Job Satisfaction in the Face of Organizational Stress: Validating a Stress Symptoms Survey and Exploring Stress-Related Predictors

Abstract

Understanding the relationship between work stress and job satisfaction is crucial for promoting employee well-being and also for sustainable organizational performance. This study proposes and validates, within the population of employees in Serbia, the Stress Symptoms Survey (SSS), an 18-item instrument for measuring physical and psychological symptoms of work-related stress. The scale shows strong internal consistency where a general factor is highly saturated with all survey items. Regression analysis indicated that lack of organizational support was the strongest predictor of lowered job satisfaction, followed by stress symptoms and general job stress; job pressure showed a positive association with job satisfaction when other stressors were controlled. These results highlight the practical value of the SSS and underscore the crucial role of supportive work environments in mitigating stress, enhancing satisfaction and achieving sustainable work performance.

1. Introduction

Rapid advancements in information technology, along with mergers, acquisitions, easier access to information, increased productivity, globalization, and intense competition, have contributed to growing stress in the organizational settings [1], which affects aspects such as job satisfaction [2] and sustainable work performance [3,4]. It is well established that stress at work is unavoidable, and in moderate levels even quite desirable [5]. In recent years its relationship to the work-life balance has gained significant attention [6,7]; however, there is still a need to understand this complex relationship—its different aspects [8], potential non-linearity [9], and varying geographical contexts [10].

Although there are numerous publications observing this phenomenon at the global level, there is little evidence from developing countries in South-Eastern Europe, and more specifically, from Serbia. So far, this evidence suggests that stressors at work are significant negative predictors of job satisfaction [11], and that the employees’ well-being influences the work-related stress [12]. In a recent survey [13], it was found that 94% of employees in Serbia face some of the problems in the domain of well-being, and 72% of them identify stress as the most important problem. This research aims to add to the contemporary literature by exploring further the relationship between stress and satisfaction in the workplace in Serbia, with additional focus on stress symptoms as predictors of job satisfaction.

At the present time, the current body of knowledge does not provide many options to measure stress symptoms within the working population. Some research focuses only on somatic symptoms whilst ignoring mental aspects [14]; others turn to job burnout symptoms [15] or observe symptoms of chronic stress [16]; some have an unclear structure and theoretical foundation [17] or lack valid information [18]. The need for an instrument that allows for a more accurate and thorough assessment of the physical and psychological symptoms of stress has arisen in light of the previously voiced criticisms of these measures. Hence, this research also aims to contribute to the research field by constructing and validating the Stress Symptoms Survey (SSS) as a measuring tool with practical value to the companies and researchers alike.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Job Stress

An increasingly widespread problem, work-related stress affects not only the health and well-being of employees but also an organization’s productivity [19]. People experience stress when they find it difficult to cope with an obstacle, impediment, or looming threat [20]. It occurs when the demands of a job, in all their forms and combinations, exceed an individual’s capacity to manage and cope.

Stress can be broadly defined as physical, biological, or psychological circumstances that put an organism under more pressure than it can handle. Occupational stress, defined as “a physiological and psychological reaction to events or conditions in the workplace,” is detrimental to health and well-being and depends on a number of occupational variables [21] (p. 727). As reported by Folkman and Lazarus [22], stress is “a relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as relevant to his or her well-being and in which the person’s resources are taxed or exceeded” (p. 152).

Occupational stress has been the subject of numerous studies. According to the American Psychological Association PsycNet database [23], there are 734 articles that include “job stress” as a keyword up to April 2025. In line with this expanding body of research, job stress is one of the most prevalent health problems in many European and international organizations [24].

Stressors at work have been extensively researched, and their effects on businesses and workers are widely recognized. Excessive levels of workplace stress have a detrimental effect on the worker and the company, and they have been linked to declines in worker mental health, morale, productivity, and devotion [25].

Stress is caused by a variety of factors, including globalization, growing competition, rapid changes in everyday life and uncertainty, and technical advancements. According to Erdem et al. [26], working circumstances and job needs, the degree of task control, organizational support, interpersonal interactions, position ambiguity, and organizational change are all possible elements linked to stress in the modern workplace. Longer hours, more cognitive demands, more surveillance, job instability, and increased time pressure are some of the effects of these changes on employees [27].

There are two traditional types of occupational stress [28]: (1) interpersonal stressors or lack of organizational support, which include conflict, bad relationships with coworkers or supervisors, leader narcissism, and workplace abuse (e.g., [29]) and (2) organizational stressors, which include work overload, job pressure, job insecurity, and organizational constraints [30]. On the other hand, according to Friganovic et al. [31], workplace stress can be classified as either psychological or physical. Physical stress is caused by ergonomic issues such as noise, bad lighting, poorly designed offices and workspaces, and bad posture [32,33]. The most prevalent stressor is, by far, psychological stress. High standards at work, rigid timetables, inadequate control, a poorly thought-out plan and structure, harassment, threats, and job insecurity are a few examples [34].

