chapter - iv relative importance of factors leading...

CHAPTER - IV

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS LEADING TO STRESS OF BANK EMPLOYEES OF

BARAK VALLEY

CHAPTER - IV

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS LEADING TO STRESS OF BANK EMPLOYEES OF BARAK VALLEY

4.1. INTRODUCTION

"Situations, circumstances or any stimulus that is perceived to be a threat is

referred to as a stressor, or that which causes or promotes stress."

- Brian Luke Seaward

Role stress has become universal attribute of recent organizations. An employee's

job role, which is composed of set of activities to be performed by him,

constitutes the most significant part of his job life and is accountable for job

stress and job satisfaction. Role stress results from conflicting incompatible or

unclear expectations that are derived from work environment (Kaur and Kaur,

2009). It is imperative to say that almost any job condition can cause stress,

depending on an employee's reaction to it. To examine and understand the causes

of role stress is an important step in stress prevention. Because a single stressor

may cause harmful consequences in the workplace.

This chapter depicts in detail the relative importance of factors leading to job

stress of bank employees of Barak Valley and the important factors causing

significant different level of stress between different genders, among different

educational qualifications, between different designations, among different

districts and between public and private sectors.

148

KelcUX^e/ ImportcLnce/ of fouctory.

The researcher used Organizational Role Stress Scale (ORS Scale) developed by

Udai Pareek (1993) to measure the job stress of the bank employees. ORS scale is

based on 50 items measuring 10 types of organizational role stresses. Each type

has 5 items. The 10 types of organizational role stresses (factors) are given

below:

(i) Inter-Role Distance (IRD):

1. My role tends to interfere with my family life. 2. I have various other interests (social, religious, etc) which remain

neglected because I do not get time to attend to these. 3. My role does not allow me to have enough time with my family. 4. My organizational responsibilities interfere with my extra

organizational roles. 5. My family and friends complain that I do not spend time with

them due to heavy demands of my work role.

(ii) Role Stagnation (RS):

1. I am afraid I am not learning enough in my present role for taking up higher responsibility.

2. I am too preoccupied with my present role responsibility to be able to prepare for taking higher responsibility.

3. I do not have time and opportunities to prepare myself for the future challenges of my role.

4. There is very little scope for personal growth in my role. 5. 1 feel stagnant in my role.

(iii) Self-Role Distance (SRD):

1. 1 am not able to satisfy the conflicting demands of various people over me.

2. I am not able to satisfy the conflicting demands of the various peer level people and my juniors.

3. I am not able to satisfy the demands of clients and others, since these are conflicting with one another.

4. The expectations of my seniors conflict with those of my juniors. 5. I am bothered with the contradictory expectations different people

have from my role.

149

KelatOi^e/Ivytportounce^ of factory...

(iv) Role Ambiguity (RA):

1. My role has recently been reduced in importance. 2. Many functions of what would be a part of my role have been

assigned to some other role. 3. I would like to take more responsibility than I am handling at

present. 4. I can do much more than what I have been assigned 5. I wish I had been given more challenging task to do.

(v) Role Expectation Conflict (REC):

1. My work load is too heavy. 2. The amount of work I have to do interfere with the quality I want to

maintain. 3. I have been given too much responsibility. 4. There is a need to reduce some parts of my role. 5. I feel overburdened in my role.

(vi) Role Overload (RO):

1. Other role occupants do not give enough attention and time to my role.

2. There is not enough interaction between my role and other roles. 3. I wish there was more consultation between my role and other

roles. 4. There is no evidence of involvement of several roles (including

my role) in joint problem solving or collaboration in planning action.

5. Even when 1 take initiative for discussions or help, there is not much response from the other roles.

(vii) Role Erosion (RE):

1. I do not have adequate knowledge to handle the responsibilities in my role.

2. I wish I had more skills to handle the responsibilities of my role. 3. I have not had pertinent training for my role. 4. 1 wish I had prepared myself well for my role. 5. I need more training and preparation to be effective in my work

role.

150

KelcUtA/e/ ImportcLvice/ of factory..

(viii) Resource Inadequacy (RIn):

1. I have to do things in my role that are against my better judgment. 2. I am not able to use my training and expertise in my role. 3. The work I do in the organization is not related to my interests. 4. If I had full prepared to define my role I would be doing some things

different from what I do now. 5. 1 experience conflict between my values and what 1 have to do in

my role.

(ix) Personal Inadequacy (PI):

1. I am not clear on the scope and responsibilities of my role Gob). 2. I do not know what the people 1 work with expect of me. 3. Several aspects of my role are vague and unclear. 4. My role had not been defined clearly and in detail. 5. I am not clear as to what are the priorities in my role.

