Assignment: Organization Cultural, Morale, and Productivity

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Psychology of Sport & Exercise

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

Using a mixed method audit to inform organizational stress management interventions in sport

James L. Rumbolda,∗, David Fletcherb, Kevin Danielsc

a Academy of Sport and Physical Activity, Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom b School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, United Kingdom c Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords: Appraisals Emotions Coping Individual-level Organizational-level Team building

A B S T R A C T

Objectives: The purposes of this study were twofold: to conduct a mixed method organizational-level stress audit within a sport organization and to explore recommendations for organizational stress management. Design and method: Semi-structured interviews, focus groups and surveys were conducted with 47 participants (professional sportsmen, coaches, sport science support and administrative staff) who represented a professional sport organization. Content analysis was employed to analyze the data. Results and conclusions: The findings indicated a wide range of organizational stressors (e.g., cultural and academy issues), appraisals and coping behaviors (e.g., emotion-focused behaviors), and stressor outcomes (e.g., emotional responses) for sport performers. Content analysis and survey data supported the categorization of stress management recommendations at both an individual- (e.g., coping education) and organizational-level (e.g., improving communication channels) for particular target groups (e.g., players, staff, team). The identifi- cation of stress audit factors and recommendations have important implications for the optimization of orga- nizational functioning within professional sport. Consistent with organizational psychology research, applied considerations for mixed method and multi-level intervention approaches are discussed.

1. Introduction

The growing body of literature concerning organizational stress suggests that it may be a critical factor in determining well-being and performance development in sport (Fletcher & Arnold, 2017). Based on a transactional conceptualization (Lazarus, 1991; McGrath, 1976), or- ganizational stress has been defined as “an ongoing transaction between an individual and the environmental demands associated primarily and directly with the organization within which he or she is operating” (Fletcher, Hanton, & Mellalieu, 2006, p. 329). For young athletes as- piring to develop within professional sport, they are typically required to manage a range of environmental demands within their sport orga- nization, such as training load, logistics, poor team cohesion, and the prospect of being released (Arnold & Fletcher, 2012; Fletcher, Hanton, Mellalieu, & Neil, 2012). The management of these organizational stressors is important for reducing the negative spillover that may occur between ongoing exposure to organizational (e.g., leadership styles, selection), performance (e.g., opponents, social evaluation), and per- sonal stressors (e.g., parental expectations, romantic relationships); which collectively may be detrimental to well-being (Duong, Tuckey,

Hayward, & Boyd, 2015). For those performers operating in sport or- ganizations, the successful management of organizational stress may not only facilitate the maximization of well-being and performance development at an individual-level, but it is also likely to support the effective functioning of teams and institutions at an organizational-level (Wagstaff, Fletcher, & Hanton, 2012). Despite this, organizational stress management interventions, which aim to improve the psychosocial environment and enhance the well-being of personnel (Nielsen, Randall, Holten, & Rial González, 2010) are currently limited in sport psychology research (Rumbold, Fletcher, & Daniels, 2012). This limited evidence-base is problematic for advancing sport psychologists’ knowledge of how best to develop effective organizational stress man- agement interventions.

According to the organizational psychology literature, one of the key ingredients for increasing the likelihood of effective stress man- agement interventions in organizations is the systematic and careful assessment of stress processes prior to intervention development (Bowling, Beehr, & Grebner, 2012). To reliably understand the context of organizational stress as a means to inform appropriate stress man- agement initiatives, it is necessary to conduct an organizational-level

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.10.010 Received 9 March 2017; Received in revised form 2 October 2017; Accepted 28 October 2017

∗ Corresponding author. Academy of Sport and Physical Activity, Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Crescent, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S10 2BP, United Kingdom. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.L. Rumbold).

Psychology of Sport & Exercise 35 (2018) 27–38

Available online 07 November 2017 1469-0292/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

T

stress audit; one that is able to identify the individual and group needs of those operating in organizations (Nielsen et al., 2010), so that in- itiatives can be developed to modify environmental demands and/or a person's resources. A stress audit is traditionally a generic term which describes a number of approaches which aim to identify potential en- vironmental demands (i.e., stressors), assess which have the greatest negative impact and identify any individuals, and groups who are most at risk (Rick, Briner, Daniels, Perryman, & Guppy, 2001). Although there have been a range of measures that have been adopted for au- diting stressors in organizations (e.g., Biron, Ivers, Brun, & Cooper, 2006), it has long been acknowledged that a comprehensive audit, based on a transactional stress conceptualization (Lazarus, 1991), should reflect the sequence of events and stress processes that occur across individuals in transacting with their environment (McGrath, 1976). In this way, it is believed that an organizational-level stress audit should identify key organizational stressors, appraisal and coping strategies, stressor outcomes, at risk groups, and attitudes towards available options for stress management (Dewe, O'Driscoll, & Cooper, 2010).

Qualitative research has previously explored a plethora of organi- zational stressors that are encountered by sport performers. From a research synthesis of 34 studies, Arnold and Fletcher (2012) identified 640 distinct stressors that were labelled hierarchically in to the fol- lowing categories: leadership and personnel, cultural and team, logis- tical and environmental, and performance and personal issues. A host of these stressors have been linked to the identification of threat and harm appraisals (e.g., Didymus & Fletcher, 2012), negative emotional re- sponses (e.g., Fletcher, Hanton, & Wagstaff, 2012), and the enactment of different coping behaviors (e.g., Didymus & Fletcher, 2014). These findings have also been complemented by quantitative research that has shown relationships between athletes' perceptions of developmental, team, and cultural stressors within sport organizations and negative affect (Arnold, Fletcher, & Daniels, 2017). Although the findings from both methods have enabled the identification of organizational stress processes in sport and some of their relationships, it is posited that these methods in isolation may limit our ability to confidently develop tai- lored stress management programs for individuals and groups who operate in culturally rich organizations (Nielsen et al., 2010). In this regard, the adoption of mixed methods may facilitate a pragmatic stress auditing approach for developing stress management programs for specific organizations (Bowling et al., 2012).

One of the key benefits of conducting a mixed method stress audit is to triangulate understanding of attitudes from individuals and groups whose organizational roles may differ (Mazzola, Schonfeld, & Spector, 2011). This is vital for establishing common stressful incidents for specific individuals and target groups in an organization (Bowling et al., 2012). In addition, by incorporating methods such as focus groups, individuals may be empowered to collaboratively discuss their needs with other organizational members (Kohler & Munz, 2006). This is ad- vantageous in developing stress management interventions at an in- dividual- and organizational-level, as members will have both in- dividual and collective attitudes, preferences and motives. Furthermore, participatory methods, which treat members as active agents of change and encourage the commitment of management, are necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for successful organizational interventions (Daniels, Gedikli, Watson, Semkina, & Vaughn, 2017). This approach motivates groups to identify common issues and design solutions. Without the participation of various personnel, a tailored program for tackling organizational stress cannot be appropriately de- signed (Elo, Ervasti, Kuosma, & Mattila, 2008).

