Examining the stress and coping process of mega‐event employees

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine specific stressors present in mega‐event work and the coping strategies used by long‐term mega‐event employees.

Design/methodology/approach

Using a general inductive approach to analyze the data and identify themes, semi‐structured interviews with six employees from organizing committees of subsequent National Football League (NFL) Super Bowls, and four employees from the Special Olympics in Greece helped to assess the presence of specific stressors and the corresponding coping strategies.

Findings

Patterns relating to the specific stressors (i.e. workload, time pressure, role stressors, job insecurity and work‐family conflict) and several themes emerged across all stressors including the selflessness of the participants in making personal sacrifices due to work demands. A sense of time and place emerged since the participants were cognizant of their role in a prestigious event. Time was also relevant as the end‐date approached which was simultaneously a source of stress and the date when their stress would be over. For most, the period after this end‐date was marked by a sense of sadness and a desire to repeat the experience. Finally, the career paths of the participants appeared to influence their actions and coping strategies.

Originality/value

Work in mega‐event organizing committees has not been examined from a stress and coping perspective; this study is the first to examine issues in this unique work setting by applying stress theory. Moreover, the findings suggest that organizing committee employees appraise and cope with stress differently than in more traditional contexts.

Citation

Odio, M.A., Walker, M. and Kim, M. (2013), "Examining the stress and coping process of mega‐event employees", International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 140-155. https://doi.org/10.1108/17582951311325908

1. Introduction

Mega sport events (e.g. Olympic Games, FIFA World Cup, the Super Bowl, etc.) have been widely touted for their tourism, social, and economic contributions to the regions and communities that host these events (Chalip, 2006; Daniels and Norman, 2003; Deery et al., 2004). However, only a handful of studies have focussed on the issues faced by the organizing committees (OCs) who are assembled to stage and deliver these large‐scale events. For example, research on the evolutionary phases (Parent, 2008), structure (Hanlon and Jago, 2000; Theodoraki, 2001), decision‐making processes (Parent, 2010), volunteer management (Farrell et al., 1998), and legacy management (Preuss, 2007) have discussed a number of challenges faced by OC's as they prepare for the event. Despite the importance of each of these foci, one often overlooked aspect is how the work environment influences long‐term OC employees.

OCs are temporary organizations that are responsible for the planning and delivery of the event. While the committees share certain characteristics with other organizations (i.e. temporary and permanent organizations), OCs differ in several areas. For example, the rapid growth, predetermined life‐span, dynamic hiring practices, and international spotlight of the event distinguish the OC from other (arguably more mainstream) organizations. In addition, OC employees are unlike employees in other temporary industries (e.g. theatre, film, and construction industries) in several points. OC employees come from diverse professional backgrounds and skill sets (Hanlon and Jago, 2004; McDonald, 1991); they are less likely to be vested in a career related to the event; and their permanent career will likely continue outside of sport after the event has concluded (Hanlon and Jago, 2004; Xing and Chalip, 2009).

The rapid growth, constantly changing structure, and temporary existence of the OC are all features that create a unique confluence of stressors for long‐term employees. Stressors are the stimuli that can lead to positive or negative psychological, physiological, and behavioral outcomes (Jex, 1998). In the present study, we focus on the following stressors: workload, time pressure, role stressors, job insecurity, and work‐family conflict. These specific stressors speak to the organizational and managerial complexities that are inherent in OC work.

Xing and Chalip (2009) examined the experiences of employees from the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games. In their analysis, the authors noted that rapid growth and the temporary nature of the OC increased employee stress. In addition, the authors found that work stress was abated by social support, learning through their work, and the symbolic significance of the event (Xing and Chalip, 2009). These findings provide a first glimpse into OC employee stress. However, the sources of work stress and coping strategies of mega‐event employees have yet to be fleshed out. Given this commentary, the purpose of this study was to explore the coping strategies used by long‐term mega‐event employees related to work stressors. Instead of generalizing or proposing how stress should be attended to, the objective of this research was to explore, and begin to understand the stressors and coping processes that are unique to the OC context.

2. The stress and coping processes

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) described stress as a transactional process between a person and their environment. This theory on stress is grounded in a cognitive appraisal process where an individual continually appraises a relationship between themselves and their work environment, beginning with a primary appraisal. The primary appraisal consists of the perception of what is at stake in a stressful encounter. If an environmental encounter is regarded as non‐stressful or irrelevant, the person will simply ignore it. On the other hand, if the environmental encounter is considered harmful, the individual may see it as threatening (i.e. potential for harm) or challenging (i.e. potential for mastery or gain; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). The secondary appraisal is an evaluation of coping options and expectations with regard to the effectiveness of coping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). This cognitive elaboration continues as a transaction between the person and the environment that includes cognitive reappraisals of the individual's coping effectiveness and resources to continue coping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1987). Therefore, an individual's reaction to stress, or coping method, is contingent on how they appraise the individual stressor.

