Organizations are socially constructed abstract systems, where their design, structure and processes are enacted by the people who comprise them (Kozlowski, Reference Kozlowski and Kozlowski2012). These components of the organization are linked in complex and dynamic patterns of continuous influence where the characteristics of the context — the organization — has effects on the individuals (Ehrhart et al., Reference Ehrhart, Schneider and Macey2014). The effects of organizations on individuals can cause health to deteriorate as a result of high emotional demand. In addition, these effects sustained over time progressively deplete employees’ psychological resources, producing exhaustion, stress, somatizations and even burnout, which affect performance and productivity, becoming an occupational risk factor (Demerouti & Bakker, Reference Demerouti and Bakker2011). These demands (work-related stress) have become an important occupational risk factor in every industrialized country, although it is comparatively less known in many recently industrialized and developing countries (Kortum et al., Reference Kortum, Leka and Cox2010). A concern throughout the literature on stress and coping is how relatively successful different coping strategies are in producing more positive outcomes and leading to fewer negative outcomes. When coping strategies fail, individuals may find themselves feeling stress, anxiety, and a suite of negative emotions. In short, coping resources are generally the most important predictors of job satisfaction, motivation, and engagement (Bakker & Bal, Reference Bakker and Bal2010; MacIntyre et al., Reference MacIntyre, Gregersen and Mercer2020).
When it reaches unacceptable levels, stress is a phenomenon that leads to a deterioration in psychological health (Bhagat et al., Reference Bhagat, Krishnan, Nelson, Leonard, Ford and Billing2010) and, consequently, to reduced performance and increased absenteeism (Shi et al., Reference Shi, Sears, Coberley and Pope2013), producing unnecessary costs (Goh et al., Reference Goh, Pfeffer, Zenios, Rajpal, Fox and Sitkin2015; Rodríguez et al., Reference Rodríguez, Kozusznik, Peiró and Tordera2019). In a systematic review of the costs of work-related stress globally, it was observed that the estimated total cost in 2014 was considerable and varied substantially between USD 187 and 221 million annually. In addition, it was noted that work-related stress proportionally contributes most of the total cost of lost productivity (between 70 and 90%), and associated health care and medical costs constituted the remaining 10% to 30% (Hassard et al., Reference Hassard, Teoh, Visockaite, Dewe and Cox2018). On the other hand, the Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT; in English International Labor Organization [ILO]) indicates that in Chile 60% of all certified work-related illnesses in 2019 were occupational mental health; this percentage is triple that of 2015. Behind these numbers hides an incalculable human cost for workers and their families, as well as considerable economic losses to businesses and society (Bueno, Reference Bueno2020).
Coping is a fundamental component in the execution of cognitive and behavioral efforts that determine the ability to reduce and control the damage and costs of work-related stress (Agencia Europea para la Seguridad y la Salud en el Trabajo, in English European Agency for Safety and Health at Work [EU-OSHA]; 2014; Hassard et al., Reference Hassard, Teoh, Visockaite, Dewe and Cox2018; Siu et al., Reference Siu, Cooper, Rollo and Lo2020). All this is related to the idea that the natural antidote to handle work demands which result in occupational stress and which affect people’s health and well-being is to manage to reduce the sources of stress at work more efficiently and strengthen the coping resources instead of mitigating the consequences of stress (Milner et al., Reference Milner, Spittal, Pirkis, Chastang, Niedhammer and LaMontagne2017). As expressed in an extensive range of publications (Chico Librán, Reference Chico Librán2002; Meléndez et al., Reference Meléndez, Satorres and Delhom2020; Ogueji et al., Reference Ogueji, Okoloba and Demoko-Ceccaldi2021), the theoretical model at the base of most studies on coping strategies is the now classic transactional model of Lazarus and Folkman. Here, coping resources are defined as the constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts that deal with external and/or internal demands appraised as excessive or beyond the individual’s resources (Lazarus & Folkman, Reference Lazarus and Folkman1984). In addition, coping is defined as the efforts to prevent or reduce the associated threat, damage, loss or anxiety (Carver & Connor-Smith, Reference Carver and Connor-Smith2010). Indeed, it deals with the strategies that the person initiates to control disagreeable emotional states and their different effects, especially when they manifest as a stress process. As reflected in recent meta-analyses, the availability of coping strategies is positively related to the management of stress at work, in terms of prevention and health promotion (Bartlett et al., Reference Bartlett, Martin, Neil, Memish, Otahal, Kilpatrick and Sanderson2019; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Li, Gobis, Zed and Lynd2020).
Coping strategies can be oriented to addressing the problem, “problem-focused coping”, or managing the emotions associated with the stressor, “emotion-focused coping” (Lazarus & Folkman, Reference Lazarus and Folkman1984). Problem-focused coping refers to the efforts aimed at modifying the environmental demands or events causing the stress, attempting to solve the problem or, at least, reduce its impact. On the other hand, emotion-focused coping involves efforts to reduce or eliminate the negative feelings caused by the stressful situation. Folkman (Reference Folkman2008) incorporates positive emotions within the model, ultimately suggesting that the assessment of the stressful situation entails both negative and positive emotions, including a new category in his model, “meaning-focused coping”. More specifically, positive emotions such as humor, which enables a person to confront stress more effectively (Carbelo & Jáuregui, Reference Carbelo and Jáuregui2006; Martin & Ford, Reference Martin and Ford2018; Menéndez-Aller et al., Reference Menéndez-Aller, Postigo, Montes-Álvarez, González-Primo and García-Cueto2020), or spiritual beliefs, where existential meaning is sought to achieve emotional adjustment (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Mrug, Wolfe, Schwebel and Wallander2016; Vinaccia et al., Reference Vinaccia, Quiceno and Remor2012). Initial research suggested that problem-focused coping was preferable to emotion-focused coping for healthier psychological functioning in the long term; however, it is now clear that most stressors require both types of coping, since emotion-focused coping strategies emphasise emotional regulation and help people to feel, understand and express their feelings (Finstad et al., Reference Finstad, Giorgi, Lulli, Pandolfi, Foti, León-Perez, Cantero-Sánchez and Mucci2021; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Kuo, Chien and Wang2016).
