Post on 17-Mar-2018
1
Antecedents and Consequences of Managerial Stress:
An
Empirical study of the Information Technology Secto r
Thesis Submitted to the Padmashree Dr. D. Y .Patil University,
Department of Business Management
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Submitted by
Ms Bharati Deshpande
(Enrolment No. DYP-PHD-066100010)
Research Guide
Dr. R. GOPAL
DIRECTOR DEAN & HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT,
Sector 4, Plot No. 10, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614
June 2010
2
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the thesis entitled “Antecede nts and Consequences of
Managerial Stress: A Empirical study of the Informa tion Technology
Sector” submitted for the Award of Doctor of Philos ophy in Business
Management at the Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Univers ity Department of
Business Management is my original work and the the sis has not formed
the basis for the award of any degree, associate sh ip, fellowship or any
other similar titles.
Place: Belapur
Date:
Signature of the Signature of the Signature of the
Guide Head of the dept. Student
3
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Antece dents and Consequences
of Managerial Stress: A Empirical study of the Info rmation Technology
Sector” and submitted by Mr. / Ms. Bharati Deshpan de is a bonafide
research work for the award of the Doctor of Philos ophy in Business
Management at the Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil Unive rsity Department of
Business Management in partial fulfillment of the r equirements for the
award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Busi ness Management and
that the thesis has not formed the basis for the aw ard previously of any
degree, diploma, associate ship, fellowship or any other similar title of any
University or Institution.
Also certified that the thesis represents an indepe ndent work on the part of
the candidate.
Place:
Date:
Signature of the
Head of the department Signature of the Guide
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am indebted to the Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Univ ersity Department of
Business Management, which has accepted me for Doct orate program and
provided me with an excellent opportunity to carry out the present research
project.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to my gui de Dr R Gopal for his
assistance and encouragement and for spending neces sary hours during
this research study. It was Dr Gopal constant inspi ration that kept me
together all the time and work continuously towards achieving a high
quality of work.
I would like to thank my Dean Academic Dr C.S. Adhi kari, Dr Ganesh Raja,
Director ITM Business School , Dr V.V Sople Deputy Director, Prof Murthy
and Prof Bhavsar for their advice, assistance and e ncouragement.
I would sincerely like to thank Dr Kirti Arekar wit hout whose insight and
help in quantitative analysis would not reach the l ight at the end of a very
long tunnel. Also like to thank Dr Shelja Jose for her constant guidance
during my research and Prof Manisha Karandikar for her inputs and
support.
I would like to thank my parents and in laws for t heir blessings and
encouragement. I would like to thank my husband Mr Avinash Deshpande
and my kids Aditya and Ameya without whose continue d sacrifices and
support the realization of this dream would not hav e been fulfilled and
other family members who where always with me.
I would like to thank my faculty associates Dr Sari tprava Das, Dr
Snigdharani Mishra, Prof Preeti Bakshi and other fr iends for their
participation and words of encouragement without which it was difficult to
finish this work. Special thanks to Mr E.P Thomas f or his timely formatting
work. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to all of the people who have
directly or indirectly helped me.
Place:
Date: Signature of the student
5
This thesis is dedicated to my family
6
CONTENTS
CHAPTER NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter -1 1.1 Introduction 1 - 2
1.2 Working environment of IT sector 2 - 4
1.3 Stress and Stressors Definition 4 – 10
1.4 Work-Non work stressors 10-16
Chapter - 2 Review of the Literature
2.1 Origin of the Concept 20-30
2.2 Sources of managerial stress 30-39
2.3 Consequences of Stress 42-45
2.4 Literature on Process model of work stress. 45-48
2.5 Research Gap 48-50
Chapter -3 Research Methodology
3.1 Purpose of the study 56
3.2 Importance of the Study 57
3.3 Scope of study 58
3.4 Statement of Research Objective 58-59
3.5 Population and Sampling 59
3.6 Sample Frame 61
3.7 Sampling Techniques 61
3.8 Working Hypothesis 62-65
3.9 Designing of the instrument 66-68
3.10 Limitation 68-69
Chapter-4 Conceptual Aspects of Stress 70-78
Chapter-5 Overview of Information Technology Secto r 79-90
7
Chapter-6 Pilot Study 91-127
6.1 Validity and Reliability 93
6.2 Reliability Statistics 94-126
Chapter – 7 Data Analysis and Finding
7.1 Description of Sample 128
7.2 Reliability Statistics 130
7.3 Demographic Profile of Managers in IT Sector
131
7.4 Descriptive statistics of causes of stress 138
7.5 Inferential statistics for Causes of stress 144
7.6 Descriptive statistics of consequence 179
7.7 Inferential statistics for consequence 182
Chapter – 8 Summary and findings 199-202
Chapter – 9 Recommendation 203-212
Bibliography 213-222
Annexure
8
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
1.1 Summary of Definition 17
1.2 Definition of Job Stress 17-18
1.3 Definition of Job Stresses 19
2.1 Summary of Stress Literature Studies 51-55
4.1 Operational Definition 77-78
5.1 Soft ware Production by Regions and countries 84
5.2 Profile of Indian IT software industry 85
5.3 IT Industry Important Statistics 87
6.1 Reliability Table 98
6.2 Reliability Statistics 99-102
6.3 Causes of stress 102
6.4 Correlation between Age and Stress 105
6.5 Chi-square between age and stress 107
6.6 Correlation between causes and consequences 109
6.7 Descriptive Statistics of Causes 110
6.8 Independent t test for gender 111-112
6.9 Descriptive Statistics of Location 115
6.10 Independent t test for location 116
6.11 Descriptive Statistics for Year of Experience 115
6.12 ANOVA for Years of Experience 118
6.13 Descriptive Statistics of Income 123
7.1 Description of Sample 128
7.2 Reliability Statistics 130
7.3 Cross tabulation of Gender and Location 131
9
7.4 Cross tabulation between gender and level 133
7.5 Cross tabulation between gender and years of exp 133
7.6 Cross tabulation between gender and total experience
134
7.7 Cross tabulation between gender and annual income
135
7.8 Cross tabulation between gender and age 136
7.9 Cross tabulation between age and income 137
7.10 Descriptive Statistics of causes of stress 138
7.11 Descriptive Statistics of Gender 139
7.12 Descriptive for level managers 140
7.13 Descriptive statistics for location 141
7.14 Descriptive Statistics for years of experience 141-42
7.15 Descriptive for total years of experience 142-43
7.16 Descriptive for managers income 143-44
7.17 Hypothesis testing of gender and stress 146
7.18 Independent t test for level of managers 151
7.19 ANOVA for years of experience 160
7.20 ANOVA for number of years of experience 166
7.21 ANOVA for Age and Stress Level 170
7.22 ANOVA for income and stress 175
7.23 Independent t test for consequences of stress 179
7.24 Descriptive statistics for location 179
7.25 Descriptive statistics for level 180
7.26 Descriptive statistics for Age 180
7.27 Descriptive Statistics for years of experience 181
7.28 Descriptive for total years of experience 182
7.29 Independent t test for Gender and consequence of
stress
183
7.30 Independent t test for Location and consequence of
stress
185
7.31 Independent t test for Level and consequence of
stress
187
10
7.32 ANOVA for consequences of stress 190
7.33 ANOVA for for years of experience for and
consequences
192
7.34 ANOVA for for Total Years of experience for and
consequences
194
7.35 ANOVA for for Income of experience for and
consequences
196
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page No.
1.1 Kurt Lewin Model of Force Field Analysis
30
2.1 Expanded model of work impact on mental distress
40
2.2 Stress model 41
5.1 Conceptual Framework of the study 74
12
List of abbreviations
Abbreviations:
DYPDBM = Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil University Department o f
Business Management
IT - Information Technology
GAS -General Adaptation Syndrome(GAS)
BOSS -Burnout Stress Syndrome
EAP -Employee Assistance Programs
MBI (GS)- Maslach Burnout Inventory- General Survey
PMI The Pressure Management Indicator
NIOSH-National Institute For Occupation Safety And Health
ORS- Occupational Role Stressors
LCU -Life Change Unit
SRSS -Social Readjustment Rating scale.
SRE -Schedule of Recent experiences
ERI -Reward imbalance (ERI) model
F -F value
Df -degree of freedom
µ -Lamda
x² -Chi-square
p value of significance- 0.05level sign ificance
TCS Tata Consultancy Services.
13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Present Scenario can be called as 'Highly Com petitive
Economy' ,'New Economy' and 'Hi-Tech' economy. Thi s New
Economy has bought a major changes in the economy. First is
Globalization and Liberation which has bought about a revolution in
Information Technology in India. Secondly the secon d factor is
Competition and thirdly it is attitudinal change in the working Class.
We can say it is the time for 'Survival of the fitt est'. To survive in the
market the organization has to be a high performing organizational.
These external factors due to which the manager nee d to be a
performer leads to Stress. Stress is likely to beco me the most
dangerous risk to business in the 21 st century. Also over the three
decades there has been a growing belief in all sect ors that the
experience of stress of managers at work has undesi rable
consequence for the health and safety of individual and for the health
of their organization.
Stress is becoming an increasingly global phenomen on
affecting all countries, all professions and all ca tegories of workers,
families and society in general.The concept of stre ss was first
introduced in the life science by Hans selye in 193 6. Stress is known
as ‘the ratio of the internal forces brought into p lay when a substance
14
is distorted to the area over which the forces act. Stress produces
positive as well as negative effect. In the absence of stress people feel
boredom and lack any inclination to act at the same time more stress
leads to negative effect of stress. There is eviden ce that the
experience of stress at work is associated with cha nges in both
behaviour and physiological function, which may bot h be detrimental
to employees' health. Stress may contribute to the development of
various symptoms of occupational ill health and of physical and
psychological disorders. The emerging approach for intervention
focuses on a pro-active response to stress, with em phasis on
preventive measures and elimination of the causes o f stress, rather
than on the treatment of its effects. This very com plex issue is
covered by a broad field of research activities. Th e Information
Technology (IT) is no exception in this respect wit h an increasing
employment increasing employment in recent years. Although
general management is a high stress occupation high er due to the
conflicting demands of completing a project on time , within budget, to
quality, and satisfying stakeholders.
Research Gap
The literature on job stress either like to link c auses of stress to
personality variables, job related stress to change in the organization,
performance linked or turnover intentions or a comp aratively study
between countries.
15
Most of the literature either shows the reasons or burnout or stress, or
there is a comparative study between countries but not many studies are
conducted in Indian IT sector. In Indian context th ere is some work done in
manufacturing sector and BPO /KPO sector. The prese nt study discusses
different occupational stressors in Informational t echnology sector for
junior and middle management categories executives . The study was
conducted for executives located in two cities i.e Mumbai and Bangalore
This study basically studies the antecedents and co nsequences of stress
in these major cities and give recommendations how to overcome these
problems.
Purpose of the study :
Job stress can occur for everyone in any position i n any industry. Stress
can affect high level executive, upper and middle m anager. The various
stress relating problems like coronary heart diseas e hyper tension,
diabetics, gastrointestinal disorders, peptic ulcer , asthma, migraine,
alcoholism, drug addiction, depression etc are acco untable for poor health.
These problems are further affecting organizational performance adversely
by contributing to poor productivity, high employee turnover and higher
degree of job satisfaction.
The increased stress related costs are fostering th e organization to identify
the various approaches to study stress at work. The present research is
designed to investigate the relationship and impact of work related stress
on managers by testing for relationship between cau ses of stress in IT
sector with reference to demographic, independent v ariables i.e age,
gender, level, years of experience, total years in IT sector, income and
16
consequences of their stressors like physiological, behavioural and
psychological.
Objective:
In view of the above, the objective of this study w ere:
• To identify the job related stressors for managers in Information
Technology sector.
• To study the sources of stress with context to role related, Job
Related, Interpersonal, Intra personal and Organiza tional.
• To investigate the relationship and impact of work related stress on
managers by testing for relationship between causes with
reference to demographic independent variables(age, gender, level
of managers, years of experience, income and variab les of
stressors.
• To study the consequences of these stressors i.e ph ysical,
behavioural and psychological on the managers with reference to
demographic independent variables.
• Give recommendations as to factors which are respon sible for
stress and how to overcome these problems
Sampling :
Sampling is the process of selecting a( few sample ) from the bigger
group to become the basis of estimating or predicti ng the prevalence
of an unknown piece of information, situation or ou tcome regarding
the bigger group. In the present sample the entire population of IT
17
managers all over India, but the potential responde nt ( element) are
basically selected from the two major cities i.e Mu mbai and Bangalore.
The technique used for sampling is convinent sampli ng . It is relatively
easy task to define a target population for a study , but more difficult to
identify the list of every member of such populatio n. In the present
study the sample population was the senior managers and the junior
managers. The sample size calculation showed a samp le of 180 based
of which a sample of 600 sample size was chosen fro m both the cities
Mumbai and Bangalore.
Methodology :
This research study was designed to investigate th e relationship
and impact of work related stress on managers by te sting for
relationship between the causes of stress in its se ctor with
reference to demographic, independent variables (ag e gender
level, years of experience, income) and consequence s of these
stressors like physiological, behavioral and psycho logical. In
order to find this the methodology adopted was Prim ary data as
well as secondary data. The literature review reve aled that in
India use of Social Readjustment Rating Scale(SRSS) developed
by Holmes and Rahe (1967)was used. It basically inc luded 43 life
events drawn from nearly 5000 case histories of pat ients. It was
used to investigate the nature and dynamics of role stress in
various organizations and to develop interventions for the use of
individual, groups and organization. In the present study a well
known psychometric instrument was Occupational Stre ss Index
18
which was constructed and standardized by Dr Srivas tava and Dr
R Singh (1981). This instrument included 46 questio ns covering
all the relevant components of job life which cause s stress in one
or other way. Of these 32 are true keyed and 18 are false keyed. A
Likert 5 point ranging from strongly disagree to st rongly agree
was used on each other. Total variables included ro le overload,
role conflict, role ambiguity, job stressors, intra personal
stressors, powerlessness , underparticipation and l ow status.
and for studying the consequences of stress instrum ent by
International Stress Organization was used data . I t included 20
questions based on the physical , behavioural and p sychological
consequences. Secondary was used to find out the ea rlier
contributions by different authors, to know the sta tistical figures
of stress . The secondary research included textb ooks, journals,
reports,newspaper etc.
A conceptual framework of stress was adapted from p revious
research. Firstly an exploratory was conducted to f ind the stressors
faced by IT managers. Based on the variables of str essors the
instrument Occupational Stress Index by Dr A.K Sin gh and Dr R
Srivastava was used to conduct the data .
Hypothesis framing :
Hypothesis was framed on basis of the demographics of managers ie
age, gender, location, years of experience in the s ame company, total
number of years of experience, income , level vari ables of stress like
19
role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, inter personal stressors,
job stressors , under participation , powerlessness and low status.
The description of sample showed the sample size i n Mumbai sis
49.8% where as in banaglore it is 50.2%. The total male managers are
63% of population where as female managers are 37%. Out of which
67% of sample is of junior management and 32.5% are in the senior
level. In the given sample 19.1% of managers are in less than 25 years
of age group where as maximum in the age group of m anagers in the
age group of 25-35 years i.e 40.6%. About 26.4% of managers are in
the age group of 30-35 years and only 13.9% above 3 5 years of age. In
the income segment 47.5% of managers earn income of 5-10 lakhs per
annum. About 24.4% earn in the range of 1-5 lakhs a nd 10-15 years
respectively. Only 4% of managers earn above 15 lak hs per annum.
Findings
The conclusion reached supported the research quest ion findings.
There is a significant difference between stress le vel in male and
female. Stress is more in age group less than 25 yr s of age due to
under participation, low status . In male due to in ter personal
stressors, job stressors where is female it due to under participation
and powerlessness. Stress also varies with location . Stress is more in
Mumbai due to few occupational stressors like role ambiguity, job
related stressors, powerlessness, under participati on and low status.
If we compare stress level in Junior level managers is due to role
20
conflict, powerlessness, under participation , low status. and gender,
stress and years of experience, stress and income
By cross tabs it was found that there is no signifi cant relationship
between gender and location, gender and level, gend er and years of
experience, gender and annual income but a signific ant relationship
between income and age. The findings indicate that less than 25 years
of male managers earn 26.5 % of income also in the similar age group
54% of managers earn the same money at the age of 3 5 and above.
There is significant difference in the behavioural and psychological
consequences of stress in male and female managers. There is a
significant difference in physical consequences but no significant
difference in behavior and psychological consequenc e of stress in
Mumbai and Bangalore. There is not significant diff erence in physical
consequences of stress in Junior managers and senio r managers but
a difference in psychological consequences of stres s. There is
significant difference in physical, psychological a nd behavioural
consequences of stress and age, years of experience .
Conclusion:
Stress is the unconscious preparation to fight or f lee when faced with
any demand. Most of the stressors found in organiza tion is task, role,
interpersonal, physical demand at work along with n on work
demands. To overcome stress efforts from both persp ective is
important i.e individual as well as organizational perspective. If efforts
are taken from both sides may lead to a very health y culture in an
21
organization which will effect individual performan ce as well as
organizational performance.
Recommendations :
Stress is inevitable result of work and personal l ife. Distress is not an
inevitable consequence of stressful events how ever in fact well
managed stress can improve health and performance. Some
strategies recommended are as follows:
J.D Quick, R.S Horn(1986) gave a framework for unde rstanding
preventive stress management which talks about thre e stages of
prevention . Primary prevention is intended to redu ce, modify or
eliminate the demand of stressors causing stress. S econdly
prevention is intended to alter or modify the indiv iduals or the
organization’s response to a demand or stressor.Thi rdly is Tertiary
prevention intended to heal individual or organizat ional symptoms of
distress and strain.
Few more techniques given by B Gardell(1987) in his job strain model
like job design basically to have a worker control. Few more strategies
like Goal setting, Role negotiation, Learned optimi sm, time
management, physical excerise, yoga and meditation etc can be used
to over come stress.
22
CHAPTER I
An overview of Information Technology Sector
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Indian information technology sector continues to be one of the
sunshine sectors of the Indian economy showing ra pid growth and
promise. According to a report prepared by Mc Kinse y for NASSCOM
called ‘Perspective 2020: Transform Business, Trans form India’
released in May 2009, the exports components of the Indian Industry
is expected to reach US $175 billions in revenue by 2020. IT sector
has played a very important role in putting India o n the global map.
According to the Department of Information Technolo gy (DIT) the
overall Indian software and services industry reven ue is estimated to
have grown from US $ 10.2 billion in 2001-02 to rea ch US$58.7 billion
in 2008-09.
The IT industry accounts for a 5.9% of the country ’s GDP and export
earning as of 2009 while providing employment to a significant
number of its tertiary sector workforce. More than 2.3 million people
are employed in the sector either directly or indir ectly. The most
prominent IT hub is IT capital Bangalore. The other emerging
destinations are Chennai, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Pune, Jaipur and
Kolkata. Today Bangalore is known as Silicon Valle y of India and
contributes 33% of Indian IT Exports. India’s secon d and third largest
software companies are head quartered in Bangalore, as are many of
23
global SEI –CMM level 5 companies. And Mumbai too h as its share of
IT companies once that are established as well as s tart-ups and
these include Patni, L&T Infotech, TCS, Intelli-Fle x, Shine etc. These
IT companies are ruling the roost of Mumbai’s relat ively high octane
industry of information technology.
The scope of IT industry has great scope for peopl e as it provide
employment to technical and non technical graduates and has a
capability to generate huge foreign exchange inflow for India. India
exports software’s and services to approximately 95 countries in the
world. By outsourcing to India, many countries get benefit s in terms
of labour costs and business processes.
1.2 WORKING ENVIRONMENT OF IT SECTOR:
It is dynamic industry that is often informal, but always focus on
achievement. IT graduates highlight constant change and
challenges, variety, working to deadlines, working with intelligent
colleagues, work overload. Many graduates work a fa irly standard
day. However in some areas the cyclical nature of p rojects means
that extra work may indeed be necessary to meet pro ject deadlines
or to provide 24/7 support. In the games industry, long hours are
pretty much the norm. In other field we build up sk ills so that they
become a capital asset that increase in value. In t echnology, the
learning curve can be competence destroying as inst ead of building
24
up their skills they are trying to maintain it. Tha t amount to increase
in stress they have.
People believe that modern computer aided technolo gy has reduced
their mental workload but in fact, it has increased the mental
workload and it also weakened their social support. Work related
stress comes from numerous factors such as too many task
demands, role conflicts, job boredom, ethical dilem mas, or
interpersonal problems. Poor career development and physical
environment are also causes of workplace stress. Bu t technology is
one of the biggest factor of stress. Technology is supported to make
employees more productive at work, less burdened. B ut technology
is moving too fast for some people contributing to more stress.
Job stress has long been an important concept in t he organizational
study of the response of the employees have to thei r surroundings.
The many challenges in the work environment, charac terized by
heightened competition, lack of time, continuous te chnology
development, conflicting demands from organizationa l stakeholders
(Hall and Savery 1986) increase use of participator y management and
computerization (Murray and Fobes 1986) has resulte d in high job
stress. Managers in the manufacturing sector have b een found to be
experiencing high stress (Jestin and Gampel 2002). The weakening
of the global economy during the past few years has resulted in
substantial downsizing and retrenchment. Such event s amongst
employees in locals are few of the reasons for high stress amongst
employees.
25
The common expression for stress is ‘tension’. One is said to be
tensed, when there is some anxiety, some fear of wh ether the
desirable things may happen, whether something may go wrong etc.
It is a state of discomfort felt in the mind and ex perienced by the
body.
1.3 STRESS –DEFINITION-CLASSIFICATION :
The terms “Stressors” and “Coping process”- as the y relate to this
research, will also be defined. Once again, these d efinitions are a
mixture of mental health and organizational behavio ural science
definitions.
Stress Defined
Stress is defined by Bruno(1991) as the rate of we ar and tear on an
organism. Selye, a Canadian physician, was an early explorer of the
effects of stress on health. He defined stress as t he sum of all non
specific changes caused by function or damage (1956 ,1976). From
his medical perspective. Selye suggested that the b ody responds to
psychological changes related to “fight or fight” s yndrome(1974).
Bowes(1999) concurs that the human body has been “h ard-wired”
throughout evolution to respond to stress through a fight-or fight
response. She defines stress as external or interna l pressure to act.
Bowes(1999) states that stress is’ the body respond ing by activating
a complex system that produces an array of hormones and
neurotransmitters, which are intended to help the h eart and brain
26
work better physiologically to meet the demand(1233 -
1234)Herbert(1997)defines stress as a general term that refers to any
demand psychological or physical) that is outside t he norm. Herbert
states that stress usually signals a disparity betw een what is optimal
in a given situation and what actually exists. (Bru no, 1991) Beehr and
Newman (1978) define occupational stress as "A cond ition arising
from the interaction of people and their jobs and c haracterised by
changes within people that force them to deviate fr om their normal
functioning."
Mason(2001)defines stress as reactions of the body to negative
influences. Mason further explains that his studies show ”external
stress may be positive or negative(pleasure, challe nge, divorce, work
responsibilities)’(p316).
French(1971) defines stress as it is the consequen ce that an
individual’s ability or skills fail to coordinate w ith the job or the job
environment cannot satisfy the individual demand.
Wilkeson (1991) defines stress and further delinea tes it into four
types. From a general perspective, stress is define d as “fashionable”
term that denotes usually disagreeable stimuli. Str ess also
encompasses the subjective, behavioural and physiol ogical
responses to the stimuli. The four main, overlappin g types of stress
are segregated as acute (eg an assault), sequential , with one event
initiating others that occur over some period of ti me (eg
bereavement); chronic intermittent (eg conflicts wi th neighbours);
and chronic (eg being disabled). Miller and Simergl ia (1998) define
27
stress as the individual’s general feeling of uneas e or upset in
response to a traumatic life event and the accumula tion of others,
concomitant problems or change. They divide stress into two
constructs; event stress and added stress. Event (o r primary) stress
is defined as reaction that are directly related to a stressful life event.
Added (or coincidental contextual) stress is differ entiated as the
result of additional problems and changes that are occurring about
the same time as the primary event stress. Robbins (2001) defines
stress as a dynamic condition in which the individu al is confronted
with an opportunity, constraint, or demand related to what he or she
desires and for which the outcome is perceived to b e both uncertain
and important.
“Stressor” Defined:
Anisman and Merali (1999) define the term stressor as a situation or
event appraised as being aversive, in that it elici ts a stress response.
This then taxes a person’s Physiological or psychol ogical resources,
as well as potentially provoking a subjective state of mental or
physical tension. Stressors can be separated into t wo classifications
psychogenic and or physical tension. Stressors of a purely
psychological origin are called psychogenic stresso rs. Neurogenic
stressors usually involve a physical stimulus.
In addition, Anisman and Merali (1999) have segreg ated
environmental stressors as either systemic and poss essive.
Possessive stressors require appraisal of a situati on involving high-
28
level cognitive processing of incoming sensory info rmation. In
contrast systemic stressors are of physiological or igin.
Simply defined, a stressor is an event that causes stress to the
individual when he or she appraises the demands as exceeding the
resources (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Herbert(1997) utilizes the
definition of stressor as an environmental event. D avison and Neale
(2001) concur with this definition and add that a s tressor can be
thought of as a stimulus, whether positive or negat ive in nature.
“Coping Process” Defined Herbert (1997) includes a definition of
coping in his study of stress, the brain and mental illness. “Coping is
the process of recognizing, and adapting to persist ent and adverse
stress (p369). Davison and Neale (2001) defined the concept of
coping as how people try to handle a problem or the emotion it
process. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) identified two broad
dimensions of coping: problem focused coping and e motion
focused coping. Problem focused coping involves tak ing some sort
of direct action to solve the problem.
Table1 is a summary of the operational definitions of the terminology
as used in this research study. The term stress has been derived
from the Latin word "stringer" which means to draw tight. The term
was used to refer to hardship, strain, adversity or affliction. Allen,
Hitt, and Green (1982) have defined "Occupational s tress as
disruption in individuals psychological or/and phys iological
homeostasis that force them to deviate from normal functioning in
interaction with their jobs and work environment."
29
Stress is an adaptive response to a situation that is perceived as
challenging or threatening to the person’s well bei ng. The stress
response is a complex emotion that produces physiol ogical changes
to prepare us for ‘fight or fight’- to defend the t hreat or flee from it.
