The Impact of Eustress and Distress Predictors on the Health of Leaders in Local Government*

｢지방정부연구｣ 제13권 제3호(2009 가을) : 401～422

□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

* The author wish to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this article. All remaining errors are my own.

: Focused on Above the Fifth Grade Public Employees

in Busan & Kyungnam Provinces

유스트레스 및 디스트레스 요인이 지방정부 조직 리더의

건강에 미치는 영향

: 부산․경남지역 5급 이상 공무원의 인식을 중심으로

Park, Cheol-Min

조직 리더의 건강은 리더 본인 뿐 만 아니라, 조직의 발전과 구성원들의 동기부여 및 합리적 의사결정을 위해 중요한 의미를 가진다. 이러한 전제 하에, 본 연구에서는 유스트레스(eustress), 즉 적극적 스트레스 반응의 예측변인으로 3개의 독립변수(긍정적 감정, 몰입, 용서행태)와 디스트레스(distress), 즉 부정적 스트레스 반응의 예측변인으로 3개의 독립변수(부정적 감정, 소진, 복수행태)가 조직 리더의 건강에 미치는 영향관계를 분석하였다. 이들 독립변인이 종속변인에 미치는 영향관계의 통제변인으로 직무-가족갈등과 가족-직무갈등을 도입하였다. 현대인은 거의 누구나 직업생활을 하며, 이들 직장인들은 활용도가 높은 낮시간대의 거의 전부인 9-10시간을 직장에서 보내게 된다. 이러한 측면에서 보면, 직장과 가정, 가정과 직장의 관계는 상당부분 갈등관계에 놓이게 된다. 선행연구에 의하면, 가정에 대한 과중한 직무(직장)의 영향은 알콜, 커피, 흡연, 질병일수, 약물복용 등을 증가시킴으로써 정신신체적 증상(psychosomatic symptoms)을 측정하는 예측변인이 되고 있다. 이들 선행연구결과에 근거하여, 본 연구에서는 직무-가족갈등과 가족-직무갈등을 유스트레스 및 디스트레스 변인들이 리더의 건강에 미치는 통제변인으로 도입하였다. 이 연구에서는 선행연구와 변인들간의 논리적 개연성을 근거로 연구가설을 정립하고, 부산․경남지역에 근무하는 5급 이상 관리자들을 대상으로 유스트레스 및 디스트레스 변인이 리더의 건강에 미치는 영향력을 분석하는데 연구 중점을 두었다. 이를 위해, 부산․경남지역에 근무하는 5급 이상 관리자(리더) 112명으로부터 경험적 자료를 수집한 뒤 계층적 회귀분석방법을 이용하여 연구가설을 검증하였다. 검증결과, 긍정적 감정(positive affect)은 리더의 건강에 정(+)의 유의한 영향을, 복수(적개심) 행태(revenge behavior)는 리더의 건강에 부(-)의 유의한 영향을 미친다는 연구 결과를 도출하고 그 함의를 논의하였다. 이 연구에서는 기존 연구에서 거의 다루어 않은 조직행태 변인인 몰입(engagement), 용서 행태(forgiveness behavior), 복수(적개심) 행태(revenge behavior)를 도입․분석하였다. 그리고 단일 연구에서 유스트레스 변인과 디스트레스 변인을 동시에 고려하여 분석이 이루어졌을 뿐 만 아니라 지금껏 거의 연구된 바 없는 조직 리더의 건강 예측변인을 직접적으로 분석하고자 했다는 점에서 연구 가치를 찾을 수 있다.

주제어 : 유스트레스, 디스트레스, 직무-가족갈증, 가족-직무갈등

Ⅰ. Introduction

The health of leader can have important consequences in organizations. when a leader is absent, makes faulty decisions, or leaves the organization, the costs can be far-reaching. Poor health of a key decision maker can greatly reduce the effectiveness of the organization as well as create anxiety in his/her followers. Conversely, if a leader is healthy and is able to perform his/her job and provide a positive example for his/her followers, the organization should benefit. Thus, it is of crucial importance to understand what factors lead to deleterious effects on health as well as positive effects on health for leaders of organizations.

To date, most studies looking at health in organizations have focused on deleterious effects on one's health. Much research has focused on various job stressors and has found that many job stressors or demands are threats to health. Recently, however, research has shown that not all individuals experience harmful effects of demands and that demands can also lead to healthy, positive outcomes(Quick et al., 1997; Simmons & Nelson, 2001). Researchers have begun to demonstrate that individuals can have both positive and negative responses to demands, and it is these positive and negative responses that have differential effects on health. This study will fill the research gap by examining both positive and negative influences on the health of leaders. This study will examine the negative influence of burnout, negative affect, and revenge behaviors and the positive influence of engagement, positive affect, and forgiveness behaviors on health.

The Impact of Eustress and Distress Predictors on the Health of Leaders in Local Government

｢지방정부연구｣ 제13권 제3호(2009 가을)

The theoretical foundation for this approach to demands, responses, and outcomes is the cognitive appraisal approach, which posits that individuals have different responses to demands depending on whether they appraise a particular demand as negative or positive(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Seyle, 1974). If an individual appraises a demand as threatening or harmful, he or she experiences a degree of distress, the negative stress response. Conversely, if an individual appraises a demand as positive or preserving well-being, he or she experiences eustress, the positive stress response. Distress leads to negative health outcomes(Cooper & Marshall, 1988; Jenkins, 1978), whereas initial research on eustress suggest that it may lead to positive health outcomes(Edwards and Cooper, 1988; Nelson & Simmons, 2004). Thus, eustress and distress(the response to stressors) are more accurate predictors of outcomes such as health than the presence or absence of stressors. As such, eustress and distress are keys to our understanding of positive and negative health in organizations(Nelson & Simmons, 2004).

