Dealing with Depression in the Workplace

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Purpose of a study
Importance of a study
Literature review
Types of depression
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Robert C. Dailey, in his book Understanding People in Organizations, defines depression as “any demand made on the body that requires psychological or physical adjustment.” A lot of people think of depression as always being something awful, however, depression sometimes can be good. Depression is part of our every day life. It can have a motivating effect or a de-motivating effect. Each of us has our own level of how much stimulation or depression we need in our lives to keep us from getting bored. Others however, have a much lower tolerance for depression stimuli. So managers must be able to look at each individual and decide if the individual has a high or low tolerance for depression. Managers can do this only if they have a good understanding of what causes depression. Levels of depression in the place of work appear to be at an all-time high. Analysts believe this is the result of longer hours, shorter deadlines, and seemingly unattainable goals. Depression might be unavoidable in its entirety in today’s work environment, but there are many avenues to explore to help relieve depression. Some methods might work better for different individuals than others; either way, depression relief is essential to maintaining a healthy work environment and lifestyle (Reiss, pp. 28-33).

Depression can be induced by a wide variety of sources. Depression in the place of work is most commonly the result of conflict, deadlines, long hours, and performance expectations. Carissa Mire, “you’re one of millions in U.S. workplaces dealing with more and more depression, something experts say is the result of longer hours to compensate for a decrease in resources and added competition. Due in large to the changes in work atmosphere, depression levels are higher than ever. Employees of my organization tend to experience depression due to various aspects of the position. Members of our sales teams have performance expectation depression. Each sales person is given monthly, quarterly, and yearly quotas. If two consecutive term quotas are not met, that person might be terminated. Individuals that hold my position are faced with conflict-related depression. Our position is responsible for speaking to customers whose instrumentation is failing. None of the customers are usually very happy at that time (Roth, pp. 135-167)

The problems with depression in the place of work need to be addressed. Mire also stated, “If many employees are stressed, it needs to be looked at from a systems level. Employers can promote depression relief by providing counselors, giving employees diversions from, or providing a quiet space or room with calming music or sounds. Some employers might also offer classes on how to deal with depression or balance family and work. Regardless the method used, employers need to be conscious of the employees’ depression levels and cater to providing them some relief. Organizations have tried to reduce depression using several different methods (Reiss, pp. 28-33).

Purpose of a study

The basic purpose of a study is to examine the depression in workplace, the causes of it and finally produce remedies to address the problem. This paper is divided in five chapters including introduction, literature review, methods, discussion and conclusion.

Importance of a study

The depression at workplace has wild gesture in today’s professional life. This paper will illustrate the basic theme of a topic and will try to look at some solutions. Of course, this study needs more research and more hypotheses in terms of getting more solutions of a problem.

Literature review

Not every person relieves depression the same way. Certain people react differently to different methods. Some effective methods of combating depression include: conflict resolution, exercise, keeping a diary, talking with friends, taking deep breaths, stretching, organizing, and positive thinking. A lot of a depression we feel is due to poor habits we’ve developed. A lack of organization might top the list of bad habits. Working hard to prevent stressful situations is probably the most effective method to combat depression. Ignoring depression can have very adverse effects. Depression not only impacts us psychologically, but it has physical repercussions as well. According to a United States Department of Health and Human Services, depression can be the cause of: trouble sleeping, headaches, constipation, diarrhea, irritability, lack of energy, lack of concentration, eating too much or not at all, anger, sadness, higher risk of asthma and arthritis flare-ups, tension, stomach cramping, stomach bloating, skin problems, like hives, depression, anxiety, weight gain or loss, heart problems, high blood pressure, irritable bowel syndrome, diabetes, neck and/or back pain, less sexual desire, harder to get pregnant (Roth, pp. 135-67).

