6.1 Introduction - INFLIBNETshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/28497/15/15_chapter6.pdf · Harrison (1998) also suggests that psychological strain includes dissatisfaction,

Effects of Occupational Stress

An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 243

6.1 Introduction

Stress has been generally defined as an undesirable and negative force

causing disruption in the psychological and physiological homeostasis of the

focal person. In a situation of severe stress, human constitution and capacities

are taxed severely and his overall effectiveness is distorted. The majority of

stress researchers have concluded that stress gives rise to negative emotional

experiences causing significant deterioration in the individual’s adjustment,

behavioural effectiveness, and health.

Although a degree of stress may clearly be beneficial in providing

stimulation and creating energy for better productivity and efficiency, its

prolonged presence gives way to physical and mental reactions, collectively

known as ‘stress reactions’. If the pressure of work is too heavy or is

prolonged and the individual is unable to cope successfully, its reactions are

manifest in a wide variety of illness and behaviours such as Coronary heart

Chapter 6

244 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala

disease (CHD), mental illness and some form of cancer, various minor

conditions such as skin rashes, asthma, back pain, dizziness, headache and

disrupted sleeping (Cox 1993, Payne and Fifth-Couzens 1987).

Excessive stress is, therefore, destructive, leading to a deterioration in

performance (Cox.1993) as well as job dissatisfaction, accidents, unsafe working

practices and high absenteeism (Cooper 1986); Smith and Sulsky, 1995). It is

also associated with mood changes causing feeling of tension, anxiety, fatigue

and depression (Cox and Ferguson, 1991; Stone et al.,1993). Studies have

demonstrated the relationship between stress and cold (Jones and Bright, 2001).

Certainly, stress is depressing, demoralizing and de-motivating. Affected

individuals often display decreased energy associated with an inability to keep

up with the pace of work. They often perceive that great personal expenditure is

required at work for very little personal gain or reward(Farrington, 1997). Self-

esteem may significantly decrease, accompanied by feeling of both failure and

hopelessness. The personal cost of work-related stress is, therefore, high and

may incorporate significant grief and suffereing and, at times, premature death

(Levi, 1996); it may significantly detract from general quality of life and well-

being (EASHW, 2000). Such effects, in turn, markedly influence the way

individuals feel, think and behave, resulting in cynicism, negativism and self-

depletion; these are often worsened by the fact that few people are prepared to

admit suffering from stress or seek help from it.

Most researchers argue that the consequences of stress can be classified

into three major types: Psychological, Physical and Behavioural (Brief, Schuler

and Van Sell, 1981; Cooper and Marshal, 1976; Ivancevich and Matterson,

1980). It is possible that the reaction to the stressor, generally, is psychological

first and then physiological and/or behavioural. Someone who perceives a great

deal of work overload might feel anxious (psychological strain), and the anxiety



might then cause one to lose sleep (physical strain) by thinking about the

overload. When one loses sleep for an extended period of time, the individual

might resort to taking extra sleeping pills (behavioural strain). Anxieties, loss of

sleep and taking sleeping pills have an effect on one’s overall performance.

6.2 Psychological Effects

The first major type of strain resulting from stressors is that of

psychological strain (Harrison, 1978) According to him strain refers to the

deviation from normal responses and that psychological strain includes

responses such as job dissatisfaction, depression, lowered self-esteem and

unsolved problems. Similarly, Downs, Driskill and Window (1990), in their

review of occupational stress, note that the experience of stress may lead to

depression, anger, fatigue, irritability, moodiness, boredom, low self-esteem,

accident withdrawal and burnout. Harrison (1998) also suggests that

psychological strain includes dissatisfaction, anxiety, diphoria, complaints of

insomnia and restlessness. Another commonly studied psychological strain is

burnout. Burnout is a psychological condition that is the result of job stress for

which one’s ability to cope with the stressor and manage stress has been

exhausted (Anderson, 1991; Shirom, 2003).

6.3 Physical Effects

The second major strain resulting from exposure to stressors is physical

strain. The relationship of stress with psychosomatic disease has been well

documented by eminent researchers and scientists. Substantial amount of

research has been done by psychologists, and a majority of these investigations

reveal positive relationship between job-related stress and a variety of somatic

symptoms and disorders. Physical or physiological strain is hypothesized to

manifest in symptoms such as high blood pressure, changes in blood eosinophils

Chapter 6


and elevated cholesterol (Harrison, 1978). Downs et al., (1990) have outlined in

their review that stress has been physically related to cardiovascular disease,

hyper-tension, ulcers, asthma and migraine headache. Edward and colleagues

(1998) note that physiological strain also includes elevated blood pressure and

compromised immune system functioning.

Previous studies related to stress and diseases has enlisted the following

strains and illnesses (Srivastava 1999).

• High pulse rate and blood pressure (Caplan, 1975)

• High serum cholesterol (Chadwick,1980)

• Disrupted sleep, bowel function, eating habits. (Mott,1976)

• Somatic complaints (Caplan, et. al.,1975)

• Heart disease (Glass, 1977)

• Hypertension (Cobb &Rose, 1973)

• Peptic ulcer (Cobb &Rose, 1973; House et al.,1979)

• Arthritis (Cobb, 1971)

• Headache (Kimball,1979)

• Respiratory illness (Caplan et al., 1975)

• Dermatitis, other skin afflictions (House, et al.,1979)

• General diffuse sickness (Mechanic, 1974)

• Total rate of illness (Hinkle, 1974; Rahe, et al.,1974).



6.4 Behavioural Effects.

Occupational stress may do considerable damage to a person internally,

but there are external manifestations too. The most important, and probably the

most relevant to an individual, is how stress affects his/her interpersonal

behaviour. Arguments and fight over relatively trivial matters, overdependence,

uncommunicativeness, unreasonableness, withdrawal of love, lack of

interest/over interest in sex are some of the commonly seen behavioral effects of

stress (Rita Agrawal, 2001). Quick et.al (1986) suggests that behavioral changes

are among the earliest and most easily recognized signs of increase in stress.

Some of the commonly seen behavioural effect of stress is Arguments and fights

over relatively trivial matters, uncommunicativeness, withdrawal of love,

increased cigarette smoking, increased alcohol and recreational drug abuse, and

frequent utilization of health care services.

It is agreed by the research community that the effect of job stress can be

classified into three groups: psychological, physical and behavioural. But there is

difficulty in measuring these outcomes, when there are situations where the

stress factors may produce an outcome that is not necessarily harmful to the

individual, particularly in the case of behavioural effect. The aim of this study is

limited to the assessment of psychological effects and physical effects of

occupational stress.

6.5 Psychological Effect of Occupational stress: Factor analysis

6.5.1 Methodology

This part of the research study was done to identify the psychological

effect of occupational stress among the bank employees in Kerala. Based on

the various theories and models in the field of occupational stress research, and

Chapter 6


in consultation with experts in the field of academic research and industry, 24

statements were developed for assessing the various psychological effects of

occupational stress in the field of banking industry. In order to test the internal

consistency of the scale and to reduce the number of statements to a

manageable size, a pilot study was conducted. Responses were obtained from

56 employees in the banking sector through interview scheduling. A five-point

Likerts scale was used to measure the agreement with the statements.

