3

Work 18 (2002) 313

IOS Press

An effective workplace stress management

intervention: Chicken Soup for the Soul at
WorkTM Employee Groups
Anne Puidk Horan
P.O. Box 276, Terrell, TX 75160, USA
Tel.: +1 972 551 1800; Fax: +1 972 551 1811; E-mail: poetry@airmail.net

Received 19 April 2001

Accepted 7 June 2001

Abstract: Stress is a costly and significant source of health problems and mental distress with work cited as a primary stressor.
This pilot study supports the effectiveness of a new workplace stress intervention: Chicken Soup for the Soul at WorkTM
Employee Groups. In this program, employee-participants met during nine weekly meetings to read inspirational workplace
stories, comment, and share their own stories. A leader, chosen from and by the group, guided meetings.
Utilizing a wait-list control group design, participants were randomly assigned to an experimental or wait-list group. Participants
completed pretests and posttests (Coping Resources Inventory, Occupational Stress Inventory-Revised, Job Descriptive Index,
Pressure Management Indicator, survey). Statistical interaction effect for subtests was evaluated using a two-way repeated
measures analysis of variance.
Participants exhibited improved total coping resources, cognitive/rational coping, state of mind, confidence and home/work
balance. Participant comments and their continued participation in a similar company-sponsored program bolster these empirical
results.

1. Introduction
Effective stress intervention programs are urgently
needed in the workplace today. Stress is increasingly
cited as the cause of an endless number of psychological and physical ailments, both in the home and at the
workplace [5,24,38,41,42,63,65]. A majority of Americans perceive they are under much more stress now
than five or 10 years ago and cite work as their primary
stressor [3,32,60,64,69]. With regard to work, four out
of 10 employees (40%) feel their jobs are very or extremely stressful with job satisfaction at its lowest in
21 years, according to a study conducted by Northwestern National Life Insurance Company [11,14]. Pessimism, malaise, and a new wave of job angst is creeping into many offices around the country, and nearly
one-half of American workers are worried about their
jobs and feel more pressure to prove their value [26,
27].
1051-9815/02/$8.00 2002 IOS Press. All rights reserved

The repercussions reach far and wide. Health

problems top the list with workplace stress correlated, directly or indirectly, to health problems such
as headaches, high blood pressure, stomach problems,
sleep disturbances (as revealed in The American Workers Under Pressure study), coronary heart disease, cancer, lung ailments, accidental injuries, cirrhosis of
the liver and suicide-leading causes of death in the
US [9,15,26,32,35,46,62,64,66,68]. Workplace stress
impacts psychological health as well [15,17,51,56].
Claims for emotional illness rose more than fourfold between 1981 and 1990 within the US federal government
workforce, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) [55]. Approximately 11 million workers reported health-endangering
levels of mental stress at the workplace [56]. In 1996,
mental stress accounted for 11% of worker absences,
a 100% rise from the previous year [51]. Employees
suffering from depression and stress are likely to incur

A.P. Horan / An effective workplace stress management intervention

significantly higher health-care costs than coworkers

without such conditions [2,69]. These statistics are
particularly disconcerting when most Americans spend
the bulk of their waking hours at work on average,
8 to 12 hours per day, an increase of 163 hours per
year since 1970 (not including commute time) [42].
Trends between 1976 and 1993 revealed an increase
in the share of persons who are working very long work
weeks 49 hours or more [6,7].
Stress, regardless of the cause, imposes enormous
and far-reaching costs on workers well-being and corporate profitability, according to NIOSH Director Dr.
Linda Rosenstock [40]. Workplace stress hits the employers bottom line for approximately $200 billion annually in absenteeism, tardiness, burnout, lower productivity, high turnover, workers compensation, and
rising health care insurance costs with an estimated
one million employees absent on average workdays because of stress and stress-related problems (the highest proportion in white collar occupations: managerial/professional, 16% and technical, sales and administrative, 48%) [6,15,2830,32,42,44,62]. Stress-related
disability claims doubled during the period from 1982
1990 and have led to an increase of 700% in stressrelated workers compensation claims over the past 10
years [11,28].
Corporate responses to workplace stress have ranged
from doing nothing to offering a variety of stress management programs. In fact, corporations are deluged
with offers from third-party consulting firms to mitigate
employee stress . . . with varying results. Nonetheless,
in singling out stress, heart disease, and depression,
90 percent of Fortune 1000 human resource executives
surveyed believe work force health is very important
to business; yet, at the same time, approximately 40%
said corporate America is not doing a good job [54].
A unique and intriguing workshop, originally developed by Martin Rutte and requested by many companies, utilizes Chicken Soup for the Soul at Work TM and
its inspirational workplace stories in a one-session employee group [8,18]. Workplace story groups, believes
Rutte, are a fresh way to do something about [low
morale at the workplace], a way to get employees to
think and talk about issues of heart and soul [18,52].
Although no prior empirical studies have evaluated the
effectiveness of these popular workplace story groups,
Rutte posits: Through stories we share ourselves, our
insights, our struggles and our triumphs. In the workplace, stories are useful for imparting wisdom, creating
a sense of unity, providing models for positive change,
and enhancing creativity [52].

This pilot study evaluates and supports the effectiveness of a similar workplace story-based intervention: a
nine-week employee-driven program utilizing Chicken
SoupTM books as a catalyst for discussion and sharing a cost-effective and remarkable intervention that
improves overall employee well-being. This timely
study meets the goals of the November 1999 international work-stress symposium: [d]eveloping and testing programs that can reduce work-related stress [57].

