Occupational stress in the marketing profession: An empirical analysis of stressors

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the marketing profession on the perceived level of occupational stress among marketing professionals and to compare the findings with previous empirical research in the field of work-related stress. The research employed a mixed-methods design: the quantitative part was conducted using the standardized Job Stress Scale (JSS), while the qualitative part relied on semi-structured interviews. A total of 90 respondents from three professional sectors participated in the study. The results indicate that marketing professionals report significantly higher levels of stress compared to other occupational groups, particularly in connection with stressors such as time pressure, ambiguous client demands, and rapidly changing project objectives. The discussion compares these findings with earlier studies and provides recommendations for HR management and for the prevention of burnout within the marketing profession.

1 Introduction

Workplace stress is a phenomenon with well-documented consequences for employee productivity, job satisfaction, and overall health (Conte and Landy 2010). Marketing, as a dynamic and highly competitive field, combines creative demands with strict deadlines and rapidly shifting market conditions (Mohezar 2021). These factors create an environment that can lead to chronic distress and, ultimately, burnout (Maslach and Leiter 2013).
Individual responses to stress are not uniform. Previous research (Paulík 2017; Castellini et al. 2023) has shown that personality traits – particularly neuroticism and conscientiousness – significantly influence how employees perceive stress and which coping strategies they employ. In marketing, this interaction between personality and stressors is especially relevant due to the need to balance quick decision-making, creativity, and intensive client communication. The aim of this study is twofold:
1. To determine whether marketing professionals experience higher levels of stress compared to other occupational groups.
2. To identify the main stressors specific to the marketing profession.

2 Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework introduces the main theories and approaches that guide this study. It serves as a foundation for interpreting the results and connecting them with existing literature.

2.1 Conceptualizing stress

Stress can be defined as a state of strain or tension in which the human organism responds to external or internal stressors (Plamínek 2008). Paulík (2017, p. 65) interprets stress as a state of overload that exceeds an individual’s capacity to manage emotional strain. Similarly, Kassin (2007) defines stress as an unpleasant state of physiological and psychological activation. Stressors, the causes of stress, can be categorized into catastrophic events, major life changes, and daily hassles – so-called microstressors (Kassin 2007). Other classifications distinguish between real and potential stressors (Paulík 2017), external and internal stressors (Pugnerová and Kvintová 2016), or physical, social, and psychological stressors (Pešek and Praško 2016). Microstressors, such as lack of time, are among the most frequent sources of stress in modern society (Pugnerová and Kvintová 2016).

2.2 Stress in the workplace

In today’s hypercompetitive market environment, occupational stressors are particularly salient, with long-term effects on employees’ mental and physical health. Stressors in the workplace can be divided into physical and psychological dimensions (Conte and Landy 2010). For example, Ardiyansyah et al. (2023) found a strong relationship between noise exposure and stress levels, with higher noise intensity corresponding to increased perceived stress. Similarly, Hahad et al. (2019) confirmed negative cardiovascular and psychological effects of excessive noise exposure. According to Lukan et al. (2022), these findings are supported by recent clinical evidence highlighting the association between workplace stress and both psychological and physiological health outcomes.
Employers, therefore, face growing responsibility to provide safe and health-conscious working conditions that foster employee well-being, ultimately contributing to organizational performance (Mohezar 2021). Environmental factors, such as workplace greenery, also play a significant role. Colley et al. (2015) demonstrated that access to natural elements enhances employees’ mental well-being in urban office settings, findings further supported by Ríos-Rodríguez et al. (2023). Fayyad and Evans (2024) likewise emphasized that background noise undermines workplace well-being, whereas visual access to plants and natural elements has restorative effects.
Stress in the workplace may also arise from poor management practices. Castellini et al. (2023), in a study of 1,493 employees, found that workplace conflicts and organizational restructuring were significantly associated with negative health outcomes, particularly among middle-aged employees replaced by younger, lower-paid workers. Technological demands also intensify stress levels. For instance, intensive care nurses must continuously deploy cognitive resources such as vigilance, precision, and rapid decision-making to function effectively in high-tech environments (Schaufeli and Enzmann 1998). Marketing professionals, similarly, face both cognitive and emotional strain, as competitiveness requires constant professionalism and a „consumer-friendly“ approach (Landstätter and Garrosa 2008).
Work overload and organizational culture also play a role. In many contexts, long working hours are perceived as a marker of success and dedication. However, extreme demands combined with insufficient recovery can lead to serious health outcomes, including death from overwork (Paulík 2017). For example, Kim et al. (2019) documented persistent high mortality rates linked to cardiovascular disease and suicide among South Korean managers despite reductions in average working hours. Similarly, Takahashi (2019) identified cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disorders as prevalent among overworked Japanese employees, with long working hours as the main risk factor. Conversely, organizations that promote work-life balance show 25% lower turnover rates, and employees with access to such programs report higher happiness and productivity (Sirgy and Lee 2023).