Research on coping has concentrated mainly on resources at the individual level (Afifi, Reference Afifi, Berger, Roloff, Wilson, Dillard, Caughlin and Solomon2015; Folkman, Reference Folkman2008), allowing social resources such as coping with stress to drift (Peiró & González-Romá, Reference Peiró and González-Romá2013; Rodríguez et al., Reference Rodríguez, Kozusznik, Peiró and Tordera2019). Nevertheless, Schein’s definition (Reference Schein2010, p. 18) of organizational culture refers implicitly to stress experiences and coping strategies as presenting collective resolution qualities determined by the values, beliefs and underlying assumptions inherent to the organization and the wider social culture. In fact, in certain circumstances, stress experiences can be shared by the members of an organization, generating a climate of organizational stress (Barría-González et al., Reference Barría-González, Postigo, Pérez-Luco, Cuesta and García-Cueto2021; Lansisalmi et al., Reference Lansisalmi, Peiro and Kivimaki2000), and therefore, it is relevant to understand how the individual and social coping resources and strategies benefit people’s performance and well-being (Moos, Reference Moos2002).
In this vein, Pérez-Luco (Reference Pérez-Luco2008) proposes within the work sphere, a generic construct called Subjective Work Environment (ALS in Spanish) as a conceptual model in which the specific domains of climate and organizational culture, occupational burnout and co-active coping styles interrelate to comprehensively describe the employees’ subjective organizational dynamics. This is how the ALS model gathers the influence of two theoretical approaches; the multilevel model of organizational culture and climate by Ostroff et al. (Reference Ostroff, Kinicki, Muhammad, Weiner, Schmitt and Highhouse2012) and the demands and labor resources theory (DRL) by Bakker and Demerouti (Reference Bakker, Demerouti, Diener, Oishi and Tay2018). Combining the specific domains of climate and organizational culture in the ALS construct provides a better understanding of the expressive, communicative and human dimensions of organizations, as well as their importance in creating organizational life (Ehrhart et al., Reference Ehrhart, Schneider and Macey2014; González-Romá & Peiró, Reference González-Romá, Peiró, Schneider and Barbera2014).
From the model of Ostroff et al. (Reference Ostroff, Kinicki, Muhammad, Weiner, Schmitt and Highhouse2012), the ALS construct considers the dimensions of organizational culture and climate focused mainly on the shared meanings of the work context and mediated by organizational structures and practices. On the one hand, organizational climate focuses on perceptions of what happens in the organization (behaviors, support, and expectations) and, on the other hand, organizational culture focuses on why those perceptions happen (basic assumptions, beliefs and values; Ostroff et al., Reference Ostroff, Kinicki, Muhammad, Weiner, Schmitt and Highhouse2012). From this perspective, organizational culture and climate shape management practices mediated by the leader in the construction of a work environment with more or less work demands (job burnout) and favoring (or not) personal and work resources (coping strategies). On the other hand, the ALS construct, in its specific domains of occupational burnout and coping styles, is framed directly with the job demands-resources theory (JD-R; Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker, Demerouti, Diener, Oishi and Tay2018). This theory seeks to understand the factors that determine employees’ well-being (e.g., burnout, health, motivation) as well as work performance. According to the theory, the different work contexts can be divided into two different categories: Job demands and resources. Job demands are defined as those aspects of work (physical, psychological, social or organizational) that require efforts by the worker, with associated consequences. In this sense, coping showed relationships with workplace burnout (Martínez et al., Reference Martínez, Méndez, Ruiz-Esteban, Fernández-Sogorb and García-Fernández2020), and with psychological symptoms such as depression and anxiety. Conversely, job resources refer to the aspects of work contexts (physical, psychological, social or organizational) that help manage the demands, helping to meet targets and stimulate the worker’s growth and development (Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker, Demerouti, Diener, Oishi and Tay2018; Hakanen et al., Reference Hakanen, Seppälä and Peeters2017; Schaufeli, Reference Schaufeli2017). For example, coping has been related with organizational climate (Ahmad et al., Reference Ahmad, Jasimuddin and Kee2018), and culture (Naseer et al., Reference Naseer, Raja, Syed and Bouckenooghe2018). Finally, the construct of Co-Active Coping occurs when members of an organization use similar individual coping strategies, i.e., develop shared ideas and beliefs to resolve stressful situations in similar circumstances, with the role of organizational culture and climate being relevant in this process. Coactive coping represents a process at the individual level that spreads through imitation and vicarious learning, becoming an organizational phenomenon (Peiró & Rodríguez, Reference Peiró and Rodríguez2008; Rodríguez et al., Reference Rodríguez, Kozusznik, Peiró and Tordera2019).