2. Method
Employees at a large corporation based in DallasFt. Worth, Texas (the Company) were invited to
take part in an 11-week study and program (the Program) via Company e-mail solicitations pre-approved
by the Company liason. At the Companys request,
two rounds of the Program were scheduled to offer employees with work schedule conflicts an opportunity to
join the Program. A total of 84 employees volunteered
for the Program with 18 withdrawing when their department was unable to commit physical and personnel
resources for a full 11 weeks. The mean age of participants was 45 years old with, on average, 15 years
of education. The average number of years these individuals had been employed was 26 years, and most of
them had worked for this Company an average of 17
years. All were full-time employees, and most were
married Caucasian females with children.
As described in more detail below, this pilot study
was conducted using a wait-list control group design
with three experimental groups and three wait-list (control) groups. Pretests (and a demographic survey) were
administered in like fashion and on the same days to
all participants during initial group meetings scheduled one week before the on-site meetings commenced.
Posttests (and a Posttest Survey) were administered following the nine-week intervention.
Round I of the Program began in January 2000.
Round II began two weeks later in February 2000. Both
rounds were accomplished identically. Volunteers for
each round were randomly assigned to a Chicken Soup
for the Soul at Work TM employee group (hereinafter,
Chicken Soup TM Workplace Group) (Experimental
group) or a wait-list control group (Wait-list group)
with groups sizes ranging from 1012 members. For
anonymity/confidentiality purposes and as agreed with
the Company, participant numbers, rather than names,
were utilized throughout the Program. Participant numbers were generated via an on-line computer program.

A.P. Horan / An effective workplace stress management intervention

Original Participant numbers were re-randomized following the completion of the Posttests (and completed
assessment materials relabeled) to protect the confidentiality of individual data, as agreed with the Company.
Prior to the first group meeting, all participants received an introductory letter e-mailed jointly from the
Program Director (Anne Puidk Horan) and the Company Liason. This letter acknowledged the participants interest in the study and in the Program, briefly
introduced the Program, explained about randomization selection to groups, listed the Participants group
number and participant number, provided the meeting
time, location and date, as well as the duration of the
Program. This introductory letter also emphasized the
importance of confidentiality and attendance.
All groups met at Company facilities in private conference rooms. All groups met and completed identical assessments during Program Week 1 (to establish
a mental well-being baseline) and Program Week 11.
Experimental Groups met for a total of 11 Program
weeks: an initial meeting to complete Pretests and learn
about the Program, nine Chicken Soup TM Workplace
Group meetings, and a final meeting for debriefing and
Posttest completion. Wait-List Groups met only twice:
an initial meeting to complete the Pretests and a final
meeting for debriefing, Posttest completion, and an introduction to Chicken Soup TM Workplace Groups (i.e.
kick-off meeting).
2.1. Program Week 1
The Experimental and Wait-List Groups met on the
same day and time for their first meetings. To promote
consistency in administration and assessment procedures, a facilitator sheet was utilized by facilitators during the first meeting of all groups. Steps 1 through 4
of this quoted material provided a brief introduction of
the facilitator and of the Program and gave instructions
on written Informed Consents and assessment completion. The facilitator sheet also listed reminders to facilitators (such as refraining from helping with answers,
checking packets for Group and Participant numbers,
etc.).
Experimental Group and Wait-List Group instructions differed once assessments were completed and
returned. In the Experimental Groups, the facilitator
proceeded by distributing the inspirational workplace
book, Chicken Soup for the Soul at Work TM (Intervention Book), and the meeting schedule sheet. The facilitator then read the Experimental Groups orientation
sheet an agenda explaining how to run the Chicken

SoupTM Workplace Group meetings. The meeting adjourned.

The Wait-List initial meeting proceeded somewhat
differently after the completed assessments were returned. Rather than introduce the Chicken Soup TM
Workplace Group intervention and distribute books, the
facilitator simply handed out a meeting schedule sheet
and read quoted material from the Wait-List facilitator sheet. This Wait-List facilitator sheet explained
how participants were assigned to groups via computerrandomization, noted that the next meeting (a kickoff
meeting) would be delayed several weeks, and emphasized confidentiality and attendance. The meeting adjourned.
2.2. Program Week 2
Only Experimental Groups met during Program
Week 2. During this meeting, the Program Director
was present to jumpstart the group. The Program Director initially explained how to complete the attendance record and reviewed the Experimental Groups
orientation sheet. The Experimental Group then chose
a group leader who began the meeting by reading his
or her story choice from Chapter One of the Intervention Book. After reading each story, the group leader
presented two general questions to the group: Would
anyone like to say anything, and do any of you have
a story youd like to share? Participants then volunteered comments and their own stories or the stories
of others. The group leader and other members of the
group proceeded by reading other stories from Chapter One or sharing their own stories. Comments and
opinions from group members followed each story read
or shared. Not all stories in Chapter One were read
due to time constraints. The group leader closed the
meeting with an encouraging comment or observation.
Participants then selected the next weeks group leader
who took charge of the attendance record. Members
were reminded to read the next chapter for next weeks
meeting. The meeting adjourned.
2.3. Program Weeks 3 through 10
During Program Weeks 3 through 10, only the Experimental Groups convened (without the Program Director). The members informally followed the steps
outlined immediately above. Each successive meeting
covered one chapter of the Intervention Book sequentially.

A.P. Horan / An effective workplace stress management intervention

2.4. Program Week 11

Experimental and Wait-List groups met during Program Week 11. Posttests were administered similarly
by the facilitator (as described for Pretests under Program Week 1, above) with a few exceptions: the introduction was informal, assessment instructions were
provided in written form, and participants received debriefing memos once completed assessments were collected.
Experimental groups and Wait-List groups received
different debriefing memos. The Experimental Group
debriefing memo reviewed the Program format and
study goals, invited participants to continue meeting together independent of the research study in a Companysponsored program, and thanked all for participating.
The Wait-List Group debriefing memo provided more
Program and study details, explained in more detail
the immediate vs. delayed participation accomplished
via randomization, invited Wait-List Group members
to attend an upcoming Company-sponsored program
(i.e. Chicken Soup TM Workplace Group meetings),
and thanked all for participating. An orientation sheet
was then provided to Wait-List Group members interested in attending the independent Company-sponsored
Chicken Soup TM Workplace Group program. At this
point, the on-site portion of the Program was finished.