Acute stress and Chronic Stress: Stress is a physi cal and emotional
reaction that everyone experiences as he or she enc ounters changes
in life. These reactions can be positive or negativ e. Many scientists
see stress as a reaction of our body to sudden chan ges in the
environment. Just like animals, people need extra e nergy to stay and
fight or run away when faced with danger. The body' s normal
reaction to a somewhat dangerous situation is an in crease in heart
rate and muscle tension and a higher blood pressure and sweating
such physical and emotional reaction help us by inc rease our
concentration and other bodily function in order to prepare for a
challenge. After meeting a challenge the body relax es as the heart
rate, muscle tension and blood pressure return to n ormal. This gives
the body a chance to recover physically and for the person to feel
emotionally rewards for overcoming the challenge. T his is called
good stress or Acute stress.
When situation that causes physical and emotional stress reaction or
non stopping or perceived as perceived as non stopp ing. The body
never gets a chance to relax. This cause constant t ense muscle and
a 'Knotted” stomach. This type of situation is call ed a bad stress or
chronic stress. Stress is an inevitable feature of work and personal
life. It is neither inherently bad nor destructive.
30
Stressors : The Causes of stress
Stressors, the causes of stress, include any enviro nmental
conditions that place a physical or emotional deman d on the person.
There are numerous stressors in organizational sett ings and other
life activities. The four main types of stressors o f work related
stressors: interpersonal, role related , task contr ol, organizational
and physical environmental stressors.
Inter personal stressors: Among the four types of s tressors,
interpersonal stressors seem to be most pervasive a t school and
work. The trend towards teamwork generates inter pe rsonal
stressors because employee must interact more with co-workers.
Bad boss, office politics, and various types of int er personal conflict
also take their toll on employees. E.Vigoda(2002)fo und that
employees experienced stress immediately after expo sure to
organizational political. Other inter personal stre ssors include sexual
harassment, workplace violence, and bullying.
Role Related Stressors: Role related stressors incl ude conditions
where employees have difficulty understanding, reco nciling or
performance the various roles in their lives. Three types of role
related stressors are role conflict, role ambiguity and work overload.
Role conflict refers to the degree of incongruity o r incompatibility of
expectations associated with the person’s role. Som e people
experiences stress when they have two roles that co nflict with each
31
other( called inter role conflict). Nurses tend to experience inter role
conflict because they struggle to maintain humanist ic caring and
preserve the nurse patient relationship in a cost e fficient managed
care environment controlled by others. G.R Cluskey( 1997) studied
role conflict also occurs when an employee receives contradictory
messages from different people about how to perform a task(called
intra role conflict) or works with organizational v alues and work
obligations that are incompatible with his or her p ersonal values(
called person-role conflict)
Role Ambiguity: Refers to the lack of clarity and p redictability of the
outcome of one’s behaviour. Role ambiguity produces unclear role
perception and has a direct affect on job performan ce. It is also a
source of stress in a variety of situations, such a s joining the
organization or working in a new joint venture, bec ause people are
uncertain about task and social expectations.
Work Overload: A third role related stressors is wo rk overload-
working more hours and more intensity during those hours. In 1930,
noted economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that by 2030 the
average employee would be working a 15 hours workwe ek. At the
time, Kellogg’s the cereal company, had switched fr om eight hours
to six hours work shifts in order to employ more pe ople during the
depression and give employees more time off. But Ke ynes prediction
is a far cry from the number of hours employees wor k today.
Although official paid work hours are lower than th ose of the early
1900’s, they have moved consistently upward towards the past 20
32
years. Some authors claim the raising workload is d ue to the
pressure from globalization for more efficiency and from employee’s
own desire to keep up with the Joneses in wealth an d consumption.
Task-Control Stressors: It includes the extent to w hich low task
control is a stressor increases with the person’s l evel of
responsibility. Assembly line workers have low task control but tend
to experience less stress because they also have lo w responsibility
for those tasks. In contrast, sports coaches are im mense pressure to
win games(high responsibility) yet have little cont rol over what
happens on the playing field ( low task control)
Organizational and Physical Environment stressors: Organizational
and Physical Environment stressors come in many for ms.
Downsizing(reducing the numbers of employees) is ex tremely
stressful to those who lose their jobs. However, la yoff survivors also
experiences stress because of the reduced job secur ity, chaos of
change, additional workloads, and guilt of having a job as others
lose their . Some stressors are found in the physic al work
environment, such as excessive noise, poor lighting and safety
hazards. A study of textiles workers in a noisy pla nt found that their
levels of stress measurably decreased when supplied with ear
protectors. Another study reported that their level of stress
measurably decreased when supplied with ear protect ors. Another
study reported that clerical employees experienced significantly high
stress level in noisy open offices than in quiet a reas.
33
Work-Non work stressors: There are three types of t hese work –
nonwork stressors: time based, strain based and rol e based conflict.
Time Based Conflict: Time based conflict refers to the challenge of
balancing the time demanded by work with family and other non
work activities. This stressors are noticeable in e mployees who hold
employees who hold strong family values and weakest in people who
do not value a work life balance, Time based confli ct relates back to
the workload stressors described earlier.
Strain Based Conflict: Strain based conflict occurs when stress from
one domain spills over to the other. Relationship p roblems, financial
difficulties, and loss of a loved one usually top t he list of non work
stressors. New responsibilities, such as marriage, birth of a child,
and a mortgage, are also stressful to most of us.
Role Behaviour conflict. A third work- non work str essors, called role
behaviour conflicts, occurs when people are expecte d to enact
different work and non work roles. People who act l ogically and
impersonally at work have difficulty switching to a more
compassionate behavioural style in their personal l ives.
Major Elements of Stress:
One way to understand the dynamics of stress is to think of it as the
product of a “force field” ( Lewin, 1951). Kurt Lew in suggested that
all individuals and organizations exist in an envir onment filled with
reinforcing exist in an environment filled with rei nforcing or
opposing forces( stresses). These forces act to sti mulate or inhibit
34
the performance desired by the individual. A person ’s level of
performance in an organization results from factors that may either
complement or contradict one another. Certain force drive or motives
changes in behaviour, while other forces restrain o r block those
changes.
According to Lewin’s theory, the forces affecting i ndividuals are
normally balanced in the force field. The strength of driving forces is
exactly matched by the strength of the restraining forces.
Performance changes when the forces become imbalanc ed. That is if
the driving forces become imbalanced. That is, if t he driving forces
become stroner than the restraining forces, or more numerous or
enduring, change occurs. Conversly if restraining f orces become
stronger or more numerous than driving forces, chan ge occurs in the
opposite direction.
Feeling of stress are a product of certain stressor s inside and
outside the individual. These stressors can be thou ght of as driving
forces in the model. That is, they exert pressure o n the individual to
change present levels of performance physiologicall y,
psychologically and inter personally. Unrestrained those forces can
lead to pathological result(eg anxiety, heart disea se and mental
breakdown) . However most people have developed a c ertain amount
of resilency or restraining forces to counter stres sors and inhibit
pathological results. These restraining forces incl ude behaviour
patterns, psycholgocial characteristics and support social
relationships. Strong restraining forces lead to lo w heart rates, good
35
interpersonal relationships, emotional stability, a nd effective stress
management. In absence of restraining forces leads to the reverse
Dr
D
( Fig 1.1Source Kurt Lewin Model of Force field A nalysis)
Driving Force A
Driving Force B
Driving Force
Restraining Force A
Restraining Force B
Restraining Force C
36
Table 1.1: SUMMARY OF DEFINITION
Term Researcher Definition
Stress Bowes,1999,
1997:Bruno
External of internal pressure to act or react to pos itive or
negative stimuli.
Burnout Minirth 1986 High levels of continuous stre ss.
Depression Bruno,1991 Negative emotional state char acterized by self doubt,
sadness,& loss of interest in daily living.
Stressor Bruno,1991 Causes of the stress.
Coping
Strategy
Herbert 1997 Process of recognizing, evaluating, an d adapting to
persistent stress
Table 1.2: DEFINITIONS OF JOB STRESS
Year Author Definition of Job Stress
1956 Seley Stress means uncertain reaction of he body to demand and also basic demand from internal and external environment, or reaction result against threat of balance condition
1971 French Stress is the consequence that an in Individual’s ability or skills fail to Coordinate with the job or the job Environment cannot satisfy the Individual demand.
1974 Kroes Stress is improper occupa-tional Pressure or burden with
37
badly Affect the psychological and Physical condition of the worker Himself.
1978 Beehr & Newman Stress is the change that drives the Worker from normal psychological And physical condition
1980 Ivancevich & Matteson
Stress is some adaptive reaction, a Consequence of special psychological or physical demand from the event, and such reaction takes personal character as intermediary.
1985 Jamal Stress is one’s reaction against threat In the working environment
1991
Wileson
From a general perspective, stress is defined as “fashionable” term that denotes usually disagreeable stimuli. Stress also encompasses the subjective, behavioural and physiological responses to the stimuli.
1997 Herbert Defines stress as a general term that refers to any demand psychological or physical) that is outside the norm. Herbert states that stress usually signals a disparity between what is optimal in a given situation and what actually exists.
1998 Miller & Simerglia
Stress as the individual’s general feeling of unease or upset in response to a traumatic life event and the accumulation of others, concomitant problems or change.
1999 Bowes Concurs that the human body has been “hard-wired” throughout evolution to respond to stress through a
38
fight-or fight response. She defines stress as external or internal pressure to act.
2001 Mason Stress as reactions of the body to negative influences. Mason further explains that his studies show ”external stress may be positive or negative (pleasure, challenge, divorce, work responsibilities)
Table 1.3: Definitions of Job Stressors
Year Author Definition of Job Stress
1999
Anisman and Merali
Stressors can be separated into two classifications psychogenic and or physical tension. Stressors of a purely psychological origin are called psychogenic stressors. Neurogenic stressors usually involve a physical stimulus.
1984 Lazarus and Folkman
Simply defined, a stressor is an event that causes stress to the individual when he or she appraises the demands as exceeding the resources
2001
Davison and Neale
Concur with this definition and add that a stressor can be thought of as a stimulus, whether positive or negative in nature as coping process. The concept of coping as how to handle a problem or the emotion it process.
Chapter II
39
Literature Review
2.1 Origin of the concept:
The concept of stress was first introduced in the l ife science by Hans
Selye in 1936. It is a concept borrowed from the na tural sciences.
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, str ess was equated
with force, pressure strain exerted upon a material its original state.
The use of the concept in this manner encouraged ph ysicists and
engineers to adopt it to suit their ends. Thus, str ess is engineering is
known as ‘the ratio of the internal force brought i nto play when a
substance is distorted to the area over which the f orces act (Hinkle
1973). In common parlance, however the terms ‘stres s’ and ‘strain’
are use synonymously in a non-scientific manner. Th e popularity of
this concept has dwindled in the physiological fiel d where it was first
introduced, and the use of the stress terminology c ontributes to
flourish in the psychological and social sciences. During the last 15
years the term stress has come to be widely used in relation to work
organizations. (Agarwala, Malhan and Singh 1979). M ason(1975)
reviewed literature on stress and concluded that th ere was confusion
and a lack of consensus regarding its definition.
The term stress has been used variously to refer to a) stimulus
(external force acting on the organism), b) respons e (changes in the
physiological functions), c) interaction (inter-act ion between an
external force and the resistance opposed to it, as in biology) and d)
more comprehensive combination of this above factor .
40
Agarwala, Malhan and Singh (1979) believe that the confusion is
defined is primarily due to the fact that the same term is used by
various scholars of different disciplines. Thus in physics, stress is a
force which acts on a body to produce strain. In ps ychology, stress
refers to a state of the organism resulting from so me inter-stimulus
which imposes detectable strain that cannot be easi ly
accommodated by the body and so presents itself as impaired health
or behaviour’. Hens Selye’s 1936 he wrote the first paper on the
stress syndrome in 1936. He demonstrated the stress is not a vague
concept, some how related to the decline in the inf luence of
traditional codes of behaviour, dissatisfaction wit h the world, or the
rising cost of living, but rather then it is clearl y a deinable biological
and medical phenomenon whose mechanisms can be obje ctively
identified and with which he can cope much better o nce we know
how to handle it. When confusions and arguments abo ut stress-
indeed about any concept- start to prove a barriers to
communication and progress, it is always best to re vert to the
undisputed facts, the original observations that ga ve rise to the field.
Accordingly, let us proceed to a discussion of the nature of stress.
Hans Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) has been widely
comprehensive has been widely held as a comprehensi ve model to
explain the stress phenomenon. This three stages mo del states that
when an organism is confronted with a threat, the g eneral
physiological response occurs in three stages.
41
Alarm Reaction: The first stage includes an initial ‘shock phase’ in
which resistance is lowered, and a ‘counter –shock phase’ in which
defensive mechanisms become active. Alarm reaction is
characterized by autonomous excitability; adrenalin discharge;
increase heart rate, muscle tone, and blood content ; and
gastrointestinal ulceration. Depending on the natur e and intensity of
the threat and the condition of the organism, the p eriod of resistance
vary and the severity of symptoms may differ from ‘ mild invigoration
to disease of adaptation’
Stage of Resistance: Maximum adaptations occur duri ng this stage.
The bodily signs characteristics of the alarm react ion disappear.
Resistance increases to levels above normal. If the stressor persists,
or the defensive reaction proves ineffective, the o rganism
deteriorates to the next stage.
Stage of Exhaustion: Adoption energy is exhausted. Signs of the
alarm reaction reappear, and the resistance level b egins to decline
irreversible. The organism collapses. A diagrammati c view of these
stages is shown
Shortcoming: The first major shortcoming of this th eory according to
Pestonjee (1987) is that it is based on researches carried out on infra
human subjects. In such experiments, the stressors are usually
physical and environmental, whereas the human organ ism is not
always confronted by such stressors.
Secondly Selye’s work on stress depends on the exis tence of a non-
specific physiological response. But it has been no ted by
42
researchers that there are certain stimuli, for exa mple, exercise,
fasting and hear, which do not produce non-specific response and
hence the General Adaptation syndrome does not hold true.
Pestonjee(1987) however had noted that it is ‘natur al and healthy to
maintain optimal level of stress and opined that ‘s uccess
achievement, higher productivity and effectiveness call for stress’
When stresses are left unchecked and unmanaged, the y can create
problems in performance and affect the health and well being of the
organism. Stress has originated in the field of str uctural engineering
and physical sciences which, in due course of time, has been
adopted by behaviour scientist. His paper is an att empt to demystify
the established facts related to the phenomenon of stress. For eg the
person environment paradigm emphasis the balance ra ther the
absolute level of either. This paradigm, however do es not assume
that return to the preceding steady state in the on ly beneficial
outcome possible because too little work is as stre ssful for
individual as being viewed as a stimulus to growth and the
achievement of a new balance. Keeping in view that stress is a
personal response to a certain variation in the env ironment,
Pestonjee depending on a. The nature and magnitude of the strategy
b) the importance of the stressors to the individua l. 3) the perception
of the treat element as a component of the stressor d0 the personal
and social support system available to the individu al and the d) the
involvement and willingness on the part of the indi vidual and e) the
involvement and willingness on the part of the indi vidual’ to do of
43
stress in the light of social systems to which we a ll belong. There are
two systems one primary secondary system to which w e relate such
as neighbourhood, school, college etc. He also Pest onjee has
attempted to diagrammatically present the nature an d consequence
of stress phenomenon. He has identified three impor tant sectors of
life in which stress originates. These are
1. Jobs and the organization: This namely includes in totality work
environment (task, atmosphere, colleagues, compensa tion and
policies)
2. The social sector: Refers to the social-cultural context of one’s
life.
3. Intra-psychic sector: This encompasses those thi ngs which are
intimate and personal, like temperament, values, ab ilities and
health.
It is contended that stresses can originate in any of three sector or in
combination thereof. In the second figure we that j ob and
organization loads have increased and have made a d ent in the
personality. In this stage we find minor surface ch anges taking place
which are quite manageable.
In stage three we find that job and organizational load have become
unmanageable and interact with intra psychic load. This is a stage at
which the negative consequences of stress become ap parent. When
the situation persist we move to the next stage in which we start
operating belong the stress tolerance limit. Severa l types of
44
breakdowns and cracks are observable. If unchecked, the situation
may culminate into the last and most intense phase wherein
complete disintegration of personality takes place. At this stage the
individual needs proper psychological and medical c are.
He also developed a model to explain how to cope wi th stress
reaction. It is called the ‘bounce model’ because t he behavioral
decomposition taking place due to stress tends to g et reflected in
interpersonal and other reactions. The reactions ar e received and
analyzed by the environment which in turn, bounces back signals to
the individual to bring about a change either at th e organic level or at
the response level.
(Pain 1982) has developed concept of Burnout Stre ss Syndrome
(BOSS): Boss can lead to at least four types of str ess related
consequences such as depletion of energy reserves, lowered
resistance to illness, increased dissatisfaction an d pessimisms and
increased absenteeism and inefficiency at work.
Veningle and Spradley (1981) have identified five d istinct stages of
Boss: Honey moon stage: This stage can be describe d as
accounting for the euphoric feeling of encounter wi th the new job
such as excitement, enthusiasm challenge and pride. Dysfunctional
features emerge in two ways: First the energy reser ve is gradually
depleted in coping with the demands of a challengin g environment.
Second, habits and strategies for coping with stres s are formed in
this stage which is often not used in coping with l ater challenges.
45
Fuel Shortage stage: This stage can be identified a s composed of the
value feelings of loss, fatigue and confusion arisi ng from the
individual’s overdraft on reserves of adaptation en ergy. Other
symptoms are dissatisfaction, inefficiency, fatigue and sleep
disturbances leading to escape activities such as i ncreased eating,
drinking and smoking.
Chronic Symptoms stage: Fuel shortage stage is foll owed by
physiological symptoms which become more pronounced and
demand attention and help at this stage. Common sym ptoms are
chronic exhaustion, physical illness, anger and dep ression. A sense
of fatigue and exhaustion overtakes the individual.
Crisis stage: When these feelings and physiological symptoms
persists over a period of time, the individual ente rs the stage of
crisis. At this stage, he develops escape mentality and feeling
oppressed. Heightened pessimism, self doubting, pep tic ulcer,
tension headaches, chronic backaches, high blood pr essure and
difficulty in sleeping are other characteristics of this stage.
Hitting the Wall Stage: This stage of BOSS is chara cterized by total
exhaustion of one’s adaptation energy which may mar k the end of
one’s professional career. While recovery from this stage may elude
some, others may be resourceful enough to tide over the crisis.
The author further identified the particular stress ors associated with
owner manager. Stressors for creative manager are R ole ambiguity,
Outcome curtaining Exposure to hazards Task difficu lty Exposure to
criticism, evaluation anxiety, role expectation con flict and time
46
pressure and consequences are leads to boredom and frustration,
self role distance, role stagnation, personal adequ acy, approach
avoidance conflicts about job.
(Storch and Panzarella,1996), and managing ( Broa d bridge 2002).
Relatively few studies has been conducted and of t hese only
Gallstedt focus on IT project managers. This report s on research
aimed at validating and extending Gallstedt's work by identifying the
sources of stress and their outcome that are releva nt to IT managers
.What are the stressors faced by IT managers, what are the
consequences of them.
MD.W. Pestonjee review person conducted by Torrance (1965) and
Petrosko (1983)and speculated on the type of potent ial stressors a
creative person may encounter in an organizational situation.
Reviewing one of the earliest notions of the creati ve process, he
noted that the transactional stages of creative pro cess are especially
stressful. (stress and coping the Indian experience )
The Yerkes-Dodson law, indicates that stress leads to improved
performance up to an optimum point .Beyond the opti mum point,
further stress and arousal have a detrimental affec t on performance.
Therefore, healthy amounts of eustress are desirabl e to improve
performance by arousing a person to action. It is i n the midrange of
the curve that the greater performance benefits fro m stress are
achieved.
Work Related Stress-Causes and Consequences: Some o f the
researchers reviewed on work related stress further segregated
47
stress into two type good and bad (Minirth et al, 1 986). The “good”
stress is also referred to as “eustress”. This posi tive kind of stress is
usually experienced at times of happiness fulfilmen t or satisfaction.
The “bad” stress or “distress” is usually the resul t of excessive
levels of continuing, negative stress.
Cooper (2001) reiterates the statement that some am ount of stress is
necessary for everyday living and, in lesser amount s, for learning
and growth. To be an effective employee or employer , the ability to
better handle and manage these necessary life stres sors must be
learned and practiced. Stressors are differentiated from stress by its
definition as a cause of stress.
A 1999 study by the national institute for Occupati onal Safety and
Health (Atkinson, 2000) reports several aspects of work that generate
stress when handled improperly or inappropriately. They include
task design (i.e inadequate communication and lack of employee
participation in decision making) and personal rela tionship (i.e little
or no support from co-workers/supervisors, inferior social
environment). Increased stress has also been associ ated with work
roles (i.e Uncertain or conflicting job expectation s), career concerns
(i.e job insecurity, lack of growth opportunities o r internal
advancement), and environmental conditions (i.e dan gerous or
unpleasant physical surrounding)
A study by ((Einar M de Croon and Judith K Sluiter, 2004,Vol 89 No3))
was based on turnover model that combine existing o rganizational
stress theory and job transition theory and job tra nsition theory. It
48
was a two year longitudinal study examined antecede nts of turnover
amongst Dutch truck drivers. The contributions made by these study
was examination of a voluntary turnover model that integrated
existing organizational stress theory i.e addressin g turnover
antecedents and consequences. Affect one’s work and one
expectation of the benefits that should be derived from work and
career.
2.2 SOURCES OF MANAGERIAL STRESS:
Sources if managerial stress have been well documen ted since the
late 1970s. Ivancevich and Matteson (1980) identifi ed four categories
of work stressor: Physical environment, individual level (a mixer if
climate, structure, job design and task characteris tics). Quick and
Quick (1984) proposed four categories of stressors: task demands,
physical demands and interpersonal demands. Paul E Spector, he
mentions the tested three contrasting theories abou t the sequential
process theories about the sequential process of th e three
dimensions of burnout (i.e exhaustion, Cynicism and professional
efficacy) as measured by the Maslach Burnout Invent ory- general
Survey(MBI-GS). I Shou University Kaohsiung, Taiwan had
investigated relationship of work stress and job pe rformance in Hi-
tech industry This study indicated that the mean va lue of the
perceived work stress was lower than average, and t he variables of
the gender, age, education, department, position an d work place
accounted for the differences in the work stress le vel. Natasja Van
49
Vegchel, Jan De Jonge and Paul A. Landsbergis (2005 ) This study
the theoretical issues involving different interact ion effects between
job demands and job resources, accompanied by a tho rough
empirical test of interaction terms n the demand-co ntrol (DC) model
and the effort- reward imbalance (ERI) model in rel ation to employee
health and wellbeing (i.e exhaustion, psychosomatic health
complaints, company- registered sickness absence). Analysis was
conducted among 405 nursing home employees.
Oi-ling Siu Paul Spector, Cary L Cooper, Luo Lu , S hanfa
Yu(2002)studied, Managerial Stress in Greater China : The Direct and
moderator Effects of Coping Strategies and Work Loc us of Control.
This study examine the direct and moderator effects of coping
strategies (control and support coping) and work lo cus of control
(externality) on the stressor- strain relationships among managers in
Greater China (the people’s Republic of China (PRC) .
Jeffery A LePine, Marcie A. Le Pine, and Christine L Jackson
University of Florida (2004)- ‘Challenges and Hindr ance Stress:
Relationship With Exhaustion Motivation to Learn, a nd Learning
Performance. This study talks of 696 learners, the authors that stress
associated with challenges in the learning environm ent and positive
relationship with learning performance and the stre ss associated
with hindrance in the learning environment had a ne gative
relationship with learning performance. They also f ound evidence
suggesting that these stress learning performance r elationship was
partially mediated by exhaustion and motivation to learn.
50
Bernd Marcus and Heinz Schuler, ‘Antecedents of Cou nter
Productive Behaviour at Work: A general Perspective . Journal of
Applied Psychology 2004 in the present study, we th erefore adopted
the opposite view, looking at counterproductive beh aviour from a
general perspective.
Bernd Marcus and Heinz Schuler, ‘Antecedents of Cou nter
Productive Behaviour at Work study; we therefore ad opted the
opposite view, looking at counterproductive behavio ur from a
general perspective.
John Schaubroeck from Drexel University and Simon S .K. Lam
University of Honkong and Jia Lin Xie City of Unive rsity of Hong
Kong “Collective Efficacy Versus Self Efficacy in C oping Responses
to stressors and Control(2005)-This study talks abo ut the cultural
differences and efficacy perceptions influence the role of job control
in coping with job demand. Perceiving high control mitigating the
effect of demands on psychological health symptoms and turnover
intention among American bank tellers reporting hig h job self
efficacy.
Sharon Glazer and Terry A Beehr, (2005), Consistenc y of implications
of three role stressors across four countries. This paper tried to
bring out relationship between role stressors (ambi guity, overload,
and conflict) anxiety, commitment and turnover inte ntions were
examined. A survey of 1396 nurses in a total of 15 hospitals in
Hungary, Italy, UK and US.
51
Cobb (1975) has the opinion that, "The responsibili ty load creates
severe stress among workers and managers." If the i ndividual
manager cannot cope with the increased responsibili ties it may lead
to several physical and psychological disorders amo ng them. Brook
(1973) reported that qualitative changes in the job create adjust
mental problem among employees. The interpersonal r elationships
within the department and between the departments c reate
qualitative difficulties within the organisation to a great extent.
There is evidence that role incumbents with high le vels of role
ambiguity also respond to their situation with anxi ety, depression,
physical symptoms, a sense of futility or lower sel f esteem, lower
levels of job involvement and organisational commit ment, and
perceptions of lower performance on the part of the organisation, of
supervisors, and of themselves (Brief and Aldag, 19 76; Greene,
1972).
According to French and Caplan (1975), "Pressure of both qualitative
and quantitative overload can result in the need to work excessive
hours, which is an additional source of stress." Ha ving to work under
time pressure in order to meet deadlines is an inde pendent source of
stress. Studies shown that stress levels increase a s difficult
deadlines draw near.
Stress develops when an individual feels he is not competent to
undertake the role assigned to him effectively. The individual feels
that he lacks knowledge, skill and training on perf orming the role
(stress, conflict management and counselling, p.283 ). Occupational
52
stress is an increasingly important occupational he alth problem and
a significant cause of economic loss. Occupational stress may
produce both overt psychological and physiologic di sabilities.
However it may also cause subtle manifestation of m orbidity that can
affect personal well-being and productivity (Quick, Murphy, Hurrel
and Orman, 1992). Stress can be caused by environme ntal,
organizational, and individual variables (Matteson and Ivancevich
1999); Cook and Hunsaker 2001). Organizational vari ables have been
known to create stress for employees at the workpla ce (Greehaus
and Beutell 1985). Among the numerous organizationa l sources of
stress only five variables were investigated in thi s study namely
conflict blocked career alienation work overload, a nd unfavourable
work environment.