To combat the challenges of gaining as many perspectives and re- commendations from organizational members as possible, researchers have called for greater use of mixed methods (Elo et al., 2008; Mazzola et al., 2011; Nielsen et al., 2010) to facilitate triangulation and com- plementarity of findings (Greene, 2008; Moran, Matthews, & Kirby, 2011). This is important for exploring the existence of common

organizational stress processes and intervention recommendations that may not be easily achieved from the sole adoption of quantitative or qualitative methods. Moreover, the incorporation of qualitative with quantitative methods allows for understanding of contextual issues and what matters to individuals in their own language (Daniels et al., 2017; Nielsen, Abildgaard, & Daniels, 2014). According to Bowling et al. (2012, p. 79), “research should give more attention to developing techniques used to diagnose the need for stress interventions”. The current research seeks to address some of the conceptual challenges of stress audit models previously used to inform the development of or- ganizational programs. By adopting a mixed method, the study at- tempts to understand sport performers' experiences of organizational stress in greater depth from the perspective of various members (e.g., sport performers, coaches, staff). This approach aims to explore the contextual and cultural complexities that are not explicitly evident in current organizational stress audit models.

Taking these points together, the primary purpose of this study was to conduct a mixed method organizational stress audit of competitive performers who operate within a sport organization. A secondary pur- pose was to identify stress management recommendations for perfor- mers and teams operating in this organization. The exploration of or- ganizational stress processes and recommendations may facilitate the future tailoring of both individual- and organizational-level initiatives. This study makes a unique conceptual contribution to auditing orga- nizational stress, by offering a mixed method framework from which organizational interventions in sport can be advanced.

2. Method

2.1. Research design

A mixed method design was adopted for serving the following philosophical aims. Firstly, the authors believe that it is important to integrate techniques that can more thoroughly investigate a phenom- enon of interest (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2011, p. 286). Gaining multiple sources of information from various individuals (e.g., sport performers, staff) is fundamental for exploring the convergence and divergence (cf. Greene, 2008) of organizational stress experiences for sport performers. Furthermore, the researchers sought to educate and modify an organi- zation's current practices regarding stress management. In doing so, it was necessary to represent the democratic values and recommendations of organizational members, to progress towards participatory action in the future. To achieve this purpose, the study was founded on a prag- matist perspective with a critical realist ontology (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) whilst employing methods that parallel under- standing of stress in organizations (Lazarus, 1991).

2.2. Participants and procedure

The organizational sample (N = 47) consisted of staff (head coach, assistant coach, sport science support, and administrative staff; n = 7) and a male professional rugby union academy playing squad (n = 40). The ages of staff and rugby players ranged from 22 to 56 years (M = 36.71, SD = 11.35) and 15–19 years (M = 17.13, SD = 0.97) respectively. The largely male sample (i.e., 98% male) represented multiple job roles of individuals who operated on a full-time basis in this professional rugby union academy. The participating organization was selected due to the successful profile of the organization, the consistently high level of competition that the players and team oper- ated at, and due to its close proximity to the senior professional team's training facilities. The purpose of this academy was to recruit, develop and support professional youth players' transition in to the senior team. Following institutional ethical approval, managers and head coaches of sport organizations in the United Kingdom were initially contacted by email and informed of the purposes and requirements of the research being conducted. Once consent was provided by the manager of the

J.L. Rumbold et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 35 (2018) 27–38

28

sport organization and its members, a concurrent triangulation mixed methods design was followed, such that qualitative and quantitative stress audit data were collected concurrently (Creswell & Piano Clark, 2011). Data collection began prior to the beginning of pre-season training. This represented a period whereby most of the playing squad had not returned from the previous end of season break. At this time, interviews and surveys were completed with staff (n = 7) and key players (n = 6) from the playing squad who had returned early for pre- season conditioning. Key players were identified by the head coach and assistant coach as individuals who demonstrate leadership and have considerable input in to the team's functioning and development. The benefit of this approach was that exclusive participation was gained from key subgroups and decision makers who operate in distinct roles, and, hold an influence in planning an organizational-level intervention (Bachiochi & Weiner, 2004).

Once the remaining players had returned for pre-season training, it was identified that the squad was characterized as three sub-groups (e.g., under-17, under-18, and under-19 age groups). Sub-groups are important for delimiting future intervention programs to those most at risk of organizational strain (Bradley & Sutherland, 1994). The ex- istence of organizational stressors and outcomes may also be apparent for specific players who share similar needs (Briner & Reynolds, 1999). Thus, to promote discussion on the common issues that sub-groups experience (Krueger & Casey, 2009), three focus groups with survey data collection were steered with the remaining participants (n = 34). The focus group approach contrasts that to previous research on orga- nizational stress in sport, which has often utilized face-to-face inter- views or diary methods (e.g., Didymus & Fletcher, 2012; Fletcher, Hanton, Mellalieu et al., 2012). The benefit of conducting focus groups in organizational settings is that team members who are familiar with one another are able to openly share ideas and discuss sensitive issues like stress in a comfortable and relaxed setting (Liamputtong, 2011).

In comparison to one-to-one interviews or diary methods, focus groups enable cultural insights in to the sources of individual and group behaviors (Morgan, 1996). This is highly relevant when exploring the social and contextual complexities of organizational stress (Daniels, Harris, & Briner, 2004). In organizational contexts, focus groups have proven beneficial in understanding and identifying recommendations to tackle barriers to well-being and productivity. Moreover, focus groups can help to determine which recommendations are easiest to adopt and easiest for organizations to enforce (Krueger & Casey, 2009, p. 12). In- terviews, focus groups and survey data collection were conducted face- to-face by the first author. Before the completion of each interview and survey, participants were given written and verbal information as to the purposes and outcomes of the study. Following assurances of voluntary participation, anonymity, and the freedom to withdraw at any stage, participants had the opportunity to ask questions before completing an informed consent form.

Interview guide. A semi-structured interview guide was initially used to facilitate each session. Each interview and focus group took place in a private meeting room at the training ground of the organi- zation. The interview guide was generated from a range of sources. In line with previous stress audits that have been conducted in organiza- tional psychology (e.g., Biron et al., 2006; Rick et al., 2001), the main components of the stress audit included: an exploration of organiza- tional stressors, appraisals and coping behaviors, stress outcomes, and stress management recommendations. In addition, question content was devised based on relevant research conducted in sport (Arnold & Fletcher, 2012; Fletcher et al., 2006) and organizational psychology (Dewe et al., 2010). Prior to beginning interviews, partici- pants were verbally informed that they will be asked about players' experiences of the academy environment and how they perceived var- ious issues that occurred. This included providing examples of organi- zational stressors (e.g., the training environment, player and staff re- lationships) using Arnold and Fletcher (2012) taxonomic classification. The interview guide began with introductory questions (e.g., Could you

tell me about something that has happened within the academy re- cently which has gone well?). These questions intended to build rapport and provide time for the participants to consider the area in question (Silverman, 2014). The main questions explored players' exposure to organizational stressors in their environment and suggestions for im- proving organizational functioning and performance. Where relevant, probes were offered to consider how the players attempted to appraise or cope with any issues that arose (e.g., What did you tend to think about when these issues occurred?/How did you deal with that at the time?), and any potential outcomes that occurred (e.g., How did you feel about these demands at the time?/What effect did that have?). The same probes were reworded for coaches and staff, to allow for their perspective on players' experiences of organizational stress. Finally, all participants were encouraged to summarize their views and elaborate on any relevant issues. The first author then clarified the participants' intervention recommendations for specific target groups and requested feedback on the interview process.