Little research had been done on the construct eustress. This can be partially attributed to the focus on the negative as distress has received ample attention(Edwards & Cooper, 1988). However, another possible reason for this neglect is the challenge of defining, operationalizing and measuring the construct. In fact, some researchers in the field have labelled eustress and distress as 'vague and controversial' because of this difficulty(Lazarus, 1999). Edwards & Cooper(1988) addressed these issues by associating eustress with positive psychological states and distress with negative psychological states and suggested using these states in the measurement of eustress and distress. Following the suggestions of Edwards & Cooper(1988), Simmons and Nelson(2001) developed the operational definition of eustress as the 'positive psychological response to a stressor, as indicated by the presence of positive psychological states' and distress as the 'negative psychological response to a stressor, as indicated by the presence of negative psychological states'. Their exploratory study used the positive psychological states such as hope, meaningfulness, and positive affect to represent eustress, while negative affect was used as the single indicator of distress. In this study of hospital nurses, the positive psychological state, hope was the only significant predictor of health. They concluded that 'eustress can be differentiated from distress, and that hope is a good indicator of the state of active engagement in work commonly associated with eustress'.

Nelson & Simmons(2004) have also attempted to use the positive psychological state manageability as an indicator of eustress, and the negative states, alienation, anger, and anxiety as indicators of distress. Because these variables produced mixed results, they suggested that additional positive and negative psychological states should be investigated as indicators of eustress and distress. And although they defined eustress and distress in terms of psychological states, they further suggested that positive and negative behaviors might also be potential indicators of eustress and distress.

This study extends these previous studies of eustress by examining the positive psychological state, engagement, the negative psychological state, burnout, the positive behavior, forgiveness, and the negative behavior, revenge and their influence on health(see Figure 1) beyond that of two important demands. Engagement and burnout were chosen because, although eustress was suggested to represent a state of engagement(Simmons & Nelson, 2001), it has never been examined in this theoretical framework and burnout is a commonly used indicator of distress(Singh et al., 1994), but it too has never been examined in a study of eustress.

Forgiveness and revenge behaviors were chosen as positive and negative behaviors respectively, and they may be uniquely qualified positive and negative behaviors in a stress theoretical framework. One of the most traditional conceptualizations of stress is the 'fight or flight syndrome', which posits that when individuals are confronted with demands or threats, they are motivated to either avoid the threats or confront them. McCullough(2001) classified the response of forgiveness as an avoidance system and the response of revenge as a system that retaliates against the source of threat.

Revenge behavior has been described as 'the infliction of harm or injury in return for a perceived wrong' (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992). This conceptualization of revenge is clearly retaliatory in nature. Conversely, forgiveness behavior is regarded as 'a morally superior response to a perceived wrong' and is preceded by the forgiver releasing negative affect and replacing it with positive affect such as feelings of compassion, benevolence(Bradfield & Aquino, 1999). I depicted a research model as shown in Figure 1.

This study focused on three indicators(positive affect, engagement, forgiveness behavior) of eustress, the positive stress response, and three indicators(negative affect, burnout, revenge behavior) of distress, the negative stress response, in relation to the health of senior public employees. The research model is tested using hierarchical regression analysis methods. Survey data was collected from 112 senior public employees in Busan, and Kyungnam Provinces. Sampled data was used to verify the hypothesized affect on dependent variable in Figure 1. The nature of the survey instrument and dataset are explained in more detail later in this article.

The framework of this analysis is first to review the literature that supports the development of a series of constructs followed by the theoretical support for each of the hypothesized affect shown in Figure 1. Next, the data collection and survey instrument are described. Once the reliability of the constructs is documented, the statistical results are presented along with standardized coefficients and t values. In the end, the article will discuss the results, implications, and future research ideas.

Figure 1: Research model(hypothesized affect on dependent variable in parentheses)

Positive/Negative States

Negative Affect(-)

Positive Affect(+)

Burnout(-)

Engagement(+)

Positive/Negative Behaviors

Revenge(-)

Forgiveness(+)

Controls : Demands

Family-Work Conflict

Work-Family Conflict

Health

Notes: 1. Eustress Predictors: positive affect, engagement, forgiveness

2. Distress Predictors: negative affect, burnout, revenge

Additionally, This study examined previous studies on the job stress published in Korea(see Table 1). These studies are focusing on the relationship between job stress and organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In this respect, this study treats directly the relationship between stress factors(i.e. positive and negative) and health of leaders. This is the difference between this study and various previous studies.

Table 1. Previous studies in Korea

Researcher	Influencing or Measuring Factors	Research Object
Kim, Ju-won ․Ham, Su-Gun(2008)	Organization Merit Rating, Overwork, Job Culture, Human Relations, Job Difficulty, Job Discretion, Job Anxiety	Local Government Employees
Jang, Chul-Young ․ Keun, Young-Ju(2006)	Psychological Needs, Safety Needs, Social Needs, Esteem Needs, Self-Actualization Needs	Teachers
Ko, Jong-Wook(2006)	Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Citizenship Behaviors	Local Government Employees
Kim, Gu(2005)	Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, Role Overload	Policemen
Ock, Won-Ho ․Kim, Seog-Yong(2001)	Role Ambiguity, Role Overload, Human Relations, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment	Local Government Employees

Ⅱ. Predictors of Perceptions of Health

1. Indicators of Eustress and Distress

The core of my hypothesized model examines how state and behavioral indicators of eustress and distress affect perceptions of health. One of the main contributions of this study is that four of the six variables I use as indicators of eustress and distress - engagement, burnout, forgiveness behavior, and revenge behavior - have not previously been used in this stress theoretical framework.