At the microlevel, workplace stress has been associated with negative physical health outcomes, including weakened immune systems, high blood pressure, musculoskeletal disorders, and cardiovascular disease [35]. Depression, anxiety, emotional exhaustion, burnout, and dissatisfaction are among the psychological effects of stress that employees may experience [36]. According to estimates, 14% of Europeans experience anxiety disorders and 7.8% experience mood disorders annually [37]. Workload, time constraints, organizational climate, lack of organizational support, and disagreements with coworkers are examples of common stressors at work [28]. At the macrolevel, stress at work frequently leads to employee discontent, decreased output, absenteeism, and turnover [38]. Bell et al. [39] contended that because occupational stress has a negative impact on workers’ mental and physical health, perceived job stress is linked to poor work–life balance. Employee performance in terms of productivity, quality, safety, and health is negatively impacted by occupational stress [19]. According to Cooper and Faragher [40], the same four factors of workplace stress among general practitioners predicted high levels of job dissatisfaction and poor mental health. Cognitive function, including the capacity to concentrate and process information, can be negatively impacted by poor mental health, which can ultimately lead to poor performance [41].

Well-being is often regarded as a condition relating to standard of living that includes aspects related to the body, mind, emotions, social interactions, and, in certain cases, spirituality and self-actualization [42]. Despite the seeming simplicity of this description, well-being is really a complicated concept with two different approaches: hedonic and eudaimonic [43]. Subjective well-being, also known as the hedonic perspective, focuses on happiness. In order to achieve pleasure and prevent suffering, researchers applying the hedonic perspective try to comprehend the circumstances and mechanisms involved. In contrast, the eudaimonic approach, also known as psychological wellness, focuses on meaning and self-realization and defines well-being as an individual’s capacity for full activity [43].

According to a study developed by Kidger and associates [44], feeling stress or dissatisfaction at work contributes less to well-being and more to depression symptoms. Moreover, even after accounting for work-related stress and dissatisfaction, the desire to talk to a colleague about feeling stressed or down—but feeling unable to do so—was associated with both poor well-being and high levels of depressive symptoms. Broader research has shown that social support—both actual and perceived—is linked to better psychological well-being in general [45,46], as well as within the workplace [47].

According to Lazarus’ theory, the impact of possible stressors on well-being was mostly determined by the individual’s cognitive assessment of them, which reaffirmed the significance of subjective elements in the stress process [22].

Staff-related challenges, including excessive administrative duties [48], stock management [49], and colleagues failing to perform their tasks [50], impact stress levels. Stress stemming from staff issues is linked to burnout, job satisfaction, and the overall health of nurses [34]: key staff concerns identified in this study include poor staff management, insufficient resources, and workplace security risks. Additionally, a lack of resources creates feelings of insecurity about acquiring and maintaining the necessary tools to meet job demands, leading to stress that can result in burnout.

2.2. Lack of Support

Employee understanding of the organization’s worth and care for their well-being is known as perceived organizational support (organization and management) [51]. Support from organizations is based on reciprocity. Employees are first made to believe that the company cares about their welfare and well-being, after which they are obliged to return the favor and ultimately help the company perform better [52]. Support from coworkers is a similar idea. The perception that an employee receives from peers, supervisors, and coworkers is a subtype of social support known as perceived coworker support [53]. When people feel supported by their peers, they experience less stress and are happier. Higher job satisfaction, fewer intentions to leave, and lower levels of emotional weariness are all observed in workers who receive greater support from their coworkers [54].

Besides a strong correlation with organizational success, organizational support has been shown to be a key component in reducing and managing employee stress [55,56]. Consistent with these findings, Erdem and associates [26] found that there is a negative correlation between perceived organizational support and work stress. Employees generate favorable opinions of the company as a result of perceived organizational support. The Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model [57] explains these findings by highlighting the importance of balancing job demands with available resources when assessing employees’ stress and satisfaction. This paradigm emphasizes that social and organizational support are essential for helping workers manage demands and stressors, minimizing negative effects of stress, and fostering positive outcomes such as engagement and satisfaction. The model also distinguishes between hindering and challenging stressors, noting that support can transform potentially burdensome demands into challenges that inspire growth and development in employees.

Rhoades and Eisenberger [58] propose that the existence of workplace equality reinforces perceived support. Additionally, a number of studies have shown that a positive sense of support is crucial for keeping employees [59]. It reduces the likelihood that an employee will leave the company or organization while also tending to reduce workplace aggression and stressors associated with the job. On the other hand, bullying and workplace inequality reduce people’s perceptions of support [60]. According to Richardson and associates [55], although perceived organizational support does not mediate the correlations between challenge stressors and physical strains, perceived social support mediates the relationships between hindrance stressors and cognitive/emotional strains.

Employees and organizations can benefit from social support at work in a number of ways. Social support can mitigate the negative effects of stressful demands and promote better relationships, positive affective responses, and improved individual performance [61]. Examples of organizational support include giving each other emotional support, direction, and assistance, as well as working conditions, supervisor support, and procedural justice. Results of a study conducted by Cho and Lee [62] indicated that the environmental component (lack of support) was negatively correlated with well-being and job satisfaction. Employee well-being suffered as a result of a lack of social support at work, for example, when a manager neglected to recognize their efforts or the relationships they developed with their colleagues.

Large-scale European data have shown that poor organizational recognition and a lack of managerial support are linked to worse mental health outcomes, higher stress levels, and lower job satisfaction [63].

Since work stress is prevalent and may have detrimental impacts on job, health, and personal life, research on the role of social support as a buffer against work stress is still ongoing [64].

2.3. Stress Symptoms

Stress manifests as severe and distinct emotions of worry, uneasiness, timidity, restlessness, and panic. Numerous studies have looked at ambiguity, role conflict, job overload, unsupportive work environment and unpleasant relationships with coworkers or superiors as potential causes of symptoms of stress connected to the workplace [64,65,66,67].

