Gender-Based Analyses of Stress Among Professional Managers: An Exploratory Qualitative Study
Yoshi Iwasaki, Kelly J. MacKay, and Janice Ristock
University of Manitoba

The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of stress among both female and male managers, using a series of single-sex and mixed focus groups. In addition to substantial similarities between female and male participants’ descriptions about their experiences of stress (e.g., negative and positive aspects of stress, different levels of stress, lack of sleep, pressure, financial stressors, being a manager), a number of important gender differences emerged from their descriptions. These differences can be explained by the way in which gender continues to be socially constructed in society; specifically, there are differing gender role expectations and responsibilities for women and men. Female managers experienced “emotional stress,” primarily because of the pressure to meet expectations of being responsible and caring for people both inside and outside of their home. In contrast, male managers tended to focus on themselves and regard other things as beyond their control or responsibility.
KEY WORDS: gender; stress; managers; profession

Many people in contemporary society feel stressed in their lives. People experience stress in almost every domain of their lives: work, family, community, and even leisure, where “juggling” diverse demands and multitasks in these domains can be stressful (Aneshensel, 1986; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Hochschild, 1989). The prevalence of stress in peo-

Yoshi Iwasaki and Kelly J. MacKay, Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation Studies, Health, Leisure & Human Performance Research Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; Janice Ristock, Department of Women’s Studies, University of Manitoba. This research was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yoshi Iwasaki, 102 Frank Kennedy Centre, Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation Studies, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada. E-mail: iwasakiy@ms.umanitoba.ca

56
International Journal of Stress Management 2004, Vol. 11, No. 1, 56–79 Copyright 2004 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 1072-5245/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.11.1.56

Gender-Based Analyses of Stress

57

ple’s lives and its role as a key determinant of health, well-being, and quality of life reinforce the theoretical and practical importance of stress research. An examination of stress factors in people’s lives helps to advance understanding of the nature, causes or sources, and consequences of stress. In addition, knowledge about these aspects of stress helps in the development of health-related policies and programs to prevent stressinduced illnesses, reduce health service costs, and promote health of the population. Despite the growth of stress research, gender-based analyses of stress have not been extensively carried out. For example, Greenglass (1995) argued that stress research has focused primarily on men. Consequently, the conceptualization of stress has been based mostly on male normative perspectives, and the measures of stress developed have been criticized as male-oriented, that is, insufficient to assess the content of stress relevant to women’s lives (e.g., Bell & Lee, 2002; Zalaquett & Wood, 1997, 1998). For example, as has frequently been used in a life-event approach to the assessment of stress, the original life event checklist, the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS; Holmes & Rahe, 1967) and second-generation scales such as the Life Events Survey and the PERI Life Events Scale, have been criticized for their gender and cultural bias (see Sarafino, 1998) because “most were developed decades ago with all-male samples in particular occupational groups such as the US Navy and US college students” (Bell & Lee, 2002, p. 190). In their study of stress among young Australian women, Bell and Lee lamented that “an appropriate measure for a populationbased survey could not be found” (p. 191). Thus, in their own study they needed to develop the Perceived Stress Questionnaire for Young Women (PSQYW; Bell & Lee, 2002) to “assess perceived sources and levels for young Australian women aged 18 to 23” (p. 191). Because it is not appropriate to assume that women experience stress in exactly the same way as men, it is important to examine how women and men experience stress in their lives. For example, women and men may attach different meanings and definitions to stress, and the sources or causes of stress may be different. In addition, gender is a socially constructed category, and there continue to be different expectations for women and men in society (e.g., Anderson, 1997; Sebrant, 1998), which, in turn, can have an impact on their experiences of stress. The purpose of the present study was to examine the experiences of stress among female and male managers. Specifically, this study explored the meanings of stress, negative and positive aspects of stress, and the sources or causes of stress for both female and male managers. This study was exploratory in nature, and the use of a qualitative method was appropriate for this type of study (Creswell, 1998, 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Rather than being predetermined or controlled by hypotheses and existing

58

Iwasaki, MacKay, and Ristock

measures (which are often criticized as based on male normative standards), the use of a qualitative method provides an opportunity to better understand women’s and men’s perspectives about their real experiences of stress. Openness and flexibility in discovery freely expressed by actual words of individuals are strengths of such methods. To understand women’s and men’s experiences of stress more fully, it is important to give attention to (a) the meanings women and men attach to their experiences of stress in their lives, (b) the ways women and men perceive their experiences of stress as negative and/or positive, and (c) the major sources or causes of stress in their lives. An examination of these three aspects of stress would help to inform our understanding of how women and men experience stress in different and/or similar ways. To date, no attempt has been made to examine these three aspects of stress for both women and men in a single study. More generally, gender-based analyses of stress using qualitative methods have not widely been performed in stress research (Lazarus, 2000).

GENDER AND STRESS RESEARCH In the stress research literature, very little attention has been given to the role of gender in individuals’ experiences of stress. For example, Lazarus’ (1993, 2000) widely adopted conceptualization of stress is not explicit about the role that gender may play in defining stress. Similarly, Avison and Gotlib’s (1994) relevant book, Stress and Mental Health: Contemporary Issues and Prospects for the Future, did not pay much attention to how gender can influence women’s and men’s experiences of stress. Beyond definitional issues, it is uncertain whether the 38 stress evaluation instruments in the two volumes edited by Zalaquett and Wood (1997, 1998) are relevant to measure the experiences of stress for women. Stress and coping researchers have tended to examine the fundamental stress and coping processes that are assumed to operate for any human being. As summarized by Greenglass (1995), stress research has been mostly male centered. Similarly, in the occupational research literature, the majority of research on occupational stress primarily has examined White, professional men; many gaps and biases still exist in the current literature on stress and working women (Clark, Chandler, & Barry, 1996; Rydstedt, Johansson, & Evans, 1998). Recent studies on occupational stress, however, have begun to identify various sources of stress for working women (see Davidson & Fielden, 1999). In addition to work and family stressors commonly experienced among working men (e.g., workload, working environment, people relationships, work–home conflicts), researchers have identified key