2.1 Individual stressors

In the current study, both work stressors and non‐work stressors were examined among employees of three mega‐events: the National Football League's (NFL) Super Bowl XLIV and Super Bowl XLV and the 2011 Special Olympics World Summer Games held in Athens, Greece. The work stressors (e.g. workload, time pressure, and role stressors) are caused by interactions (i.e. encounters) relevant to accomplishing organizational goals. The non‐work stressors (e.g. job insecurity and work‐family conflict) are based on individual circumstances outside the immediate work environment.

Workload stress is attributed to the amount of perceived work, and can be referred to in terms of quantitative (i.e. amount of work) and qualitative (i.e. difficulty of work) workload (Jex, 1998). While most mega sport events recur on a regular (e.g. Super Bowl each year) or interval basis (e.g. Olympic Games every four years), they are rarely held in the same location. This aspect of the event requires a new OC to run the event each time it is staged. As such, the planning and delivery of the event is susceptible to unforeseen complications and delays, which could lead to high employee workload (Parent, 2008; Xing and Chalip, 2009). This stress can be attributed to both qualitative, because the employees may be asked to perform unfamiliar tasks, and quantitative workload, because the significant amount of preparation is needed for the event. While workload stress has recently been found to have positive effects on motivation, it is still associated with an increase in strain (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2004, 2005).

Due to the fast‐paced, high‐intensity nature of the position, one of the more obvious stressors for OC employees is time pressure. The delivery date for any sport mega‐event is typically set years in advance and cannot be changed. Moreover, countless deadlines prior to the event must be met for tasks that include sponsorship sales, hotel reservations, and volunteer recruitment (among others). Although for recurring events such as the Super Bowl and Olympic Games time estimates can be made based on prior events, the uniqueness of each mega‐event makes it difficult to set accurate and realistic deadlines for each task. Thus, employees face a high level of stress from time pressure as they constantly work to meet deadlines. This effect is compounded by the level of velocity OC's experience throughout the majority of their life cycle (Parent, 2010). Like workload stress, time pressure is associated with some favorable outcomes (e.g. motivation) but has a positive correlation with strain as well (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2004, 2005).

Role stressors refer to role conflict and role ambiguity, which are common sources of work stress. Prior research has shown the pejorative effects of role stressors on motivation and other individual outcomes (e.g. LePine et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2007). For example, role ambiguity results from not having clearly defined job duties (Kahn et al., 1964) and is especially problematic for new hires if proper training is not provided or if the employee is forced to deal with major organizational changes. Therefore, OCs that hire new employees and change organizational structure throughout their existence may be highly susceptible to role ambiguity (Parent, 2010). Role conflict, on the other hand, is caused by competing or conflicting job demands or instructions (Kahn et al., 1964). For example, the rapid growth, changing organizational structure, unfamiliarity between employees, and the uniqueness of the OCs structure increases the likelihood that role stressors will manifest.

Job insecurity is inherent to OC work, particularly among long‐term employees since they cannot be simultaneously employed elsewhere. However, job insecurity in the mega‐event context is different from the traditional description that results from downsizing, layoffs, new technology, or changing organizational priorities. Mega‐event job insecurity stems from the completion of the organization's goals, resulting in the dismantling of the organization. Unlike other stressors, job insecurity is anticipated by OC employees. De Cuyper and De Witte (2007) examined the effect of work status (i.e. temporary vs permanent) and job insecurity on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Their findings revealed a significant interaction between job insecurity and work status exists. For example, permanent workers with high job insecurity were less satisfied and committed than temporary workers. Since OC employees are part of a temporary organization, they know exactly when their employment will cease and can plan accordingly. However, OC employees become unemployed shortly after the peak moment of their employment (i.e. the event) and it remains unclear how they cope with the reality of unemployment during a period with such high work demands.

Like job insecurity, work‐family conflict is a non‐work stressor that is more concerned with an individual's personal circumstances (e.g. expected job status after the event and whether or not they have a family) rather than everyday work experiences (e.g. work‐related stressors). Work‐family stress can be subdivided into several forms of conflict between work life and family life, which include time, strain, and behavioral conflicts (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000). In cases where work‐family stress is hypothesized to exist, the construct is holistically examined as any instance where there is conflict between an individual's work life and non‐work life. Although these stressors have been linked with specific positive and negative outcomes (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2004, 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2007), the current research does not test relationships with other variables. Instead, we sought to examine the unique stressors and observe the corresponding coping strategies.