Role Conflict: Role Conflict can be described as th e simultaneous
occurrence of two (or more) sets of pressures, such that compliance
with one would make compliance with the other more difficult (Gill-
Monte et al 1993). Role conflicts have been found t o have a positive
relationship with job stress (Robert 1997). When in dividuals are
required to play two or more roles that work agains t each other, they
are likely to experience job stress. This is becaus e role conflicts
create expectations that may be hard to reconcile. Previous scholar
(for instance, Foot and Venne 1990; Rahim 1996) dis covered a
positive relationship between barriers to career ad vancement and job
stress. Miles and Perreault (1976) identify four di fferent types of role
conflict: 1. Intra-sender role conflict 2. Inter se nder role conflict. 3.
53
Person- role conflict; 4. Role over load. The use o f role concepts
suggests that job related stress is associated with individual,
interpersonal, and structural variables (Katz and K ahn, 1978;
Whetten, 1978). The presence of supportive peer gro ups and
supportive relationships with super visors are nega tively correlated
with R.C. (Caplan et al., 1964).
Role Overload: Role overload can be understood as t he experience
of having the demands of a role exceed a person’s a bility In any
sector presently the main problem faced by managers is Role
overload. High target, high responsibility which ca uses the role
overloads. Role overload both qualitatively and qua ntitatively has
been empirically lunked to a variety of psychologic al, physiological
and behavioural (Beehr and Newman 1978; Miller and Ellis 1990).
Role Ambiguity: Role Ambiguity, another component o f role stress
can also be defined as a state of not having suffic ient information
about a task, especially about how to perform the t ask (Gill-Monte et
al 1993).
Role Stress is largely viewed as a direct consequen ce of either of its
components i.e. role conflict or role ambiguity, as experienced by the
members of an organization in a work setting.
Inter personnel stressors: Ivancevich and Matteson (1950)
indicate, "Lack of group cohesiveness may explain v arious
physiological and behavioural outcomes in an employ desiring such
sticks together." Workplace interpersonal conflicts and negative
interpersonal relations are prevalent sources of st ress (Dewe, 1993;
54
Lang, 1984; Long et al., 1992), and are existed wit h negative mood
depression, and symptoms of ill health (Israel et a l., 1989; Karasek,
Gardell and Lindell, 1987; Snap, 1992). Stress is o ften developed
when an individual is assigned a major responsibili ty without proper
authority and delegation of power. Interpersonal fa ctors such as
group cohesiveness, functional dependence, communic ation
frequency, relative authority and organisational di stance between the
role sender and the focal persons are important top ics in
organisational behavior (Vansell, Brief, and Schule r).
Under participation: When the employee feels he has more potentials
than actually utilized by the organization also the employee is not a
part of decision making or any planning it can be c alled as under
participation Lack of participation in the decision making process,
lack of effective consultation and communication, u njustified
restrictions on behaviour, office politics and no s ense of belonging
are identified as potential sources of stressors. L ack of participation
in work activity is associated with negative psycho logical mood and
behavioural responses, including escapist drinking and heavy
smoking (Caplan et al., 1975).
Job stressors: Job stressors can be defined as orga nisational
aspects of the job that require physical and mental efforts (2001)
(2000) Stressors at the individual level have been studied more than
any other category. Intrapersonal conflict, Interpe rsonal relations,
Growth issues, Domestic issues is widely examined i ndividual
stressor (Mc Grath 1976 Newton and Keenan, 1987. A job stressed
55
individual is likely to have greater job dissatisfa ction, increased
absenteeism, and increased frequency of drinking an d smoking,
increase in negative psychological symptoms and red uced
aspirations and self esteem (Jick and Payne, 1980). The use of role
concepts suggests that occupational stress is assoc iated with
individual, interpersonal and structural variables (Kutz and Kahn,
1978; Whetten, 1978).
Figure presents flowcharts that includes a list o f potential work
stressors and show the relationship between persona l attributes,
perception of stress, and social and personal copin g resources and
the final outcome, psychological response (i.e symp toms of mental
distress). These sources of work related stressor g roups reviewed in
the literature include intrinsic job conditions, in trinsic and extrinsic
rewards, work attributes and extra organizational o bligations. For
instance, under work attributes, the potential work stressors of pay
classification or occupation etc are listed in Figu re and discussed in
the appropriate literature review.
56
Figure 2.1; Source; Job stress in changing workforc e, by Keita & Hurell, Jr., ed., 1996, p. 44, Copyright by American Psychological As sociation, Washington D.C.
Philips (1995) describes the stress cycle in terms of a 2x2 matrix (see
Fig) that contains the consequences to the employee of experiencing
one of the following four types of stress. The four types are healthy
stress, unproductive stress, too little stress and unhealthy stress
situations.
57
Figure 2.2
(Manning, 1986) report two studies of occupational stress and it
relationship with antecedents variables and job per formance
conducted on nurses. It also included variables suc h as (sensitivity,
warmth, consideration and to lerance). And cognitiv e motivational
aspect such (concentration, composure, perseverance and
adaptability) (Tahira Mubashir, 2001), main objecti ve of this research
was to identify role of different contributing fact ors of job stress and
to investigate level of stress on those factors amo ngst different
departments of Wall’s Unilever Pakistan.
(Jiunn-Woei Lian): In the present research the auth or studied the
relationship amongst three variables job stress, jo b satisfaction ad
58
life satisfaction by managerial and technical IS st aff respectively. The
findings include that managerial IS employees tend to have
significantly higher degree of job and life satisfa ction than their IS
technical counterpart.
2.3 CONSEQUENCES OF STRESS:
The effect of stress is closely linked to individua l personality. The
same level of stress affect different people in dif ferent ways and each
person has different ways of coping. Stress shows i tself number of
ways. For instance, individual who is experiencing high level of
stress may develop high blood pressure, ulcers, irr itability, difficulty
in making routing decisions, loss of appetite, acci dent proneness
etc. These can be subsumed under three categories:
Individual Consequences, Organizational Consequence s & Burnout
Individual consequences: The individual consequence s of stress
then are the outcomes that mainly affect the indivi dual. The
organization also may suffer, either directly or in directly, but it is the
individual who pay the real price.
Stress may produce
1 a) Behavioural consequences: One such behaviour is smoking.
Research has clearly documented that people who smo ke tend
to smoke more when they experience stress. There is also
evidence that alcohol and drug abuse are linked to stress.
59
b. Psychological: The psychological consequences of stress
relate to a person’s mental health and well being. When people
experience too much stress at work, they may become
depressed or find themselves sleeping too much or n ot
enough. Stress may also lead to lead to family prob lems.
c. Physical consequences: The medical consequence s of stress
affect a person’s physical well being. Heart diseas e and stroke,
among other illness, have been linked to stress. Ot her
common medical problem resulting too much stress in clude
headaches, backaches, ulcers and related stomach an d
intestinal disorders, and skin conditions such as a cne hives.
2. Organizational consequence: The organizational consequences of
too much stress are a decline in performance. For o perating
workers, such a decline can translate into poor qua lity work or a
drop in productivity.
3. Burnout: Burnout another consequences of stress , has clear
implications for both people and organization. Burn out is general
feeling of exhaustion that develops when a person
simultaneously experiences too much pressure and ha s to few
sources of satisfaction.
According to Minirth al (1986) in some instances hi gh level of
continuous stress (i.e) burnout may be result of un achievable
expectations held by both bosses and/or other emplo yees who
have worked with the employee over a long period of time and
seen him or her performing at these unsustainable l evels. Most
60
people can tolerate acutely stressful periods for b rief segments of
time if a break is forthcoming and the employee is able to use it
as a time to recharge his or her batteries. Workpla ce pressures
and stressors will become less tolerable physically , mentally and
emotionally if experienced over long duration (frin gs 2001): Stein
and Brier, 2001). If left unaddressed, his stress c an lead to
burnout and possibly then to major depression and o ther equally
serious physical conditions. Minirth (1986) tell us that three major
area of burnout can be classified. As burnout is th e result of long
term stress it is a potential issue that can impact employee
performance and be impacted by work related situati ons. These
overlapping classifications are mental, physical an d spiritual.
Mental or emotional burnout manifest itself in the form of physical
ailments such as backaches, headaches, ulcers insom nia, high
blood pressure and so forth. Studies show that cont inued stress
and classification of burnout occurs in one’s spiri tual life.
Individual going through the type of stress often l ose perspective
and fail to recognize their own limitations. If the stress is of length
duration, the individual may reach a crisis of spir itual beliefs (i.e a
point of wanting to ‘give up')
Psychological Job strain: Psychological job strain is defined as
aversive and potentially harmful psychological reac tion of the
individual to stressful work. An extensive study by Zellers, Perrew
and Hockwarter (2000) indicates that the consequenc es of job
related stress on both the company and the individu al can be very
61
costly. This study found that specific dimensions o f the
individual’s personality do significantly and diffe rentially impact
the level to which any of the three components of b urnout
(emotional exhaustion, diminished personal accompli shment and
depersonalization is experienced)
2.4 Literature on Process model of work stress:
The Mash Model: The' Coping and stress profile' is based on
theoretical model called the Multi system Assessmen t of Stress and
Health (MASH) Model. The MASH model builds upon pre vious stress
research to form a comprehensive bio psychosocial m odel of stress
and health (Aldwin,1984; Boss 1989; Doherty& Campbe ll, 1988).
Earlier work in the field of stress concentrated on stress and copying
at only one conceptual level, most often at the per sonal level or in a
work setting (Aldin, 1994). This study was to inves tigate the
relationship of work stress and job performance amo ng hi-tech
employees and discuss its relevance to vocational e ducation. The
author targeted the top 1000 companies in the hi-te ch industry from
the electron, semiconductor, information and commun ications fields
in Taiwan. The study results indicate that the mean value of the
perceived work stress was lower than average and th e variables of
the gender, age, education, department, position an d work place
accounted for the differences in the work stress le vel.
Natasja Van Vegchel (2005)-This study is based on theoretical
issues involving different interaction effects betw een job demands
and job resources, accompanied by a thorough empiri cal test of
62
interaction terms the demand-control(DC) model and the effort-
reward imbalance (ERI) model in relation to employe e health and
wellbeing (i.e exhaustion, psychosomatic health com plaints,
company- registered sickness absence). Analysis was conducted
among 405 nursing home employees.
Demand Control Model: According to Karasek, the dem and control
model can effectively anticipate job performance. H e proposes that
when individuals are under high work demand and low work control,
some biological and psychological problems will occ ur. When
individuals are under high work demand and high wor k control they
display more positive job performance. As part of t heir overall
strategy to reduce work-related ill-health, the HSE has developed
some clear guidance on stress management standards. The
Management standards for work-related stress launch ed in
November 2004 encourages organizations to take prev entative
measures through a risk assessment - it includes a guide for
employers and an example stress policy. The risk as sessment
consists of organizations comparing themselves agai nst:
demand - being able to cope with the demands of t he job
control - having an adequate say over how work is done
support - having adequate support from colleagues &
superiors
roles – understanding roles and responsibilities
relationships – not being subjected to unacceptab le behaviours
63
change – being involved in any organisation chang es.
Assessment will usually involve asking staff questi ons, through
some form of employee attitude survey, about how sa tisfied they are
with their jobs in the six areas identified. If pro blems are identified,
employers will then have to consult with staff abou t possible
solutions. Finally organisations will have to put i n place an action
plan spelling out what steps are to be taken, such as additional
training for managers, as well as a time frame for review.
2.5 RESEARCH GAP:
Anisman and Merali (1999) says stressors can be sep arated into two
classifications psychogenic and or physical tension (Lazarus and
Folkman ) talked about stressors as an event that c auses stress to
the individual when he or she appraises the demands as exceeding
the resources. Hsien-Chee (2002) explores the relat ionship among
leadership styles and subordinate personality chara cteristic and job
stress and turnover intentions. (Steve M Jex 2000) studied whether
coping style influence the impact of self efficienc y or stressors-
strain relationships, this study was conducted on U S army.
Natasja(2004) addresses theoretical issues involvin g different
interactions effect between job demands and job res ources through
demand control model.
Huarng (2001) had revealed that IT professionals ha ve higher level of
emotional exhaustion, which is the feeling of frust ration and tension,
64
than police and nurses, Similarly for depersonaliza tion, which is
tendency to treat client as objects rather than peo ple, Huarg (2001)
found that IT professional have higher burnout tend encies than
teacher and welfare works, but lower than police an d nurses. The
increasing incidence of absenteeism and high turnov er rates are
indications that IT professionals are experiencing high level of job
related stress.
Many businesses are unaware of the stress being exp erienced by
their IT personnel (Thong and Yap, 2000). A factor that has
contributed to this unawareness is the limited theo retical or
empirical research that has examined the concept of stress amongst
IT professionals.
The current literature on job stress either like to link causes of stress
to personality variables, job related stress to cha nge in the
organization, performance linked or turnover intent ions or a
comparatively study between countries.
Most of the literature either shows the reasons or burnout or stress,
or there is a comparative study between countries b ut not many
studies are conducted in Indian IT sector. In India n context there is
some work done in manufacturing sector and BPO /KPO sector. The
present study discusses different occupational stre ssors in
Informational technology sector for junior and mid dle management
categories executives. The study was conducted for executives
located in two cities i.e Mumbai and Bangalore This study basically
65
studies the antecedents and consequences of stress in these major
cities and give recommendations how to overcome the se problems.
Table 2.1: Summary of stress literature studies
Author Title What was studied
Minirth et al(1986)
Beating Burnout Reviewed on work related stress further segregated stress into two type good and bad. The “good” stress is also referred to as “eustress”. This positive kind of stress is usually experienced at times of happiness fulfilment or satisfaction. The “bad” stress or
66
“distress” is usually the result of excessive levels of continuing negative stress.
Cooper-2001
Coping with stress Reiterates the statement that some amount of stress is necessary for everyday living and, in lesser amounts, for learning and growth. To be an effective employee or employer, the ability to better handle and manage these necessary life stressors must be learned and practiced. Stressors is differentiated from stress by its definition as a cause of stress.
Hsien-Chee Lee
The impact of leadership style on job stress and turnover intentions- Taiwan insurance industry
This research explores the relationship among leader’s leadership style, subordinate’s personality characteristic and job stress and turnover intentions
Steve M Jex, Paul D bliese & Steri Buzzell and Jessica Primeau(2000)
The impact of Self Efficacy on Stressor-Strain Relations: Coping style as an explanatory mechanism
This study was designed to examine whether coping style influence the impact of self efficiency on stressor- strain relations. Conducted on US army.
Lakwinder Signh Kaung and Raghbir Singh
Stress at work: An assessment of the magnitude of various organizational stressor
It identifies frequently reported stress symptoms and assess the magnitude of various organizational stressors producing stress.
Stephen Palmer, Cary Cooper and Kate Thomas(2001)
Model of Organiza-tional stress for use within an occupational health education / promotion or wellbeing programme- A short communica-tion;
This paper introduces a simple model of organizational stress which can be used to educate or inform employees, personnel and Health professionals about the relationship between potential work related stress hazards and its outcome.
Natasja Van Vegchel, Jan De Jonge and Paul
“Occupational stress in (Inter)action: the
Addresses theoretical issues Involving different interactions Effects between job demands and
67
Landsbergis; interplay between job demands and job resources”
Job resources through Demand Control Model
Maria Jose Chambel and Luis Curral(2005)
Stress in Academic Life: Work Characteristics as Predictor of Student well being and performance
The relationship between Work characteristics, student well Being and performance was Assessed based upon Karasek and Theorell’s Job demand control model
Philiphs T Potter, Bruce W.Smith, Kari Strobel and Alex J Zautra(2001)
“Interpersonal Workplace Stressors and Well Being: A Multi Wave study of employees with and without Arthirities
The within person influence of Interpersonal stressors on Affective wellbeing and physical Wellbeing was in vestigated on 109 women with and without Arthiritis patient.
Salla Toppinen-Tanner, Raija Kalimo and Pertti Mutanen(2002
The process of burnout in white collar and blue collar jobs: eight years prospective study of exhausion
This study tested three Contrasting theories about The sequential process of the Three dimensions of burnout (exhaustion, cynicism and Professional efficacy) as Measured by MBI(GS)
Stephen Williams and Cary L Cooper, (1998)
Measuring Occupational stress : Development of Pressure Management Indicator
The Pressure Management Indicator (PMI) is a 120 item self report Questionnaire developed from (OSI) Occupational Stress Index
Goluaz Sadri and George A Marcoulides
(1994)
The Dynamics of Occupational Stress: Proposing a Testing a Model.
This study tested a model of stress In which occupational stress in Which personality (Type A and Locus of control) and coping Strategies were predicted to Precede and determine the Perception of job stressors.
Paul E Spector, Cary Cooper and Maria E Aguilar-Vafaie (2002)
A Comparative Study of Perceived Job Stessor Sources and Job Strain in American and Iranian Managers
Sample of Iranian and US managers Where compared on four sources Of job pressure(constrains, manager rial role, home work and non work Support and five strain (job satis- faction, mental strain, physical Strain, intention of quitting the Job and absence) and work
68
Locus of control.
Sharon Glazer and Terry A. Beehr,; (2005)
“Consistency of implication of three role stressors across four countries” ; Journal of Organization Behaviour
Relationship between role stressors (role ambiguity, overload and Conflict), anxiety, commitment and Turnover intention were examined.
Timothy A Judge and Jason A Colquitt(2003)
“Organizational Justice and Stress: The Mediating Role of Work Family Conflict”
This study examined the relation-Ship between organ-izational justice And stress and whether family conflict was a mediator of the Relationship.
Adam Barsky, Carl Thoresen, Christopher R. Warren & Seth A. Kaplan(2004)
Modelling Negative affectivity and job stress: a conting-ency-based approach
This study proposes a Con-tingency approach, whereby the role of NA(negative affectivity) depends on nature of the strain construct under investigation.
Einar M de Croon and Judith K Sluitter and Jake P.J. Broersen (2003)
Stressful Work, pyschological job strain and turnover: A 2years prospec-ive cohort study of truck Drivers.
This study was based on turnover that combine existing Organisational stress theory and job Transition theory, it was a two year Longitudinal study examined Antecedents of turnover amongst Dutch truck drivers.
Harry Garst, Micheal Frese and Peter C M Molenarr (1999)
The Temporal Factor of Change in Stressor- Strain Relationships: A Growth Curve Model on a Longitudinal Study in East Germany,
Study the relationship between work Stressors and strains in East Germany The result showed that both the state and trait components of strain are affected by stressors.
Karen Keely and Mark Harcourt; -118(2001)
“Occupational Stress: A Study of the new Zealand Reserve Bank”,
This study test Karasecc theory using A sample of employees from Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
Iain L Densten, -(2001)
“Re-thinking burnout”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol 22, 833
The Conceptualization and psychometric properties of The Maslach Burnout Inventory was examined by this study.
69
Paul. Spector, ary Cooper, Maria E Aquilar-Vafarie.(2002)
The process of burnout in white collar and blue collar job’: eight year prospective study of exhaustion
Interpretation of observed Relations between job stressors and job stain in cross sectional survey is conducted.
Oi-ling Siu Occupational Stressors and Wellbeing among Chinese Employ-ees: The Role of Organizational commitment
This study examines occupant-ional Stressors and well being of blue and White collar occupation with Chinese and Hong Kong samples using Standardised instrument used in Western Research.
70
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
Job stress can occur for everyone in any position i n any industry.
Stress can affect high level executive, upper and m iddle manager.
The various stress relating problems like coronary heart disease
hyper tension, diabetics, gastrointestinal disorder s, peptic ulcer,
asthma, migraine, alcoholism, drug addiction, depre ssion etc are
accountable for poor health. These problems are fur ther affecting
organizational performance adversely by contributin g to poor
productivity, high employee turnover and higher deg ree of job
satisfaction.
The increased stress related costs are fostering th e organization to
identify the various approaches to study stress at work. The present
research is designed to investigate the relationshi p and impact of
work related stress on managers by testing for rela tionship between
causes of stress in IT sector with reference to dem ographic,
independent variables i.e age, gender, level, years of experience,
total years in IT sector, income and consequences o f their stressors
like physiological, behavioural and psychological.
3.2 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY
71
Stress is becoming an increasingly global phenomeno n affecting all
countries, all professions and all categories of wo rkers, families and
society in general. There is evidence that the expe rience of stress at
work is associated with changes in both behaviour a nd physiological
function, which may both be detrimental to employee s' health. Stress
may contribute to the development of various sympto ms of
occupational ill health and of physical and psychol ogical disorders.
The emerging approach for intervention focuses on a pro-active
response to stress, with emphasis on preventive mea sures and
elimination of the causes of stress, rather than on the treatment of its
effects. This very complex issue is covered by a br oad field of
research activities. The Information Technology (IT ) is no exception
in this respect with an increasing employment incre asing
employment in recent years. Although general manage ment is a high
stress occupation higher due to the conflicting dem ands of
completing a project on time, within budget, to qua lity and satisfying
stakeholders.
Professor Robert Karasecc recommends a different ap proach based
on work redesign for greater job enrichment. He arg ues that stress is
caused by heavy work demands in the job itself, whi ch the unskilled
employees with little control over how the work is done cannot adapt
to or modify. Total IT sector comprise of 5.7% of I ndian GDP.
Different articles and research shows that one of t he main problems
this sector is facing is stress. This present study will help to identify
different stressors in this sector and consequences of this stress
72
amongst the junior level managers and senior manage rs. Also will try
to recommend several ways to overcome stress.
3.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY:
The scope of the study has been designed to know t he stressors of
information technology sector.The sample size inclu des 515
managers at two levels i.e senior level and junior level in the major
two IT hubs Bangalore and Mumbai.The study also try to find out
whether the causes of stress and consequences of s tress in IT
sector and tried to find whether there is linkage between causes of
stress and consequences of stress. To identify the group which is
highly affected by stress and also the consequences of stress ie.
Physiological, behavioural, psychological Through t his study can
also help us to give some recommendations for reduc ing stress
3.4 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH OBJECTIVE:
1) To identify the job related stressors for manage rs in
Informational Technology sector.
2) To identify the sources of stress with context t o role
related, Job Related, Interpersonal, Intra per sonal and
Organizational.
3) To investigate the cause and impact of work rela ted
stress on managers with reference to demographic
73
independent variables (age, gender, level of manage rs,
years of experience, income and variables of stress ors.
4) To study the consequences of these stressors i.e
physical, behavioural and psychological on the
managers with reference to demographic independent
variables.
5) Give recommendations as to factors which are
responsible for stress and how to overcome these
problems
3.5 POPULATION AND SAMPLING:
Sampling is a process of selecting a (few sample) from a bigger
group (the sampling population) to become the basis of estimating
or predicting the prevalence of an unknown piece of information,
situation or outcome regarding the bigger group.
Population: This is not the entire population of a given geographical
area, but the predefined set of potential responden ts (elements) in a
geographical area. In the present research the enti re population is IT
managers all over India. In the present study the t wo major IT hubs c
were selected i.e Mumbai and Bangalore. The potenti al responsents
are the managers i.e Junior and the Senior level of the managers.
The sample size was than calculated as follows:
Sample Size Calculation:
74
n = (Zs)²
e
z = The ‘z’ value represents the z score from the s tandard normal
distribution of the confidence level desired by the researcher.
Z = 1.96, equivalent to a 95 per cent confidence le vel.
S = The ‘s’ represent the population standard dev iation for the
variable which we are trying to measure.-.686
E: The third value required for calculating the sam ple size required
is’e’ called tolerant error in estimating the varia ble .In the present
research the value is 10%
. n= (Zs)²
e
= (1.96*.686) ² = 180
(.10)²
From the sample size calculation the sample size se lected was 600
S r Name of the city Number of
Companies
Number of
managers
targeted
Number of
managers
actually
responded
1 Mumbai 5 300 255
2 Bangalore 6 300 257
75
3.6 SAMPLING FRAME :
Even though it is relatively easy task to define a target population for
a study, it is much more difficult to identify the list every member of
such population, from which we can realistically se lect a sample for
our research. In the present research the sample po pulation was the
IT managers from large scale IT companies. The comp anies selected
from the list of the directory included major IT in dustries like IBM,
Infosy, Oracle, Geometrics etc The area selected w as Mumbai and
Bangalore. The sample respondent was the Senior Lev el Managers
like Leader, Program Managers, Project Managers, Pr oduct
Managers, HR Managers, Senior Business Development Managers
etc and the Junior level managers like Assistant pr ogrammers,
Business Developers, Software programmers, Associat e consultant,
Developers , Executives etc.
3.7 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:
Convenient Sampling was adopted for the present research.
Amongst the non probability techniques like Judgmen t sampling,
Quota sampling, Snowball sampling and convenient sa mpling
technique. Convenient sampling was used.
Convenient sampling refers to sampling by obtainin g units or people
who are most conveniently available. In the present study a cluster
of IT managers located in two cities i.e Mumbai and Bangalore were
selected.
3.8 WORKING HYPOTHESIS.
76
HYPOTHESIS:
Gender:
Ho: There is no significant difference between str ess level in male
and in female.
H1: There is a significant difference between stre ss level in male
and in female
Managers level:
Ho: There is no significant difference in the stre ss level of Junior
Managers and Senior Managers
H1: There is a significant difference in the stres s level of Junior
Managers and Senior Managers
Location:
Ho: There is no significant difference in the stre ss level in Mumbai
and Bangalore
H1: There is a significant difference in the stres s level in Mumbai
and Bangalore.
WORKING EXPERIENCE IN THE SAME COMPANY:
H0: There is no significant difference in stress l evel of managers
with respect to their working experience in the sa me company.
H1: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers
with respect to their working experience in the sam e company
Total Work Experience
77
H0: There is no significant difference in stress l evel of managers
with respect to their total working experience in t he information
technology sector.
H1: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers
with respect to their total working experience in t he information
technology sector.
Age:
H0: There is no significant relationship between a ge and stress level
of managers.
H1: There is a significant relationship between ag e and stress level
of managers.
Income:
H0: There is no significant relationship between i ncomes on stress
level of managers.
H1: There is a significant relationship between in comes on stress
level of managers.
Gender
HYPOTHESIS OF CONSEQUENCES
Gender
Ho: There is no significant difference in the cons equences of stress
by male and female managers.
78
H1: There is a significant difference in the conse quences of stress
by male and female managers.
Location
H0: There is no significant difference in the cons equences of stress
in Mumbai and Bangalore.
