Occupational stress among banking professionals: a case Study of Nationalised Bank author ajay solkhe




Download 167.96 Kb.
TitleOccupational stress among banking professionals: a case Study of Nationalised Bank author ajay solkhe
Page2/3
Date conversion11.08.2013
Size167.96 Kb.
TypeDocuments
See also:
1   2   3

Objectives of the Study:

The present research work is intended:

  1. To analyse the areas of occupational stress among the Nationalised bank employees

  2. To assess the level of stress among bank employees on the 12 dimensions of Role Over-Load, Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, Unreasonable Group and Political Pressure, Responsibility for Persons, Under Participation, Powerlessness, Poor Peer Relations, Intrinsic, Impoverishment, Low Status, Strenuous Working Conditions and Unprofitability..

  3. To understand the various models and theories of occupational stress.

  4. To review the literature pertaining to occupational stress, related concepts and factors underlying it.

  5. To offer some viable and practicable suggestions, result oriented guidelines to the bank understudy to reduce the level of stress among their employees.

HYPOTHESIS

Theoretical considerations and previous researches enabled the researcher to formulate the following hypothesis

There are no signs of presence of stress among employees of nationalised bank on the various dimensions of Occupational Stress Index.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The present study is exploratory as well as descriptive in nature in context of nationalised banks. Here the researcher on the one hand, has attempted to lay down the theoretical ground for occupational stress and tried to explore its theories, models and various studies related to it. On the other hand he has tried to describe the psychological situation of bank employees through the mode of a scale called OSI (Occupational Stress Index).

Sample

Managers working in the different branches of Punjab National Bank (PNB) specifically located in Northern part of India from Haryana, Punjab, and Chandigarh form as subjects. In total researcher contacted 140 managers to whom the questionnaires’ was distributed, out of which 90 were received complete in all respects. Therefore, the exact sample was 90.

Tools used for Data Collection

The Occupational Stress Index (Srivastava, A.K., and Singh, A.P., 1981) was used for data collection. The scale consists of 46 items, each to be rated on the five point scale. Out of 46 items 28 are ‘True – Keyed’ and last 18 are ‘False – Keyed’. The items relate to almost all relevant components of the job size which cause stress in some way or the other, such as, role over-load, role ambiguity, role conflict, unreasonable group and political pressure, responsibility for persons, under participation, powerlessness, poor peer relations, intrinsic, impoverishment, low status, strenuous working conditions and unprofitability.

Reliability of the Scale: The reliability index (Table No. 3) ascertained by Split Half (Odd Even) method and Cronbach’s alpha – coefficient for the scale as a whole were found to be .935 and .90 respectively. In general, in psychology researches, a good measure should have a Cronbach’s Alpha of at least .60 and preferably closer to .90. Therefore, in the present study the scale can also be considered reliable. The reliability indices of the 12 sub-scales were also computed on the Cronbach’s alpha method. The table no. 2 records the obtained indices.

Data Analysis and Results

The results obtained from 90 subjects on occupational stress on 12 subscales of O.S.I were analysed using descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation. In the present study effect of occupational stress was investigated. The descriptive statistics is given in Table 3.For measuring the effect of various dimensions on each other, Inter-item Correlation was also performed and Inter-correlation Matrix is presented through Table No. 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The result obtained shows the presence of significant stress among the employees of the bank understudy. (See Table No. 1.).It is observed from the total of mean scores (Mean Score = 273.41) on the 12 sub-scales of Occupational Stress Index i.e. greater the mean scores greater the stress level of the employees understudy. Hence the null hypothesis i.e. There are no signs of presence of stress among employees of bank understudy on the various dimensions of Occupational Stress Index stands rejected and alternate hypothesis is established that there are observable signs of stress among employees of bank understudy on the various dimensions of Occupational Stress Index.