Gender-Based Analyses of Stress

59

sources of stress that are pertinent to working women. For example, workrelated stressors include problems related to discrimination and prejudice (e.g., career blocks, sexual harassment) and being “token” women who work in nontraditional jobs (e.g., male-dominated organizational structures and climates, performance pressure, gender stereotyping, isolation, lack of role models; Davidson & Cooper, 1992). Specifically, “stress experienced by women working in male-dominated industries or male-dominated professions is frequently exacerbated by gender-based barriers” (Davidson & Fielden, 1999, p. 417). Another source of work stressors represents specific stressors associated with ethnic minority women (e.g., racism, sexism, bicultural role stressors; Davidson, 1997). It is also important to pay attention to home–work conflicts as sources of stress for working individuals. “Besides being subjected to additional pressures at work, the majority of working women, especially those with children, are far more affected by the burdens and pressures of their home and child care duties than are most employed men” (Davidson & Fielden, 1999, p. 421). Multiple-role strain is a major source of stress or overload for employed women and men, but the reality remains that working women typically spend more combined time on work and family responsibilities than do men (Hochschild, 1989). Despite the increase of female participation in the labor force (U.S. Department of Labor Women’s Bureau, 1997), women continue to perform a much greater proportion of child care and household responsibilities than do men, even when women engage in highstatus professions or hold managerial positions with good pay (Apostal & Helland, 1993; Demo & Acock, 1993; Jamieson, 1998). According to the 2001 Canadian Census (Statistics Canada, 2003), women still do most of the household work. About 21% of Canadian women spent 30 or more hours doing housework in the week prior to the census, whereas only 8% of men did the same—this division of labor is virtually unchanged since 1996. The major forms of multiple-role strain for many employed women represent lack of emotional and domestic support from partners, guilt feelings that are primarily due to expectations about women’s roles, and inadequate child care facilities (Davidson & Fielden, 1999). In general, studies have suggested that managerial and professional women encounter unique sources of stress associated with their minority status and gender and that these stressors contribute to higher levels of overall stress compared with their male counterparts (e.g., Devanna, 1987; Greenglass, 1993). Although not explicitly addressing stress as a key concept, feminist scholarship on women and work describes the social context of women’s lives as opposed to men’s lives where issues of inequality, discrimination, and sexism in work and home domains are stressors experienced by women. These contextual factors account for different sources–causes of stress experienced by women and men (Ghorayshi, 2002). For example, the

60

Iwasaki, MacKay, and Ristock

double day (Armstrong & Armstrong, 1990) or second shift (Hochschild, 1989) refers to multirole stress that working women experience because of their expected responsibility for work inside their home, in addition to their work outside the home. Most women tend to feel pressured or are expected to take on the responsibilities of household work and care for children, aging parents, and other family members (Armstrong & Armstrong, 1990). This pressure or expectation is considered a stress factor more prevalent for women than for men because it is, in fact, built into the social and economic fabric of society where there are substantial costs if women do not fulfill or decide not to take on this expected responsibility (Ghorayshi, 2002). In contrast, most men appear to have the privilege or option of not taking on this responsibility; thus, they tend to primarily focus on themselves (e.g., career advancement, enjoyment for self) and to consider other things (including household work and caring for others) as beyond their responsibility or control (Armstrong & Armstrong, 1990).

METHOD To explore the experiences of stress for female and male managers, we adopted in the present study a qualitative method. Specifically, we used focus groups that were segmented by participants’ gender. It has been shown that focus groups are an effective method to obtain in-depth information about a concept or issue to describe and explain people’s experiences in practical and efficient ways (Krueger, 1994; Krueger & Casey, 2000; Madriz, 2000). Furthermore, because focus group discussions bring forward people’s experiences and offer a social context for meaningmaking, they allow for an analysis of gender (Madriz, 2000).

Participant Recruitment and Focus Group Procedures Participants were selected based on purposive criterion sampling from a list, purchased by the research team, that consisted of professionals who had managerial positions in business, governmental, or nongovernmental organizations in a western Canadian city. The criteria for participation included the following: (a) Individuals were responsible for making decisions that affected the direction of their business or organization on a regular basis and (b) individuals had to score 3, 4, or 5 on at least three of four questions that asked about level of stress in their work, family, personal life, and overall life situations using a 5-point scale (1 not stressful at all to 5 extremely stressful). The first criterion verified that each