3. Variables, measures and design

Data in this study were gathered utilizing assessments well-established in job satisfaction, well-being
and occupational stress literature. The following four
assessments served as dependent variables for this
study: the Coping Resources Inventory (CRI), Occupational Stress Inventory-R (OSI-R), the Coworkers,
Job in General, and Work at Present Job subtests under the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Pressure
Management Indicator (PMI) [1,23,43,47]. These assessments were selected because they are relevant to
workplace stress, morale and satisfaction, appropriate
for groups, and easily administered in approximately
90 minutes [1,19,23,33,43,47,48,59,71]. Demographic
information was solicited from all participants via surveys.
The Pretest package for all groups contained the
OSI-R, JDI, CRI, PMI and a Demographic Survey.
The Posttest package for all groups contained the
same assessments but no Demographic Survey. The
Posttest package for the Experimental Groups con-

tained a Posttest Survey soliciting narrative comments

about how the Program may have changed them, how
the Program could be improved, as well as several other
questions about their workplace. The Posttest Survey
for the Wait-List Groups asked for narrative opinions
about their workplace and requested their schedule information to help plan meeting times for the upcoming Company-sponsored Chicken Soup TM Workplace
Group program.
Subscales under the four assessment instruments
were treated as separate dependent measures for a total
of 47 dependent measures. All scales are either Likertlike scales or summed in a fashion across dichotomous
items with an associated weight to create continuous
data and total scores. Baseline measurements were obtained from both groups during Program Week 1, and
a repeat of the same measurements was accomplished
during Program Week 11.
Carroll W. Hughes, Ph.D., with the University of
Texas Southwestern Medical Center-Psychology Department, was consulted for analyses of statistics as
well as design development.
Prior to statistical analyses, a thorough review of the
data (including computerized and manual edit checks
and evaluation of all missing data and unusual data
points) was accomplished. In addition, univariate features of the data, such as deviations from symmetry
and heteroscedasticity, were checked. Data were determined to be normal and variances stable.
For the continuous data, differences between and
within groups were analyzed with the SAS GLM procedure for analysis of variance. This procedure accounts
for different cell sizes and different ANOVA designs.
The basic ANOVA used for these analyses had a factor
for independent groups plus a factor for the repeated
measure. Additional analyses of variances were investigated, including the independent variables (covariates). Frequency comparisons were made using chisquare analyses, and correlations between the various
measures and demographic variables were conducted.
Descriptive statistics (including means for continuous data, frequencies/percents for categorical data)
were detailed for the following demographic measures:
age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, number of children, location of residence, years of education, total years employed, years employed with the Company, work status (full-time, part-time, contract), job
class (nonexempt, exempt), and job group (managerial,
administrative/clerical, other craft). All probabilities
were reported based on two-tail tests.

A.P. Horan / An effective workplace stress management intervention

4. Results

4.2. Job satisfaction

Chi-Square analysis revealed no significant group

differences on any of the demographic data. Therefore, all the groups were pooled for analyses. Regression analysis on demographic independent variables revealed several notable correlations. A notable relationship was revealed between years the subjects had been
employed with the Company and total years employed
(r = 0.59, p = 0.00).
A notable participant profile was revealed by the PMI
Type A Drive (TD) subscale a subscale measuring
the desire to succeed and achieve results. The participant means (for both Experimental Group and WaitList Group members) were measured on this subscale
at well below the standard deviation of 1.93 (subscale
mean of 15.64). Experimental Groups were measured
at a mean of 8.4 a standard deviation of 3.16 for
Pretests and a mean of 8.30 a standard deviation of
1.87 for Postests. Wait-List Groups were assessed at
a Pretest mean of 7.50 a standard deviation of 1.87
and a Posttest mean of 7.21 a standard deviation of
1.48.
The following aspects of employee well-being were
analyzed using the hypotheses detailed below to empirically quantify the effect the Program had, if any,
upon the well-being of participants in the Experimental
Groups versus the Wait-List Groups. Statistical tactics discussed herein were applied separately to each
hypotheses.

The statistical analyses of the Job Descriptive Index

(JDI) for all subscales administered (Work in Present
Job, Coworkers, Job in General) were nonsignificant.

4.1. Coping resources

The statistical analyses of the Coping Resources
Inventory (CRI) Cognitive, Social, Emotional, Spiritual/Philosophical, and Physical subscales were nonsignificant. Significant results, however, were found
for the interaction on the Total Resources subscale,
F (1, 42) = 6.10, p = 0.02. The Experimental Group
exhibited a mean of 45.81 a standard deviation of
8.67 for Pretest scores, and a mean elevated by 3.4
points to 49.24 a standard deviation of 11.12 on
Posttests. All of these standard deviations were relatively consistent with the instruments standard deviation of 10. These results support the hypothesis that employees attending the Experimental Groups exhibited
improved total coping resources in the face of workrelated stress, as measured by the CRI Total Resources
subscale.

