Patrick Bruce

Workplace stress in the construction sector is noted to have poor implications for employees and work procedures. Although workplace stress is discussed extensively in the literature, reporting of workplace stress-related matters remains relatively unexplored. This research explored the experiences of reporting stress-related issues among a sample of construction managers in Ireland. The study adopted an interpretative qualitative approach, comprising semi-structured interviews with twenty-five construction managers. The data were examined using interpretative phenomenological analysis. All participants reported experiencing various workplace stressors in construction settings. They expressed a strong hesitancy to report their experiences of workplace stress caused by these stressors, and reasons for disclosure hesitancy included fear, stigma, and possible repercussions. The inability to report these stressors exacerbated the issue and created a deep sense of mistrust, which resulted in low productivity and absences from work. Disclosure hesitancy of workplace stress undermines efforts to build safe, equitable, and inclusive construction workplaces by rendering a noteworthy occupational hazard invisible. When construction managers are reluctant to report work-related stress, organisations may remain unaware of both its presence and its impact, allowing stress-related risks to persist unaddressed. This lack of disclosure can effectively shield organisations from accountability in cases of litigation or regulatory enforcement.

Workplace stress in the construction sector is reported to have negative implications for employees and work practices. Although much literature exists on workplace stress, one relatively unexplored area within the field, is the reporting of stress-related concerns. This study investigated the hesitancy to report workplace stress from a sample of construction managers in Ireland. Using semi-structured interviews and interpretative phenomenological analysis, 25 construction managers were interviewed about their reluctance to report workplace stress to their employers. Participants noted an inability to report workplace stress due to fear, stigma, and possible repercussions. The main causes of this workplace stress reported by participants were interpersonal conflict, bullying, deadlines, workload, penalty clauses, shortages, costs, communication, quality issues, and delays. A reluctance to report these stressors was also found to exacerbate workplace stress as well as contribute to a sense of mistrust. This study as well as the current literature on workplace safety demonstrates that many cases of stress-related ill health currently go unreported. Employee hesitancy to report psychosocial stressors represents an important barrier to improving workplace safety in construction. Therefore, to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of Irish construction managers, further research into pragmatic stress risk management interventions is required.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to provide evidence to support an emerging theory that interpersonal conflict is the primary cause of workplace stress among a self-selected sample of Irish construction managers. Design/methodology/approach: Eighteen construction managers working in Ireland were recruited for this study. Using semi-structured interviews and interpretative phenomenological analysis as the research methodology, the causes of their workplace stress were investigated. Findings: Participants reported that the principal cause of their workplace stress was high levels of interpersonal conflict between colleagues. The effects of this interpersonal conflict included avoidance behaviour, ill health, absences from the workplace and loss of productivity issues. Deadlines, penalty clauses, lack of appreciation, cliques, costs, communication, temporary contracts and delays were also reported stressors. Research limitations/implications: A limitation of the study is the small sample of 18 construction managers and the limited geographical area. Social implications: The social implications of this study could be to clearly identify that interpersonal conflict may be under reported in the construction industry, and there is a possibility that it is being misclassified as other workplace behaviours such as bullying, harassment and workplace violence. If this is so, this could aid future researchers in addressing this challenging workplace behaviour. Originality/value: The current consensus in the literature is that the three main causes of workplace stress are bullying, harassment and violence. However, the role and importance of interpersonal conflict as reported in this study, with the exception of North America and China, is not reflected in the wider health and safety research literature. In addition, interpersonal conflict and its reluctance to be reported is largely absent from construction safety research. The findings of this study may be explained if the workplace stress research community is currently misclassifying interpersonal conflict as a manifestation of bullying, harassment or violence. If this is the case, interpersonal conflict needs further research. This is to establish if this cause of construction-related workplace stress needs to be reconsidered as a standalone phenomenon in the wider family of challenging workplace behaviours.

The importance of school leadership and workplace stress is a recurring theme in education-based research. The literature reports that workplace stress in teaching is a difficult matter to resolve, with mixed outcomes from interventions. The aim of this initial scoping study was to report on the experiences of school leaders with interpersonal conflict (IPC), a known cause of this workplace stress. Accordingly, a sample of twelve school leaders working in Irish post primary schools were recruited to participate in this study using semi-structured interviews. All twelve participants reported experiencing workplace stress and linked other people as a source of this stress. Nine out of twelve had experienced IPC as a school leader. School leaders also noted a fear of reporting workplace stress. Half of the participants reported becoming ill from workplace stress and had taken time off from work. Participants also reported ‘balkanisation’ of like-minded cliques that tried to exert control over other groups. None of the participants expressed confidence in organisational strategies to resolve workplace stress or IPC. This study demonstrates that resolutions for IPC were scant. Further research is needed to conceptualise this phenomenon in the school environment and to support school leaders to effectively manage IPC as a cause of workplace stress.