According to the ALS model, the imbalance between personal and work resources – co-active coping – and job demands – burnout – to which employees are exposed, have individual and collective resolution qualities. These are determined by the organizational culture and climate and mediated by the support of the leader, who moderates individual perceptions and interacts mutually in the intersubjective processes and affects occupational well-being and performance in the organization (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Subjetive Work Environment Model for Co-active Coping
From the proposed construct ALS, an evaluation battery is developed called Subjective Work Environment Questionnaire (CALS; Barría-González et al., Reference Barría-González, Postigo, Pérez-Luco, Cuesta and García-Cueto2021; Pérez-Luco, Reference Pérez-Luco2008). The CALS considers the construction of the following scales: Subjective Work Environment Organizational Climate scale (ECALS in Spanish; Barría-González et al., Reference Barría-González, Postigo, Pérez-Luco, Cuesta and García-Cueto2021), Organizational Culture scale (ECO; Pérez-Luco, Reference Pérez-Luco2008), Occupational Burnout scale (EDP; Pérez-Luco, Reference Pérez-Luco2008), Symptomatology scale (ES; Pérez-Luco, Reference Pérez-Luco2008) and Co-active Coping Inventory (EAC), the latter being a new instrument added to the CALS battery. These scales are constructs traditionally studied by psychology in work settings, measuring and interpreting organizational dynamics in an integrated manner according to the definition of the ALS model. In this scenario, the new Co-active Coping Scale presents five facets (reflective action, rash action, search for spiritual support, search for affective support, and evasion) that characterize the variable of coping in the domains that the literature indicates, as problem-focused strategies (reflective action), and emotion-focused strategies (search for affective support, evasion), and meaning-centered (rash action or humor and seeking spiritual support; Carbelo & Jáuregui, Reference Carbelo and Jáuregui2006; Carver, Reference Carver1997; Folkman & Moskowitz, Reference Folkman, Moskowitz, Hewstone, Schut, de Wit, van Den Bos and Stroebe2007; Martínez et al., Reference Martínez, Meneghel and Peñalver2019; van den Brande et al., Reference van den Brande, Baillien, De Witte, Vander Elst and Godderis2016). From DRL, coping resources are generally the most important predictors of job satisfaction, motivation, and engagement (Prieto-Díez et al., Reference Prieto-Díez, Postigo, Cuesta and Muñiz2022). The dimension reflective acting (problem-focused) is particularly relevant and effective on individuals’ stress levels by reducing threat (Carver & Connor-Smith, Reference Carver and Connor-Smith2010; González-Morales et al., Reference González-Morales, Rodríguez and Peiró2010). The affective support-seeking and avoidance (emotion-focused) dimensions involve making efforts to mitigate the negative feelings caused by the stressful situation. On the other hand, the dimensions rash action (humor) and search for spiritual support, as meaning-centered strategies, incorporate positive emotions into the stress coping processes. This is, in essence, a confrontation that draws on a person’s beliefs (e.g., religious, spiritual, or beliefs about justice), values (e.g., ’’what really matters’-I care about my family’s well-being), existential goals (e.g., purpose in life or guiding principles), and use of humor to motivate and sustain coping and well-being during a difficult time (Folkman & Moskowitz, Reference Folkman, Moskowitz, Hewstone, Schut, de Wit, van Den Bos and Stroebe2007; Lazarus & Folkman, Reference Lazarus and Folkman1984). Negative (emotion-focused) as well as positive (meaning-focused) emotions occur in a complementary manner in emotional strategies in the face of stress, contributing to cope more effectively with the situation and reduce levels of distress in individuals and teams (Ortega-Maldonado & Salanova Soria, Reference Ortega-Maldonado and Salanova Soria2016).
There is a broad distribution of questionnaire proposals created to assess coping, and there is variety in terms of their use on generic or specific stressors. Questionnaires in English are the most significant, having been adapted to different countries (Kato, Reference Kato2015). In this vein, questionnaires in Spanish are based on the main questionnaires in English and these have been essentially validated in their countries. Specifically in Chile (see Table 1), there are basically only validations of the questionnaires by Folkman and Lazarus (Reference Folkman and Lazarus1988) and Carver et al. (Reference Carver, Scheier and Weintraub1989).
Table 1. Frequently Used Coping Scales
Note. Own elaboration
Bearing in mind the contributions of the original instruments shown in Table 1, it is possible to point out some relevant and differentiating arguments between the scales presented and the creation of the new EAC scale, based on previous literature such as the meta-analysis performed by Kato (Reference Kato2015). One of the main limitations of the scales in Table 1 is the target population. For example, according to the meta-analysis by Kato (Reference Kato2015), the most widely used scale in the literature is the COPE, but this has been constructed to measure coping especially in situations of unemployment. One of its versions, the COPE-R, was developed to measure religious coping in patients with an illness. In turn, both the SCQ and the WCQ have been designed to measure coping strategies to pain in patients with an illness or with violence problems. With all this, it is interesting to note that these scales used for their study mainly patients and university students between 18% and 25% respectively, with the COPE scale being the one that has been most used in the working population, but which is not specific for this type of population (Kato, Reference Kato2015). It is also worth mentioning that the instruments present different factor structures, as well as high variability in measurement precision. For example, the reliability (α) of the COPE scale scores ranged from .44 to .91, with a mean of .75.