Depression is a root cause of many health issues. Without proper management of depression, it all becomes a vicious cycle. We start at work only experience an event that causes depression, we take the depression home with us, take it out on our families or friends, damage personal relationships, become more stressed, and bring it back to work where our performance lacks and our working relationships are also wounded. It is pertinent that each and every one of us fines the method of depression relief that works best for us and uses it. Depression is part of each and every individual’s life. We each must do what is necessary to help combat the depression in our lives. Employers must also provide means for their employees to relieve the depression of work. Some employers offer classes on depression relief or company-sponsored events that get the employees away from the rigors of the jobs. Regardless of a methods used to relieve depression, the productivity of a company and health of a employees is directly proportional to a depression levels of a employees. Since the beginning of mankind there has always been some kind of depression affecting how people feel, act and cope with situations. In this paper we will look at the definition of depression and what causes people to have depression. Then we will see how different people handle depression and show how not all individuals have the same tolerance for depression. The next thing that will be discussed is how managers in organizations can recognize and reduce the negative effects that depression has on the worker and the organization. Finally we will consider what kind of stresses there are in military organizations and how they can be controlled (Wilson, pp. 568-88).

Types of depression

Depression can come from a multitude of different reasons, but for simplicity let’s break it down into two forms: individual induced depression and physical environment depression. Individual depression includes things such as role conflict, role ambiguity, work overload, and responsibility for others. Role conflict occurs when accomplishing one job inhibits or greatly reduces the chance at completing another assigned task. In this case the person who is tasked to do the jobs will incur some type of depression while trying to figure out how to get both tasks accomplished in the given amount of time. How much depression and if it will impact the individual positively or negatively will depend on the experience level of a individual, role ambiguity is when an individual is not sure of what their job entails. It makes it hard for a person to decide on what their priorities are and how to manage their time. Ambiguity can come from a number of different things. A transfer, promotion, new boss, or new co-workers can all cause an individual to experience some type of role ambiguity and added depression. Both role conflict and role ambiguity relate to job dissatisfaction, lower level of self-confidence, and sometimes elevated blood pressures. When this issue arise an individual’s motivation decreases, family problems surface, and depression sets in (Wilson, pp. 568-88).

Another form of individual induced depression is work overload. There are two forms of work overload: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative performed when a person has too many things to accomplish and not enough time to do them in. Qualitative overload on the other hand is when the individual doesn’t have enough experience or expertise to accomplish the task(s) at hand. Both of the types of stressors are very detrimental to an individual’s health. In fact due to employees feel as if they are doing two or more jobs at once and have no time to themselves they experience elevated cholesterol, blood pressure, and pulse rate. Another factor which affects employees is when they have or feel they have the responsibility for other co-workers. This can happen not only to managers but also to other employees who might be group leaders or even union leader. When you start adding up all of the individual responsibilities the potential for employees having some sort of job related depression is very high. Now lets move on to physical work environment stressors. When people think of physical work environment they usually think of some type of hard labor. But it’s not confined only to physical labor; it also encompasses other factors such as noise, temperature, lighting, and pollution. So that means even people in business and people in construction both have some kind of physical work environment stressors. Depression from noise doesn’t have to be caused from loud sounds. It could be the sound of a air conditioner or maybe even the silence of some one who is sitting next to you and you know they are watching what you do. Temperature also adds to frustration and therefore causes depression. Whether it’s from working out in the blazing sun or from sitting beside the air conditioner, they both can lead to stressful situations. Light can cause depression due to of being too high, to low, or the wrong type. Any of the can makes a person strain their eyes thus make them more susceptible to depression. When you put all the individual and physical stressors together you can see why job depression is drawing more and more attention (Simmering, pp. 654-63).

Methods

Participants

Participants were 78 faculty and 74 staff of a Midwestern University for a total sample size of 152. A total of 109 participants were female (71.7%); their ages ranged from 22 to 63 years (M = 39.45, SD = 12.55). Of a total respondents, 46 had been in their current job less than 1 year (30.3%), 70 for 1–5 years (46.1%), 20 for 6–10 years (13.2%), and 16 for more than 10 years (10.5%). Finally, 45 of a respondents had received a doctorate or equivalent (29.6%), 58 a Master’s degree (38.2%), and 49 a bachelor’s degree (32.2%).