2.3 Stress in the marketing profession

The Chartered Institute of Marketing (2023) defines marketing as “the process by which companies anticipate, identify, and satisfy customer requirements profitably.“ Marketing professionals are expected to possess a broad understanding of organizational functioning (Stanley 2003). Recent surveys by the Chartered Institute of Marketing (2024) highlight several stressors specific to this profession.
More than half of respondents (56%) reported concerns about exhaustion and burnout, particularly among younger professionals aged 25-34. Economic pressures also play a significant role: 59% of marketers expressed concern that financial uncertainty may lead to budget cuts, thereby increasing demands for efficiency and creativity with fewer resources – ultimately raising stress levels. In addition to these factors, role ambiguity and unclear expectations represent significant psychological stressors, particularly in dynamic and performance-driven environments such as marketing (Sharma and Singh 2016).
Given these challenges, this study builds on existing literature and provides an empirical investigation into the specific stressors faced by marketing professionals. The methodological approaches of selected previous studies are summarized in Table 1.

WordPress Tables
Table 1: Summary of key findings from selected studies
Source: Authors

The methods employed were also of critical importance for this research study. A comprehensive overview of the number of respondents and the instruments used in all the studies mentioned above is presented in the Table 2. below.

WordPress Tables
Table 2: Methodological framework of selected studies
Source: Authors

It can be concluded that occupational stress is a key factor significantly affecting the performance and job satisfaction of marketing professionals across various sectors. All the studies examined focused on different aspects of occupational stress, its causes, and consequences, primarily employing quantitative methods based on survey research. The studies utilized either self-designed or standardized questionnaires, often inspired by validated psychological instruments such as the Job Stress Scale (JSS), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), or Occupational Stress Index (OSI).
These tools enabled the measurement of perceived stress levels and the identification of specific stressors. The Likert scale played a prominent role in the methodologies of all studies, as it allowed for a more detailed assessment of the frequency and intensity of stress on a scaled range.

3 Methodology

The literature review indicated that the Job Stress Scale (Pugnerová and Kvintová 2016) is a valid instrument for measuring occupational stress across various professions. The Job Stress Scale (JSS), developed by Parker and in 1983, was specifically designed to measure dimensions of occupational stress. Stress levels are assessed using 15 items, with responses evaluated on a Likert scale. In later revisions, two items were removed, resulting in the official 13-item version completed by respondents (Fields 2002). The scale addresses two dimensions: the first dimension examines time-related stress (the feeling of constant pressure), while the second focuses on work-related anxiety. Responses are typically recorded on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. In some cases, a four-point scale is used, eliminating a neutral option (George 2018).
To gain deeper insight, the study incorporated a qualitative component – semi-structured interviews – recommended in similar studies (e.g., Ríos-Rodríguez et al. 2023; Fayyad and Evans 2024) to identify contextual stress factors. The interviews aimed to analyze sources of occupational stress in detail, identify key factors contributing to perceived stress, and understand individual coping strategies. The discussions focused on specific stressors, factors affecting participants’ psychological well-being, and subjective assessments of the work environment, particularly in terms of interpersonal relationships and team dynamics. Furthermore, the interviews examined stress management methods, including targeted relaxation techniques, engagement in sports, meditation, or other forms of recovery. The interview protocol employed open-ended questions, a seven-point Likert scale, and projective questions.