Prior to the interviews being conducted, the guide was piloted with an amateur athlete who operated in a separate organization. Subsequently, several questions were reworded to enhance their clarity (Silverman, 2014). Additional questions were also integrated after several themes emerged from attending a meeting at the sport organi- zation (cf. Liamputtong, 2011). These themes related to communica- tion, social support, decision making and time management. The in- terviews and focus groups ranged from 52 to 96 min (M = 69.30, SD = 11.86) and 63–79 min in duration (M = 71.90 min, SD = 8.16) respectively.

Stress management survey. At the end of each interview, players and staff were asked to complete a short stress management survey (Bradley & Sutherland, 1994) which had been adapted for the sport organization. This served the purpose of triangulating individuals' in- terview responses and evaluating their readiness for developing stress management programs (Nielsen, 2013). The survey presented a list of 14 possible intervention programs, which included the following: building confidence; improved social support; managing emotions po- sitively; problem solving; relaxation training; team building; and team performance appraisal systems. To outline what was meant by each survey term, examples of psychological intervention techniques asso- ciated with each option were offered to the participants. Players and staff were then asked to select one of three responses (yes/no/don't know) to each of the following four statements: (1) I feel I would per- sonally benefit from; (2) I would personally participate in; (3) I feel that the academy would benefit from; and (4) I would recommend the academy to participate in. The survey list was generated from a pre- interview staff meeting and the stress management literature in sport (for a review, see Rumbold et al., 2012). Participants were also en- couraged to suggest additional programs that may have emerged from the interviews and focus groups.

2.3. Data analysis

Content analysis was deemed the most appropriate for interpreting the data for several reasons. Firstly, it allows the exploration of inter- view transcripts and survey responses for recurrent instances in relation to the research questions (Silverman, 2014). Secondly, it is suitable for exploring common organizational processes from both interview and focus group data (e.g., Bachiochi & Weiner, 2004). Thirdly, due to the multi-method nature of data collection, a method of analysis was re- quired to yield a ‘typology’ (Creswell & Piano Clark, 2011) that could triangulate and supplement the interpretation of findings from the in- terview and survey data (Greene, 2008; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). During the initial stages, the first author immersed himself in the data by adopting a reflective approach. This involved re-reading post-in- terview notes that had been taken at the time of interviewing, listening to each of the interview recordings to gain clarification of participant tones and meanings, and reading and re-reading the written transcripts

J.L. Rumbold et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 35 (2018) 27–38

29

whilst noting initial ideas. Following this, segments of quotes that re- presented similar meanings were inductively coded as raw-data themes. Raw-data codes which represented common themes were grouped into lower-order themes. These lower-order themes were then clustered into higher-order themes. In light of established organizational stress fra- meworks (e.g., Arnold & Fletcher, 2012; Dewe et al., 2010; Fletcher, Hanton, Mellalieu et al., 2012), the majority of higher-order themes were deductively clustered into general dimensions.

2.4. Research quality and rigor

Integrative mixed method research requires a strong audit trail and reflexive stance to be presented (Bergman, 2011). In line with Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) criteria for evaluating inference quality, a variety of steps were taken to maximize the design quality and inter- pretive rigor. Design quality refers to the extent to which appropriate procedures have been conducted to answer the research question(s). In this way, the study design was deemed suitable for answering the purpose(s) of the research. Since the function of the research was to develop a tailored organizational intervention, it was critical to trian- gulate participants' stress management recommendations with players' experiences of organizational stress. The authors were cognizant of implementing design components with the fidelity to capture partici- pants' perceptions of organizational stress processes and attitudes to- wards stress management. In this way, the first author was diligent in devoting significant time and thoroughness in conducting the inter- views, focus groups and completion of surveys. A self-reflexive diary was completed throughout the data collection and the first author en- gaged critical friends in discussions during the data collection of in- terviews, focus groups and surveys. These critical friends provided a sounding board to encourage reflexivity and challenge the construction of knowledge and interpretations made. By gathering multiple types of qualitative and quantitative data, we engaged dialogically with para- digm differences (Greene, 2008) to generate a more contextual under- standing of organizational issues.

Interpretive rigor refers to how interpretations have been made in relation to the results obtained (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). We at- tempted to adhere to interpretive consistency by closely relating a large dataset of organizational stress processes in sport performers with participant recommendations for future stress management interven- tions. These stress processes and recommendations were interpreted on the basis of a large organizational sample (N = 47), and, were con- sistent with relevant theories and frameworks in this area (Dewe et al., 2010; Fletcher et al., 2006; Lazarus, 1991). Regarding the latter, the conceptual contribution to organizational stress audit research should also be considered, along with the extent to which the research is heuristically and practically significant for empowering organizational members to engage in action or change. We present a multi-vocality of quotations from different participants, to enable readers to consider whether they reach similar conclusions. Interpretive conclusions are also evident where staff perceptions complement players' experiences of organizational stress. Interpretive distinctiveness was achieved by de- briefing participants through presentation and discussion of the find- ings to assess participants' agreements with the inferences made. In- tegrative efficacy was achieved by comparing the inferences made regarding players' experiences of organizational stress with the con- clusions made in relation to player and staff intervention re- commendations. Finally, in considering the interpretive correspon- dence of the research, we feel that the inferences made align to the purposes of conducting a stress audit of sport performers operating in a sport organization and exploring intervention recommendations.

3. Results and discussion

A total of 645 raw data themes emerged from the qualitative tran- scripts, which were inductively abstracted into 186 lower-order themes

and 76 higher-order themes. These higher-order themes then formed 14 general dimensions which were deductively categorized in to the fol- lowing components of the organizational-level stress audit: organiza- tional stressors, cognitive appraisals and coping behaviors, organiza- tional stressor outcomes, and stress management recommendations. Tables 1–3 illustrate the higher-order themes and general dimensions of each stress audit component. Example lower-order themes are also provided for each higher-order theme. In addition, Table 4 displays participants' survey responses in relation to offering recommendations for stress management programs. In view of the quantity and wide ranging themes to emerge from the stress audit, space precludes an exploration of all themes and their complexity. Therefore, a selection of quotes are provided and discussed in relation to relevant literature.

3.1. Organizational stressors

Consistent with a synthesis of organizational stressors in sport per- formers (Arnold & Fletcher, 2012), the four general dimensions of or- ganizational stressors were: leadership and personnel issues, cultural and academy issues, logistical and environmental issues, and perfor- mance and personal issues.