H1: There is significant difference in the consequ ence of stress in
Mumbai and Bangalore
Level of managers
H0: There is no significant difference in the cons equences of stress
in Junior Managers and Senior Managers.
H1: There is significant difference in the consequ ence of stress in
Junior Managers and Senior Managers
Age:
H0: There is no significant difference in the cons equences of stress
in different age groups
H1: There is a significant difference in the conse quences of stress
in different age groups.
Years of Experience in the same company:
H0: There is no significant difference in conseque nces of stress
faced by managers with reference to years of experi ence in the
same company.
79
H1: There is significant difference in consequence s of stress faced
by managers with reference to years of experience i n the same
company.
Total number of years of experience:
H0: There is no significant difference in conseque nces of stress
faced by managers with reference to total number of years
experience in IT sector.
H1: There is significant difference in consequence s of stress faced
by managers with reference to number of years exper ience in IT
sector
Income:
Ho: There is no significant difference in the cons equences faced by
managers with reference to their income.
H1: There is a significant difference in the conse quences faced by
managers with reference to their income.
3.9 DESIGNING OF THE STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT OF DATA
GATHERING INSTRUMENT:
The role of stressful life events in the aetiology of various diseases
has been a field of research for the last 25 years. It is increasingly
recognized that stress is one of the components of any disease, not
just those labelled ‘psychosomatic’
80
Most investigator’s in India have made use of the Social
Readjustment Rating Scale (SRSS) developed by Holme s and Rahe
(1967). This scale is composed of 43 life event dra wn from nearly
5000 case histories of patients. Using this scale, one obtains a global
index of life stress in terms of ‘Life change unit ’(LCU). One the basis
of life events included in SRSS the authors have co nstructed a
‘Schedule of Recent Experience’ (SRE) which allows the respondent
to document for specified periods, the frequency of occurrences of
the various life events have been developed then s ince.
MEASUREMENT OF ROLE STRESS:
Pareek developed and standardized the organization al role stress
scale to measure role stress (1983). He noted that researcher were
done only on the role stresses, namely, role ambigu ity, role overload
and role conflict. However he found many other role stresses in
organization. However, he found many other role str esses in the
organizations. A more refined version of this instr ument, the ORS
Scale’, measured 10 types of role stress.
Briefly the role stressors are as follows:
1) Sole Role Distance
2) Inter role Distance
3) Role isolation
4) Role Ambiguity
81
5) Role conflict
6) Resource Inadequacy
7) Role stagnation
8) Role Erosion
9) Role overload
10) Personal inadequacy
According to Pareek (1983), the ORS scale can be u sed for several
purposes. For example, it can be used to investigat e the nature and
dynamics of role stress in various organizations an d to develop
interventions for the use of individuals, groups an d organizations.
This instrument is currently one of the best instr uments available
today for measuring a wide variety of stress of rol e stress.
Another well known psychometric instrument is the Occupational
Stress Index which was constructed and standardized by Dr
Srivastava and Dr Singh (1981).The author framed 46 statements
covering all the relevant components of job life wh ich might cause
stress in one way or another. Of these 32 are true keyed and 18 are
false keyed. While constructing the scale items, ca re was taken to
ensure that responses to the various items clearly indicated the
extent to which the respondent was bothered by diff erent potentially
stressful situations at work. A 5 point Likert type scale ranging from
‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ was used on each other. Total
variables include Role overload, Role conflict, Rol e ambiguity, Job
stressors, Intra personal stressors, powerlessness, under
participation and low status. Also for studying the consequences of
82
stressors a instrument used by International Stress Organization
was used. Total number of questions in the conseque nces is 20
questions. The consequences are measured in terms o f physical
consequence, psychological consequence and behaviou ral
consequence on a Likert 5 scale. As the moderating variables used
were gender, age, income, years of experience in th e same company
and overall years of experience also location was c onsidered.
The questionnaire survey was mailed to 600 manager s randomly
selected firms from a wide range of industry sector through the
Bangalore city and Mumbai city.
3.10 LIMITATIONS :
� Survey research inherently has certain limitations. First the use
of self report instrument presents certain limitati ons. It is not
possible to know the state of mind of respondents w hen they
complete the instrument.
� Sampling bias is another possible limitations becau se it was not
possible to conduct a random sampling or stratified sampling.
� Another limitation of the study concerns the speci fic variables
being studied. Due to space limitations only occupa tional
stressors are studied. All the factors which lead t o stress are
not covered. In the consequences, only three variab les are
covered. All the consequences are not covered.
� Out of the total IT hubs, only two cities are cover ed, other cities
may show a different picture.
83
� Only the causes and consequences were studied. Diff erent
intervening variables like personality, leadership could be
added to the present study.
84
CHAPTER IV
CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS OF STRESS
Modern life is full of stress. Urbanization, indust rialization, and the
increase in scales of operations are causing increa sing stresses. There are
the inevitable are causing increasing stress. Due t o which human
behaviour is purposive and goal directed. A series of activities are carried
out to achieve our goal. A may be immediate or shor t term. Movement
towards the goal is not easy. Hurdles may appear be tween self and the
objective. This reaction to a disturbing factor is nothing but stress. Stress
is defined as an adaptive response to an external s ituation that results in
physical, psychological and behavioural deviations for organizational
participation.
Stress is associated with constraints and demands. The former prevents
an individual from doing what he or she desires. Th e later refers to the loss
of something desired. Desiring to attend a social function but unable to do
so because of pressing official work amounts to a d emand.
Constraints and demand can lead to potential stress . When they are
coupled with uncertainty of the outcome and importa nce of the outcome,
potential stress becomes actual stress. Stress is h igh when there is
uncertainty of outcome and outcome is significant.
Sources of stress: Stressors generate from individu al, group and
organizational sources.
85
In organization frequent causes of stress are task demand, role demands,
inter personal demands, job related stressors, grou p related stressors,
under participation, low status etc.,
1. Role Stress: Role space conflict: The three main roles an individual
occupies any conflicts within the field are referre d to as role space
conflicts or stress. These conflicts may be as foll ows:
1.1 Self Role Distance: This stress arises out of t he conflict
between the self concept and one’s expectations fro m the role
as perceived by the role occupant. If a person occu pies a role
which he or she subsequently finds is an conflictin g with his or
her self concept, the person feels stress.
1.2 Intra role conflict: Since the individual learn s to develop
expectations as a result of socialization and ident ification with
significant others. It is quite likely that he or s he may see some
in comp ability between the various expectations(fu nction) from
his or her role this may cause stress.
1.3 Role Stagnation: As the individual grows physic ally he or she
also grows in the role the individual occupies in a n
organization. He or she expects to learn new things , take up
challenging task, prepare for higher responsibiliti es. When the
role does not provide such opportunities , the indi vidual
experiences role stagnation.
1.4 Inter role distance: The individual occupies mo re than one role.
There may be conflict between two roles he or she o ccupies.
For eg as a executive in the organization and a fam ily role. The
86
demand from organizational problem at same time whe n the
individual is not able to manage leads to stress.
2. Role ambiguity: When the individual is not clear about the various
expectations people have from his or her role or sh e faces the
conflict which may be called as role ambiguity. Rol e ambiguity may
be in relation to activities, responsibilities, pro prieties, norms, or
general expectations. Generally role ambiguity is e xperienced by
people occupying roles newly created in the organiz ation, roles in
organizations undergoing change, or process roles.
3. Role Conflict: Feeling unable to satisfy multipl e, possible conflicting
performance expectation. When an employee is not ab le to satisfy
different roles which he is expected to play like a professional role ,
a family role , a social role etc he gets stressed out.
4. Role Overload: When the role occupant feels that there are too many
expectations from the significant role senders in t he role set, he or
she experiences role overload. Role overload has be en measured by
asking questions about people’s feelings on whether they could
possibly finish work give to them during a modified workday and
whether they felt that the amount of work they did might interfere
with how well it was done. More executive role occu pants
experiences role overload. Role overload is more li kely to occur in
the absence of power ceded to role occupants, in la rge variation in
expected output, and when delegation does not resul t in more time
as expected.
87
5. Inter personal demands: Conflicting personalitie s and behaviour
may cause stress. Conflict can occur when two or mo re people must
work together even their personalities, attitudes a nd behaviours
differ.
6. Organizational stressors : Organizational stress ors like its working
climate, organization structure, issues like under participation, low
status etc are few causes of stress.
CONSEQUENCES OF STRESS:
There are four basic levels of stress. The first is the normal initial response
and it’s characterized by increased heart beat rate s, increased blood
pressure, dilation of pupils, sweat in palms and re duced activity in the
stomach. In the present model it is treated at phys ical consequences.
At the second level there is more irritation, stutt ering and stammering,
increased blood pressure, dilation of pupils, sweat in palms and reduced
activity in the stomach. In the present model it is treated at physical
consequences.
At the second level there is more irritation, stutt ering and stammering,
difficult in concentration, restlessness, lack of a ppetite, getting irritate,
feeling jealous, entering into conflict unnecessari ly etc. This is treated as
behavioural problems in the present study.
At the third level, there would be more mental rela ted problems like feeling
lonely, feeling depressed, drinking problem, smokin g problems etc are
psychological problems.
88
C
Figure 4.1
Hypothesis are framed based on the variables based on causes of stress
and effect of stress i.e physiological, behavioral and psychological effect
of these variables and the intervening variable are the demographic
profiling of the managers
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY:
Causes of
stress
Consequences
of stress
Intervening
variable
89
Figure 4.2
To know the sources of stress a exploratory researc h was conducted
where it was found that the basic sources of stress in Information
90
technology sector is intra personal stressors, inte r personnel stressors,
job related stressors and organizational stressors. Also from the literature
we can find there is some work done on few variable s. This conceptual
model is based on the exploratory research and lite rature where in we
would like to link the antecedents and the conseque nces of stress in
information technology sector.
A variable can be classified in a number of ways. T he classification
developed in the present study result after lookin g at variables in three
different ways.
� The casual relationship’
� The design of the study
� The unit of measurement.
In attempt to investigate a casual relationship or association, three sets of
variables are operating.
� Change variable which in the present study is the a ntecedents of
stress
� Outcome variable which in the present study is the
consequences of stress
� Lastly connecting or linking variables, which in ce rtain situation
are necessary to complete the relationship between causes and
affect.
� So it is as follows:
91
Table 4.1 Operational Definition
Demographic Variable Definition Measurement
• Designation/Level Refers to
designation of the
managers
Senior Level include
Program Manager,
Senior Consultant,
Operational Managers,
Product Manager, Head
of the Department,
Leader and Project
Manager.
Junior level include:
Developers, Business
Developer, tester,
Software Programmers,
software engineer,
Associate consultant
and Junior HR
executive.
• Age Age has been
defined as
chronological age
Measured in the
categories
a) Less than 25
b) 25-30
c) 30-35
d) 35-40
e) 40 & above
• Location The place the
manager is
presently
Measured in two
categories Mumbai &
Bangalore
92
employed
• Gender Gender in this
study is
operationalized as
a binary construct
Male and Female
• Years of experience The number of
years the
employee has
been working in
the same
company
a) 0-5
b) 5-10
c)10-15
d) 15-20
e) above 20
• Total years of
experience in IT
department
This includes the
total experience of
managers in IT
department
a) 0-5
b) 5-10
c) 10-15
d) 15-20
e) above 20
• Income Income in this
study include the
yearly salary of
the manager
a)1-5 lakh
b) 5-10 lakh
c) 10-15 lakh
d) 15-20 lakh
e) 20 and above
CHAPTER VI
PILOT STUDY
93
Occupational stress has been noted as an increasing problem for
employees in all sectors. We are living an era of g rowing complexities and
pressures where human constitution and capacities a re being taxed
severely. The stresses relating to job have become predominant feature of
modern life. This is the reason that systematic stu dies of stress in
organizational setting have increased dramatically over the past decade.
Recently job stress has is generally defined in tim es of relationship
between person and environment. Mc Grath (1976) has noted that stress
involves an interaction of person and environment. There is potential for
stress when an environmental situation is perceived as presenting demand
which threatens to exceed the person’s capabilities where he expects
substantial differentials in the rewards and cost f rom meeting the demand
versus not meeting it. Margolis and Kroes (1974) de fined job stress as a
condition worth interacting with employee character istics to disrupted
homeostasis is job related strain.
PURPOSE OF THE PILOT STUDY:
In social science research, it is advisable to take part in some
observation and as such the researcher has undertak en some ort of
preliminary survey or what is often called pilot su rvey. (Kothari 2005)
The present study adopts the structure of the Occup ational stress
Indicator (OSI) Ajay Srivastava as the theoretical framework of research. In
other words process of stress depends on the stress or exceeds the
individual’s capacity to cope. For instance workloa d is something that
causes a person to feel stressed when he/she thinks that he/she is unable
94
to cope with the large workload. The Occupational s tress Index purposes to
measure the extent of stress which employee perceiv e. Once the
questionnaire was finalized the data was collected on a sample of 113 IT
Senior level and Junior level Manager.
The purpose of this study was:
1. To identify the questions which very difficult to comprehend and
based on the feedback make changes.
2. For checking the reliability of the questionnai re
3. For finding the validity of the questionnaire
4. For sample size calculation
Based on the objective of the pilot the data was co llected from total 113
managers. The reliability of the instrument was che cked by Cronbach
Alpha which was calculated as .917
Certain changes were made based on the suggestions received from the
managers who filled up the questionnaire. Few demog raphic variables were
added, also few questions was simplified.
6.1 Validity and Reliability
Validity is the property by which a questionnaire measures what it is
supposed to measure. If we want to measure attitude s towards
brands in terms of service and product features, th en that is what the
critical questions in the questionnaire should meas ure. The validity
of questions on a questionnaire is measures. Accord ing to kerlinger
(1973),’ The measuring what we think we are measuri ng?. Babies
(1990) write ‘validity refers to the extent to whic h an empirical
95
measure adequately reflects the real meaning of the concept under
consideration’
It is very important to measure the validity of th e instrument. There
are several types of validity and the researcher ma y have to try to
prove validity of his construct through various met hods:
1. Content Validity: In measuring content validity both theory and the
measuring instrument are considered. Once it is est ablished that the
construct are meaningful hypothetical concepts, occ upational stress
dimensions of previous studies are used. The adequa cy of an
instrument can be tested either through convergent validity or
discrimination validity. Convergent validity involv es correlating the
results of the present study with pre existing vali dating scales. In
their absence or they have not been used, the const ruct validity of a
measure is shown by showing that it relates to othe r variables to
which it should be related (Cambell and Friske, 195 6; Green and Tull,
1980). Internal consistency therefore is a good tes t for content
validity.
2. Criterion validity: Criterion validity reflects the success of measures
used for prediction or estimation Cooper and Schind ler (2003)
suggest that any criterion measure must be judged i n terms of four
quantities 1. Relevance 2. Freedom from bias 3. Rel iability and 4.
Availability. A criterion is relevant if it is defi ned and scored in terms
we judge to be a proper measure. Freedom from basis is attained
when the criterion gives each respondent an equal o pportunity. A
reliable criteria is stable or reproducible. Finall y, information
96
specified by the criterion should be available. Aft er these were
ensured, the criterion validity is established by t he ability to predict
the summed or averaged behaviour of large number of individuals.
3. Construct validity: It is most important type of validity that is the
strongest evidence that the measurement is appropri ate. The major
reason is that there is a strong link between theor y and empirical
measurement that the validate that the measurement are appropriate.
The major reason is that there is a strong link bet ween theory and
empirical measurement that the validity seeks to es tablish. Testing of
hypothesis can be followed up or a part of proving construct validity.
The hypothesis can be tested by discriminate validi ty or by
convergent validity.
Reliability
The use of this word is very often used in our live s. It is referred in
terms of dependable, consistence, predictable, stab le and honest. In
research reliability is the property by which consi stent results are
achieved when we repeat the measurement of somethin g. A
questionnaire used on a similar population that pro duces similar
result can be termed as reliable. Consistency of fo rm and manner of
asking questions (their exact wording, the amount o f structuring etc)
generally ensures reliability. Mainly reliability is a measure of how a
scale can be relied on to produce similar measureme nts every time
we use the scale.
97
Mainly reliability is a measure of how a scale can be relied on to
produce similar measurements every time we use the scale.
Reliability for this study is estimated by three wa ys:
1. Cronbach’s alpha: Is the most common form of int ernal consistency
reliability coefficient Cronbach’s alpha is a lower bound for the true
reliability of the survey. Alpha equals zero when t he true score is not
measured at all and there is only an error componen t. Alpha equals
1.0 when all items measure only the true score and there is no error
component. The computation of Cronbach’s alpha is b ased on the
number of items on the survey and the ratio of the average inter item
covariance to the average item variance. (Co oper a nd Schindler,
2006 ; Bryman and Bell 2008)
2. Split – Half Reliability measures the degree of which the instrument
measures the same thing for two randomly selected g rops, ( Cooper
and Scindler 2006)’
3. Guttman’s lower bound (lambda1-6) are a set of s ix coefficient L1 to
L6.
L1: An intermediate coefficient used in computing the other lambdas.
L2: More complex than Cronbach’s alpha and preferr ed by some
researcher though less common.
L3: Equivalent to cronbach’s alpha
L4:Guttman split half reliability
L.5: Recommended when a single item highly covarie s with other
items, which themselves lack high covariances with each other.
98
L6: Recommended when inter item correlations are l ow in relation to
squared multiple correlations.
Guttman recommends experimenting to find the split of items which
maximizes Guttman split. Half reliability (L4), the n using the highest
of the lower bound lambdas as the reliability estim ate for the set of
items (Cooper and Schindler 2006)
3) Parallel forms is a model that allow you to stat istically test for equal
means and variances. The strictly parallel model hy pothesizes that
they have the same variance but not necessarily the same mean. The
reliability estimate for the parallel model is equi valent to Cronbach’s
alpha (the estimates for the strictly parallel mode l is based on
cronbach’s alpha but is penalized for difference in the item value).
When the pool of items is large, the items may be r andomly selected
from the instrument (Cooper and Scindler 2006)
Table 6.1: Reliability Table
Type Coefficient What is measured Method used
Cronbach’
s alpha
Internal
Consistency
Degree to which instrument
items are homogenous and
reflect the same
Specialized
correlation
formulas
Split Half Internal
consistency
Degree to instrument
measures the same thing for
two randomly selected
groups
Specialized
correlation
formulas
Split Half Internal Degree to instrument Specialize d
99
(Guttman’
s Lamda)
Consistency measures the same thing for
two randomly selected
groups
correlation
formulas
Parallel
forms
Equivalence Degree to which two
equivalent batteries of items
measure the same thing in
the same people
Correlation
Analysis of the pilot study:
Part 1- Analysis of Age component-
After finalising the questionnaire a pilot study wa s conducted on a sample
size of 106 managers in IT sector. The cities were Banglore, Mumbai and
Chennai.
On basis of the data received following steps were taken:
1. Reliability of the instrument .
To validate the instrument Cronbach’s Alpha was use d and it was.914
Table 6.2: Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items
.914 .917
Variables Items Scale Reliability
scores
100
Demograp
hic
Gender
Age
Designation
Location
Years of service in IT
Total yrs of service
Income
Category
scale
Variables Items Scale Reliability
scores
Intra
personal
stressor
Role Overload
Role Ambiguity
Role Conflict
All measures on
likert scale 1 to 5
.815
Alpha
Spearman’s
8.14
Guttman’s
.803
Variables Items Scale Reliability
scores
Inter
personne
l stressor
Group
Pressure
Political
Pressure
All measures on
likert scale 1 to 5
Alpha .815
Spearman’s
8.24
Gutt man
101
Routine
exclusive
demanding
Authority and
Responsibility
Lamda
.842
Variables Items Scale Reliability
scores
Job Related stressor Interpersonal
Conflict
Work related
pressure
Growth and
Development
Reward and
Recognizition
Lack of group
cohesiveness
All
measures
on likert
scale 1 to 5
Alpha.821
Spearman’s
Split half
Coefficnet.8
23
Guttman
.821
102
Variables Items Scale Reliability
scores
Organizational
Stressors
Organization Climate Organization Structure Powerlessness Under participation
All
measures
on likert
.scale 1 to
5
Alpha.831
Spearman’s
Split.
816
Guttman
.822
Variables Items Scale Reliability
scores
Consequences
Physiological
stressors
Constipation
Headache ache Lack of Concentration Sweat Excessively Chest Problems
All
measures
on likert
scale 1 to 5
.825 Alpha.
.837
Spearman’s
Split
.836
Guttman
Behavioural Jealous All Alpha.
103
Se
co
ndl
y
De
scr
ipti
ve
sta
tist
ics
was carried out for Causes and Consequences which i ncluded Mean,
Standard Deviation, Correlation, Chi-square test et c.
(Table 6.3) Causes of stress
N Mean Std. Deviation Variance
Role Overload 113 3.0280 .68895 .475
Role Ambiguity 113 2.9044 .64758 .419
Role Conflict 113 2.9044 .64758 .419
Inter personnel
Stressors
113 2.7997 .58553 .343
Job Related
Stressors
113 2.8637 .57896 .335
Powerlessness 113 2.7935 .68620 .471
Under participation 113 2.8673 .65811 .433
Low status 113 2.917 .47252 .223
stressors Over react
Impersonal
Conflict
measures
on likert
scale 1 to 5
.821
Spearman’s
Split.816
Guttman
.829
Pyschological - Feeling Lonely
- Depressed
- Smoking Habits - Drinking Habits - Emotional
All
measures
on likert
scale 1 to 5
Alpha.
.818
Spearman’s
Split.823
Guttman
.854
104
Consequence 113 2.7080 .55764 .311
Valid N (leastwise) 113
I- Correlation
(A) Correlation between stress and Age-
oH : There is no relationship between age and stress
1H : There is a strong relationship between age and s tress.
oaH : There is no relationship between age and stress (Role
overload)
aH1: There is a strong relationship between age and s tress.
obH : There is no relationship between age and stress (role
ambiguity)
bH1: There is a strong relationship between age and s tress.
ocH : There is no relationship between age and stress (role
conflict)
cH1: There is a strong relationship between age and s tress.
odH : There is no relationship between age and stress
(interpersonnel stressor)
dH1: There is a strong relationship between age and s tress.
105
oeH : There is no relationship between age and stress (Job
stressors)
eH1: There is a strong relationship between age and st ress.
ofH : There is no relationship between age and stress
(underparticipation)
fH1: There is a strong relationship between age and st ress.
ogH : There is no relationship between age and stress
(underparticipation)
gH1: There is a strong relationship between age and st ress.
ohH : There is no relationship between age and stress ( low
status)
hH1: There is a strong relationship between age and st ress.
Table 6.4: Correlation between Age and Stress.
VARIABLE CO-ORELATION Hypothesis
Role overload -.27 Accepted
Role Ambiguity -.16 Accepted
Role Conflict -.16 Accepted
AGE
Inter personnel stressors -.15 Accepted
106
Job Related stressors -.22 Accepted
Powerlessness -.19 Accepted
Under participation -.12 Accepted
Low status .07 Rejected
Consequences -.005 Accepted
(III) Inferential Statistics
(A) Chi- Square test
0H : Stress is independent on age
1H : Stress is depend on age
aH0 : Stress is independent on age with reference to ro le overload
aH1 : Stress is depending on age with reference to role overload.
bH0 : Stress is independent on age with reference to ro le
ambiguity
bH1 : Stress is depending on age with reference to role ambiguity
cH0 : Stress is independent on age with reference to ro le conflict
cH1 : Stress is depending on age with reference to role conflict
dH0 : Stress is independent on age with reference to in ter
personnel stressors
dH1 : Stress is depending on age with reference to inte r-personnel
stressors
eH0 : Stress is independent on age with reference to jo b stressors
107
eH1 : Stress is depending on age with reference to job stressors.
fH 0 : Stress is independent on age with reference to under
participation
fH1 : Stress is depend on age with reference to under
participation
gH0 : Stress is independent on age with reference to lo w status
gH1 : Stress is depend on age with reference to low sta tus
Table 6.5: Chi square between age and stress
VARIABLES CHI-SQUARE Hypothesis
AGE Role overload .50 Rejected
Role Ambiguity .98 Rejected
Role Conflict .98 Rejected
Inter personnel
stressors
.65 Rejected
Job Related stressors .16 Rejected
Powerlessness .49 Rejected
Under participation .31 Rejected
Low status .46 Rejected
Consequences .73 Rejected
Interpretation of Data:
108
(I) Descriptive Measures-
(A) Table 7.1 interprets that Role overload causes maximum stress to the
managers. If we compare other variables there is a marginal
difference between them so these parameter to a cer tain extent are
responsible for stress.
(B) Standard Deviation for Role overload and Powerl essness is highest
amongst the entire variable. It means the consisten cy of these two
factors are less. Chances of employee leaving the o rganization is
more.
(II) Correlation :
Age is independent of all the factors except low s tatus. The statistics
interpret that all the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative
hypothesis is accepted at 95%level of significance. So data analysis
that there is no relationship between age and inter dependent of all
the variables i.e. Role Overload, Role Conflict, Ro le Ambiguity, under
participation, Powerlessness and Consequences. Only one variable
(low status) has a strong relationship with respect to the age. So
finally we analyse that causes of stress is directl y related with low
status level.
(Table 6.6) Correlation between causes and consequ ences
Causes and consequence
Co- Relationship
109
relation
Role overload -.03 Negative
Role Ambiguity 0 No
Role Conflict 0 No
Inter personnel stressors .03 Positive
Job Related stressors -.015 Negative
Powerlessness .046 Positive
Under participation .002 Positive
Low status .01 Positive
� In the above data Interpersonal stressors, Under pa rticipation, and
Low status is positively correlated to consequences .i.e Greater this
factor higher will be stress which is lead in to co nsequences.
� Where as Job overload and Role Ambiguity are invers ely correlated
to consequences.
� Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict has no correlation with
consequences
Part II- Analysis of Gender component
(i) Table 6.7: Descriptive Statistics of Causes
110
Male Female
Group Statistics
Mean S.D Mean S.D
Role overload 2.9846 .40213 3.0282 .45397
Role ambiguity 2.8889 .43887 2.9746 .43967
Role Conflict 2.9926 .28803 3.0000 .29007
Inter personal 2.9428 .38134 2.9892 .31040
Job related stressor 2.9259 .30293 3.0237 .33132
Under participation 3.3519 .68349 3.0734 .66686
Powerlessness 3.3148 .60303 2.9661 .66705
Low status 3.3889 .57826 3.1525 .69844
Based on the available method of data analysis this table interpret that
stress is more in female due to role overload, role ambiguity, job related
stressor and is more in male due to under participa tion, powerlessness and
low status. Standard Deviation is more in female du e to role overload, role
conflict, powerlessness and low status and in male it is higher in under
participation and inter personal so the consistency is less to stay in the
organization.