3.1 Sample selection

The selection of respondents was divided for the quantitative survey (using the JSS) and the subsequent qualitative interviews. For the quantitative survey, three sub-criteria were established to classify respondents into three professional fields based on their area of employment: marketing, information technology, and commerce. Including respondents from diverse professional sectors allowed for a comparative analysis of stress differences across these groups.
The choice of these three specific professional areas was intentional, based on shared characteristics that ensure comparability in terms of cognitive demands, work pace, and responsibility levels. All three professions require psychological resilience, the ability to respond quickly to changes, the management of complex tasks, and frequent communication with clients, customers, teams, or management. These fields are also typical of dynamic work environments with frequent exposure to stressors related to time pressure, performance, and expectations. This selection facilitated a meaningful comparison of perceived stress levels among professional groups operating in similarly demanding work contexts.
The total research sample consisted of 90 respondents, with 30 participants from each professional area, all based in Prague or the Central Bohemian Region. This approach ensured balanced representation across the professional groups, enabling relevant comparisons.
For the qualitative in-depth interviews, 10 marketing professionals were purposefully selected. The selection did not adhere to strict criteria such as professional experience, employment type, gender, or age.
The goal was to capture diverse perspectives on occupational stress, including participants with different positions and levels of experience. All selected participants had previously completed the JSS survey. Based on survey results, respondents were divided into two groups according to their perceived stress levels. First group A – lower stress levels (5 respondents), second group B – higher stress levels (5 respondents).
This division enabled an analysis of differences in stress experiences, their causes, and coping strategies between participants with varying stress levels. A total of 10 in-depth interviews were conducted, 5 with participants from Group A and 5 from Group B.
Data collection took place in March 2025. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes, beginning with a brief introduction that informed respondents about the anonymity of their responses and data handling procedures. Interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent and subsequently transcribed for detailed analysis. The interviews were conducted in an undisturbed environment to allow participants to express their experiences and opinions freely.
A semi-structured approach was used, allowing not only responses to pre-defined questions but also exploration of topics based on individual experiences and reactions, providing both comparable data and deeper insights into participants’ personal experiences.

4 Results

This section presents the main findings of the study, based on both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The results are reported in line with the research objectives and are structured to allow comparison across professional groups as well as within the marketing profession itself. Descriptive statistics and survey outcomes are followed by an overview of key themes emerging from the in-depth interviews.

4.1 Quantitative analysis

Data from the survey were evaluated according to the JSS scoring guidelines. All data were entered into Microsoft Excel, where each respondent received two sub-scores for the two dimensions and an overall perceived stress score.
Results were then aggregated and averaged by professional field, enabling comparisons between groups. The following section summarizes the evaluation of results for the three professional groups studied.

WordPress Tables
Table 3: Summary of average JSS scores by professional group
Source: Authors, questionnaire (2025)

4.2 Quantitative findings

Respondents working in marketing reported the highest level of perceived work-related stress among all surveyed professional groups. The average score for the time pressure dimension was 30 points, indicating a high level of stress related to deadlines, workload, and time demands. The anxiety dimension scored 16 points, reflecting a moderate level of psychological strain, including internal tension, irritability, or feelings of overload. The overall JSS score was 46 points, corresponding to a higher-moderate level of stress. These results reflect the demanding nature of the marketing environment, typically characterized by fast-paced work, high performance and creativity expectations, and frequent communication with clients, superiors, and the public. Marketing work thus requires increased adaptability and psychological resilience.
Respondents from the information technology (IT) sector showed the lowest average scores across both JSS dimensions. Time pressure scored 22 points, indicating a moderate level of perceived time stress. Anxiety scored 13 points, suggesting milder manifestations of psychological stress compared to the other groups. The overall JSS score for IT professionals was 35 points, corresponding to a lower-moderate level of stress. Factors contributing to these results may include more flexible working arrangements, less direct client contact, and greater autonomy in managing tasks.
Employees in the sales sector achieved an average score of 29 points for time stress, indicating a higher-moderate level of perceived pressure related to time, performance, and work intensity. The anxiety score was 15 points, reflecting a moderate level of psychological strain. The overall JSS score was 44 points, also within the higher-moderate range. This may be explained by the constant need for customer interaction, high expectations for sales performance, and performance pressure, which are typical in sales-related professions.
This analysis highlights significant differences in perceived stress levels across professional groups, with marketing employees exhibiting the most pronounced stress burden.