Leadership and personnel issues. Leadership and personnel is- sues, which were the most frequently cited organizational stressors for players, consisted of the stressors that were related to the direction and support of the organization. The higher-order themes within this di- mension were: external expectations, feedback, referees, retention, support staff, coach behaviors, and the coaches' personality and attitudes. Within external expectations, “coaches' expectations” for players to conform to the organization's core values (e.g., work hard, learn quickly) was regularly cited as a key stressor for first year players: “I think the big thing I noticed [when starting at the academy] was you had to learn quickly, the culture of the club as well. I think the coaches are big on setting that culture, just coming in, working hard, no excuses about a thing” (Player 6). “I think the expectation to develop quickly makes them [players] stressed sometimes and they need to be able to just enjoy it a bit more … instead of it just being drudgery, hard work, hard work you know (Staff 6)".

Within feedback, a common issue that contributed to a range of stressor outcomes was “receiving negative feedback” from others. The following quote (Player 3) illustrates how negative feedback can be harmful for decision making and team morale, and, how game reviews may help to manage feedback:

At half time, the coaches scream and shout but it doesn't help if they pick out [blame] individuals because the individuals are just going to think about that [making mistakes] the next time they go out. Every decision the players make … Like, [a coach] was just saying “All forwards played really well. Backs were ****” … Like, yeah, have a scream and shout, kick a few bottles around but then talk about the game properly … I think people after that game were pretty dejected for a couple of weeks.

Cultural and academy issues. Cultural and academy issues com- prised the stressors that were associated with the atmosphere and be- havioral norms in the organization. The higher-order themes within this dimension were: academy atmosphere, communication, cultural norms, players’ personality and attitudes, and roles. Within academy atmosphere, one commonly cited raw data theme related to player year group “cliques in the squad”. The emergence of this theme supports previous research which has identified cliques as a common organizational stressor encountered by sport performers (Fletcher, Hanton, Mellalieu et al., 2012). However, the specific structure of the current organization also gave rise to “academy hierarchies”, which are less reported in the extant literature. Hierarchies were visible throughout the institution, as there were structured divisions between an academy and senior team organization. Within the academy, the playing squad was divided in to three sub-groups based on birth year. As the following quote illustrates

J.L. Rumbold et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 35 (2018) 27–38

30

Table 1 Organizational stressors encountered by professional academy players.

Lower-order themes (examples only) Higher-order themes General Dimension

Coaches’ expectations External expectations

Leadership and Personnel Issues

Receiving negative feedback Feedback

Poor referee decisions Referees

Job uncertainty Retention

Ambiguous injury diagnoses Support staff

Conflicting coaching styles Coach behaviors

Unapproachable coaches The coaches’ personality

and attitudes

Academy hierarchies Academy atmosphere

Cultural and

Academy Issues

Poor communication between players Communication

Culture of Intimidation Cultural norms

Hostile teammates Players’ personality and

Attitudes

Role ambiguity Roles

Lack of individual development

sessions

Training environment

Logistical and

Environmental issues

Fluctuating game preparation Competition environment

Inadequate changing rooms Facilities and equipment

Fierce competition for selection Selection

Long away game journeys Travel

Moving to the academy to train Academy transitions

Performance and

Personal Issues

Balancing academy and education Work-life interface

Lack of food preparation Diet and recovery

Isolation from being injured Player injury

Lack of finances Finances

J.L. Rumbold et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 35 (2018) 27–38

31

Table 2 Cognitive appraisals and coping behaviors of professional academy players.

Lower-order themes (examples only) Higher-order themes General Dimension

Player threat appraisals of making the

transition to professional rugby

Threat appraisals

Cognitive appraisals Benefit appraisals of the academy

training program

Benefit appraisals

Challenge appraisals of player injury Challenge appraisals

Harm appraisals of negative feedback Harm appraisals

Working harder due to feedback Increased effort

Problem-focused

coping

Instructional support from teammates Informational support

Practicing ‘what if scenarios’ Planning

Talking to teammates to solve issues Talking to teammates

Working on changing technique Changing behavior

noitartnecnocdesaercnIgnisucoF

Encouragement from teammates Receiving encouragement

Emotion-focused

coping

Talking to teammates for support Seeking social support

noitazilausiVyregamI

Creating tasks to prevent boredom Creating tasks

Listening to music Relaxation

klat-fleSklat-fleS

Accepting selection decisions Acceptance

Rationalizing negative feedback Self-rationalization Reappraisal-focused

coping Re-evaluating injury with physiotherapists

Rationalizing with others

Avoiding conflict Behavioral avoidance

Avoidance coping Trying to forget mistakes Blocking

Player denial over injury Denial

Drinking alcohol prior to being

released by the academy

Substance abuse

J.L. Rumbold et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 35 (2018) 27–38

32

from a group of second year players, hierarchies and cliques in the squad were closely associated with a “culture of intimidation”; seen by many as a reason for poor communication between players:

They [first year players] need to be brought down a peg (Player 25) … Yea, they think they're all big timers (Player 24) … They don't ever speak to anyone else (Player 26). I think that's the same with the third year [players] (Player 25) … I think they'll [first year players] calm down when we [second year players] start the ‘contact game’ [physical intimidation] with them (Player 23) [group laughter].

Logistical and environmental issues. Logistical and environ- mental issues encapsulated the stressors that were associated with the organization's management of training and competition. The higher order themes within this dimension were: training environment, compe- tition environment, facilities and equipment, selection, and travel. The most cited themes were identified within training environment, which in- cluded a “lack of individual development sessions” and “high training intensity”. Whilst training environment is a regularly encountered stressor for professional sport performers (Kristiansen, Murphy, & Roberts, 2012; Nicholls, Backhouse, Polman, & McKenna, 2009), one explanation in this specific organizational context is that there is a daily coach expectation for players to demonstrate their skill improvement in training, to improve their chances of being selected to the senior pro- fessional team. Within facilities and equipment, a number of players cited “inadequate changing rooms” as a potential reason for poor commu- nication between players during training and competition. The fol- lowing quote (Player 2) demonstrates how “inadequate changing rooms” may negatively impact on communication between players:

I think something that is quite bad is our changing rooms. You've got

a first year changing room, a second year changing room, a third year changing room and there's no one [squad] together … it's very much three separate changing rooms … It comes to a game situation where a first year needs to tell a third year something or vice versa and they're hesitant to say it.