Measures

The survey consisted of several items to assess a variety of significant constructs related to healthy workplace practices and employee outcomes. The order of presentation of a specific measures was randomized to control for any order effects. (Vassie & Lucas 479-90)

Satisfaction with healthy workplace practices

A measure of satisfaction with the five categories of workplace practices identified by (Grawitch et al. 129-47) was created for the current study. Respondents were provided with a description of each of a practices and some examples of each. They were then asked to respond to a series of four items about each set of practices as they perceived them in their organization. Items focused on (a) satisfaction with the practice, (b) perceived availability of a practice, (c) self-reported participation in the practice, and (d) the value employees perceived the organization placed on that practice. Each of the facets was identified by (Grawitch et al. 129-47) as significant components of effectiveness and utilization, based on the work of (Parchman and Miller 20-22), (Fitz-enz 19-26), (Munz and Kohler 1-12), and others. The complete list of items can be obtained from the first author. Responses to all items were made using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The alpha coefficients for the five scales were.91 (involvement),.94 (development and expansion),.84 (recognition),.95 (work-life balance), and.89 (health and safety). The scales have not undergone rigorous psychometric development. (Vassie & Lucas 479-90)

Factor analytic results using oblimin rotation (due to a hypothesized overlap among the factors) revealed that when employee involvement was not considered, four factors resulted, accounting for 80.22% of a variance in the items. In addition, the items loaded on the hypothesized factors, with factor loadings ranging from.71 to.93, and cross-loadings at or below.23. When employee involvement items were entered, however, the factor structure became more difficult to interpret, thus signifying that employee involvement is an integral part of all of a other practices. Complete results of a factor analysis can be obtained from the first author (Vassie & Lucas, pp. 479-90).

Emotional Exhaustion

Emotional Exhaustion was measured using the Emotional Exhaustion Scale from the (Maslach 37-51) Burnout Inventory. The emotional exhaustion scales consist of nine items measured on a 7-point scale, ranging from 0 (Never) to 6 (Every day). Example items include, “I feel burned out from my work” and “I feel frustrated by my job.” The alpha coefficient for emotional exhaustion was.86. (Vassie & Lucas 479-90)

General Mental Well-Being

General mental well-being was measured using a 12-item measure developed by (Banks et al 187-194). Participants were asked to indicate to what extent they had recently experienced certain general mental health outcomes, including “lose sleep over worry” and “been able to face up to your problems.” Responses were scored on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (Rarely) to 4 (Very often). The alpha coefficient for general mental well-being was.85. (Wilson 568-88)

Affective Commitment

Affective commitment was measured using the affective commitment scale of a Organizational Commitment Scale developed by (Allen and Meyer1-18). The affective commitment scale contains eight items, including “This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me” and “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.” Responses were scored on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The alpha coefficient for emotional pledge was.88. (Tetrick & Quick 3-17)

Turnover Intention

Turnover intention was measured using one item, “I intend to seek employment outside of this organization in the next year,” with responses provided on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). (Tetrick & Quick 3-17)

Procedure

Data collection occurred entirely through the use of a web survey. Respondents were contacted via a college distribution list. Answer rate was around 35%. Respondents were asked to participate in the current study through an email invitation. They were provided a link to a web survey in this invitation. Participants were then asked to comprehensive the study. Each scale used in this study represented its own page of questions in the survey. The order of presentation of a instruments was randomized to control for any order effects. Upon completion of a survey items, respondents were asked to respond to a brief demographics questionnaire, and then submitted their responses. (Aldana 296-320)

Results

Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all study variables can be found in Table 1. Several results are relevant to a current study. Sex was correlated with turnover (r =.22, p <.05). Tenure was negatively correlated with satisfaction with growth and development practices (r = −.24, p <.05) and health and safety practices (r = −.17, p <.05), and was positively correlated with commitment (r =.24, p <.05). Age was negatively correlated with satisfaction with employee involvement (r = −.18, p <.05), work-life balance (r = −.29, p <.05), and health and safety (r = −.44, p <.05), and positively associated with well-being (r =.21, p <.05). Finally, more educated employees reported more satisfaction with health and safety practices (r =.16, p <.05), greater intention to leave (r =.38, p <.05), less well-being (r = −.33, p <.05), and less commitment to a organization (r = −.25, p <.05). There were no significant differences on any of a outcomes for faculty and staff. All demographic variables that possessed a significant correlation with the satisfaction or outcome variables were used as controls in the analyses to take into account relationships that might have resulted due to demographics. (Tetrick & Quick 3-17)

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for all Study Variables.