1) Positive and negative psychological states.

(1) Positive Affect(PA)

Positive affect(PA) is a state that reflects the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic, active and alert(Watson et al., 1988). PA can be measured as both a state and a trait; state affect captures how a person feels at any given time while trait affect is the tendency of a person to experience a particular affective state over time(Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). Many studies have found a link between state PA and health. State PA has been shown to have effect on subjective health(Benyamini et al., 2000). State PA has also been linked to more objective health measures. Studies that have tracked changes in mood, physical symptoms, and function of immune system have found correlations between state PA and immune system(Stone et al., 1994) and state PA has been linked to less frequent health-care use(Gil et al., 2003).

(2) Negative Affect(NA)

Negative affect(NA) is a dimension of subjective distress that includes a variety of adverse mood states, including anger, contempt, disgust, fear, and nervousness(Watson et al., 1988). NA, like PA, can be measured as both a state and a trait and has been linked to both subjective and objective health indicators. State NA has been linked to increased day pain(Gil et al., 2003) and decreases in self-reported health(Benyamini et al., 2000). Eveans & Egerton(1992) found that state NA led to a higher incident of colds.

(3) Burnout

Burnout is a negative affective state caused by recurring distress(Shirom, 1989). Burnout, like state PA and NA, has been linked to the health outcomes. Kahill(1988) found burnout related to fatigue, insomnia, headaches, and gastrointestinal disturbances. Burke and Deszca(1986) found that psychosomatic symptoms such as poor appetite, headaches and chest pains were positively related to burnout. And various studies have found links between burnout and drug, alcohol and tobacco use(Burke and Deszca, 1986; Burke et al., 1984; Jackson & Maslach, 1982). There is thus evidence to suggest a relationship between burnout and dysfunctional aspect of health.

(4) Engagement

Engagement is the level of perceived responsibility and commitment one feels for one's job(Britt et al., 2001). Although far fewer studies have examined the effects of engagement on health, there exists some support for this link. Britt et al.(2001) found that soldiers who were more engaged in their work were more likely to perceive benefits of a stressful event. Additionally, many studies have investigated engagement's relationship with positive health outcomes such as sense of belongingness, sense of being, sense of pleasure and found significant positive relationship(Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Treadgold, 1997). Thus, the following are hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1 : State PA and engagement will have a positive relationship with health when controlling for the demands work-family conflict and family-work conflict.

Hypothesis 2 : State NA and burnout will have negative relationship with health when controlling for the demands work-family conflict and family-work conflict.

2) Revenge and forgiveness behaviors

(1) Revenge behavior

Revenge behavior has been described as 'the infliction of harm in return for a perceived wrong'(Bradfield & Aquino, 1999). Revenge is generally criticized as having a negative impact on not only the offender but also the victim(Cloke, 1993). Revenge is usually accompanied by the states, anger and hostility which lead to unhealthy outcomes. These states have been associated with increases in premature death, coronary heart disease(Affleck et al., 1987; Miller et al., 1996). Studies have also indicated that revenge erodes health through activation of intense cardiovascular problems and immune system disturbances(Witvliet et al., 2002). Although some writers have indicated that revenge can be constructive in relation to performance as in when a vengeful employee finds a way to get rid of a troublesome subordinate(Bies et al., 1997). Thus, revenge is considered a form of negative reciprocity that has been shown to have negative effects on health.

(2) forgiveness behavior

Interestingly, forgiveness is seldom included in studies of organizational behaviors. Forgiveness behavior is regarded as 'a morally superior response to a perceived wrong' and is preceded by the forgiver releasing negative emotions and replacing them with positive emotions such as feelings of compassion, benevolence(Bradfield & Aquino, 1999). Forgiveness has been linked with health-related outcomes such as social adjustment, physical health and mental health(Coyle & Enright, 1997; Thoresen et al., 2000). Witvliet(2001) concluded that the published literature suggests that as forgiveness increases, so do indicators of mental health; and as unforgiveness increases, so do indicators of physiological stress and coronary heart disease(and vice versa).

Research on eustress and distress has commonly used positive and negative states as indicators of health. Thus, the following are hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3 : Forgiveness behavior will be positively related to health when controlling for the demands work-family conflict and family-work conflict.

Hypothesis 4 : Revenge behavior will be negatively related to health when controlling for the demands work-family conflict and family-work conflict.

2. Control Variables: Work-family conflict and family-work conflict

as Demands

Work-family and family-work conflict is a contemporary demand in many occupations. Although little research has been done on the demands of our sample, interviews with our focal organization suggested that the interface between work and family was an important one. Work-family conflict has been defined as a stressor experienced when 'strain created by the job interfere with performing family-related responsibilities'(Netemeyer et al., 1996). Similarly, family-work conflict has been defined as a stressor that is experienced when family interferes with performing work-related responsibilities(Netemeyer et al., 1996). Like many stressors, work-family conflict and family-work conflict have been linked to health outcomes. Grzywacz & Bass(2003) found work-family conflict and family-work conflict positively and significantly related to depression, problematic drinking and anxiety, psychological disorder. Work impact on family has been found to be a predictor of psychosomatic symptoms such as alcohol consumption, coffee consumption, cigarettes smoked, days of illness and currently taking medications(Burke et al., 1986). Thus, we controlled for these demands to understand the impact of the indicators of eustress and distress.