With the above in mind, the Co-Active Coping Inventory (EAC) attempts to somewhat address the problems. The EAC performs a specific measurement of personal and work resources (coping strategies) and provides indicators for the management of people in complex public and private organizations, to reduce individual and organizational stressors that affect the health and performance of employees. The EAC broadens the focus and considers the evaluation of coping strategies focused on both positive and negative emotions, such as avoidance, humor and spiritual or religious emotions.
Several aspects can be considered to highlight the importance of developing a new coping inventory in the Chilean context. The Co-active Coping Inventory (EAC) proposes a comprehensive construct for the diagnosis of subjective work dynamics in complex organizations, both public and private. In addition, it responds to the absence of coping scales in the Chilean population using a large national sample for its later application to various sectors of the productive sphere. Therefore, the proposed scale contributes to the clarification and technical updating of the field of coping assessment, making it possible to evaluate the construct in different organizational contexts, favoring a more accurate diagnosis of the working environment. In addition, with the new coping inventory, it is hoped that a first step will be established in the future development of the Subjective Work Environment construct in the evaluation of complex organizational dynamics, being understood as those that present four or more divisions in their organizational structure, three or more hierarchical levels or layers and a minimum of 200 employees (Pérez-Luco, Reference Pérez-Luco2008; Rodríguez, Reference Rodríguez2002).
Within this framework, the main objective of this study is to develop a measuring instrument of greater precision to diagnose coping strategies in the Chilean labor context and that it is integrated into the CALS battery for the evaluation of the Subjective Work Environment. For this, the psychometric properties of the new measuring instrument in relation to the internal structure, reliability and evidence of validity in relation to other variables will be studied. Finally, the variables that comprise co-active coping will be examined to help predict occupational burnout (emotional exhaustion, affective hardening and personal fulfillment) and symptomatology (psychological and somatic). With this in mind, we formulate the following hypotheses:
H1: If the items of the new EAC scale have been adequately constructed, then the EAC will show adequate psychometric properties: Evidence of validity (content and based on internal structure), and reliability of the scores.
H2: If the coping-active dimensions are well-defined and adequately measured through the EAC instrument, then the coping dimensions show evidence of validity in relationship with other variables. Specifically, the coping dimensions of reflective action, spiritual and affective support correlate positively with organizational cultural and climate, and occupational burnout and psychological and somatic symptomatology, and the coping dimensions of rash action and evasion correlate negatively with these variables studied.
Method
Participants
The sample is comprised of 1,442 workers from service and production organizations, seven public and two private, in various cities throughout Chile. In total, 55% of the sample belongs to public organizations, 34.5% to private commercial organizations and 10.5% to private non-profit ones (social development). The age ranged between 18 and 65 years, with a mean of 39.48 years and a standard deviation of 11.13. 45% of the sample was women. The organizations were selected deliberately and thus represent different production sectors and have national representatives. Stratified sampling (layers) was done by cluster (units) with a 5% margin of error to ensure the representativity within each participating organization. In each case quotas higher than those estimated were obtained according to the procedure by Scheaffer et al. (1986/Reference Scheaffer, Mendenhall, Ott, Rendón Sánchez and Gómez Aguilar1987).
Instruments
Co-active Coping Inventory (EAC)
In the development of the EAC, the recommendations for the test design based on the criteria established by the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA) to evaluate the tests (Evers et al., Reference Evers, Muniz, Hagemeister, Hstmaelingen, Lindley, Sjöberg and Bartram2013) and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME]; 2014), as well as the recommendations provided by present psychometric literature (Downing & Haladyna, Reference Downing and Haladyna2006; Ferrando et al., Reference Ferrando, Lorenzo-Seva, Hernández-Dorado and Muñiz2022; Lane et al., Reference Lane, Raymond and Haladyna2016; Moreno et al., Reference Moreno, Martínez and Muñiz2018; Muñiz & Fonseca-Pedrero, Reference Muñiz and Fonseca-Pedrero2019), were all followed. A set of 32 items was constructed to include each aspect of the five domains that a priori form the coping inventory: Search for Spiritual Support, Search for Affective Support, Reflective Action, Rash Action, and Evasion. All these items were written directly (Suarez-Álvarez et al., Reference Suarez-Álvarez, Pedrosa, Lozano, García-Cueto, Cuesta and Muñiz2018; Vigil-Colet et al., Reference Vigil-Colet, Navarro-González and Morales-Vives2020). The items that compose the instrument follow a Likert-type format with five response categories (1 = never, 5= always) in line with the established psychometric literature that indicates that between four and six response categories obtain the best estimations of the psychometric parameters (Lozano et al., Reference Lozano, García-Cueto and Muñiz2008). Once the items were constructed, they were evaluated by 11 experts in Psychological Assessment and Organizational Psychology. The experts had to assign each of the items to their respective domain. Those items that showed an agreement less than 70% in terms of allocation of the item to their respective domain were eliminated. Only Item 14 corresponding to the domain “Search for Affective Support” was eliminated for having only 63% agreement. In addition, the content validity ratio (CVR) was calculated according to whether each of the experts considered the item as essential, all of them being above .45. Next, the average (content validity index; CVI) was calculated, obtaining a value of .85, which rose to .89 once item 14 was eliminated. This value is adequate considering the number of experts who participated in the study (Pedrosa et al., Reference Pedrosa, Suárez-Álvarez and García-Cueto2013; Rubio McGartland et al., Reference Rubio McGartland, Berg-Weber, Tebb, Lee and Rauch2003).