4.3 Qualitative analysis of stressors

The interview data were processed qualitatively, with selected questions supplemented by quantitative overviews in tables or charts for clarity. The interviews were transcribed, followed by data coding (Kozel 2013) and qualitative analysis. This methodology aimed to identify recurring patterns in responses, capture differences between respondents with higher and lower stress levels, and formulate conclusions to inform recommendations.
A key finding is that the most significant stressors in marketing are time pressure and the need to meet tight deadlines. Respondents rated time pressure on average at 5.2 points on a 7-point scale, with the higher-stress group scoring up to 6 points, compared to 4.4 for the lower-stress group. Frequent changes in assignments and client requirements were similarly stressful, with an overall mean of 5.1 points (5.6 for the higher-stress group, 4.6 for the lower-stress group). Notable differences also emerged in interpersonal interactions: for some respondents, workplace relationships were minimally stressful (1.8 points), whereas others identified communication as a major stressor (4.6 points).

WordPress Tables
Table 4: Major stressors for marketing professionals
Source: Authors, questionnaire (2025)

Adaptation to new technologies was generally perceived as relatively easy, with an average rating of 3.1, reflecting a high level of confidence and the ability to quickly respond to industry changes. The frequency of experienced stress differed depending on respondents’ group classification. Marketing professionals with higher stress levels reported stress as occurring „often“ to „very often,“ whereas others described it as occasional or rare.

WordPress Tables
Table 5: Frequency of stress occurrence among marketing professionals
Source: Authors, questionnaire (2025)

Negative consequences of stress were most evident in decreased concentration, reduced productivity, and difficulty managing personal responsibilities, including fatigue and sleep disturbances. Most respondents (80%) employed various coping strategies, most commonly physical activity, relaxation, or creative activities.
The regularity of these practices varied – only two respondents used techniques daily, while the majority practiced them several times per week.
Table 6 shows the frequency of stress-relief practices for each group of respondents as well as the total percentage of answers.

WordPress Tables
Table 6: Frequency of stress-relief practices
Source: Authors, questionnaire (2025)

Employer support correlated with lower stress levels – employees satisfied with stress management and mental health support rated it on average 5.67, compared to only 2.75 where support was lacking. Most respondents (7 out of 10) observed burnout symptoms among colleagues, emphasizing the need for systematic prevention.
Individual coping strategies included relaxation, physical activity, the ability to say „no,“ setting realistic boundaries between work and personal life, and seeking peer support. Half of the participants highlighted the importance of positive interpersonal relationships, fair communication, and sharing work and personal experiences. Small rewards and motivation outside work – such as recognition after completing a project or planning leisure activities – also played a role. Time management strategies, including planning the day according to energy cycles or using the „eat the frog“ approach, contributed to more effective task management.

WordPress Tables
Table 7: Participant recommendations for reducing work-related stress
Source: Authors, questionnaire (2025)

Employers and employees were advised to use specialized educational platforms focused on soft skills development and fostering supportive work environments. Implementing flexible working hours or remote work options proved effective in reducing time pressure and improving work planning.