Ⅲ. Methodology

1. Data Sampling

Sample used in this study consisted of senior public employees, especially above the fifth grade public employees. The senior public employees in this study can best be thought of as managing professionals. Many senior public employees have been found to have difficulties in dealing with the complexity and stressfulness of their jobs. As leaders and often senior leaders in their organizations, their work involves planning, organizing, controlling, budgeting, staffing, motivating, and even managing in order to adequately provide goods and services to their constituents.

In addition to the positive and negative psychological states and behaviors used in this study, The author also investigate two job stressors, work-family conflict and family-work conflict, and controlled for their direct affect on our dependent variable, perceptions of health. Senior public employees are appropriate for a study of work-family conflict and family-work conflict, and controlled for their direct affect on our dependent variable, perceptions of health. Senior public employees are appropriate for a study of work-family conflict and family-work conflict in their work settings, families, and in their stakeholders. Parallels between the jobs of senior public employees and leaders in other types of organizations have been drawn because both experience stress and expectations of perfection from others(Meek et al., 2003). Additionally, both are often socially isolated while they have multifaceted roles with their followers' relationships.

To test above hypotheses on factors influencing variation in health among leader, the study used data collected from a survey of 112 senior public employees in Busan, and Kyungnam Provinces of Korea. Prior to the actual collection of data, the requirements prompting the need to collect data have to be fully understood, as well as how and how much survey groups are selected must be identified, which will show the verification of the study. The research design for this study employed a descriptive survey method. From a review of literature, a survey questionnaire was developed to collect data for the study. Data was collected through use of a written questionnaire hand-delivered to participants. Questionnaires were filled out by participants and returned to an intra-departmental mailbox by the helping of Busan, and Kyungnam Provinces. The survey was carried out between May 2008 and June 2008.

Especially, each survey question was developed based on a thorough review and understanding of previous researches. Each item was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = "very slightly or not at all" and 5 = "extremely" etc, depending on their degree of agreement to the statements in this study(See Measures and Appendix). Gender was dummy-coded, and age was marked as follows: 1 = below 34, 2 = 40 to 45, and 3 = 46 to 51, 4 = 52 to 57, 5 = over 57. With a response rate of 56 percent for senior public employees, 112 valid numbers of surveys were fixed finally. Here, eighteen surveys were discarded due to missing data for the study.

2. Measures

1) Family-work conflict(FWC) and work-family conflict(WFC)

Each of these stressors was measured with the respective five-item scales provided by Netemeyer et al.(1996). Representative items of FWC are: 'I have to put off doing things at work because of demands on my time at home', and 'The demands of my family or spouse interfere with work-related activities'. Representative items of WFC are: 'Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me', and 'Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family activities'. Scales were five-point Likert-type in which 1 indicated strong disagreement and 5 indicated strong agreement with the statement.

2) Negative affect

Negative affect(NA) is a general dimension of subjective distress and unpleasurable mood states(Watson et al., 1988). NA is a common variable in studies as an indicator of distress. It is due to the possibility that NA may affect the substantive relationships between stressors and strains in general(Hurrell et al., 1998). State NA was measured with the five NA items from five-point Likert-type Positive and Negative Affect Schedule(PANAS)(Watson et al., 1988) in which respondents were asked to indicate if they felt various emotions from 'very slightly or not at all' (1) to 'extremely' (5).

3) Positive affect

Positive affect(PA) reflects the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic, active and alert(Watson et al., 1988). PA can be measured as a state or trait, with state PA capturing how one feels at given points in time, whereas the trait represents stableness of individual differences in the level of affect generally experienced(Simmons & Nelson, 2001). State and trait PA are both conceptually and empirically distinct, and state PA is also a separate factor from negative affect(Simmons & Nelson, 2001). The five PA items from the PANAS are included in this study to measure state PA(Watson et al., 1988). Again, respondents were asked to indicate if they felt various emotions from 'very slightly or not at all' (1) to  'extremely' (5).

4) Burnout

This six-item, five-pont Likert-type measure of general burnout was developed to represent the end result of a process in which motivated and committed individuals lose their spirit(Erickson and Ritter, 2001). In the study of dual-earner married couples for which this measure was developed, burnout was affected positively by agitation at work and negatively by positive emotions. Representative items include: 'I feel emotionally drained from work', 'I feel used up at the end of the day', 'I dread getting up in the morning and having to face another day on the job', and 'I feel burned out from my work'. Respondents were asked to indicate if they agreed with these statements 'never' (1) to 'very frequently' (5).

5) Engagement

We used four items from a measure developed by Britt et al.(2001), in which engagement was operationally defined as the degree to which doing well on the job matters and the level of felt responsibility and commitment to the job. Representative items were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale and include: 'How I do my job influences how I feel', and 'I feel obligated to perform my job well'. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with these statements from 'strongly disagree' (1) to 'strongly agree' (5).

6) Revenge behavior

Three of the four items from Bradfield and Aquino's(1999) revenge behavior scale were used in which revenge behavior was operationally defined as the infliction of harm for perceived wrong(Bradfield and Aquino, 1999). Respondents were asked to think back over the last six months in their current position to a time when another person offended them. They were then asked to write a few sentences describing the offence before answering a series of questions for the scales revenge and forgiveness. These items were measured on a five-point scale in which respondents were asked to indicate how accurate each statement was, from 'not at all accurate' (1) to 'very accurate' (5). For revenge behavior, these statements were: 'I told them something was wrong with them', 'I tried to make something bad happen to them', and ' I did not something to make them get what they deserved'.