2.2 Coping strategies

Coping is an individual's behavioral or cognitive response to a specific stressor regardless of the effectiveness of the response (Folkman, 1984; Folkman et al., 1986; Latack and Havlovic, 1992). Coping is generally geared toward two ends: first, to reduce or eliminate the source of the stress (i.e. problem‐focussed coping); and second, to address the emotions or effects of the stressor (i.e. emotion‐focussed coping; Folkman et al., 1986). Folkman et al. (1986) provided a “ways of coping” checklist, which specified eight coping methods (i.e. distancing, self‐controlling, accepting responsibility, escape‐avoidance, and positive reappraisal), two problem‐focussed coping methods (i.e. planful problem solving and confrontive coping) and one mixed emotion and problem‐focussed coping method (i.e. seeking social support).

In their checklist, Folkman et al. (1986) defined distancing as an attempt to detach oneself from the situation (e.g. “I didn’t let it get to me” and “I refused to think about it too much”). Self‐controlling is an attempt to regulate one's feelings and actions (e.g. “I tried to keep feelings to myself” and “I tried not to act too hastily or follow my first hunch”). Accepting responsibility describes a circumstance where the individual assigns blame to themselves for their situation (e.g. “criticized or lectured myself” and “realized I brought the problem on myself”). Escape‐avoidance is a cognitive and/or behavioral coping strategy to elude the situation (e.g. “I tried to make myself feel better by eating” and “I slept more than usual”). Positive reappraisal is a cognitive strategy aimed at finding positive meaning in the situation (e.g. “changed or grew as a person in a good way” and “I came out of the experience better than I went in”). Planful problem solving is a behavioral strategy focussed on altering the situation and addressing the problem (e.g. “I knew what had to be done, so I doubled my efforts to make things work” and “I made a plan of action and followed it”). Confrontive coping is more aggressive and is focussed on changing the situation through action (e.g. “stood my ground and fought for what I needed” and “took a big chance or did something very risky”). Finally, seeking social support is geared toward addressing the problem or the emotional reaction based on the nature of the support. For example, “accepted sympathy and understanding from someone” is emotion focussed, while “talked to someone to find out more about the situation” is problem focussed.

It is important to note that the two coping tracks are not mutually exclusive and individuals often use both when responding to stress (Folkman et al., 1986). However, scrutinizing the reactions of individuals may reveal a common pattern indicative of how individuals perceive certain stressors.

3. Method

The objective of this study was to explore the stress and coping process of mega‐event OC employees by analyzing their responses regarding specific work stressors. To accomplish this, semi‐structured interviews were conducted to assess the presence of the stressors and the coping strategies of the six Super Bowl OC employees. Once the data from the Super Bowl interviews were collected, transcribed, and analyzed, the additional four interviews from the Special Olympics were performed. The interviews were included to supply additional perspectives from OCs of different mega‐event, which adds richness to the data. Unlike the NFL's Super Bowl, an annual event, the Special Olympics occur every two years, alternating between summer and winter games. The Super Bowl takes place at a different, existing NFL stadium, while the Special Olympics are held in a different country each time with multiple venues for the various events. Mega‐event OCs recruit and employ thousands of volunteers, contractors, and short‐ and long‐term employees. Long‐term employee recruitment is typically performed at the local level and is based heavily on the requisite skills for each position (McDonald, 1991). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no scientific literature on how OCs recruit their workforce. Intuitively, however, differences can be expected depending on the size and complexity of the event.

3.1 Sample

The Super Bowl and Special Olympic Games are prominent mega‐events that differ in size, scope, and planning. The events, and the specific participants, were selected using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling. For example, participants with varying ranges of background and responsibilities within the OCs were sought in addition to those who were available to discuss their position. At minimum, the participants needed to have worked for the current OC for six months to guard against short‐term employment. Following the interview, the participants were asked to recommend other employees who could participate in the study. Participants from different OCs were selected in order to remove possible confounding effects that might influence the presence of stressors or coping strategies. For example, if a particular OC suffered a budget shortage, it might compound the stressors for all employees. By sampling employees from different OCs, these (and other) confounding effects were mitigated.

In all, six employees from two consecutive Super Bowls were interviewed, as well as four employees from the 2011 Special Olympics World Summer Games. The respondents included two female employees from the South Florida Super Bowl Host Committee (Super Bowl XLIV), which was in the wrap‐up phase of the event (i.e. two months after the completion of the event; Parent, 2008). They both held high‐ranking positions within the OC and held similar positions on a previous committee (i.e. in the same facility) three years earlier. The participants explained that having two Super Bowls so close together had never occurred before. Furthermore, they also noted that the committees were each separate entities with only a handful of employees in common. Both participants (F1 and F2) were in their 30s and had mixed experience in and out of the sport industry.

The interview participants from the North Texas Super Bowl Host Committee (Super Bowl XLV) included three females and one male. The three females included one in her 40s with extensive sport industry experience (F3), one in her mid‐20s with limited sport event experience (F4), and one in her 40s with no sport‐related experience (F5). The only male participant was in his 60s and had decades of sport industry experience, including several previous mega‐events (M1). Their positions in the OC included a top‐level administrator (F3), a volunteer coordinator (F4), administrative assistant (F5), facility manager (M1). The participants were interviewed in the planning stage (i.e. several months before the event; Parent, 2008).