In addition, in support of H1a, there was significant overlap in satisfaction with the five sets of healthy workplace practices, supporting the arguments made by (Grawitch et al. 129-47). Associations between the factors ranged starting.36 (between growth and development and health and safety) to.65 (between employee involvement and work-life equilibrium), with a mean correlation of.51 (SD =.09), suggesting that there were moderate amounts of overlap among satisfaction with the different practices, as expected. Providing general support for H1b, growth and development, recognition, work-life balance, and health and safety all correlated more strongly with employee involvement than they did among themselves. In fact, for all except health and safety, the difference in the correlation between that factor and employee involvement and the next highest correlation were all statistically significant (all t values were greater than 2.65, DF = 149). Finally, the satisfaction factors demonstrated significant bivariate relationships with the outcome variables. These results suggest that focusing on a specific healthy workplace practice can yield some potential results for an organization. However, these results do not identify specific leverage points for influencing these outcomes. Additional analyses were therefore warranted to identify which healthy workplace practices were most predictive of each of a outcomes. In addition, some of a correlations were moderately strong, suggesting the possible presence of common method variance that could not be corrected for in the current study (Spielberger 185-200).

Predicting Employee Outcomes

For all analyses below, multiple regressions was used to test specific relationships. Sex, tenure, age, and education were employed as the control variables, and satisfaction with healthy workplace practices was used as the predictor. These regression analyses were used to Test H2a, that satisfaction with the five workplace practices would significantly predict employee outcomes, and H2b, that satisfaction with employee involvement would mediate the relationship between satisfaction with the other four practices and employee outcomes. In the first regression analysis, organizational commitment served as the outcome. (Spielberger 185-200) In support of H2a, after controlling for the demographic variables, satisfaction with healthy workplace practices accounted for 31.2% of a variance in organizational commitment ΔF(5, 142) = 16.31, p <.001 (top panel of Table 2). The primary predictor of organizational commitment was satisfaction with employee involvement programs (β =.43, t = 3.30, p <.001). (Wilson 568-88)

However, when satisfaction with employee involvement was removed from the equation, the four remaining satisfaction factors accounted for 27.0% of a variance in organizational commitment (second panel of Table 2). In this revised equation, both satisfaction with growth and development (β =.24, t = 2.99, p <.01) and work-life equilibrium (β =.33, t = 3.91, p <.001) played a crucial role in the prediction of organizational commitment. In other words, the results of this analysis support the contention that employee involvement subsumes, in many cases, some of a other workplace practice areas, supporting H2b. (Spector 221-32)

Table 2. Regression Analysis Results for Organizational Commitment and Emotional Exhaustion.

In the second regression analysis, emotional exhaustion was used as the outcome variable. In support of H2b, after controlling for the demographic variables, satisfaction with healthy workplace practices accounted for 29.5% of a variance in emotional exhaustion, ΔF(5, 142) = 12.42, p <.001 (third panel of Table 2). Again, satisfaction with employee involvement practices was the most powerful predictor (β = −.77, t = −5.33, p <.001). However, this time satisfaction with recognition programs was also a significant predictor (β =.21, t = 2.22, p <.05), suggesting the presence of a suppressor effect (its bivariate relationship went from −.22 to a regression coefficient of.21). According to (Tabachnick and Fidell 147-59), a suppressor variable should be defined as one that “enhances the importance of other IVs by virtue of suppression of irrelevant variance in them. It makes little sense to try to interpret the meaning of that beta weight, except to say that after controlling for the shared variance with other variables, there is something about satisfaction with recognition that might be positively associated with emotional exhaustion. What that is, this study cannot specify. In addition, after dropping satisfaction with employee involvement from the equation, much of that suppression effect disappeared (bottom panel of Table 2). Instead, satisfaction with healthy workplace practices accounted for 16.0% of a variance in emotional exhaustion when employee involvement was excluded. The effect of recognition was reduced (β =.06), and now satisfaction with work-life balance practices was the most significant predictor (β = −.30, t = −3.01, p <.01). (Wilson 568-88)

Again, these results further support the idea that employee involvement is of a utmost importance and is substantially related to a other practice areas, thus supporting H2b. In support of H2a, after controlling for the demographic variables, satisfaction with healthy workplace practices accounted for 22.5% of a variance in well-being, ΔF(5, 142) = 9.82, p <.001. Deeper analysis revealed mixed support for the hypothesis. Specifically, all five satisfaction variables were significant predictors of well-being (top panel of Table 3). Employee involvement, growth and development, and health and safety all demonstrated regression coefficients in the expected positive direction, whereas recognition and work-life equilibrium demonstrated significant coefficients in the negative direction (the bivariate coefficients were near zero). Therefore, while H2a was supported for well-being, H2b was not supported. (Spector 221-32)

Table 3. Regression Analysis Results for Well-Being and Turnover Intentions.

