[acb-hsp] Less Stress in Higher Ranks

[peter altschul]

No Sweat: Less Stress in Higher Ranks
  Broader authority, aided by the power of delegation, steadies 
senior leaders' hands.
  ininTitleccinin Leadership Is Associated with Lower Levels of 
Stress (Fee or subscription required)
  ininAuthorsccinin Gary D.  Sherman (Harvard Kennedy School), 
Jooa J.  Lee (Harvard Kennedy School), Amy J.C.  Cuddy (Harvard 
University), Jonathan Renshon (Harvard University), Christopher 
Oveis (University of California at San Diego), James J.  Gross 
(Stanford University), and Jennifer S.  Lerner (Harvard Kennedy 
School)
  ininPublisherccinin stProceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciencesst
  ininDate Publishedccinin September 2012
  When managers move into leadership positions, the demands on 
their time and the scope of their responsibilities typically 
increase dramatically.  As a result, leadership is often 
characterized as being exceedingly stressful.  A benchmark 
stHarvard Business Reviewst article in 1981 noted that bmanaging 
others...creates unending stress. ...  Today's managers face 
increasing time pressure with little respite." Since then, stress 
management for leaders has become a booming business in itself.
  But this study suggests that those who manage others actually 
experience stlessst stress -- as measured through both biological 
and psychological assessments than non-leaders.  In fact, the 
stress level seems to go down as executives climb up the 
corporate ladder.  Leaders with more authority, and more freedom 
to delegate day-to-day oversight, do better on this front than 
managers below them.  In particular, the authors report, the 
pressures associated with leadership are offset by the fact that 
upper-tier managers feel a heightened sense of control -- a 
psychological component that is known to reduce stress.
  Despite widespread interest, the link between leadership and 
stress remains largely unexplored through empirical research, 
mostly because of the obstacles involved in assembling a suitable 
sample of real-world leaders.  For this study, the authors were 
granted access to middle- and high-level government and military 
officials enrolled in an executive education program at Harvard.  
Each official was paired with a Boston-area resident who was 
similar in age, sex, and ethnicity.
  The participants in the study were categorized as leaders if 
they were responsible for managing others.  Thus, not all members 
of the executive education program were leaders, and some members 
of the community were.
  In the first experiment, which involved 216 participants, the 
authors compared the stress levels of leaders with non-leaders 
according to two well-established tests.  The first was a 
measurement of the cortisol in their saliva; cortisol is often 
called the "stress hormone" because the body produces more of it 
in the face of acute or ongoing tension.  The second test was a 
19-item anxiety evaluation commonly used in psychology research.
  After controlling for the participants' demographics, mood, and 
tenure (a proxy for stability, which might be expected to reduce 
tension), the authors' analysis showed that leaders had 
significantly lower cortisol levels than non-leaders.  Leaders 
also reported much less anxiety on the psychological evaluation 
than non-leaders did.
  The second experiment focused exclusively on a sample of 75 
leaders, examining whether their relative rank helped determine 
how much stress they experienced.  As the authors note, leaders 
vary in their power and responsibilities, which might entail 
personally managing a large number of people, delegating 
day-to-day operations, or having autonomy to make wide-ranging 
decisions that affect subordinates.
  Accordingly, the authors measured the participants' level of 
leadership in a number of ways.  They calculated the leaders' 
total number of subordinates, how many direct reports they had, 
and how much authority they possessed (as measured by the extent 
to which they could promote, demote, reward, punish, motivate, 
and supervise their subordinates).  The leaders also completed an 
eight-item "personal sense of power" assessment, a widely used 
research tool designed to gauge how much control people feel they 
have in their relationships.
  The analysis, again relying on a combination of salivary 
cortisol tests and a psychological evaluation, showed that 
leaders do not have equally low stress levels.  The authors found 
instead that greater rank and authority correlated with lower 
stress levels.  But, they added, correlation typically doesn't 
result simply from amassing larger and larger numbers of 
subordinates.  It also depends on reaching a position with the 
authority to delegate oversight of subordinates to less-senior 
managers.
  "The stress-buffering effects of leadership are not necessarily 
conferred to those leaders responsible for managing many people," 
the authors write, "but rather, those leaders who occupy a 
position characterized by many total subordinates and...who feel 
that they have substantial authority over those subordinates."
  In other words, it is the blend of power and delegation 
afforded to higher-ranking leaders that makes the difference, the 
authors argue.  Day-to-day oversight of subordinates via a 
coterie of direct reports insulates these leaders from stress 
while it also instills a deeper sense of control.
  The authors point out that they are not necessarily claiming a 
simple cause-and-effect link.  For example, people with low 
anxiety levels might be well suited to be leaders, and may be 
more inclined to aim for top-tier jobs.  Presumably, though, even 
those managers will get a boost from the many psychological 
benefits that come with top leadership roles.
  ininBottom Lineccinin Despite the heightened responsibilities 
and time demands associated with leadership, managers who oversee 
other employees experience less stress -- as measured by 
biological and psychological tests -- than lower-level workers.  
And the more power and control leaders have, relative to managers 
farther down the corporate hierarchy, the less anxiety they feel.