job stress of academia and its effect on …prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/9357/1/m...
TRANSCRIPT
JOB STRESS OF ACADEMIA AND ITS EFFECT ON THEIR
PERFORMANCE IN PUBLIC SECTOR UNIVERSITIES OF
PUNJAB
MUHAMMAD ASIF CHAUDHRY
Roll No.AL 842235
Department of Educational Planning, Policy Studies and Leadership Faculty
of Education
Allama Iqbal Open University
Islamabad
2017
ii
JOB STRESS OF ACADEMIA AND ITS EFFECT ON THEIR
PERFORMANCE IN PUBLIC SECTOR UNIVERSITIES OF
PUNJAB
MUHAMMAD ASIF CHAUDHRY
Roll No.AL 842235
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
(PhD) in Education with Specialization in Educational Planning and Management at the
Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Planning Policy Studies and Leadership
Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad
2017
iii
DEDICATED
To
My deceased parents:
Muhammad Latif Chaudhry & khursheed Bibi
iv
DECLARATION
I, Muhammad Asif Chaudhry Roll No.AL-842235, Registration No: 05-PNL-0349,
Student of Doctorate of Philosophy with Specialization of Educational Planning and
Management at Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, Pakistan. I certify that, thesis titled
“Job Stress of Academia and its effect on their performance in Public Sector Universities of
Punjab” has been written by me. Any help that, I have received in undertaking this research, and
all sources used, have been acknowledge in thesis.
I also certify that this research has not been previously submitted for a degree at any
other higher education institution.
Muhammad Asif Chaudhry
Dated:________________
v
FORWARDING SHEET
The thesis titled “Job Stress of Academia and its Effect on their Performance in
Public Sector Universities of Punjab” submitted by Muhammad Asif Chaudhry, Roll No.AL-
842235, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
in Education, Specialization in Educational Planning and Management (EPM) has been
completed under the supervision of the undersigned. I am satisfied with the quality of research
work.
________________________
Prof Dr. Hamid Khan Niazi
Supervisor
Dated: _________________
vi
FORWARDING SHEET
The thesis titled “Job Stress of Academia and its Effect on their Performance in
Public Sector Universities of Punjab” submitted by Muhammad Asif Chaudhry, Roll No.AL-
842235, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
in Education, Specialization in Educational Planning and Management (EPM) has been
completed under the co-supervision of the undersigned. I am satisfied with the quality of
research work.
________________________
Prof Dr. Nomana Anjum
Co-Supervisor
Dated: _________________
vii
APPROVAL SHEET
Title of thesis: Job Stress of Academia and its Effect on their Performance in
Public sector Universities of Punjab
Name of Student: Muhammad Asif Chaudhry
Roll No. AL842235
Department of Educational Planning Policy Studies and Leadership, Faculty of
Education, Allama Iqbal Open University Islamabad is accepted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Education, with Specialization in
Educational Planning and Management (EPM).
______________________ _______________________
Prof. Dr. Nomana Anjum Prof. Dr. Hamid Khan Niazi
Co-Supervisor Supervisor
Viva Voce Committee
_________________________
External Examiner -1
_________________________
External Examiner-2
_________________________
Chairman
Department of EPPSL
_________________________
Dean
Faculty of Education
Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad.
Dated: __________________
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I am most grateful to Almighty Allah, Who provided me with this
opportunity, ability and enduring patience to learn and to complete an important target in my
career.
I offer my most humble and sincere gratitude to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad
(Peace and blessing of Allah be Upon Him), who with his wisdom encouraged us to acquire
knowledge enabling us to understand the philosophy of life.
As a PhD student, it has been my very great fortune to have enjoyed the support of so
many valued contributors.
To begin with, I am indebted to my supervisor, Professor Dr. Hamid Khan Niazi, former
Chairman and Controller of examinations, AIOU for his professional support, and for the advice
he has provided throughout my study. It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge his guidance,
suggestions, constructive criticism, compliments, incredible patience and assistance offered. I
have been fortunate to have an advisor like him, who gave me the freedom to explore on my own
at the same time his timely guidance to remove flaws in my study.
I significantly appreciate the encouragement and guidance of my co-supervisor, Prof. Dr.
Noumana Anjum, Chairperson, Home and Health Sciences Department, AIOU towards the
completion of this research work. She particularly guided on the relationship of stress among
academia due to working environment.