4.3. Occupational stress

Statistical analyses for 13 of the 14 Occupational
Stress Inventory-Revised Edition (OSI-R) subscales
were nonsignificant. Significant results were found for
the interaction effect on the Rational/Cognitive Coping subscale, F (1, 35) = 11.52, p = 0.002. The Experimental Group exhibited a Pretest mean of 47.19
a standard deviation of 8.67, and a mean elevated by
5.33 points to 52.52 a standard deviation of 7.69
for Posttest scores. All of these standard deviations
were relatively consistent with the instruments standard deviation of 10. These results support the hypothesis that employees attending the Experimental Groups
exhibited improved rational/cognitive coping skills in
the face of work-related stress, as measured by the
OSI-R Personal Resources Questionnaire (PRQ) Rational/Cognitive Coping subscale.
4.4. Pressure management
Statistical analyses of the PMI subscales was nonsignificant with the exception of the following which
showed significant interaction effects: the State of
Mind (MA) subscale, F (1, 32) = 4.60, p = 0.04,
the Confidence Level (MW) subscale, F (1, 32), p =
0.02, and the Home/Work Balance (PH) subscale,
F (1, 29), p = 0.04.
The following describes means and standard deviations for the significant subscale findings. For the State
of Mind subscale, the Experimental Group exhibited a
Pretest mean of 19.31 a standard deviation of 5.18,
and a mean elevated by 1.81 points to 21.52 a standard deviation of 5.46 on Posttests. For the Confidence
Level subscale, the Experimental Group exhibited a
Pretest mean of 9.24 standard deviation of 3.70, and
a mean elevated by 1.38 points to 10.62 a standard
deviation of 4.31 on Posttests. For the Home/Work Balance subscale, the Balance subscale, the Experimental
Group exhibited a Pretest mean of 16.29 a standard
deviation of 6.87, and a mean reduced by 2.47 points to
13.82 a standard deviation of 6.73 for Posttest scores.
These results support the hypothesis that employees
attending the Experimental Groups exhibited improved
state of mind, confidence, and home/work balance, as
measured by these three PMI subscales.

A.P. Horan / An effective workplace stress management intervention

5. Discussion
5.1. Correlations
Regression analysis revealed a strong relationship
between years participants had been employed with the
Company (a mean of 17 years) and total years employed (a mean of 26 years). Although the basis of
this relationship cannot be confirmed, it may be associated with the strong Company loyalty and commitment expressed by many participants to the Program
Director: (i) they were Company men/women and
had chosen to work at the Company most (if not all)
of their adult careers, (ii) they were legacies (parents,
grandparents, other family members had worked at the
Company); and (iii) Company retirement, pensions and
annuity programs are first-rate.
5.2. Notable participant profiles
The PMI Type A Drive (TD) subscale reflects the desire to succeed and achieve results with higher scores
indicating more Type A drive. As detailed above, Participant mean scores were well below the subtests standard deviation [47]. These results appear to be consistent with the regression analysis indicating a high
correlation between years employed at this Company
and total years employed. Such a result suggests these
individuals may, in fact, be willing to submit to more
stress because of commitment to their corporation (see
Correlations section above).
5.3. Chicken Soup for the Soul at Work TM Employee
Groups: Effect upon aspects of employee
well-being
This pilot study reveals that employees do benefit
from attending Chicken Soup TM Workplace Groups, as
these groups are herein described. The following sections more particularly describe the statistical findings
and meaning of the significant subscale results.
5.3.1. Coping resources
Results for the Total Resources subscale were significant at 0.02 with a large effect size (0.12) [22]. The
results for the Total Resources subscale appear to indicate that, while changes in discrete subscale coping
resources (pre vs. post) were not measurable at significant levels (perhaps, due to the small number of total
subjects), the Experimental Groups mean coping resources, in concert, were improved (pre vs. post) when

compared to the Wait-List Groups. Therefore, the results support the hypothesis that employees attending
the Program exhibit improved total coping resources,
as measured by the CRI Total Coping Resources subscale, when compared to wait-list control subjects. All
participant mean scores for this subscale remain within
one standard deviation of the norm indicating the Experimental Group participants possess coping resources
similar to most of the population with improvement
over time on total coping resources due to the Program.
The Total Resources subscale is a compilation of
the five subscales (Cognitive, Social, Emotional, Spiritual/Philosophical and Physical). Coping resources
are defined by the instruments authors as those resources inherent in individuals that enable them to handle stressors more effectively, to experience fewer or
less intense symptoms upon exposure to a stressor, or
to recover faster from exposure [23].
Statistical analyses are bolstered by narrative data
generated by participants. Participants reflected improved coping skills after completing the Program: (i) I
can control my attitude; (ii) I can control my reactions;
(iii) I try to see things from the perspective of others,
not just my own; (iv) I have increased understanding
of stressful situations; (v) I have new thoughts about
how to deal with other people and problems; (vi) I try
to overlook the bad/non-professional behaviors of others; and (vii) I have learned to look beyond my own
frustrations.
Improved coping via storytelling is supported by
these statistics as well as by available research literature. This type of employee group mobilizes problemsolving and allows participants to cope by placing problematic occurrences within a wider horizon of possibilities [10,21]. According to Taylor, storytelling is
a process where individuals seek the opinions, ability
and emotional reactions of others as a way to cope
with new and stressful situations [61]. The participants may use stories (from the Intervention Book and
from group members) to deal with lifes harshness, unpredictability, and arbitrariness [20]. Hidden within
the storytelling process are these coping mechanismsmechanisms that are likely responsible for improving
the Total Coping Resources of Chicken Soup TM Workplace Group participants.
5.3.2. Occupational stress
The Rational/Cognitive Coping subscale results were
found to be significant at 0.002 with a large effect size
(0.24) [22].