Reliability analysis was done to ensure the reliability of the instrument and

those items with item-to-total correlation below 0.3 and Cronbach’s alpha

below 0.7 were deleted resulting in a 15-item scale to measure the

psychological effect of occupational stress.

6.5.2 Reliability Analysis

Fifteen statements are considered to measure the psychological effect

of occupational stress which has an overall Cronbach’s alpha of 0.848 which

is well above the accepted norms of 0.70 (Nunnally, J.C, 1978). Hence the

variable identified and included in the instrument are reliable and relevant.

Table6.1 Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items .848 15

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was carried out on 15 measures to

validate construct which will help to analyse the employees’ responses and to

evaluate factors which exert influence over the magnitude of psychological

effects of stress. The measures were subjected to Principal Component

Analysis (PCA) under the restriction that the Eigen value of each construct

should be more than 1. The various measures used to assess the psychological

effects of stress, along with item code, mean and S.D are exhibited in the

following Table



Table 6.2: Psychological Effects of Stress-Variables

Sl.No Item Code Statements Mean S.D

1 PE 1 I am totally satisfied with my present job. 2.4784 1.04485

2 PE 2 If a friend seeks my opinion on joining a job like mine, I will strongly

recommend it. 2.6190 1.10702

3 PE 3 I feel completely exhausted at the end of the day. 3.3723 1.04556

4 PE 4 I feel tired (even with adequate sleep) during the day. 2.9589 1.06840

5 PE 5 I worry if these mounting pressures persist for long, it will

significantly damage my efficiency to work hard. 3.2965 1.09264

6 PE 6 I feel frustrated in carrying out my responsibilities at work. 2.6732 .97434

7 PE 7 It is hard for me to feel calm and relaxed at work. 2.8550 1.05518

8 PE 8 I find it difficult to finish my work in the stipulated time. 2.8723 1.09174

9 PE 9 I often miss the get-together parties of my family and friends. 3.6212 1.02751

10 PE 10 I feel that I can’t serve the customers as expected. 2.6364 1.03193

11 PE 11 I have a lot of other interests (e.g. cultural, social, spiritual etc…)

which remain neglected due to workload. 3.4654 1.09321

12 PE 12 I spend so long at work that my outside relationships are suffering. 3.4177 1.10056

13 PE 13 I always get a good night’s sleep without worrying about my work. 3.2251 1.07686

14 PE 14 Since I am preoccupied with a hectic work schedule, I give only a little

attention to my family. 3.0173 1.07006

15 PE 15 I feel emotionally drained from my work. 2.9026 1.00607

6.5.3 KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity

The result of KMO and Bartlettt’s Test of Sphericity are presented in

Table 6.3, which show that the value of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure

of Sampling adequacy value is 0.991 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is

significant at one per cent level of significance(P<.001), which reveal the

appropriateness of the sample data for conducting factor analysis.

Chapter 6


Table 6.3: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .911 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2498.702

df 105 Sig. .000

6.5.4. Exploratory factors extraction model

Table 6.4 presents the results of factors’ extraction on the basis of the

Eigen values greater than 1 criterion, which resulted in identification of three

factors which together explain the variance of 56 per cent.

Table 6.4: Total Variance Explained

Com

pone

nts

Initial Eigen Value Extraction sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Tota

l

% o

f Va

rianc

e

Cum

ulat

ive

%

Tota

l

%of

Va

rianc

e

Cum

ulat

ive

%

Tota

l

% o

f Va

rianc

e

Cum

ulat

ive

%

1 5.894 39.292 39.292 5.894 39.292 39.292 3.504 23.362 23.362 2 1.275 8.500 47.793 1.275 8.500 47.793 2.798 18.654 42.016 3 1.160 7.730 55.523 1.160 7.730 55.523 2.026 13.507 55.523

Extraction method: Principal component analysis Source: Primary survey

6.5.5 Loadings of measured items on factors

After reducing the data into 3 constructs, Varimax rotation was

performed to get a holistic overview of all 3 factors. The Varimax rotation

matrix shows that the presence of a component matrix in which all

components register comparatively strong loadings and some measures load

to more than one component. The rotated factors and their respective

variables along with factor loadings are given in table 6.5



Table 6.5 Factors Influencing Psychological Effect of Job Stress among Bank Employees Rotated Component Matrix

Item code Statements Components

1 2 3 PE 1 I am totally satisfied with my present job. .201 .093 .850

PE 2 If a friend seeks my opinion of joining a job like mine, I will strongly recommend it. .177 .213 .819

PE 3 I feel completely exhausted at the end of the day. .509 .429 .075

PE 4 I feel tired (even with adequate sleep) during the day. .658 .140 .172

PE 5 I worry if these mounting pressures persist for long, it will significantly damage

my efficiency to work hard. .624 .277 .285

PE 6 I feel frustrated in carrying out my responsibilities at work. .754 .110 .192

PE 7 It is hard for me to feel calm and relaxed at work. .686 .128 .151

PE 8 I find it difficult to finish my work in the stipulated time. .602 .176 .174

PE 9 I often miss the get-together parties of my family and friends. .271 .741 .102

PE 10 I feel that I can’t serve the customers as expected. .535 .164 .038

PE 11 I have a lot of other interests (e.g. cultural, social, spiritual etc…) which remain

neglected due to workload. .109 .790 .196

PE 12 I spend so long at work that my outside relationships are suffering. .179 .802 .203

PE 13 I always get a good night’s sleep without worrying about my work. -.217 -.221 -.502

PE 14 Since I am preoccupied with a hectic work schedule, I give only a little attention

to my family. .384 .601 .174

PE 15 I feel emotionally drained from my work. .593 .390 .227

Extraction method: Principal component analysis Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

6. 6 Creation of Factors

On the basis of the findings of the exploratory factor analysis, three factors were created by adding (summing) the rating scores of all items loaded on each factor. The following sub-sections provide the three factors in the order of their importance with measures and item loadings.

6.6.1 Professional Anxiety

The first factor extracted a high variance of 39.29 per cent variation. This factor has significant loadings on eight statements, as given in Table 6.6

Chapter 6


Table 6.6 Significant Loadings of Variables on Varimax Factor 1

Item Code. Statements Loadings PE.3 I feel completely exhausted at the end of the day of my office work. 0.509

PE.4 I feel tired (even with adequate sleep) during the day. 0.658

PE.5 I worry if these mounting pressures persist for long, it will significantly

damage my efficiency to work hard. 0.624

PE.6 I feel frustrated in carrying out my responsibilities at work. 0.754

PE.7 It is hard for me to feel calm and relaxed at work. 0.686

PE.8 I find it difficult to finish my work in the stipulated time. 0.602

PE.10 I feel that I can’t serve the customers as expected. 0.535

PE.15 I feel emotionally drained from my work. 0.593

The highest loading in this factor is for PE.6, which denotes that job

stress leads to frustration in carrying out the responsibilities of bank

employees. PE.7 states that increased level of job stress prevents employees

from doing their work in a calm and relaxed mood. Feeling of tiredness

during day is another outcome of job stress which is substantiated by the high

loading of PE.4. The significant loading of PE.5 explains that efficiency of

bank employees is being hit by the increased pressure associated with

job.PE.8 denotes that bank employees cannot finish their work in the

stipulated time due to the job stress.PE.15 states that the employees feel

‘emotionally drained’ from work-related stress. PE.10 indicates that job stress

negatively affects the performance of bank employees in discharging their

service to the customers as expected, and the high loading of PE.3 illustrates

that full potential of bank employees is being exhausted at the end of the

office day. All these statements reflect the end results of high job stress

existing among bank employees. High loadings of all these statements show

the high anxiety experienced by the bank employees regarding their job, and

hence it is termed as “Professional Anxiety”.