Gender-Based Analyses of Stress

61

individual held a managerial position, whereas the second criterion ensured that the participant generally felt stressed in his or her life. A research assistant randomly called listings from the database to describe the purpose of the study, make sure these individuals met the criteria for being participants, explain tasks of each participant, and find out whether they were interested in being involved in the study. Attention was also paid to ensuring that both women and men were recruited to participate. Twelve individuals who met the above criteria and agreed to participate were recruited for each of the three focus groups (N 36 people): (a) womenonly group (12 women), (b) men-only group (12 men), and (c) mixedgender group (6 women and 6 men).1 These individuals received a confirmation letter and a reminder call to confirm the date, time, and location of each focus group. Each focus group session took place at a focus group facility of a local research firm. An experienced professional moderator facilitated all of the three focus groups. The research team leader contacted the moderator to plan for the focus groups and to make sure that the moderator clearly understood the purpose and nature of the study to facilitate focus group sessions effectively. The moderator followed a focus group questioning route (Krueger & Casey, 2000) developed by the research team and guided by the research objectives. The questioning route outlined opening comments about the topic of stress, introductory questions to engage the participants in the topic, transition questions related to evaluations of stress, key questions on the causes of stress and coping strategies, and ending questions to summarize the discussions and confirm main points (see Table 1).2 At each stage of questioning, the moderator gave sufficient time for all the participants to share their views. This article focuses only on the notion of stress; thus, coping aspects are beyond its scope. At the conclusion of each focus group, the participants completed an exit questionnaire to provide sociodemographic background information. They were thanked for their time and contribution to the focus group and each was given a $100 honorarium. Each focus group lasted about 90 min, as planned. The research assistant transcribed verbatim the conversations
1 At the times of focus group sessions, all 12 people showed up for the women-only and men-only groups; 10 individuals for each group were randomly chosen as participants. Only 10 out of 12 people showed up for the mixed-gender group; thus, all of them participated in the focus group session. Although Krueger and Casey (2000) have suggested that typically a focus group is “conducted with six to eight people” (p. 5), in this particular study each of the three focus groups consisted of 10 people to facilitate a breadth of information collected. 2 An exploration of positive and negative aspects of stress was an empirically tested observation, not a forceful attempt to introduce this kind of interpretation of stress to the participants. Selye’s (1974) distinction between eustress and distress has widely been adopted in stress research. Generally, eustress is associated with positive emotions and healthy states, whereas distress is associated with negative emotions and unhealthy states.

62

Iwasaki, MacKay, and Ristock Table 1. Outline of Focus-Group Questioning Route and Protocol Comments or questions

Opening comments Welcome and statements regarding the purpose of the study, focus group procedures, and ethical issues. Opening question “Please tell us a little bit about yourself.” Introductory question “Stress is prevalent in our everyday lives because many people feel stressed. In thinking about your daily life, what does stress mean to you?” Transition questions “Is stress a negative factor in your life? If so explain how it is negative.” “Is stress a positive factor in your life? If so in what ways it is positive?” Subprobe: “What is it about stress that makes it good or bad?” Key questions “What are the things that contribute to stress in your life?” Subprobe: (a) “How does this work, does one thing contribute to stress more than others or does the combination of many things contribute to stress?” (b) “Do you have any particular health concerns that contribute to your feelings of stress? Can you tell us more about this?” (c) “Besides possible health concerns, is there anything else that adds to your feelings of stress?” (d) “Does being a manager contribute to your feelings of stress? If so describe now.” Ending questions “All things considered, what would you say is the major cause of stress in your life?” “Is there anything about stress that we haven’t talked about that you would like to raise before we leave tonight?”

of the focus groups. For the mixed-gender group, the voices of female managers were noted as “(f),” and the voices of male managers were identified as “(m)” in the transcriptions.

Data Analysis Procedures Phenomenology was adopted as an analytical framework in this qualitative inquiry. A phenomenological perspective focuses on “what people experience and how they interpret the world” (Patton, 1990, p. 70). In addition, Schutz (1970) suggested that phenomenology focuses on the ways in which members of society experience everyday lives and “how the social world is made meaningful” (Gubrium & Holstein, 2000, p. 489). In the present study, we focused on describing and interpreting the essences or core meanings for the experiences of stress among female and male managers and, then, looking at differences and similarities in their experiences that could be attributed to gender. Typically, phenomenological data analysis consists of a series of steps.

Gender-Based Analyses of Stress

63

The first step is for the researchers to set aside their own preconceived ideas about the phenomenon under investigation (i.e., stress) to understand it through the voices of the study participants—this process is called epoche or bracketing (Husserl, 1970; Moustakas, 1994). “Epoche requires that looking precede judgment and that judgment of what is ‘real’ or ‘most real’ be suspended until all the evidence (or at least sufficient evidence) is in” (Ihde, 1977, p. 36). “As such, epoche is an ongoing analytical process rather than a single fixed event” (Patton, 1990, p. 408). At the second step, the principal researcher and another researcher individually identified statements, separately for each of the three focus groups (i.e., female only, male only, and mixed groups) about how the participants were experiencing the phenomenon and listed every significant statement relevant to the phenomenon (i.e., “horizonalization” of the data). Each statement was treated as having equal value (Moustakas, 1994). At the third step, these statements were then grouped or clustered into themes or meaning units, separately for each of the three groups, by removing repetitive and overlapping statements (Creswell, 1998). These meanings were formulated by reading, re-reading, and reflecting on the significant statements in the original transcriptions to identify the meanings of the participant statements in the original context. These formulated meanings were then organized into clusters of themes (again, separately for each of the three groups). These clusters represented common themes that emerged from the participants’ descriptions. These clusters of common themes were referred back to the original descriptions to validate them. The researchers individually examined each description to see if there was anything in the original that was not accounted for in the clusters of common themes and whether the clusters proposed something that was not described in the original (Riemen, 1986). On the basis of the previous three steps, the two researchers independently developed summary statements to describe the experiences of stress separately for each of the three groups, along with selected original quotations from the transcripts to illustrate the relevance of the summary statements. The principal researcher (one of the two researchers) carefully reviewed the clusters of common themes and summary statements that were individually developed. Similarities that were evident between the two researchers’ analyses were retained as overall themes and summary. The principal researcher dealt with divergent analytical aspects by either incorporating some of them into similar themes or identifying the others as new themes. As a result of this process, the principal researcher constructed an overall and integrated description of the meanings and the essences (or “essentials”) of the experiences. This synthesis was assumed to contain the “bones” and “deeper meanings” of the experiences (Patton, 1990).