A.P. Horan / An effective workplace stress management intervention

The Rational/Cognitive Coping subscale is part of

the Personal Resources Questionnaire (PRQ) of the
OSI-R. According to the instruments author, this subscale measures the extent to which the individual possesses and uses cognitive skills in the face of workrelated stresses [43]. As scores rise, subjects may
report improvements in the following areas: systematic problem solving, identification of problem elements, prioritizing, evaluating consequences, avoiding
distractions, work schedule organization, boundary setting (between work and home), and awareness of skill
transferability to other jobs [43].
The results for the Rational/Cognitive Coping subscale appear to indicate Experimental Group participants improved (pre vs. post) in their use or level of
cognitive skills in dealing with work stress when compared to the Wait-List Groups. Therefore, the hypothesis is supported: that employees attending the Program exhibit improved rational/cognitive coping skills
in the face of work-related stress, as measured by the
OSI-R Personal Resources Questionnaire (PRQ) Rational/Cognitive Coping subscale, when compared to
wait-list control subjects. All participant mean scores
for this subscale remain within one standard deviation
of the norm indicating the Experimental Group participants possess rational/cognitive coping resources similar to most of the population with improvement over
time on rational/cognitive coping resources due to the
Program.
This significant finding appears highly consistent
with most of the narrative comments provided by Experimental Group participants via the Posttest Survey.
When citing benefits derived from the Program, most
participants utilized cognitive-laden descriptors such
as: (i) understand more people feel stress also; (ii) realized others are unhappy; (iii) more positive outlook;
(iv) learned more about coworkers; (v) increased understanding of stressful situations; (vi) new thoughts
on how to deal with others and problems; (vii) understanding various work environments of coworkers;
(viii) more aware of need to be supportive; (ix) thinking about things in different ways; (x) learned to look
beyond personal frustrations; (xi) better look at company and employees; (xii) learned a great deal; (xiii)
learned from the stories; (xiv) more positive outlook
on challenges at work and personal life; (xv) see what
others deal with; and (xvi) realize not alone.
The cognitive/rational improvement is likely based
upon a number of key purposes and values of stories and
storytelling, as revealed during the studys literature review. Engaging in storytelling yields useful informa-

tion, helps employees consider problems with a more

balanced perspective, and improves problem-solving
skills [13,25,45,61]. Collective sensemaking results
from storytelling: confirming shared experiences and
meaning, altering organizational reality, and developing or sharpening sense of purpose at work [4]. It appears that these participants are, in fact, improving their
abilities to make sense of their world, connect and
make meaning of the events in their lives [12,31,49].
It is not surprising that participants in Chicken Soup TM
Workplace Groups benefit on a rational/cognitive level,
considering the cognitive impact stories have upon the
conscious, unconscious and memory, as posited by
Duryea and Potts and Martin [16,37].
5.3.3. Pressure management
The Pressure Management Indicator (PMI) consists
of 24 subscales. The interaction effect for three of these
PMI subscales was significant: State of Mind (MA) at
0.04, Confidence Level (MW) at 0.02, and Home/Work
Balance (PH) at 0.04. All exhibited large effect sizes
(0.13, 0.15 and 0.14, respectively) [22].
The results for each of the foregoing subtests appear to indicate Experimental Group participants improved (pre vs. post) in their mental well-being and
felt less pressure from work at home (and visa versa)
when compared to the Wait-List Groups. These results support the hypothesis that employees attending
the Experimental Groups exhibited improved state of
mind, confidence and home/work balance, as measured
by these three PMI subscales. All participant mean
scores for this subscale remain within one standard deviation of the norm indicating the mental well-being
and home/work balance of Experimental Group participants were similar to most of the population with
improvement over time in these aspects due to the Program.
5.3.3.1. State of Mind
The State of Mind subscale, under the Mental Wellbeing category of the PMI, measures levels of mental
well-being with higher scores indicative of improved
mental well-being [47]. Many Experimental Group
participants articulated improved mental well-being in
their narrative comments: (i) do not feel so alone; (ii)
more comfortable; (iii) like work better; (iv) more positive outlook; (v) more tolerant; (vi) more sympathy;
(vii) more understanding; (viii) less complaints; (ix)
look beyond frustrations to make changes; (x) accept
what cannot be changed; (xi) reduced stress; (xii) leave

10

A.P. Horan / An effective workplace stress management intervention

group feeling more positive than before; (xiii) felt inspired and moved; and (xiv) more empathetic.
Why do these Chicken Soup TM Workplace Groups
improve mental well-being as cited by group members?
Research indicates stories touch the very heart of us
and serve to humanize workplaces (a site where individuals spend most of their days) [39,67]. The healing resources of the unconscious can be mobilized
through stories [10]. The storytelling process clarifies
disturbed thoughts and feelings and helps participants
work through troubling memories through a climate
of more effective compassion [21].
5.3.3.2. Confidence Level
The Confidence Level subscale, also under the Mental Well-being category of the PMI, measures level of
worry with higher scores indicative of improved mental
being (i.e. less worry) [47]. Narrative data revealed an
undercurrent of confidence in self and in the workplace,
as Experimental Group participants described better
skills in controlling attitude, adjusting reactions, taking
a more positive outlook when faced with challenges,
setting and undertaking new goals (fitness, health and
people skills), and improving tolerance. These improved skills and outlooks by Experimental Group participants are consistent with research indicating workplace stories sharpen and renew their sense of purpose
at the organization [4].
5.3.3.3. Home/Work Balance
This subscale is under the Sources of Pressure category of the PMI. Decreases in this Home/Work Balance subscale indicate less pressure of work while at
home and visa versa [47]. When participants were
asked whether they felt differently about their workplace and coworkers after attending the Experimental Groups, most expressed a better understanding of
their workplace and improved empathy (and sympathy)
for coworkers. The implication? Despite a relatively
consistent workload and work station, participants in
Chicken Soup TM Workplace Groups experienced less
psychological pressure at work. It is not surprising
that participants were better able to leave work at the
workplace and employ new found skills on the home
front.

