Police officers are professionals who are exposed to events such as contact with problematic situations both human and material, continued exposure to suffering, threats to their own safety and that of colleagues, the use of weapons, performance in emergency operations, and exposure to traumatic events such as death; these exposures result in distress ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}[1,2,3,4,5,6]. For these reasons, police officers are considered employees with high levels of exposure to acute and chronic stressors ^[7][8][7,8] and lower levels of well-being compared with other similar occupations [9] and with the general population [10]. This professional group could experience consequences reflected in the risk of developing psychopathological disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), acute stress disorder, and adaptation disorders; in addition, physical and psychosomatic consequences (sleep disorders, eating disorders, and cardiovascular disorders) should be reported ^{[11][12][13][14][15]}[11,12,13,14,15]. Interestingly, as reported by Kerswell et al. [16], the sources of suffering are the same for operational and non-operational police officers, proving that direct contact is not the only source of suffering [10].

One reason for this seems to be the organizational factors rather than the occupational factors. As suggested by the scholars ^{[17][18][19][20]}[17,18,19,20], organizational stressors seem to be the main cause of the stress process in police officers. Moreover, Garbarino et al. [21] found that depressive symptoms in police officers were related to organizational stressors rather than to individual stressors. Similarly, the results of a study by Suresh et al. [18] showed that stressors in police officers were related to organizational rather than other aspects of their work, such as job content. For example, Shane [22] indicated that perceptions of an increase in contextual stressors are related to a decrease in well-being and performance; high levels of organizational stress undermine police officers’ ability to better perform their operational duties [23]. As described by Shane [22] (2010), organizational stressors, also referred to as work context stressors, include the characteristics of the organization and the behaviors of the people in that organization that can generate stress. In police officers, these stressors can be perceived as oppressive, unnecessary, and inescapable. They include “lack of support, heavy workloads, interpersonal conflicts with colleagues and supervisors, inadequate resources, time pressures, and an overly bureaucratic organizational system that punishes and harshly manages employees” ([3], p. 2). Strijdom and Rothman [24] (2002) found that police officers with inadequate supervisory support, excessive administrative pressure, and low job satisfaction were at increased psychosocial risk. In a study by Pienaar et al. [25], police officers who perceived high levels of organizational stress were also more likely to use avoidant coping strategies when dealing with stressors. These, couaccording to the authors, could lead to and/or exacerbate anxiety and depressive symptoms, burnout, PTSD, and suicidal ideation. As Chae and Boyle [26] noted, organizational stressors are the result of both the structural environment and the functional aspects of organizational life (see also ^[22][27][28][22,27,28]). In particular, the structural environment is related to organizational culture, which determines management style and lack of autonomy and influences interactions among officers. Functional aspects are related to shift work, irregular working hours, and consecutive working days, which can cause emotional stress ^[29][30][29,30].

2. Social Support from Organization

Social support is the provision by an organization of psychological and material resources that can improve a person’s ability to cope with stress. In other words, social support can act as a stress buffer by eliminating or reducing the impact of stressful experiences by promoting fewer threatening interpretations of negative events and effective coping strategies. It can come in any form, as Cohen ^[31][34] mentions, and can create a sense of belonging and even help workers overcome obstacles. A total of nine studies (45%) [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43] highlighting the importance of social support from organizations were included in this review. The absence or presence of social support from organizations was assessed in a cross-sectional study using a validated scale and an ad hoc questionnaire. In relation to the lack of organizational social support, this lack was found to have an impact on the increase of depressive symptoms, PTSD, burnout, and suicidality. The findings of Baek et al. ^[32][35] suggested that organizational social support is crucial in mitigating stress. The results of Baka’s ^[33][36] study showed that depressive symptoms increased among police officers who perceived low social support. Violanti et al. ^[34][37] showed that police officers who perceived low social support showed increased PTSD symptoms and used lower levels of active coping. In addition, Njiro et al. ^[35][38] found that police officers who perceived a lack of social support were at increased risk for depression and suicidality. Wray and Jarrett ^[36][39] also emphasized that limited opportunities for support can increase suicidal ideation and the risk of burnout. The presence of organizational social support has been identified as an important organizational factor that can increase officer well-being and reduce stress and strain. Tucker ^[35][38] found that perceived organizational support increased the possibility of contacting services for both individuals and stress intervention service users. In a study by Frank et al. ^[37][40], results indicated that organizational support reduced levels of job stress. Similarly, Santa Maria et al. ^[38][42] found that social support was negatively associated with psychological distress, with effects on depressive and anxiety symptoms. Kula ^[39][43] found that in the indirect causal effects of organizational and operational stress on job satisfaction, social support was a mediator.

