Stress, like conflict, has a positive as well as a negative side. But that positive side tends to be overshadowed by concern with the negative. A life without stress is a life without challenges, simulation or change. Many positive and exciting events like- promotion, decision making, learning, leadership- have been found to create stress. Does that mean these events should be avoided? The answer is obviously “No”. Unfortunately, when most researchers talk about stress and the need to reduce it, they tend to overlook its positive side. This research paper is based on analytical research work which tries to focus on the positive side of stress which is termed as Eustress. Eustress is the positive psychological response to a stressor, indicated by the presence of positive psychological states. This paper’s purpose is fourfold. First, it introduces the idea of eustress vs. distress. Second, it presents the models to show that how eustress can be helpful to employees. Thirdly, it assess that how self efficacy influence the level of eustress. The fourth section covers the factors that may increase or decrease the chances of experiencing eustress. At the end it is concluded that stress is not always a bad thing. Stress is simply the response to changes that create taxing demands. This paper highlights that there is a difference between eustress, which is a term for positive stress, and distress, which refers to negative stress. In daily life, we often use the term “stress” to describe negative situations. This leads many people to believe that all stress is bad, which is not true. Eustress, or positive stress, helps in motivating employees to improve their job performance. Key words: Eustress, stress, distress, job performance and self-efficacy
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vor:issues:2015-09-10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dr. Avdhesh Jha). General contact details of provider: .
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.
Technostress—defined as stress that individuals experience due to their use of Information Systems—represents an emerging phenomenon of scholarly investigation. It examines how and why the use of IS causes individuals to experience various demands that they find stressful. This paper develops a framework for guiding future research in technostress experienced by individuals in organizations. We first review and critically analyse the state of current research on technostress reported in journals from the IS discipline and the non-IS disciplines that study stress in organizations (eg, organizational behaviour and psychological stress). We then develop our framework in the form of the “technostress trifecta”—techno-eustress, techno-distress, and Information Systems design principles for technostress. The paper challenges 3 key ideas imbued in the existing technostress literature. First, it develops the argument that, in contrast to negative outcomes, technostress can lead to positive outcomes such as greater effectiveness and innovation at work. Second, it suggests that instead of limiting the role of IS to that of being a stress creator in the technostress phenomenon, it should be expanded to that of enhancing the positive and mitigating the negative effects of technostress through appropriate design. Third, it lays the groundwork for guiding future research in technostress through an interdisciplinary framing that enriches both the IS and the psychological stress literatures through a potential discourse of disciplinary exchange.