According to a study developed by Heshizer et al. [64], the lack of social support can result in negative mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression. They discovered that the organization’s, the principal’s, and other teachers’ support significantly reduced the symptoms of stress associated with the job. These types of support might offer employees more direct or instrumental help in resolving issues that arise in the workplace. As reported by Khamisa et al. [34], support in the workplace has the motivational potential to help people reach their goals through better performance and greater work engagement. Lack of support leads to compensatory adjustments (narrowing attention and greater selectivity), weariness (drained energy levels), and breakdown.

There are two main schools of thought about the impact of social support and stress symptoms [64]. According to one line of study, stress reactions are directly impacted by social support. The major impact school holds that, regardless of the level of risk and danger to which people are exposed, social support directly aids them in managing the quantity and severity of stress-related symptoms. According to proponents of the primary impact school, social networks help people in general because they offer consistent good experiences as well as knowledge and expertise that help people avoid and manage work-related pressures more skillfully. This model is supported by classic research such as that of Cohen and Wills [68], who demonstrated that social support consistently improves mental health., and by Hashimoto et al. [69], who provided further evidence that social support directly reduces symptoms of depression. Another school of thought contends that the association between stressors and stress symptoms is mitigated or moderated by social support. According to the buffering theory, social support interacts with stressful situations to lessen the potential negative effects of stress on behavior and attitude. Social support would lessen the severity of stress reactions and, by improving one’s capacity to handle stressors, would lessen the effect of stressful events if it moderates the link between stressful events and the occurrence of negative psychological reactions. Empirical support for this model also comes from Heshizer and Knapp [64], who found that social support significantly reduces stress-related symptoms in public school teachers working under high pressure, and from Delfin et al. [70], who showed that social support alleviates the negative effects of stress on teenage athletes’ mental health.

Stressors like peer conflict, heavy workloads and job demands, inadequate supervision, and lack of support are all linked to poor physical and mental health outcomes [34]. The effects of work-related stress are evident in the physical, mental, and behavioral health of employees [71]. The study developed by Richardson and associates [55] explores two types of emotional strains (anger and depressive symptoms) and two physical strains (somatic complaints and general health). According to cognitive appraisal theories, emotions arise from an individual’s assessment of their environment and its impact on personal well-being [72]. For example, anger is more likely to occur when a person blames others for a negative situation, while depressive symptoms, like sadness, are more likely when the situation is perceived as uncontrollable [73]. Emotions are not automatic but result from how we interpret a situation. In contrast, physical strains do not always require cognitive evaluation. For instance, someone may have high blood pressure without being aware of it, and even when symptoms like headaches are recognized, they can manifest automatically without conscious thought [74].

When a person is under stress, it can severely impact their emotional and psychological balance, increasing the risk of issues such as anxiety, depression, and mood disorders [75]. On the other hand, poor mental well-being, such as low self-esteem or negative thinking, can increase sensitivity to stressful situations and make a person more vulnerable to their negative effects [76]. Stress is also linked to physical health conditions such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease [77,78]. Furthermore, maladaptive behaviors like smoking, overeating, excessive alcohol use, and substance misuse can be caused by or made worse by high stress levels [41,76]. Based on this evidence, we hypothesize that stress symptoms negatively influence job satisfaction (H1), as visually presented in Figure 1.

When it comes to measuring stress symptoms, several options are already available in the literature, each with certain drawbacks. The “Perceived Stress and Resources” scale is part of a supplementary form of the Occupational Stress Questionnaire [17]; it consists of seventeen items and measures four dimensions: physical symptoms, psychological symptoms, mental resources, and sleep disturbances. However, this instrument has been criticized for lacking clear structure, theoretical foundation, and proper validity information [79]. Elkin [18] proposed the “Stress-Symptom Scale”, which is comprised of 41 items measuring somatic, psychological, and behavioral manifestations of stress, but it does not provide information on its theoretical foundation, validity, or reliability. Finnoy [14] suggested a list of eleven frequent somatic complaints related to stress but omitted psychological symptoms of work stress; similarly, Gierk proposed eight common somatic stress symptoms, again without addressing the mental consequences of stress [80]. The “Severity of Acute Stress Symptoms—Adult” scale offers seven items that measure acute psychological reactions to stress, but excludes somatic reactions [81]. An additional measure can be found online, but it lacks a proper reference, validation information, and theoretical background [82].

2.4. Job Satisfaction and Stress

Numerous studies show that job satisfaction and work stress are negatively correlated. Reduced motivation, unpleasant feelings, and a decline in overall job satisfaction are all linked to high levels of stress [34,38]. These results support the hypothesis that stress and satisfaction are negatively correlated, which is also investigated in this study.

The concept of job satisfaction was first developed through Elton Mayo’s study in the late 1920s and early 1930s at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago [83]. The study revealed that workers’ behaviors could be influenced by their emotions. Job satisfaction and work efficiency are primarily driven by social interactions and psychological factors [84].