7) Forgiveness behavior

This is a complex affective, cognitive, and behavioral phenomenon in which negative affect and judgment toward an offender are diminished by viewing the offender with compassion, benevolence(Bradfield & Aquino, 1999). Forgiveness involves the quitting of resentment and anger on moral grounds. Bradfield & Aquino's(1999) six-item scale was used to measure forgiveness behavior. Again, respondents thought of an instance of an individual offending them in the last six months, wrote a few sentences describing the offence and then indicated how accurate the six scale statements were. Representative items were : 'I gave them back a new start, a renewed relationship', and 'I made an effort to be more friendly and concerned'. These items were measured on a five-point scale in which respondents were asked to indicate how accurate each statement was, from 'not at all accurate' (1) to 'very accurate' (5).

8) Perception of health

A senior public employee's current perception of his/her health was measured with four items from a ten-item subscale of the Health Perceptions Questionnaire(Ware et al., 1978). They report that general health ratings are valid measures of health status as they significantly correlated with a variety of other health measures(e.g. physician's assessment). An example of an item from this scale is: 'According to the doctors I've seen, my health is now excellent'. Respondents were asked to indicate if these statements were 'definitely false" (1) to 'definitely true' (5). See Appendix for all scale items.

Ⅳ. Statistical Results

Table 2 includes the correlation matrix for the study variables along with the means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients for each measure. All of the scales used in this study displayed acceptable psychometric properties, with the lowest reliability estimate(Cronbach's alpha) being 0.67 for engagement. The strongest correlation was between burnout and work-family conflict (0.61); however, all of the tolerance values for each variable were well above the common cut-off value of 0.10, so multicolinearity was not a concern(Hair et al., 2005). All of the relationships were in the expected directions.

Here, This study performed a two step hierarchical regression by entering the control variables and then the remaining study variables.

As can be seen in Table 3, in step 1, neither of the demands family-work conflict nor work-family conflict was significantly related to health. In step 2, revenge behavior emerged as significantly and negatively related to health, and positive affect was the only variable in the equation that remained significant. These two equations showed that health is positively related to positive affect and negatively related to revenge behavior.

Table 2. Correlations, means, standard deviations, and reliability

(alpha in parentheses)

Variables	M	S.D	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Health	3.42	1.03	(0.86)
2. Forgiveness behavior	3.85	0.72	0.18	(0.76)
3. Revenge behavior	1.09	0.35	-0.27**	-0.41**	(0.79)
4. Positive affect	3.85	0.53	0.46**	0.21	-0.11	(0.85)
5. Negative affect	1.45	0.46	-0.44**	-0.32**	0.28**	-0.46**	(0.81)
6. Burnout	2.46	0.61	-0.41**	-0.08	0.08	-0.36**	0.51**	(0.77)
7. Engagement	4.24	0.59	0.07	0.26**	-0.39**	0.06	-0.12	0.04	(0.67)
8. Family-work Conflict	1.96	0.72	-0.19*	-0.23*	0.24*	-0.16	0.33**	0.25*	-0.05	(0.82)
9. Work-family Conflict	2.46	0.88	-0.32**	-0.06	0.05	-0.24*	0.42**	0.63**	0.07	0.54**	(0.85)

Notes: *p <0.05, **p <0.01

Table 3. Hierarchical regression of variables on dependent variable health(n=112)

Variables	Step 1	Step 2
Family-work Conflict	-0.06 (-0.45)	0.08 (-0.61)
Work-family Conflict	-0.24 (-1.83)	-0.09 (-0.63)
Negative affect		-0.21 (-1.58)
Positive affect		0.36 (3.31)**
Burnout		-0.09 (-0.61)
Engagement		0.03 (-0.15)
Revenge behavior		-0.24 (-2.14)*
Forgiveness behavior		-0.04 (-0.27)
R2	0.08	0.36
△R2		0.06*
△F		2.36
Durbin-Watson		2.05

Notes: 1. Variables are displayed in order of entry into the regression equations.

2. Standardized coefficients are reported with t-values in parentheses.

3. *p <0.05, **p <0.01

Because revenge behavior was anew variable in the analysis of eustress and distress on health, The author wanted to learn more about what might affect this behavior. This study conducted an additional analysis in which I regressed all the independent variables from my initial analysis on revenge behavior(see Table 4). The significant negative predictors of revenge behavior were engagement and work-family conflict, and the significant positive predictor of revenge behavior was family-work conflict.

Ⅴ. Discussion

Because senior public employees are leaders of their unit organizations, families, and in their communities, their health is important. They experience family stress and expectations of perfection from others(Meek et al., 2003). They, in a sense, are often socially isolated, although their roles in people's lives are multifaceted. They are expected to remain calm and strong in the face of distress. They are not complain but consistently supportive of others, regardless of their own distress.

Table 4. Additional analysis of revenge behavior(n=112)

	Family-work Conflict	Work-family Conflict	Negative affect	Positive affect	Burnout	Engagement
	0.28 (2.33)*	-0.31 (-2.22)*	0.23 (1.74)	0.03 (0.21)	0.07 (0.56)	-0.29 (-2.66)**
△R2	0.07	0.05	0.08	0.00	0.00	0.07
△F	5.98	3.57	7.64	0.00	0.32	7.22
Overall Adjusted R2	0.06	0.09	0.16	0.15	0.13	0.17
Durbin-Watson						2.25

Notes: 1. Variables are displayed in order of entry into the regression equations.