Performance and personal issues. Performance and personal issues consisted of the stressors relating to a player's professional career and personal development. The higher-order themes within this dimension were: academy transitions, work-life interface, diet and recovery, player injury, and finances. Within academy transitions, “moving to the academy to train”, “transition to a higher standard of rugby”, and “transition to a higher training intensity” were seen to be key issues that were believed to ad- vance or compromise a player's career development. These themes are consistent with research highlighting the non-elite to elite transition as a key stressor for sport performers (Arnold & Fletcher, 2012). In the current study, academy transitions provided a richer account for why “cliques in the squad”, “high training intensity” and “fierce competition for selection” may be common issues. Player 1 describes the difficulties a player can face when moving to the academy to train:

It was a shock to the system to be honest … I mean there were times, like I was waking up in the morning thinking, "do I really want to be here?" Quite a lot. I mean I'm not playing rugby [not being selected], you've just moved away from home, moved to a new place so sometimes my motivation levels were really, really low. Some games [game days], like Saturday mornings in November when its abso- lutely pissing it down [heavy rain] and you've got to get two buses in to town, two more buses to the academy at six o'clock in the morning, and you're not playing [not being selected]. It does get you down when you've moved away from home to be here.

Table 3 Organizational stressor outcomes experienced by professional academy players.

Lower-order themes (examples only) Higher-order themes General Dimension

snoitomeevitageNregnA Emotional outcomes

snoitomeevitisoPtnemeticxE

Reduced confidence Confidence

Intrapersonal

outcomes

noitavitom-eDdetavitom-eD

Reduced concentration Concentration

Players being unable to make

appropriate decisions

Decision making

peelSpeelsfokcaL

Reduced team communication Communication

Performance-related

outcomes

Making mistakes Individual performance

Reduced team performance Team performance

Players being released Retention

J.L. Rumbold et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 35 (2018) 27–38

33

3.2. Cognitive appraisals and coping behaviors

The general dimensions for cognitive appraisals and coping beha- viors were: cognitive appraisals, problem-focused coping, emotion-fo- cused coping, reappraisal-focused coping, and avoidance coping.

Cognitive appraisals. Cognitive appraisals consisted of the primary appraisals of organizational stressors that players encountered. These primary appraisals reflected players' evaluations of the personal sig- nificance of stressors in relation to the attainment of personal goals or well-being (Lazarus, 1991). The higher-order themes in this dimension were: threat appraisals, benefit appraisals, challenge appraisals, and harm appraisals. It was apparent that players typically developed threat ap- praisals of various organizational stressors. Although sport performers may appraise events as challenging (Didymus & Fletcher, 2012), our results support the finding that organizational stressors are typically appraised by sport performers as preventing the attainment of goals or positive well-being (Didymus & Fletcher, 2014). Specifically, it was perceived that players felt threatened by “making the transition to professional rugby”, “negative feedback”, “asking for advice”, “job uncertainty”, “academy hierarchies”, “unfriendly teammates”, and “competition for playing positions”. The following quotes from players and staff illustrate players' typical threat appraisals of players due to competition for positions: “Who are these other lads?” … you're thinking, “Oh he's going to take my position”, you're talking about it for weeks (Player 37) … If anyone comes in at your position you're going to think **** [feel threatened] (Player 32). There is definitely a positional threat for the players. “If he's going to be my threat [for selection] then I'm going to make sure I knock him down and keep him down as long as possible” (Staff 6).

Problem-focused coping. Problem-focused coping consisted of the behaviors that were elicited to resolve stressors. It was evident that some players used a range of behaviors and drew on resources, such as social support, to achieve coping functions, such as problem solving. This supports research which has conceptualized coping behaviors and functions as interrelated (Daniels, Beesley, Wimalasiri, & Cheyne, 2013; for a review, see; Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003). The higher-order themes within problem-focused coping were: increased effort, informational support, planning, talking to teammates, changing behavior, and increased concentration. One player (Player 3) explained how planning through “practicing what if scenarios” in training was effective in dealing with opponents in games:

We [the playing team] knew we had a good line out [during the game] because we had some good [training] sessions drilling the line out in a [practice] game environment … I think those sessions were good because when we played [club], they needed a drop goal to win and they had about 8 scrums. It was just the mentality [of working hard]. I think me and [teammate] hit 55 scrums one after the other, in one [training] session … stuff like that is good and players will know what they can do [under pressure].

Emotion-focused coping. Emotion-focused coping captured the most frequently cited behaviors that were used by players to manage or express their emotions. The higher-order themes were: receiving en- couragement, seeking social support, visualization, creating tasks, relaxa- tion, self-talk, and acceptance. The most common themes related to re- ceiving encouragement, which consisted of “encouragement from teammates”, “encouragement from staff”, and “encouragement from house parents”. Receiving emotional support from teammates and coaches is a common resource used to cope in organizations (Kristiansen et al., 2012). This is because social support offsets the negative effect of stressors on well-being (Cohen, Sherrod, & Clark, 1986). From the focus groups, it emerged that more experienced players offered encouragement to help players manage their emotions:

I think I got [received] that [encouragement] actually, when I was a first year (Player 37). Yeah, in our first year [at the organization]

there were a lot of third years [players] for us to [receive] get help from. Like, if you looked nervous they would sit down and say “don't worry, you'll be fine, you're here for a reason, they [the coaches] wouldn't have chosen you otherwise” (Player 34).

Reappraisal-focused coping. Reappraisal-focused coping con- sisted of the behaviors that were used by players to reappraise the re- levance and importance of organizational stressors. The higher-order themes were self-rationalization and rationalizing with others. Rationalizing with others appeared to reflect a coping resource that was rarely adopted by players. Moreover, the professional academy players in this study appeared to lack the confidence to seek support from staff and teammates to help rationalize particular stressors. In light of these findings, sport performers in this organization may benefit from the development of greater support seeking behaviors to promote colla- boratively reappraising organizational demands. The following quote illustrates the influence of rationalizing with physiotherapists to help a player (Player 1) re-appraise the significance of an injury:

I had a small stress fracture in my left foot … for the first week I didn't really manage it very well … Then you kind of get your head around it and think that this could work in a positive way and that's due to [the support of] the coaches and physiotherapy team. They kind of put it into your mind all the positives you're going to get out of being injured at this time.

Avoidance coping. Avoidance coping consisted of the behaviors that were used to actively avoid solving problems or managing emo- tions. The higher-order themes were: behavioral avoidance, blocking, denial, and substance abuse. Although the function of avoidance coping is believed to be maladaptive for long-term well-being, it could be adaptive in the short-term (Kristiansen et al., 2012); however, this may depend on the behaviors enacted to fulfill this coping function (Skinner et al., 2003). Although a limited number of themes were cited, academy staff reported a range of avoidance behaviors commonly displayed by players, such as “lying to avoid conflict”, “denial over incurring an injury” and “drinking alcohol to disengage from having their profes- sional contract terminated”.

3.3. Organizational stressor outcomes

Organizational stressor outcomes refer to the symptoms of exposure to demands. The four general dimensions were: emotional responses, intrapersonal outcomes, and performance -related outcomes.