In 1937, Hoppock [85] introduced a new concept of job satisfaction, defining it as the satisfaction an employee derives from their working environment, which impacts their psychological and physiological well-being. He further explained that job satisfaction is a personal, subjective reaction to the work environment [85]. In line with this, job satisfaction is understood as a set of emotions or affective reactions related to the work environment, or “just how people feel about different aspects of their jobs” [86] (p. 2), representing how well a business creates a work environment that meets employees’ demands for using their skills, fits with their social ideals, and serves as a measure of how equitable and suitable an organization’s policies are [87]. As determined by an individual’s assessment of job features or traits, emotional reactions to events that take place on the job, and behavioral intents connected to the job, job satisfaction is defined as one’s cognitive (evaluative), affective (or emotional), and behavioral responses to one’s employment [88]. Various elements of the work environment, such as salary, working hours, the level of autonomy granted to employees, organizational structure, and communication between staff and management, can influence job satisfaction [89]. Work-related stress, caused by factors such as increased workloads and resource shortages, has been linked to lower job satisfaction [34]. Thus, we hypothesize that job stress negatively influences job satisfaction (H2) (Figure 1).

The challenge–hindrance stressor model is one of the current approaches describing the different effects of work stress [90,91]. It distinguishes between stressors that promote employee growth and engagement (“challenge stressors”) and those that impair productivity and lower well-being (“hindrance stressors”). For example, while high demands without sufficient support can lead to fatigue and dissatisfaction, moderate pressure at work may be perceived as a challenge that inspires and enhances pleasure [90]. Consequently, we hypothesize that stressors that moderately activate employees’ potentials—commonly referred to as “job pressure” [92])—positively influence job satisfaction (H3) (Figure 1).

Social support was found to be a strong predictor of job satisfaction in previous research [62,63,64,65,66,67]. In the study by Harris and associates [93], those who acknowledge a lack of professional mentorship report feeling less satisfied with their jobs. Researchers discovered that favorable work environments, like strong employee welfare and perceived organizational support, result in higher job satisfaction [94]. Abdallah and associates [95] explained that high levels of involvement were associated with improved autonomy, empowerment, and self-confidence, leading to job satisfaction. Raykov [96] concluded that worker dissatisfaction was a result of the employer’s lack of support. According to Carroll and Lauzier [97], job satisfaction and workplace bullying are negatively correlated. To investigate workplace bullying and its impact on work climate and various outcomes among nurses, Olsen and associates [98] analyzed a proposed bullying model that included both job resources and job demands, along with nurse outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, and work ability. The results showed that task-oriented leadership, bullying, and job demands (such as dilemmas and institutional stress) significantly influenced job satisfaction. Both institutional stress and dilemmas negatively impacted job satisfaction. Additionally, bullying, which can contribute to increased stress, low self-esteem, and feelings of anxiety and depression, was found to mediate the effect of job resources (like colleague support and competence development) and job demands (including dilemmas and institutional stress) on job satisfaction among nurses. Furthermore, in Alotaibi et al.’s [99] qualitative study, a stressful work environment was identified as a factor influencing job satisfaction among Saudi nurses. Therefore, we propose the fourth hypothesis as follows: a lack of organizational support negatively influences job satisfaction (H4) (Figure 1).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Procedure and Participants

As a course assignment accounting for only 2% of the grade, 27 master’s students at the University of Novi Sad, Serbia, were tasked with distributing printed questionnaires to individuals they personally knew who had been steadily employed for at least six months. This sampling technique aimed to collect a convenience sample of employed individuals, allowing access to a more diverse group than the usual method of approaching specific companies and organizations, while achieving a higher response rate and less bias than a generic online survey [100]. After completion, the printed questionnaires were individually sealed in envelopes by the respondents before being handed in, ensuring anonymity. This approach yielded 885 successfully completed questionnaires. Although convenience sampling was used, the final sample size exceeds the minimum required for adequate statistical power [101]. Moreover, GPower calculations indicated that for multiple regression analyses with four predictors, a minimum sample of 84 is sufficient to detect a medium effect size (f² = 0.15) at 80% power (α = 0.05). Thus, the current sample provides a robust basis for the intended EFA and regression analysis.

The sample consisted of 44% female participants. The average age was 40.3 years (SD = 11.3), ranging from 19 to 62. Average organizational tenure was 14.3 years (SD = 11.4). Regarding education, 42% of participants had a secondary school diploma, 35.8% a university degree, 17.3% a higher school diploma, and 4.9% only elementary school. Approximately one-third of participants identified as managers, reporting that they supervised at least one other employee (34.4%).

To control for the potential influence of exceptional stressful events on survey results, participants were asked whether such events had occurred in the past 12 months in their private lives or within their organizations. In private life, 72.2% of participants reported no significant stressful event or just one, while 27.8% reported multiple significant events. Within their work organization, 83.6% reported none or one significant stressful event, while 16.4% reported multiple such events.

3.2. Instruments

3.2.1. Stress Symptoms Survey

In order to measure the stress symptoms that the employees experience, and in the absence of a satisfactory instrument already available in the current literature, a self-report measuring scale was constructed and named the Stress Symptoms Survey (SSS). This measuring scale was compiled following a number of articles relevant to the physical and mental consequences of stress [102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109], and it encompasses a number of somatic symptoms that relate to acute stress in human beings and a number of psychological symptoms and maladaptive behaviors that are commonly found as a reaction to perceived stress in a working context. The initial list consisted of 37 symptoms; this list was presented to three medical workers who jointly discussed the list and reached a consensus on the 25 items that were utilized in the study. At the start of this part of the questionnaire, the study participants were asked the following question: “In the past year, have you experienced the following physical and psychological symptoms, and how frequently? (Circle the number that best describes you.).” The respondents had the option to indicate the frequency of each symptom on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “never” to 5 “constantly.”