After removing employee involvement satisfaction from the equation, satisfaction with the other four workplace practices still accounted for 18.9% of a variance in well-being (second panel of Table 3). The results for this analysis demonstrated an increase in the strength of a prediction for growth and development (β =.46, t = 5.33, p <.001). However, the vast majority of a other relationships remained unchanged. Therefore, employee involvement did not cause the suppression effects, as it had in the previous analysis. Overall, the results suggest that employee involvement, growth and development, and health and safety programs are influential in employee well-being. Furthermore, the results also suggest that organizations might want to pay particular attention to issues that might surface in the development and implementation of work-life balance and recognition practices, as there might be some aspects of the that lead to a reduction in well-being. Finally, this analysis was the first analysis that suggested a less significant role for employee involvement as compared to a other four healthy workplace factors. (Karasek 11-47)

In the final regression analysis, turnover intentions were used as the outcome variable. After controlling for demographics, healthy workplace satisfaction factors accounted for 20.1% of a variance in turnover intentions, ΔF (5, 142) = 9.13, p <.001 (third panel of Table 3), supporting H2b. As in previous analyses, employee involvement was the strongest predictor (β = −.56, t = −4.01, p <.001). In addition, satisfaction with health and safety practices was a significant predictor (β = −.28, t = −3.26, p <.01). Finally, recognition again demonstrated an apparent suppressor effect (β =.20, t = 2.25, p <.05), since its bivariate relationship with turnover intentions was −.17 (see Table 1). As in previous analyses, the results suggest that satisfaction with employee involvement might be the primary healthy workplace indicator of turnover intentions, although health and safety did demonstrate significant predictive capacity even when considering employee involvement. After removing employee involvement satisfaction from the equation, satisfaction with the other four workplace practices still accounted for 13.0% of a variance in turnover intentions (bottom panel of Table 3). The results of this revised analysis demonstrated a slight increase in the strength of a prediction for health and safety (β = −.31, t = −3.50, p =.001) and eliminated the suppression effect of recognition. However, the vast majority of a other relationships remained unchanged, suggesting that satisfaction with employee involvement and health and safety practices most influence turnover intentions, thus failing to support H2b (Kelloway 223-35).

Discussion

The results of a current study suggest some conclusions regarding the perceptions of healthy workplace practices. First, as expected, satisfaction with employee involvement mediated the relationship between several of a other healthy workplace practices and the outcomes of organizational commitment and emotional exhaustion. These results suggest that employee involvement plays an integral role in understanding, developing, and evaluating some aspects of a healthy workplace, an idea that has been demonstrated with regard to other programs in organizations. As such, following arguments lay out by (Pfeffer and Lawler 587-96), involving employees in decisions at some level most likely increases the ability of a organization to tailor programs to meet specific employee needs. It is interesting to note that this mediational effect was not evidenced for well-being or turnover intentions, both of which were less focused on affective outcomes.

It might be that employee involvement plays a more pivotal role in understanding the link between healthy workplace practices and affective outcomes than it does in the link with other outcomes, such as well-being and turnover intentions. This is not to say that employee involvement is unnecessary in developing healthy workplace programs and practices that promote other types of outcomes. Instead, there might be outcomes that are affected without the need to involve employees. It will be significant to expand this research to include other types of non-affective outcomes, including productivity, absenteeism, physical health, and injury rates, all of which are significant occupational health outcomes, and many of which require techniques other than self-report to obtain valid data. This will help to reduce or eliminate common method variance or personal biases that might have impacted some of a relationships in the current study, as evidenced by some of a moderately large correlations. Perhaps most importantly, all five of a healthy workplace satisfaction variables demonstrated significant predictive validity, providing support for the framework proposed by (Grawitch et al. 129-47). While employee involvement clearly led the way in predicting outcomes in the current study, the other four satisfaction variables contributed significantly in some of a analyses. Based on these results, it does seem that each provides some utility in understanding individual outcomes in the workplace (Edwards 272-99).

