Defining stress and wellbeing and understanding the relationship between them

​

There are no agreed definitions of stress or wellbeing, but Gillespie and colleagues* suggest that stress is predominantly regarded as subjective in nature and can be conceptualised as:

​

‘a complex, multivariate process, resulting from a broad system of variables involving inputs, outputs and the mediating activities of appraisal and coping.'

​

Yet, if viewing the same statement through a positive lens, it could be describing wellbeing.  Arguments have been on-going for years about the relationship between the two, with some suggesting that they are separate constructs, whilst others suggest that they are mutually exclusive opposites.  Yet others suggest that they are in a dialectical relationship.  In such a relationship, stress and wellbeing are viewed as two opposing but interdependent forces which interact on each other in a dynamic and fluid process.  There are multiple factors at play simultaneously which constantly change the state at any point in time.  This approach allows us to be at multiple points along a continuum at the same time due to the multiple variables which co-exist.  This means that you can love certain aspects of your job – good for wellbeing, whilst hating others – not so great for wellbeing.  It also explains how it's possible to be an exhausted workaholic.  The dialectical approach to understanding stress and wellbeing is the one which underpins my framework.  So, whether something is worded positively or negatively, there is always the assumption that its opposite is there interacting along a continuum too.   Hence, as suggested previously, it's not about the absence of stressors or wellbeing enhancers, it's about how they interact to create an acceptable or unacceptable balance in the opinion of the person who's experiencing them. 

 

A brief look at stress 

As suggested above, there's no agreed definition of stress, but at its most basic, it can be defined as 'our body's response to pressures from a situation or life event' (MH Foundation, 2020).  Although stress is often viewed negatively, it is a protective response which allows us to cope with and overcome difficult situations that require all our energy.  Chemicals are released into the body when stressors are present, but to work effectively, they need the opportunity to rebalance to acceptable levels.  Low levels can lead to a lack of motivation; optimal levels can have positive effects (improved motivation, alertness, and memory); but high levels can cause the brain to go into overdrive.  This can result in increased blood pressure, susceptibility to pain, hypervigilance, and impaired cognitive function.  Stress itself is not an illness but if prolonged or excessive, it can cause illness.

​

Work-related stress

Work-related stress is defined as ‘the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them at work’ (HSE, 2022).  It can have significant personal, social, organisational and economic repercussions, e.g., impaired psychological health, poor job performance and errors, absenteeism, presenteeism, high turnover, low morale and incivility, and a greater risk of mental illness.  At its most severe, it can lead to ‘burnout’.

 

Burnout

Again, there isn't an agreed definition of burnout but Christina Maslach (the most prominent scholar in this arena) and colleagues define it as:

​

 a ‘psychological syndrome emerging as a prolonged response to chronic interpersonal stressors on the job.'  

 

Burnout is not the same as being exhausted following a particularly hectic period that can be overcome by resting for a few hours or days.  It has 3 key characteristics:

​

•Emotional exhaustion – where emotional resources are depleted and the emotional demands of the work can exhaust the employee’s capacity to be involved with, and responsive to, their own and others' needs

•Depersonalisation – sometimes also referred to as cynicism, where the employee becomes indifferent to or cynical of others, including colleagues, putting emotional distance between them, to an extent that may be viewed as callous or unprofessional

•Reduced personal accomplishment – where an employee becomes dissatisfied with personal achievements in the workplace, contributing to a deterioration in feelings of self-efficacy.

​

It is also important to make a distinction between burnout and compassion stress, where the negative emotional impact is more closely associated with exposure to traumatic and distressing stimuli rather than dissatisfaction with work conditions (click here to read more about compassion stress). 

 

Burnout, CSI and unmanageable work-related stress are not the only outcomes of work, even when it's hectic.  There are many benefits to working, and as suggested above, when framed in a positive light, the same statement given by Gillespie and colleagues to describe stress, can also be used to describe wellbeing.     

​

A brief look at mental health and wellbeing

​

There's no agreed definition of mental health but The World Health Organisation defines it as:

​

‘a state of well-being in which an individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and is able to make a contribution to his or her community.'

 

However, there are many ambiguities in this definition, e.g., it's unclear what is meant by wellbeing, coping, normal stresses of life, contributing, or working productively. 

 

So, what about wellbeing? No surprises - there's no agreed definition, or even agreement on the way it should be written; there's also no agreement on what to call a lack of wellbeing (e.g., illbeing, unwellbeing, dysbeing).  To further complicate matters, there are many different types of wellbeing, including physical, social, emotional, financial, hedonistic, eudaimonic, spiritual, psychological, subjective.  When it comes to an educator's workplace, there are more to add, e.g., professional, pedagogical, teacher.

​

Many have tried to define teacher wellbeing, my favourite is:

​

'a positive emotional state, which is the result of harmony between the sum of specific environmental factors on the one hand, and the personal needs and expectations of teachers on the other hand' (Aelterman et al*).

​

Although I'd widen this to educators, I like this definition because it brings together environmental factors and personal needs and expectations, so it's not just about one or the other.  It doesn't give any indication though of what these factors and needs/expectations might be.  This is a criticism of many definitions related to stress and wellbeing, so instead of definitions, much work in the area focuses instead on models which name multiple contributory elements.  These work-related models often focus on environmental factors or personal needs but don't always bring the two together.  They talk about balance, and the seesaw has become a popular representation - with the horizontal position representing wellbeing.  This was my starting point, but I found many problems with this.  So, I moved from a see-saw representation with only one balance point, to a 'mobile-style' representation of balance, with contributory elements given as banks to choose from rather than being set, as this can more readily accommodate the dynamic nature of the interactions and shows that what may be a stressor at one time may be a wellbeing enhancer at another.  The next few pages introduce the model/framework and explain its various elements.  To find out more detail, please use the contact form or details below to request a chat or click here to access my thesis. 

​

​

​

​

​

* References:

Aelterman, A., Engels, N., Van Petegem, K. and Verhaeghe, J. (2007). ‘The Well-Being of Teachers in Flanders: The Importance of a Supportive School Culture’ Educational Studies. 33 (3): 285–297.

Gillespie, N., Walsh, M., Winefield, A., Dua, J., and Stough, C. (2001) Occupational stress in universities: staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress. Work Stress, 15, pp.53–72.