Emotional responses. Emotional responses consisted of a wide range of negative emotions and positive emotions. The most highly cited lower-order themes were “anxiety”, “anger”, and “fatigue”. This finding is consistent with previous research that has explored emotional re- sponses to organizational-related demands in elite (Arnold & Fletcher, 2015; Arnold et al., 2017; Fletcher, Hanton, & Wagstaff, 2012) and professional sport performers (Nicholls et al., 2009). This can be ex- plained in so far that anxiety and anger represent a basic set of states by which threat and harm appraisals are commonly associated (Lazarus, 1999). From the interviews, it was evident that the academy had bred a culture of fear amongst the players, with anxiety being a typical re- sponse to “receiving negative feedback from others” and the formation of “academy hierarchies”. In addition, players typically experienced intense anxiety from selection stressors such as “call ups [to the senior squad] at short notice”: “All of a sudden you need to be on the bench for the first [senior] team and then you've got 5 or 6 days to learn all of the calls [tactics] and you think ******* hell” (Player 6).

Intrapersonal outcomes. Intrapersonal outcomes consisted of the organizational stressor outcomes that were associated with a player's cognitive functioning. The higher-order themes were: confidence, de- motivation, concentration, decision making, and sleep. Both players and staff suggested that “reduced confidence” is experienced primarily by first year players, who are attempting to adapt to academy transitions

J.L. Rumbold et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 35 (2018) 27–38

34

(e.g., “moving to the academy to train”) and cultural norms (e.g., “ne- gative motivational climate”). In some cases, it was acknowledged that intrapersonal outcomes were often a result of negative emotional re- sponses to specific stressors. The following quote by a coach (Staff 6) illustrates the collective consequences of a negative motivational cli- mate, which can lead to heightened levels of anxiety and reduced confidence for players:

We've got two small guys and the motivation [from a coach] is constantly, “You're too small for this game, I don't know why you're here, you might as well go home now” … the lads [players] just cower like this [shy away] and don't say anything back … So that's why when it comes to situations which need somebody to be con- fident and speak up they won't do it because they fear they'll just get ridiculed. When things have been shouted at them on the touchline you can see it [in their body language], just like, “oh ****”, heads down, it really affects them, they won't turn around and say, “Okay, I made a **** up [a mistake] but I'll put it right”, in response to “You're ******* coming off if you do that again! [shouting]”.

Performance-related outcomes. The higher-order themes within this general dimension were: communication, individual performance, team performance, and retention. Within individual performance, “reduced skill development” was considered a consequence from training-related stressors, such as a “lack of individualized sessions” and “longer training sessions”. In addition, players spoke of making technical and tactical errors in training due to a fear of receiving further negative feedback from coaches. Players and staff also felt that the organization could consider reducing the longer duration of some training sessions, which are often counterproductive to concentration and skill develop- ment: “I saw it several times last year … I've done 45 min [coaching], it's been quality intense stuff but [coach] does another 45 min on line outs and scrums. The lads are just exhausted and it's counterproductive [for skill development]" (Staff 3). “Rather than doing an hour and a half session, do two 45 min sessions where it's just detail … Really intense … And then you're not [fatigued], because towards the end of sessions, you get really tired and then your concentration goes” (Player 2).

3.4. Stress management recommendations

In line with organizational stress management frameworks (Dewe et al., 2010; Richardson & Rothstein, 2008), participants provided a series of organizational-level and individual-level recommendations to maximize sport performers' well-being and performance development. Fig. 1 illustrates the target groups by which stress management in- itiatives were recommended throughout the organization. Higher-order

themes are presented for each target group, along with example lower- order themes. To corroborate these interview responses, stress man- agement survey recommendations were also completed at the end of each interview (see Table 4). These survey responses reflected the average proportion of players and staff that believed them and the or- ganization would benefit from and participate in particular stress management programs to facilitate players' ability to manage organi- zational stress in the future.

Organizational-level recommendations. Organizational-level in- terventions are typically developed to remove or modify specific or- ganizational characteristics that individuals and groups encounter, such as stressors (Dewe et al., 2010).The fourteen higher-order themes within organizational-level recommendations were: communication channels; facilities management; work appraisals; talent development; game reviews; game preparation; reflective practice; team cohesion; time man- agement; training structure; team goal setting; team problem solving; and, professionalism. Within these themes, the most frequently suggested recommendations were to: organize more team socials for all academy players and staff to attend, integrate more regular team analysis of games, involving all academy players and coaching staff; incorporate varied training sessions involving the commitment of all academy players and staff; and, encourage communication between the players and all academy and senior team staff. These initiatives were con- sidered important due to the aforesaid stressors relating to poor com- munication between players and members of the organization, high training intensities, fatigue, the existence of academy hierarchies, and, cliques in the playing squad. The need to address these stressors was supported by a series of survey recommendations (see Table 4). In particular, team building was suggested by many of the academy players (n = 39, 98%) and supported by some staff (n = 3, 42%). Moreover, building confidence was cited by players (n = 32, 81%) and staff (n = 4, 61%) as a program that they believed academy players would all benefit from and participate in as an academy. Problem sol- ving at a group and individual-level was also suggested by players (n = 30, 76%), with 4 out of 7 staff believing that players would benefit from this program.

Individual-level recommendations. Individual-level interventions are typically developed to enable individuals to better appraise, re- spond and cope with organizational stressors (Dewe et al., 2010). The seven higher-order themes within this dimension were: senior first team exposure; mentoring; coping; goal setting; trust; coach feedback; and, par- ental education. Within these higher-order themes, the most commonly cited lower-order recommendations were to: modify negative appraisals for first and second year players, encourage problem solving and de- cision making to first year players, raise coach awareness of providing

Table 4 Survey recommendations for organizational stress management.

I feel I would personally benefit from …

I would personally participate in …

I feel that the academy would benefit from …

I would recommend the academy to use …

Team building 38P, 2S 40P, 4S 40P, 3S 39P, 4S Building confidence 28P, 3S 34P, 4S 34P, 5S 34P, 5S Coping with pressures 26P, 1S 32P, 4S 35P, 5S 31P, 5S Problem solving 28P, 4S 28P, 5S 33P, 4S 32P, 4S Relaxation training 29P, 3S 32P, 4S 32P, 4S 26P, 4S Team performance appraisals 29P, 1S 28P, 5S 33P, 4S 28P, 4S Time management 26P, 1S 29P, 4S 32P, 4S 28P, 4S Assertiveness training 25P, 3S 28P, 4S 33P, 3S 28P, 3S Managing emotions positively 24P, 4S 29P, 5S 30P, 4S 24P, 3S Psychology rehabilitation for injured

players 25P, 2S 29P, 3S 30P, 4S 26P, 4S

Challenging stressful thinking 24P, 3S 28P, 5S 31P, 3S 25P, 3S Self-regulating teams 25P, 1S 28P, 3S 28P, 2S 25P, 2S Improved social support 21P, 1S 23P, 4S 30P, 2S 25P, 3S Resolving conflict 18P, 3S 24P, 4S 26P, 3S 23P, 3S

Note. N = 47, P = the number of recommendations from academy players (n = 40); S = the number of recommendations from academy staff (n = 7).