Next, each of the specific domains is described briefly: Search for Spiritual Support (4 items) refers to the passive-reflective coping strategy focused on the search for spiritual meaning as the preferred response to reduce tension (Agbaria & Abu-Mokh, Reference Agbaria and Abu-Mokh2022; Baldacchino & Draper, Reference Baldacchino and Draper2001; Charzyńska, Reference Charzyńska2014). Search for Affective Support (4 items) is defined as a coping strategy focused on the mobilization of resources in the immediate social environment to find acceptance to unburden. It is not meant to resolve the problem causing the stress, but to talk about the experience and relieve the emotional burden (Mefoh et al., Reference Mefoh, Ude and Chukwuorji2018; Pérez-Luco, Reference Pérez-Luco2008). Reflective Action (12 items) refers to the active coping strategy oriented directly to resolving the problem with a cognitive approach, evaluating the situation and behavior, mobilizing personal resources and the environment, mediated by a process of reflection and ordered planning, that in turn supports a positive redefinition of the experience as an opportunity for learning and personal development (Jacobs & Carver, Reference Jacobs, Carver, Sweeny, Robbins and Cohen2020; Pérez-Luco, Reference Pérez-Luco2008). Rash action (4 items) is defined as an active and non-reflective coping strategy focused on taking distracting actions that ease the tension in the environment without resolving the underlying problem (Jiang et al., Reference Jiang, Lu, Jiang and Jia2020; Pérez-Luco, Reference Pérez-Luco2008). Evasion (7 items) refers to the rash coping strategy that produces actions that tend to extinguish the feelings of malaise, displeasure or discomfort experienced, without tackling the problems giving rise to the stress (Pérez-Luco, Reference Pérez-Luco2008; van den Brande et al., Reference van den Brande, Baillien, Elst, De Witte and Godderis2020).
Subjective Work Environment Organizational Climate Scale (ECALS in Spanish; Barria-Gonzalez et al., Reference Barría-González, Postigo, Pérez-Luco, Cuesta and García-Cueto2021)
The ECALS is a questionnaire with 38 items that evaluate the five domains of organizational climate of the subjective work environment: Organizational confidence, Job strain, Social support, Reward and Job satisfaction. The elements that comprise the inventory follow a Likert-type format with five response categories (1 = never, 5= always). The scale has adequate psychometric properties to assess organizational climate in the Chilean context. In this study sample, the ECALS has a reliability coefficient (α) of .93 for the general score and between .78 and .93 for each of the specific domains.
Occupational Burnout Scale (EDP; Pérez-Luco, Reference Pérez-Luco 2008 )
This scale is made up of 22 items that measure workers’ burnout. The scale is used to assess the level of occupational burnout and includes three domains (Emotional Exhaustion, Personal Fulfilment and Affective Hardening), using a Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The sample of the present study presented reliability coefficients (α) of .86 for Emotional Exhaustion, .77 for Absence of Personal fulfillment, and .75 for Affective Hardening.
Symptomatology Scale (ES; Pérez-Luco, Reference Pérez-Luco 2008 )
The scale measures the psychological and somatic symptoms of occupational burnout through 27 items, using a dichotomous scale: 0 (no) and 1 (yes). In this study sample, reliability coefficients (α) of .78 for Psychological Symptomatology and .76 for Somatic Symptomatology were found.
Organizational Culture Scale (ECO); Pérez-Luco ( Reference Pérez-Luco 2008 )
It is a questionnaire of 41 items with Likert-type responses with five response alternatives from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The scale is used to evaluate the organizational culture and includes four domains (Skills, Brand, Rigor, and Improvisation). The sample of the present study showed reliability coefficients (α) of .70 for Skills, .70 for Relations, .74 for Rigor and .68 for Improvisation.
Procedure
For the selection of the participating organizations, a theoretical matrix of eight fields was defined, considering type of organization (public/private), orientation (production/services) and purpose (profit and social development). In each case different complex organizations (four or more divisions, three or more hierarchical levels or layers and a minimum of 200 employees) were identified with a presence in two or more regions in Chile. Their managers were contacted by formal and informal routes to invite them to participate in the study. From the eight predicted types, representation was obtained in seven cases, and it was not possible to access productive commercial public organizations. Informed consent was requested before beginning the application of the instrument to each of the study participants, carefully respecting anonymity, confidentiality and guaranteeing strict compliance with data protection.
For each organization, a sample was estimated, and access was granted in periods of 15 to 30 days remotely, so the instrument was activated online. Agreement to participate included a general measurement of ALS with the results being returned to the corresponding managers, one of which was always a counterpart of the study.