To gain more insight into assessment of the level of stress with respect to the 12 dimensions of OSI individually, Mean Scores are observed and interpreted accordingly. Mean scores on the various sub-scales of Occupational Stress Index are shown in Table No. 4 and the same is discussed in the following paragraphs:

  • The mean scores on the factors such as Poor Peer Relations (PPR) (Mean Score = 3.17) and Responsibility of Persons (RP) (Mean Score = 3.15) are higher than other factors of OSI. It is concluded that employees are highly stressed on these two dimensions. It is further interpreted that stress level is high due to the poor interpersonal relationships with colleagues, colleagues lack of cooperation in solving administrative problems. Further to add is that managers are not able to take and dispose-off the responsibility of other junior employees, their future, the progress of the organisation as a whole due to the phenomenon of less autonomy in their own jobs and less place of suggestion in problem solving and decision making, a high feeling of powerlessness exist, all these leads to increased amount of stress.

  • Mean scores is observed low on the dimensions like Role Ambiguity (RA) (Mean Score = 2.71) and the Intrinsic Impoverishment (Mean Score = 2.75) which is interpreted by the researcher as employees in the bank are less stressed due to non-availability of clear information with respect to the different aspects of job, job role, poor planning of job, vague expectations by colleagues and subordinates. It is further added that though jobs/tasks are of humdrum type, there are very less oppurtunities available to employees to utilize their optimum potential , un-conducive environment to develop their aptitude and proficiency , less say in decision making and problem solving due to which they perform under stress. But these factors are secondary causes of stress.

The researcher has conducted an Inter Item Correlation, from the same an Inter-Correlation matrix, was obtained as shown in Table No. 5, the following interpretations were obtained:

  • The factor of Role Overload (RO) is having positive correlation with Role Conflict (RC) with a correlation of .22 which is significant at .05 probability level. This means that when the employees are overloaded with too much work, there would be no clarity of goals and targets. The factor of Poor Peer Relations (PPR) is having negative correlation with Role Overload with a correlation of -.31 which is significant at .01 level. This means that when employees are overloaded with greater work than there are chances that they will not indulge in too many interpersonal interactions and relations thus having poor peer relations. The factor of Under-participation (UP) is also having negative correlation with the Role Overload with a correlation of -.25 which is significant at .05 probability level. This means that due to role overload the employees will under-participate in certain tasks and will over-participate in others.

  • The factor of Role ambiguity (RA) is having high positive correlation with Intrinsic Impoverishment (II) and Low Status (LS) with a correlation of .36 and .31 respectively which is significant at .01 probability level. It is interpreted that the Role ambiguity persists due to monotonous nature of assignments, less opportunity to utilize abilities and experience independently, less opportunity to develop aptitude and proficiency etc. Due to role ambiguity also the employees are not getting due significance by higher authorities to their post as well as their work. It is also positively correlated with Role Conflict and Strenuous Working Conditions (SWC) with a correlation of .233 and .237 at .05 probability level. It means that due to role ambiguity, the employee are not able to dispose-off the contradictory as well as vague instructions from higher officers, there is a greater interference of officials into the working conditions, not getting full facilities regarding new assignments. Role ambiguity also persists in the bank due to existence of tense circumstances in which work has to be done, the unsatisfactory working conditions from the point of view of welfare and convenience, work assignments being complicated and risky also.

  • The factor of Role Conflict is having high positive correlation with Unreasonable Group and Political Pressure (UGPP) with a correlation of .375 and .319 which is significant at .01 probability level. It is interpreted as the phenomenon of Role conflict exists due to the existence of difficulty on the part of employees to adjust with the undue political as well as group pressures and formal rules and instructions, various compulsions to perform unwillingly, maintenance of group conformity, violations of formal procedures and policies.

The factor of Role Conflict is also having high positive correlation with Low Status (LS) with a correlation of .319 which is significant at .01 probability level. It is interpreted that sometimes due to contradictory instructions from higher authorities, unclear directions, insufficient facilities, all these leads to inability of employee to dispose-off each and every instruction in desired manner as a result of it, the employee neither receive respect from others nor enjoy due significance to the post as well as work from higher authorities.