64

Iwasaki, MacKay, and Ristock

These overall and integrated descriptions were given to the other researcher, who carefully reviewed them and made necessary revisions to make sure that they truly reflected what the participants actually described in the focus groups. The third researcher, who is an expert in women’s studies and qualitative research methods, critically reviewed the analysis process and results. Finally, all three researchers communicated to confirm that the analysis was appropriately carried out and that the results were consistent with and accurately emerged from the focus group data. The final overall and integrated descriptions were sent to the participants. Those participants who returned their evaluation forms unanimously verified that the descriptions were consistent with their original experiences.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Focus Group Participants A record of responses to the participant exit questionnaire is presented in Table 2 for each of the female-only, male-only, and mixed-gender groups. Table 2 is provided for descriptive and background purposes only. Participants ranged in age from 25 to 78 years. Half of the participants in each group had a university degree. All but 1 of the participants were employed full time (35 hr/week or more). All participants were Caucasians with the exception of 1 person (African Canadian). Most of the participants had at least one child at home. Occupations of the participants included general managers, presidents/chief executive officers, business owners, sales managers, accounting and financial representatives, and selfemployed workers. Specific occupations and other sociodemographic information of the participants (including marital status and income) are summarized in Table 2.

Prevalence and Extensiveness of Stress Among Female and Male Managers Overall, the prevalence and extensiveness of stress were emphasized in female and male managers’ descriptions and illustrations for their experiences of stress. It was evident that managers’ lives are filled with stress regardless of their gender. When asked about what stress meant to them, managers in the female-only group immediately suggested that stress was a part of everyone’s life—“What’s life without stress?”; “I think every-

Gender-Based Analyses of Stress Table 2. Summary for Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Participants Female-only group (n) 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 2 4 2 3 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Male-only group (n) 1 3 4 2 0 0 1 4 0 2 3 0 10 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 4 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0

65

Mixed gender group Women (n) 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Men (n) 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 6 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sociodemographic variable Age 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–74 75+ Highest level of education Graduate degree Bachelor degree Some degree Trade certificate Grade 12 Less than Grade 12 Marital status Married Single Divorced or separated Common-law Yearly household income $100,001+ $80,001–100,000 $60,001–80,000 $40,001–60,000 $20,001–40,000 Major occupation General manager President President/general manager Employer/owner Business manager Facilities manager Office manager Production/quality assurance manager Regional sales manager Sales/marketing/purchasing manager Vice-president operations Secretary-treasurer Accounting Financial advisor Barrister and solicitor Quality assurance supervisor Sign installer Sales representative Self-employed Self-employed consultant

body’s got it”; “Stress is obviously every day.” Similarly, in response to the same question, both female and male managers in the mixed-gender group agreed that stress was an integrative part of their lives—“It’s just part of life” (female participant); “It’s part of our business every day. It’s like a

66

Iwasaki, MacKay, and Ristock

barometer” (male participant). It remains important, however, to highlight gender differences in the managers’ experiences of stress.

Gender Differences in the Experiences of Stress for Female and Male Managers Emotional Stress: Caring for Others First, although both female and male managers agreed that personal relationships were a major source or cause of stress, they differed in their descriptions of how relationships influenced their experiences of stress. Female managers emphasized that personal or work relationships involving other people contributed to their experiences of emotional stress because they cared about other people who were important to them. More specifically, female participants identified emotional stress as negative and tough to deal with because it involved being “worried about the other people.”
That’s a different kind of stress—that’s an emotional stress. That’s not something you could turn off, and I think emotional stress is worse. (female participant) When you go to an emotional stress, that’s a toughie. (female participant)

Other people being referred to could be family members, relatives, and friends in their personal lives, as well as business people, colleagues, and clients in their professional lives. Managers in the female-only group agreed that relationships—“a work relationship or a personal relationship”—were primary contributors to stress. Because these female managers tended to consider their relationships with other people very personally and seriously, emotional stress caused by people relationships was quite “draining.”
It’s other people—having to deal with the emotions and the issues of other people. (female participant) For me it’s emotional personal stress. I lost my Mom, my cousin, a close friend. I had a business relationship end after 12 years, both my kids moved out, and I had a personal relationship end, all within a year . . . It was the emotional stress that was draining. (female participant)

In contrast, unlike female managers, male managers did not discuss the issue of emotional stress involving relationships. Male managers tended to

Gender-Based Analyses of Stress

67

consider relationships less personally and less emotionally than their female counterparts. Although they admitted that dealing with people in personal or business situations such as relationship breakups was stressful, they stated that problems with relationships were often beyond their control. Some male managers decided not to think about these people problems. For example, speaking of “people relationships in a marriage, in a business, in a conflict with a customer, in a conflict with a supplier,” one male manager “stopped worrying about all this negative stuff.” Interestingly, male participants admitted that they felt less or no control in home– family situations than in work situations.

It’s really key around control. The negative or the really destructive stress is at home, and/or if I take stress from work home. All those coping mechanisms you sort of develop over the years in a workplace environment, a lot of them don’t work well at home. They just don’t follow the rules. (male participant) At work I can handle it up to a certain point because I’m in control of it, but when you get home, you know you’re not running the show. So I think that sort of stress is where it gets really negative. At home the kids are in control. (male participant)

This gender difference appears to be explained by the way gender is socially constructed and the differing expectations that are placed on women versus men. Female managers in this study seemed to be feeling the stress or pressure of meeting expectations that women should be responsible for work in the home and caring for others. On the contrary, the social construction of masculinity means that male managers felt responsible primarily for work outside the home and for themselves and did not have to substantially take on the added responsibility of the home and emotional aspects of people relationships. These two contrasting orientations (i.e., taking on responsibility for others vs. focusing on self) reflect the social construction of femininity and masculinity in society and further show that these differences in expectations and experiences of stress appear to be socially constructed and not biological (Ghorayshi, 2002). It is important to emphasize that the above issues related to emotional stress and caring for others among women were discussed or revealed solely in the female-only group. No woman in the mixed group raised these issues. This evidence suggests the power of group dynamics operated depending on whether people were in the same-sex group or in the mixed group. Female managers in the female-only group appeared more comfortable with expressing their viewpoints openly about their experiences than female managers in the mixed-gender group. The presence of men in the mixed group might make women in that group less comfortable with

68

Iwasaki, MacKay, and Ristock

openly discussing sensitive issues such as emotional and caring aspects of stress that are linked to gender role expectations.