tial empirical data revealing that participants in Chicken

SoupTM Workplace Groups experience improved mental well-being in at least five key areas: total coping resources, cognitive/rational coping, state of mind, confidence and home/work balance.
It comes as no surprise that various forms of Chicken
SoupTM Workplace Groups spring up independently
and continue long-term. In fact, many participants involved in the present study remain actively involved
in Company-sponsored Chicken Soup TM Workplace
Groups. Why the unfailing commitment? In light of
our stressful daily experiences, [s]tories are the mortar
that hold thought together, the gist of all our explanations, rationales and values [58]. We live through
stories, they entertain us, and they engender respect
and understanding for one another [13,16,36,45,53].
Positive stories, such as those presented in the Intervention Book and other similar books, offer opportunities for upward comparisons, elevate mood, and offer
hope, inspiration and reassurance [61]. In the necessarily joint effort of storytelling activities, we are often reminded of our own stories, for to listen to anothers story is often to hear our own [49,70]. A sense
of community results from attending Chicken Soup TM
Workplace Groups [50]. As several participants commented: Members of our group formed a bond.
[W]e shared common feelings about most subjects
and [W]e arent alone.
A great need is present in the workplace-to mitigate
workplace stress. With four out of 10 employees (40%)
feeling their jobs are very or extremely stressful and
attendant physical and psychological impairments (and
related costs) on the rise, employers must continue to
explore and implement therapeutic interventions [3,32,
46,55]. The benefits? Improved worker morale and
productivity and lower workplace costs. One participant believes Chicken Soup TM Workplace Groups are
the solution: I think this is a wonderful process that
everyone should participate in. It could transform our
workplace from one of gloom and doom to one of caring
and acceptance. This pilot study offers empirical support for a new solution to occupational stress: Chicken
Soup for the Soul at Work TM Employee Groups.
6.2. Other considerations and limitations

6. Study implications and limitations

6.1. Implications
The popularity of Chicken Soup TM Workplace
Groups is not unfounded. This pilot study provides ini-

The primary research limitation was related to the

type and nature of the study site. Conducting the study
within a large operating corporation required dozens
of meetings and communications. It was necessary to
obtain initial and intermediary approval of the study,

A.P. Horan / An effective workplace stress management intervention

study methods, solicitations, meeting times, meeting

locations and assessments used. Additional communications were required to develop a plan to ensure all
participant names and all data obtained were protected
from disclosure.
Involvement in this type of program could be improved through broader solicitation of employee volunteers. In this Program, the method and content of the
solicitation was approved and controlled by the Company (i.e. e-mail only). This limited the number of
participants who might have been involved had supplemental Program notices (or other formats such as
posters in employee breakrooms and other common areas) been utilized. Consequently, it is likely that the
effects of other mental well-being subtests would have
been statistically significant with a larger number (n) of
participants-a consideration for future studies. A more
global solicitation scheme is recommended for future
programs of this type.
Schedule conflicts, workload, and supervisor disapproval of employee absences from work stations led
to inconsistent attendance. When push came to shove,
employees stated they had to put deadlines and job
security in front of missing an hour from their work
station. Attempts to reduce attendance problems were
accomplished by requesting schedule preferences from
all participants. Attendance problems are expected to
be present in future studies as well.
The type and length of assessment instruments were
another limitation. Participants were not accustomed
to completing these types of assessments and were primarily concerned about confidentiality (whether Company managers could obtain personal information about
them). These fears persisted despite confidentiality assurances and use of participant numbers. Confidentiality concerns are expected to be present in future studies; however, these concerns may be less notable at
non-union workplaces. Obtaining completed Posttests
was problematic. Several of the participants requested
to take the packets with them contending they knew
how to complete the assessments and did not have time
to complete them during the meeting. These requests
resulted in a number of noncompleters (despite e-mail
reminders). Because this was a pilot study, it was not
certain which assessments would provide the most useful data. Following analysis of the data, it is recommended that fewer assessments be administered to reduce the number of possible noncompleters. Adequate
results would be expected from only two assessments
such as the PMI and the CRI. Effectiveness of the Program, as evaluated with this participant pool, may vary

11

with other corporate employee pools. As indicated

above under Discussion, the PMI Type A Drive subscale mean reflected that this pool of participants were
measured well below the standard deviation for this
subscale. This Type A profile is expected to be more
varied at other workplaces.
A final comment concerns the Intervention Book
used for this Program. Based upon narrative comments, it may be that these types of workplace groups
would also benefit from inspirational books unrelated
to the workplace (thereby mitigating potential downward comparisons with the present workplace). Other
Chicken Soup TM books are currently being used in this
Companys follow-up programs with good preliminary
feedback. It is the inspirational nature of stories and
their telling and sharing that appears to promote
improved employee well-being.
Everything is held together with stories. That is
all that is holding us together, stories and compassion [34].

Acknowledgements
But for the efforts of the following mentors, colleagues and friends, this pilot study would not have
been accomplished: Dr. Carroll W. Hughes for his
expertise in analyses of statistics and design development, Dr. Gerald Casenave, Dr. Martin Lumpkin,
my liasons at the host company, and the authors and
compilers of the inspirational work stories that support
and uplift our working men and women. Many thanks
to Melanie Schumaker, my secretary. For continued
support, I thank my husband/law partner, Sandy, other
family members, and my mother, Sue Puidk, for her
love of the written word and persistent encouragement.
My appreciation to these and others unnamed.