Inferential Statistics:
111
Ho: There is no significant difference between stre ss level in male and in
female.
H1: There is a significant difference between stres s level in male and in
female.
Table 6.8: Independent t test for gender
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t Df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
1.687 .197 .539 111 .591 Role
overload .542 110.888 .589
.858 .356 1.036 111 .303 Role
ambiguit
y 1.036 110.155 .303
.041 .840 .136 111 .892 Role
conflict
.136 110.252 .892
1.296 .257 .713 111 .478 Interpers
onel
stressor .706 102.369 .482
112
.648 .422 1.633 111 .105 Job
related
Stressor
1.639 111.000 .104
.121 .728 -2.191 111 .031 Powerles
sness
-2.188 109.577 .031
.734 .393 -2.905 111 .004 Under
participat
ion -2.919 110.985 .004
2.649 .106 -1.949 111 .054 Load
status
-1.965 109.931 .052
Hoa : There is no significant difference between s tress level in male and
female due to role overload
H1a : There is a significant difference between st ress level in male and
female due to role overload.
Hob : There is no significant difference between s tress level in male and
female due to role ambiguity
H1b : There is significant difference between stre ss level in male and
female due to role ambiguity.
Hoc : There is no significant difference between s tress level in male
and female due to role conflict.
113
H1c : There is significant difference between stre ss level in male and
female due to role conflict.
Hod : There is no significant difference between s tress level in male and
female due to interpersonal relationship
H1d : There is significant difference between stre ss level in male and
female due to inter personal relationship.
Hoe : There is no significant difference between st ress level in male and
female due to Job related stressors
H1e : There is significant difference between stre ss level in male and
female due to Job related stressors.
Hof : There is no significant difference between s tress level in male and
female due to powerlessness.
H1f : There is significant difference between stre ss level in male and
female due to powerlessness.
H0g : There is no significant difference between s tress level in male and
female due under participation
H1g : There is significant difference between stre ss level in male and
female due to under participation.
H0h : There is no significant difference between s tress level in male and
female due low status
H1h : There is significant difference between stre ss level in male and
female due to low status
114
Sample interprets that t value is less than signif icant two tailed value ie we
accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternati ve hypothesis i.e there is
no significant difference between stress level in m ale and female due to
under participation, powerlessness and low status.
Sample says as t value is more than significant two tailed value we reject
the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypo thesis i.e there is
significant difference between stress level in male and female due to role
ambiguity, role overload, inter personal stressors, job related stressors and
role conflict.
Table 6.9: Descriptive Statistics of Location:
Mumbai Bangalore
Group Statistics
N Mean S.D N Mean S.D
Role overload 74 3.0000 .45330 37 3.0405 .37558
Role ambiguity 74 2.9527 .45645 37 2.8784 .39362
Role Conflict 74 2.9784 .28394 37 3.0270 .30244
Inter personal 74 3.0639 .32228 37 2.7862 .32014
Job related stressor 74 3.0135 .33935 37 2.9162 .27640
Under participation 74 3.0721 .73252 37 3.4865 .50058
115
Powerlessness 74 3.0473 .70063 37 3.2973 .55540
Low status 74 3.2387 .71836 37 3.3423 .50605
Stress is found higher in Bangalore compared to Mum bai due to Role
overload, role conflict, under participation, power lessness and low status
where as stress is found in Bangalore due to role a mbiguity, inter personal
stressors and job related stressors
Inferential Statistics:
0H : There is a no significant relationship between s tress and location.
1H : There is a significant relationship between stre ss and location
Table 6.10: Independent t test for location
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t Df Sig. (2-tailed)
2.045 .156 -.469 109 .640 Role overload
-.499 85.239 .619
.060 .845 109 .400 Role ambiguity
.888 82.330 .377
116
.736 -.833 109 .407 Role conflict
-.815 68.191 .418
.223 .638 4.288 109 .000 Inter personal
Stressor
4.298 72.543 .000
4.882 .029 1.510 109 .134 Job related
Stressor
1.617 86.487 .110
6.007 .016 -3.095 109 .002 Powerlessness
-3.499 98.611 .001
3.499 .064 -1.892 109 .061 Under participation
-2.043 88.462 .044
6.159 .015 -.785 109 .434 Low status
-.879 96.686 .382
Hoa : There is no significant difference between s tress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due to role overload
H1a : There is a significant difference between st ress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due to role overload.
Hob : There is no significant difference between s tress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due to role ambiguity
H1b : There is significant difference between stre ss level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to role ambiguity.
117
Hoc : There is no significant difference between s tress level Mumbai
and Bangalore due to role conflict.
H1c : There is significant difference between stre ss level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to role conflict.
Hod : There is no significant difference between s tress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due to interpersonal relationship
H1d : There is significant difference between stre ss level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to inter personal relationship.
Hoe : There is no significant difference between s tress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due to Job related stressors
H1e : There is significant difference between stre ss level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to Job related stressors.
Hof : There is no significant difference between s tress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due to powerlessness.
H1f : There is significant difference between stre ss level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to powerlessness.
H0g : There is no significant difference between s tress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due under participation
H1g : There is significant difference between stre ss level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due to under participation.
H0h : There is no significant difference between s tress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due low status
H1h : There is significant difference between stre ss level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to low status
118
Statistically it is proved that the null hypothesi s for all the variables
causing stress like role overload, role ambiguity, role conflict, job
stressors, powerlessness, under participation and l ow status against the
alternative hypothesis as the calculated t value is more than significant
value. So we conclude that there is significant dif ference between stress
level in Mumbai and Bangalore due to all variables of stress except
powerlessness and inter personal stressors.
Table 6.11: Descriptive statistics for Years of Exp erience:
>5 N-41 5-10 N-42 10-15 N- 30 Stress variables
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D
Role overload 3.0081 .47427 3.0992 .39313 2.8810 .40025
Role Ambiguity 3.0915 .42114 2.9107 .40130 2.7500 .46647
Role Conflict 3.0537 .26086 2.9714 .27076 2.9714 .34303
Inter personal
stressors
2.9512 .33655 3.0130 .33088 2.9253 .39047
Job Related Stressors
3.0000 .30496 2.9905 .32371 2.9321 .35282
Powerlessness 3.0488 .75484 3.1905 .67932 3.4286 .54325
Under-participation 3.0610 .64173 3.1548 .60976 3.1696 .76392
Low status 3.1626 .69571 3.3254 .59121 3.2857 .68322
In the descriptive statistics the stress level is h igher in the age group of
less than 5 years of experience due to role ambigui ty, Role conflict, Job
related stressors and for the age group of managers having experience
between 5 to 10 years of experience has to undergo stress due to inter
119
personal stressors and low status and in managers h aving experience
more than 10 years in the same company faces stress due to
powerlessness, under participation .
Inferential Statistics:
0H : There is a no significant relationship between s tress and years of
experience in the same company
1H : There is a significant relationship between stre ss and years of
experience in the same company.
Table 6.12: ANOVA for Years of Experience
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups
.862 3 .287 1.589 .196
Within Groups 19.715 109 .181
Role overload
Total 20.577 112
Between Groups
2.055 3 .685 3.815 .012
Within Groups 19.572 109 .180
Role ambiguity
Total 21.627 112
Between Groups
.354 3 .118 1.440 .235
Within Groups 8.925 109 .082
Role conflict
Total 9.279 112
Between Groups
.154 3 .051 .425 .736
Within Groups 13.202 109 .121
Inter-personal
stressor
Total 13.356 112
120
Between Groups
.118 3 .039 .376 .770
Within Groups 11.382 109 .104
Job related
stressor
Total 11.500 112
Between Groups
2.835 3 .945 2.064 .109
Within Groups 49.902 109 .458
Powerlessness
Total 52.737 112
Between Groups
.754 3 .251 .574 .633
Within Groups 47.755 109 .438
Under-participation
Total 48.509 112
Low Status Between Groups
1.241 3 .414 .973 .408
aH0 : There is no significant difference between years of experience in
the same company and stress level due to role overl oad
aH1 : There is a significant difference between years of experience in the
same company and stress level due to role overload .
bH0 : There is no significant difference between years of experience in
the same company and stress level due to role ambig uity
bH1 : There is significant difference between years of experience in the
same company and stress level due to role ambiguity .
cH0 : There is no significant difference between years of experience in
the same company and stress level due to role confl ict.
cH1 : There is significant difference between years of experience in the
same company and stress level due to role conflict.
121
dH0 : There is no significant difference between years of experience in
the same company and stress level due to interperso nal
relationship
dH1 : There is significant difference between years of experience in the
same company and stress level due to inter personal relationship.
eH0 : There is no significant difference between years of experience in
the same company and stress level due to Job relate d stressors
eH1 : There is significant difference between years of experience in the
same company and stress level due to Job related st ressors.
eH0 : There is no significant difference between years of experience in
the same company and stress level due to powerlessn ess.
eH1 : There is significant difference between years of experience in the
same company and stress level due to powerlessness.
fH0 : There is no significant difference between years of experience in
the same company and stress level due under partici pation
fH1 : There is significant difference between years of experience in the
same company and stress level due to under particip ation.
gH0 : There is no significant difference between years of experience in
the same company and stress level due low status
gH1 : There is significant difference between years of experience in the
same company and stress level due to low status
122
Based on the available method of data analysis this study used 1 way
ANOVA on the various independent and dependent vari ables. Thus from
the given table Sample we interpret that we reject the null hypothesis for all
the variables causing stress like role overload, ro le ambiguity, role conflict,
job stressors, under participation and low status e xcept for powerlessness
we accept the null hypothesis i.e there is no signi ficant relationship
between years of experience in the same company and stress caused due
to powerlessness and accept the alternative hypoth esis as the calculated t
value is more than significant value for all other variables. So we conclude
there is a significant difference between years of experience in the same
company and stress level due to all factors of stre ss except
powerlessness.
Table 6.13: Descriptive Statistics of Income:
>5 lakhs 5-10lakhs 10-15 lakhs Stress variables
N-41 N-42 N-28
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Role overload 3.0081 .47427 3.0992 .39313 2.8810 .40025
Role Ambiguity 3.0915 .42114 2.9107 .40130 2.7768 .51523
Role Conflict 2.9107 .40130 2.9714 .27076 2.9714 .34303
Inter personal stressors
2.9512 .33655 3.0130 .33088 2.9253 .39047
Job-related
Stressors
3.0000 .30496 2.9905 .32371 2.9321 .35282
Powerlessness 3.0488 .75484 3.1905 .67932 3.4286 .54325
Under participation 3.0610 .64173 3.1548 .60976 3.1696 .76392
123
Low status 3.1626 .69571 3.3254 .59121 3.2857 .68322
Data analysis that stress is high in the income gro up of Less than 5 lakhs
due to job related stressors. In the income group o f managers earning
more than 10 lakhs is due to powerlessness, under participation and
higher in the income group of 5-10 due to inter per sonnel stressors, low
status etc
Table 6.14: ANOVA FOR INCOME
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups .862 3 .287 1.589 .196
Within Groups 19.715 109 .181
Role overload
Total 20.577 112
Between Groups 2.055 3 .685 3.815 .012
Within Groups 19.572 109 .180
Role ambiguity
Total 21.627 112
Between Groups .354 3 .118 1.440 .235
Within Groups 8.925 109 .082
Role conflict
Total 9.279 112
Interpersonal
Stressor
Between Groups .154 3 .051 .425 .736
124
Within Groups 13.202 109 .121 Stressor
Total 13.356 112
Between Groups .118 3 .039 .376 .770
Within Groups 11.382 109 .104
Job-related
Stressor
Total 11.500 112
Between Groups 2.835 3 .945 2.064 .109
Within Groups 49.902 109 .458
Powerlessness
Total 52.737 112
Between Groups .754 3 .251 .574 .633
Within Groups 47.755 109 .438
Under-
participation
Total 48.509 112
Between Groups 1.241 3 .414 .973 .408
Within Groups 46.350 109 .425
Low status
Total 47.591 112
aH0 : There is no significant difference between years of experience in
the same company and stress level due to role overl oad
aH1 : There is a significant difference between yearly in come and stress
level due to role overload.
125
bH0 : There is no significant difference between yearl y income and stress
level due to role ambiguity
bH1 : There is significant difference between yearly i ncome and stress
level due to role ambiguity.
cH0 : There is no significant difference between yearl y income and stress
level due to role conflict.
cH1 : There is significant difference between yearly i ncome and stress
level due to role conflict.
dH0 : There is no significant difference between yearl y income and stress
level due to interpersonal relationship
dH1 : There is significant difference between yearly i ncome and stress
level due to inter personal relationship.
eH0 : There is no significant difference between yearl y income and stress
level due to Job related stressors
eH1 : There is significant difference between yearly i ncome and stress
level due to Job related stressors.
eH0 : There is no significant difference between yearl y income and stress
level due to powerlessness.
eH1 : There is significant difference between yearly i ncome and stress
level due to powerlessness.
fH0 : There is no significant difference between yearl y income and
stress level due under participation
126
fH1 : There is significant difference between yearly i ncome and stress
level due to under participation.
gH0 : There is no significant difference between yearly i ncome and stress
level due low status
gH1 : There is significant difference between yearly i ncome and stress
level due to low status
Based on the ANOVA method of data analysis interpre ts that null
hypothesis is accepted for role conflict we can pro ve that there is no
significance between yearly income and stress due t o role conflict where in
for all other hypothesis null hypothesis is rejecte d and alternative
hypothesis is accepted . So we conclude there is si gnificant between yearly
income and stress level due to all other stress var iables except role
conflict.
127
CHAPTER VII
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDING
7.1: Description of Sample:
Sr. No Demographic variable Frequency Percentage
1 Location
Mumbai 255 49.8
Bangalore 257 50.2
2 Gender
Male 325 63.5
Female 187 36.5
3 Level
Senior Managers 166 32.5
Junior Managers 345 67.5
4 Age
Less than 25 98 19.1
25 -30 208 40.6
30-35 135 26.4
35 and above 71 13.9
5 Length of service
0-5 yrs 186 36.3
5-10yrs 281 54.9
10-15 37 7.2
Above 15 8 1.6
6 Total work experience
0-5 72 14.1
5-10 203 39.6
10-15 74 14.5
15-20 156 30.5
Above 20 7 1.3
7 Income (lakhs)
1-5 125 24.4
5-10 242 47.3
128
10-15 124 24.2
Above 15 21 4.1
Sample Description :
In the given sample the percentage of sample in bot h the cities is nearly
equal i.e in Mumbai it is 49.8% where as in Bangalo re it is 50.2%. In the
given sample total male managers are 325 i.e 63.5% where as female
managers are 36.5%.of the total population.
In the level category we have 67.5% of sample in ju nior management
category where in 32.5% in the Senior Level.
About Age . In the given sample of 512 ,19.1% of managers ar e in less than
25 years of age group, where as maximum in the age group of managers in
the age group of 25-35 i.e 40.6% . About 26.4% of m anagers are in 30-35%
age group and only 13.9% above 35 years of age grou p. From the sample
description we can find that there is a very young crowd in IT sector.
About number of years of experience in the same com pany . 36.3% of
managers have an experience less than 5 years about 54.9% have an
experience in the group of 5-10 years and only 7.2% in 10-15 years of
experience. If we look at the complete sample 1.36% of managers have an
experience above 15 years of age.
As in IT sector the attrition is very high we tried to find the frequency of
total work experience in industry. A total of 14.1% of managers have less
than 5 years of experience. Maximum i.e 39.6% havin g an experience of 5-
10 years and 15-20 years of experience the frequenc y is 30.5%.The least is
found in the group of above 20 years of experience i.e 1.3%. As IT sector
boomed in India after globalization so we can find very few in this group.
129
47.3% of managers earn income of 5-10 lakhs per ann um. About 24.4% of
them earn in the range of 1-5 lakhs and 10-15 years respectively Only 4% of
managers earn above 15 lakhs per annum.
7.2 Reliability Statistics of Causes of stress
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardized Items N of Items
.821 .799 46
Split-Half
Coefficient
Guttman
Lambda
N of
items
.769 .803 46
7.2 A: Reliability Statistics for Consequences
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardized Items N of Items
.829 .831 20
Split-Half
Coefficient
Guttmann
Lambda N of Items
.692 .769 20
Reliability value of Causes of stress:
The Cronbach’s Alpha test of reliability value was .821
Split-Half Coefficient reliability value wa s .769
130
Guttmann Lambda value was .803
Reliability value of Consequences of stres s:
The Cronbach’s Alpha test of reliability va lue was .829
Split-Half Coefficient reliability value w as ..692
Guttmann Lambda value was .769
7.3 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILING OF MANAGERS IN IT SECTOR
In case of cross tabulation a test of significance called the chi-square test
can be used if two or more variables are significan tly associated with each
other. In the present data we would like to find wh ether there is significant
association between gender and level. The level of significant is 95 %. So if
the value is less than .05 then we interpret that t here is significant
association between gender and level.
Table No 7.3: GENDER - Location Cross tabulation
Total
Mumbai Bangalore
131
GENDER Male 168 155 325
52.3% 47.7% 100.0%
Female 87 100 187
46.5% 53.5% 100.0%
Total 255 255 512
49.8% 49.8% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-
Square 2.585(a) 2 .275
Likelihood Ratio 3.250 2 .197
Linear-by-Linear
Association .953 1 .329
N of Valid Cases 512
a 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .73.
132
The data indicate that there is no significant rela tionship (p) between
gender and location. Population of Male Managers in IT sector is 52.3% in
Mumbai and in Bangalore is 47.7% where in Female ma nagers in Mumbai is
46.5% and in Bangalore is 53.5%.
COMPARATIVE GENDER AND LEVEL:
Table 7.4: GENDER * Level Cross tabulat ion
Level Total
Sr Level Jr Level
GENDER Male 101 223 324
31.2% 68.8% 100.0%
Female 65 122 187
34.8% 65.2% 100.0%
Total 166 345 511
32.5% 67.5% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
133
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .695(b) 1 .404
Continuity Correction(a) .541 1 .462
N of Valid Cases 511
a) Computed only for a 2x2 table
b) 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 60.75.
In the given sample 31.2% of male managers are in t he Senior level and
68.8% is in the Junior level where as in female the percentage is 34.8% in
Senior level and 65.5% in junior level. If we compa re we find that female
managers is comparatively more than the male manage rs in Senior
category than male managers. Also the data indicate there is no significant
relationship between (p=.404) between gender and De signations in IT
sector. We can conclude there is no disparities bet ween male managers
and female managers where as growth and promotions are involved.
Table 7.5: GENDER * Length of service in IT sector {Years} Cross tabulation
Length of service in IT sector {Years} Total
>5yrs 5-10yrs 10-15yrs
15yrs-
20yrs
GE
ND
ER
Male
123 176 23 3 325
134
37.8% 54.2% 7.1% .9% 100.0%
Fem
ale 63 105 14 5 187
33.7% 56.1% 7.5% 2.7% 100.0%
Total 186 281 37 8 512
36.3% 54.9% 7.2% 1.6% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.007(a) 3 .391
Likelihood Ratio 2.898 3 .408
Linear-by-Linear
Association 1.791 1 .181
N of Valid Cases 512
a) 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5 . The minimum
expected count is 2.92.
In the demographic profiling we can interpret that male managers and
female managers are found more in the group 5-10 ye ars of experience and
in less female managers (2.7%) is compared to male managers(9%) less
135
than managers in the years of experience 15-20. Als o there is no significant
relationship between the gender and length of servi ce in IT sector.
Gender and Total Work Experience:
(Table 7.6): GENDER * Total work experience {Years} Cross tabulation
Total work
exp >5yrs 5-10yrs 10-15 yr 15-20yr Total
GEN
DER
Male 47 132 41 100 325
15.5% 40.6% 12.6% 30.8% 100.0%
Female 25 71 33 56 187
13.4% 38.0% 17.6% 29.9% 100.0%
Total 72 203 74 156 512
14.1% 39.6% 14.5% 30.5% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
136
Pearson Chi-Square 3.018(a) 5 .697
Likelihood Ratio 3.301 5 .654
Linear-by-Linear
Association .075 1 .784
N of Valid Cases 512
a) 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5 . The minimum
expected count is .37.
There is no significant association between gender and total work
experience. As p value is more than .05 at 95% of c onfidence level. Male in
age group of 5 to 10 years is more followed by 30.8 % in the total years of
experience is 15 to 20 years are more in male as we ll as in female.
(Table 7.7): GENDER * Annual income {INR-Lakhs} Cro ss tabulation
Annual income {INR - Lakhs} Total
1-5
lakhs
5-10
lakhs
10-
15lakhs
15lakhs
and
above
GE
ND
ER
Male
78 155 79 13 325
24.0% 47.7% 24.3% 4.0% 100.0%
137
Female 47 87 45 8 187
25.1% 46.5% 24.1% 4.3% 100.0%
Total 125 242 124 21 512
24.4% 47.3% 24.2% 4.1% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp.
Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .122(a) 3 .989
Likelihood Ratio .122 3 .989
Linear-by-Linear
Association .012 1 .911
N of Valid Cases 512
a) 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. T he minimum expected
count is 7.67.
138
In the given data the maximum percentage of men ea rn in the range of 5 to
10 lakhs followed by male in the age group of minim um five years of
experience .i.e 25.1%. Similarly in female also 46. 7% of employees earn in
the range of 5 to 10 years of experience followed b y 25.1% and 24.1 earning
1-5 lakhs and 10 to 15 years of experience. Also fo und there is no
significant difference in the gender and total inco me earned.
(Table 7.8): GENDER * Age {Years} Cross tabulation
Less
than
5yrs
5-10 yrs 10-15yrs 15-20yrs Total
GE
ND
ER
Male
62 133 88 39 325
19.1% 40.9% 27.1% 12.0% 100.0%
Female 36 75 47 28 187
19.3% 40.1% 25.1% 15.5% 100.0%
Total 98 208 135 67 512
19.1% 40.6% 26.4% 13.9% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-
139
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.222(a) 4 .874
Likelihood Ratio 1.223 4 .874
Linear-by-Linear Association .091 1 .763
N of Valid Cases 512
a) 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 1.46.
Majority of IT managers are in the category of havi ng 5 to 10 years of experience.
Similarly for the female employees also it is in th e same category and least is
above 15 -20 years of experience for both the categ ories. There is no significance
relationship between gender and years of experience .
(Table 7.9): Age {Years} * Annual income {INR - Lak hs} Cross tabulation
Annual income {INR - Lakhs}
1-5lakhs
5-10
lakh
10-15
lakh 15-20
Total
>25years 72 26 0 0 98
73.5% 26.5% .0% .0% 100.0%
25-30 yrs 53 133 18 4 208
25.5% 63.9% 8.7% 1.9% 100.0%
Age
{Years}
30-35 yrs 0 73 57 5 135
140
.0% 54.1% 42.2% 3.7% 100.0%
35and
above 2 10 47 10 67
.2 14.9% 70.1% 14.9% 100.0%
Total 125 242 124 21 512
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 354.408(a) 12 .000
Likelihood Ratio 368.068 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 250.968 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 512
a) 6 cells (30.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .16.
The data indicate there is significant relationshi p between (p-.000) age and
income. Less than 25 years of male managers earn 26 .5% of income Also in the
similar age group around 54% of managers earn the s ame money at the age of 35
and above. Similarly in the age group of 30-35 ea rn a income as 54%.
141
7.3 Descriptive Statistics of Causes of stress
(Table No 7.10): Descriptive Statistics of AGE
Variables N Mean Std. Deviation
125 242 124
<25 25-30 30-35
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean SD
Role overload 3.2 0.7 3.01 0.57 2.95 0.61
Role Ambiguity 3.55 .38 3.51 .33 3.58 .37
Role Conflict 3.63 .24 3.59 .28 3.65 .28
Inter personal
stressors
3.06 .35 3.00 .34 2.93 .39
Job Related Stressors 3.06 .35 3.00 .34 2.93 .39
Powerlessness 2.89 .73 2.78 .65 2.76 .69
Under participation 6.66 1.44 6.56 1.29 6.69 1.17
Low status 6.66 1.44 6.56 1.29 6.69 1.17
Data interpretation:
Stress is more in age group less than 25 due to und er participation, low
status. Actually if we see in employees joining in this age group are more
of fresher and starters so chances are that they ar e not included in
decision making processes which causes these proble ms. In the age group
25-30 stress is more due to role overload, interpe rsonal, Job related
142
stressors and powerlessness stress. Also in the age group of 35-40 stress
is less due to role overload.
(Table No 7.11) : Descriptive Analysis of Gender:
Variables N N
125 242
Male Female
Mean S.D Mean S.D
Role overload
3.0354 .62514 3.0321 .64423
Role Ambiguity 3.5631 .36571 3.5374 .36561
Role Conflict 3.6388 .26359 3.6000 .29476
Inter personal stressors 3.0034 .33355 2.9952 .425 06
Job Related Stressors 3.0034 .33355 2.9952 .42506
Powerlessness 2.7867 .68616 2.7932 .69305
Under participation 6.5826 1.30254 6.6988 1.29614
Low status 6.5826 1.30254 6.6988 1.29614
If we compare means for male and female we find tha t stress is more in
male due to interpersonal stressors and job stresso rs and less stress in
143
under participation compared to females. More stres s is found in female
due to under participation. In all other variables like powerlessness, low
status, role ambiguity, role conflict you find stre ss is nearly same in male
as well as female.
(Table No 7.12): Descriptive statistics for Senior Level managers and Junior
Level Managers:
Variables N N
166 345
Senior Level Junior Level
Mean S.D Mean S.D
Role overload
3.0592 .62631 3.0208 .63501
Role Ambiguity 3.5271 .36205 3.5659 .36741
Role-Conflict 3.5711 .30052 3.6504 .25993
Inter-personal stressors 2.9813 .38981 3.0096 .359 66
Job-Related Stressors 2.9813 .38981 3.0096 .35966
Powerlessness 2.7510 .68331 2.8077 .69145
Under participation 6.6124 1.40240 6.6309 1.25201
Low status 6.6124 1.40240 6.6309 1.25201
144
When the means where compared of Senior level manag ers like Project
manager, Program managers, Senior consultant, Senio r functional
managers stress is found in Junior management level like Assistant,
Developers, Testers, Software programmers, Soft Eng ineers and Associate
consultants due to role conflict, inter personal st ressors, Job related and
powerlessness than that of senior managers. For all other variables like
specifically role related, under participation, rol e ambiguity etc the are
less.