Role of Self in Life: Integrative Versus Independent Another gender difference that was revealed focused on how these managers considered time for themselves or the role of self in their lives. Both female and male managers in all three groups talked about the challenge of balancing or juggling various aspects of their lives—“juggling a number of balls” at once. On the one hand, men identified themselves as an element of maintaining such balance in addition to work and home– family.
It’s the balancing—family, work, and me. The stress is in trying to get all those in equilibrium and one is always out of sync. (male participant)

On the other hand, women did not explicitly include themselves as an element in that balance. Female managers discussed juggling both home and work demands that were not quite separated or compartmentalized.
It’s like the juggling of both home and work but mine isn’t quite separated, so sometimes it comes home. (female participant)

For female managers, the role of self tended to be subsumed or hidden under the two major elements of their lives: home and work. Not only were home and work lives delicately integrated for those women, but they also deliberately took into account the role of other people in their lives. These women clearly recognized that other people were involved in their home and work lives. Thus, these female managers did not isolate themselves from their home and work lives.
It’s learning how to say NO, or putting up the boundaries. But, you don’t ever want to say, “No, I cannot do that,” because that means you’re admitting to something you cannot do. (female participant)

The inability to say no in personal situations, unlike many work situations, was described as a factor contributing to female participants’ stress.
There are times when, personally, to say No is a lot harder than to say it professionally. (female participant)

In contrast, as shown in one quote earlier, male managers, in fact, separated their personal lives from their work and home–family lives and

Gender-Based Analyses of Stress

69

deliberately created an independent category: themselves (i.e., “me”). This evidence seems to suggest that male managers value the importance of having a personal life domain that is distinct or independent from other life domains (i.e., work and home–family). Female managers, on the other hand, tended to integrate their personal lives into home and work lives involving other people. Therefore, these female managers stated that they often had difficulty in creating boundaries between their problems and others’ problems because of the integrative nature of their lives. For many women, their everyday lives tend to be holistic and integrative; it is difficult to completely compartmentalize or distinguish the domains of their lives (i.e., work, family, and leisure; Henderson, Bialeschki, Shaw, & Freysinger, 1996). For example, in her study of mothers of first babies, Wearing (1990) found that it was very difficult for these women to define motherhood indistinguishably as work or leisure. With respect to the role of oneself in women’s lives, their tendency to feel guilty about having their own separate component of life may explain this finding: It is a societal expectation for mothers to be selfless and put their children first; it is part of how motherhood has been constructed. To support this idea, Davidson and Fielden (1999) and Henderson et al. (1996) suggested that some women might experience guilt when they try to create space and time for themselves. These guilt feelings are closely linked to women’s feelings about the lack of entitlement to have time for themselves. Hochschild (1989) found that to juggle all the expectations and deal with the problems of having too many things to do with little time, women “cut back on their personal needs” (p. 199). It has been asserted that female workers experience a greater amount of stress because of higher pressure and the difficulty in juggling work and home responsibilities compared with male workers (Aneshensel, 1986; Davidson & Fielden, 1999).

Home or Family Life as a Contributor to Stress Furthermore, the present findings suggest that the significance of home or family life as a major contributor to the experience of stress is somewhat different between female and male managers. Overall, the male participants’ descriptions for their experiences of stress were mostly centered around their work lives.
It [stress] would pretty well be centered at work for me. (male participant) It’s pressure at work when you’re being pulled in different directions all at the same time and the deadlines are simultaneous . . . I perceive stress on the job. (male participant)

70

Iwasaki, MacKay, and Ristock You’re taking it home from work with you, you’re living with it, you’re getting in trouble with your family because you’re not paying enough attention to them. You’re paying more attention to what you’ve left. (male participant)

The last quote above shows a situation where a male manager admitted that he gives insufficient attention to family–home because he tends to pay more attention to his work even when he is at home with his family. In contrast, for female managers, it appears impossible to give little attention to family–home, and their descriptions were more encompassing and extensive by emphasizing that their family and home lives significantly added to their experiences of stress.
Then, there’s the stress at home. I have 3 kids and a husband that sometimes works out of the city, and then, this morning I found out my son needs a knee operation. It’s the one extra ball that just sort of sent them all tumbling. (female participant)

This evidence does not mean that family–home lives were not a contributor to the experiences of stress among male managers. In fact, male managers described that problems in their family or home lives such as “marital strife” and “sick family members” were sources of stress particularly when they felt low control over these situations. However, female managers discussed more extensively and emotionally how their family–home lives became a major source of stress than did the male counterparts. Part of the reason for this was that, as noted earlier, these women experienced emotional stress that was quite draining because they felt responsible for caring for significant others in their family and home lives. In addition, as shown in one quote earlier, female managers admitted that unlike most work or professional situations, they were often not able to say no in personal or family–home situations, and this was, in fact, a significant contributing factor to their experiences of stress. A couple of female managers even suggested that nonwork issues were more overwhelming than work-related issues.

