Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how to transform one's perception of workplace stressors, moving beyond the idea of merely surviving or coping with stress to “thriving” within what is becoming a non‐negotiable level of stress in the workplace. Design/methodology/approach The researchers generated a working definition of work stress thriving based on current literature, then conducted a content analysis of qualitative interviews to develop an empirically‐grounded understanding of factors differentiating a stress transformation response from a coping response to workplace stressors. Findings The study revealed key characteristics of a stress transformation response to stress challenges in the work place: systemic cognitive appraisal, inclusive communication strategies, collaborative and sustainable problem solving, individual learning and growth, and organizational positive impacts. Research limitations/implications As a pilot study, limitations to the research include a relatively small sample size and only one type of work environment. More empirical work is needed to test the model, develop and validate measures of stress transformation. Practical implications Findings provide the foundation for further empirical research into stress transformation, and will potentially lead to the development of measures, training interventions, organizational structures, and work processes to enhance stress thriving within organizations. Social implications The findings provide preliminary insights into tools for both organizational leaders and employees to respond more sustainably to increasingly stressful, fast paced, and complex work environments. Originality/value The study provides an original conceptual perspective on the concept of stress management, calling for a paradigm shift that views stress as desirable and conducive to optimal performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".