I would also extend my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Nasir Mehmood, Dean Faculty of
Education, AIOU for his cooperation and moral support in this research study.
ix
I am also thankful to Dr. Afshan Huma, Chairperson Department of Educational Planning
Policy Studies and Leadership, Faculty of Education, AIOU for her guidance, cooperation and
encouragement throughout this research work.
Sincere thanks must also be extended to academia of Faculty of Education of AIOU in
particular to Dr. Fazalur Rehman, Dr. Naveed Sultana, Dr. Muhammad Ajmal Chaudhry, Dr.
Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, Dr. Muhammad Athar Hussain, and Dr. Rahmat Ullaha Bhatti, for
their ongoing support and interest in my study.
I also wish to acknowledge the generosity of my cousin, Chaudhry Jamil Ahmed, CEO,
Spine Engineering who took out his time from his busy days to meet and talk with me. I also
extend my thanks to him for his care and help whenever I needed it like a more than brother.
While PhD students typically work alone, I have enjoyed and benefited from the support of
many departmental and academic colleagues. I particularly offer my thanks to all colleagues and
friends who helped me in data collection and analysis for the present study.
On the home front, this has been a true team effort, and I am thankful to my loving wife,
S. A. Chaudhry (herself is a doctoral student in education) who supported and encouraged me
throughout this study whenever I felt lost. Thanks also to all my brothers, sisters, nephews and
nieces for their prayers for completion of this task.
I am also thankful to all research assistants of seven Universities of Punjab who collected
data at their respective institutions. Without their effective involvement, it was difficult for me to
gather data from each university. My special thanks to Col. Ibrahim (BZU), Dr. Almas Kiani
(PMS-Arid), Mr. Tariq Ghayyur (UOS), Mr. Abdul Rehman (GCUF), Ch. Farrukh Manzoor
(IUB) and Mr. Mudassir Sajjad (UOG) for their support during a formidable task of data
collection.
x
I particularly want to mention my heartfelt gratitude to Syed Aimal Shah, a public servant
currently a director in Peshawar’s FATA Secretariat for his valuable guidance, continued
support, proof reading of the manuscript and expert opinion for this study.
Finally, it would be injustice if I hadn’t mentioned the continued support of my
colleagues of EPPSL Department of AIOU, for their timely intimation on different deadlines of
this research project. I particularly offer my gratitude to Mr. Muhammad Saleem for his
unrelenting care and help whenever I needed it like an elder brother.
In the end, I extend my sincere appreciation to all academia and students who
participated in this study. There are also many friends, colleagues and family members who
contributed for completion of this dissertation, but I could not mention each one of them. They
all deserve my heartiest gratitude.
Muhammad Asif Chaudhry
xi
ABSTRACT
Title: Job Stress of Academia and its Effect on their Performance in Public Sector
Universities of Punjab
Pages: 227
Researcher: Muhammad Asif Chuadhry
Roll No: AL-842235
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Hamid Khan Niazi
Co-Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Nomana Anjum
University: Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad Pakistan
Year: 2017
Discipline: Education with Specialization of Educational Planning and Management (EPM)
Degree: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Education
The study aimed to examine the job stress of academia and its effects on their
performance in public sector Universities of Punjab. The main objectives of the study were to
identify the nature of job stress in academia, to analyze the factors responsible for job stress, and
to explore relationship between job stress and performance. There were six research questions in
this study: i) What are the major indicators of job stress in academia? ii) What are the major
indicators of performance? iii).What is the nature of job stress in academia in public sector
universities of Punjab? iv) What is the level of job stress in academia in Public sector
universities? v) What is the relationship between job stress and demographic characteristics of
academia? vi)What is the effect of job stress on the performance of academia in public sector
universities?
The study was initially planned in nine regions of Punjab namely Rawalpindi, Dera
Ghazi Khan, Multan, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Gujranwala, Sahiwal and Sargodha. One
xii
public sector university from each region with a large number of people was selected as
population. Dera Ghazi Khan and Sahiwal regions were excluded from the study for having no
public sector university. The seven universities representing each region were the population of
the study. These universities were, University of Punjab from Lahore, Bahauddin Zakariya
Univeristy from Multan, PMAS-Arid University from Rawalpindi, University of Sargodha
form Sargodha, University of Gujrat from Gujrat, Islamia University from Bahawalpur and
Government College University from Faisalabad.