2. Standardized coefficients are reported with t-values in parentheses.

3. *p <0.05, **p <0.01

The contribution of the study lies in its simultaneous examination of both the positive and negative mechanisms(eustress and distress) that affect leader health. In addition, This study examined some influences on health that are supported in previous research(burnout, NA, PA) and proposed several novel influences(engagement, revenge, forgiveness). Of the six variables that I hypothesized to predict health, only two, positive affect and revenge behavior, were significant. Neither of the work demands was significantly related to health. This finding is consistent with prior theory and research suggesting that eustress and distress, as stress responses, intervene between demands and outcomes(Nelson & Simmons, 2003). Consistent with my hypotheses, there were both positive and negative state and behavioral variables related to health. The positive variable related to health in this group of senior public employees was the very state of enthusiasm and pleasure(See Appendix PA measures) that they derived from their general work environment(positive affect). Interestingly, even though this focal group was engaged in their work, it was not the engagement in their specific work that was related to health. I was surprised that my other positive construct, forgiveness behavior, was not significantly related to health. This is in contrast to previous findings(Cameron & Caza, 2002) that have demonstrated the benefits of forgiveness for physical and emotional health. One potential explanation within my group of respondents is that for senior public employees, forgiveness may be so ingrained within their identity that it lacks the power it might have over those for whom forgiveness is a less frequent experience.

I consider it a noteworthy finding that the revenge behavior was the only negative variable I studied that was significantly and negatively related to health. The negative consequences of burnout(Burke & Deszca, 1986) and NA(Benyamini et al., 2000) are well established, so I was surprised that they lost their significance in the presence of the other variables in this study. Here, it was revenge that was significantly and negatively related to health. This suggests that when distress manifests itself in even a small degree of revenge behavior, it can be detrimental to a leader's health. The finding is also consistent with Bradfield & Aquino's(1999) recognition that revenge is characterized by substantial emotional and behavioral intensity. It is possible that the impact of revenge is more intense in senior public employees; further research should be pursued to determine whether or not this is the case.

My additional analysis of revenge behavior gave us some interesting insight. Whereas the demands did not have a direct relationship with health, both family-work conflict and work-family conflict were significant predictors of revenge behavior. The demands from the senior public employees' family responsibilities that conflicted with their work responsibilities were positively related to revenge behavior. Yet the demands from the senior public employees' work that conflicted with their family responsibilities were negatively related to revenge behavior. A deeper look at the construct of revenge provides a potential explanation for this paradoxical finding. Revenge is often accompanied by suppressed anger, and its expression is an intense personal action(Bradrield & Aquino, 1999).

On the other hand, the variable with the strongest significance to revenge behavior was engagement. Although engagement did not have a direct relationship with health, it may have an indirect relational with health through its negative relational with revenge behavior. Having a strong felt responsibility and commitment to one's job may buffer one from committing revenge behaviors. The positive state of engagement in work is absorbing, and may act as an antidote to committing vengeful acts against others in the face of stressors.

The results of this study must be interpreted with acknowledgement of the study's limitations, which include self-report data, cross-sectional design, and the question of generalization to other settings. However, the author have made attempts to mitigate these limitations. The health measures I use, self-report, have been shown to be highly correlated with other health measures, including physician assessments. Despite these limitations, the practical message for leaders from this study is clear. To ensure a leader's health, he or she should recognize the health benefits of a positive mindset and enthusiastic, active engagement at work. Conversely, leaders must be cautioned that revenge is a response that has deleterious influences on health.

For researchers, message of this study is that leader's health is worthy of investigation. But it is complex to study. Studies like this need to include both positive and negative states, as indicators of eustress and distress, to construct a more complete picture of a leader's experience of stress. It is useful to investigate both states and behaviors as influentials of leader's health. Although forgiveness and revenge are seldom part of studies aimed at understanding work stress, I believe they are worthy of future research efforts. In particular, revenge appears to be a health risk for leaders.

References

Affleck, G., Tenen, H., Croog, S. & Levine, S. (1987). Causal attribution, perceived benefit, and morbidity after a heart attack: an eight-year study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 29-35.

Benyamini, Y., Idler, E. L., Leventhal, H. & Leventhal, E. A. (2000). positive affect and function as influences on self-assessment of health: expanding our view beyond illness and disability. Journal of Gerontology, 55, 107-16.

Bies, R, J., Tripp, T. M. & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In Giacalone, R. and Greenberg, J. (Eds), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: sage, 18-36.

Bradfield, M. & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likeableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25, 607-31.

Britt, T. W., Adler, A. B. & Bartone, P. T. (2001). Deriving benefits from stressful events: the role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 53-63.

Burke, R. J. & Deszca, E. (1986). Correlates of psychological burnout phases among police officers. Human Relations, 39, 487-502.

Burke, R. J., Shearer, F. & Deszcam G. (1984). Burnout among men and women in police work: an examination of the Cherniss model. Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration, 7, 162-88.

Cameron, K. & Caza, A. (2002) Organizational and leadership virtues and th role of forgiveness. Journal of Leadership and organizational Studies, 9, 33-48.

Cloke, K. (1993). Revenge, forgiveness and the magic of mediation. Mediation Quarterly, 11, 67-78.

Cooper, C. L. & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of stress: review of literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 15, 12-27.

Coyle, C. & Enright, T. D. (1997). forgiveness intervention with post-abortion men. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 65, 1042-6.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P. P. M. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 27, 279-86

Edwards, J. R. & Cooper, C. L. (1988). The impacts of positive psychological states on physical health: a review and theoretical framework. Social Science Medicine, 27, 1147-459.

Erickson, R. J. & Ritter, C. (2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: does gender matter?, Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 146-63.

Evans, P. D. & Egerton, N. (1992). Mood states and minor illness. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 65, 177-86.

Gil, K. M., Carson, J. W., Porter, L. S. Ready, J., Valrie ,C., Redding-Lallinger, R. & Deaschnet, C. (2003). Daily stress and mood and their association with pain, health-care use, and school activity in adolescents with sickle cell disease. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28, 363-73.

Grzywacz, J. G. & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work, family, and mental health: testing different models of work-family fit. Journal of Marriage an Family, 65, 248-61.