5 Key findings and recommendations

The survey and individual in-depth interviews identified several critical insights into stress experiences among marketing professionals. Time-related stress emerged as a dominant factor, with the marketing group scoring an average of 30 out of 40 on the time stress dimension of the JSS questionnaire, indicating substantial pressure from deadlines, high work pace, and responsibility. All respondents (100%) agreed that marketing is a dynamic and turbulent environment characterized by frequent changes.
The most significant stress-inducing factors included tight deadlines (average rating 5.2) and unexpected changes in tasks or requirements (5.1), reflecting the fast-paced nature of the field. Group A (lower stress) rated time pressure at 4.4, while Group B (higher stress) rated it 6.0. Similarly, frequent changes in tasks were rated 4.6 (Group A) versus 5.6 (Group B). Interpersonal interactions showed notable differences: Group A considered them minimally stressful (1.8), whereas Group B reported high stress levels (4.6), suggesting communication can be a major stressor for highly stressed individuals. Conversely, adaptation to new technologies and trends was a minor stressor (average 3.1), indicating confidence in handling technological changes.
Given that interpersonal interactions and time pressure were identified as the most significant stressors, organizations should implement structured workload management approaches, such as job redesign and the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, which emphasizes the balance between job demands and available resources to reduce stress and prevent burnout (Maslach and Leiter 2013; Bakker et al. 2023). Introducing flexible workload allocation, clear role definitions, and regular performance feedback can further mitigate role ambiguity and time pressure.
Recommendations to reduce stress included promoting open communication, improving team collaboration, raising awareness about stress prevention, and supporting employee education in interpersonal skills. Long-term strategies emphasized work-life balance, enabling employees to engage in personal interests and rest outside the work environment.

6 General discussion

The results of this study confirm that occupational stress is a significant issue within the marketing profession, which is consistent with findings from broader occupational health research done by Ishimatu et al. (2023). In contrast to the study by Abdullah, Raza, and Akhtar (2015), which reported a relatively negligible level of stress among marketing professionals, with personal factors being the dominant stressors, this research highlights a higher level of stress, with organizational aspects of work – specifically time pressure, constant changes in tasks, and the necessity of overtime – being the primary stressors. This discrepancy may be explained by differences in methodology, sample size, sample characteristics, or cultural and economic context.
The findings are consistent with studies by Farooq (2017) and Sharma et al. (2024), which similarly report that occupational stress significantly impacts employee performance and that high stress is common in marketing. This is reflected in the average JSS score of marketing respondents (46 points), falling within the higher mid-range stress category. Compared to Sharma and Singh (2016), who identified lack of clarity and career growth as the main stressors, this study indicates that tight deadlines and frequent changes in requirements are the dominant stressors, potentially reflecting the specifics of marketing positions in the studied sample.
Group B reported higher levels of stress related to interpersonal interactions. This may be associated with increased emotional labor demands, as individuals are required to regulate their emotions in interactions with clients, colleagues, and management (Shetty and Ansari 2021).
An interesting observation, in line with the findings of Shetty and Ansari (2021) and Radhika and Lakshmi (2023), is that respondents with higher stress levels perceive less support from employers and more difficulties in interpersonal communication, which was also confirmed through the qualitative part of the study. Emotional labor, including the requirement to exhibit certain behaviors or maintain emotional composure toward clients, plays a significant role and may contribute to psychological overload.
Regarding stress-coping strategies, the results align with recommendations from most cited studies. Respondents frequently mentioned the need for active psychohygiene, work-life balance support, physical activity, and relaxation techniques, supporting conclusions from Tello et al. (2022). However, it is notable that some highly stressed respondents did not actively use any stress management techniques, highlighting the need for education in stress management, particularly for younger professionals, self-employed individuals, or those in managerial positions who perceive stress as an inherent aspect of their work.

7 Conclusion

This study demonstrates that marketing professionals are exposed to a combination of stressors, which, without effective coping strategies, can lead to long-term distress and burnout. The primary aim of the study – examining the impact of the marketing profession on perceived stress levels – was achieved. It was confirmed that marketing professionals indeed experience elevated stress levels compared to selected other professional fields, such as information technology and sales. Marketing professionals reached a total stress score of 46 out of 65, corresponding to a higher mid-range stress level. This finding is also consistent with the qualitative component, where respondents repeatedly described their profession as time-demanding, dynamic, and requiring high flexibility and adaptability to unexpected changes.
When interpreting these results, certain limitations must be considered, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. The survey was not designed to be representative of the entire marketing sector but rather aimed to provide deeper insight into stress among a selected sample of workers in Prague.
Therefore, individual in-depth interviews with respondents were a crucial methodological component. Despite not aiming for full representativeness, the study reveals interesting trends that could be further investigated in larger samples and across other regions of the Czech Republic.