References
[1]

[2]

[3]

W.K. Balzer, J.A. Kihm, P.C. Smith, J.L. Irwin, P.D. Bachiochi, C. Robie, E.F. Sinar and L.F. Parra, Users Manual
For The Job Descriptive Index (JDI; 1997 Revision) And The
Job In General (JIG) Scales, Bowling Green State University,
Bowling Green, OH, 1997.
Big Study Shows Workers Under Stress Likely to Have Higher
Health-Care Costs, The Wall Street Journal (October 16,
1998), B-4.
J.T. Bond, E. Galinsky and J.E. Swansberg, The 1997 National
Study of the Changing Workforce, [On-line], Families and
Work Institute, New York, NY, February 2, 1999, Available:
http://www.familiesandwork.org/announce/workforce.html.

12
[4]

[5]

[6]
[7]
[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]
[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]
[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

A.P. Horan / An effective workplace stress management intervention

M.E. Boyce, Collective Centring and Collective Sense-making
in the Stories and Storytelling of One Organization, Organization Studies 16(1) (1995), 107137.
A. Bull, Organizational Stress: Sources and Responses, in:
The Gains of Listening: Perspectives in Counseling at Work,
Open University Press, Philadelphia, 1997, pp. 2846.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Stress, Issues in Labor Statistics 99-10 (September 1999), 12.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, How long is the workweek? Issues
in Labor Statistics 97-2 (February 1997), 12.
J. Canfield, J.V. Hansen, M. Rogerson, M. Rutte and T. Clauss,
Chicken Soup for the Soul at Work, Health Communications,
Inc., Deerfield Beach, FL, 1996.
E. Cohen, Stress puts a strain on the bodys immune system,
December 27, 2000, CNN.com.health [On-line], Available:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/12/27/stress.health/index.
html [2001, April 9].
N. Davis, The use of therapeutic stories in the treatment of
abused children, Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies
8(4) (1989), 1823.
J.A. Dear, Remarks by Joseph A. Dear, Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational, Safety and Health, American Psychological Association Conference, Work, Stress & Health 95:
Creating Healthier Workplaces, [On-line], 1995, Available:
http://www.osha.slc.gov/OshDoc/Speech data/SP19950914.
html [1998, August 16].
J. Dimino, R. Gersten, D. Carnine and G. Blake, Storygrammar: an approach for promoting at-risk secondary students comprehension of literature, Elementary School Journal 91(1) (1990), 1932.
J. Divinyi, Storytelling: An Enjoyable And Effective Therapeutic Tool, Contemporary Family Therapy 17(1) (1995),
2737.
Dream in Danger? Worker Contentment is on the wane, The
Wall Street Journal (November 29, 1994), A1.
A.M. Drukteinis, The Growth of Employment Stress Claims:
Workers Compensation, Discrimination, Harassment and
Accommodation Problems, New England Psychodiagnostics, [On-line], 1996, Available: http://www.psychlaw.com/
nep/growth1.htm [1998, April 4].
M.L. Duryea and J. Potts, Story and Legend: Powerful Tools
for Conflict Resolution, Mediation Quarterly 10(4) (1993),
387395.
Experts: A healthy brain doesnt need too much stress,
CNN.com.health [On-line], December 26, 2000, Available:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/12/26/stress.brain/index.
html [2001, April 9].
Feeling Dispirited? Have Someone Read This Story to You,
The Wall Street Journal (February 10, 1997), A-10.
A.G. Friedman and R.K. Mulhern, Coping Resources Inventory, in: Test Critiques, (Vol. IX), D.J. Keyser and R.C. Sweetland, eds, Test Corporation of America, Kansas City, MO,
1991, pp. 111114.
Y. Gabriel, Turning Facts into Stories and Stories into Facts: A
Hermeneutic Exploration of Organizational Folklore, Human
Relations 44 (1991), 857875.
A. Gersie, Reflections on Therapeutic Storymaking: The Use
of Stories In Groups, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Bristol, PA,
1977.
S. Green, N.J. Salkind and T.M. Akey, Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and Understanding Data, (2nd ed.), Prentice
Hall, New Jersey, 2000.
A.L. Hammer, Manual for the Coping Resources Inventory,
Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, 1988.

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]
[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]
[35]

[36]
[37]
[38]

[39]
[40]
[41]

[42]
[43]

[44]
[45]
[46]

Holistic-online.com, Stress: It is Deadly [On-line], October 3, 2000, Available: http://www.holistic-online.com/stress/