Data Analyses
First, following a cross-validation procedure (Fabrigar et al., Reference Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum and Strahan1999; Rey-Sáez, Reference Rey-Sáez2022) the sample was randomly divided into one third (493 participants) to test the dimensionality of the instrument through an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). KMO and Bartlett’s statistic were used in the EFA to evaluate the suitability of the data for the factor analysis. The EFA was performed on the polychoric correlation matrix using unweighted least squares (ULS) as the method of estimation. The dimensionality of the scales was determined through the optimal implementation of the parallel analysis (Timmerman & Lorenzo-Seva, Reference Timmerman and Lorenzo-Seva2011) with 1,000 random correlation matrices. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and root mean square of residuals (RMSR) were used as indices of fit, establishing a good fit when CFI > .95 and RMSEA < .06 (Hu & Bentler, Reference Hu and Bentler1999). The Pearson correlations among the different domains were also analyzed. Then, two thirds of the sample (949 participants) were used to confirm the internal structure obtained in the exploratory approach. For this, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out using weighted least squares with mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV). The comparative fit index (CFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), RMSEA and RMSR were used as indices of fit, considering a good fit of the model when CFI and NNFI > .95 and RMSEA and RMSR < .08 (Hu & Bentler, Reference Hu and Bentler1999). In addition, due to the importance of studying the factor structure of the construct through different populations (Amérigo et al., Reference Amérigo, García, Pérez López, Cassullo, Ramos, Venumbaka and Aragonés2020; Postigo et al., Reference Postigo, García-Cueto, Muñiz, González-Nuevo and Cuesta2023), invariance was evaluated based on sex (man-woman) and type of organization (public-private). The levels of configural, metric and scalar invariance were analyzed using a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA). Since this is about added models, a change in the CFI less than –.01 and a change in the RMSEA less than –.015 (ΔCFI < –.01, ΔRMSEA < .015; Chen, Reference Chen2007) were allowed to accept the measurement invariance.
Once the factor structure had been studied, the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) and the discrimination index (corrected item-test correlation) of the 30 final items that compose the instrument (Muñiz & Fonseca-Pedrero, Reference Muñiz and Fonseca-Pedrero2019) were examined. The reliability of each of the domains was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha for ordinal data (Oliden & Zumbo, Reference Oliden and Zumbo2008), McDonald’s Omega (McDonald, Reference McDonald1999). Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity was studied by means of the composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and maximum shared variance (MSV). In terms of convergent and discriminant validity, the AVE must be higher than .50 and, in addition, it must be lower than the MSV.
As evidence of validity in relation to other variables (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014), the Pearson correlation was calculated between the new coping instrument and the different domains of organizational climate and culture (Barría-González et al., Reference Barría-González, Postigo, Pérez-Luco, Cuesta and García-Cueto2021). The Pearson correlations were calculated between the EAC and the three specific domains of Occupational Burnout and the two specific domains of Symptomatology.
Finally, different multiple linear regressions were performed to analyze if the different coping domains predict the workers’ burnout and symptomatology. All the variables were introduced into the model, and the percentage of variance explained (R2) of the model was considered.
The descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations and multiple linear regressions were calculated using the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 24.0). The EFAs and the reliability coefficients were prepared using FACTOR 10.5.03 (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, Reference Lorenzo-Seva and Ferrando2013). The CFAs took place using MPlus8 (Muthén & Muthén, Reference Muthén and Muthén2017).
Results
First, an EFA was conducted on a third of the sample. One item was eliminated (item 3) for not loading into any of the domains. The EFA was conducted again with the 30 final items. The data were adequate to perform a factor analysis (KMO = .84; Bartlett p < .001). The parallel analysis recommended five domains, explaining 64.8% of the variance. The percentage of explained variance of the first factor was 24.6%, the second 17.4%, 10% for the third, 6.6% for the fourth and 6.3% for the fifth factor. The fit indices of the model were adequate (GFI = .987; RMSR = .039).
The correlations matrix between the scores in the subscales of the battery (see Table 2) indicates that the five specific domains on the EAC are positively related to each other (p < .01), although the correlations are generally not very high.
Table 2. Correlations between the Specific Dimensions of EAC
Note. ** The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (bilateral).
Next, using the second sub-sample, the factor structure (model of five correlated factors) was confirmed by CFA, which showed a good fit of the data (CFI = .972; NNFI = .969; RMSEA = .070 90% CI [.067, .072]; RMSR = .079). The factor loadings, from both the exploratory and confirmatory parts, were all adequate, which can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3. Measurement Invariance for EAC according to Sex and Type of Organization
Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
With respect to measurement invariance, the results are shown in Table 3. The EAC showed an adequate fit of a model of five factors correlated in each of the groups in terms of sex (men and women) and in terms of type of organization (public and private). In addition, the measurement invariance was confirmed at all levels (configural, metric and scalar) for both sex and type of organization (Table 3).
Once the factor structure had been verified, the descriptive statistics of the items were analyzed (see Table 4). It can be seen that all the values of skewness and kurtosis are adequate (oscillating between ±1) as well as the discrimination indices, being between .40 and .77.
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics, Discrimination Indices of the Items and Reliability of the Specific Dimensions of the EAC
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Sk = skewness; K = Kurtosis; D.Is = discrimination index per dimension; FC = Factor Loading; EFA = exploratory factor analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; α = Cronbach; ω = McDonald; AVE = Average variance extracted; MSV = maximum shared variance; CR = composite reliability.
Referring to the reliability of the scores of each of the domains (Table 4), this is adequate in all of them, being between .83 and .87 for the Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients. Also, the evidence of convergent and discriminant validity is adequate according to the CR, AVE and MSV indices (Table 4).
Referring to the evidence of validity in relation to other variables, Table 5 shows that the EAC is positively related to the domains of organizational climate and culture and negatively to the domains of burnout syndrome and symptomatology, consistent with what is reported in the literature (Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker, Demerouti, Chen and Cooper2014; Schneider et al., Reference Schneider, González-Romá, Ostroff and West2017).
Table 5. Pearson Correlations between EAC and ECALS, ECO, EDP, and ES
Note. ** < .01. * < .05.