  • The factor of Responsibility of Persons (RP) is positively correlated with Unprofitability (UF) with a correlation of .271 which is significant at .01 probability level. It is concluded that employees due to absence of rewards and lack of motivation do not owe the responsibility of other persons, their future in the organisation.

The factor of Responsibility of Persons (RP) is also negatively correlated with Intrinsic Impoverishment (II) with a correlation of -.222 which is significant at .05 probability level. It is interpreted as the employees are not able to give due weightage to the responsibility of other persons, their future and ultimately the progress of the organisation, due to the fact that their own jobs are less autonomous, more monotonous, less opportunities’ to have greater use of their abilities , less existence of offering any suggestions in the problem solving .

  • The factor of Under-participation (UP) is highly positively correlated with Powerlessness (PL) with a correlation of .301 at a significance of .01 probability level. It is interpreted that in the organisation understudy the employees suggestions are less accepted, they have less participations in decision making, less chance of offering opinions in making appointments for important posts etc. Due to all these causes they usually under-participate.

The factor of Under-participation (UP) is also positively correlated with Unprofitability (UF) with a correlation of .255 which is significant at .05 probability level. The results clearly explain that UP on the part of the worker will lead him to non-achievement of targets and goal thus a crucial cause of stress and failure.

  • The factor of Powerlessness (PL) is having high positive correlation with Strenuous Working Conditions (SWC) with a correlation of .374 at a significance level of .01 probability level. Powerlessness is a state of helplessness which causes distress and a feeling of non-control over certain organisational issues. Powerlessness would further increase poor peer relations and there would be a sense of internal dissatisfaction (Intrinsic Impoverishment II) and due to a correlation among the above mentioned factors the working conditions would appear to be very strenuous (SWC).Our results in the inter-correlation matrix reflect the same.

  • The factor of Intrinsic Impoverishment (II) is having a positive correlation of .293 and .283 with Strenuous Working Conditions (SWC) and Low Status (LS) respectively which is significant at .01 probability level. When assignments are of monotonous and complicated nature and where the work has to be done in unsatisfactory conditions , where there is a less opportunities’ for developing their aptitude and proficiency, it is obvious that employees will be under stress and accordingly their efficiency will suffer.

The factor of Intrinsic Impoverishment (II) is also having a positive correlation of .283 with Low Status (LS) which is significant at .01 probability level. In an organisation when job does not allow an incumbent to increase his social status, unquestionably, the stress level of an individual will increase, same is the case with the employees of the bank understudy.

  • The factor of Low Status (LS) is positively correlated with Unprofitability (UF) with a correlation of .232 at .05 probability level. It is interpreted that when an employee does not receive respect from others, no due significance is given by higher authorities to the post as well as work of an employee due to all these factors it results in low degree of motivation on the part of an employee and ultimately his stress level increases.


CONCLUSION

From the above findings it can be concluded that stress exist in the employees of the bank understudy, specifically higher on the dimensions of poor peer relations, strenuous working conditions, powerlessness and unprofitability. It is further concluded that the problem of stress is inevitable and unavoidable in the banking sector. A majority of the employees face severe stress- related ailments and a lot of psychological problems. Hence, the management must take several initiatives in helping their employees to overcome its disastrous effect. The productivity of the work force is the most decisive factor as far as the success of an organisation is concerned. The productivity in turn is dependent on the psychosocial well-being of the employees. In an age of highly dynamic and competitive world, man is exposed to all kinds of stressors that can affect him on all realms of life. The growing importance of interventional strategies is felt more at organisational level. This particular research was intended to study the impact of occupational stress on Nationalized Bank employees. Although certain limitations were met with the study, every effort has been made to make it much comprehensive.

References

  1. Abdul-Halim A. A. and A. : Social support and Managerial affective responses to Job stress. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 3(4), 1982.

  2. Chemers, M.M., R.B. Hays, F. Rhodewalt and J.Wysocki (1985), ‘A person–environment analysis of job stress: a contingency model explanation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 628–35.