3.2.2. Job Stress Survey—JSS

One of the most recent comprehensive tools for assessing job stress is the Job Stress Survey [28]. The Job Stress Survey (JSS) calculates the overall level of work stress based on the combined severity and frequency of thirty stressor effects, providing measurements of total occupational stress associated with a work context. It also measures three subscales, each consisting of ten items: the nature of the job itself (Job Pressure), lack of support from co-workers or the policies and procedures of the organization (Lack of Organizational Support), and general stressors from the working environment (Job Stress). It also allows the comparison of individual stressor frequencies. The original JSS was modified according to frequent psychometric recommendations by replacing the 0–9 scale with a more reliable 1–5 [110]; also, severity measurements were eliminated. Thus, the JSS consisted of thirty items where respondents could indicate how often each event had occurred during the preceding six months on a 1–5 Likert-type scale.

According to Vagg and Spielberger [28], “the JSS scale, subscale, and item scores can be used at an organizational level to identify major sources of stress for groups of workers, or with individual employees to determine which aspects of their work are most stressful.”

3.2.3. Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire—MSQ

The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire [111] was utilized for measuring the experienced job satisfaction of the study participants. The short form was created for assessing both intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction. Extrinsic job satisfaction refers to individuals’ feelings about elements of the work environment that are not directly related to the job duties or work itself, whereas intrinsic job satisfaction is how people feel about the nature of the job tasks themselves. The MSQ short form includes 20 items, which are ranked on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” (1) to “very satisfied” (5). This scale is a well-known and reliable tool that has been used extensively in the literature, with prior studies producing excellent coefficient alpha [112]. It consists of two subscales, one measuring intrinsic job satisfaction (12 items), and the other one measuring extrinsic job satisfaction (6 items); together with two items that measure the overall job satisfaction a general score can be calculated by summing up scores from all scale items. Thus, the MSQ consisted of twenty items where respondents could indicate their satisfaction with different aspects of their work on a 1–5 Likert-type scale.

4. Results

4.1. Stress Symptoms Survey Properties

The descriptive statistics for each of the 25 items are presented in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the 25 Stress Symptoms Survey items.

Item	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	Item-Total r
1. Headaches	2.4	0.933	0.223	−0.663	0.376
2. Pains and “stabbing” sensations	2.15	0.963	0.509	−0.38	0.599
3. High blood pressure	1.69	1.021	1.496	1.495	0.415
4. Poor sleep	2.29	1.03	0.46	−0.385	0.473
5. Skin rashes	1.38	0.713	2.182	5.286	0.307
6. Poor digestion	2.01	0.993	0.79	0.069	0.437
7. Stomach ulcer	1.21	0.663	3.78	15.118	0.373
8. Asthma attacks	1.15	0.533	4.397	21.622	0.361
9. Nervousness	2.58	1.078	0.279	−0.541	0.569
10. Lack of motivation, feeling depressed	2.05	1.023	0.786	−0.05	0.665
11. Heart conditions	1.31	0.775	2.937	8.827	0.427
12. Changes in appetite	1.83	0.954	1.018	0.522	0.549
13. Feeling exhausted	2.7	1.114	0.057	−0.824	0.609
14. Smoking tobacco	2.42	1.61	0.542	−1.363	0.177
15. Consumption of alcoholic beverages	2.07	1.027	0.675	−0.178	0.247
16. Difficulty concentrating and maintaining attention	2.02	0.943	0.695	−0.03	0.524
17. Frequent mood swings	2.1	0.963	0.613	−0.186	0.633
18. Lack of self-confidence	1.87	0.938	0.968	0.486	0.562
19. Excessive sweating	1.77	0.93	1.028	0.288	0.467
20. Weakened immune system and frequent colds	1.98	0.926	0.876	0.611	0.466
21. Taking sick leave	1.48	0.673	1.373	1.825	0.326
22. Irritability and arguing with others	1.83	0.901	1.024	0.862	0.514
23. Restlessness while sitting or standing at work	1.79	0.96	1.122	0.592	0.467
24. Feeling tired	2.73	1.086	0.168	−0.552	0.554
25. Feeling helpless	1.8	0.95	1.21	1.114	0.583

. The item means ranged from 1.15 to 2.73. Item numbers 5, 7, 8, and 11. had skewness and kurtosis values above the acceptable ranges, suggesting major violations of normality assumptions if retained for further analysis. The most probable explanation for these items’ problematic distribution is because they all pointed to chronic conditions, rather than indicating acute reactions to stress. Items number 14 and 15 had low item-total correlations, suggesting that they are more of a behavioral pattern in a Western Balkan country such as Serbia (cigarettes and alcohol consumption) than a stress coping strategy.

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring without rotation indicated a unidimensional structure underlying the 19-item stress symptoms scale. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was excellent (KMO = 0.937), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ² = 4985.20, df = 171, p < 0.001), supporting the presumed factorability of the correlation matrix.

A single factor emerged with an eigenvalue of 6.59, accounting for approximately 34.7% of the total variance. Most items showed moderate to strong loadings on this factor (

Table 2. Factor loadings from principal axis factoring [no rotation].