I can usually manage to work the stress at work. It wasn’t the job; it was all this other stuff coming in. (female participant) Work is what got me through, even though my businesses are very stressful. That kind of stress is what kept me going and kept me focused. It was the emotional stress that was draining. (female participant)

These findings are consistent with the notion of the double day (Armstrong & Armstrong, 1990) or second shift (Hochschild, 1989), which are

Gender-Based Analyses of Stress

71

terms to explain multirole stress where employed women are primarily responsible for work inside the home, in addition to their work outside the home. Research has shown that working women still perform most of the domestic and child care responsibilities compared with their male counterparts (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Hochschild, 1989), even when women hold managerial or high-status professional positions with good salaries (Apostal & Helland, 1993; Demo & Acock, 1993). Evidence for this gender inequality in household responsibilities at home was found even in a more recent study (Jamieson, 1998) and national census data (Statistics Canada, 2003). Similarly, as suggested by Apostal and Helland (1993), Greenstein (1995), and Steil and Weltman (1992), women are still having difficulty in negotiating and sharing household and child care responsibilities with their partners at home, primarily because of the power of gender socializations and expectations. On the other hand, men have difficulty in taking any but the “breadwinner” role, and these gender role messages are still powerful enough to influence both women’s and men’s lives (Schwartz, 1994; Steil & Weltman, 1992). Therefore, women tend to experience more substantial trade-offs between their work and family lives (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). For example, many women with substantial family and home responsibilities intentionally reduce their behavioral and psychological involvement in work and limit their aspirations for career advancement to deal with actual or anticipated work–family conflict, whereas fathers are more highly involved in their jobs than their wives (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). Clearly, there are “the disparities between men’s and women’s involvement in work and family roles, especially when there are children in the family” (i.e., “a gendered division of labor”; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999, p. 407). With respect to interrole conflicts in work and family domains, Pleck (1977) proposed that women, because of having primary household responsibilities, would have greater interference from family to work than men and that men, because of a strong work or employment allegiance, would have greater interferences from work to family than women. In their empirical test of Pleck’s hypothesis, Frone, Russell, and Cooper (1992) and Pleck, Staines, and Lang (1980) found no significant gender differences. For example, Frone et al. found that family stressors and family involvement were positively associated with family to work conflict for both genders. Similarly, Gutek, Searle, and Klepa (1991) found that for both women and men, the more hours a person spent in family activities (i.e., family time demands), the more that person would experience family interference with work. Using 393 employees of a southeastern U.S. university, Eagle, Miles, and Icenogle (1997) found that work and family boundaries were asymmetrically permeable, with work to family conflict being significantly stronger than family to work conflict, regardless of gender of the partici-

72

Iwasaki, MacKay, and Ristock

pants. Eagle et al. suggested that “it is not unusual for both wife and husband, in dual-career couples, to bring work home with them and to allow employment stresses to affect their family domain” (p. 180). The present study provided results that are consistent with Eagle et al.’s finding about the work to family conflict. Both female and male managers in the current study described that bringing work stress home negatively impacted their family–home lives. Thus, no gender difference was found with respect to the work to family conflict. As for the family to work conflict, it is unknown from the findings whether demanding family–home lives had a more substantial negative impact for women or men. As described earlier, the present study found that female managers described more extensively and emotionally how their family–home lives became a major cause of stress than did the male counterparts. Thus, it could be assumed that because female managers experienced a greater amount of stress from family–home lives than did the male counterparts, the family to work conflict might be more substantial for female managers than for male managers. In supporting this assumption about the family to work conflict, Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) and Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1999) suggested that many married and employed women who perform substantial family–home responsibilities intentionally limit their aspirations for career advancement and purposefully reduce their involvement in work, compared with their male counterparts. Other Gender Differences: Stress and Physical Health Problems, Technology and Stress Other gender differences found in this study were, for example, that male managers more explicitly talked about the link between stress and physical health problems than did female managers (although one female “developed heart problems and got shingles”). When asked about what stress meant to them, managers in the male-only group cited health problems such as “high blood pressure,” “ulcers,” and “heart attack,” as well as irritability and fatigue sometimes caused by “long, long days and sleepless nights.” In describing negative aspects of stress, one male manager pointed out, “for some people it can make them physically ill.” It has been shown that men tend to suffer from more severe physical illness than women, whereas women are more prone to higher rates of mental ill-health than men (Aneshensel & Pearlin, 1987; Jick & Mitz, 1985). Interestingly, men in the male-only group more explicitly discussed the negative impact of stress on their physical health than did men in the mixed group. Again, the power of group dynamics regarding the gender composition of groups appeared to influence this finding. Men in the male-

Gender-Based Analyses of Stress

73

only group might have felt more comfortable talking about how negative stress had impacted their physical health than men in the mixed group. This could be because male managers in the mixed group might not have wanted to admit, in the presence of women, their vulnerability to stress in damaging their physical health—that is, men’s tendency toward valuing masculinity or “macho” image (i.e., gender role expectations). Another gender difference was that male managers (but not female managers) identified technology as a contributive factor for speed and expectation aspects of stress.
“Everybody is expecting you to respond immediately. There is no such time as waiting. So, stress is compounding as technology evolves. We’re all exposed to it” (male participant).

Similarities in the Experiences of Stress for Female and Male Managers On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that there are a number of similarities between female and male managers’ descriptions about their experiences of stress in their lives.