Finally, multiple linear regressions were done considering the different domains of burnout and symptomatology as dependent variables and the different coping domains as independent variables (see Table 6). As can be seen, the different coping domains explain between 20% (emotional exhaustion) and 41% (affective hardening) of employee burnout and around 3–5% of employee symptomatology, with reflective action being the most important variable in this context.
Table 6. Multiple Linear Regressions to Predict Burnout and Symptomatology
Note. R2 = % variance explained of the dependent variable.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of a new Co-Active Coping Inventory (EAC) for the Chilean context (see Appendix). The EAC includes five domains that evaluate co-active coping, accounting for similar individual coping strategies that workers use to deal with stressors that become an organizational phenomenon (Rodríguez et al., Reference Rodríguez, Kozusznik, Peiró and Tordera2019). This in turn leads to the challenge of the evaluations on different levels (individual, teams and organization), where a construct such as coping on a lower level (individual) can be added to constitute an operationally isomorphic construct on a higher level (organizational level; Chan, Reference Chan, Ehrhart and Raver2014; Ehrhart & Raver, Reference Ehrhart, Raver, Schneider and Barbera2014; Klein & Kozlowski, Reference Klein and Kozlowski2000). The new EAC instrument, as far as can be determined, is the first measurement instrument of co-active coping in the Chilean population that assesses coping strategies which would reduce and control the damage and costs that work-related stress can entail (Carver & Connor-Smith, Reference Carver and Connor-Smith2010; Hassard et al., Reference Hassard, Teoh, Visockaite, Dewe and Cox2018; Rabenu et al., Reference Rabenu, Yaniv and Elizur2017).
With respect to the psychometric properties of the EAC, this comprises 30 items, which evaluate five domains of co-active coping. These five domains are consistent with the literature and make it possible to conduct studies on stress coping profiles in organizational contexts. This instrument is easy to apply as it consists of 30 items and five facets compared to 53 items and 14 facets of the COPE instrument, for example (Carver et al., Reference Carver, Scheier and Weintraub1989).
In terms of evidence of validity in relation to other variables, the results are consistent with those found in other studies and reveal that problem-focused coping (reflective action) was preferable to emotion-focused coping (search for affective support, evasion), and meaning-focused coping (rash action, search for spiritual support), given that such strategies involve addressing the problem causing the stress and contribute to positive psychological states, allowing people to experience certain personal control and a feeling of achievement for healthier long-term psychological functioning (Mark & Smith, Reference Mark and Smith2012; Martínez et al., Reference Martínez, Meneghel and Peñalver2019). However, this type of coping is not a suitable strategy to address stress if the situation is uncontrollable or chronic (Montero-Marin et al., Reference Montero-Marin, Prado-Abril, Piva Demarzo, Gascon and García-Campayo2014), yet it is now recognized that most stressors require different types of coping (Bakker & de Vries, Reference Bakker and de Vries2021).
On the other hand, the variable Evasion on the Coping inventory is better related to the Occupational Burnout scale, specifically and to a greater extent with the domain Affective Hardening. The coping strategies of evasion, even if only used occasionally, can be strong predictors of burnout in its classic definition (Gibbons, Reference Gibbons2010), and they can increase the use of substance abuse as a coping strategy (Chen & Cunradi, Reference Chen and Cunradi2008). In addition, the presence of evasion strategies has been related specifically to de-personalization (affective hardening on the EAC), which is associated with the direct customer service professions in social services and which affects work efficiency and professional well-being (Martínez et al., Reference Martínez, Méndez, Ruiz-Esteban, Fernández-Sogorb and García-Fernández2020; Montero-Marin et al., Reference Montero-Marin, Prado-Abril, Piva Demarzo, Gascon and García-Campayo2014). In addition, the third component of Occupational Burnout, Personal Fulfillment, was highly and positively related with the use of problem-focused coping strategies, Reflective Action, which suggests that a problem-focused response and a positive self-assessment can be mutually reinforced (Demerouti, Reference Demerouti2015).
In addition, the results show that coping resources (Reflective Action, Rash Action, Search for Spiritual Support, Search for Affective Support and Evasion) directly impact on Occupational Burnout (Emotional Exhaustion, Affective Hardening and Personal Fulfillment) and Symptomatology (Somatic and Psychological). This is relevant since emotional exhaustion is the central component of exhaustion and a chronic form of stress as a result of long-term processes (García-Arroyo & Osca Segovia, Reference García-Arroyo and Osca Segovia2019; Shin et al., Reference Shin, Park, Ying, Kim, Noh and Lee2014; Yin et al., Reference Yin, Huang and Lv2018; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Li, Gobis, Zed and Lynd2020). On the other hand, the five domains of co-active coping help to explain Affective Hardening, with evasion being the variable that most helps to explain it. Affective hardening is associated with the use of the negation, mental disconnection and avoidance. Therefore, people with Occupation Burnout tend to use evasion as a way of distancing, being an indicator of an employee’s lack of commitment and, consequently, a reduction in feelings of competence and successful achievement at work. Employees who experience high levels of affective hardening use coping strategies that require passive acceptance and they do not seek effective solutions (reflective action) that can help them handle stressful situations in the workplace (Bakker & de Vries, Reference Bakker and de Vries2021; Xu & Yang, Reference Xu and Yang2021). Finally, the five domains of co-active coping help to explain Personal Fulfillment, with Reflective Action being the variable that most helps to explain it. A high degree of Personal Fulfillment is associated with the frequent use of strategies such as planning, problem-focused coping, the search for social support and positive re-assessment (Doménech Betoret & Gómez Artiga, Reference Doménech Betoret and Gómez Artiga2010; Guerrero Barona, Reference Guerrero Barona2003; Martínez et al., Reference Martínez, Méndez, Ruiz-Esteban, Fernández-Sogorb and García-Fernández2020), and these are important coping strategies to encourage in employees since they help to adaptively modify the results of a situation that otherwise would be negative (Awa et al., Reference Awa, Plaumann and Walter2010). Finally, the five domains of co-active coping do not show a construct that better predicts somatic and psychological symptomatology; however, the domain of co-active coping that best explains it in a negative way is Reflective Action, which shows that the styles of maladaptive coping (negation, mental disconnection, avoidance) are associated with physical health, emotional exhaustion, reduced job satisfaction, reduced well-being and high levels of psychological malaise such as depression and anxiety (Bueno, Reference Bueno2020; Harmsen et al., Reference Harmsen, Helms-Lorenz, Maulana and van Veen2018; Stapleton et al., Reference Stapleton, Garby and Sabot2020).