6.6.2 Social Isolation

The second factor consists of 4 variables. This factor extracted a

variance of 8.50 per cent of the total variance. The significant loadings of

variables under Factor 2 are presented in Table 6.7.

Table6.7 Significant Loadings of Variables on Varimax Factor2

Item Code. Statements Loadings PE.9 I often miss the get-together parties of my family and friends 0.741

PE.11 I have a lot of other interests (e.g. cultural, social, spiritual etc) which

remain neglected due to workload. 0.790

PE.12 I spend so long at work that my outside relationships are suffering. 0.802

PE.14 Since I am preoccupied with hectic work schedule, I give only a little

attention to my family. 0.601

PE.12 has the highest loading in this factor, which indicates that bank

employees have to spend longer hours in their work than the stipulated time,

which negatively affects their outside relationships. PE.11 states that the

cultural, spiritual, and social interests of the employees are being neglected

due to heavy workload and associated job stress. Inability to attend the get-

together parties of friends and family often leads them to discontent, as is

expressed in PE.9. The hectic work schedule of the bank employees often

culminates in laxity in family care, which is another outcome of job-related

stress as stated in PE.14. Since all these statements are related to the isolation

felt by the bank employees this factor is termed as “Social isolation”.

6.6.3 Professional Dissatisfaction

The third factor accounted for 7.73 per cent of the total variation. PE.

1, PE.2 and PE.13 constitute this factor. The significant loading of this factor

is presented in Table 6.8.

Chapter 6


Table 6.8 Significant Loadings of variables on Varimax Factor 3

Item code. Statements Loadings PE.1 I am totally satisfied with my present job. 0.850

PE.2 If a friend seeks my opinion of joining a job like mine, I will strongly

recommend it. 0.819

PE.13 I always get a good night’s sleep without worrying about my work. -0.502

High loading of PE.1 and PE.2 states the unpleasant attitude of bank employees regarding their job satisfaction. PE.13 indicates the disturbed sleep of bank employees due to work stress.

6.7 Effect of Stress in Relation to Socio-Economic Background Variables

Research studies prove that age, education, experience, income, personality, etc., will have a direct bearing on the stress outcome of employees in the different sectors.

6.7.1 Type of Bank and Psychological Effects

Here, in this part of the analysis, an attempt is made to check whether there is any difference in the psychological effect of job stress among employees in different sectors with respect to the type of bank in which they work.

Table 6.9 furnishes a comparative analysis of the mean and standard deviation of the psychological effect of job stress with respect to the type of bank in which they work.

Table 6.9: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Type of Banks

Factor Mean Standard Deviation PSB OPSB NGB Total PSB OPSB NGB Total

Professional Anxiety 23.909 22.530 24.223 23.567 5.707 5.438 6.032 5.713

Social Isolation 10.259 9.765 10.171 10.103 2.669 2.347 2.599 2.573

Professional Dissatisfaction 8.248 8.386 8.460 8.322 1.895 1.856 1.828 1.871

Source: primary data.



Figure 6.1 Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Type of Banks

The mean score distribution of psychological effect of job stress with

respect to type of bank shows that the mean score is the highest in new

generation banks with regard to two factors such as ‘Professional anxiety

(24.22) and ‘professional satisfaction’ (8.46), whereas public sector banks lead

in one effect, i.e., ‘Social isolation’ (10.26). It is noted that the mean scores of

psychological effects such as ‘professional anxiety’ and ‘social isolation’ are the

least among the employees in old private sector banks and none of the factors is

dominant among them.

To study the significance of difference in the mean scores of

psychological effects across different types of banks is attempted with the help

of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The following null hypotheses have been

framed for analysis.

H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effects of job stress

among employees of three types of banks.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

PSB OPSB NGB PSB OPSB NGB

Mean Standard Deviation

Professional Anxiety

Social Isolation

Professional Dissatisfaction

Chapter 6


H1 : There is difference in the psychological effects of job stress among

employees of three types of banks.

Table 6.10 depicts the summary of ANOVA of F values of

psychological effects of job stress with respect to type of bank.

Table 6.10: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Type of Banks

FACTORS Between the groups

Within the groups Total F

value Sig S.S D.F S.S D.F S.S D.F

professional anxiety 204.426 2 14846.993 459 15051.420 461 3.160 0.043*

Social isolation 21.667 2 3031.346 459 3053.013 461 1.640 0.195

Professional dissatisfaction 3.396 2 1611.551 459 1614.946 461 0.483 0.617

Source: primary data. * Significance at 5% level of significance.

Table 6.10 reveals that there is significant difference across the mean

scores of the psychological effect Professional anxiety between the employees of

different types of banks, as the value is p< 0.05 at 5 per cent level of significance

and no significant difference is noted in respect of the other two factors such as

Social isolation and Professional dissatisfaction. Hence, the null hypothesis is

rejected with respect to the psychological effects Professional anxiety, and the

null hypothesis is accepted with respect to other factors.

Table 6.11: Significance of Mean Difference based on Type of banks-Post Hoc Test (LSD)

Dependent variable

Type of bank (I)

Type of bank (J)

Mean Difference (I-J) Significance

Professional

Anxiety

PSB OPSB 1.37915* .024*

NGB -.31424 .673

OPSB NGB -1.69338* .039*

Source: Primary data * Significant at 5 percent level of significance

The Post Hoc analysis performed on the above to locate the areas of

difference indicates that employees of NGB lead in Professional anxiety and

there is significant difference between employees of NGB and OPSB in this



regard. It is also observed that there is significant difference between

employees of PSB and OPSB with regard to Professional anxiety which is

found more among PSB.

6.7.2 Location of the Bank and Psychological Effects

Location of the workplace may exert varying degrees of pressure on

employees due to many factors such as volume of business, customer’s

awareness and their varying demand, competition, distance from the place of

domicile, inadequate transportation facility, etc. Here, a comparative analysis

of mean scores and standard deviation is shown to see whether there is any

difference in the mean scores with respect to location of the branch. Location

is classified as rural, semi-urban and urban for the purpose of analysis.

Table 6.12: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Location of the Banks

Factor Mean Standard Deviation

Rural Semi- urban Urban Total Rural Semi-

urban Urban Total

Professional Anxiety 23.333 23.498 23.805 23.567 5.790 5.551 6.198 5.713 Social isolation 10.166 10.129 10.017 10.103 2.617 2.563 2.615 2.573 Professional dissatisfaction 9.666 8.305 8.159 8.322 2.114 1.873 1.755 1.871


Table 6.12 show that the means score of Professional anxiety is higher

among employees in urban areas and the least in rural areas. ‘Social isolation’ as

an outcome of job stress is more visible among the employees in semi-urban

areas and the same is the least among the employees in urban areas. The

psychological effect of Professional dissatisfaction is more among the employees

in rural areas and it is the least among the employees of urban branches.

