that low self-confidence, self-esteem and assertiveness make a person more susceptible to stress. 88% of project managers from public type of organisation and a negligible number from the private type said that high need for power, aggressiveness and high need for affiliation make a person more vulnerable to stress. It was further noted that majority of the respondents in both types of organisations identified experience as a potential source of stress as well as moderator to stress.

11

Additionally, all respondents from both types of organisations said that an ability to adapt in situations of uncertainty and ambiguity, a calm and easygoing disposition, and high internal control make a person resilient to stress. In their view, attitudes such as strong personal commitment and involvement in what we do and not feeling threatened by changes make us resistant to stress. All the project managers identified situations as stressful where demands of work and family become competing. Also in relation to family, interpersonal conflict, sickness, disability, and death were acknowledged to be major sources of stress. Most of the project managers believe that friends and associations with groups and clubs act as a buffer to stress. Contrary to the project managers from the public organisations, the majority of their counterparts from the private organisation believe that a stable family life provides support when in stress. Fletcher and Jones (1994: 594) proposed a model demonstrating the relationship between the occupational stressors, personality an domestic background leading to stress symptoms and ultimately to diseased. Based on the literature revie w and this study, for project managers, an integrated view of various factors that lead to stress condition is depicted in figure 1.

12

Stressors Issues related to: Workload Project environment Time pressure Project managers role factors Job discretion/ autonomy Work conditions Responsibility Job dissatisfaction Finance/ resources Project organisation Role conflict/ ambiguity Change Interpersonal demands Organisational Lack of experience/skills

Job related moderators Experience

Self related moderators Personality Family and social support/ constraints

Stress symptoms

Figure 1: An integrated view of various factors leading to stress condition in Project Managers

6. REFERENCES Adam, J. R. & Kirchof, N. S. 1997, 'Conflict management for project managers', in Principles fo project management, ed. Pennypacker, J. S., Project managment Institute, Sylva, USA.

13 Antonovski, A. (ed.) 1987, Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well, Plenum Press, New York. Avison, W. R. & Gotlib, I. H. (eds.) 1994, Stress and mental health: contemporary issues and prospects for the future, Plenum Press, New York. Baum, A. 1990, 'Stress, intrusive imagery and chronic distress', in Health Psychology: Biopsychosicial Interaction, ed. Sarafino, E. P., John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 74. Beder, S. 2001, 'Working long hours', The magazine of Institution of Australia: Engineers Australia, Civil Edition, vol. 73, no. 3. Brumagim, A. L. 2000, 'An emprical investigation of the sources of major project problems: A project manager's perspective', in Project management research at the turn of the millennium, Project management institute, inc., Paris. Byrne, D. G. 2000, 'The frustration of success: Type A behaviour, occupational stress and cardiovascular disease', in Stress and Health: Research and clinical application, eds. Kenny, D. t., Carlson, J. G., Mcguigan, F. J. & Sheppard, J. L., Harwood academic publisher, Amsterdam. Cleland, D. I. & King, W. R. 1988, Project Management Handbook, 2nd edn, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Cohen, S. & Mackay, G. (eds.) 1984, Social support, stress and the buffering hypothesis: A theoretical analysis, Plenum Press, New York. Cottington, E. M., Mathews, K. A., Talbot, E. & Kulle, L. H. 1986, 'Occupatinal stress, suppressed anger and hypertension', in Health Psychology: Biopsychosociol Interactions, 2nd edn, ed. Sarafino, E. P., John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 89. Coyne, J. C. & Holroyd, K. 1982, 'Stress, coping and illness: A transactional perspective', in Health Psychology: Biopsychosicial Interaction, ed. Sarafino, E. P., John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 74. Davidson, J. 2001, 'Reducing stress through mediation', The National Public Accountant, Washington, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 42-43. Dinsmore, P. C., Martin, M. D. & Huettel, G. T. 1997, Principles of Project Management, Project Management Institute, USA. Dobson, M. S. 2001, Project management for the technical professional, Project Management Instititue, Pennsylvania. Fletcher, B. C. & Jones, F. 1994, 'Stress at work', in Hunter Diseases of Occupations, 8th edn, eds. Raffle, P. A. B., Adams, P. H., Baxter, P. J. & Lee, W. R., Edward Arnold Publisher, London. Frame, J. D. 1995, Managing projects in organistions: How to make the best use of time, techniques and people, Jossey- Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Gulan, B. 1999, Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling. Hamlin, S. 1993, How to talk so people listen: What works, what doesn't and why, Harper Collins Publishers, Glasgow. Harrison, F. L. 1993, Advanced project management, 3rd edn, Gower Publishing Company Lts, Aldershot. Haynes, S. G., Feinleib, M. & Kannel, W. 1980, 'The relationship of psychological factors to coronary heart disease in the Framingham study: III. Eight year incidence of CHD.', in Stress and Health: Research and clinical application, eds. Kenny, D. t., Carlson, J. G., Mcguigan, F. J. & Sheppard, J. L., Harwood academic publisher, Amsterdam, p. 471. Haynes, S. G., Feinleib, M., Levine, S., Scotch, N. & Kannel, W. B. 1978, 'The relationship at psychosocial factors to cotonary heart disease: II Prevalence of coronary heart disease.', in Stress and Health: Research and clinical application, eds. Kenny, D. t., Carlson, J. G., Mcguigan, F. J. & Sheppard, J. L., Harwood academic publisher, Amsterdam, p. 417. Hobfoll, S. E. 1989, 'Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualising stress', in Health Psychology: Biopsychosicial Interaction, ed. Sarafino, E. P., John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 74. Holahan, C. J. 1994, 'Life stressors and mental health', in Stress and mental health: contemporary issues and prospects for the future, eds. Avison, W. R. & Gotlib, I. H., Plenum Press, New York, p. 213. Kenny, D. T., Carlson, J. G., Mcguigan, F. J. & Sheppard, J. L. (eds.) 2000, Stress and Health: Research and clinical application, Harwood academic publisher, Amsterdam. Kerzner, H. 1992, Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling, 3rd edn, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York. Kobasa, S. C. 1982, 'Commitment and coping in stress resistance among lawyers', in Stress and mental health: contemporary issues and prospects for the future, eds. Avinson, W. R. & Gotlib, I. H., Plenum Press, New York, p. 216. Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R. & Kahn, S. 1982, 'Hardiness and health', in Stress and mental health: contemporary issues and prospects for the future, eds. Avinson, W. R. & Gotlib, I. H., Plenum Press, New York, p. 216. Langford, D., Hancock, M. R., Fellows, R. & Gale, A. W. 1997, Human resources management in consruction, Longman Group Ltd, Edinburgh Gate, U.K.