To conduct the study, stratified random sampling technique was used. Strata were made
with respect to population of the university from each region. The sample size was determined
by using criteria given in Johnson & Christensen (2000. p 178). Four groups of respondents were
selected, that included academic heads of the universities (Dean, Chair), the academia, students
and Vice Chancellors. A sample out of 373 academic heads, 434 academia, 1008 students and 7
Vice Chancellors were selected randomly from the population. Physical facilities for heads,
academia and students were also verified with checklist.
Review of available literature presented a detailed picture of earlier researches
conducted on different aspects of job stress. After extensive literature review, the researcher
developed a stress inventory for measuring stress of academia, accompanying views of various
experts in the field of education. There was no inventory available for measurement of stress of
academia working in universities. The researcher constructed three inventories for this purpose.
There were sixteen indicators in each inventory with different sub questions. These indicators
were social interaction at work, financial benefits, provision of privacy, communication channel
at work, autonomy of work, quality of work, organizational behavior, flexibility of work,
working condition, official furniture, equipments facility, space organization, personal space,
xiii
individual control, information overload and energy drain. A semi structured interview
technique was used to interview the Vice chancellors. A checklist was used to verify the
physical facilities for academia and their heads.
A collected data with the help of research tools from academia their heads and students
were analyzed. Three statistical techniques (Univariate, Bivariate and Multivariate) were used
for the analysis of data. In univariate analysis classification of data, percentage, mean and
standard deviation were computed. In bivariate analysis, association between job stress,
demographic variables and academia performance was observed with the help of ANOVA. The
multivariate analysis was carried out by using all variables in the linear regression analysis. For
this purpose, regression analysis was applied on two target groups namely head and academia.
The analysis was made by using SPSS version 15. Results were based on quantitative data and
were described in paragraphs.
It was found from the results that autonomy of work, quality of work, flexibility of
work, provision of privacy, communication channel at work, equipment facility and working
environment were job stress indicators of the academia working in public sector universities.
Further, demographic (gender, post, positions, qualification, experience, marital status, age)
variables of academia and their heads working in public sector universities lead towards job
stress. It was concluded from the results that academia job stress is multiple factors constructs,
and these entire factors associated with each other’s. It was also found academia job stress
negatively effect on their performance. It was recommended from results that university as an
organization may conduct need assessment program for academia to explore the causes of their
stress and dissatisfaction.
xiv
LIST OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Rationale of the Study 6
1.3 Statement of the Problem 7
1.4 Objectives of the Study 8
1.5 Research Questions 8
1.6 Significance of the Study 9
1.7 Delimitations of the Study 10
1.8 Limitations of the Study 11
1.9 Definitions of the Terms used in the Study 12
1.10 Abbreviations Used 13
Chapter 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 14
2.1 Academia 15
2.1.1 Role and functions of Academia 16
2.2 Concept of Stress 20
2.2.1 Stress in historical Perspective 22
2.2.2 Nature of Stress 23
2.2.3 Types of Stress 24
2.3 Theoretical Framework 26
2.3.1 Fimian’s Teacher Model 26
xv
2.3.2 Lazarus’s Transaction Model 28
2.3.3 Siegrist’s Effort-Reward Imbalance Model 29
2.3.4 Beehr and Newman’s Facet Model 29
2.3.5 The Person-Environment Fit Model 30
2.3.6 Medical Stress Model 30
2.3.7 Functional Communication Model 31
2.3.8 Stress-Coping Strain Model 31
2.4 Stress at Workplace 32
2.5 University Academia Stress 34
2.6 Symptoms of Academia Stress 36
2.7 Causes or Source of Academia Stress 37
2.7.1 Intrinsic to the Job 39
2.7.2 Role in the Organization 40
2.7.3 Relationship at Work 41
2.7.4 Career Development 41
2.7.5 Organizational Structure and Climate 42
2.7.6 Work – Home Interface 43
2.8 Effects of Stress on Organization 44