J.L. Rumbold et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 35 (2018) 27–38

35

varying methods of feedback to players, and optimize confidence for first year players. The education of coping efficacy for less experienced players was deemed particularly important. This was explained in so far that first year players, who are making an amateur to professional sport transition, often perceive their environment to be intimidating. More- over, it was suggested that players struggle to cope with high training intensities and receiving negative feedback. The survey data also in- dicated that players (78%) and staff (100%) believed that players would benefit from coping education.

One noticeable incongruence between the interview and survey recommendations obtained was players' need for improved social sup- port. From the survey data, 24 out of 40 players (60%) and 2 out of 7 staff (29%) felt that players would benefit from improved social

support. However, the interview and focus group data suggested that some players already seek and receive different forms of support from teammates and staff. A recommendation from staff suggested improving social support could be achieved by raising coach awareness of feed- back methods and educating parents on methods of support. Conversely, one member of staff (Staff 5) argued the following: “This academy is like no other academy in the country in the different levels of support provided to players”. From the interviews and survey re- sponses it was also apparent that staff were keen to support the design and delivery of stress management programs for their players, but were less interested in participating in any of these programs alongside the players. This is an important applied consideration for the development of organizational programs, since the effectiveness of such initiatives

Fig. 1. Organizational- and individual-level stress management recommendations.

J.L. Rumbold et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 35 (2018) 27–38

36

may be largely dependent on the evidence of key decision makers' readiness for change, support for and engagement in the programs (Nielsen, 2013).

4. General discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to undertake a mixed method organizational stress audit of competitive performers who operate in a sport organization. A secondary purpose was to identify future stress management recommendations to maximize performers' well-being and performance development. Informed by a transactional stress approach (Dewe et al., 2010; Lazarus, 1991, 1999), the findings reveal a number of common organizational stressors encountered by sport performers who operate in this sport institution. These findings support the iden- tification of themes identified in sport performers across a range of competitive levels (Arnold & Fletcher, 2012; Kristiansen et al., 2012; Nicholls et al., 2009). In this organizational context, many stressors (e.g., training demands) were often a by-product of encountering other demands (e.g., academy transitions). Moreover, a culture of intimida- tion and a negative motivational climate were linked to commonly developed appraisals and coping behaviors. In line with stress theory (Lazarus, 1999), these player appraisals and coping behaviors were related to emotional, intrapersonal and performance outcomes.

A wide range of stress management recommendations were also identified for specific groups in this organization, with the aim of di- rectly or indirectly helping sport performers to better manage their experiences of organizational stress in the future. An overarching message was that players, and to some degree staff, would take part in individual- and organizational-level stress management programs. At an individual-level, player coping efficacy is important, as the behaviors used to achieve coping functions may be adaptive for well-being in specific contexts, but maladaptive in others (Daniels et al., 2013; Skinner et al., 2003). This is sensible given the mission of the current organization, which is to retain academy players who demonstrate an ability to cope with professional sport and its demands. At an organi- zational-level, it was perceived that the institution should integrate initiatives to enhance team cohesion and communication channels, vary training stimulus, and to incorporate reviews of competitive games. Such organizational-level programs are believed to be the most proac- tive solution to managing stress (Dewe et al., 2010), as they aim to prevent player strain from occurring by modifying structures and en- vironmental conditions (cf. Briner & Reynolds, 1999). Although support for their efficacy has been equivocal (Richardson & Rothstein, 2008), participatory stress audits are arguably a prerequisite for effective in- terventions, as the sport performers who may benefit from such pro- grams are also those recommending their creation (cf. Nielsen et al., 2010).

A strength of the current stress audit was the sample size (N = 47) and sampling of varying organizational members. This was important to illustrate how players' stress experience may also be perceived by staff and jointly developed by common player attitudes, cultural norms, contagion, and managed by a range of coping resources. Despite these strengths, the sample sizes for some of the focus groups (i.e., n = 15) was considered a limitation, which could have compromised an ap- propriate level of participant contribution. Further, the data yielded from large focus group samples may not have enabled individuals to represent their views as clearly as individual interviews might. Although we were mindful of adhering to focus group guidelines for organizational research (Bachiochi & Weiner, 2004), the specific con- text determined that we had to complete interviews at times that were most convenient to the organization. It is possible that the development of steering groups comprising a mixture of sport performers and staff could have been applied to identify clearly agreed motives for tackling sport performers' experiences of organizational stress. However, given the identification of potentially threatening cultural norms, steering

groups may have been counterproductive. In the current study, con- ducting focus groups with player sub-groups was necessary for deli- miting future interventions to groups who may be most at risk of strain (Bradley & Sutherland, 1994). We acknowledge that the analysis of group experiences makes it problematic to assess the coping effective- ness of particular stressors for specific performers. We therefore re- commend mixed-method assessments to further inform intervention development and refinement.

The findings from this study suggest that organizational stress management in sport is an area worthy of future research. While at- tempting to advance the conceptual framework and methods used to understand organizational stress, we concur that “research should give more attention to developing techniques used to diagnose the need for stress interventions” (Bowling et al., 2012, p. 79). As the current study indicates, not all stressors are maladaptive for sport performers' well- being and performance. Researchers considering a mixed method ap- proach to stress auditing could consider a longitudinal examination, using a combination of regular steering group meetings, interviews, diaries, observations, and surveys. A blend of these approaches will likely result in greater exposure to the organizational environment and may capture an accurate reality of day-to-day functioning. Compre- hensive audits such as the aforesaid may be more time consuming for organizations. Yet, the benefits of conducting a detailed, participative, and proactive approach to stress management are likely to outweigh the time taken and the relatively minimal cost that could be incurred to improve the well-being and performance of sport performers (cf. Briner & Reynolds, 1999).

There are a number of practical challenges when conducting applied research in sport organizations. In conducting stress audits that are theoretically founded (e.g., Lazarus, 1991), psychologists should identify the stress processes and common issues that need solving for those individuals (e.g., players) and groups (e.g., sub- group teams) who need the most support (Bowling et al., 2012; Nielsen et al., 2010). This is vital for prioritizing whether organi- zational-, individual-level interventions, or an amalgamation of the two is necessary (Giga, Cooper, & Faragher, 2003). Organizational- level programs may be the priority for modifying organizational stressors, such as cultural norms. Where stressors cannot be removed or reduced, individual-level programs such as modifying cognitive appraisals are also appropriate for facilitating well-being (Richardson & Rothstein, 2008). In reality, studying sport perfor- mers' organizational experiences and recommendations for inter- vention development in context is not straightforward, particularly when there may be incongruence between performers and key sta- keholders as to the main issues that need prioritizing. In this regard, sport psychologists have a challenging but important role in en- couraging stakeholders to provide support for the necessary inter- ventions to be designed and implemented. Without such commit- ment, it is likely that sport performers will perceive a lack of interest on the part of stakeholders in their well-being. This may subse- quently lead to negative performer perceptions of the organizational climate in which they operate (cf. Dewe et al., 2010).