  3. Cooper, C.L. and J. Marshall (1976), ‘Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health’, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49, 11–28.

  4. Cooper, C.L. and S. Cartwright (1994), ‘Healthy mind: healthy organization – a proactive approach to occupational stress’, Human Relations, 47, 455–70.

  5. Cooper, C.L., B.D. Kirkcaldy and J. Brown (1994), ‘A model of job stress and physical health: the role of individual differences’, Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 653–5.

  6. Cooper, C.L., S.J. Sloan and S. Williams (1988), The Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI), Windsor: NFER Nelson.

  7. Edwards, J.R. and C.L. Cooper (1990), ‘The person–environment fit approach to stress: recurring problems and some suggested solutions’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 293–307.

  8. French, J.R.P., Jr. and R.D. Caplan (1972), ‘Occupational stress and individual strain’, in A.J. Marrow (ed.), The Failure of Success, New York: Amacom, pp. 30–66.

  9. French, J.R.P., Jr. and R.L.Kahn (1962), ‘A programmatic approach to studying the industrial environment and mental health’, Journal of Social Issues, 18(3), 1–47.

  10. French, J.R.P., Jr., R.D. Caplan and R.V. Harrison (1982), The Mechanisms of Job Stress and Strain, London: Wiley.

  11. Gender Difference in stress among bank officers of Private and Public Sector; The ICFAI journal of Marketing research, Vol.VIII, No.2, 2009 ,pp63-69.

  12. Grippa, A.I. and D. Durbin (1986), ‘Worker’s compensation occupational disease claims’, National Council Compensation Insurance Digest, 1, 5–23

  13. Ivancevich, J.M. and M.T. Matteson (1976), Stress Diagnostic Survey (SDS): Comments and Psychometric Properties of a Multidimensional Self-report Inventory, Houston, TX: FD Associates.

  14. Ivancevich, J.M. and M.T. Matteson (1980), Stress and Work, A Managerial Perspective, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

  15. Ivancevich, J.M., M.T. Matteson and F.P. Dorin (1990), Stress Diagnostic Survey (SDS), Houston, TX: FD Associates.

  16. Jayashree, Rajendran (2009), Stress Management with special reference to Nationalised bank Employees in Chennai, IJEIMS, Vol.1. No.3.

  17. Jyothi Budhraja , “ Causes of stress among insurance employees: An empirical study; The ICFAI journal of Marketing research, Vol.VII, No.10, 2008 pp7-14.

  18. Kahn, R.L. (1981), Work and Health, New York: Wiley.

  19. Kahn, R.L. and P. Byosiere (1992), ‘Stress in organizations’, in M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 3, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 571–650.

  20. Kahn, R.L., D.M.Wolfe, R.P. Quinn, J.D. Snoeck and R.A. Rosenthal (1964), Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, New York: Wiley.

  21. Karasek, R.A. (1979), ‘Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–307.

  22. Karasek, R.A. and T. Theorell (1990), Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life, New York: Basic Books.

  23. Karasek, R.A., K.P. Triantis and S.S. Chaudhry (1982), ‘Coworker and supervisor support as moderators of associations between task characteristics and mental strain’, Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 3(2), 181–200.

  24. Kasl, S.V. (1978), ‘Epidemiological contributions to the study of work stress’, in C.L. Cooper and R.L. Payne (eds), Stress at Work, New York: Wiley, pp. 3–38.

  25. Keller, R.T. : Role Conflict and ambiguity : Correlates with job satisfaction and values, personnel Psychology, 28(1), 1975.

  26. Lazarus, R.S. (1991), ‘Psychological stress in the workplace’, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 1–13.

  27. Lazarus, R.S. and S. Folkman (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, New York: Springer.

  28. Lowman, R.L. (1993), Counseling and Psychotherapy of Work Dysfunctions, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  29. Marshall, J. and C. Cooper (1979), ‘Work experiences of middle and senior managers: the pressure and satisfaction’, International Management Review, 19, 81–96.