Negative (Bad) and Positive (Good) Aspects of Stress For example, most female and male managers agreed that stress could be either negative (“bad”) or positive (“good”), although 1 female manager and 2 male managers did not think that stress could be positive at all because “it affects your body” and “it does horrible things to you.” With respect to negative aspects of stress, both women and men suggested, for example, that negative stress was something that was beyond or “out of [one’s] control,” and that “taking it [stress] home from work with you” was negative.
It’s the bad stress that you take home and you unload on your partner and have it impinge on your relationships and other parts of your life. (female participant)

As for positive stress, both men and women agreed, for example, that positive stress could be “a motivator” and “an opportunity” to grow or learn from.
There’s never a day that goes by without problems. I call it an opportunity. We try to make everything into a positive. My life has got humor attached to it. I think all my stress is positive even though a lot of it is brutal. No matter how tough it gets, just deal with it. (male participant)

74

Iwasaki, MacKay, and Ristock A way to improve what you’re doing now to be smarter, faster. I learn stuff with every stressful situation. I always turn it to the positive. “I can reframe, I can reframe anything” and it’s almost like a challenge. (female participant)

Different Levels of Stress Another similarity in their experiences of stress was that both women and men discussed different levels of stress. Lower levels of stress were identified as “mild,” “manageable,” or “productive,” whereas higher levels of stress were considered as “excruciating,” “less manageable,” “less productive,” and something that “paralyze[d]” them.
There are different degrees of stress. A high level of stress would be when you become less productive. It takes more energy when you’re in a high level of stress behavioral situation to accomplish something that you would be able to accomplish when you’re in a lower level of stress. (male participant) There is a level of stress that is productive, but what we’re talking about paralyzes you. When you are at a point that all those balls are in the air and you can’t drop any of them. (male participant) There are two levels of stress—there’s the everyday, and then there’s the thing that sends you over the top. (female participant)

Lack of Sleep, Pressure, Financial Stressors, Being a Manager In addition, both women and men described their experiences of stress as related to lack of sleep (“sleepless nights,” male participant; “not being able to get enough sleep—that makes me more irritable,” female participant), “pressure,” being “in a rush,” financial problems (“whether it’s at home or at work, lack of cash, so to speak, tends to drive most people crazy,” male participant; “financial pressures” to “do more with less,” female participant), and being a manager.
You can unload certain tasks to your staff. However, thinking about those tasks still gives you that sense of stress. When I move up in a management level, I think by having more staff working for you or with you, you’re not getting less stressed, you’re getting more stressed out. It’s compounding and adding on. (male participant) When you’re a manager, you’ve got the employees on one side and you’ve got the customers on the other side and you’re in the middle. Everything comes back to you, so that’s pretty stressful. (female participant)

Gender-Based Analyses of Stress

75

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION In summary, the gender-based analyses of focus group data provided evidence that gender plays an important role in explaining how female and male managers experience stress in their lives. Although there were substantial similarities between women’s and men’s descriptions about their experiences of stress (e.g., negative and positive aspects of stress, different levels of stress, lack of sleep, pressure, financial stressors, being a manager), a number of important gender differences emerged from their descriptions. These differences seem to be explained by the way gender is socially constructed, primarily the differing expectations that are placed on women and men. Unlike male managers, female managers experienced emotional stress that was quite draining, mostly because of the pressure to meet expectations of being responsible for others. These female managers appeared to feel responsible for work both inside and outside the home and for caring for others. In contrast, male managers seemed to have the expected privilege of not taking on such responsibility; thus, they primarily focused on themselves and regarded other things as beyond their control and responsibility. Unlike male managers’ tendency and desire to create their own personal life domain that seems independent from other life domains (i.e., work and home–family), female managers integrated their personal lives into home and work lives involving significant others. Thus, it was difficult for these female managers to completely compartmentalize their life domains and to create boundaries between their problems and others’ problems. It could be assumed that some women might feel guilty when they tried to create space and time for themselves. Again, this idea is related to the social construction of gender roles. Furthermore, the present findings highlighted significant disparities between female and male managers’ lives. Female managers discussed more extensively and emotionally how their family–home lives became a major source of stress compared with their male counterparts. Female managers tended to experience a greater amount of stress from their family–home lives than did male managers, perhaps because they were expected to perform substantial family and home responsibilities. As noted earlier, female managers stated that unlike most work situations, they often felt hesitant to say no in personal or family–home situations probably because they felt primarily responsible for household work, child care, and other extra tasks at home. Unlike male managers, one female manager admitted that nonwork stressors were more overwhelming than workrelated stressors, whereas another female manager suggested that work stress was generally more manageable than family–home stress. It is important to emphasize that the findings on gender differences are not new per se, but qualitative research allowed our research team to hear

76

Iwasaki, MacKay, and Ristock

how female and male managers experience stress differently. For example, the powerfully different expressions–articulations of emotional stress made by female managers in focus groups might not have surfaced in a study that used a standardized measure–scale of stress. The usefulness of qualitative research should be recognized more in stress research. Another unique aspect of this study was the use of three focus groups segmented by gender (i.e., female only, male only, and mixed groups). The study revealed that the power of group dynamics that were based on the gender composition of the groups influenced how comfortable or uncomfortable people were in expressing their viewpoints about true or real experiences. Emotional stress aspects that were due to women’s expectation and responsibility to care for others were uncovered only in the female-only group, not in the mixed group. Similarly, men’s vulnerability to the exposure to stress that negatively impacts their physical health was more extensively discussed in the male-only group than in the mixedgender group. People’s orientations toward femininity versus masculinity appear to have a strong influence on their values and ways in which they present and express themselves in group settings. Although we believe that our interpretations of the findings discussed above are consistent with what the focus group data suggest, alternative interpretations might be possible. In addition to a focus group strategy, the use of other qualitative data collection approaches such as one-on-one in-depth interviews, participant observations, and/or case studies (i.e., “triangulation” of data collection methods; Creswell, 1998, 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Patton, 1990) might be helpful for gaining clearer and stronger data to support particular interpretations of findings. In conclusion, the key findings that emerged from our analyses of the focus group data suggest that women and men tend to possess two contrasting orientations (i.e., taking on responsibility for others among women vs. focusing often on self among men) that reflect individual and societal expectations about how women and men should behave—these orientations reflect the social construction of gender roles in society. This study indicates that there is need for more research to explore the relationships between gender and stress, which, in turn, can be used to inform health policies and programs and, consequently, to improve the quality of life for both women and men. It is important to stress that the present study was exploratory in nature; the results of this explorative study may help to conduct or guide future quantitative research from a more confirmatory perspective. In addition to gender, it is important for stress researchers to give attention to diversity in society. For example, future research should consider cultural factors such as race and ethnicity, sexual orientations, and socio-economic factors such as social class, which appear to play an impor-