The four participants from the Special Olympics included two men and two women, all native Greek citizens in their 30s who spoke English: first, a venue manager with volunteer experience at a previous mega‐event (M2); second, an accreditation manager who worked a previous mega‐event in Greece and was unemployed before the Special Olympics (F6); third, a logistics manager who worked a previous mega‐event in Greece and worked in private sector logistics (M3); and finally, an assistant venue manager with previous experience in sport but not mega‐events (F7). The employees were interviewed four months after the event when they were no longer working for the OC.

3.2 Interviews

The interviews averaged approximately 30 minutes and consisted of exploratory questions about the participant's background, career path, and OC responsibilities. To assess the presence of stressors and the corresponding coping strategies, participants were asked about what aspects of their job they found stressful, and how they dealt with stress and what could make their job easier. In addition, the participants were asked to reflect on their experience throughout their previous tenure up to the present time.

3.3 Analysis

The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a general inductive approach outlined by Thomas (2006). This approach was selected because of its simplicity and flexibility in allowing the researcher to find general themes and build theory. Three independent coders used a set of definitions and examples of the stressors and coping strategies to identify instances of each from the interviews. The researchers compared their interview coding sheets and discussed any discrepancies between them until consensus was reached. When discrepancies were observed, the primary author served as the final arbiter. Once the stressors and coping strategies were identified, the data were pile‐sorted by stressor so that each instance of the stressor was listed together with its corresponding coping strategy. Analysis of the data from this perspective allowed for patterns in coping to be seen based on the stressor.

The two participants from the South Florida Super Bowl spoke on the execution of the event and also discussed job insecurity. The participant's remarks on job insecurity were not altogether surprising since they were only two weeks away from ending their positions. In a similar fashion, the participants from the Special Olympics spoke to the entirety of their experiences including their time since their departure of the OC. On the other hand, the North Texas Super Bowl participants only spoke about their experiences during the earlier stages of the event. This was not considered a limitation to the research endeavor because we sought to create a general picture of how and which stressors impact mega‐event employees, not bounded by time.

Responses from the three groups were compared for each stressor and theme, and were consistent in nearly all regard relevant to answering the research question. The only discrepancies between the groups came from the Special Olympics employees; these interviews revealed a strong desire to continue mega‐event work, and a feeling of sadness after the event was completed. The differences are discussed in the subsequent sections below.

4. Findings and discussion

The analysis yielded several interesting findings that underpinned the stressors, coping mechanisms, and general stress that exist among the participants. The initial look at the data revealed a pattern (i.e. theme) of selflessness in the coping behaviors. For example, the participants tended to favor problem‐focussed coping in response to work‐related stressors and emotion‐focussed coping in response to non‐work stressors. A second coping theme was the perception of time and place among the participants. This theme referred to the view of time as both a source of stress and a means to cope with that stress. Third, the career paths of the participants played a role in how stress was appraised. Fourth, the participants from the Special Olympics described a general feeling of depression as the realization set in that the games were over. Many of the participants viewed the stress of the job as a necessary step toward their desired career goals. In addition to the coping process themes, other themes (within each stressor) highlighted differences in how the stressors in this context operate compared to permanent organizations.

4.1 The stressors

An advantage of using semi‐structured interviews is the ability to analyze and interpret, from the participants own words, how appraisal and coping with each stressor occurred. For each of the stressors, contextual factors appeared to influence how the stressors uniquely affected the Super Bowl employees, as opposed to more traditionally structured organizations.

4.1.1 Workload

Although the participants may be different in terms of their background, personality, expectations of the work, and perceptions of working for a particular event, they are also similar – in that – they share the same situational context. However, we should also note that because they are not simultaneously employed elsewhere, full‐time (i.e. long term) employees are different from short‐term employees who will return to their primary job after the event has concluded. Short‐term employees are not expected to leave their primary place of employment but instead use vacation time or operate under some other arrangement in order to serve the event. Based on this characteristic, it is unlikely that short‐term employees would be as greatly affected by workload stressors compared to employees who endure the changing nature and high work demands of working on an OC for an extended period.

Workload stress was prominent among the participants, both quantitatively and qualitatively. On the quantitative side, the number of hours worked per week appeared to regularly exceed a typical 40 hours workweek and sleep was considered a commodity. Two of the participants from the South Florida Super Bowl, who were in the wrap‐up phase of the event, commented on the amount of work and its effect:

At some point, fatigue does get to you […] Just because I’m not at the office [is irrelevant], I’m still up doing stuff. On a normal day, I don’t ever go to bed until like midnight. And when they invented 5‐hour energy that was the best thing ever (F1).