The significance of the difference in the mean scores is tested using

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with the following hypotheses and the

results are given in Table 6.13.

Chapter 6


H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effect of job stress

among employees working at different locations.

H1 : There is significant difference in the psychological effect of job

stress among employees working at different locations.

Table 6.13: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Location of the Banks.

FACTOR Between the groups



Professional anxiety 8.954 2 15042.466 459 15051.420 461 0.137 0.872 Social isolation 1.134 2 3051.878 459 3053.013 461 0.085 0.918 Professional dissatisfaction 35.632 2 1579.314 459 1614.946 461 5.178 0.00*

Source: primary data. * Significant at 5% level of significance.

It can be observed from the Table that there is significant

difference in mean scores among the employees working at different

locations with respect to Professional Dissatisfaction as the value is p<0.05 at

a significance level of 5 per cent and at the same time no significant

difference is noted in the case of the other two psychological effects. Hence,

the null hypothesis is rejected with respect to professional dissatisfaction and

accepted for other two psychological effects such as professional anxiety and

social isolation.

Table 6.14 Significance of Mean Difference based on Location of Banks-Post Hoc Test (LSD)

Dependent variable

Location of Branch

(I)

Location of Branch

(J)

Mean Difference

(I-J) Significance

Professional

dissatisfaction Rural

Semi-Urban 1.36153* .003*

Urban 1.50737* .001*

Semi Urban Urban .14584 .471

Source: Primary data * Significant at 5 percent level of significance



The analysis based on Post Hoc (LSD) shows that Professional dissatisfaction as an outcome of job stress is found more among the employees working in rural areas, followed by employees in semi- urban and urban areas respectively. Significant difference is observed between employees working in rural branches and semi-urban branches. Similar is the case with employees working in rural branches and urban branches. Such difference is not observed between semi-urban and urban branches.

6.7.3 Employment Status and Psychological Effects

The influence of stress factors over its employees in an industry depends on a lot of internal and external factors related to the industry and its workforce. In a given stressful work situation, the reaction of two people will be different. The magnitude of authority and level of responsibility of the employees differ with regard to their designation in an office. In the banking sector, the managers and officers will have higher authority and corresponding responsibility in its operational efficiency, whereas the employees in the clerical cadre are the direct victims of customer pressure. It is noteworthy to examine whether there is any difference in the psychological effect of job stress among employees of different status in the banking industry. Here, employees are grouped into managers, officers and clerks.

Table 6.15 explain the mean score distribution and standard deviation of the psychological outcomes of job stress among employees in different cadres in the banking industry.

Table 6.15: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Employment Status

Factor Mean Standard Deviation Manager Officer Clerks Total Manager Officer clerks Total



Professional Dissatisfaction 8.624 8.459 7.988 8.322 1.928 1.888 1.772 1.871


Chapter 6


Figure 6.2: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Employment Status

It is seen from Table 6.15 that the psychological effect of job stress is dominant among employees in the officer status, as the mean scores of two factors, Professional anxiety and Social isolation, are found higher among them. The mean value of Professional dissatisfaction is more among the employees in the manager cadre and the mean value is found to be the lowest among clerks with respect to all the three groups of psychological effects in this study.

Table 6.16 depicts the result of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) done to check whether there is any significant difference in the mean scores of psychological effects of job stress in relation to the employment status of the respondents under study, at 5 per cent level of significance. The following hypotheses are framed in this regard.

H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effects of job stress among employees with different employment status.

H1 : There is difference in the psychological effects of job stress among employees with different employment status.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Manager Officer Clerks Manager Officer clerks



Social Isolation

Professional Dissatisfaction



Table 6.16: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Employment Status.

Factor Between the groups



Professional anxiety 509.144 2 14542.276 459 15051.420 461 8.035 0.000*

Social Isolation 314.472 2 2738.541 459 3053.013 461 26.354 0.000*

Professional Dissatisfaction 34.156 2 1580.790 459 1614.946 461 4.959 0.007*

Source: primary data. * Significant at 5% level of significance.

The test results given in Table 6.16 show that there is significant difference in the mean scores of psychological effects of job stress among employees in different employment status with regard to Professional anxiety, Social isolation and Professional dissatisfaction as the value of p<0.05 at 5 per cent level of significance. So, the null hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that there is significant difference in the psychological effects of job stress among different employment cadres.

Table 6.17: Significance of Mean Difference based on Employment Status-Post Hoc Test (LSD)

Dependent variable

Employment Status (I)

Employment Status (J)

Mean Difference (I-J) Significance


Manager Officer -.49977 .458 Clerks 1.83996* .005*

Officer Clerks 2.33973* .000*

Social Isolation

Manager Officer -.31079 .288 Clerks 1.50297* .000*

Officer Clerks 1.81376* .000*

Professional dissatisfaction

Manager Officer .16488 .458 Clerks .63524* .004*

Officer Clerks .47036* .021* Source: Primary data * Significant at 5 percent level of significance

The Post Hoc analyses (LSD) show that there is significant difference

among employees of different status with regard to the psychological effects

of job stress. All the variables for the psychological effects are found to be at

95 per cent significance level. Professional anxiety and Social isolation are

Chapter 6


dominant among officers, followed by managers. Managers are found to be

the most affected by Professional dissatisfaction, followed by officers,

whereas employees in clerical cadre are the least affected by this variable.

6.7.4 Gender and Psychological Effects

The Psychological outcome of job stress over gender groups is studied to

identify the relationship between gender and effects of job stress. The

psychological reaction to a given stressful situation may vary among different

gender groups due to the difference in the physical and psychological fabric

(structure) of the focal persons. Analysis of Variance is done with the following

hypotheses and the test results are given in Table 6.18 and Table 6.19.

H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effects of job stress among

different gender groups.


different gender groups.

Table 6.18: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Gender Groups

Factors Mean Standard Deviation Male Female Total Male Female Total

Professional Anxiety 24.017 22.879 23.567 5.905 5.352 5.713

Social isolation 10.329 9.759 10.103 2.540 2.592 2.573

Professional dissatisfaction 8.555 7.967 8.322 1.953 1.683 1.871

Source: Primary survey

The mean score statement given in Table 6.18 shows that the male

group dominates in the psychological effects of job stress in all the factors

such as Professional anxiety (24.01), Social isolation (10.329) and

Professional dissatisfaction (8.55).



Table 6.19: ANOVA of psychological effects of stress across Gender Groups




Professional anxiety 143.154 2 14908.266 459 15051.420 461 4.417 0.036*

Social isolation 35.929 2 3017.084 459 3053.013 461 5.478 0.020*

Professional dissatisfaction 38.254 2 1576.699 459 1614.946 461 11.161 0.001*

Source: Primary data. * Significance at 5% level of significance.