2.9 Academia Job Performance 47
2.9.1 Indicators of Academia Performance 49
2.10 Relationship Between Job Stress and Performance of
Academia
54
2.11 Research on Job Stress 55
xvi
2.12 Managing Stress of Academia 58
2.13 Conceptual Framework of the Present Study 59
Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 62
3.2 Design of the Study 62
3.3 Selection of Universities 63
3.4 Population of the Study 64
3.5 Sample of the Study 66
3.6 Instruments and their Development 68
3.6.1 Rational for Research Instrument 73
3.6.2 Validation of Questionnaires 74
3.6.3 Reliability of Questionnaires 75
3.7 Procedure of Data Collection 78
3.8 Statistical Analysis of Data 79
Chapter 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 83
4.1 Academic Heads Response Analysis 84
4.2 Academia Response Analysis 108
4.3 Students Response Analysis 131
4.4 Vice Chancellors Responses Analysis 141
4.5 Physical Facilities Responses Analysis 150
4.6 Bivariate Analysis 154
4.7 Multivariate Analysis 170
Chapter 5 SUMMARY, FINDING, CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION &
RECOMMENDATIONS 190
xvii
5.1 Summary 190
5.2 Findings 193
5.3 Conclusions 206
5.4 Discussion 209
5.5 Recommendations 214
5.6 Suggestions for Further Study 215
REFERENCES 216
xviii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No
Title of the table Page
3.1 No of public sector universities by region in Punjab 69
3.2 Public sector universities by region included in the study 70
3.3 Total number of faculty, department, academia and students 70
3.4 Sampling framework of the population 72
3.5 Stress symptoms of academia and academic heads 77
3.6 Over all Reliability of academic heads 80
3.7 Sub scale Reliability of academic heads 81
3.8 Over all Reliability of academia 82
3.9 Sub scale Reliability of academia 82
3.10 Over all Reliability of students 83
3.11 Sub scale Reliability of academic heads 83
4.1.1 Total number of useable questionnaires of respondents 88
4.1.2 Distribution of academic heads by gender 89
4.1.3 Distribution of academic heads by post 89
4.1.4 Distribution of academic heads by position 89
4.1.5 Distribution of academic heads by qualification 90
4.1.6 Distribution of academic heads by experience 90
4.1.7 Distribution of academic heads by age 90
4.1.8 Distribution of academic heads by marital status 90
4.1.9 Analysis of academia Heads 91
4.1.10 Level of stress 92
4.1.11 Academic heads responses on autonomy of work 93
4.1.12 Academic heads responses on quality of work 94
4.1.13 Academic heads responses on flexibility of work 95
4.1.14 Academic heads responses on organizational behavior 96
4.1.15 Academic heads responses on financial benefits 97
4.1.16 Academic heads responses on Social interaction at work 98
xix
4.1.17 Academic heads responses on provision of privacy 99
4.1.18 Academic heads responses on Communication channel at work 100
4.1.19 Academic heads responses on working condition 101
4.1.20 Academic heads responses on official furniture 102
4.1.21 Academic heads responses on equipment facility 102
4.1.22 Academic heads responses on space organization 103
4.1.23 Academic heads responses on personal space 104
4.1.24 Academic heads responses on individual control 105
4.1.25 Academic heads responses on information overload 106
4.1.26 Academic heads responses on energy draining 107
4.1.27 Responses of academia heads on open-ended questions 108
4.2.1 Total number of useable questionnaires of respondents 109
4.2.2 Distribution of academia by gender 110
4.2.3 Distribution of academia by post 110
4.2.4 Distribution of academia by position 110
4.2.5 Distribution of academia by qualification 111
4.2.6 Distribution of academia by experience 111
4.2.7 Distribution of academia by age 111
4.2.8 Distribution of academia by marital status 112
4.2.9 Analysis of stress symptoms 112
4.2.10 Analysis of stress level 113
4.2.11 Academia responses on autonomy of work 114
4.2.12 Academia responses on quality of work 115
4.2.13 Academia responses on flexibility of work 116
4.2.14 Academia responses on organizational behavior 117
4.2.15 Academia responses on financial benefits 118
4.2.16 Academia responses on Social interaction at work 119
4.2.17 Academia responses on provision of privacy 120
4.2.18 Academia responses on Communication channel at work 121
4.2.19 Academia responses on working condition 122
xx
4.2.20 Academia responses on official furniture 123
4.2.21 Academia responses on equipment facility 123
4.2.22 Academia responses on space organization 124
4.2.23 Academia responses on personal space 125
4.2.24 Academia responses on individual control 126
4.2.25 Academia responses on information overload 127