Sleeping was joyful. We had about three hours of sleep a night for three weeks […] That definitely adds a lot of stress […] I think you just rather prepare yourself and you get so run down and worn out (F2).

While the two participants were affected by the amount of hours they worked, they did not appear disheartened or discouraged. As seen in the quotes, the general response to workload stress was to continue working, referred to as planful problem solving. Another participant rationalized the amount of work as part of the job and part of being young (i.e. positive reappraisal) and similarly was undeterred in her work ethic (i.e. planful problem solving):

I work all the time. But that's just something you do when you’re young and eager and new in your career, you work all the time […] some people don’t understand the dynamics of something like this […] If we get a call at midnight and something needs to happen the next day we make it happen (F4).

This positive reappraisal was also evident in the response from one Special Olympics employee who was asked to take on extra responsibilities despite his already heavy workload. However, his positive reappraisal was grounded in his passion for the work and the Special Olympics:

Whoever loves the games is very motivated by it. I mean, there wasn’t a chance that I wouldn’t [take on these extra responsibilities] because I knew somebody has to do it […] I knew I would have to work more but it was something that I really liked and we were very motivated to do so (M3).

In sum, the coping mechanism used for workload stress was almost exclusively planful problem solving (i.e. problem‐focussed coping), with the few emotion‐focussed methods centered on rationalizing the extra work.

4.1.2 Time pressure

Time pressure is an inherent reality for OC employees. In order to successfully execute the event on schedule, countless immovable deadlines must be met. Many OCs follow a script and set completion dates for tasks based on previous events. While this strategy of time estimation is generally accepted in traditional organizations, mega‐events are held in different cities or countries and thus have to rely on information from a very different situation. For example, securing sponsorships and recruiting volunteers in different cities or cultures may be a vastly different undertaking. Irrespective of situational issues, the participants’ view of time pressure was similar to workload because the typical response to even the tightest deadline was to work harder to meet the demands of the job (i.e. planful problem solving):

Everything has to be done right now. There is no “let's prepare for it and then we’ll execute it in three weeks” every deadline is pretty much right now (F1).

I mean it's like you have get it done no matter what. Obviously it's a deadline or a timeline, you can’t put it off (F2).

From the quote above, it is clear that time pressure stress was apparent from the deadlines they were facing but seemed to continually appraise the stress as a challenge. This finding is consistent with previous literature (see LePine et al., 2005), and is notable in the current context because it was seen as a significant source of stress for the OC employees.

4.1.3 Role stress

Role stressors were also a reality of the job resulting from the unique developmental process of OCs, the unfamiliarity of the context, and general inexperience among the employees. Participants commented on how frequently unexpected demands arose. The unexpected nature of the job was exacerbated in the case of the North Texas Super Bowl because this the first time the event was hosted in that community and experience among the staff was limited. Change was a daily part of the job and although the extent of the impact on the employee effectiveness is unknown, it was clearly something that had to be endured:

There is nothing clearly defined about being part of a host committee. It's an always changing process. The only thing you can count on is change and it changes daily. Roles morph into one another, you start to recognize where peoples talents are. You have to be flexible when you’re hired to work for a host committee because what you get hired to do and where you get plugged in will change. And that's good it keeps things lively it keeps things evolving and you’re always trying to be efficient (F3).

In this instance, the constant change was appraised (or seen) as an advantage (i.e. coded as positive reappraisal) but it was also consistently seen as a challenge that was met with planful problem solving:

We spent literally the entire morning explaining our organizational structure to all […] the new hires that we just brought on. You need an org chart, you need to be able to explain it succinctly, and you need to review it, and it changes regularly. And the more people understand the structure […] it helps everyone do their jobs, you have to be efficient (F3).

For the Special Olympics, dealing with role stress was part of the job as well. However, part of the respondent's coping mechanism seemed to emerge from their culture. When asked about instances where unexpected responsibilities would arise, one participant described his and others’ willingness to take them on:

You have to cooperate with everybody in the organizing committee in order to deliver results […] it is not nice to say “it is not my business to do so,” it is not in the spirit of the Games. But I cannot be very specific about this. Many things have been done by many people that was not their responsibility, some very big and some very small (M3).

4.1.4 Job insecurity

Because of the varied career paths of the participants, the coping strategies associated with job insecurity stress revealed some interesting dynamics that illustrate each participant's unique situation. Employees working full time for the OC become jobless within a few months after the event is completed; this leaves little time for a thorough job search. Although cognizant of their impending joblessness, the respondents did not let it interfere with their current work role:

I think everyone started for looking for a job after the Games […] but during the Games we were running so fast we couldn’t do anything else like look for another job (F6).

I could work all day, every day, through the night and still have something to do. And that's how it's going to be through February 6th. So I definitely don’t have time to look for a job, you know? And I’m up on those teamworkonline.com sites and stuff like that I get little postings, and you can kind of file that in your mind, but by no means am I already looking and networking to find something right after this (F4).