Poznámky/Notes

This research was supported by the VŠFS IGA project 7427/2024/05, „University Students’ Stress from a Perspective of Personality Type“.

Literatúra/List of References

1. Abdullah, N., Ali Raza, S. and Saeed Akhtar, M. M., 2015. Measuring work stress of marketing professionals. In: Business Review. 2015, 10(1), 188-193. ISSN 1990-6587.
2. Ardiyansyah, D., Kahar, F., Suratman, D. S. S. R., Pranamatama, S. and Yusuf, M., 2023. The relationship between noise level and work stress. In: International Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Research Studies. 2023, 3(1). ISSN 2583-0307. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmscrs/v3-i1-20>
3. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E. and Sanz-Vergel, A., 2023. Job demands-resources theory: Ten years later. In: Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2023, 10, 25-53. ISSN 2327-0608.
4. Castellini, G., Consonni, D. and Costa, G., 2023. Conflicts in the workplace, negative acts and health consequences: Evidence from a clinical evaluation. In: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023, 61(1):40-55. ISSN 1660-4601. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2021-0283>
5. Colley, K., Brown, C. and Montarzino, A., 2015. Workplace settings and wellbeing: Greenspace use and views contribute to employee wellbeing at peri-urban business sites. In: Landscape and Urban Planning. 2015, 138, 32-40. ISSN 0169-2046. Available at: <https://doi.org/1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.004>
6. Conte, J. M. and Landy, J. F., 2010. Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Wiley, 2010. ISBN 978-0470086955.
7. Fayyad, N. and Evans, R., 2024. Workplace wellbeing and interior design: A systematic literature review. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology. ISSN 0272-4944. Available at: <https://doi.org/21606/drs.2024.901>
8. Hahad, O., Prochaska, J. H., Daiber, A. and Muenzel, T., 2019. Environmental noise-induced effects on stress hormones, oxidative stress, and vascular dysfunction: Key factors in the relationship between cerebrocardiovascular and psychological disorders. In: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019, 16(19), 3730. ISSN 1660-4601. Available at: <https://doi.org/1155/2019/4623109>
9. Ishimaru, T., Fujino, Y. and Kubo, T., 2023. Working hours, sleep, and occupational stress: A systematic review of evidence. In: Industrial Health. 2023, 61(1). ISSN 0019-8366. Available at: <https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/indhealth/61/1/61_2021-0283/article>
10. Kassin, S., 2007. Psychologie. Computer Press, 2007. ISBN 978-8025117178.
11. Kim, I., Lee, H.-E., Won, Y. L. and Song, J., 2019. Overwork-related disorders and recent improvement of national policy in South Korea. In: Journal of Occupational Health. 2019, 61(4), 317-325. ISSN 1341-9145. Available at: <https://doi.org/1002/1348-9585.12060>
12. Landstätter, F. and Garrosa, E., 2008. Prediction of burnout: An artificial neural network approach. Diplomica Verlag, 2008. ISBN 978-3836618357.
13. Lukan, J., et al., 2022. Work environment risk factors causing day-to-day stress in occupational settings: A systematic review. In: BMC Public Health. 2002, 22(1), 240. ISSN 1471-2458. Available at: <https://doi.org/1186/s12889-021-12354-8>
14. Maslach, C. and Leiter, M. P., 2013. The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. Jossey-Bass, 2013. ISBN 978-1118046287.
15. Mohezar, S., Jaafar, N. I. and Akbar, W., 2021. Achieving quality of life at work: Transforming spaces to improve well-being. Springer Nature, 2021. ISBN 978-9813366136.
16. Paulík, K., 2017. Psychologie lidské odolnosti. Prague: Grada, 2017. ISBN 978-8024756491.
17. Pešek, R. and Praško, J., 2016. Syndrom vyhoření – Jak se prací a pomáháním druhým nezničit. Pasparta, 2016. ISBN 978-8074391178.
18. Plamínek, J., 2008. Sebepoznání, sebeřízení a stres: Praktický atlas sebezvládání. Prague: Grada. ISBN 978-8024725671.
19. Pugnerová, M. and Kvintová, J., 2016. Přehled poruch psychického vývoje. Prague: Grada. ISBN 978-8024754589.
20. Radhika, V. and Lakshmi, V. V., 2023. Measuring job related stress and mental demands of work among marketing professionals. In: Journal of Business and Management Studies. 2023, 5(2), 44-52. ISSN 2709-0833.
21. Ríos-Rodríguez, M. L., Testa Moreno, M. and Moreno-Jiménez, P., 2023. Nature in the office: A systematic review of nature elements and their effects on worker stress response. In: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023, 20(20), 7075. ISSN 1660-4601. Available at: <https://doi.org/3390/healthcare11212838>
22. Sharma, D. S. and Singh, D. J., 2016. Identification of sources of job stress: A study of bank marketing executives. In: Journal of Organization & Human Behaviour. 2016, 5(3), 26-31. ISSN 2277-9779.
23. Sharma, P., Sharma, R. and Yadav, U. S., 2024. Unveiling the nexus: Exploring the impact of workplace stress on job performance among marketing professionals. In: Academy of Marketing Studies Journal. 2024, 28(S1). ISSN 1528-2678.
24. Sirgy, M. J. and Lee, D.-J., 2023. Work-life balance: HR training for employee personal interventions. Cambridge University Press, 2023. ISBN 978-1108478388.
25. Tabassum, H., Farooq, Z. and Fatima, I., 2017. Work family conflict, perceived work overload and work exhaustion in employees of banking sector. In: Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences. 2017, 11(1), 340-352. ISSN 1997-8553.
26. Takahashi, M., 2019. Sociomedical problems of overwork-related deaths and disorders in Japan. In: Journal of Occupational Health. 2019, 61(4), 269-277. ISSN 1341-9145. Available at: <https://doi.org/1002/1348-9585.12016>
27. Tello, A. B., Arshad, M., Khalid, K., Agarwal, K. and Xavier, L., 2022. A study on work life balance of marketing professionals of pharmaceutical industry. In: Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results. 2022, 13(3), 552-559. ISSN 0976-9234.
28. The Chartered Institute of Marketing, 2023. What is marketing? 2023. [online]. [cit. 2026-01-08]. Available at: <https://www.cim.co.uk/content-hub/quick-read/what-is-marketing/>
29. The Chartered Institute of Marketing, 2024. Research finds AI, burnout, inclusivity and falling budgets keeping marketers awake at night. 2024. [online]. [cit. 2026-01-08]. Available at: <https://www.cim.co.uk/newsroom/release-research-finds-ai-burnout-inclusivity-and-falling-budgets-keeping-marketers-awake-at-night/>