The Analysis of Variance given in Table 6.19 shows that the

difference in the mean scores is significant in respect of all the factors related

to the psychological effects. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected and it is

concluded that psychological effects of job stress such as Professional

anxiety, Social isolation and Professional dissatisfaction and gender are

dependent.

6.7.5 Marital Status and Psychological Effects of Job Stress.

Marriage is an important event in the life of an individual. It will bring

about a lot of changes in the perception of an individual towards his/her life.

The capacity of an employee to withstand the stress associated with the job is

vital to his/her existence. In the case of married groups they will get adequate

support from their spouses and at the same time there are a lot of additional

responsibilities on their shoulders. Unmarried groups have limited family

responsibilities and their social interaction with friends can reduce stress to a

great extent. The domestic and social environment of widows and divorced

employees are also different. So the impact of occupational stress over these

groups may vary from one group to another. Here, an effort is made to see

whether there is any difference in the psychological effects of job stress

among employees having different marital status with the following

hypotheses.

Chapter 6



among employees with different marital status.


employees with different marital status.

Table 6.20: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Marital Status


Mar

ried

Unm

arrie

d

Divo

rcee

Wid

owed

Tota

l

Mar

ried

Unm

arrie

d

Divo

rcee

Wid

owed

Tota

l

F1(P.A) 23.656 23.416 20.500 18.000 23.567 5.726 5.690 5.446 0.000 5.713

F2(S.I) 10.112 10.111 10.000 8.500 10.103 2.582 2.575 2.708 0.707 2.573

F3(P.D) 8.322 8.375 8.250 6.500 8.322 1.907 1.698 1.707 0.707 1.871


Comparative mean score statement given in Table 6.20 shows that

mean scores related to professional anxiety and social isolation are the

highest among the married groups and the mean score of professional

dissatisfaction is more among unmarried employees. It is also noted that the

mean value is the lowest among widowed groups in respect of all factors.

The Analysis of Variance given in Table 6.21 shows that the

difference in the mean score is insignificant in respect of all the factors

related to the psychological effects. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted

and it is concluded that marital status and psychological effect of job stress,

such as Professional anxiety, Social isolation and Professional dissatisfaction,

are independent.



Table 6.21: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Marital Status

FACTOR Between the groups



Professional anxiety 104.295 3 14947.125 458 15051.420 461 1.065 0.364

Social Isolation 5.217 3 3047.796 458 3053.013 461 0.261 0.853


Source: Primary data

6.7.6 Age and Psychological Effects of Job Stress

Age is an important variable in social science research as the view of

an individual may vary as one advances in age. The opinion and perception

of an individual on personal, official and social issues will be shaped by the

experience he has got and observation he has made during the past years.

Problems related to job stress also will have such implications. Here, an

attempt is made to study whether there is any significant difference in the

psychological effects of job stress with respect to the age of the respondents

under study.

Table 6.22 gives the mean score distribution of the psychological

effects of job stress among employees in different age groups.

Table 6.22: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Age Groups


30 and below 31-40 41-50 51 and

above Total 30 and below

31-40 41-50 Above

50 Total

F1(P.A) 23.394 24.153 23.897 23.101 23.567 5.867 5.974 5.684 5.494 5.713 F2(S.I) 10.201 10.256 10.063 9.986 10.103 2.606 2.615 2.701 2.429 2.573 F3(P.D) 8.376 8.102 8.629 8.135 8.322 1.947 1.931 1.880 1.752 1.871


It is observed from the Table that the mean score of psychological

effects such as professional anxiety and social isolation is more among

employees in the age group of 31-40 years. The influence of the third factor,

Chapter 6


Professional dissatisfaction, is more among employees in the age group of

41-50 years.

In order to study the statistical significance of the difference in the

mean value, Analysis of Variance has been done with the following

hypotheses and the results are given in Table 6.23.

H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effect of job stress among

employees in different age groups.

H1 : There is difference in the psychological effect of job stress among

employees in different age groups.

Table 6.23: ANOVA of Psychological Effects across Different Age Groups




Professional anxiety 76.080 3 14975.340 458 15051.420 461 0.776 0.508 Social isolation 5.113 3 3047.900 458 3053.013 461 0.256 0.857 Professional dissatisfaction 21.285 3 1593.661 458 1614.946 461 2.039 0.108

Source: primary data

The results of ANOVA given in Table 6.23 indicate that there is no

significant difference in the mean scores of psychological effects of job stress

among bank employees in different age groups as the value of p>0.05 at 5

per cent level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted with the

conclusion that the age of the employees and the psychological effects of job

stress are independent.

6.7.7 Education and Psychological Effects of Job Stress

It is imperative to study whether the educational qualification of the

employees in the banking sector has any relation to their psychological

reaction to the job stress. Many studies in social science prove that



educational levels of the employees have a direct bearing on the mental

capacity to face the official challenges. In the banking sector, the minimum

qualification fixed to join service is secondary education. But in actual

situations the majority of them have higher qualification. In this part of the

study, an evaluation is done to look whether the educational qualification of

the employees in the banking sector has any dependence on their

psychological reaction to job stress. Table 6.24 furnishes the mean score

comparison of psychological reaction to job stress with respect to their

education.

Table 6.24: Mean and SD of Psychological effects of stress across Education


School level Graduate Post

graduate Total School level Graduate Post

graduate Total

Professional Anxiety 23.636 23.174 24.149 23.567 5.903 5.571 5.893 5.713 Social Isolation 8.636 9.988 10.364 10.103 2.110 2.513 2.656 2.573 Professional Dissatisfaction 7.181 8.274 8.464 8.322 0.873 1.834 1.947 1.871


It can be observed from the Table that the mean value is the highest

among the Post-Graduate employees in relation to the three factors of

psychological reaction to job stress. It is further noticed that while

professional anxiety is the least among Graduates, Social isolation and

Professional dissatisfaction are the lowest among the least qualified group.

The test result of Analysis of Variance to know the significance of

difference in the mean values is given in Table 6.25. The following

hypotheses are framed in connection with this analysis.

H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effect of job stress

among employees with different educational qualifications.

H1 : There is difference in the psychological effect of job stress among

employees with different educational qualifications.

Chapter 6


Table 6.25: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Education




Professional anxiety 103.084 2 14948.336 459 15051.420 461 1.583 0.207

Social isolation 39.567 2 3013.446 459 3053.013 461 3.013 0.050


Source: Primary data The test results shown in the Table indicate that the difference in the

mean values is insignificant at 5 per cent level of significance as the value of

p is less than 0.05, and it can be concluded that psychological reaction to job

stress and the educational background of the employees are independent.

6.7.8 Salary and Psychological Effects of Job Stress

Salary of the bank employees includes basic pay, dearness allowance,

house rent allowance, special allowance and bonus. Different pay structures

are fixed for different categories like managers, officers and clerks. Here, an

attempt is made to identify whether the income level of the employees has

any dependence on the psychological outcome of the job stress. Respondents

are grouped into four classes based on the total salary per month such as less

than Rs. 15000, Rs.15000 to 30000, Rs.30000 to 50000 and above Rs.50000.

A table 6.26 explains the mean score and standard deviations in

respect of 3 psychological effects of job stress in relation to the monthly

salary of employees in the banking sector.