Item	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
1. Headaches	0.426	0.275	−0.114
2. Pains and “stabbing” sensations	0.636	0.144	0.037
3. High blood pressure	0.423	0.313	0.197
4. Poor sleep	0.520	0.257	0.059
6. Poor digestion	0.462	0.068	0.097
9. Nervousness	0.624	0.037	−0.007
10. Lack of motivation, feeling depressed	0.716	0.005	0.181
12. Changes in appetite	0.562	−0.010	−0.007
13. Feeling exhausted	0.679	0.079	−0.272
16. Difficulty concentrating and maintaining attention	0.559	−0.077	0.053
17. Frequent mood swings	0.685	−0.081	0.073
18. Lack of self-confidence	0.610	−0.209	0.094
19. Excessive sweating	0.473	−0.081	0.006
20. Weakened immune system and frequent colds	0.500	−0.060	−0.187
21. Taking sick leave	0.335	0.080	0.061
22. Irritability and arguing with others	0.540	−0.219	0.055
23. Restlessness while sitting or standing at work	0.500	−0.309	0.037
24. Feeling tired	0.621	−0.013	−0.386
25. Feeling helpless	0.625	−0.051	0.086
Extraction method: principal axis factoring. 3 factors extracted. 20 iterations required.

), suggesting a cohesive construct. This factor appears to represent a general stress symptom dimension, capturing a broad range of emotional, cognitive, and physical manifestations of stress. Item 21, “Taking sick leave” was the only one to saturate the factor below the 0.4 point, and since it was also the one with the lowest item-total correlation (Table 1), it was decided to eliminate it from the set. This decision is supported by the observation that sick leave is frequently employed as a means of distancing oneself from the workplace for various personal reasons, serving more as a personal coping strategy than a direct response to stress [113].

To explore potential multidimensionality, EFA was also conducted with oblimin rotation. This solution yielded three factors with moderate intercorrelations; however, the resulting pattern matrix showed substantial cross-loadings and inconsistent loading patterns. Several items did not load cleanly on a single factor, making the interpretation of distinct dimensions difficult. Due to this lack of conceptual clarity, the rotated solution was not retained for further analysis.

The remaining 18 items demonstrated excellent internal consistency and reliability. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89 (calculated with IBM SPSS Statistics V.26 software) and McDonald’s Omega was 0.89 as well (calculated with the OMEGA plugin for the IBM SPSS Statistics V.26 software). Item-total correlations ranged from 0.415 to 0.665 and no substantial increases in alpha were observed with the deletion of any of the remaining items.

4.2. Stress Symptoms Survey Results

The sum scores of the final version of the SSS, consisting of 18 items, were retained for further analysis and demonstrated these properties (N = 882; M = 37.53; SD = 10.43; skewness = 0.43; kurtosis = −0.049; min = 18; max = 72). Female survey participants recorded higher scores of stress symptoms (M = 38.62, SD = 9.80) than male participants (M = 36.67, SD = 9.80) at a significant level (t = 2.77, p = 0.002). Different age groups displayed significantly different results in experiencing stress symptoms (F = 9.65, p < 0.000) (Figure 2). Participants holding a high school or university diploma exhibited significantly lower stress symptom levels than those with only primary or secondary education (F = 3.90, p = 0.009) (Figure 3).

Participants with the shortest organizational tenure (0–5 years) displayed significantly lower stress symptoms than the participants with longer organizational tenure (F = 10.29, p < 0.000) (Figure 4). No significant differences in reported stress symptoms were found between respondents in managerial roles and those in non-managerial positions (t = 1.23, p = 0.21).

To explore the relationship between exposure to stressful events and reported stress symptoms, two independent sample t-tests were conducted. For personal life events, no significant difference was found in stress symptom scores between those who experienced multiple stressful events and those who experienced none or one (t = −0.663, p = 0.51). However, a significant difference was observed in relation to organizational stressors. Participants who reported multiple stressful events in their work organization showed significantly higher scores on the Stress Symptoms Survey compared to those who experienced none or one (t = −2.92, p = 0.004). This demonstrates criterion-related validity, suggesting that the SSS is sensitive to occupational stress contexts.

4.3. Correlation and Multiple Regression

Means, standard deviations, internal consistency (Cronbach’s α), and Pearson correlation coefficients among the study variables are presented in

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s Alpha, and Pearson correlation coefficients among study variables.

	M	SD	α	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.
1. Stress Symptoms	2.08	0.58	0.89	1
2. Job Pressure	2.38	0.72	0.81	0.28 **	1
3. Lack of Support	2.19	0.75	0.86	0.34 **	0.63 **	1
4. Job Stress	2.13	0.62	0.73	0.29 **	0.76 **	0.71 **	1
5. Intrinsic Satisfaction	3.44	0.77	0.89	−0.30 **	−0.20 **	−0.48 **	−0.38 **	1
6. Extrinsic Satisfaction	3.07	0.93	0.85	−0.33 **	−0.27 **	−0.58 **	−0.45 **	0.77 **	1
7. Job Satisfaction	3.32	0.77	0.93	−0.34 **	−0.25 **	−0.55 **	−0.43 **	0.96 **	0.91 **	1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

. All scales showed good to excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.81 (Job Pressure) to 0.93 (Job Satisfaction), supporting the reliability of the instruments. All scales showed significant medium or strong correlations.