Gender-Based Analyses of Stress

77

tant role in shaping, and being shaped by, the experiences of stress for individuals. Clearly, the criticism about stress research as male-centered and culture-free must be overcome to reflect meaningfully the experiences of a diverse population.

REFERENCES
Anderson, M. L. (1997). Thinking about women: Sociological perspectives on sex and gender (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Aneshensel, C. S. (1986). Marital and employment role-strain, social support, and depression among adult women. In S. Hobfoll (Ed.), Stress, social support and women (pp. 99–114). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Aneshensel, C. S., & Pearlin, L. (1987). Structural contexts of sex differences in stress. In R. C. Barnett, L. Biener, & G. K. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress. New York: Free Press. Apostal, R. A., & Helland, C. (1993). Commitment to and role changes in dual career families. Journal of Career Development, 20, 121–129. Armstrong, P., & Armstrong, H. (1990). Theorizing women’s work. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Garamond Press. Avison, W. R., & Gotlib, I. H. (1994). Stress and mental health: Contemporary issues and prospects for the future. New York: Plenum Press. Bell, S., & Lee, C. (2002). Development of the Perceived Stress Questionnaire for young women. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 7, 189–201. Clark, H., Chandler, J., & Barry, J. (1996). Work psychology, women and stress: Silence, identity and the boundaries of conventional wisdom. Gender, Work and Organization, 3, 65–77. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davidson, M. J. (1997). The Black and ethnic minority woman manager: Cracking the concrete ceiling. London: Paul Chapman. Davidson, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Shattering the glass ceiling: The woman manager. London: Paul Chapman. Davidson, M. J., & Fielden, S. (1999). Stress and the working woman. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 413–426). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. L. (1993). Family diversity and the division of domestic labor: How much have things really changed. Family Relations, 42, 323–331. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Devanna, M. A. (1987). Women in management: Progress and promise. Human Resource Management, 26, 409–481. Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 60–74. Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conflicts and the permeability of work and family domains: Are there gender differences? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 168–184. Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Allies or enemies? How choices about work and family affect the quality of men’s and women’s lives. New York: Oxford University Press. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78. Ghorayshi, P. (2002). Working Canadian women: Continuity despite change. In V. Dhruvara-

78

Iwasaki, MacKay, and Ristock

jan & J. Vickers (Eds.), Gender, race and nation: A global perspective (pp. 123–147). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Greenglass, E. R. (1993). Structural and social-psychological factors associated with job functioning by women managers. Psychological Reports, 73, 979–986. Greenglass, E. R. (1995). Gender, work stress and coping: Theoretical implications. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 121–134. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 391–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Greenstein, T. N. (1995). Gender ideology, marital disruption, and the employment of married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 31–42. Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. Y. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 487–508). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role expectations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568. Henderson, K. A., Bialeschki, M. D., Shaw, S. M., & Freysinger, V. J. (1996). Both gains and gaps: Feminist perspectives on women’s leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift. New York: Avon. Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213–218. Husserl, E. (1970). Logical investigation. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Ihde, D. (1977). Experimental phenomenology. New York: Putnam. Jamieson, L. (1998). Intimacy: Personal relationships in modern societies. Malden, MA: Polity. Jick, T. D., & Mitz, L. F. (1985). Sex differences in work stress. Academic Management Review, 10, 408–420. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 234–247. Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist, 55, 665–673. Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. Y. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 835–850). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work-family role system. Social Problems, 24, 417–427. Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life. Monthly Labor Review, 103, 29–32. Riemen, D. J. (1986). The essential structure of a caring interaction: Doing phenomenology. In P. M. Munhall & C. J. Oiler (Eds.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (pp. 85–105). Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Rydstedt, L. W., Johansson, G., & Evans, C. W. (1998). A longitudinal study of workload, health and well-being among male and female bus drivers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 35–45. Sarafino, E. P. (1998). Health psychology: Biopsychosocial interactions (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Schutz, A. (1970). On phenomenology and social relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schwartz, P. (1994). Peer marriage. New York: Free Press. Sebrant, U. (1998). Being female in a health care hierarchy: On the social construction of gender and leader identity in a work organization having a predominance of women. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 13, 153–158. Selye, H. (1974). Stress without distress. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Gender-Based Analyses of Stress

79

Statistics Canada. (2003). 2001 census. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author. Steil, J. M., & Weltman, K. (1992). Influence strategies at home and at work: A study of sixty dual-career couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 65–88. U.S. Department of Labor Women’s Bureau. (1997). Women in management (Facts on Working Women Publication No. 97-3). Washington, DC: Author. Wearing, B. (1990). Leisure and the crisis of motherhood: A study of leisure and health amongst mothers of first babies in Sydney, Australia. In S. Quah (Ed.), The family as an asset: An international perspective on marriage, parenthood and social policy (pp. 122–155). Singapore: Singapore Times Academic Press. Zalaquett, C. P., & Wood, R. J. (Eds.). (1997). Evaluating stress: A book of resources. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Zalaquett, C. P., & Wood, R. J. (Eds.). (1998). Evaluating stress: A book of resources (Vol. 2). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.