stress introduction.htm [2001, April 9].
B. Hopkins, Transforming Tales: Exploring conflict through
stories, in: Arts Approaches to Conflict, M. Liebmann, ed.,
1996, pp. 275295.
Ishman BodyCare Center, Stress Costs You Money [Online], January 1999, Available: http://ibodycare.com/Cost of
Stress.htm [2000, August 13].
Its Getting STRESSFUL!!! on the Job, The Wall Street Journal (October 20, 1998), B-1.
K. Herbert and C.A. James, Poking a Hole in Your Stress
Balloon, Inspired Lifestyles Newsletter 1, 1 [On-line], December 1998, Available: http://www.inspiredinside.com/life/
stress1.htm [2000, August 13].
Job Stress Report, Supper Club Magazine [On-line],
July 1997, Available: http://www.supperclub.com/cookbook/
july97/jobstress.htm [1998, August 16].
H. Kahn and C.L. Cooper, Mental Health, Job Satisfaction,
Alcohol Intake and Occupational Stress Among Dealers in
Financial Markets, Stress Medicine 6 (1990), 285298.
G.M. Kenyon, The Meaning/Value of Personal Storytelling,
in: Aging & Biography: Explorations in Adult Development,
Springer Publishers, New York, 1996, pp. 2138.
S. Kohler and J. Kamp, American Workers Under Pressure
Technical Report, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul, MN, 1992.
F. Leong and A. Vaux, Job Descriptive Index, in: Test Critiques, (Vol. IX), D.J. Keyser and R.C. Sweetland, eds, Test
Corporation of America, Kansas City, MO, 1992, pp. 319
334.
B. Lopez, Winter count, Charles Scribners Sons, New York,
1991.
R.T. Lovelace, Stress: A Major Health and Economic Problem [On-line], 1998, Available: http://www.wellnessnet.com/
teststrs.htm [1999, January 21].
M. Mair, Psychology as Storytelling, International Journal of
Construct Psychology 1(2) (1988), 125138.
J. Martin, Stories and Scripts in Organizational Settings, Cognitive Social Psychology (1982), 255305.
P.A. McGuire, Worker Stress, Health Reaching Critical Point,
APA Monitor 30 (No. 5), (May 1999), [Online], Available:
http:/www.apa.org/monitor/may99/niosh.html [2000, August
13].
D. Metzger, Writing for your life, MS. (March/April 1993),
8283.
S.G. Minter, Too much stress? Occupational Hazards 61(5)
(1999), 4952.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), Stress at Work, [On-line Brochure], Cincinnati, OH,
2000, Available: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/stresswk.html,
[2001, April 8].
National Safety Council, Stress Management, Jones & Bartless
Publishers, Inc., 1995.
S.H. Osipow, Occupational Stress Inventory Revised Edition
(OSI-R), Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., Odessa,
FL, 1998.
Overloaded Staffers Are Starting to Take More Time Off Work,
The Wall Street Journal (September 23, 1998), B-1.
A. Pellowski, The World of Storytelling, R.R. Bowker, New
York, 1977.
D.B. Posen, Stress Management for Patient and Physician,
The Canadian Journal of Continuing Medical Education,

A.P. Horan / An effective workplace stress management intervention

[47]
[48]
[49]

[50]
[51]

[52]
[53]

[54]
[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]
[59]

[60]

[On-line], 1995, Available: http://www.mentalhealth.com/

mag1/p51-str.html [2000, August 13].
RAD, Ltd., Interpreting the PMI, [Brochure], Author, Harrogate, England, 1999.
Resource Systems, About the PMI [On-line], 1999, Available:
http://www.stressweb.com [2001, April 9].
J. Roberts, Tales And Transformations: Stories in Families
and Family Therapy, W.W. Norton & Company, New York,
1994.
R. Rorty, Objectivity, relativism, and truth, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1991.
P.J. Rosch, Measuring Job Stress: Some Comments on Potential Pitfalls, American Journal of Health Promotion 11(6)
(1997), 400401.
M. Rutte, Telephone Interview, (505/466-1512), 1999.
T. Sarbin, The Narrative as a Root Metaphor for Psychology,
Narrative Psychology: The Storied Nature of Human Conduct,
Fraeger, New York, 1986.
K. Sarkis, Heart disease, stress top list of health problems,
Occupational Hazards 62(4) (April 2000), 29.
N. Seppa, Growing toll of job stress hikes compensation
claims, APA Monitor, [On-line], October 1996, Available:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct96/work.html [1998. April 4].
S. Shilling and R.M. Brackbill, Occupational Health and
Safety Risks and Potential Health Consequences Perceived by
US Workers, 1985, Public Health Reports 102 (1987), 3646.
S. Sleek, Concern for Job Stresses Goes Global, APA
Monitor 30 (No. 2), [On-Line], February 1999, Available:
http//www.apa.org/monitor/feb99/global.html [2000, August
13].
F. Smith, To think, Teachers College, Columbia University
Press, New York, 1990.
P.C. Smith, L.M. Kendal and C.L. Hulin, The measurement of
satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study
of attitudes, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1969.
K.W. Strandberg, A Look At Stress The Mitchum Re-

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]
[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]
[71]

13

port. Soap, Cosmetics, Soap, Cosmetics, Chemical Specialties

66(5) (May 1990), 6062.
S.E. Taylor, L.G. Aspinwall, T.A. Giuliano, G.A. Dakof and
K.K. Reardon, Storytelling and Coping With Stressful Events,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23(9) (1993), 703733.
The American Institute of Stress, Stress Americas #1 Health
Problem [On-line], 2000, Available: http://www.stress.org/
problem.htm [2000, August 14].
The Health Resource Network, Stress Facts [On-line], 2000,
Available: http://www.stresscure.com/hrn/facts.html [2001,
April 9].
Time is Ripe for Stress Management Programs, Wellness Program Management Advisor 3 (5), 910, [On-line], May 1998,
Available:
http://www.wellnessjunction.com/hdlines4.htm
[2000, August 14].
M. Verespej, Stressed Out, Industry Week, [On-line], February 21, 2000, Available: http://www.findarticles.com/cf 1/
m1121/4 249/59600615/ [2001, April 8].
C. Wallis, Stress: Can We Cope? Time (June 6, 1983), 4854.
K.E. Weick, Cosmos vs. chaos: Sense and nonsense in electronic contexts, Organizational Dynamics 14(2) (1985), 51
64.
H. Wein, Stress and Disease: New Perspectives, The
NIH Word on Health, [On-line], October 2000, Available:
http://www.nih/gov/news/WordonHealth/oct2000/story01.htm
[2001, April 9].
Wellness Junction, New Study Identifies Costlier Worker
Health Risks [On-line], November 1998, Available: http://
www.wellnessjunction.com/athome/stress/hdlines4.htm
[2000, August 14].
J.R. Williams, Using Story as Metaphor, Legacy, and Therapy,
Contemporary Family Therapy 17(1) (1995), 916.
S. Williams and C.L. Cooper, Measuring Occupational Stress:
Development of the Pressure Management Indicator, Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology 3(4) (1998), 306321.