This apparent distancing was consistent and was accompanied by a significant amount of positive reappraisal (i.e. participants seemed to look at the situation from a positive perspective). Two participants commented that unlike in traditional jobs, there was an advantage to job searching in a temporary position:

At least I know when I’m going to be unemployed. And maybe it's just a rationalization but at least you know what the task is, that is to find another position. And you know that when you’re looking for it you don’t have to hide it from your compatriots that you’re looking for another job, whereas in a regular situation you have to hide that. You generally can’t let your organization know that you’re looking for another job when you’re employed, that's the surest way to get you fired (M1).

I think that makes it easier to talk to people […] I was at one [event] where my old boss was at and he went up to somebody and asked “when are you going to hire her?” And he said “well I’m definitely going to talk to her when [the Super Bowl] starts to wind down” (F5).

Interestingly, joblessness stress was relatively minor compared to the larger fear mentioned by three participants working for a Super Bowl. This particular fear centered on a job offer that began before the Super Bowl was over. Thus, while job insecurity was present, the participants’ coping behavior was not to search for a new job but rather to focus on their present job and rationalize the desirability of their situation.

4.1.5 Work‐family

The final stressor pointed to balancing work life with family and social life. The long hours and difficulty of the work affected the participants’ lives outside of the OC. When asked generally about balancing work and everything else, one interviewee said “[…] it [the balance of work and social life] made non‐work things almost absolutely impossible” (F5). In general, emotion‐focussed coping (i.e. distancing, escape‐avoidance) was more prominent regarding work‐family stress. However, this could also be planful problem solving because when asked about the looming absence from her family and friends, one participant remarked that “[…] I had my little goodbye party and we all went out for drinks because I’m not going to see [them] again until February” (F1).

One Special Olympics (F6) participant compared her experiences from a previous mega‐event she worked when she was single, to her most recent experience working a mega‐event as a married mother of two:

I think it is very different if you have children than if you don’t have children. This is what I was thinking from the beginning when I was in the [2004 Athens] Olympic Games. I confirmed it with the Special Olympics.

In general, she coped with work‐family stress by relying on family members and focussing on her work and family; not allowing other parts of her life to interfere (i.e. seeking social support, planful problem solving). In addition, and perhaps the most notable observation about the coping with work‐family stress, was that certain sacrifices were made by the employee. For example, the participants did not mention any effort to work fewer hours. Instead, they spoke mainly of the changes in their daily lives since working there:

And your family has to be understanding too, there are times you have to put work first but they need to understand it's for a defined period of time. It's not something that will continue on for the rest of their career. You’re doing it to achieve a certain goal and certain end. But you have to make sacrifices and in some cases it's daily (F3).

5. Themes

In a final holistic analysis of the data, several themes were revealed including the selflessness found in the participants’ coping strategies, the participants’ sense of time and place, how their coping may have been influenced by their career path, and finally a sense of depression that seemed to occur after the event. All but the last theme (i.e. post‐event depression) represent findings consistent across participants and stressors that inform how the participants perceived their environments and appraised the encountered stress.

5.1 Selflessness

With little exception, the participants reported sacrifices in their personal, professional, and social lives in order to focus on immediate work demands. Since the propensity for work‐related stressors were met with problem‐focussed coping, and non‐work stressors were met with emotion‐focussed coping, this particular theme is supported. Regardless of the coping strategy used, it was evident that the goal of coping with work‐stressors was to overcome them by accomplish organizational goals. Participants routinely bore the brunt of the work stress that pushed their limits yet still strove to produce high‐quality work rather than cutting corners or refusing extra responsibilities:

It is very hard to explain to someone how much work there actually is. I mean that was the most stressful thing getting pulled a thousand different direction and trying to focused and get everything done and at a high standard because of what we’re working for (F2).

Alternatively, the goal of coping with non‐work stressors was to not let the stress interfere with work‐life as seen by the sacrifices they made:

Your kids want you to be at every event [of theirs] and you can’t be but you can try to be at both and help them understand when you have to be away, why (F5).

While on the surface this finding is intriguing, the underlying (and contributing) mechanisms have not been adequately revealed. It is possible that selflessness was a result of the OC hiring people with this particular attribute, or that OCs foster high commitment from the employees during the planning stages of the event. Since this finding was pervasive across all three OCs (i.e. regardless of the participant's position), it is less likely that the selflessness was a function of a planned effort. Perhaps selflessness was part of some underlying phenomena that either attracts people with this trait, or something about mega‐event work that conjures an emotional connection from the employee. From the data, however, it is difficult to draw solid conclusions regarding selflessness and its impact on outcomes such as job satisfaction, strain, or burnout. Nevertheless, this finding provides valuable insight into the cognitive process of how long‐term mega‐event employees cope with the unique job stressors.