(Table 7.13): Descriptive statistics for loc ation:
Variables N N
255 255
Mumbai Bangalore
Mean S.D Mean S.D
Role overload
3.0569 .63640 3.0092 .62826
Role Ambiguity 3.6049 .35705 3.5049 .36818
Role-Conflict 3.6361 .26493 3.6157 .28463
Inter-personal tressors 3.0427 .38640 2.9592 .34820
Job-Related Stressors 3.0427 .38640 2.9592 .34820
Powerlessness 2.8418 .69607 2.7346 .67882
Under participation 6.6680 1.30297 6.5752 1.29890
Low status 6.6680 1.30297 6.5752 1.29890
145
From the given facts stress is more in Mumbai compa red to Bangalore due
to role ambiguity, interpersonal stressors, job rel ated stress,
powerlessness under participation and low status.
(Table 7.14): Descriptive Statistics for Years of E xperience
Years of Exp <5 yrs N-98 5-10 yrs N-208 10-20 yrs N-205
Variables of
Stress Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S D
Role overload 3.0986 .66574 3.1378 .60435 2.9309 .60415
Role Ambiguity 3.5714 .40455 3.5313 .35642 3.5704 .36351
Role Conflict 3.6469 .29400 3.6115 .26276 3.6207 .27457
Inter personal
stressors
3.0388 .33387 3.0649 .34427 2.9274 .37940
Job related
stressors
3.0388 .33387 3.0649 .34427 2.9274 .37940
Powerlessness 2.7313 .62528 2.9535 .71670 2.6346 .66651
Under
participation
6.8197 1.39149 6.5208 1.34080 6.6444 1.19507
Low status 6.8197 1.39149 6.5208 1.34080 6.6444 1.19507
Analysis: From the mean of the variables we can con clude stress is more in
the managers in the age group of 0-5 years of exper ience in the same
organization due to role overload, inter personnel stressors, job related
stressors, under participation and low status wher e as for managers who
146
has worked more than 5-10 years of experience in th e same company get
stressed out due to Job related stressors and power lessness on the same
hand get less stressed out due to under participati on and low status also
managers above 10-15 get very used to working syste ms and processes
and doesn’t get stress out, and in 15-20 years of e xperience get stressed
out due to interpersonal relationships.
(Table 7.15): Descriptive Statistics for Total year s of experience in IT sector
Total Years of
Exp <5 yrs N-98 5-10 yrs N-208
10-20 yrs N-205
Variables of
Stress Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S D
Role overload 3.0579 .78182 3.1461 .58421 3.0045 .53134
Role
Ambiguity
3.5417 .37529 3.5813 .38399 3.4730 .31123
Role Conflict 3.6361 .26287 3.6246 .27211 3.6081 .29132
Inter personal
stressors
3.0319 .29110 3.0483 .34746 3.0257 .40749
Job related
stressors
3.0319 .29110 3.0483 .34746 3.0257 .40749
Powerlessness 2.8241 .66894 2.7997 .70854 3.0586 .71802
Under
participation
6.6065 1.33019 6.5698 1.38232 6.7748 1.25708
147
Low status 6.6065 1.33019 6.5698 1.38232 6.7748 1.25708
The data suggested that in the managers in the age group 5-10 years of
information technology face more stress than other groups and the
variables that lead to stress are role overload, jo b stressors, and
powerlessness. Secondly in the age group of 10-15 i t is found that
powerlessness causes more stress amongst manager. I n other variables
stress is more or less equal and stress is found mi nimum in the group of
15-20 yrs of experience whereas, the variables like role overload,
interpersonal stressors and job stressors. It is be cause mostly in this age
group the managers are settled and aware of occupat ional stressors and
can deal with these issues.
(Table 7.16): Descriptive statistics for Managers i ncome
Years of Exp <5 yrs N-98 5-10 yrs N-208 1 0-20 yrs N-205
Variables of
Stress Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S D
Role overload 3.2013 .70084 3.0179 .57767 2.9530 .61064
Role
Ambiguity
3.5560 .38738 3.5165 .33969 3.5847 .37839
Role Conflict 3.5560 .38738 3.5165 .33969 3.5847 .37839
Inter personal
stressors
3.0664 .35263 3.0025 .34903 2.9371 .39209
148
Job related
stressors
3.0664 .35263 3.0025 .34903 2.9371 .39209
Powerlessness 2.8933 .73030 2.7893 .65981 2.7608 .69005
Under
participation
6.6613 1.44925 6.5661 1.29384 6.6989 1.17519
Low status 6.6613 1.44925 6.5661 1.29384 6.6989 1.17519
From the given data we can analyze that Junior leve l managers in
income group of 1-5 lakhs face more stress in the v ariables role
overload, interpersonal stressors and Job stressors . Comparatively in
the income group of Rs 10-15 lakhs the managers fac e less stress in
the similar variables. In other income group the st ress is similar for all
the variables.
7.5 Inferential Statistics:
With inferential statistics, we tried to reach conc lusions that extend
beyond the immediate data alone. For instance, we u se inferential
statistics to try to infer from the sample data wha t the population
might think. Or, we use inferential statistics to m ake judgments of
the probability that an observed difference between groups is a
dependable one or one that might have happened by c hance in this
study. Thus, we use inferential statistics to make inferences from our
data to more general conditions; we used descriptiv e statistics
simply to describe what's going on in our data.
149
Most of the major inferential statistics come from a general family of
statistical models known as the General Linear Mode l. This includes the t-
test, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), regression anal ysis, and many of the
multivariate methods like factor analysis, multidim ensional
scaling, cluster analysis, discriminate function an alysis, and so on. In the
present study final analysis we used t test, Analys is of variance (ANOVA),
regression analysis etc
Hypothesis testing:
Ho: There is no significant difference between str ess level in male and in
female.
H1: There is a significant difference between stre ss level in male and in
female.
At 95% confidence level if the value is > .05 we ac cept the null hypothesis
and we reject the alternative hypothesis.
Table 7.17: Independent t-test for Gender
150
t-test for Equality of Means
T Df Sig. (2-tailed)
.057 510 .955 Role overload
.056 378.383 .955
.764 510 .445 Role Ambiguity
.764 387.981 .445
1.534 510 .126 Role Conflict
1.488 353.577 .138
.242 510 .809 Interpersonal
stressors .227 318.217 .821
.242 510 .809 Job related
stressors .227 318.217 .821
-.104 510 .917 Powerlessness
-.103 384.720 .918
-.974 510 .331 Under participation
-.975 389.472 .330
-.974 510 .331 Low status
-.975 389.472 .330
151
In the given data the value of all variables is mor e than 0.05. So we reject
the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypo thesis that there is
significant difference between stress level in male and female.
Hoa: There is no significant difference between st ress level in male and
female due to role overload
H1a: There is a significant difference between str ess level in male and
female due to role overload.
Sample says as t value is less than significant two tailed value i.e 0.56< .95
we accept the null hypothesis and reject the altern ative hypothesis i.e there
is no significant difference between stress level i n male and female due to
role over load.
Hob: There is no significant difference between st ress level in male and
female due to role ambiguity
H1b: There is significant difference between stres s level in male and
female due to role ambiguity.
Sample says as t value is more than significant two tailed value i.e .0764 >
.445 we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis i.e
there is significant difference between stress leve l in male and female due
to role ambiguity
Hoc: There is no significant difference between st ress level in male and
female due to role conflict.
H1c: There is significant difference between stres s level in male and
female due to role conflict.
152
Sample says as t value is more than significant t v alue i.e 1.534(tvalue) >
.126 (sign two tailed value) so we reject the null hypothesis and accept the
alternative hypothesis. Where in we can say that th ere is significant
difference between stress level in male and female due to role conflict.
Hod: There is no significant difference between st ress level in male and
female due to interpersonal relationship
H1d: There is significant difference between stres s level in male and
female due to inter personal relationship.
Sample says t value is less that significant value i.e .242< .809 so we accept
the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypo thesis. There is no
significant difference between stress level in male and female due to
interpersonal relationship.
Hoe: There is no significant difference between st ress level in male and
female due to Job related stressors
H1e: There is significant difference between stres s level in male and
female due to Job related stressors.
Sample says t value is less that significant value i.e .242< .809 so we accept
the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypo thesis. There is no
significant difference between stress level in male and female due to job
related stressors.
Hof: There is no significant difference between s tress level in male and
female due to powerlessness.
H1f: There is significant difference between stres s level in male and
female due to powerlessness.
153
Sample says t value is less that significant value i.e .104. <.917 so we
accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternati ve hypothesis. There is
no significant difference between stress level in J unior level managers and
Senior Managers due to powerlessness
H0g: There is no significant difference between st ress level in male and
female due under participation
H1g: There is significant difference between stres s level in male and
female due to under participation.
Sample says as t value is more than significant t v alue i.e .974 (tvalue) >
.330 (sign two tailed value) so we reject the null hypothesis and accept the
alternative hypothesis. Where in we can say that th ere is significant
difference between stress level in male and female due to under
participation.
H0h: There is no significant difference between st ress level in male and
female due low status
H1h: There is significant difference between stres s level in male and
female due to low status
Sample says as t value is more than significant t v alue i.e .975 (t value) >
.331( sign two tailed value) so we reject the null hypothesis and accept the
alternative hypothesis. Where in we can say that th ere is significant
difference between stress level in male and female due to low status
154
Sample says that the null hypothesis is rejected fo r role ambiguity, role
conflict, under participation and low status, again st the alternative
hypothesis as the calculated t value is more than s ignificant value. For
other factors like role overload, interpersonal str essors, job related
stressors, powerlessness the t value is less than s ignificant value so we
accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternati ve hypothesis.
Hypothesis testing for Stress in Junior Level Manag ers and Senior Level
Managers
Ho: There is no significant difference in the stre ss level of Junior
Managers and Senior Managers
H1: There is a significant difference in the stres s level of Junior
Managers and Senior Managers.
7.18 Independent t-test forLevel
t-test for Equality of Means
t Df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.644 509 .520 Role
overload .647 329.881 .518
Role -1.124 509 .261
155
Ambiguity -1.130 330.154 .259
-3.069 509 .002 Role Conflict
-2.917 287.316 .004
-.809 509 .419 Interpersonal
stressors -.786 303.435 .432
-.809 509 .419 Job related
stressors -.786 303.435 .432
-.872 509 .384 Powerless
ness -.875 329.299 .382
-.150 509 .881 Under
participation -.144 295.008 .885
-.150 509 .881 Low status
-.144 295.008 .885
In the given data the value of all variables is mor e than 0.05. So we reject
the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hyp othesis that there is
significant difference between stress level in Juni or level managers and
Senior level Managers.
156
Hoa: There is no significant difference between st ress level in Junior level
managers and Senior Level Managers due to role over load
H1a: There is a significant difference between str ess level in Junior level
managers and Senior Level Managers due to role over load.
Sample says as t value is .644 more than significan t two tailed value i.e .520
we reject the null hypothesis and accept the altern ative hypothesis i.e there
is significant difference between stress level in J unior Managers and
Senior Managers due to role over load.
Hob: There is no significant difference between st ress level in Junior level
managers and Senior Managers due to role ambiguity
H1b: There is significant difference between stres s level in Junior level
managers and Senior Managers due to role ambiguity.
Sample says as t value is more than significant two tailed value i.e 1.124. >
.261 we reject the null hypothesis and accept the a lternative hypothesis i.e
there is significant difference between stress leve l in Junior level managers
and Senior Managers due to role ambiguity
Hoc: There is no significant difference between st ress level in Junior
level managers and Senior Managers due to role conf lict.
H1c: There is significant difference between stres s level in Junior level
managers and Senior Managers due to role conflict.
Sample says as t value is more than significant t v alue i.e-3.069 (tvalue) >
.002 ( sign two tailed value) so we reject the null hypothesis and accept the
alternative hypothesis. Where in we can say that th ere is significant
difference between stress level in Junior level man agers and Senior
Managers due to role conflict.
157
Hod: There is no significant difference between s tress level in Junior
level managers and Senior Managers due to interpers onal
relationship
H1d: There is significant difference between stres s level in Junior level
managers and Senior Managers due to inter personal relationship.
Sample says t value is more that significant value i.e . .809<.419 so we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternati ve hypothesis. There is
significant difference between stress level in Juni or level managers and
Senior Managers due to interpersonal relationship.
Hoe: There is no significant difference between s tress level in Junior
level managers and Senior Managers due to Job relat ed stressors
H1e: There is significant difference between stres s level in Junior level
managers and Senior Managers due to Job related str essors.
Sample says t value is more that significant value i.e -.809<.406 so we reject
the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypo thesis. There is
significant difference between stress level in Juni or level managers and
Senior Managers due to job related stressors.
Hof: There is no significant difference between st ress level in Junior
level managers and Senior Managers due to powerless ness.
H1f: There is significant difference between stres s level in Junior level
managers and Senior Managers due to powerlessness.
Sample says t value is more that significant value i.e-.872 <.384 so we reject
the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypo thesis. There is
significant difference between stress level in Juni or level managers and
Senior Managers due to powerlessness
158
Hog: There is no significant difference between st ress level in Junior level
managers and Senior Managers due under participatio n
H1g: There is significant difference between stres s level in Junior level
managers and Senior Managers due to under participa tion.
Sample says as t value is less than significant t v alue i.e . -.150 (tvalue) >
.881( sign two tailed value) so we accept the null hypothesis and reject the
alternative hypothesis. Where in we can say that th ere is no significant
difference between stress level in in Junior level managers and Senior
Managers due to under participation.
H0h: There is no significant difference between st ress level in male and
female due low status
H1h: There is significant difference between stres s level in male and
female due to low status
Sample says as t value is less than significant t v alue i.e -.150 (tvalue) >
.881( sign two tailed value) so we accept the null hypothesis and reject the
alternative hypothesis. Where in we can say that th ere is no significant
difference between stress level in Junior level man agers and Senior
Managers due to low status
Sample says you that we reject the null hypothesis for role overload, role
ambiguity, role conflict, inter personal, job relat ed and powerlessness.
Hypothesis testing for Location:
Ho: There is no significant difference in the stre ss level in Mumbai and
Bangalore
H1: There is a significant difference in the stres s level in Mumbai and
Bangalore
159
The alternative hypothesis as the calculated t valu e is more than significant
value. For other factors like powerlessness, under participation and low
status t value is less than significant value so we accept the null
hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis
At 95% confidence level if the value is > .05 we ac cept the null hypothesis
and we reject the alternative hypothesis.
In the given data the value of all variables is mor e than 0.05. So we reject
the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypo thesis that there is
significant difference between stress level in Mumb ai and Bangalore
Hoa: There is no significant difference between st ress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due to role overload
H1a: There is a significant difference between str ess level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to role overload.
Sample says as t value is more than significant two tailed value i.e .852<
.395 we reject the null hypothesis and accept the a lternative hypothesis i.e
there is no significant difference between stress l evel in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to role overload.
Hob: There is no significant difference between st ress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due to role ambiguity
H1b: There is significant difference between stres s level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to role ambiguity.
Sample says as t value is more than significant two tailed value i.e 3.114 >
.002 we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis i.e
there is significant difference between stress leve l in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to role ambiguity
160
Hoc: There is no significant difference between st ress level Mumbai and
Bangalore due to role conflict.
H1c: There is significant difference between stres s level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to role conflict.
Sample says as t value is more than significant t v alue i.e .837 (tvalue) >
.403( sign two tailed value) so we reject the null hypothesis and accept the
alternative hypothesis. Where in we can say that th ere is significant
difference between stress level in Mumbai and Banga lore due to role
conflict.
Hod: There is no significant difference between st ress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due to interpersonal relationship
H1d: There is significant difference between stres s level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to inter personal relationship.
Sample says t value is more that significant value i.e 2.564 > .011 so we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternati ve hypothesis. There is
significant difference between stress level in Mumb ai and Bangalore due to
interpersonal relationship.
Hoe: There is no significant difference between s tress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due to Job related stressors
H1e: There is significant difference between stres s level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to Job related stressors.
Sample says t value is more that significant value i.e . 2.564>.011 so we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternati ve hypothesis. There is a
significant difference between stress level in Mumb ai and Bangalore due to
job related stressors.
161
Hof: There is no significant difference between s tress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due to powerlessness.
H1f: There is significant difference between stres s level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to powerlessness.
Sample says t value is more that significant value i.e . 1.760. <.079 so we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternati ve hypothesis. There is a
significant difference between stress level in Mumb ai and Bangalore due to
powerlessness
H0g: There is no significant difference between st ress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due under participation
H1g: There is significant difference between stres s level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to under participation.
Sample says as t value is more than significant t v alue i.e .806 (tvalue) >
.421( sign two tailed value) so we reject the null hypothesis and accept the
alternative hypothesis. Where in we can say that th ere is significant
difference between stress level in Mumbai and Banga lore due to under
participation.
H0h: There is no significant difference between st ress level in Mumbai
and Bangalore due low status
H1h: There is significant difference between stres s level in Mumbai and
Bangalore due to low status
Sample says as t value is more than significant t v alue i.e . .806 (tvalue) >
.421( sign two tailed value) so we reject the null hypothesis and accept the
alternative hypothesis. Where in we can say that th ere is significant
difference between stress level in Mumbai and Banga lore due to low status
162
Sample says you that we reject the null hypothesis for all the variables
causing stress like role overload, role ambiguity, role conflict, interpersonal
stressors, job stressors, powerlessness, under part icipation and low
status. against the alternative hypothesis as the c alculated t value is more
than significant value. So we conclude that there i s significant difference
between stress level in Mumbai and Bangalore due to all variables of
stress.
Hypothesis testing for years of experience in the s ame company:
H0: There is no significant difference in stress l evel of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany.
H1: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany.
Table 7.19: ANOVA for years of Company Experience
df F Sig.
Between Groups 3 3.938 .009
Within Groups 508
Role overload
Total 511
Between Groups 3 1.467 .223
Within Groups 508
Role Ambiguity
Total 511
Between Groups 3 2.235 .083
Within Groups 508
Role Conflict
Total 511
Between Groups 3 1.367 .252 Inter personal
Stressors Within Groups 508
163
Total 511
Between Groups 3 1.367 .252
Within Groups 508
Jobrelated
stressors
Total 511
Between Groups 3 .576 .631
Within Groups 508
Power lessness
Total 511
Between Groups 3 .545 .652
Within Groups 508
Under
participation
Total 511
Between Groups 3 .545 .652
Within Groups 508
Low status
Total 511
H0a: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same com pany due to role
overload
H1a: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to
role overload
Sample says as f value is 3.938 is more than signif icant f value i.e .009, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternat ive hypothesis i.e there is
a significant difference in the stress level of man agers with respect to their
working experience in the same company due to role overload.
164
H0b: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same com pany due to role
ambiguity
H1b: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same com pany due to role
ambiguity
Sample says as f value is 1.467 is more than signif icant f value i.e .223, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternat ive hypothesis i.e there is
a significant difference in the stress level of man agers with respect to their
working experience in the same company due to role ambiguity.
H0c: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to
role conflict
H1c: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to
role conflict
Sample says as f value is 2.235 is more than signif icant f value i.e .083, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternat ive hypothesis i.e there is
a significant difference in the stress level of man agers with respect to their
working experience in the same company due to role conflict.
H0d: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to
Inter personal stressors.
165
H1d: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to
Inter personal stressors.
Sample says as f value is 1.367 is more than signif icant f value i.e .252, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternat ive hypothesis i.e there is
a significant difference in the stress level of man agers with respect to their
working experience in the same company due to inter personal stressors.
H0e: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to
Job related stressors.
H1e: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to
Job related stressors.
Sample says as f value is 1.367 is more than signif icant f value i.e .252, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternat ive hypothesis i.e there is
a significant difference in the stress level of man agers with respect to their
working experience in the same company due to inter personal stressors.
H0f: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to
powerlessness.
H1f: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to
powerlessness
166
Sample says as f value is .576 is less than signifi cant f value i.e .631, we
accept the null hypothesis i.e there is a no signi ficant difference in the
stress level of managers with respect to their work ing experience in the
same company due to powerlessness
H0g: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to
under participation
H1g: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to
under participation
Sample says as f value is .545 is less than signifi cant f value i.e 652, we
accept the null hypothesis i.e there is a no signi ficant difference in the
stress level of managers with respect to their work ing experience in the
same company due to under participation.
H0h: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to low
status.
H1h: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their working experience in the same co mpany due to low
status
Sample says as f value is .545 is less than signifi cant f value i.e 652, we
accept the null hypothesis i.e there is a no signi ficant difference in the
stress level of managers with respect to their work ing experience in the
same company due to low status
167
Sample says you that we reject the null hypothesis for the variables
causing stress like role overload ,role ambiguity, role conflict, interpersonal
stressors, job stressors against the alternative hy pothesis as the
calculated f value is more than significant value. Also we accept the null
hypothesis for powerlessness, under participation a nd low status. So we
conclude that there is no significant difference be tween stress level of
managers with respect to these variables.
Hypothesis testing for total number of years of exp erience in the IT
Company
H0: There is no significant difference in stress l evel of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector.
H1: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the in formation
technology sector.
Table 7.20: ANOVA for number of years of experience in the IT Sector
Df F Sig.
Between Groups 5 3.644 .003
Within Groups 506
Role overload
Total 511
Between Groups 5 1.499 .189
Within Groups 506
Role Ambiguity
Total 511
168
Between Groups 5 .561 .730
Within Groups 506
Role Conflict
Total 511
Between Groups 5 2.680 .021
Within Groups 506
Interpersonal
stressors
Total 511
Between Groups 5 2.680 .021
Within Groups 506
Job-related
stressors
Total 511
Between Groups 5 4.539 .000
Within Groups 506
Powerlessness
Total 511
Between Groups 5 .570 .723
Within Groups 506
Under
participation
Total 511
Between Groups 5 .570 .723
Within Groups 506
Low status
Total 511
H0a: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to role overload
H1a: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the in formation
technology sector due to role overload
169
Sample says as f value is 3.644 is more than signif icant f value ie .003, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternat ive hypothesis i.e there is
a significant difference in the stress level of man agers with respect to their
total working experience in information technology sector due to role
overload.
H0b: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to role ambiguity
H1b: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to role ambiguity
Sample says as f value is 1.499 more than signific ant f value ie .189, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternat ive hypothesis i.e there is
a significant difference in the stress level of man agers with respect to their
total working experience in information technology sector due to role
ambiguity.
H0c: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to role conflict
H1c: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to role conflict
Sample says as f value is .561 less than significan t f value ie .730, we
accept the null hypothesis i.e there is a no sign ificant difference in the
stress level of managers with respect to their tota l working experience in
information technology sector due to role conflict.
170
H0d: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to inter personal stressors
H1d: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to inter personal stressors.
Sample says as f value is 2.680 more than signific ant f value ie .021, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is
significant difference in the stress level of manag ers with respect to their
total working experience in information technology sector due to inter
personal stressors.
H0e: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to Job related stressors.
H1e: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to Job related stressors.
Sample says as f value is 2.680 more than signific ant f value ie .021, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is
significant difference in the stress level of manag ers with respect to their
total working experience in information technology sector due to Job
related stressors.
H0f: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to Powerlessness
171
H1f: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to powerlessness
Sample says as f value is 4.539 more than signific ant f value ie .000, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is
significant difference in the stress level of manag ers with respect to their
total working experience in information technology sector due to
powerlessness.
H0g: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to under participation
H1g: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to under participation.
Sample says as f value is .570 less than significan t f value ie .723, we
accept the null hypothesis a i.e there is no sign ificant difference in the
stress level of managers with respect to their tota l working experience in
information technology sector due to under particip ation
H0h: There is no significant difference in stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to low status
H1h: There is significant difference in the stress level of managers with
respect to their total working experience in the i nformation
technology sector due to low status.
172
Sample says as f value is .570 less than significan t f value ie .723, we
accept the null hypothesis a i.e there is no sign ificant difference in the
stress level of managers with respect to their tota l working experience in
information technology sector due to low status
Over all analysis states that there is no significa nt difference in the stress
level of managers with respect to their total worki ng experience in
information technology due to under participation, low status and role
conflict where as there is a significant difference in the stress level of
managers with respect to their total working experi ence due to role
overload, role ambiguity, inter personal stressors, job stressors.
Hypothesis testing for Age and Stress level:
H0: There is no impact of age on stress level of m anagers.
H1: There is an impact of age on stress level of m anagers.
Table no 7.21: ANOVA for Age and Stress level
Df F Sig.
Between Groups 4 4.707 .001
Within Groups 507
Role over load
Total 511
Between Groups 4 .365 .834
Within Groups 507
Role Ambiguity
Total 511
Between Groups 4 .445 .776
Within Groups 507
Role Conflict
Total 511
Interpersonnel Between Groups 4 4.936 .001
173
Within Groups 507 stressors
Total 511
Between Groups 4 4.936 .001
Within Groups 507
Job related stressors
Total 511
Between Groups 4 5.471 .000
Within Groups 507
Powerlessness
Total 511
Between Groups 4 .979 .419
Within Groups 507
Under participation
Total 511
Between Groups 4 .979 .419
Within Groups 507
Low status
Total 511
H0a: There is no impact of age on stress level o f managers due to role
overload
H1a: There is an impact of age on stress level o f managers due to role
overload
Sample says as f value is 4.707 more than signific ant f value ie .001, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is an
impact of age on stress level of managers due to r ole overload.
H0b: There is no impact of age on stress level of managers due to role
ambiguity
H1b: There is an impact of age on stress level of managers due to role
ambiguity.
174
Sample says as f value is .365 less than significa nt f value ie .834, we
accept the null hypothesis i.e there is no impac t of age on stress level of
managers due to role ambiguity.
H0c: There is no impact of age on stress level of managers due to role
conflict
H1c: There is an impact of age on stress level of managers due to role
conflict
Sample says as f value is .445 less than significan t f value ie .776, we
accept the null hypothesis i.e there is an no imp act of age on stress level
of managers due to role conflict.
H0d: There is no impact of age on stress level of managers due to inter
personal stressors
H1d: There is an impact of age on stress level of managers due to inter
personal stressors
Sample says as f value is 4.936 more than significa nt f value ie .001, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is an
impact of age on stress level of managers due to i nter personal stressors
H0e: There is no impact of age on stress level of managers due to Job
related stressors.
H1e: There is an impact of age on stress level of managers due to Job
related stressors
Sample says as f value is 4.936 more than significa nt f value ie .001, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is an
impact of age on stress level of managers due to J ob related stressors.
175
H0f: There is no impact of age on stress level of managers. due to
Powerlessness
H1f: There is an impact of age on stress level of managers due to
Powerlessness
Sample says as f value is 5.471 more than significa nt f value ie .000, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is an
impact of age on stress level of managers due to P owerlessness.