Table 6.26: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Salary Groups


<15000 15000- 30000

30000- 50000

Above 50000 Total <15000 15000-

30000 30000- 50000

Above 50000 Total

F1(P.A) 21.982 24.169 23.738 23.115 23.567 5.019 5.852 5.603 6.357 5.713

F2(S.I) 9.701 10.225 10.078 10.365 10.103 1.954 2.763 2.529 2.890 2.573

F3(P.D) 7.894 8.354 8.366 8.519 8.325 1.838 1.839 1.879 1.935 1.871




It is clear from Table 6.26 that the psychological reaction of job stress is more visible among the highest salary groups. Social isolation and Professional dissatisfaction are dominant among them. Most probably they belong to the senior officers’ group or managers’ groups. They have to assume higher responsibility in the functioning of the banking business. Any deviation from the targeted performance may put them under pressure. But the job stress reaction of ‘professional anxiety’ is found more among the employees whose salary is between Rs.15000 and 30000. Less experience in handling the situation, coupled with higher pressure for more output, may be the reason for this situation.

The significance of the difference in the mean score of psychological reaction to job stress across different salary groups is tested through ANOVA with the following hypotheses and the result is given in Table 6.27

H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effects of job stress among employees with different monthly salary structures.

H1 : There is difference in the psychological effect of job stress among employees with different monthly salary structures.

Table 6.27: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Salary Groups



value Sig. S.S D.F S.S D.F S.S D.F

Professional anxiety 205.407 3 14846.013 458 15051.420 461 2.112 0.098 Social isolation 14.763 3 3038.250 458 3053.013 461 0.748 0.528 Professional Dissatisfaction 13.022 3 1601.924 458 1614.946 461 1.241 0.294


The test result shown in the Table indicates that the difference in the

mean value is insignificant at 5 per cent level of significance as the value of p

is less than 0.05, and it can be concluded that psychological reaction to job

stress and monthly salary of the employees are independent.

Chapter 6


6.7.9 Length of Service and Psychological Effect of Job Stress

Length of service or experience represents the years of service put in by

an employee in the present or past job over a period of time. As the length of

service of an employee progresses, his capacity to withstand the inordinate

work pressure may enhance. Rapid transformation in the operations and

service delivery of banking companies put the employees under acute stress

affecting their potential. Technological revolution and ever-increasing demand

from the part of customers usually nullify the benefit of experience in dealing

with work pressure. Here, an attempt is made to test whether length of service

of employees has any dependence on their psychological stress reaction.

Employees are classified into five groups based on length of service in years,

such as less than 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16 to 20 and above 20 years.

The mean scores and standard deviations of 3 psychological effects of

job stress with respect to length of service are furnished in Table 6.28.

Table 6.28: Mean and SD of Psychological effects of stress across Length of service (years)


5 &<5 6-10 11-15 16-20 >20 Total <5 6-10 11-

15 16-20 >20 Total

F1(P.A) 23.632 22.297 25.486 22.766 23.588 23.567 5.727 6.361 5.550 3.775 5.759 5.713

F2(S.I) 10.111 9.617 10.621 9.866 10.147 10.103 2.625 2.633 2.372 2.750 2.544 2.573

F3(P.D) 8.222 8.340 8.135 8.566 8.368 8.322 1.965 1.591 1.931 1.794 1.885 1.871


The distribution of mean scores of psychological effects of job stress

across different groups of bank employees in relation to their length of

service reveals that the mean score is the highest among employees whose

length of service is between 11 and 15 years, in the case of two psychological

reactions, viz., Professional anxiety and Social isolation. The mean value in

respect of Professional dissatisfaction is found more among employees who

have experience between 16 and 20 years.



The significance of difference in the mean score of different groups

with respect to their length of service is tested using ANOVA and the results

are furnished in Table 6.29. The following hypotheses are formulated and

tested here.

H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effects of job stress among

employees with difference in length of service.


employees with difference in length of service.

Table 6.29: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Length of Service.




Professional Anxiety 231.853 4 14819.567 457 15051.420 461 1.787 0.130

Social Isolation 23.186 4 3029.827 457 3053.013 461 0.874 0.479

Professional Dissatisfaction 4.757 4 1610.189 457 1614.946 461 0.337 0.853


It is revealed that psychological effects of job stress and length of service are independent at 5 per cent level of significance as the value of p >0.05. So, the null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that there is no dependence between psychological effects of job stress and length of service.

6.7.10 Effective Work Load in Hours and Psychological Effects of Job Stress

Work load in this connection means time the employees have to spend in the office premises to finish the responsibilities assigned to them. After liberalization of the Indian economy in the early 90s, the Indian banking sector witnessed an upsurge. The entry of foreign banks into Indian financial sector and the unshackling of state control paved the way for competitive environment. The RBI guidelines to minimize the NPA to the control level forced the

Chapter 6


workforce in the banking sector to spend more time in their office to attain the targeted performance. Spending more time in the office naturally weakens their relationship with society in general and family in particular. Detachment from social life for long period and inability to give due attention to family requirement lead the employees to mental discomfort. Here, an attempt is made to study whether working hours of the employees in the banking sector do have any influence on the psychological reaction to job stress among the selected respondents. Employees are classified into 3 groups based on the working hours during a week such as 40 and below, 41-50 and above 50.

Table 6.30 explains the mean scores and standard deviations in respect of 3 psychological effects of job stress in relation to the workload in hours during a week of employees in the banking sector.

Table 6.30: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Workload (Hours)


40 and below 41-50 Above 50 Total 40 and

below 41-50 Above 50 Total



Professional dissatisfaction 8.117 8.097 8.585 8.322 1.951 1.777 1.900 1.871 Source: primary data

Figure 6.3: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Workload (Hours)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 and below

41-50 Above 50 40 and below

41-50 Above 50



Social Isolation




Table 6.30 reveals that the mean scores of the three psychological

effects of job stress are the highest among the employees who have to spend

more than 50 hours in a week in their workplace to finish the official

assignment. Professional anxiety and Professional dissatisfaction are found to

be the least among those employees who work for 40 to 50 hours in a week,

but social isolation is found to be the least among employees who need to

work only 40 or fewer hours in a week.

In order to study the statistical significance of the difference in the

mean values in respect to their workload in a week, Analysis of Variance is

done with the following hypotheses and the results are given in Table 6.31.


among employees with different working hours in a week.


employees with different working hours in a week.

Table 6.31: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Workload (Hours)




Professional Anxiety 669.765 2 14381.655 459 15051.420 461 10.688 0.000* Social Isolation 254..386 2 2798.627 459 3053.013 461 20.861 0.000* Professional dissatisfaction 26.691 2 1588.255 459 1614.946 461 3.857 0.022*


The test results given in Table 6.31 show that there is significant

difference in the mean scores of psychological effects of job stress among

employees with difference in duration of working hours in a week, with

regard to professional anxiety, social isolation and professional satisfaction,

as the value of p<0.05 at 5 per cent level of significance. So, the null

hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that there is significant difference in

Chapter 6


the psychological effects of job stress among employees with difference in

workload due to the long working hours in a week.