4.2.26 Academia responses on energy draining 128
4.2.27 Responses of academia on open-ended questions 129
4.3.1 Total number of useable questionnaires of respondents 130
4.3.2 Students responses on attitude/behavior of their academia 131
4.3.3 Students responses on motivation of their academia 132
4.3.4 Students responses on teaching styles of their academia 133
4.3.5 Students responses on creativity r of their academia 134
4.3.6 Students responses on class room participation of their academia 135
4.3.7 Students responses on research of their academia 136
4.3.8 Students responses on campus environment of their academia 137
4.3.9 Students responses on personal characteristics of their academia 138
4.3.10 Students responses on subject mastery of their academia 139
4.4.1 Sample of the Interviewed group 140
4.4.2 Distribution of V.Cs interviewed in the study by gender 141
4.4.3 Distribution of V.Cs by qualification 141
4.4.4 Distribution of V.Cs by experience 141
4.4.5 Distribution of V.Cs by age 142
4.4.6 Distribution of V.Cs by marital status 142
4.4.7 Academia has an access to approach the VC office 142
4.4.8 Academia involvement in decision making 143
4.4.9 Infrastructure effect on performance of academia 143
4.4.10 Lack of coordination with academia and administrative department 143
4.4.11 Responses on lack of workload distribution 144
4.4.12 Responses on autonomy of work to heads of department 144
xxi
4.4.13 Responses on departmental conflict of academia 144
4.4.14 Responses on monitoring and Evaluation system for academia 145
4.4.15 Responses on outside life of academia 145
4.4.16 Responses on differences of opinion 145
4.4.17 Responses on small inconvenience and mistake 146
4.4.18 Responses on facilitation outside of work 146
4.4.19 Responses on rewards and recognition 146
4.4.20 Responses on conflict 147
4.4.21 Responses on HEC criteria 147
4.4.22 Responses on relation with faculty 147
4.4.23 Responses on equal opportunities 148
4.4.24 Responses on accountability system 148
4.5.1 Physical facilities for academic heads in public sector Universities 149
4.5.2 Physical facilities for academia in public sector Universities 150
4.5.3 Physical facilities for students in public sector Universities 151
4.5.4 Miscellaneous Physical facilities in public sector Universities 152
4.6.1 Academic heads bivariate analysis by gender 154
4.6.2 Academic heads bivariate analysis by post 156
4.6.3 Academic heads bivariate analysis by position 157
4.6.4 Academic heads bivariate analysis by qualification 158
4.6.5 Academic heads bivariate analysis by experience 159
4.6.6 Academic heads bivariate analysis by age 160
4.6.7 Academic heads bivariate analysis by marital status 161
4.6.8 Academia bivariate analysis by gender 162
4.6.9 Academia bivariate analysis by post 163
4.6.10 Academia bivariate analysis by position 164
4.6.11 Academia bivariate analysis by Qualification 165
4.6.12 Academia bivariate analysis by experience 166
4.6.13 Academia bivariate analysis by age 167
4.6.14 Academia bivariate analysis by marital status 168
xxii
4.7.1 Diagnostic Collinearity for Academic heads 171
4.7.2 Diagnostic Collinearity for Academic heads 172
4.7.3 Summary of regression analysis of academic heads 175
4.7.4 ANOVA of academic heads 175
4.7.5 Academic heads multiple liner regression Analysis 176
4.7.6 Summary of regression analysis of academia 179
4.7.7 ANOVA of academia 179
4.7.8 Academia multiple liner regression Analysis 180
Histogram , Linear Regression Line and Box
4.7.1 Histogram for Academic heads 173
4.7.2 Linear Regression Line for Academic heads 173
4.7.3 Histogram for Academic heads 174
4.7.4 Linear Regression Line for Academic heads 174
4.7.5 Box representing Academic heads 176
4.7.6 Box representing Academia 179
xxiii
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure No. Title of the Figure Page
2.1 University Academia Duties 18
2.2 Direct Explanation of the Stress and their Effects 26
2.3 Academia Stress Definition Development Issues 35
2.4 Stress Symptoms 38
2.6 Conceptual Framework 47
2.5 Conceptual Framework of the Study 65
3.1 Research Design of the Study 68
4.1 Diagrammatically Explanation of the Variables 182
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Job is a group of homogeneous tasks related by similarity of functions. “Job consists
of duties, responsibilities, and tasks (performance elements) that are (i) defined and specific, and
(ii) can be accomplished, quantified, measured, and rated”. From a wider perspective, a job is
synonymous with a role and includes the physical and social aspects of a work environment.