The suppressor effects that were obtained in some of a analyses also signify some possible concerns in future research. Perhaps the most recurring theme was the suppressor effects that developed for recognition and work-life equilibrium. For recognition, it might be that there is something about such programs that causes an increase in perceptions of work overload or competition in the workplace. For work-life balance, future research might want to explore possible difference due to sex (which was not done here due to a relatively small number of men in the sample), number of children, marital status, obligations outside of work, perceptions of role conflict/ambiguity, or other variables that are often associated with work-life balance issues. It must also be noted that this study examined perceptions of a employer’s healthy workplace practices, not the actual existence of specific programs. Although the results of a current study suggest that these perceptions might play a key role in a variety of individual outcomes in the workplace, clearly there is more that must be examined. For example, the results of a current study do not tell us if individuals that are satisfied with recognition are satisfied due to (1) the organization provides countless programs and policies that meet their recognition needs, (2) the organization provides no recognition programs and policies but respondents are satisfied due to the no value recognition themselves, or (3) some other reason (Jamison 33-41).

Ethical Issues in Technology Advancement

Surely all this increase in productivity does come at a price, but is it ethical? Would you say slave labor is ethical? I hope not! Therefore, we must weigh the increase in productivity that technology brings against our own value of life. Work-life balance is certainly one area of concern to our society today, and as technology increases, so does depression on peoples, mental and physical well-being. Employees are sacrificing their happy home life, health, and other areas we have probably not yet explored, in order to be more productive at work (Quick et. all 426-38).

Is Technology Compromising Our Physical Health?

Odette Pollar believes technology can exist without compromising our health, the secret is in finding out, “…how to formulate technology in our favor…” (InfoTrac) Mr. Pollar is the president of Oakland-based Time Management Systems, and an authority on depression in the place of work. (InfoTrac) Some employers are responding well by recognizing the need for work-life balance programs, such as offering their employees flextime, telecommuting, or compensation for time off. Still other companies have no such benefits in place. In fact, some companies have staff on call 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and those companies require their on call staff to carry a cell phone (Pfeffer 111-28).

Mobile phones can be harmful to your health. Such as, people who have pacemakers and/or defibrillators might be subject to electromagnetic interference (EMI) from their specific medical device. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires cell phone companies to issue warnings regarding exposure guidelines when they sell new cellular telephones. These warnings teach consumers about potential risks of radio frequency (RF) energy levels, and clearly state that cellular phone companies must maintain certain levels of RF energy for the phone they purchase (Kelloway 223-35).

The Future of Technology Depression in the Place of work

Companies have seen a large productivity increase in recent years by installing more automated and high-tech equipment, due to of this productivity increase, I do not foresee a time in the near future that technology will revert back to an earlier stage, nor do I foresee a time, barring a major economic depression, that technology will significantly slow down. The hope is that employers will start to become more aware of work-life balance issues, and offer employees more training and support when employees become overwhelmed in their current stressful working environment. In addition, employees need to seek out training, from their employers, in the areas of time management and depression management, and/or other areas they feel are stressful, due to of increased technology (Cohen et. All 643-76).

How to handle depression

Although every person handles depression in their own particular way they all basically go through the same stages. Professor Hans Selye called these stages the ‘general adaptation syndrome’.5 He says that the body adjust to depression in three stages; (1) alarm reaction, (2) adaptation, and (3) exhaustion. Alarm reaction is where a person first becomes aware of whatever the stressor is. In this stage the body activates its defensives. Some of a notable traits are higher blood pressure, rapid breathing, faster heart rate, and muscle tension. In the adaptation stage the body tries to identify which system it needs to use to deal with the long term effect of what ever is causing depression. Then the body moves into a exhaustion stage. This is where the body is totally depleted of its adaptive energy. The body also can revert back to a symptoms of a alarm reaction stage. From having a basic understanding of how a person’s body reacts to depression, managers have a better insight on what to look for when trying to figure out what the limits are of the personnel (Ludwig 1-24).