(x) Role Isolation (RI):

1. I do not get the information needed to carry out responsibilities assigned to me.

2. I do not get enough resources to be effective in my fole. 3. I do not have enough people to work with me in my role. 4. I am rather worried that I lack the necessary facilities needed in my

role. 5. I wish I had more financial resources for the work assigned to me.

As mentioned in the research methodology portion of CHAPTER-1, the responses

of 397 bank employees regarding their level of agreement on the 5 items

(statements) for each of the the above 10 factors in the questionnaire are collected

on 5 possible response categories (i.e., rarely, a few times, sometimes, frequently

and always). Then values are assigned to the response categories as follows.

Rarely = 0, A few times = 1, sometimes = 2, frequently = 3, and Always = 4.

The data so collected through the questionnaire from the respondents for each of

the factors are computed for its relevant interpretation.

151

KelatOi/e^ Ivwportajvioe/ of factory.

4.1.1. Relative importance of the ORS factors causing stress to the

employees

The researcher is interested to know the relative importance of the 10 types of

stresses (factors) which lead to the total stress of the bank? employees. Mean,

Standard Deviation and Coefficient of variation of scores of bank employees'

stress of the ten different factors taken for the study and their implications are

discussed in the tables given below.

ORS Variable

IRD

RS

SRD

RA

REC

RO

RE

Rln

PI

RI

Table No. of respondents

397

397

397

397

397 ,

397

397

397

397

397

no.- 4.1: Ranks ORS variable Maximum possible score

4x5=20

4x5=20

4x5=20

4x5=20

4x5=20

4x5=20

4x5=20

4x5=20

4x5=20

4x5=20

Mean score of stress

9.93

7.08

6.86

7.28

8.88

7.54

8.05

6.66

5.64

6.94

Std Dev.

4.183

4.050

4.234

3.904

4.582

3.388

4.266

3.782

4.498

4.181

% Max Score 49.65

35.40

34.30

36.40

44.40

37.70

40.25

33.30

28.20

34.70

Rank

1

6

8

5

2

4

3

9

10

7

Source: Primary Data

From the above table, it reveals that Inter-Role Distance (IRD) factor is the most

important factor because it has the highest percentage of maximum score from

the maximum ORS possible score. Thus it gets Rank 1 indicting the factor which

impacts most on the stress level of bank employees of Barak Valley. The relative

importances of the factors are given in terms of rank no. in the "Rank" Column.

152

KelatOve^Importcunce/ of facton,'.

The higher the standard division of a particular factor indicates greater is the

variation in the impact of the factor from individual to individual and lesser is the

standard deviation of a particular factor indicates lesser in the impact of the factor

from individual to individual. So, the relative importance of the factors causing

different degree of stress, in order of ranks are IRD,REC, RE, RO, RA, RS, Rl,

SRD, RIn and PI respectively.

4.1.2. Important factors causing significant level of stress between

male and female bank employees

For determining important factors causing significant level of stress between

male and female bank employees, Z-test is conducted between the mean scores of

stress of male and female employees for every factor considered for the study.

The null hypothesis for each and every factor is given below.

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of stress

between male and female employees.

Alternative hypothesis: There is significant difference in the mean scores of

stress between male and female employees.

The decision rule will be that if the calculated value of Z (absolute value) > table

value, the null hypothesis will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis is to be

accepted. And if calculated value of Z< table value, the null hypothesis is

accepted. The detail calculations of Z for each factor are given in the appendix-

Ill. Calculated value of Z for each factor and its interpretation are given below.

153

KelatOi/e/Importa^ice^ of fcLCtory.

Table no.- 4.2: Results of Z-test of factors on the scores of stress between male and female employees

Variable

IRD

RS

SRD

RA

REC

RO

RE

RJn

PI

RI

Mean score 10.2

7.09

6.78

7.25

9.3

7.78

8.56

6.89

5.79

7.09

Male

Std Dev, 4.211

4.142

4.084

4.049

4.659

3.457

4.344

3.887

4.69

4.332

N

317

317

317

317

317

317

317

317

317

317

Female

Mean score 8.88

7.01

7.19

7.41

7.23

6.6

6.03

5.75

5.04

6.35

Std Dev. 3.921

3.689

4.795

3.287

3.861

2.932

3.249

3.196

3.612

3.479

N

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

Calculated Vale of Z

2.655

0.169

-0.704

-0.371

4.107

3.105

5.802

6.551

3.232

3.523

Table Value of Zat alpha=5% 1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

Sig

sig

insig

insig

insig

sig

sig

sig

sig

sig

sig

Source: Primary Data 'sig' means significant, 'insig' means insignificant.

The above table reveals that IRD, REC, RO, RE, RIn, PI and RI are important

factors because they cause significant different level of stress between male and

female bank employees.

4.1.3. Important factors causing significant level of stress among

bank employees having different level educational background

For determining important factors causing significant level of stress among bank

employees having different level educational background, F-test (ANOVA) is

conducted amongst the mean scores of stress of employees of different level of

educational back ground for every factor considered for the study.