Often, individuals identify themselves with their jobs or role (university teacher, school teacher,
foreman, supervisor, engineer, etc.) and derive motivation from its uniqueness or usefulness.
Most of the jobs may have stress that varies from mild to high level.
Stress is the body’s reaction of individual that requires a physical, mental and emotional
adjustment or response (Newman, 2012). Stress can come from any situation or thought that
makes feel frustrated, angry, nervous or anxious. It is a situation which happens when individual
realizes the pressure on one or requirements of situation are wider than one can handle, and if
these requirements are huge and continue for a long period of time without any interval, mental,
physical or behavioral disorder may occur (Travers et al., 2013).
Stress is experiencing in different situation and it causes different anxiety, depression
and frustration in the individuals. The frustration leads toward the chronic situation and effect on
the health of individual. Stress is virtually impossible to avoid. Stress is a very natural and
important part of life and that without stress there would be no foremost satisfaction (Curtis,
2011).
Stress is an essential part of life. Stress is experienced by all and the sources of stress may
include the person, family, community and workplace. At times, the stress experienced is brief
2
while at times it continues for a long time. Sometime the experienced stress can be mild but in
difficult situations it can be intense. Whereas, job stress is the study of all those aspects of work
either have or threaten to have bad effects on the organism such as physical properties of
working environments, pollution, extreme heat or cold, humidity, pressure, noise, poor
management relations, demotion, transfer, non-availability of extrinsic (increase pay scale),
conflict with boss or subordinates, ambiguity about job security and many more.
It is concluded that Job stress of worker is a common phenomena now a days. Stress in
the workplace develop imbalance in the healthy life of the worker that effect its health and
performance. It make frustrated and demoralized to the individual and he/she lose a lot of work
hours due to health issues. Job stress is one of the most important workplace health risks for
employees in developed and developing countries. (Pareek & Danna, 2002). Stress concerns
interpersonal relationships at work, such as conflicts with the behavior of supervisors, conflicts
with colleagues, conflicts with subordinates and conflicts with management policies. Job stress is
increasingly becoming an epidemic in the work environment.
University academia is supposed to be responsible to produce quality graduates fit for the
job market (Raza, Majid, et al, 2010) and they can better perform their job if they are exposed to
formal development initiatives taken for enhancing their clinical skill (Raza &Naqvi, 2011).
Although a high level of stress has been observed in teaching generally, the higher education
sector is a relatively new focus of concern. There is strong evidence to believe its workforce
could represent a particularly vulnerable occupation group. There are various causes of
university teacher stress as concluded by the many researchers. These causes are within
profession as; included slow progress in career advancement, poor faculty communication and
personal conflicts. Many of the researchers are identified that workload, role ambiguity,
3
conflicting job demands, frequent interruptions and striving for publications (Goldenburg &
Waddell, 2007).
It is concluded from the above discussion that workplace stress is the biggest problems of
the today world. Majority of the individual feel stress at any cost on their workplace. The
performance of the worker effect in their organization due to stress. Many of researchers pointed
out no worker found without stress at their workplace. It’s the responsibility of the organization
to provide healthy environment for better performance of them.
Job stress can come from a variety of sources and affect people in different ways.
Although the link between psycho-social aspects of the job and health and wellbeing of workers
has been well documented (Allan, 2006), limited work has been done on the effects of distinct
stress on job performance. As well, various protective factors can prevent or reduce the effects of
work stress, and little research has been done towards understanding these mitigating individual
and organizational factors.
Stress affects different people in different ways. The experience of work stress can cause
unusual and dysfunctional behavior at work and contribute to poor physical and mental health.