14 Lazarus, R. S. 1991, 'Emotion and adaption', in Human peformance: Cognition, stress and individula differences, eds. Mathews, G., Davies, D. R., Westerman, S. J. & Stammers, R. B., Psychology Press, Philadelphia, USA, p. 169. Lewis, J. P. 1995, Project planning, scheduling and control: A hands- on guide to bringing projects on time and on budget, McGraw- Hill, USA. Mackay, C. & Cox, T. 1978, 'Stress at work', in Health Psychology: Biopsychosociol Interactions, ed. Sarafino, E. P., John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 89. Magnus, K., Matroos, A. W. & Strackel, J. 1983, 'The self employed and the self driven: Two coronary prone sub- populations from the Zeist study', in Stress and Health: Research and clinical application, eds. Kenny, D. T., Carlson, J. G., Mcguigan, F. J. & Sheppard, J. L., Harwood academic publisher, Amsterdam, p. 417. Mathews, G., Davies, D. R., Westerman, S. J. & Stammers, R. B. 2000, Human peformance: Cognition, stress and individula differences, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, USA. Mathews, J. 1996, Health and safety at work, 2nd edn, Pluto Press Australia Ltd, New South Wales. Menaghan, E. G. (ed.) 1994, The Daily Grind Work Stressors, Family Pattterns and Intergenerational Outcomes, Plenum Press, New York. Meredith, J. R. & Mantel, S. J. 1995, Project Management: A Managerial Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Brisbane. Miller, J. S. C., Kohn, M. L. & Miller, K. A. (eds.) 1979, Women and work: thw psychological effects of occupational conditions, Plenum Press, New York. Mulenberg, G. M. 2000, 'Report of research examining the characteristics of mangers of complex contemporary projects in the national aeronautics and space administration', in Project management research at the turn of the millennium, Project management institute, inc., Paris. PMI 1996, Project Management Body of Knowledge, Project Management Institute, USA. Quick, J. C. & Quick.J.D. 1984, 'Organisational stress and perceived management', in Health Psychology: Biopsychosociol Interactions, 2nd edn, ed. Sarafino, E. P., John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 89. Quinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P. & McGrath, M. R. 1996, Becoming a Master Manager, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Rhodewalt, F., Hays, R. B., Chemers, M. M. & Wyscocki, J. (eds.) 1984, Type A behaviour, perceived stress, and illness: A person-situation analysis, Plenum Press, New York. Sales, S. M. & House, J. 1971, 'Job dissatisfaction as a possible risk factor in coronary heart disease', in Stress and Health: Research and clinical application, eds. Kenny, D. T., Carlson, J. G., Mcguigan, F. J. & Sheppard, J. L., Harwood academic publisher, Amsterdam. Sarafino, E. P. 1994, Health Psychology: Biopsychosicial Interaction, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Scheier, M. F., Weitraub, J. K. & Carver, C. S. (eds.) 1986, Coping with stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists., Plenum Press, New York. Shabi, R. 2001, 'Stressed up, nowhere to go?', Financial Management, London, no. March, p. 42. Smith, G. & Lipsedge, M. S. 1995, 'Stress, alcohol, and drug abuse', in Fitness for work , eds. Cox, R. A. F., Edwards, F. C. & McCallum, R. I., Oxford university press, Oxford. Suls, J. G., Gastrof, J. W. & Witenberg, S. H. (eds.) 1979, Life events, psychological distress and type A coronary- prone behaviour pattern, Plenum Press, New York. Sutherland, V. J. & Cooper, C. L. 2000, Strategic stress management: an organisational approach, Macmillan, Basingstoke. Theorell, T. & Rahe, R. H. 1971, 'Psychosocial factors and myocardial infarction: I An in-patient study in Sweden', in Stress and Health: Research and clinical application, eds. Kenny, D. T., Carlson, J. G., Mcguigan, F. J. & Sheppard, J. L., Harwood academic publisher, Amsterdam, p. 420. Turner, J. R. 1999, The handbook of project based management, 2nd edn, McGraw Hill, Birkshire, England. Verma, V. K. 1995, The human aspect of project management: Organising projects for success, Project Management Institue, Pennsylvania, USA. Veysey, S. 2001, 'Risk managers urged to face stress', Business Insurance, Chicago, vol. 35, no. 17, pp. 1516. Voydanoff, P. & Donnelly, B. W. (eds.) 1989, Economic Distress and mental health: the tole of family coping resources and behaviours, Plenum Press, New York. Weiskkott, G. N. 2001, 'Managing Stress', Progressive Grocer, NewYork, vol. 80, no. 3, p. 88. Wheaton, B. (ed.) 1994, Sampling the stress universe, Plenum Press, New York. Whetten, D. A. & Cameron, K. S. 1991, Developing Management Skills, 2nd edn, Harper Collin Publishers Inc., NewYork.