Job Satisfaction, along with its intrinsic and extrinsic components, was negatively associated with all stress-related variables. The strongest negative correlations were observed between Lack of Support and Extrinsic Satisfaction (r = −0.58, p < 0.01), and between Stress Index and Extrinsic Satisfaction (r = −0.50, p < 0.01), suggesting that perceived lack of social support and generalized stress experiences are particularly detrimental to satisfaction with externally focused aspects of the job.

Interestingly, Intrinsic Satisfaction showed slightly weaker (but still significant) negative correlations with the same stress predictors, which might indicate a relatively more resilient relationship with internal job fulfillment.

Next, linear regression was used to examine the relationship between the independent variables (Lack of Support, Job Pressure, Job Stress, Stress Symptoms) and the dependent variable (total Job Satisfaction, as well as Intrinsic and Extrinsic). The assumptions of multiple linear regression were first tested. Visual inspection of the histogram and normal P–P plot of standardized residuals clearly indicated that the residuals were approximately normally distributed. The scatterplot of standardized predicted values versus standardized residuals showed no clear pattern, suggesting that the assumption of homoscedasticity was met.

A multiple linear regression was conducted to examine the extent to which stress-related variables predict job satisfaction. The predictors included Stress Symptoms, Lack of Support, Job Pressure, and overall Job Stress. The regression model was statistically significant, F(4, 830) = 117.71, p < 0.001, and explained approximately 36.2% of the variance in job satisfaction (R² = 0.362, adjusted R² = 0.359). The Durbin–Watson statistic (1.39) indicated no serious autocorrelation in the residuals.

All predictors were statistically significant (

Table 4. Multiple Regression predicting job satisfaction.

Predictor	B	SE(B)	β	t	p
(Constant)	4.85	0.10	-	48.98	<0.001
Stress Symptoms	−0.234	0.04	−0.176	−5.92	<0.001
Lack of Support	−0.543	0.45	−0.524	−11.93	<0.001
Job Pressure	0.250	0.04	0.231	5.75	<0.001
Job Stress	−0.200	0.06	−0.158	−3.35	0.001
Dependent variable: Job Satisfaction

). The perceived Lack of Support emerged as a particularly strong negative influence on job satisfaction; Stress Symptoms and Job Stress negatively predicted Job Satisfaction, but to a smaller (although significant) effect. Interestingly, Job Pressure was positively associated with Job Satisfaction.

To further explore how different dimensions of job satisfaction relate to stress-related factors, two additional regression models were conducted with intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction as dependent variables. The regression model predicting Intrinsic Satisfaction was statistically significant, F (4. 833) = 81.40, p < 0.001, and explained 28.1% of the variance in Intrinsic Satisfaction (R² = 0.281). All predictors contributed significantly to the model. Stress Symptoms (β = −0.154, p < 0.001), Lack of Support (β = −0.457, p < 0.001), and Job Stress (β = −0.165, p < 0.001) negatively predicted Intrinsic Satisfaction, while Job Pressure had a positive effect (β = 0.237, p < 0.001).

The regression model predicting Extrinsic Satisfaction was also statistically significant, F (4, 832) = 130.25, p < 0.001, and explained 38.5% of the variance (R² = 0.385). Again, all predictors were significant. Stress Symptoms (β = −0.160, p < 0.001), Lack of Support (β = −0.566, p < 0.001), and Job Stress (β = −0.128, p = 0.006) negatively predicted Extrinsic Satisfaction. Job Pressure again showed a positive association (β = 0.208, p < 0.001).

5. Discussion

The results from the exploratory factor analysis (Part 4.1) confirmed the unidimensional structure of the Stress Symptoms Survey, suggesting that the final 18-item instrument measures a coherent and internally consistent construct of stress-related symptoms, both physical and psychological. The reliability of the scale was high, and the one-factor solution reflects a general strain experienced by employees—an important step toward building a practical tool for occupational health research and a new alternative to the already established instruments. When compared to the previously available OSQ [17], the SSS utilized in this study has significant advantages. It is distinguished, first and foremost, by its well-defined structure, detailed directions for completion, and use of a straightforward scale to rate the frequency of symptoms—this arrangement makes it possible to use the instrument directly without requiring extra user training or specialist knowledge. Second, the constructed questionnaire offers a wide range of items that include specific physical symptoms (e.g., high blood pressure, pain, digestive problems) and psychological symptoms (e.g., depression, nervousness, loss of self-confidence). This thoroughness enables a more profound comprehension of how stress projects itself onto the respondents’ health. Third, easy quantification and statistical data processing are made possible by a well-defined frequency scale, which enhances the results’ objectivity and dependability. Thus, the applied questionnaire offers a more operationally functional solution than the OSQ, which in its current form lacks adequate instructions for practical application and result interpretation [79].

In addition, the criterion-related validity of this scale was supported. As described in Section 4.2, participants who reported multiple stressful events in their organizational context scored significantly higher on the stress symptoms scale, while no such difference was observed based on stressors from personal life. This supports the idea that the scale is particularly sensitive to work-related stress, and validates its relevance for organizational diagnostics.

This study further aimed to explore the relationship between job satisfaction and various stress-related factors for employees in Serbian companies. The results confirmed hypothesis H2, which stated that job stress negatively influences job satisfaction, consistent with the findings of Jeredić et al. [11]. The hypotheses that stress symptoms (H1) and lack of support at work (H4) negatively influence job satisfaction were also confirmed. These findings contribute to the broader understanding of how psychosocial risks manifest within modern organizations in the Western Balkans and resonate with current efforts to identify sustainable and health-promoting work conditions.