154

KelatrA/e/ Importcunce^ of foLct&ry.

The null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of

stress of employees of different educational background.

The alternative hypothesis: There significant difference in the mean scores of

stress of employees of different educational background.

The decision rule will be that if the calculated value of F > table value at a= 5%,

the null hypothesis will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis is to be

accepted. And if calculated value of F < table value, the null hypothesis is

accepted.

In other words, if the p-value < .05, the F-value is Significant at a= 5%. Then null

hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. And if P> .05, the

F-value is insignificant at a= 5%. Then null hypothesis is accepted. The details of

F-test for each factor as produced by SPSS are given in the appendix-Ill.

Calculated value of F for each factor and its interpretation are given below.

Table no.- 4.3:Results of F-test on the scores of stress of employees having different educational backgrounds

Vari able

IRD RS SRD RA REC RO RE RIn PI RI

Matriculate Mean

8.6 6.4

8 7.6 10.4 10.8 10.2 7 9 10.2

Std Dev. 7.861 6.189 7.583

4.93 7.765 1.643 0.447 6.595 8.216 7.759

N

5 5 5

5 5 5' 5 5 5 5

Intermediate Mean

10.43 7.38 7.71 7.62 9.95 8.52

8.76 7.1 6.48 8.24

Std Dev. 3.919 4.043 4.209 4.006 4.105 3.124 3.604 4.024 5.134 5.224

N

21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21

Bachelor Mean

10.17 7.07 6.82

7.30 9.20 7.7 8.43 6.61 5.48 7.04

Std Dev. 3.815 4.096 4.105 4.107 4.39 3.205 4.19 3.679 4.252 4.001

N

254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254

Master Mean

9.37

6.06 6.74 7.17

7.94 6.88 6.98 6.67 5.69 6.34

Std Dev. 4.759 3.902

4.381 3.407 4.818 3.724

4.453 3.871 4.699 4.102

N F

1.262

.086

.440

.097 2.656 3.896 3.821 .118 1.286 2.564

Sig

.287

.968 ,725 .962 .048 .009 .010 .950 .279 .054

'sig' means significant

155

UelatOi^e^ Importcuxce' of factory.

Since the P-value of REC is .048 which is less than .05, therefore F value is

significant (i.e. null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted).

Again the P-value of RO is .009 which is less than .05. therefore F value is

significant. Similarly P-value of RE is .010 which is less than .05; therefore F-

value is significant.

Hence the factors REC, RO, and RE are important factors because they cause

significant different level of stress among bank employees having different

educational background.

4.1.4. Important factors causing significant different levels of

stress between officer and clerk employees


officer and clerk employees of banks, Z-test is conducted between the mean

scores of stress of officer and clerk employees for every factor considered for the

study.

The null hypothesis/or each and every factor is given below.

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of stress

between officer £md clerk employees.

Alternative hypothesis: There is significant difference in the mean scores of

stress between officer and clerk employees.



156

Kelatt^e/Importa^ice/ of fouctori'...



III. Calculated value of Z for each factor and its interpretation are given below.

Table no.- 4.4: Results of Z,-test of factors on the scores of stress between officer and clerk employees

Variable

IRD

Rs

SRD

RA

REC

RO

RH

RIn

PI

Rl

Officer

Mean

10.09

6.76

6.35

7.08

8.9

7.14

7.86

6.29

4.89

6.38

Std Dev. 3.975

4.051

3.989

4.054

4.293

3.412

4.405

3.639

3.944

3.869

N

195

195

195

195

195

195

195

195

195

195

Clerk

Mean Dev. 9.77

7.39

7.36

7.48

8.87

7.94

8.22

7.02

6.36

7.48

Std Dev. 4.381

4.035

4.412

3.752

4.858

3.326

4.13

3.892

4.877

8.382

N

202

202

202

202

202

202

202

202

202

202

Calculated value of Z

1.818

-1.559

-2.399

-1.020

0.065

-2.373

-0.841

-1.941

-3.318

-1.689

Table Value of Zat alpha =5% 1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

1.96

SIg

insig

insig

sig

insig

insig

sig

insig

insig

sig

insig

Source: Primary Data 'sig' means significant, insig' means insignificant.

The above table indicates that SRD, RO and PI and are important factors because

they cause significant different level of stress between officer and clerk of

employees of banks.


stress among bank employees of different districts

For determining important factors causing significant level of stress among bank

employees of different districts, F-test (ANOVA) is conducted amongst the mean

scores of stress of employees of different districts for every factor considered for

the study.

157

KelatOi/e/IvriportcLnce^ of fcLCtx>ry.



stress of employees of different districts.

The alternative hypothesis: There significant difference in the mean scores of

stress of employees of different districts.