Hurrell, J. J., Nelson, D. L. & Simmons, B. L. (1988). Measuring job stressor and strains: where we have been, were we are, and where we need to go. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 368-89.

Jackson, S. E. & Maslach, C. (1982). After-effects of job-related stress: families as victims. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 3, 63-77.

Jang, Chul-Young․Keun, Young-Ju. (2006). The Moderating Effect of Social Support on Job Stress. Korean Society and Public Administration, 17(3), 157-180.

Jenkins, C. D. (1978). Behavioral risk factors in coronary artery disease. Annual Review of Medicine, 29, 543-62.

Kahill, S.(1988). Symptoms of professional burnout: a review of the empirical evidence. Canadian Psychology, 29, 284-97.

Kim, Gu. (2005). The Effect of Job Stress Factors on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. Korean Society and Public Administration, 16(3), 59-87.

Kim, Ju-won․Ham, Su-Won. (2008). An Analysis on the Job Stress factor and Method for Its Release. Korean Public Personnel Administration Review, 6(1), 131-61.

Ko, Jong-Wook. (2006). The Moderating Role of Organizational Commitment in Job Stress-Outcome Relationship among Local Public Officials. Korean Public Administration Review, 40(2), 147-66.

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and Emotion-A New Synthesis. New York: Springer.

Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.

McCullough, M. E. (2001). Forgiving. In Snyder, C. R. (Ed.), Coping with stress: People, and Processes. Oxford: Blackwell, 93-113.

Meek, K. R., Mcminn, M. R., Brower, C. M., Burnett, T. D., McRay, B. W., Ramey, M. L., Swanson, D. W. & Villa, D. D. (2003). Maintaining personal resiliency: lessons learned from public leaders. Journal of Psychology, 31, 339-47.

Miller, T. Q., Smith, T. W., Turner, C. W., Guijarro, M. L. and Hallet, A. J. (1996). A meta-analytical review of research on hostility and physical health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 322-48.

Nelson, D. L. & Simmons, B. L. (2004). Eustress: an elusive construct, an engaging pursuit. In Perrewe, P. and Ganster, D. (Eds), Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, 3, 265-322.

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S. and McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict & family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400-10.

Ock, Won-Ho․Kim, Seog-Yong. (2001). A Study on Job Stress and Job Satisfaction, and Organization Commitment of Local Public Service. Korean Public Administration Review, 35(4), 355-73.

Quick, J. C., Quick J. D., Nelson, D. L. and Hurrell, J. J.(1997). Preventative Stress Management in Organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 295-315.

Seyle, H. (1974). Stress Without Distress. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

Shirom, A.(1989). Burnout in work organizations. in Cooper, C. L. and Robertson, I. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New york: John Wiley, 25-48.

Simmons, B. L. & Nelson, D. L. (2001). Eustress at work: the relationship. between hope and health in hospital nurses. Health Care Management Review, 26, 63-74.

Singh, J., Goolsby, J. R. and Rhoads, G. K. (1994). Behavioral and psychological consequences of boundary spanning burnout for customer service representative. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 558-69.

Stuckless, N. and Goranson, R. (1992). The Vengeance Scale: development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 25-42.

Thoresen, C. E., Harris, A. H. S. & Luskin, F. (2000). Forgiveness and health: an unanswered question. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 300-15.

Treadgold, R. J. (1997). Engagement in Meaningful Work: It’s Relationship to Stress, Depression, and Clarity of Self-Concept. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Saybrook Institute.

Ware, J. E., Davies-Avery, A. & Donald, C. A. (1978). Conceptualization and Measurement of Health for Adults in the Health Insurance Study: General Health Perceptions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Watson, D., Pennebaker, J. W. & Folger, R. (1987). Beyond negative affectivity: measuring stress and satisfaction in the work place. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, 141-57.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-70.

Witvliet, C. V. (2001). Forgiveness & health: review and reflections on a matter of faith, feelings, and physiology. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29, 212-24.

Witvliet, C. V. O., Ludwig, T. E. and Vander Laan, K. L. (2002). Granting grudges:          implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Sciences, 12, 117-23.

박철민(朴喆敏): 경북대학교에서 행정학박사학위(논문: 공․사조직의 조직몰입 영향변인 및 결과변인 비교, 2002)를 취득하고, (재)부산인적자원개발원 연구위원을 거쳐, 현재 제주산업정보대학 복지행정과 조교수로 재직하고 있다. 주요 관심분야는 조직관리, 인적자원개발, 복지행정 등이며, 주요 논문으로는 “The Impact of Pay for Performance System and the Like on Employees' Motivation"(2009), “지방정부 전략산업 인력수급분석: 부산지역 10대 전략산업 대상"(2007), “An Analysis on Job Satisfaction Factors of Local Government Employees"(2006) 등이 있다.

<E-mail: cmpark@jeju.ac.kr / 논문접수일: 2009. 10. 11 / 심사개시일: 2009. 10. 16 / 심사완료일: 2009. 11. 20>

APPENDIX

The following contains the items for each of the measures used.

Work-Family Conflict (WFC), Family-work Conflict(FWC)

(Netemeyer et al., 1996)

Participants indicate the extent to which they agree with the following statements.

WFC

1. The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life.

2. The amount and trait of my job makes it difficult to fulfil family responsibility.

3. Things I want to do at home do not get dome because of the demands mu job puts on me.

4. My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfil family duties.

5. Due to work-related duties, I have to make change to my plans for family activities.

FWC

1. The demands of my family or spouse interfere with work-related activities.

2. I have to put off doing things at work because of demands on my time at home.

3. Things I want to do at work don't get done because of the demands of my family or spouse.

4. My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks, and working overtime.

5. Family-related strain interferes with my ability to perform job-related duties.

Engagement(Britt et al., 2001)

Participants indicate the extent to which they agree with the following statements.