Limitation and future directions

Although the current study explored some possible directions in examining the healthy workplace from a comprehensive perspective, it has some limitations that should also be addressed in future research. First, this study was exploratory and correlation in nature. There is no way to know, for example, if satisfaction with healthy workplace practices leads to employee outcomes, or if employee feelings about the workplace lead to more positive perceptions of a organization’s policies and practices. Second, this research was conducted with employees from one particular organization in one particular context (i.e., a university setting). Future research should address the relationship among these variables in other settings to establish the generalizability of the results to contexts outside of a university (or at least outside of a knowledge management) setting. As mentioned previously, the university context is a setting that has some unique characteristics compared to other organizations. For example, university settings tend to be somewhat more democratic and involvement-focused than some industries, in that employees (both faculty and staff) work regularly in committees and teams that attempt to solve problems. Therefore, some benefits of employee involvement are expected in a university setting that may not be expected in other settings.

Conclusion

The best way to learn how to notice signs of depression in other people is to become aware of your own types of symptoms. There are many warning signs available to us. A few of the include dryness of a mouth, insomnia, chest pain with no known cause, rapid breathing, stomach pain, and changes in appetite. When you feel these type of symptoms pay attention to how you react to them. More than likely what you do will probably be the same way others cope with depression. Here are some of a things you might not see in your self that you might notice in your co-workers; drug use, excessive drinking, absenteeism, and emotional outbursts. One of a more serious depression-related sicknesses is depression. This happens when a person loses their self-esteem and they feel that they have no control over their job. Two signs connected with depression are the inability to meet deadlines and having trouble making decisions while at the same time worrying about both of the excessively. Managers need to be able to recognize these signs of depression in the work place so productivity won’t be hurt and the quality of life for the employees remain high. What exactly can be done about depression? The most significant thing that organizations can do is try to keep depression at a minimum on the job. Employers need to make sure that they educate their employees about how to handle depression. This can be in done at a formal meeting, at informal group meetings, or by newsletter. The main thing is to get the word out about depression and heighten individual’s awareness of it. There are many avenues to take that help relieve depression. Physical fitness, nutrition, weight loss, and smoking programs are some of a more popular ways to help ward off depression. One way that employers are responding to employees’ emotional, physical, and personal problems are employee assistance programs (EAP). These programs are set up by the employer with a local medical organization that has the capability of helping employees that have some type of problem whether it be drug dependency, alcoholism or smoking. The employer in these programs pays for part or all the expenses of a program (Reiss 28-33).

Another way organizations are helping their employees to deal with depression is wellness programs. Many organizations are using these programs and are reporting great results from them. Companies are beginning to realize that programs dealing with depression-related problems before they become chronic can be a major contributor to a quality of work life for employees thus enhancing their job performance. Some companies spend millions of dollars each year on wellness programs. One company even paid their employees bonuses for any weight they lost. Although these programs sound like they cost a lot they actually save companies money in the long run. This is due to of several factors some of which are less hospital stays, less health insurance claims, reduced accidents rates, and increased employee satisfaction. All of the lead to a more productive individual and better work force. One other aspect of reducing depression deals with specific behavioral techniques for mental relaxation. These are brought out in depression management courses that some companies let their employees attend. They focus their attention on the concept that the central nervous system can’t differentiate between a real experience and an imagined experience. These classes teach things like deep breathing, muscle relaxation, biofeedback, and how depression can affect them personally and what they can do about it. In today’s society where pressures are becoming more and more extreme organizations, leaders, and managers need to be aware of a depression that their work force encounters and set up some type of program to help them deal with them. In the military there is the same type of stressors as in the private sector and also a few that wouldn’t be found in corporate industries. Military leaders must look at their personnel and see what kind of pressure they are experiencing to be effective leaders. In fact they need to be even more vigilant for signs of depression due to ay must be sure that an individual is ready to go to combat, both in a physical and mental state, at a moments notice (Browne 54-61).

We have taken a look at what the definition of depression and some of a causes of depression in the work place. It is significant to try and reduce these causes as much as possible so that employees won’t get any depression related symptoms. Also it was stated how a persons’ body reacts when it encounters depression. Then the signs of depression that managers need to look for were discussed. After that some of a ways organizations can help it employees manage depression were looked at. Finally, it was shown how the military is handling depression among its members. As the world gets more diverse depression in the work force will continue to grow. It is imperative for managers and leaders to be able to recognize depression, understand its causes, and know how to alleviate it in their organizations so that it can continue to grow and be productive (Frone 143-62).