In conclusion, this stress audit makes a conceptual contribution by unearthing contextual (e.g., non-normative transitions) and cultural complexities (e.g., political hierarchies) that are not explicitly evident in the organizational psychology models used to inform interventions. Organizational interventions which aim to modify the stressors en- countered, or reduce their impact on performers' well-being, are more likely to be effective if a stress audit is rigorously adopted and in- tegrated in an organization's overall management strategy. Although some challenges exist for undertaking an audit, the prevention and management of stress should be a joint responsibility between sport performers and stakeholders (Dewe et al., 2010; Fletcher et al., 2006); one that may hold great promise for optimizing well-being, perfor- mance, and organizational productivity.

J.L. Rumbold et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 35 (2018) 27–38

37

References

Arnold, R., & Fletcher, D. (2012). A research synthesis and taxonomic classification of the organizational stressors encountered by sport performers. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 397–429.

Arnold, R., & Fletcher, D. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of the sport emotion questionnaire in organizational environments. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33, 169–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014955520.

Arnold, R., Fletcher, D., & Daniels, K. (2017). Organisational stressors, coping, and out- comes in competitive sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(7), 694–703. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1184299.

Bachiochi, P. D., & Weiner, S. P. (2004). Qualitative data collection and analysis. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.). Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psy- chology (pp. 161–183). Malden, MA: Blackwell publishing.

Bergman, M. M. (2011). The good, the bad and the ugly in mixed methods research and design. Journal of Mixed Methods, 5, 271–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1558689811433236.

Biron, C., Ivers, H., Brun, J.-P., & Cooper, C. L. (2006). Risk assessment of occupational stress: Extensions of the Clarke and Cooper approach. Health, Risk & Society, 8, 417–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698570601008222.

Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., & Grebner, S. (2012). Combating stress in organizations. In G. P. Hodgkinson, & J. K. Ford (Eds.). International review of industrial and organiza- tional psychology (pp. 65–87). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Bradley, J. R., & Sutherland, V. (1994). Stress management in the workplace: Taking employee's views into account. Employee Counselling Today, 6, 4–9.

Briner, R. B., & Reynolds, S. (1999). The costs, benefits, and limitations of organizational level stress interventions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 647–664.

Cohen, S., Sherrod, D. R., & Clark, M. S. (1986). Social skills and the stress-protective role of social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 963–973.

Creswell, J. W., & Piano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods re- search. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daniels, K., Beesley, N., Wimalasiri, V., & Cheyne, A. (2013). Problem solving and well- being: Exploring the instrumental role of job control and social support. Journal of Management, 39, 1016–1043. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311430262.

Daniels, K., Gedikli, C., Watson, D., Semkina, A., & Vaughn, O. (2017). Job design, em- ployment practices and well-being: A systematic review of intervention studies. Ergonomics, 60, 1177–1196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1303085.

Daniels, K., Harris, C., & Briner, R. B. (2004). Linking work conditions to unpleasant affect: Cognition, categorisation and goals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 343–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/0963179041752628.

Dewe, P. J., O'Driscoll, M. P., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Coping with work stress: A review and critique. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Didymus, F. F., & Fletcher, D. (2012). Getting to the heart of the matter: A diary study of swimmers' appraisals of organizational stressors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 1375–1385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.709263.

Didymus, F. F., & Fletcher, D. (2014). Swimmers' experiences of organizational stress: Exploring the role of cognitive appraisal and coping strategies. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 8, 159–183.

Duong, D., Tuckey, M. R., Hayward, R. M., & Boyd, C. M. (2015). Work-family conflict: The importance of differentiating between different facets of job characteristics. Work & Stress, 29, 230–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1074629.

Elo, A. L., Ervasti, J., Kuosma, E., & Mattila, P. (2008). Evaluation of an organizational stress management program in a municipal public works organization. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 10–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.13. 1.10.

Fletcher, D., & Arnold, R. (2017). Stress in sport: The role of the organizational en- vironment. In C. R. D. Wagstaff (Ed.). An organizational psychology of sport: Key issues and practical applications (pp. 83–100). London, UK: Routledge.

Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2006). An organizational stress review: Conceptual and theoretical issues in competitive sport. In S. Hanton, & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.). Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp. 321–373). Hauppauge, NY: Nova.

Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S. D., & Neil, R. (2012a). A conceptual framework of organizational stressors in sport performers. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 22, 545–557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010. 01242.x.

Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., & Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2012b). Performers' responses to stressors

encountered in sport organizations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 349–358. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.633545.

Giga, S. I., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2003). The development of a framework for a comprehensive approach to stress management interventions at work. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 280–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245. 10.4.280.

Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 7–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1558689807309969.

Kohler, J. M., & Munz, D. C. (2006). Combining individual and organizational stress in- terventions: An organizational development approach. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.58.1.1.

Kristiansen, E., Murphy, D., & Roberts, G. (2012). Organizational stress and coping in U.S. professional soccer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24, 207–223. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/10413200.2011.614319.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. In P. L. Perrewé (Vol. Ed.), Handbook on job stress: Vol. 6, (pp. 1–13). [special issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York, NY: Springer. Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principles and practice. London: Sage. Mazzola, J. J., Schonfeld, I. S., & Spector, P. E. (2011). What qualitative research has

taught us about occupational stress. Stress and Health, 27, 93–110. McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.).

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1351–1395). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Moran, A. P., Matthews, J. J., & Kirby, K. (2011). Whatever happened to the third paradigm? Exploring mixed methods research designs in sport and exercise psy- chology. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 3, 362–369. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/2159676X.2011.607843.

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152. Nicholls, A. R., Backhouse, S. H., Polman, R. C. J., & McKenna, J. (2009). Stressors and

affective states among professional rugby union players. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 19, 121–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838. 2007.00757.x.

Nielsen, K. (2013). Review article: How can we make organizational interventions work? Employees and line managers as actively crafting interventions. Human Relations, 66, 1029–1050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726713477164.

Nielsen, K., Abildgaard, J.,S., & Daniels, K. (2014). Putting context into organizational intervention design: Using tailored questionnaires to measure initiatives for worker well-being. Human Relations, 67, 1537–1560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0018726714525974.

Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Holten, A., & Rial González, E. (2010). Conducting organiza- tional-level occupational health interventions: What works? Work & Stress, 24, 234–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2010.515393.

Richardson, K. M., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Effects of occupational stress management intervention programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 69–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.13.1.69.

Rick, J., Briner, R. B., Daniels, K., Perryman, S., & Guppy, A. (2001). A critical review of psychosocial hazards measures. Norwich: HSE Books.

Rumbold, J. L., Fletcher, D., & Daniels, K. (2012). A systematic review of stress man- agement interventions with sport performers. Sport, Exercise, & Performance Psychology, 1, 173–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026628.

Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage. Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of

coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216–269.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2011). Mixed methods research: Contemporary issues in an emerging field. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of quali- tative research (pp. 285–299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wagstaff, C. R. D., Fletcher, D., & Hanton, S. (2012). Exploring emotion abilities and regulation strategies in sport organizations. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 1, 268–282.

J.L. Rumbold et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 35 (2018) 27–38

38