H0g: There is no impact of age on stress level of managers, due to Under
participation.
H1g: There is an impact of age on stress level of managers due to Under
participation.
Sample says as f value is .979 more than significan t f value ie .419, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis ie there is an
impact of age on stress level of managers due to U nder participation.
H0h: There is no impact of age on stress level of managers due to low
status
H1h: There is an impact of age on stress level of managers due to low
status.
Sample says as f value is .979 more than significan t f value ie .419, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is an
impact of age on stress level of managers due to L ow status.
The data interprets that there is a no impact of ag e on stress level of
managers due to role ambiguity and role conflict wh ere as there is an
impact of age on stress level of managers due to ro le overload, inter
personal stressors, job stressors, powerlessness an d low status.
176
Hypothesis testing for income and stress
H0: There is no impact of income on stress level o f managers .
H1: There is an impact of income on stress level of managers.
Table 7.22: ANOVA for income and stress
Df F Sig.
Role overload Between Groups 3 5.695 .001
Within Groups 508
Total 511
Role Ambiguity Between Groups 3 4.023 .008
Within Groups 508
Total 511
Role Conflict Between Groups 3 2.486 .060
Within Groups 508
Total 511
Interpersonnel
stressors
Between Groups 3 2.671 .047
Within Groups 508
Total 511
Job related
stressors
Between Groups 3 2.671 .047
Within Groups 508
177
Total 511
Powerlessness Between Groups 3 4.175 .006
Within Groups 508
Total 511
Under
participation
Between Groups 3 .333 .801
Within Groups 508
Total 511
Lowstatus Between Groups 3 .333 .801
Within Groups 508
Total 511
H0a: There is no impact of income on stress level of managers due to
role overload.
H1a: There is an impact of income on stress level of managers due to role
overload.
Sample says as f value is 5.695 more than signific ant f value ie .001, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is an
impact of income on stress level of managers due t o role overload.
H0b: There is no impact of income on stress level of managers due to
role ambiguity.
H1b: There is an impact of income on stress level of managers due to role
ambiguity.
178
Sample says as f value4.023 is more than significa nt f value ie .008, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is
an impact of income on stress level of managers du e to role ambiguity.
H0c: There is no impact of income on stress level of managers due to
role conflict.
H1c: There is an impact of income on stress level of managers due to role
conflict.
Sample says as f value 2.486 is more than signific ant f value ie .060, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is
an impact of income on stress level of managers du e to role conflict.
H0d: There is no impact of income on stress level of managers due to
inter personal stressors .
H1d: There is an impact of income on stress level of managers due to
inter personal stressors .
Sample says as f value is 2.671 more than significa nt f value ie .047, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is
an impact of income on stress level of managers du e to interpersonal
stressors.
H0e: There is no impact of income on stress level of managers due to job
stressors .
H1e: There is an impact of income on stress level of managers due to job
stressors.
Sample says as f value is 2.671 more than significa nt f value ie .047, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is
an impact of income on stress level of managers du e to job stressors.
179
H0f: There is no impact of income on stress level of managers due to
powerlessness.
H1f: There is an impact of income on stress level of managers due to
powerlessness.
Sample says as f value is 4.175 more than significa nt f value ie .006, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis i.e there is
an impact of income on stress level of managers du e to powerlessness.
H0g: There is no impact of income on stress level of managers due to
under participation.
H1g: There is an impact of income on stress level of managers due to
under participation.
Sample says as f value is .333 less than significan t f value ie .801, we
accept the null hypothesis i.e there is no impact of income on stress level
of managers due to underparticipation.
H0h: There is no impact of income on stress level of managers due to low
status.
H1h: There is an impact of income on stress level of managers due to low
status.
Sample says as f value is .333 less than significan t f value ie .801, we
accept the null hypothesis i.e there is no impac t of income on stress level
of managers due to low status.
In the given analysis there is no impact of income on stress level of
managers due to under participation and low status. For other variables like
role overload, role ambiguity, role conflict, job s tressors, inter personal
stressors and powerlessness there is an impact of i ncome on stress level
due to these variables.
180
7.6 Descriptive Statistics of Consequences of Stress
(Table7.23) Descriptive st atistics for Gender
Consequences Male Female
Mean S.D Mean S.D
Physiological 3.1947 .56662 3.2788 .58720
Behavioural 3.2405 .57004 3.3262 .56818
Psychological 3.2277 .55660 3.3048 .60624
After comparing means of male and female we conclud ed that physical
consequences, behavioural problems and psychologica l problems caused
due to stress is found more in female than male.
Location:
(Table7.24) Descriptive statistics of Location
Consequences Mumbai Bangalore
Mean S.D Mean S.D
181
Physiological 3.1944 .50570 3.2560 .63736
Behavioural 3.2621 .49873 3.2850 .63530
Psychological 3.2527 .52538 3.2644 .62117
From the given facts we can conclude that physical consequences are
more in Bangalore than in Mumbai. After compare me ans managers facing
behavioural and psychological problems in nearly sa me in both the cities.
(Table 7.25) Descriptive statistics for Level:
Consequences Sr.Level Jr.Level
Mean S.D Mean S.D
Physiological 3.2332 .61547 3.2215 .55635
Behavioural 3.2430 .64683 3.2870 .53035
Psychological 3.2117 .64268 3.2778 .54114
From the mean values we can conclude that behaviour al consequences
and psychological problems are found in Junior Mana gers than in Senior
managers. Where in physical consequences are found somewhat similar in
Senior as well as Junior Managers.
(Table 7.26)Descriptive of Age
182
Consequences >25 25-30 25-30
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D
Physiological 3.293
0
.59924 3.1435 .55701 3.2190 .54964
Behavioural 3.322
2
.57228 3.1937 .54707 3.2751 .59841
Psychological 3.322
2
.57228 3.1937 .54707 3.2751 .59841
After comparing means we can conclude that mean is higher in the age
group of 35-40 i.e physical consequences are found more in this age group
of managers followed by Junior level managers in th e age group of less
than 25 yrs. They are comparatively least in the ag e group of 25-30.
When we look at the behavioural problems like, conf lict, jealousy problem,
quickly losing tempe problem it is found more in th e age group of less
than 25 years of age and least in 25-30. Behavioura l problem in the age
group of 30 to 40 is same.
Psychological problem like feeling lonely, alcoholi sm, smoking, depression
is found in the age group of less than 25 years of age and similar in the age
group of 30-40 yrs and found least in the age group of 25-30.
(Table 7.27) Descriptive of Years of experience in the same company
Consequences >5yrs 5-10yrs 10-15yrs
183
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D
Physiological 3.2327 .58360 3.2120 .57487 3.2124 .49444
Behavioural 3.3065 .56003 3.2328 .59379 3.1776 .42245
Psychologica 3.3065 .56003 3.2328 .59379 3.1776 .42245
If we compare the means of years of experience we c an see that
physical consequences like headache, backaches, hyp ertension
etc. it is found amongst junior level managers i.e 0-3 yrs who are
just the beginners, also behavioural and psychologi cal problem is
found maximum in these category. Where as physical problem
behavioural problem and psychological problem found in years of
3-6 yrs and 6-9 yrs of experience in the same compa ny is very
close
(Table 7.28)Descriptive of Total years of experienc e in IT sector
Consequences >5yrs 5-10yrs 10-15yrs
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D
Physiological 3.2421 .55698 3.2280 .59370 3.1042 .48592
Behavioural 3.2996 .50701 3.2498 .58317 3.2471 .54195
Psychological 3.2996 .50701 3.2498 .58317 3.2471 .54195
184
Higher consequences physical, behavioural and psych ological problems
are found in the age group of Junior level managers in the age group of
>25 years of age. Whereas behavioural problem and p sychological
problem is all the age group are closer to each oth er. There is less
variation in these problem in the following age gro up.
7.7 Inferential Statistics for Consequences
Hypothesis testing for Consequences of stress
Ho: There is no significant difference in the cons equences of stress by
male and female managers.
H1: There is a significant difference in the conse quences of stress by
male and female managers.
Table 7.29: Independent Samples Test for Gender and Consequences of stress
t-test for Equality of Means
Hypoth
esis
0 Df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Equal variances
assumed
-1.596 510 .111 Rejecte
d
Physical
Consequences
Equal variances
not assumed
-1.581 376.630 .115
Equal variances
assumed
-1.640 510 .102 Rejecte
d
Behavioural
Equal variances -1.641 388.943 .102
185
A
t
9
5
% confidence level if the value is > .05 we accept the null hypothesis and
we reject the alternative hypothesis.
As the t value is more than 0.05 we reject the null hypothesis and accept
the alternative hypothesis. The finding says that there is significant
difference between consequences in male and female managers.
Hoa: There is no significant difference in the phy sical consequences of
stress by male and female managers.
H1a: There is a significant difference in the phys ical consequences of
stress by male and female managers.
In the given data the t value is more than 0.05 . So we reject the null
hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis th at there is significant
difference in physical consequence of stress level in male and female
managers
Hob: There is no significant difference in the beha vioural consequences of
stress by male and female managers.
H1b: There is a significant difference in the beha viour consequences of
stress by male and female managers
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
-1.461 510 .145 Rejecte
d
Psychological
Equal variances
not assumed
-1.428 361.376 .154
186
Hoc: There is no significant difference in the psy chological consequences
of stress by male and female managers.
H1c: There is a significant difference in the psych ological consequences of
stress by male and female managers
Similarly for the value of t is more than 0.05 so w e reject the null
hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis wh ich interprets that
there is significant difference in the behavioural and psychological
consequences of stress in male and female managers.
Hypothesis for Location:
H0: There is no significant difference in the cons equences of stress in
Mumbai and Bangalore.
H1: There is significant difference in the consequ ence of stress in
Mumbai and Bangalore.
(Table-7.30): Independent Samples Test for Locatio n
T-test for Equality of
Mean
T df
Sig.
valu
Hypothesis
Equal variances
assumed
-
1.210
508 .227 Physical
Consequence
s Equal variances
not assumed
-
1.210
483.031 .227
Rejected
187
Equal variances
assumed
-.452 508 .651 Behavioural
Equal variances
not assumed
-.452 480.896 .651
Accepted
Equal variances
assumed
-.231 508 .817 Psychologica
l
Equal variances
not assumed
-.231 494.386 .817
Accepted
The Null hypothesis is accepted for behavioural and psychological so we
can interpret that there is no significant differen ce in the consequences of
stress in Mumbai and Bangalore.
Hoa: There is no significant difference in the phy sical consequences of
stress in Mumbai and Bangalore.
H1a: There is significant difference in the physic al consequences of
stress in Mumbai and Bangalore.
The value if t -1.210 and sig t value is .227 as th e sig t value is more than
0.05 we reject the null hypothesis and accept the a lternative hypothesis
that there is a significant difference in the physi cal consequences of stress
in Mumbai and Bangalore.
Hob: There is no significant difference in the beha vioural consequences of
stress in Mumbai and Bangalore.
H1b: There is significant difference in the behavi oural consequences of
stress in Mumbai and Bangalore.
The value of t is -.452 and sig t value is .651 as the t value is less so we
accept the null hypothesis and interpret that ther e is a no significant
188
difference in the physical consequences of stress i n Mumbai and
Bangalore
Hoc: There is no significant difference in the psyc hological consequences
of stress in Mumbai and Bangalore.
H1c: There is significant difference in the psycho logical consequences of
stress in Mumbai and Bangalore.
The value of t is -.231and sig t value is .871 as t he t value is less so we
accept the null hypothesis and interpret that ther e is a no significant
difference in the psychological consequences of str ess in Mumbai and
Bangalore
Hypothesis for Consequences on Junior Manager and S enior Manager:
H0: There is no significant difference in the cons equences of stress in
Junior Managers and Senior Managers.
H1: There is significant difference in the consequ ence of stress in Junior
Managers and Senior Managers.
As the sig t value is more than .05 we reject the n ull hypothesis and accept
the alternative hypothesis i.e there is a significa nt difference in the
consequences of stress in Junior managers and senio r managers
(Table-7.31): Independent Samples Test for Level o f managers
t-test for Equality of Means
t df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Physical
Consequences
Equal variances
assumed
.215 509 .830
Equal variances
not assumed
.207 298.145 .836
Equal variances
assumed
-.816 509 .415 Behavioural
Equal variances
not assumed
-.762 275.200 .447
189
Hoa: There is no significant difference in the phy sical consequences of
stress in Junior Level Managers and Senior Level Ma nagers
H1a: There is significant difference in the physic al consequences of
stress in Junior Level Managers and Senior Level Ma nagers.
The value if t is .215 and sig t value is .830 as t he sig t value is less than sig
value we accept the null hypothesis there is a no significant difference in
the physical consequences of stress Junior Managers and Senior
Managers.
Hob: There is no significant difference in the beha vioural consequences of
stress in Junior Level Managers and Senior Level Ma nagers
H1b: There is significant difference in the behavi oural consequences of
stress in Junior Level Managers and Senior Level Ma nagers
Equal variances
assumed
-1.216 509 .225 Psychological
Equal variances
not assumed
-1.145 281.082 .253
190
The value of t is-.816 and sig t value is .415 as the t value is more so we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternat ive hypothesis and
interpret that there is a significant difference in the physical consequences
of stress in Junior Level Managers and Senior Leve l Managers
Hoc: There is no significant difference in the psyc hological consequences
of stress in Junior Level Managers and Senior Leve l Managers
H1c: There is significant difference in the psycho logical consequences of
stress in Junior Level Managers and Senior Level M anagers
The value of t is -1.216and sig t value is .225 as the t value is more than 0.05
so we reject the null hypothesis and accept the al ternative hypothesis and
interpret that there is a significant difference in the psychological
consequences of stress in Junior Managers and Seni or Managers.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR CONSEQUENCES AND AGE:
H0: There is no significant difference in the cons equences of stress in
different age groups
H1: There is a significant difference in the conse quences of stress in
different age groups.
The significant of f value is more than 0.05 so ha ve rejected the null
hypothesis and accepted alternative value. Which me ans that there is
significant difference in the consequences of stres s in different age groups.
(Table 7.32) ANOVA test for consequences of stress and
age
191
Df F Sig.
Between Groups 4 3.012 .018 Reject
Within Groups 507
Physical
Total 511
Between Groups 4 2.233 .064 Reject
Within Groups 507
Behavioural
Total 511
Between Groups 4 2.233 .064 Reject
Within Groups 507
Psychological
Total 511
H0a: There is no significant difference in physica l consequences of stress
in different age groups.
H1a: There is a significant difference in physical consequences of stress
in different age groups.
Sample says as f value is 3.012 is more than signi ficant f value i.e .018, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternat ive hypothesis i.e there is
a significant difference in the physical consequen ces of stress in different
age groups.
H0b: There is no significant difference in behavio ural consequences of
stress in different age groups
H1b: There is a significant difference in behaviou ral consequences of
stress in different age groups
Sample says as f value is 2.233 is more than signi ficant f value i.e .064, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternat ive hypothesis i.e there is
192
a significant difference in the behavioural conseq uences of stress in
different age groups
H0c: There is no significant difference in psychol ogical consequences of
stress in different age groups
H1c: There is a significant difference in psycholo gical consequences of
stress in different age groups
Sample says as f value is more than significant f value i.e .018, we reject
the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypo thesis i.e there is a
significant difference in the l psychological cons equences of stress in
different age groups
Hypothesis testing for Years of experience:
H0: There is no significant difference in conseque nces of stress faced
by managers with reference to years of experience i n the same
company.
H1: There is significant difference in consequence s of stress faced by
managers with reference to years of experience in t he same
company.
(Table 7.33) ANOVA TEST for years of experi ence and Consequences
of stress
F Df Sig Hypothesis
193
Between
Groups
1.136 3 .334 Rejected
Within Groups 508
Physical
Total 511
Between
Groups
.856 3 .464 Rejected
Within Groups 508
Behavioural
Total 511
Between
Groups
.856 3 .464 Rejected
Within Groups 508
Psychological
Total 511
The Sign value is more than 0.05 so we reject null hypothesis and accept
alternative hypothesis that means there significant difference in the
consequences of stress faced by manages with refere nce to years of
experience in the same company.
H0a: There is no significant difference in physica l consequences of stress
faced by managers with reference to years of experi ence in the same
company.
194
H1a: There is significant difference in physical co nsequences of stress
faced by managers with reference to years of experi ence in the same
company
Sample says as f value is 1.136 is more than signi ficant f value i.e .334, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternat ive hypothesis i.e there is
a significant difference in the physical consequenc es of stress in different
age groups
H0b: There is no significant difference in behavio ural consequences of
stress faced by managers with reference to years of experience in
the same company.
H1b: There is no significant difference in behavio ural consequences of
stress faced by managers with reference to years of experience in
the same company
H0c: There is no significant difference in psychol ogical consequences of
stress faced by managers with reference to years of experience in
the same company.
H1c: There is no significant difference in psychol ogical consequences of
stress faced by managers with reference to years of experience in
the same company
Sample says as f value is .856 is more than signif icant f value i.e .464, we
reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternat ive hypothesis i.e there is
a significant difference in the physical consequenc es of stress in different
age groups
Hypothesis Testing for Total years of experience:
195
H0: There is no significant difference in conseque nces of stress faced
by managers with reference to total number of years experience in
IT sector.
H1: There is significant difference in consequence s of stress faced by
managers with reference to number of years experien ce in IT sector
(Table 7.34) ANOVA TEST for Income and Consequences of stress
F df Sig Hypothesis
Between
Groups
1.745 5 .123 Rejected
Within Groups 506
Physical
Total 511
Between
Groups
.841 5 .521 Rejected
Within Groups 506
Behavioural
Total 511
Between
Groups
.841 5 .521 Rejected
Within Groups 506
Psychological
Total 511
196
H0a: There is no significant difference in physica l consequences of stress
faced by managers with reference to total number of years
experience in IT sector.
H1a: There is significant difference in physical c onsequences of stress
faced by managers with reference to number of years experience in
IT sector
The f value is 1.745 is more than significant f val ue .123 so we reject the
null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothes is which interprets that,
there is significant difference in physical consequ ences of stress faced by
managers with reference to number of years experien ce in IT sector
H0b: There is no significant difference in behavio ural consequences of
stress faced by managers with reference to total nu mber of years
experience in IT sector.
H1b: There is significant difference in behavioura l consequences of
stress faced by managers with reference to number o f years
experience in IT sector
The f value is .841 is more than significant f val ue .521 so we reject the null
hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis wh ich interprets that,
there is significant difference in behavioural cons equences of stress faced
by managers with reference to number of years exper ience in IT sector
H0c: There is no significant difference in psychol ogical consequences of
stress faced by managers with reference to total nu mber of years
experience in IT sector.
H1c: There is significant difference in psychologi cal consequences of
stress faced by managers with reference to number o f years
experience in IT sector
197
The f value is .841 is more than significant f val ue .521 so we reject the null
hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis wh ich interprets that,
there is significant difference in psychological co nsequences of stress
faced by managers with reference to number of years experience in IT
sector
Hypothesis testing for Income of managers and cons equences.:
Ho: There is no significant difference in the cons equences faced by
managers with reference to their income.
H1: There is a significant difference in the conse quences faced by
managers with reference to their income.
(Table 7.35) ANOVA TEST for Income and Consequences of stress
The F Df Sig Hypothesis
Between
Groups
.980 3 .402 Rejected
Within Groups 508
Physical
Total 511
Between
Groups
.279 3 .841 Accepted
Within Groups 508
Behavioural
Total 511
Between
Groups
.279 3 .841 Accepted
Within Groups 508
Psychological
Total 511
198
significant value f is less than f value so we reje ct the null hypothesis and
accept the for physical consequences where as for b ehavioural and
psychological there is no significant difference in the consequences with
reference to their income
Hoa: There is no significant difference in the phy sical consequences
faced by managers with reference to their income.
Hoa: There is a significant difference in the phys ical consequences faced
by managers with reference to their income.
The sample value of f is .980and sig f value is .40 2 which is less than the
value so we reject the null hypothesis and accept t he alternative
hypothesis. Which explains there is significant di fference in the physical
consequences faced by managers with reference to th eir income.
Hob: There is no significant difference in the beh avioural consequences
faced by managers with reference to their income.
Hob: There is significant difference in the behavi oural consequences
faced by managers with reference to their income
Hob: There is no significant difference in the psy chological consequences
faced by managers with reference to their income.
Hob: There is significant difference in the psychol ogical consequences
faced by managers with reference to their income
In the given sample the f value is .279 and sign f value is .841 which is more
than the f value so we accept the null hypothesis i .e there is no significant
difference in the behavioural and psychological con sequences faced by
managers with reference to their income.
199
CHAPTER VIII
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
The basic purpose of this research was first to ide ntify the sources
of managerial stress in IT sector. To find out cons equences of these
stress on the managers i.e Physiological, Behaviour al and
Psychological impact. For This two main IT hubs Ban galore and
Mumbai were selected for the sample population. A s ample of 500
was collected from IT companies from different desi gnations. A
validated instrument of causes of occupational stre ss was used to
collect data. Also for consequences, an instrument used by
International stress Organization was used. The wor k was carried out
on a conceptual model of stress.
In the demographic profiling of the managers from I T sector, it was
found that 52% of the managers were from Mumbai and 47.7% were
from Bangalore amongst the managers the female man agers is
46.6% were females and 53.5% were males managers Ba naglore.
Amongst males 31.2% where in the Senior Level and 68.8% were in
the Junior level, where as in females, the percenta ge was 34% for
senior managers and 65.5% for junior managers. From theis we can
conclude that there is less glass ceiling effect f ound in IT sector.
They believe in equal rights. From the demographic profiling we can
interpret that male managers and female managers ar e more in the
200
group of 5-10 years of experience. There is no sign ificant
relationship between years of experience and gender . The data
indicated that there is a significant relationship between the age and
the income. Less than 25% of managers earn income o f 26.5 of
income. Also in the similar age group around 54% of managers earn
the same money at the age of 35 and above.
Also a descriptive statistics and Infere ntial stastics was carried out
for the further analysis.
The findings showed that stress is more in the age group of under 25
due to under participation and low status. In age g roup of 25-30
stress is more due to role overload, inter personal and job related
stressors and powerlessness. Also in age group of 3 5-40 stress is
more due to role overload.
If we compare means for male and female, then in m ales stress is
more due to inter personal stressors whereas in fem ales stress is
due to under participation. In all other variables like powerlessness,
low status, role ambiguity we found stress is nearl y same in male
and female
When we compare levels of managers, more stress is found in junior
level due to under participation, powerlessness, Jo b related etc. For
the senior managers it due to role overload, inter personal stressors.
When we compare the consequences found in male or female we
found that all three physical, behavioral and psych ological problems
caused due to stress is more in female than in male .
201
If we compare the locations, then physical problem s are more in
Bangalore than in Mumbai. Where as both behavioral and
psychological problem is more or less same in both cities. Physical
are fund more in Senior managers where as behaviora l and
psychological problems are found more in Junior man agers.
When we look at the behavioural problem like confl ict, jealously it is
found more in the age group of under 25 and less i n 25-30 years of
age. Behavioural problem in the age group of 30 to 40 is same.
If we compare the means of years of experience we can see that
physical consequences like headache, backaches, hyp ertension etc
is found amongst junior level managers i.e 0-3 who are just the
beginners, also behavioural and psychological probl em is found
maximum in these category. Where as physical proble m, behavioral
problem and psychological problem found in years of 3-6 yrs and 6-9
yrs of experience in the same company is very close .
In the hypothesis, it was found that there is a si gnificant relation
between stress and gender, stress and level of mana gers, stress and
age, stress and years of experience etc.
Over all stress does play a very important role? Every manager is
under stress for one or the other occupational. It varies with age,
level, seniority and the individual capacity of per son to over come
stress.
Further Research
202
A number of further studies could be based upon the initial
project. These studies could either continue the an alysis of the
original data or extend the work into new areas as described
below. Further intervening variables like personali ty, leadership
can be added.
� This result of this study could be compared to the results of
previous studied of other groups of managers in dif ferent
sectors.
� Also can conduct similar studies for different samp le like
Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, and Policemen etc. Compa rative
studies can further be conducted.
203
CHAPTER IX
Conclusion and Recommendations
CONCLUSION:
Stress is an adaptive response to a situation that is perceived as
challenging or threatening to the person’s well bei ng . Distress
represents high stress levels that have negative co nsequences,
whereas eustress represents the moderately low str ess levels needed
to activate people. Most of the stressors found in organizations is task
related, role related, inter personal, physical dem and at work, job
related stressors etc. To overcome stress efforts h as to be taken from
both the sides individual as well as organizational . Individual can help
himself with strategies like perception, doing regu lar exercise, taking
regular breaks while working, taking leaves when he is feels he is
stressed out. Trying to inculcate regular habit of exercising, meditating
or doing regular yoga when require take help of Emp loyee Assistant
Programme or take social support. At the same time organizations
should make these issues compulsory in organization . Think of the
human behavior aspect along with target oriented b usiness. If there is
efforts taken from both the sides the percentage of managers suffering
from physiological problem, psychological problem a nd behavioural
problem will surely reduce.
Recommendations
204
Some degree of stress is good (eustress), but for t he most part
employees and employer need to figure out how to mi nimize distress.
Stress management strategies can be organized into five categories:
1. Remove the stressors
2. Withdraw the stressor
3. Change stress perception,
4. Control Stress Consequences
5. Receive social support.
1. Remove the stressors : Only way companies can effectively manage
stress is by removing the stressors that causes un necessary tension
and job burnout. To minimize the stress level one of the strategy can
be job-person fit . This would include assigning em ployees to jobs
based on his skills and competencies. One way for organizations to
manage stress is to investigate the main causes of stress in the
workplace. Volvo conducted a stress audit in its 50 0 employees
research and development department in which indivi duals rated their
jobs as high, medium and low stress. Another recomm endations is to
empower people so that they have more control over their work and
work environment . Role stressors can be minimized by selecting and
assigning employees to position that matches their competencies.
Clear Job design and job role will minimize the pro blem of role
ambiguity . Clear cut communication system can also help to remove
the problem of role ambiguity. Some firms are flexi ble on their hours ,
days and amount of time employees work. Work life balance initiatives
also fall into this category , such as offering fle xible work schedules.
205
Job sharing : Job sharing splits a career position between two people
so they experience less time based stress between w ork and family.
They typically work different parts of the week wit h some overlapping
work time in the weekly schedule to coordinate acti vities.
Telecommunicating,
Personal Leave Programs and child care support to certain extent can
help to resolve stress.