Table 6.32 Significance of Mean Difference Based on Workload in a Week (Hrs)-Post Hoc Test (LSD)

Dependent variable

Effective working hours

in a week (I)

Effective working hours

in a week (J)

Mean Difference

(I-J) Significance


40 and below 40-50 .08376 .916 Above 50 -2.35630* .003*

40-50 Above 50 -2.44006* .000*

Social Isolation 40 and below 40-50 .61957 .078

Above 50 -1.88571* .000* 40-50 Above 50 -1.26615* .000*


40 and below 40-50 .01982 .940 Above 50 -.46807 .072

40-50 Above 50 -.48789* .010* Source: Primary data * Significant at 5 percent level of significance

The result of the Post Hoc LSD analysis reveals that significant

difference is present between employees who spend ‘Above 50 hours’ in a week

and those who spend only 40 hours in a week, with regard to professional

anxiety and social isolation. Significant difference is again observed between

employees who have to work 40-50 hours in a week and those who have to work

above 50 hours in a week. Significant difference in professional dissatisfaction is

manifest between ‘40-50 hours’ and ‘Above 50 hours’ groups.

6.7.11 Conclusion

Fifteen statements are considered to measure the psychological effects

of occupational stress which have an overall Cronbach’s alpha of 0.848

which is well above the accepted norm of 0.70. It is seen that the mean values

of the 15 statements vary from2.478 (SD, 1.04) to3.621 (SD, 1.02).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was carried out on the 15 measures to



validate constructs which will help to analyse the employees’ responses and

to evaluate factors which exert influence over the magnitude of psychological

effects of stress. The measures were subjected to Principal Component

Analysis (PCA) under the restriction that the Eigen value of each construct is

more than 1. Principal Component Analysis reduced the data into 3

components which together explain the variance of 56 per cent. On the basis

of the findings of the exploratory factor analysis, three factors were created

by adding (summing) the rating scores of all items loaded on each factor. The

factors so framed in the order of importance are Professional Anxiety, Social

Isolation, and Professional Dissatisfaction. The three factors of psychological

effects of stress are related to various demographic and other job- related

variables to study the association between them. The study reveals that the

psychological effects of stress differ according to the difference in the

demographic and job-related background variables.

Type of bank, Location of the branch, Employment status, Gender,

Marital status, Age, Education, Salary, Length of services and Workload in a

week are the 10 background variables considered here for cross-analysis.

Significant difference is observed in five variables such as type of bank,

location, employment status, gender and effective workload in a week and no

such difference is seen in other variables such as marital status, age,

educational qualification, salary and length of service. With regard to the

background variables, employment status, gender and effective working

hours in a week, the mean difference is significant in all the three

psychological effects of job stress, whereas in the case of type of bank, the

mean difference is applicable only in ‘professional anxiety’, and in the case

of location, the difference observed is related to ‘professional dissatisfaction’.

Chapter 6


6.8 Physical Effects of Occupational Stress

On the basis of the review of literature and discussion with medical

experts, 14 indicators of physiological effects of job stress have been

identified. A five-point scale has been used to measure the extent of each

indicator where a score of 5 is assigned for ‘always’, 4 for ‘often’, 3 for

‘sometimes/occasionally’, 2 for ‘rarely’ and 1 for ‘never/hardly ever’. These

scores are collected, summated, averaged and compared for each indicator.

The descriptive statistics of mean and S.D is depicted in the following Table.

Table 6.33: Descriptive Statistics

Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Headache 462 1.00 5.00 2.4567 .90866 Back/Neck//Shoulder pain 462 1.00 5.00 2.8398 1.10623 Chest pain/discomfort 462 1.00 5.00 1.7273 .88325 Sleeping difficulties 462 1.00 5.00 2.0909 1.03327 Gastro intestinal problem (Indigestion, nausea, diarrhea etc.)

462 1.00 5.00 2.2338 1.13966

Breathing difficulties 462 1.00 5.00 1.7143 .94339 Tiredness or fatigue 462 1.00 5.00 2.7316 1.11460 Skin problems 462 1.00 5.00 1.7273 1.03898 Eye strain 462 1.00 5.00 2.9221 1.14577 Cold/Virus/Fever 462 1.00 5.00 2.3896 .91252 Feeling dizzy 462 1.00 5.00 2.1364 .97963 Ulcers/Constipation 462 1.00 5.00 1.8009 1.01793 Elevated blood pressure 462 1.00 5.00 1.9026 1.08291 Elevated serum cholesterol 462 1.00 5.00 1.8896 1.15160 Total 462

Source: Primary survey.



It is observed that the mean scores of various physical effects vary

from 1.7143(SD-.943) to 2.9221 (SD-1.146). The mean is comparatively

higher in the case of eye strain (2.92), Back/Neck/Shoulder pain (2.84),

Tiredness (2.73) and Headache (2.46). However, Breathing difficulty (1.71),

Chest pain (1.73), Skin problem (1.73) are not much severe owing to their

lower mean values. The mean, SD, minimum values and maximum values

are depicted in the following spider diagram.

Fig 6:4 Physical effects-Descriptive statistics

6.8.1 Grouping of physical Effects.

After consultation with the experts, all the fourteen physical effects are compartmentalized under seven heads based on their nature. Since this classification is technical in nature, the researcher made use of expert advice from renowned physicians in modern medicine. The various symptoms of physical effects and their grouping based on nature are exhibited in the following Table.

.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.001

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

14

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Chapter 6


Table 6.34: Grouping of physical Effects

Symptoms/Indicators Group Headache

Sleeping difficulty

Eye strain

Neurological problem

Back/Neck/Shoulder pain Musculoskeletal disorder

Chest pain/discomfort

Elevated blood pressure

Elevated serum cholesterol.

Cardio vascular problem

Indigestion, nausea, diarrhea, etc.

Ulcers/Constipation Gastro-Intestinal problems

Breathing difficulty Respiratory complaints

Tiredness or fatigue

Cold/Virus/Fever

Feeling dizzy

General health problems

Skin problems Skin problems

6.9 Strength of Interrelationship between Sources and Effects

of Job Stress (Canonical correlation analysis)

Canonical correlation analysis is a multivariate statistical model that

facilitates the study of interrelationships among sets of multiple dependent

variables and multiple independent variables. It measures the strength of the

overall relationships between the linear composites (canonical variates) for

the independent and dependent variables. In effect, it represents the bivariate

correlation between the two canonical variates. While multiple regressions

predict a single dependent variable from a set of multiple independent

variables, canonical correlation simultaneously predicts multiple dependent

variables from multiple independent variables. In situations with multiple

dependent and independent variables, canonical correlation is the most

appropriate and powerful multivariate technique. It has gained acceptance in



many fields and represents a useful tool for multivariate analysis, particularly

as interest has spread to considering multiple dependent variables. Canonical

correlation identifies the optimum structure or dimensionality of each

variable set that maximizes the relationship between independent and

dependent variable sets.

6.9.1 Sources of Job Stress and Psychological Effects

Here, a study on the association between 13 stress factors, causes of

stress, identified with 3 psychological effects, is attempted and the results of

the analysis are given below.