The decision rule will be that if the calculated value of F > table value at a= 5%,

the null hypothesis will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis is to be


accepted.

In other words, if the p-value < .05, the F-value is Significant at a= 5%. Then null

hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. And if P> .05, the F-

value is insignificant at a= 5%. Then null hypothesis is accepted. The details of

F-test for each factor as produced by SPSS are given in the appendix-Ill.

Calculated value of F for each factor and its interpretation are given below.

Table no.- 4.5: Results of F-test on the scores of stress of employee's different districts

Variable

IRD

RS

SRD

RA

REC

RO

RE

RIn

PI

RI

Cachar

Mean

9.96

7

6.85

6.84

8.6

7.61

7.8

6.67

5.67

6.79

Sfd Dev.

4.341

4.129

4.169

3.655

4.558

3.353

4.203

3.703

4.29

4.064

N

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

Karimganj

Mean

9 85

6.57

6.86

7.43

9.3

7.55

8.23

6.4

5.78

7.26

Std Dev.

3.874

3.647

4.339

3.917

4.579

3.238

3.889

4.104

5.005

4.517

N

94

94

94

94

94

94

94

94

94

94

Hailakandi

Mean

9.89

8.53

6.91

9.43

9.6

7.15

9

7.13

5.19

7.13

Std Dev.

3.979

4.138

4.457

4.51

4.675

3.884

4.179

3.567

4.637

4.158

N

47

47

47

47

47

47

47

47

47

47

F

.027

3.862

.004

9.150

1.440

.372

1.695

.573

.285

.489

Sig (p-value)

.973

.022

996

.000

.238

.689

.185

.564

752

.614

'sig' means significant

158

KelatOiêÎvyiportaîce/ of factory.

The above table depicts that RS and RA are important factors because they cause

significant different level of stress among bank employees of different districts.


stress between employees of private and public sector banks


employees of private and public sector banks, Z-test is conducted between the

mean scores of stress of employees of private and public bank for every factor

considered for the study.



stress between employees of private and public sector banks.

The alternative hypothesis: There is significant difference in the mean scores of

stress between employees of private and public sector banks.





Ill. Calculated value of Z for each factor and its interpretation are given below.

159

TlelcUXA/e/ Importcwoce' of foLctor}^.

Table no.- 4.6: Results of Z-test of factors on the scores of stress between employees

of private and public sector banks

Variable

IRD Rs SRD RA REC RO RE RIn PI RI

Public

Mean

9.84

7.04

6.79

7.36

8.92

7.52

8.19

6.58

5.56

6.97

Std

Dev.

4.097

4.06

4.301

3.942

4.608

3.4 4.317

3.807

4.545

4.264

N

15 15 15 15 15 15 15

15

15 15

Private

WVIean

10.86 7.51 7.57 6.54

8.49 7.74

6.51

7.46

6.46 6.6

Std Dev.

4.959 3.981 3.424 3.450 4.348 3.302 3.39

3.467

3.958 3.219

N

5 5 5 5 5 5 5

5

5 5

Calculatd Vale of Z

-0.415 -0.227 -0.412 0.443 0.188 -0.074 0.474

-0.479

-0.423 0.204

Table Value ofZat alpha =5% 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96

1.96 1.96

Sig

insig insig insig insig insig insig insig

insig

insig

insig

Source: Primary Data 'iitsig' means insignificant.

It is seen from the above table that the calculated value of Z for each of the factor

considered under study is less than the table value of Z at a=5%. Thus, the null

hypothesis for each of the factor is accepted. Therefore, there is not a single

factor of the ten factors under study that cause different level of stress among

employees of public and private sector banks.

4.2. CONCLUSION

The relative important factors causing different degree of stress, in order of ranks

are IRD, REC, RE, RO, RA, RS, RI, SRD, RIn and PI respectively.

The important factors that cause different level of stress among employees of

different genders (i.e. male and female) are IRD, REC, RO, RE, RIn, PI and RI.

The important factors that generate different level of stress among employees of

different educational background are REC, RO, and RE.

160

TlelcUiA/e/ Importcunce/ of fcLctory...

The important factors that cause significant different level of stress between

officers and clerk employees of banks are SRD, RO and PI.

And the important factors that they cause significant different level of stress

among bank employees of different districts are RS and RA. Further, it is found

that there is not a single factor of the ten factors under study that cause different

level of stress among employees of public and private sector banks.

REFERENCES

1. Kaur, N. and Kaur, S. (2009). Occupational stress in relation to

organizational design and hierarchical levels: A study of PSEB, Indian

Management Studies Journal, Vol. 13 (2), pp. 61-70.

2. Pareek, U. (1993). Organizational role stress scale: Manual, Navin

Publications, Ahmedabad.

161

chapter - iv relative importance of factors leading...

Documents