Kľúčové slová/Key words

burnout syndrome, Job Stress Scale, marketing profession, occupational stress, stressors
syndrom vyhoření, Job Stress Scale, marketingová profese, pracovní stres, stresory

JEL klasifikácia/JEL Classification

M31, J28, M12, D91

Résumé

Pracovní stres v marketingové profesi: empirická analýza stresorů
Cílem této studie bylo zkoumat vliv marketingové profese na vnímanou úroveň pracovního stresu u marketingových pracovníků a porovnat získané výsledky s předchozími empirickými výzkumy v oblasti pracovního stresu. Výzkum byl realizován pomocí smíšeného designu: kvantitativní část byla provedena prostřednictvím standardizované škály pracovního stresu (Job Stress Scale – JSS), zatímco kvalitativní část vycházela z polostrukturovaných rozhovorů. Studie se zúčastnilo celkem 90 respondentů ze tří profesních oblastí. Výsledky ukazují, že pracovníci v marketingu vykazují významně vyšší míru stresu ve srovnání s ostatními profesními skupinami, zejména v souvislosti se stresory, jako jsou časový tlak, nejasné požadavky klientů a rychle se měnící cíle projektů. Diskuse porovnává tato zjištění s předchozími studiemi a nabízí doporučení pro řízení lidských zdrojů a prevenci syndromu vyhoření v marketingové profesi.

Recenzované/Reviewed

5. March 2026 / 26. March 2026