5.2 Time and place

Also evident was a sense of time and place. The interviewees were cognizant of time as a valuable and limited resource and their role in a historic event:

The only thing you don’t have enough of is time. Money can be raised, people can be hired but you can’t get back time. So you have to be efficient with what you do and how you do it and make sure the right people are doing the right job (F3).

Time can be your biggest ally or your biggest enemy (M2).

These perceptions played an important part in the stress process for the OC employees. As discussed, time pressure was an ever‐present stressor requiring attention and perseverance. While primarily due to immediate deadlines, all the interviewees were well aware of the event date and all could even cite how many days until the event. In particular, on participant remarked, “[…] All you can do is think about kickoff at 5:28pm on Feb 6 and the rest will take care of itself” (F3).

While the end‐date was a constant source of stress, the end‐date was also perceived as the time when most of the stress would be relieved. In other words, the interviewees justified the long hours and time away from their families as something that was fleeting. This aspect is clearly unique to a temporary workforce because in permanent jobs employees do not have an end‐date where the majority of their work stress will be relieved. It is unclear if this helped the participants endure more stress than they normally would have, but their responses do suggest it was a part of their coping process.

Lastly, the participants all described working for a mega‐event as a once‐in‐a‐lifetime experience. When responding to inquiries about their decision to work for the Super Bowl, one employee commented that “[…] it's a chance to do something historic, a chance to see this event that I helped bring to North Texas through to completion” (F3). Additional comments were made as reflections of the stress endured:

How can you say being involved with a Super Bowl is not a positive experience? It's a once in a lifetime opportunity, it is a history making event here in North Texas because it's the first Super Bowl ever [hosted in the region]. So that in itself has a whole aura and element to it (F5).

This sentiment supports Xing and Chalip (2009) who remarked that the work stress for Beijing Olympic employees was mitigated by feelings of the symbolic significance of the event, and in McDonald (1991) where reminders of their place in history served to inspire and motivate. While the Super Bowl lacks much of the symbolism of an Olympic Games, the employees nonetheless interpreted symbolism as something unique.

5.3 Career paths

To explore the dynamics of job insecurity stress, participants commented on their decision to work for a mega‐event OC and their future career plans. Identifying the participant's motives provided a great deal of insight into their coping behavior. Supovitz and Goldblatt (2004) proposed four categories of employee career paths in sport: first, those already working in the field (e.g. NFL employees who work for a Super Bowl host committee); second, recent graduates from sport and event management majors seeking their first job; third, career shifters who leverage their position in an sport event OC for a career in the sport industry; and finally, job seekers who are currently unemployed. For example, an employee might have based their decision to leave a permanent position and endure the stress in order to tout the prestige involved with working for such a high‐profile event; presumably, so they could land a more favorable job afterwards. Conversely, another employee might be from the local government on a temporary assignment to work for the event. These individuals might cope with stress differently as the former may see the work as an investment toward their future, as opposed to the latter assignment‐based role.

In terms of the Super Bowl participants, only one (F3) left a permanent (11 years) position to work for the event, two others worked for a previous Super Bowl, two others had been jobless, and one just out of temporary appointment. All participants were hired through a connection with someone in the OC. Five of the six Super Bowl participants were interested in pursuing a permanent job in sport after the event. The only participant without prior sport industry experience (F5) was eager to return to a job in her previous industry of communications and marketing. None of the participants wished to work for future mega‐events.

At the time of the data collection, none of the Super Bowl participants had secured employment. However, all of them had clear ideas regarding the type of work they wanted after the event. For all but F5, the participants felt the experience of working on a Super Bowl would help them reach their career goals. Interestingly, of the participants, F5 had the most negative experience working in the Super Bowl. While the other participants reported stress, F5 was very open in lambasting others involved in the OC when describing her experiences. However, it is not clear why such negativity manifested. It could stem from a misalignment between organizational and employee goals, or is simply be a product of the experience working with others.

In contrast, all four former employees from the Special Olympics expressed great interest in working another mega‐event. When asked about why they wanted to continue working in mega‐events, references to the excitement of the games and the planning stages prior to the games were mentioned:

That is a difficult question […] I am familiar with the mentality behind sports, but I can’t actually explain it to you. I like the rush of the Games but I like the preparation before that […] As soon as you get in there you want to do it over and over again (F7).

Stemming from this excitement, the participants spoke about an addiction to mega‐event work:

It is addictive, I’m addicted. I want to work for another event again. I tell myself I want to get a more steady job, I’m still young, I still have a few more years to have a family, but I am trying to find my addiction again. It's like a drug (M2).