3. Organizational Culture

Organizational culture was defined by Schein ^[40][44] as “(1) a pattern of basic assumptions, (2) invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, (3) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, (4) that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore (5) is to be taught to new members as the (6) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (p. 7). In organizations, values and norms that constitute the culture could affect the perception of a good or bad climate or environment, of psychological strain ^[41][45], and could lead to failures in communication ^[42][46]. In this thematic review, five studies (25%) of those included highlight the importance of organizational culture [42,47,48,49,50]. Again, the studies show both positive and negative effects of a particular organizational culture. Santa Maria et al. ^[38][42] found that shared values were a workplace resource that was negatively associated with anxiety and depressive symptoms in police officers. In an interesting study by Gutschmidt and Vera ^[43][47], their results indicated that the type of organizational culture (e.g., hardworking cultures, team cultures) predicted both the maladaptive strategies used by police officers and their job satisfaction. In a study by Sitko-Dominik and Jakubowski ^[44][48], results showed a relationship between adherence to traditional masculinity norms (e.g., anti-femininity) and PTSD symptomatology (related to fear of losing emotional control). More specifically, their findings indicated that in male police officers, coping with stress could be negatively affected by their adherence to certain social role norms (e.g., hypermasculinity) acquired during the socialization process. The results of the qualitative research of Demou et al. ^[45][49] indicated that organizational culture is one of the main stressors contributing to male health problems among police officers, as values have an impact on stigma in seeking support. An interesting topic is the values that make up an organizational culture and the acceptance (or non-acceptance) of those values. In Rabe-Hemp’s ^[46][50] qualitative research, female officers described the option of being part of the organization and accepting the values (e.g., a masculine police culture oriented toward norms of violence, aggression, danger, solidarity, and courage) or of being part of the organization and not accepting the values, instead choosing more appropriate norms (e.g., exaggerating their unique skills).

4. Leadership

Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and accept the decisions to be made and the actions to be taken, thereby facilitating individual and collective efforts to achieve a common goal. This process could have an impact on perceived workplace stress and work outcomes such as job satisfaction, turnover intention, and job performance ^[47][51]. A total of five studies (25%) highlighting the importance of leadership were included in this review [42,49,52,53,54]. In the study by Thompson et al. ^[48][52], results indicated that for female police officers, relationship conflict is a source of stress, particularly issues with poor leadership (e.g., lack of guidance and lack of positive feedback). Santa Maria et al. ^[38][42] found that a positive leadership climate, along with social support and shared values, was a work resource that was negatively associated with depression and anxiety symptoms in the police officers in their study. In a previous study by Russel ^[49][53], it was found that there was a lower perceived level of burnout in the group with a leader who exhibited high levels of transformational leadership. This type of leader is able to mitigate perceived burnout, especially when stress levels are low. When stress increases, rthesearchers author suggests using a different leadership style (e.g., supportive leadership) that could mitigate perceived burnout. Leadership style could also influence perceived psychological health. Santa Maria et al. ^[50][54] specifically highlighted the role of a health-oriented leadership style on psychological and physical health: in their study, this leadership style was not only associated with improved well-being, but also with lower levels of burnout, depression, and physical complaints. The interviews conducted by Demou et al. ^[45][49] also revealed the importance of leading by example when it comes to police officers’ psychological health.

5. Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy represents the administrative apparatus for the exercise of legal power, i.e., a system of precise rules and regulations to be applied in a manner that tends to be impersonal and impartial through systematic, precise, and rational procedures ^[51][55]. Bureaucracy could be evaluated both instrumentally, on the basis of its expected contribution to realization, and deontologically, on the basis of the validity of the codes of conduct and the principles of reason, morality, organization, and governance on which bureaucracy as an institution is based ^[52][56]. A total of five studies (25%) that examined bureaucracy as an organizational stressor were included in this review [35,50,57,58,59,60]. This stressor could affect well-being, in particular it seems to increase somatization, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Domingues and Machado ^[53][57] underlined that those administrative duties entail significant stress. The results of a study by Kim et al. ^[54][58] suggest that bureaucracy has a greater negative impact on male police officer groups (with consequences for somatization, anxiety, and depression) than on female police officer groups (with consequences for anxiety and depression). In addition, Jackman et al. ^[55][59] found in their mixed-methods study that increasing bureaucracy contributes to ’leaveism’, the practice of using extra time (e.g., on a vacation) to complete work tasks. This behavior is counterproductive because it affects the quality of leisure time and does not provide needed rest. Baek et al. ^[56][60] found that administrative tasks have a negative impact on health. Other studies have shown that bureaucracy does not have only negative effects. As Rabe-Hemp ^[46][50] showed, the amount of bureaucracy could have a positive impact on the promotion experience of female police officers: women employed in agencies with more sophisticated bureaucratic structures appear to have better performance.