1. I feel responsible for my job performance.

2. How I do in my job influences how I feel.

3. How I do in my job matters a great deal to me.

4. I feel obligated to perform well in my job.

Positive and Negative State Affect(Watson et al., 1988)

Participants indicate to what extent(very slightly to extremely) they feel this way right now: Interested; Excited; Strong; Enthusiastic; Proud; Alert; Inspired; Determined; Attentive; Active; Distressed; Upset; Guilty; Scared; Hostile; Irritable; Ashamed; Nervous; Jittery; Afraid.

Burnout(Erickson and Ritter, 2001)

Participants indicate the extent to which they agree with the following statements.

1. I feel emotionally drained from work.

2. I feel used up at the end of the day.

3. I dread getting up in the morning and having to face another day on the job

4. I feel I'm working too hard on my job.

5. My work really puts a lot of stress on me.

6. I feel burned out from my work.

Forgiveness Behavior(Bradfield and Aquino, 1999)

Participants indicate the extent to which the following statements are accurate or inaccurate.

1. I gave them back a new start a renewed relationship.

2. I accepted their humanness, flaws, and failures.

3. I did my best to put aside the mistrust.

4. I accepted them.

5. I made an effort to be more friendly and concerned.

6. I prayed for God to bless them.

Revenge Behavior(Bradfield and Aquino, 1999)

Participants indicate the extent to which the following statements are accurate.

1. I told them something was wrong with them.

2. I tried to makes something bad happen to them.

3. I did not something to make them get what they deserved.

4. I prayed for God to deal severely with them.

Current Perception of Health(Ware et al., 1978)

Participants indicate the extent to which they agree with following statements.

1. According to the doctors I've seen, my health is now excellent.

2. I feel better now than I ever have before.

3. I'm as healthy as anybody I know.

4. My health is excellent.

【번역 설문 문항】

직무-가족갈등, 가족-직무갈등

직무-가족갈등

1. 나의 직무에 대한 요구 때문에 가정과 가족생활에 방해가 된다.

2. 내가 맡고 있는 일의 양과 특성으로 인해 가장으로서 책임을 다하는 데 어려움이 있다.

3. 직무가 내게 주는 요구 때문에 가정에서 하고 싶은 것들을 할 수가 없다.

4. 나의 직무는 내게 고통을 안겨주고 가정에서의 역할을 수행하는 데 어려움이 있다.

5. 직무와 관련된 할 일 때문에 가정에서 해야 할 계획들을 바꾸어야만 한다.

가족-직무갈등

1. 내 가족과 배우자의 요구로 인해 직무 관련 활동에 방해가 된다.

2. 집안 일 때문에 직장에서 해야 할 일들을 연기해야만 한다.

3. 가족과 배우자의 요구 때문에 직장에서 하고 싶은 일들을 할 수가 없다.

4. 가정생활로 인해 시간 맞춰 일하고, 일상의 과업을 수행하고, 잔업을 하는 등 직장에서의 책임을 다하는데 방해가 된다.

5. 가족과 관련된 고민이 직무 관련 할 일을 수행할 내 역량 발휘를 방해한다.

열의

1. 나는 내 직무 성과에 책임감을 느낀다.

2. 나의 직무를 어떻게 수행하느냐에 따라 내 기분이 달라진다.

3. 나의 직무를 어떻게 수행하느냐는 네게 매우 중요한 문제가 된다.

4. 나의 직무를 성공적으로 수행하는데 대해 의무감을 느낀다.

긍정적/부정적 상태 감정

흥미있는. 흥분된, 강한, 열정적인, 자부심을 느끼는. 빈틈없는, 고무된, 단호한, 주의깊은, 활동적인, 고민있는, 당황한, 죄책감이 드는, 놀란, 적대적인, 짜증난, 부끄러운, 신경질적인, 신경과민인, 두려운

소진감

1. 나는 일 때문에 감정적으로 탈진감을 느낀다.

2. 나는 일과가 끝날 무렵 에너지가 고갈된 느낌이 든다.

3. 나는 아침에 일어나기가 두렵고 직장에 또 출근해야만 하는 것이 두렵다.

4. 나는 직장에서 너무 열심히 일한다는 느낌이 든다.

5. 직무 때문에 엄청난 스트레스를 받는다.

6. 나는 직무로 부터 소진감을 느낀다.

용서 행태

1. 나는 그들과 다시 새로운 관계로 새 출발을 했다.

2. 나는 그들의 인간성, 결함, 잘못을 수용했다.

3. 나는 불신감을 덮어두려 최선을 다했다.

4. 나는 그들을 수용하였다.

5. 나는 더욱 더 친근하고 관심을 가지려고 노력했다.

6. 나는 그들이 잘 되기를 신에게 기원했다.

적개심 행태

1. 나는 그들에게 뭔가 잘못됐다고 말했다.

2. 나는 그들에게 뭔가 좋지 않은 일이 생기도록 애썼다.

3. 나는 그들이 마땅히 할 자격이 있는 어떤 것을 얻도록 하지 않았다.

4. 나는 그들이 잘못 되기를 신에게 기원했다.

건강에 대한 최근 인식

1. 의사에 따르면, 나의 건강은 지금이 최고의 상태이다.

2. 나는 지금이 과거 어느 때 보다 컨디션이 좋다는 느낌이다.

3. 나는 내가 아는 어느 누구 만큼이나 건강하다.

4. 나의 건강은 최상이다.