  30. Matteson, M.T. and J.M. Ivancevich (1982), Managing Job Stress and Health: The Intelligent Person’s Guide, New York: Free Press.

  31. Mcgrath, J.E. : Stress and behavior in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed), 1976 Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo alto, C. A. Counseling psychological stress.

  32. Newton, T.J. & Keenen, A : Role stress reexamined : An investigation of role stress predictors. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 1987, 40. 346-348.

  33. NIOSH (2002), (URL) www.cdc.gov/niosh/stresswk.htm.

  34. Nithyanandan,D.V., & Subramanyam ,S. (2009) Occupational Stress and Mental Health of Cardiac and noncardiac Patients, Industrial Psychiatry Journal, Vol. 18.No.2.

  35. Princeton Survey Research Associates (1997), Labor Day Survey: State of Workers, Princeton, NJ: Princeton Survey Research Associates.

  36. Quick, J.C., J.D. Quick, D.L. Nelson and J.J.J. Hurrell (1997), Preventive Stress Management in Organizations, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  37. Sarikwal, Lovy & Kumar, Sunil (2010) An International Study of Work Stress with types of Workers , ASBBS Annual Conference Proceedings: Las Vegas, Volume 17 Number 1.

  38. Schnall, P. (1998) (URL) www.workhealth.org/strain/briefintro.htm/.

  39. Schuler, R.S. (1980), ‘Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations’ Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184–215.

  40. Schuler, R.S. (1980), ‘Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations’ Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184–215.

  41. Schuler, R.S. (ed.) (1991), ‘Foreword’, in P.L. Parrewe (ed.), Handbook on Job Stress, Corte Madera, CA: Select Press.

  42. Schuler, R.S. (ed.) (1991), ‘Foreword’, in P.L. Parrewe (ed.), Handbook on Job Stress, Corte Madera, CA: Select Press.

  43. Selye, H. (1974). “Stress without Distress.” Harper and Row Publications, U.S.A.

  44. Selye, H. (1983). The Stress Concept : Post, present and future. In C.L. Cooper (Ed.), Stress Research : Issues for Eighties. Chiester : Wiley.

  45. Spielberger, C.D. (ed.) (1972), Anxiety as an Emotional State, vol.1, New York: Academic Press.

  46. Spielberger, C.D. and E.C. Reheiser (1994), ‘Job stress in university, corporate and military personnel’, International Journal of Stress Management, 1, 19–31.

  47. Spielberger, C.D., G. Jacobs, S. Russsell and R.S. Crane (eds) (1983), ‘Assessment of Anger: The State–Trait Anger Scale’, in J.N. Butcher and C.D. Spielberger (eds), Advances in Personality Assessment, vol. 2, Hillsdale, NJ: LEA, pp. 159–87.

  48. Spielberger, C.D., P.R. Vagg and C.F. Wasala (2002), ‘Occupational stress: job pressures and lack of support’, in J.C. Quick and L. Tetrick (eds), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology,Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 185–200.

  49. Spielberger, C.D., S.S. Krasner and E.P. Solomon (eds) (1988), The Experience, Expression, and Control of Anger, New York: Springer Verlag Publishers.

  50. Srivastava, A.K. & Singh, A.P. (1981) Manual of the Occupational stress Index, Department of Psychology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi,.

  51. Srivastava, A.K. (1997). Self-management of occupational stress: Cognitive – behavioural approach. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 32, 487-95.

  52. Srivastava, A.K., & Singh, A.P. (1981) Construction and standardization of an occupational stress index; a pilot study. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8,133-136.

  53. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (1992), American Workers under Pressure Technical Report,St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company.

  54. Theorell, T. and R.A. Karasek (1996), ‘Current issues relating to psychosocial job strain and cardiovascular disease research’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 9–26.
1   2   3

Place this button on your site:
paperedu.org


The database is protected by copyright ©paperedu.org 2013
send message
paperedu.org
Main page