The strongest predictor of reduced job satisfaction was the perceived lack of support in the workplace. This variable showed a large negative effect, suggesting that the presence of social and organizational support is a fundamental resource for controlling stress and thus enhancing overall employees’ well-being. This aligns with recent literature highlighting that higher organizational support results in lower work stress [26,56,62]. This is also consistent with the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) paradigm [57], which emphasizes the importance of job resources, such as organizational and social support, in reducing the negative consequences of job demands. These resources may not only mitigate the effects of stressors but also foster well-being and motivation, especially in times of high expectations.

Interestingly, job pressure, which was negatively correlated with satisfaction in the starting bivariate analysis, became a positive predictor of satisfaction in the latter multivariate model. This finding confirms hypothesis H3, and supports previous research showing that specific factors such as time pressure [114] and heavy workload [115] may increase job satisfaction. This suggests that job pressure, when not accompanied by a lack of support or overwhelming stress symptoms, can be perceived as a challenge rather than a hindrance. This supports the previously mentioned challenge–hindrance stressor model, which distinguishes between stressors that foster engagement and those that undermine well-being [90]. The positive role of job pressure may reflect environments where employees experience autonomy, purpose, and a sense of contribution—factors known to enhance satisfaction when demands are high but manageable. In this way, moderate job pressure may promote constructive learning environments that increase sustainable worker satisfaction [91].

The regression model explained over a third of the variance in job satisfaction (R² = 0.362, adjusted R² = 0.359), indicating a substantial contribution of stress-related factors to satisfaction outcomes. This level of explained variance is particularly meaningful given the complexity of job satisfaction as a construct and is comparable to or exceeds benchmarks typical in psychosocial and organizational research.

It is interesting to observe that job pressure showed a dual nature: although it is often seen as a stressor, multivariate analysis indicated that it positively predicted satisfaction. This suggests that, in the presence of sufficient support, some stressors may be viewed as challenges rather than threats. These findings align with the challenge–hindrance stressor model, which proposes that a certain level of job pressure can be acceptable or even motivating, especially if perceived as manageable. Our findings extend this concept by empirically showing that, when other negative stressors (such as lack of support or high generalized stress) are taken into account, job pressure—a common challenge stressor—can improve job satisfaction.

Additionally, prior theoretical assumptions about the importance of perceived organizational support are confirmed by the substantial and consistent effect that its absence has in predicting job satisfaction. This aligns with the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model, which states that job resources, such as organizational and social support, both enhance engagement and satisfaction and mitigate the detrimental effects of job demands on well-being. According to our research, a lack of support always functions as a hindrance demand—a barrier that lowers job satisfaction and cannot be reframed as an inspiring challenge. Furthermore, by confirming that the Stress Symptoms Scale (SSS) is a valid tool for evaluating both psychological and physical signs of stress, this study adds to the body of JD-R research by providing a useful instrument for measuring a crucial component of the model: the relationship between job demands and strain outcomes.

The dynamic and context-dependent nature of the relationship between demands, resources, and satisfaction can be emphasized by interpreting our results through both frameworks. While hindrance demands, such as lack of support, consistently undermine satisfaction, challenge demands, when balanced by adequate job resources, may promote satisfaction and sustainable work performance.

For managerial practice, the most important implication of this study is that fostering a supportive organizational culture can substantially contribute to a healthy, sustainable workplace by designing work that balances pressure with resources. Given the connection between extremely stressful work and its negative effects on mental health, interventions aimed at improving working conditions and reducing personal and professional stress are necessary to help prevent or mitigate symptoms of anxiety, stress, and depression. Second, since job pressure was found to be positively associated with job satisfaction when other stressors were controlled, managers should strive to create stimulating challenges while ensuring adequate support and autonomy. Third, as shown in Section 4.2, age, years of work experience, and education level influence the perception and experience of stress. This has important implications for managers in designing targeted interventions to reduce stress.

6. Conclusions

This study provides insight into the important connection between job satisfaction and organizational stress, specifically in the context of Serbian workplaces. First, the construction and validation of the Stress Symptoms Survey resulted in a reliable and useful instrument for evaluating both the mental and physical effects of work-related stress.

Second, this study indicates that reduced job satisfaction can be significantly predicted by stress symptoms, perceived job stress, and a lack of organizational support. Notably, the most significant factor was a lack of support, thus highlighting the vital role that supportive work environments have in improving employee well-being.

This study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the data were collected using convenience sampling. Despite efforts to ensure diversity, the sample does not represent all organizational sectors and job types, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Second, the data were gathered through self-report surveys based on participants’ personal perceptions and assessments. While anonymity reduces the risk of dishonest responses, it does not eliminate it entirely, and socially desirable responding may still have influenced the data. Third, although the validated Stress Symptoms Survey (SSS) provides valuable insights, further research is needed to determine its applicability across different cultural contexts and organizational settings.

Further research should explore whether the proposed SSS similarly captures stress symptomatology across different domains (such as personal, educational, social…) or whether additional items are needed to identify symptoms specific to certain professions or to enhance sensitivity to personal life stressors, if such a component is needed. Future research could extend these findings by exploring longitudinal effects or examining how remote work, digitalization, or atypical contracts may mediate or moderate the relationships observed here.