2.Withdraw from the Stressors : Removing the stressors may be the
ideal solution, but it is often not feasible. An al ternative strategies is to
permanently or temporarily remove employees from st ressor.
Permanent withdrawal occurs when employees are tran sferred to jobs
that better fit their competencies and values.
Temporary Withdrawal strategies: Temporarily withdr awing from
stressors is the most frequent way that employees m anage stress. Days
off , to take work breaks, vacations and sabbatical s.
Permanent withdrawal strategies: The employee based on his skills and
competencies can be transferred to next job( job tr ansfer).
3.Change Stress Perception : Managers often experience different level
of stress in the same situation because they percei ve it differently.
Consequently stress can be minimized by changing pe rception of the
situation. This does not involve ignoring risks or other stressors.
Rather they can strength their self efficacy and se lf esteem so that job
challenges are not perceived as threatening. Positi ve self talk can
potentially change stress perception by increasing our self efficacy and
developing more optimistic outlook.
206
Control the consequences of stress: Coping with wor kplace stress also
involves controlling its consequences. For this rea son many companies
have fitness centers where employees can keep in sh ape. Research
indicate that physical exercise reduced the physiol ogical consequences
of stress by helping employees lower their respirat ion, muscle tension,
heart rate and stomach acidity. Along with fitness and relaxation /
meditation many firms have shifted to the broader a pproach of wellness
program. These program educate and support employee s in better
nutrition and fitness, regular sleep and other good health habits. Many
companies like Wipro, Infosys offer employee assist ance
programs(EAP). Counseling services that help employ ees overcome
personal and organizational stressors and adopt mor e effective coping
mechanisms. Most EAP’s are “broad bush” programs th at counsel
employees on any work or personal problems. Family problems often
represent that largest percentage of EAP referrals, although this varies
with industry and location. EAP’s can be one of the most effective
stress management interventions where the counselin g helps
employees to understand the stressors, acquire stre ss management
skills and practice those stress management skills.
4. Receive Social support : Social support from co-workers, supervisors,
family friend and others is one of the most effecti ve stress management
practices. Social support referes to the person’s i nter personal
transactions with others and involves providing eit her emotional or
informational support to buffer the stress experien ce. Social support
basically help to reduce stress in two ways, firstl y employees improve
their perception this in turn increases their self esteem and perceived
ability to cope with stressors. Secondly it provide s information to help
employees interpret, comprehend, and possibly remov e the stressors.
207
In Indian context this strategy is most effective a s we are habituated to
let out our feeling to our friends or family member s.
5. Goal Setting : Organization preventive stress management can als o
be achieved through goal setting activities. These activities are
designed to increase task motivation while reducing the degree of role
conflict and role ambiguity to which people at work are subjects. Goal
setting focuses a person’s attention while directin g energy in a
productive channel.
6. Role Negotiations: The organization development technique of role
negotiations has value as a stress management metho d, because it
allow people to modify their work roles. The actual negotiations follows
from the comparison of the role incumbent’s expecta tion and key
member expectations. The point of confusion and con flict are
opportunities for clarification and resolution. The final result of the role
negotiation process should be a clear, well defined focal role with which
the incumbent and organization member are both comf ortable.
7.Learned Optimism : Optimism and pessimism are two different
thinking styles people use to explain the good and bad events in their
lives to themselves. These explanatory styles are h abits of thinking
learned overtime, not inborn attributes. Pessimism is an explanatory
style leading to depression, physical health proble ms, and low level of
achievement. Optimism is an alternative style that enhances physical
health and achievement and averts susceptibility to depression
208
8. Time Management: Work overload, the major job stressor, can lead to
time pressure and overtime work. Time management sk ills can be help
employees make the most effective, efficient use of the time they spend
at work. Time management enables a person to minimi ze the stress of
work overload and to prioritize work and leisure ti me activities.
Organizing and prioritizing may be the two most imp ortant time
management skills for successful people managing v ery busy activity
schedules.
9.Physical exercise : Two different types of physical exercises are
important secondary stress prevention activities fo r individual. Firs
aerobic exercises improves person’s responsiveness to stressful
activities. Kenneth Cooper (1997) has long advocate d aerobic exercises.
Research at the Aerobics Center in Dallas has found that aerobically fit
person have lower level of adrenaline in their bloo d at rest, have a
slower, stronger heart functioning and recover from stressful events
more quickly.
Secondly flexible training is important because of the muscular
contractions associated with the stress response. O ne component of
the stress response is the contraction of the flexo r muscles, which
prepares a person to fight or flee. Flexibility tra ining a person to stretch
and relax the muscles to prevent the accumulation o f unnecessary
muscular tension. Flexibility exercises help mainta in joint mobility,
increase strength and play a important role in prev ention of injury.
10. Yoga and Meditation: This has become one of the most important
factor in day to day life Yoga and mediation as a l ife style management
module is very popular in organization. Herbert Ben son was one of the
first people to identify the relaxation response as the natural counter
209
response to the stress response. He said regular pr ayers will help you
to overcome stress. A study was conducted to asses the scope and
acupuncture as a relaxation response in coping with stress and also to
establish its therapeutic efficacy in the managemen t of functional
disease It was found that it help in psychic elatio n and allows one to
relax , its clinical success has demonstrated that it has a definite role to
play in coping with stress.
Few authors have stated few strategies they are as follows:
J.D. Quick, R.S Horn(1986) gave a frame work for un derstanding
preventive stress management where in he talks abou t three stages of
prevention in a preventive medicine context, along with these stages in
a organizational context.
Primary prevention is intended to reduce, modify or eliminate the
demand or stressors causing stress. The idea behind primary
prevention is to eliminate the source of a problem. True organizational
stress prevention is largely primary in nature, bec ause it changes and
shapes the demands the organization places at work.
Secondary prevention is intended to alter or modify the individual’s or
the organization’s response to a demand or stressor . People must learn
to manage the inevitable, in alterable work stresso rs and demands so
as to avert distress and strain while promoting hea lth and well being.
210
Tertiary prevention is intended to heal individual or organizational
symptoms of distress and strain. The symptoms may r ange from early
warnng signs ( such as headaches and absenteeism) t o more severe
form of distress( such as hyper tension, work stopp age and strikes).
Tertiary prevention is therapeutic, aimed at arrest ing distress and
healing the individual, the organization or both
Priyadarshini, Kalanithi Maran(2009) suggest stress can be addressed
by having reasonable breaks between the working hou rs, recreation
activities, energizing though team parties/outings, enhancing positive
work culture, motivation etc. Inter personal relati onship need to be
energized by organizing team meetings, and family g et together,
providing week end breaks from work.
B Gardell(1987) in his job strain model suggest few more strategies can
be a proper Job design it is basically to have a wo rker control.
Increasing worker control reduces distress and stra in without
necessarily reducing productivity in many cases. Th e research
described in the accompanying Scientific Foundation found that these
effects are moderated by self efficacy. Specially e mployees with high
job self efficacy benefits from high job control, w here as employees
with low job self efficacy appears to find high job control distressing.
211
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam Barsky, Carl Thoresen, Christopher R. Warren a nd Seth A. Kaplan,
“Modelling Negative affectivity and job stress: a contingency-based
approach”;Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 25, 915- 936,(2004)
Agarwal-Malhan & Singh 1979, “Some classifications of stress and its
applications at work”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 41-50
A Le pine, M. A. (2004,). “Challenges and Hindrance Stress: Relationship
With Exhaustion Motivation to Learn, and Learning P erformance”. Journal
of Applied psychology , Vol 89 No 5.
al, F. Y. (1998). “The Interactive Effect of Role C onflicts and Role Ambiguity
on Job Performance” , Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology , 7,1, 19-27.
Atkinson. (2001). Managing stress. Electric Word.
Anisman & Merali , “ Understanding stress: Characte ristics and Caveats
Alcohol Research and Health”, Volume 23-4, 241-249
Bhagar, R. a. (1989). Organiztional stress, persona l life stress, symptoms of
life strain: An examination of the role of sense of competence. Journal of
Vocational Behaviour , 231-253.
Beehr& Newman (1978), “Job stress employees health and organization
effectiveness a fact analysis, model of literature view”, Personnel
Psychology ,3 - 665-699.
Beer, “ Revitalizing Organization change process an d emergent model”,
Journal of academy of Management executive 1(11)-51 -55
212
Bruno. (1991)., “The family mental health Encyloped ia Newyork, John Wiley
and Sons.
Burke R.J. 1988, “ Sources of Managerial and Profes sional stress in large
organization” in Cooper and Dayne Causes, Coping an d Consequences of
stress at Wiley 77-114
Clark L.A and D Watson, 1. (1991). ..' Tripartitle model of anxiety and
depression:Pyschometric evidence and taxonomic impl ication . Journal of
Abnormal psychology , vol 12,pp 316-336.
Cooper, S. W. (1998). "Model of Organization stress for use within an
occupational health and education/promotion or well being programme.
Health Education Journal , Vol 3 No 4,306-321.
Cooper, C.L and Carwright,S (1994), Healthy Mind, O rganization-A
proactive Approach to Occupational Stress, Journal of Human
Relations, vol 47,pp 455-471
Cooper & Sadri, “The impact of stress Counseling at work”. Journal
of social behavior and personality vol 67, pp 411-4 23.
Deshpande Bharati (2009), “Managerial stress an emp irical study in IT
sector”, 7 th International conference on Management ,conference
proceeding of AIMS and IIMB.
Einar M de Croon and Judith K Sluiter, R. W.-D. (20 04,Vol 89 No3). Stressful
Work, pyschological job strain and turnover: A 2yea rs prospecive cohort
study of truck Drivers. Journal of Applied Psychology , 442-454.
213
Folkman & Lazarus, “ An analysis of coping in middl e age commonity
sample”,(1980), Journal of Health and Social Behavi our 21, pp 291,318.
French & Caplan R.D Houston, “The mechanisms of Job stress and
stressors, John Wiley Publication.
Glazer and Terry A Beehr, D. o. (2005). 'Consistenc y of implications of three
role stressors across four countries in. Journal of Organization Behaviour
26 , 467-487.
Goluaz Sadri and George A Marcoulides, “The Dynamic s of Occupational
Stress: Proposing a Testing a Model”, Research and Practice in Human
Resource Management ; Vol 2(1), 1-19(1994)
Harry Garst, Micheal Frese and Peter C M Molenarr, “ The Temporal Factor
of Change in Stressor- Strain Relationships: A Grow th Curve Model on a
Longitudinal Study in East Germany, Journal of Appl ied psychology pg417-
438, 1999
Henry Ongori and Joseph Evans Agolla, “ Occupationa l stress in
Organizations and its effects on Organizational Per formance, Jounal of
Management Research, Vol 8, Number 3 Dec 2008,pg125 -135
Iain L Densten, “Re-thinking burnout”,Journal of Or ganizational Behaviour,
Vol 22, 833-847(2001)
Inscape Publishing. “ The Coping and stress profile ”, Research Report
(1995),Theoritical & Research Evaluation, The Mash Model.
Jiunn-Woei Lian, T.-M. L.-K. (n.d.). Job stress, Jo b satisfaction and Life
satisfaction Between Managerial and Technical IS pe rsonnel.
214
Keita and Hurrell, “Job stress in the changing wor kforce”, Jornal of
American pyschological Association.
John Schaubroeck from Drexel University and Simon S .K. Lam University
of Hongkong and Jia Lin Xie, C. o. (2002). Collecti ve Efficacy Versus Self
Efficacy in Coping Responses to stressors and Contr ol: A Cross Cultural
Study . Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol 85 No 4.
Jonsson, P. (1988). Job stress- The worst effect of stress on Health, Well
being and Job performance and Career outlook. Journal of Applied
Psychology .
Kahn & R.L Wolfe-1964, “Organizational stress studi es of role conflictand
Ambiguity’ , John Wiley & Sons.
Karen Keely and Mark Harcourt; “Occupational Stress : A Study of the new
Zealand Reserve Bank”, Research and Practice in Hum an Resource
Management, Vol.9(2), 109-118(2001)
Kemery & Bedian,“Outcome of role stress: A multisam ple constructive
replication Academy of Management Journal, 363-375
Kurt Lewin, “Field theory in social science, Harper Road”.
Lakwinder Signh Kaung and Raghbir Singh(2006) “ Str ess at work: An
assessement of the magnitude of various organizatio nal stressor”,The
Indian Journal of Industrial Relations;190-201
Lazarus R.S (1991), “Psychological stress in the wo rkplace”, Journal of
social behaviour and personality(1991).
215
Mason Fries, “Mindfulness based stress reduction fo r the changing work
environment”,Journal of Academic and Business Ethic s, Volume 2
Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupatonal stress: Its caus es and consequences
for job performance. Journal of Applied Psycology .
Maria Jose Chambel and Luis Curral; “Stress in Aca demic Life: Work
Characteristics as Predictor of Student well being and performance,
Applied psychology: An International Review 2005, 5 4(1), 135-147.
Maria Vakola & Loannis Nokoloaous, Athnes Universi ty of economics and
Business, Athens Greece, Employee relations, Volume 27,2,2005, 160-174
Minirth. (1986). Beating Burn0ut. New york: Inspirational Press.
Miller & Simeglia, “ Stressful life events, social support and the distress of
widow and divorced women, Journal of family stress, 181-204
Natasja Van Vegchel, J. D. (2005). Occupational str ee(inter)action: the
interplay between job demand and Job resources. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour , 26,535-569.
Neale, D. a. (2001). Abnormal psycholo. John Wiley and Sons.
Nelson & Hitt (1992) Employed women and stress: Imp lication
forenhancing women’s mental health in the workpace”
Natasja Van Vegchel, Jan De Jonge and , Paul Lands bergis; “Occupational
stress in (Inter)action: the interplay between job demands and job
resources, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol 26, 535,560(2005)
216
O'Driscoll, M. &. (1994). Coping with work related stress: A critique of
existing measures and proosal of an alternative met hodology`. Journal of
Applied Psyhology .
Oi-lig Siu Paul Spector, C. L. (2002(4)). 'Stress i n Great China: The Direct
and moderator Effect of Coping Stragegies and Work Locus of Control.
Journal Applied Psychology an international review .
Paul E Spector, Cary Cooper and Maria E Aguilar-Vaf aie, “A Comparative
Study of Perceived Job Stessor Sources and Job Stra in in American and
Iranian Managers”; Journal of Applied Psychology, V ol 51(3),446-457 2002
Philiphs. (1995). Controlling your emptions before they control you.
Harvest Publication.
Philiphs T Potter, Bruce W.Smith, Kari Strobel and Alex J Zautra;
“Interpersonal Workplace Stressors and Well Being: A MultiWave study of
employees with and without Arthirities,Journal of A pplied Psychology Vol
57 No4,789-796(2001)
Quick & Quick J.D (1984), “Organ izational stress and Preventive
management” ,Mac Graw Hill.
Quick & Murphy, “Stress and wellbe ing at work: Assessment and
intervention for occupational mental health. Americ an psychological
association pg 164-77
Rizzo J R House, “Role conflict and Ambiguity in C omplex Organization,
Administrative Science Quality (1985)150-163
217
Salla Toppinen-Tanner, Raija Kalimo and Pertti Muta nen: “The process of
burnout in white collar and blue collar jobs: eight years prospective study
of exhausion, Journal of Organizational Behaviour,V ol 23,555-570(2002).
Stephen Williams and Cary L Cooper,”Measuring Occup ational stress :
Development of Pressure Management Indicator”, Jour nal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol 3, 306-321(1998)
Schuler, B. M. (2004). 'Antecedents of Counter Prod uctive Behavior at
Work':A general Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol 89 No 4,
747.
Shou University Kaohsiung, T. (2004). Work stress a nd Job Performance in
the hi-tech industry: a closer view for vocational education. Journal of
World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education , Vol3, No 1
2004.
Sharon Glazer and Terry A. Beehr, “Consistency of i mplication of three role
stressors across four countries” ; Journal of Organ ization Behaviour;
Vol.26, 467-487(2005)
Simeglia, M. a. (1998). Stressful life events distr ess of windowed and
divoced women. Journal of family psychology , 19,2,181-200.
Singh, L. S. (2006). Causes of Managerial Stress. Indian Journal of
Industrial Relation OCtober , Vol 42 No.2 Page 191-201.
Skitmore, A. R. (Dec 2006,). 'Stress and Coping: A Study of project
managers in a large ICT organization. Project Management Journal, , Vol 37
No5.
218
Stephen Palmer, Cary Cooper and Kate T homas, “Model of Organizational
stress for use within an occupational health educat ion/promotion or
wellbeing programme- A short communication; Journal of Health education
Vol 60(4)2001,378-380
Sukhumpong Channuwong, “Strategies for reducing st ress among
managers: An Integrated Physical and Spiritual Appr oach,International
Journal of Management, Vol 26 No2 (2009)
Tahira Mubashir, S. G. (2001). Occupational Stress and Job performance.
Department of Psychology and Applied Psychology Universiy of Punjab
Lahore .
watr, Z. P. (2000). Burnout in health care : the ro le of five factors of
personality. Journal of applied socio psychology , 1570-1598.
Timothy A Judge and Jason A Colquitt; “Organization al Justice and Stress:
The Mediating Role of Work Family Conflict”, Journa l of Applied
Psychology; Vol 89, 395-404(2003)
219
Books:
• Bruno-1991, The family mental health , John Wiley a nd Sonss
• DM Pestonjee, 'Stress and Coping ' The Indian Exper ience Sage
Publications
• Cooper R.D and Schindler , P.S “Marketing Research: Concepts and
cases ,8 th Edition Tata Mc Graw New Delhi.
• Herbert 1997 Stress the brain and mental illness BM J 369-377
• Seyle H(1976) The stress of life, rev ed. Newyork M c Graw Hill
• Ranjit Kumar ,’ Research Methodology” , Pearson Edu cation. Nelson
,’Organization Behaviour’ ,Cengage Publication
• Rajendra Nargudkar, ”Marketing Research” Text and C ases, Tata Mc
Hill Companies.
220
• Stephen P Robbins , Timothy A Judge and Seema Sangh i ,’
Organization Behaviour’, Pearson Education
• Sheridan J Coakes, Lyndall Steed, Peta Dzidic, SPSS 13 Version for
Windows Analysis without Anguish, Wiley India Editi on.
• William G Zikmund, ‘ Business Research Methods’. Ce ngage
Publication
• Walt Schafer 'Stress Management' Cengage Publicatio n
221
Workplace Stress QuestionnaireWorkplace Stress QuestionnaireWorkplace Stress QuestionnaireWorkplace Stress Questionnaire
This questionnaire is meant for psychological investigation. The
questionnaire consists of some statements that employees say or feel
about various components and conditions of their job. You are
required to select any one of the following 'five' responses to indicate
the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Give your responses frankly. Your responses will be kept strictly
confidential
Questionnaire
Note 1: Column 1)is for Strongly disagree, 2) is for Disagree, 3) is for Undecided, 4) is
for Agree, 5) is for Strongly agree.
Note 2: Statement marked a as * should be reversely graded-1) Strongly agree 2)
Agree 3) Undecided 4) Disagree 5) Strongly disagree
Section One: Demographic Information
Name of the employee (Optional) :
Name of the organization :
Department :
Age
a) Less than 25 b) 25-30 c)30-35 d)35-40 e) 40 & above
Gender
aa)) MM aallee bb))FFeemmaallee
Length of service in ITsector
a) 0-5 b) 5-10 c)10-15 d) 15-20 e) above 20
222
Work Experience in particular
a) 0-3yrs b) 3-6yrs c) 6-9yrs d) 9-12 yrs e) above 12 yrs
Annual Income
a) 1-5 lakh b) 5-10 lakh c) 10-15 lakh d) 15-20 lakh e) 20 and above
Designation:
Sr.No
Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Intra Personal stressors Role Overload
1) I have to do a lot of work in this job 2) Owing to excessive work load I have to manage
with insufficient number of employees and resources
3) I have to dispose off my work hurriedly
owing to excessive work load.
4) Being too busy with official work I am not
able to devote sufficient time to my
domestic and personal problems
5) I have to do such work as ought to be done
by others
6) I am unable to carry out my assignment to
my satisfaction on account of excessive
load of work and lack of time.
Role Ambiguity 1) The available information relating to my job-
role and its out comes are vague and
insufficient
2)* The objectives of my work–role are quite
clear and adequately planned
3) I am unable to perform my duties smoothly
owing to uncertainty and ambiguity of the
scope of my jurisdictions and authorities
4) It is not clear that what type of work and
behavior my higher authorities and
colleagues expect from me
Role Conflict 1) My different Officers often give
contradictory instructions regarding my
works
2)* Officials do not interfere with my jurisdictions
and working methods
223
3) I am not provided with clear instruction and
sufficient facilities regarding the new
assessments trusted to me.
4)* Employees attach due importance to the
official instructions and formal working
procedures.
5) It becomes difficult to implement all of a
sudden the new dealing procedures and
policies in place of those already in practice
Interpersonnel stressor 1) Sometimes it becomes complied problem
for me to make a adjustment between
political/group pressures and formal rules
and instructions.
2) I have to do some work unwillingly owning
to certain group/political pressures.
3) In order to maintain group-conformity
sometimes I have to do/produce more than
the usual.
4)
I am compiled to violate the formal and
administrative procedures and policies
owing to group/political pressures.
5) The responsibility for the efficiency and
productivity of many employees is thrust
upon me.
6) I am responsible for the future of a number
of employees.
7) I bear the great responsibility for the
progress and prosperity of this organisation.
8)* I have to work with persons whom I like.
9)* Some of my colleagues and subordinates try
to defame and malign me as unsuccessful
10)*
My colleagues do co-operate with me
voluntarily in solving administrative and
industrial problems
11)*
There exists sufficient mutual co-operation
and team-spirit among the employees of
the Organization/Department.
Job Related Stressors 1) I do my work under tense circumstances 2) Some of my assignments are quite risky and
complicated
3) I often feel that this job has made my life
cumbersome.
4)* Working conditions are satisfactory here
from the point of view of our welfare and
convenience
5) My assignments are of monotonous nature 6)* I get ample opportunity to utilize my abilities
and experience independently.
7)* I get ample opportunity to develop my
224
Consequences of stress
Sr No
Statement Strongly
agree Agree Uncerta
in Disagree Str
ong
ly
Dis
agr
ee
1. I let others know my feeling?
aptitude and proficiency properly.
8) My suggestions and co-operation are not
sought in solving even there problems for
which I am quite competent
9) I get less salary in comparison to the
quantum of my labour/work.
10) I am seldom rewarded for my hard labour
and efficient performance
Powerlessness *1) My decisions and instruction concerning
distribution of assignments among
employees are properly followed.
*2) My suggestions regarding the training
programmes of the employees are given
due significance.
*3) Our interests and opinions are duly
considered in making appointments for
important posts.
Underparticipation *1) Most of my suggestions are heeded and
implemented here
*2) My co-operation is frequently sought in
solving the administrative or industrial
problems at higher level
*3) My options are sought in framing important
policies of the Organisation/Department.
*4) My opinion is sought in changing or
modifying the working system, instrument
and conditions.
Low Status *1) Higher authorities do care for my self
respect
*2) This job has enhanced my social statues 3) My higher authorities do not give due
significance to my post and work
225
Sr No
Statement Strongly
agree Agree Uncerta
in Disagree Str
ong
ly
Dis
agr
ee
2 At times suffer from constipation or
diarrhoea
3 I feel jealous if I my colleagues get
recognition
4 I often suffer with headaches
5 When I am ill it does take a long time to
get over it.
6 I am very quick to anger.
7 I feel that I am under too much pressure.
8 I don't feel refreshed at the beginning of
the day.
9 I drink alcohol when I am overworked.
10 I suffer from difficulty in sleeping.
11 When conflict arises I overreact.
12 I find an inability to concentrate.
13 I sweat excessively.
14 I have chest related problems.
15 I suffer from backaches
16 I often feel lonely.
17 I have allergy flare ups.
18 To distress myself I smoke.
19 I feel emotionally drained from my work
20 I feel I treat some people in an impersonal manner.
226
FREQUENCY TABLES
1) LOCATION location
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
MUMBAI 255 42.9 49.8 49.8
BANAG
LORE 257 43.2 50.2 100.0
Valid
Total 512 86.1 100.0
Missing System 83 13.9
Total 595 100.0
2. LEVEL OF MANAGER
Level
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid SENIOR 166 27.9 32.5 32.5
1 2
location
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Per cent
location
227
JUNIOR 345 58.0 67.5 100.0
Total 511 85.9 100.0
Missing System 84 14.1
Total 595 100.0
1- Senior Manager
2- Junior manager
3) AGE
Age {Years}
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
<25 98 16.5 19.1 19.1
25-30 208 35.0 40.6 59.8
30-35 135 22.7 26.4 86.1
35-40 67 11.3 13.1 99.2
Valid
40-45 4 .7 .8 100.0
1 2
Level
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Per cent
Level
228
Total 512 86.1 100.0
Missing System 83 13.9
Total 595 100.0
1
LENGTH OF SERVICE IN IT INDUSTRY:
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
<5 186 31.3 36.3 36.3
5-10 281 47.2 54.9 91.2
10-15 37 6.2 7.2 98.4
15-20 8 1.3 1.6 100.0
Valid
Total 512 86.1 100.0
Missing System 83 13.9
Total 595 100.0
<25 25-30 30-3535-4040-455 M
Age {Years}
229
5) TOTAL WORK EXPERIENCE
Total work experience {Years}
<5 5-10 10-1515-20 Missing
Length of service in IT sector {Years}
230
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
<5 72 12.1 14.1 14.1
5-10 203 34.1 39.6 53.7
10-15 74 12.4 14.5 68.2
15-20 156 26.2 30.5 98.6
20-25 6 1.0 1.2 99.8
Valid
Total 512 86.1 100.0
Missing System 83 13.9
Total 595 100.0
<5
5-10 10-15
15-20
20-25
Missing
Total work experience {Years}
231
6)ANNUAL INCOME OF MANAGERS
Annual income {INR - Lakhs}
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1-5 125 21.0 24.4 24.4
5-10 242 40.7 47.3 71.7
10-15 124 20.8 24.2 95.9
15-20 21 3.5 4.1 100.0
Valid
Total 512 86.1 100.0
Missing System 83 13.9
Total 595 100.0
232
location * Level Crosstabulation
Level Total
Senior Junior
location Mumbai 70 184 254
27.6% 72.4% 100.0%
Bangalore 96 161 257
37.4% 62.6% 100.0%
Total 166 345 511
32.5% 67.5% 100.0%
1-5Lakhs5-10 lakhs 10-15 lakhs 15-20 lakhs Missing
Annual income {INR - Lakhs}
233