The present study has some relevant theoretical implications because it adds necessary background on the well-being of collaborators in the work context, identifying coping strategies that as personal and organizational resources manage to mitigate stressors (Outten & Schmitt, Reference Outten and Schmitt2015; Rodríguez et al., Reference Rodríguez, Kozusznik, Peiró and Tordera2019). This study provides some clarity on the need to continue developing an organizational-level approach to the study of coping and stress at work, taking into consideration both the individual level and the isomorphic construction from the organizational culture and climate (Rodríguez et al., Reference Rodríguez, Kozusznik, Peiró and Tordera2019). Added to this is the contribution of a new scale (EAC) to a broader battery such as the Subjective Work Environment questionnaire (CALS). The ALS model, on which the battery is based, allows for a systemic understanding of work dynamics underlying the need to simultaneously assess characteristics of employees, work and the socio-occupational context of an organization. In addition, it aims to be a construct that provides multidimensionality (organizational culture and climate, job burnout, symptomatology, and coping) appropriate for the study of organizational behavior, allowing the exploration of individual and group behaviors that occur in organizations (Ostroff et al., Reference Ostroff, Kinicki, Muhammad, Weiner, Schmitt and Highhouse2012).
The results of this study have some practical implications. It was found that coping resources are positively related to problem-focused coping strategies and that there is a tendency to put the responsibility on the individual, often forgetting the active role of organizations in coping with individual and collective stress. Specifically, the results suggest that in the face of collective stressors (organizational culture and climate according to the ALS model), organizations should promote problem-focused collective coping strategies, such as the development of people through training, participative management, effective coordination of tasks, and the search for affective support among collaborators, to reduce the stressful work climate and individual stress. That is, coping resources at the organizational level should be focused specifically on organizing, designing, and managing work (Halbesleben et al., Reference Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl and Westman2014; Nielsen et al., Reference Nielsen, Nielsen, Ogbonnaya, Känsälä, Saari and Isaksson2017). Moreover, the leader’s power position within this organizational management influences coping strategies for the performance and well-being of collaborators (Durán & Aguado, Reference Durán and Aguado2022; Kelloway & Barling, Reference Kelloway and Barling2010), being relevant to strengthen leadership styles and the quality of leader-member exchange. The new EAC tool is a good starting point to evaluate the coping styles of people in relation to the stressors of their organization and can lead to detect areas for improvement to develop training workshops in these competencies, which should also improve the organizational climate of the company (Barría-González et al., Reference Barría-González, Postigo, Pérez-Luco, Cuesta and García-Cueto2021).
Future research may benefit from investigating particularly work-related co-active coping strategies linked to specific and relevant issues such as role conflict, workload, role ambiguity, job insecurity, job harassment, telecommuting, and leader relationship.
In essence, this study presents a new instrument (Co-Active Coping Inventory; EAC) to assess co-active coping in the general Chilean population, contributing satisfactory psychometric properties. Thus, the construct of coping can be evaluated rigorously and objectively, as can its impact on significant aspects of life where it has an effect such as different organizational scenarios. The suitable use of personal resources, like coping strategies, can reduce work demands and the related physiological and psychological costs, being decisive in meeting work targets or stimulating personal growth, learning and development (Bakker, Reference Bakker2011, Reference Bakker2013). In this same sense, and given the paucity of studies in this area in Chile, studies are needed that contribute to knowledge of workers’ quality of life and working conditions, which would make it possible to assess the impact of human resources management strategies in organizations. On the other hand, it would be interesting to make organizational diagnoses using the EAC, and in this way improve the effectiveness of current interventions for occupational burnout by influencing the preventive programs and adjusting to the specific features of the coping strategies to manage stress in the workplace.
The results of this study must be interpreted in the light of some limitations. First, the data from this study were obtained by self-reporting. It would be advisable to complement these measures with other directly observable evaluations that could complement the methodologies of the organizational dynamic approach and delve more deeply into the diagnosis of personal and occupational resources that the different organizational scenarios have. Second, regarding the dimensionality of the instrument, the results give an account of a multidimensional structure that leads to a set of scales or profiles of scores to the detriment of a one-dimensional solution, which would make it possible to propose the construction of an overall score.
Appendix Subjective Work Environment Coping Inventory
Open access