Table 6.35: Test of Canonical Dimension

Canonical Dimensions

Canonical correlation F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F

1 .82389 17.09585 39.00 1123.05 .000*

2 .34288 4.11556 24.00 760.00 .000*

3 .33535 4.38873 11.00 381.00 .000*

Source: Primary survey * Significant at 5 per cent level.

Table 6.36: Standardized Canonical Coefficients (Dimensions)

Variables( stressors) Dimensions 1 2 3

Work-home interface .72915 -.75204 -.58993 Leadership support .06785 .40864 -.55841 Work pressure .20097 .20612 .80379 Group cohesiveness .09051 .29147 -.25183 Customer relationship .01070 .32995 .56776 Career growth .02258 -.23503 .30898 Compensation .03718 .04023 -.09854 Job autonomy -.02221 .19983 .16639 Customer services .09911 .43604 -.23954 Lack of encouragement -.03153 .37963 .19246 Lack of professionalism in management -.02611 .04227 -.15173 Staff shortage -.06983 -.13755 .10801 Externalities .08180 -.30382 -.12730


Chapter 6


Table 6.37: Standardized Canonical Coefficients for Covariates (Psychological Effects)

Covariate 1 2 3 Professional anxiety. -.53369 -.64269 -.99786

Social isolation -.51556 .98887 .62940

Professional dissatisfaction -.14923 -.68257 .78499

Tests of dimensionality for the canonical correlation analysis, as

shown in Table 6.35, indicate that all the three canonical dimensions are

statistically significant at the 5 per cent level. Dimension 1 has a canonical

correlation of 0.82 between the sets of variables, while for dimension 2 the

canonical correlation is much lower at 0.34. Also, the third canonical

correlation is .34 (.335).

Table 6.36 presents the standardized canonical coefficients for the

three dimensions across both sets of variables. The first canonical dimension

is most strongly influenced by work-home interface (.73) and for the second

dimension, by Work-home interface (-.75), Leadership support (.41) and

Customer services (.44). The third dimension is dominated by Work pressure

(.80), Work-home interface (-.58), Leadership support (-.56), and Customer

relationship (.57). For the covariates (Table 6.37), the first dimension

comprises Professional anxiety (-.53) and Social isolation (-.51). For the

second and third dimension all the three variables are important with Social

isolation (.98) dominating the second dimension and Professional anxiety

(-1.0) dominating the third dimension.

From the results of the study, it can be summarized that the first

canonical correlation of 0.82 indicates that there is a strong association

between the independent variable, Work-home interface with the dependent

variables, Professional anxiety and Social isolation. The second canonical

correlation of 0.34 indicates that there is interrelationship between stress



factors such as Work-home interface, Leadership support and Customer

service and psychological effects. The third dimension also shows canonical

correlation of .34, which also reflects an overall relationship between the

canonical variates for the independent and dependent variables. So, stress due

to extensive Work pressure from all directions including domestic pressure

on employees results in all the three psychological outcomes of job stress.

Since there is significant relationship between causes of stress such as

Work-home interface, Leadership support, Work pressure, Customer

relationship and Customer services, and psychological effect of stress such as

Professional anxiety, Social isolation and Professional dissatisfaction, the

null hypothesis is rejected and it is established that there is interrelationship

between sources and effects of job stress.

6.9.2 Causes of Job Stress and Physical Effects

The influence of stress factors over physical effects of stress is

analysed using canonical correlation analysis and the results are presented in

Table 6.38, Table 6.39 and Table 6.40.

Table 6.38: Test of canonical Dimension

Canonical Dimensions

Canonical correlation F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F

1 .52873 2.50217 91.00 2346.13 .000*

2 .29237 1.33721 72.00 2051.47 .032*

3 .23741 1.11941 55.00 1748.63 .257

4 .21775 .97978 40.00 1435.19 .507

5 .18281 .75949 27.00 1107.52 .807

6 .12137 .46751 16.00 760.00 .962

7 .06882 .25903 7.00 381.00 .969

Source: primary survey * Significant at 5 per cent level

Chapter 6


Table 6.39: Standardized canonical coefficients (Dimensions)

Variables( stressors) Dimensions 1 2

Work-home interface -0.56732 0.37074

Leadership support -0.28109 0.53909

Work pressure -0.03045 -0.17041

Group cohesiveness -0.02403 -0.37252

Customer relationship -0.14782 -0.42201

Career growth -0.06894 -0.05157

Compensation -0.09008 0.18202

Job autonomy 0.02653 0.23528

Customer services -0.03914 0.19385

Lack of encouragement -0.11475 -0.01401

Lack of professionalism in management 0.06256 -0.87866

Staff shortage 0.03805 0.23807

Externalities -0.09414 -0.02486


Table 6.40: Standardized canonical coefficients for Covariates (Physical Effects)

Covariate 1 2 Neurological problems 0.53581 0.37542

Musculoskeletal disorders 0.01675 0.34152

Cardio problems 0.04899 0.31034

Gastro intestinal problems 0.13627 -0.25187

Respiratory complaints -0.03074 0.78135

General health problems 0.42633 -1.00628

Skin problems 0.04056 0.0134

Canonical correlation analysis is the test of dimensionality as shown

in Table 6.38, which shows that only two canonical dimensions are

statistically significant at 5 per cent level. Dimension 1 has a canonical



correlation of 0.53 between the sets of variables, while for dimension 2,

canonical correlation is lower at 0.29.

Table 6.39 presents the standardized canonical coefficients for the two

dimensions across both set of variables. The first canonical dimension is strongly

influenced by Work-home interface (-.57) and the second dimension by Lack of

professionalism in management (-.88), Leadership support (.54) and Customer

relationship (-.42). For the covariates, the first dimension comprises

Neurological problem (.54) and General health problem (.43). For the second

dimension, General health (- 1.00) and Respiratory complaints (.78) dominate.

From the results of the analysis, it can be summarized that the first

canonical correlation of 0.53 indicates that there is a strong association between

the independent variable, Work-home interface, with the dependent variables;

Neurological problem and General health problems. The second canonical

correlation of 0.29 indicates that there is interrelationship between stress factors,

such as Lack of professionalism in management, Leadership support and

Customer relationship with General health problem and Respiratory complaints.

So, job stress due to different factors influences the physical health of the

employees in different dimensions.

Since there is significant relationship between causes of stress such as

Work-home interface, Leadership support’, Customer relationship and Staff

shortage, and physical effects of stress such as Neurological problem,

Respiratory complaints and General health problem, the null hypothesis is

rejected.

6.9.3. Conclusion

Canonical correlation analysis is done to measure the strength of

interrelationship between sources and psychological effects of job stress. Tests

Chapter 6


of dimensionality indicate that all the three canonical dimensions are

statistically significant at 5 per cent level. Strength of interrelationship between

sources of job stress and physical effects is also measured through canonical

correlation, which shows that only two canonical dimensions are statistically

significant at 5 per cent level. It is concluded from the analysis that the

hypothesized relationship between stress factors and physical and

psychological effects of stress is statistically significant.

……. …….

Documents

6.1 Introduction - INFLIBNETshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/28497/15/15_chapter6.pdf · Harrison (1998) also suggests that psychological strain includes dissatisfaction,