Works Cited

Aldana, S. G. Financial impact of health promotion programs: 2001, A comprehensive review of a literature. American Journal of Health Promotion, 15, 296–320.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to a organization: 1990, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.

Banks, M. H., Clegg, C. W., Jackson, P. R., Kemp, N. J., Stafford, E. M., & Wall, T. I. The use of a General Health Questionnaire as an indicator of mental health in occupational studies: 1980, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 187–194.

Browne, J. H. Benchmarking HRM practices in healthy work organizations: 2000, The American Business Review, 18, 54–61.

Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Spreitzer, G. M. A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness: 1996, Human Relations, 49, 643–676.

Edwards, P., & Collinson, M. Empowerment and managerial labor strategies: 2002, Work and Occupations, 29, 272–299.

Fitz-enz, J. The truth about “best practice” :1993, Human Resource Planning, 16, 19–26.

Frone, M. R. Work-family balance: 2001, In J. C.Quick & L. E.Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162) Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Grawitch, M. J., Gottschalk, M., & Munz, D. C. The path to a healthy workplace: 2006, A critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and organizational improvements, Consulting Psychology Journal, 58, 129–147.

Jamison, D., & O’Mara, J. Managing workforce 2000: 2001, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 33-41.

Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. Healthy work: 2001, Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books, 11-27.

Kelloway, E. K., & Day, A. L. Building healthy workplaces: 2005, what we know so far. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 37, 223–235.

Kohler, J. M., & Munz, D. C. Combining individual and organizational stress interventions: 2006, An organizational development approach, Consulting Psychology Journal, 58, 1–12.

Lawler, E. E., III. Participative management strategies. In J. W.Jones, B. D.Steffy, & D. W.Bray (Eds.), Applying psychology in business: 2001, The handbook for managers and human resource professionals (pp. 587-96). Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.

Ludwig, T. D., & Geller, E. S. Intervening to improve the safety of delivery drivers: A systematic behavioral approach: 2000, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19, 1–124.

Maslach, C. Understanding job burnout: 2006, In A. M.Rossi, P L.Perrewé, & S. L.Sauter (Eds.), Stress and quality of working life: Current perspectives in occupational health (pp. 37–51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. Maslach Burnout Inventory (3rd ed.) In C. P.Zalaquett & R. J.Wood (Eds.), Evaluating stress: 1997, A book of resources (pp. 191–218). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

Munz, D. C., & Kohler, J. M. Does worksite stress management programs attract the employees who need them and are they effective? 1998, International Journal of Stress Management, 4, 1–11.

Parchman, R. W., & Miller, F. Keys for increasing employee utilization of wellness programs: 2003, Employee Benefit Plan Review, 57, 20–22.

Pfeffer, J. The human equation Boston: 1998, Harvard Business School Press, 111-28.

Quick, J. D., Henley, A. B., & Quick, J. C. The balancing act – At work and at home: 2004, Organizational Dynamics, 33, 426–438.

Reiss, S. Who am I? The 16 basic desires that motivate our actions and define our personalities: 2000, New York: Berkley, 28-33.

Roth, G. L. Creating new knowledge by crossing theory and practice boundaries: 2005, In R. W.Woodman & W. A.Passmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 15, pp. 135–167) Boston: Elsevier.

Simmering, M. J., Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Porter, C. O. L. H. Conscientiousness, autonomy fit, and development: 2003, A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 954–963.

Spector, P. E. Method variance in organizational research: 2006, Truth or urban legend?Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.

Spielberger, C. D., Vagg, P. R., & Wasala, C. F. Occupational stress: Job pressures and lack of support: 2001, In J. C.Quick & L. E.Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 185–200) Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: 2007, Pearson, 147-59.

Tetrick, L. E., & Quick, J. C. Prevention at work: 2001, Public Health in occupational settings. In J. C.Quick & L. E.Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 3–17). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Vassie, L. H., & Lucas, W. R. An assessment of health and safety management within working groups in the UK manufacturing sector: 2001, Journal of Safety Research, 32, 479–490.

Wilson, M. G., Dejoy, D. M., Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & McGrath, A. L. Work characteristics and employee health and well-being: 2004,Test of a model of healthy work organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 565–588.

Click Here To Order Now!