One participant provided extensive insight into the dynamics of international mega‐event work, and the “system” in which many of his colleagues are involved:

In order to stay in the system you have to work for events consecutively, one event after the other. If you get out of it, the system throws you out. I tried to get back into the event management business but I stayed out four to six months. Most of the org committee went to the Arab Games in Doha, Qatar, a big percentage of the employees because it was the next big event (M2).

Other Special Olympics participants mentioned the transient nature of employees moving event to event, often relocating their families to different countries. It is not clear if this is something inherent to all international‐level mega‐events but nothing similar mentioned or suggested by any Super Bowl employees. Much like the Super Bowl employees, Special Olympics employees were recruited through colleagues already working for the games. At the time they took the job, two were unemployed, one was completing a temporary job, and another left a permanent job as a career change. After the games two of the employees remained unemployed, one began working as a venue manager, and one went on to work for the 2011 Arab Games.

In all, the career paths of the employees appeared to be a salient issue among the participants. Although we cannot draw definitive conclusions from the data, it is apparent that employees appraise the stress from the mega‐events very differently, which correlates to their line of work perspectives. This is evident from the drastically different accounts of employees who could not wait for the experience to be over, compared to the employees who could not wait to go through it again.

5.4 Post‐event emotions

A final theme emerged primarily from the data collected from the Special Olympics employees. A few months removed from the event, three employees shared their post‐event emotions. For them, the end of the games was marked by a period of sadness and depression. One participant compared the depression to that experienced by athletes after competition:

It is the type of depression athletes have after the Olympics or World Championships. And I think it is the same, [it] affects people working in games. No matter how excited you get, you are going to go through a depressive state (F7).

The dissenting participant admitted a different emotion, “[…] I was relieved to be with my children again” (F6). However, she added that in her previous mega‐event experience a different appraisal was felt: “[…] in the Olympics, I didn’t have any children, I was just sad that the Olympics was over […] [We would have to leave] the friends we had made over the years” (F6).

The participants also described conflicting emotions. Although a handful of the Super Bowl employees had experienced the end‐date of a mega‐event, one well‐travelled participant recalled the mood after a previous mega‐event:

I saw it with the World Cup. People still coming to the office, some of them still wearing their uniforms after the thing was over because they were used to coming to that office for a year or two and it was like they didn’t want to let go. They built this little community they met people became friends and everyone was united in this common goal and then boom it's going to go away (M1).

Perhaps the most representative statement, illustrating a range of emotions from the sudden end to a long journey, was provided by a Special Olympics employee:

You’re physically and mentally exhausted, but at the same time you don’t want it to end. You don’t want it to be over. It's a very complicated and mixed feeling. It's very sentimental for me. You want it to end, but at the same time, you want it to last forever. Imagine. It is 2 years of your life, night and day, working for one goal for 8 days […] For 8 days 10,000 people, night and day and boom, it's over (M2).

6. Conclusion

This study examined work life stressors and corresponding coping strategies present among long‐term employees of mega‐event OCs. Although this study only contains the accounts of ten mega‐event employees, it encompassed three OCs associated with two distinct mega‐events, and at different time points. While several common coping themes were found, some differences were found in post‐event emotions. Moreover, considering the depth of literature in work stress, this study addressed a relatively narrow set of stressors.

Nevertheless, it is evident that mega‐event OCs are staffed by a diverse workforce who face a unique set of challenges not seen in any other industry contexts. The findings shed light on the dynamics and themes that suggest work stress in mega‐event OCs is perhaps more multifaceted than previously acknowledged in the literature. In addition, the study of the employee requires more attention from researchers to uncover the underlying mechanisms involved in the coping strategies. However, much like the accounts of previous OC employees (McDonald, 1991; Xing and Chalip, 2009), it appears that a sport mega‐event has a special meaning to those employees. This was illustrated by the participants’ constant awareness of their involvement in a historic event. This larger sense of purpose may also explain the reason why selflessness was so prevalent in their coping strategies. In some cases, this act of selflessness even took priority over family and personal issues. Similarly, the role of the experience in the participant's professional life may also be quite influential. Further inquiry into the overall “meaning” of a sport mega‐event is needed to more formally understand how employee's appraise and cope with stress. From there, additional insight can be gleaned regarding the effects on strain, burnout, job performance, satisfaction, and how long‐term mega‐event work impacts on the personal and professional life of those who bring the event to fruition.

Although this study does not draw definitive conclusions for practical use, there is utility in exploring the different stressors present in mega‐event work. By becoming increasingly cognizant of the stressors and coping strategies of OC employees, event organizers can adjust the work environment to lessen the potential for pejorative outcomes associated with some stressors. For example, by recognizing that OC employees may neglect their personal lives (i.e. family and career) and possibly their health (i.e. through lack of sleep), event organizers can monitor work hours and employee habits to prevent burnout and health problems. As future research uncovers more coping outcomes, additional practical considerations can be forwarded.

Corresponding author

Michael A. Odio can be contacted at: modio@hhp.ufl.edu