The work stress on individuals can be observed as:
• Increasingly distressed and irritable
• Unable to relax or concentrate
• Have difficulty in thinking logically and making decisions
• Enjoy their work less and feel less committed to it
• Feel tired, depressed, anxious
• Having difficulty in sleeping
4
• Experience serious physical problems, such as heart disease, disorder of digestive
system, increase in blood pressure, headaches
It is evident from the above discussion that higher levels of stress of academia have
effect on the quality of work. Unhealthy universities do not get the best from their academia and
thus may affect not only their performance in the increasingly competitive market but eventually
even their survival. Their effect would be:
• Increasing absenteeism
• Decreasing commitment to work
• Increasing staff turn-over
• Impairing performance and productivity
• Increasing complaints from students
• Adversely affecting staff recruitment and student enrollments
Stress at work can be a real problem to the university as well as for its academia. Good
management and best practice organizations are the best form of stress prevention. Academia,
who are stressed are also more like to be unhealthy, poorly motivated, less performer and less
safe at work. Their universities are less likely to be successful in a competitive market. Stress can
be brought by pressures at home and at work. University cannot usually protect academia from
stress arising outside of their work place, but they can protect them from stress that arises
through work.
Stress is a big challenge for university academia. University as an organization provide
working environment to their academia to transfer knowledge skill and innovation to their
students. Academia did a lot effort to provide sufficient knowledge and creativity to their
students. It is important that academia workplace is being continuously monitored for stress
5
problems. However, the healthy environment and stress free situation creates for research and
innovation.
Job performance of the university academia is associated with relation of their
colleagues in their respective organization. Academia satisfaction is concerned with the physical
facilities provide to the academia, relation with their colleagues and attitude with the
management (Ahmed & Salam, 2013). It is also evident from the researchers that university
academia are facings problems in the discharge of their duties and under pressure and this effect
on their performance. The present study will investigate the effect of job stress of academia
working in public sector university of Punjab.
Most of the causes of work stress and their effects on performance are the way in which
work is designed. Organization designed the job responsibilities of their worker. The work of the
individual may cause some harms due to nature of its responsibility. Following are the stress
related hazards.
• Job description
• Workload in organization
• Working hours
• Participation and control
• Promotion, status and pay
• Status in the organization
• Mutual cooperation
• Organizational culture
• Homework interface
6
There is need to understand the different indicators of stress in the form of organizational,
physical, social and psychological stress. Productivity and performance of the academia can be
improved and their negative effects of stress converted into positive by its measurement. The
above stated indicators of stress can be controlled and negative effects changed into positive
which would enhance their productivity. This is only possible as “Good management is stress
management” as stated by (Cooper, 2003).
This research is identifying different factors of stress which are directly or indirectly
affecting performance of academia in public sector universities of Punjab.
1.2 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
Keeping in view the previous research and the above introduction, it was felt imperative
to identify job stress of academia and its subsequent effects on its performance in public sector
universities of Punjab, Pakistan.
Growing industrialization and other technical advancements in technology caused an
obvious change in teaching environment. Teaching at university level is a challenging and
demanding job. A fast changing environment surrounding the educational process in present era
demands that academia responds to these challenges in a meaningful way (Shiel, 2013).
However, academia can only meet demands of knowledge sharing when it enjoys a conducive
surrounding. It needs to have a greater reach to resources that could result in a rightful path to
knowledge sharing and to cater to the needs of students.
Across the globe, academia is provided with abundant resources to meet prevalent
demands and performance expected of them. Academia is living in the same society where we
live and it cannot be kept deprived of the comforts we enjoy. It faces the same work pressure,
anxiety, stress, workload, lack of resources, individual differences and working environment as
7
that of the rest of us do. Advancement in the field of science and technology and an ever-
increasing stress in performing assorted roles in different situations have a similar stressful effect
on university academia.
Within the context of job stress, academia has undoubtedly become a subject of major
interest for educationists and policy makers across the world. A few studies on different aspects
of teacher stress have already been conducted in Pakistan. To my knowledge, however, no
research has been conducted to measure the extent of job stress academia faces, and its
corresponding effects on its performance at university level. The causes of job stress of academia
and its effects on their performance, deserves an in-depth study so the ramification is understood
by educationists and policy makers alike. It is therefore imperative to understand the job stress
and its causes to control the negative effects being transmitted to our next generation.
Resultantly, this study has been designed to explore and measure job stress of academia and its
effects on their performance in public sector universities of Punjab, Pakistan.
1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
University academia is a valuable resource as they play a key role in transforming the
lives of their students and make them responsible citizens of the society which results in the
quality of life of the entire society. There is a close relationship among the job, performance and
working environment of the university academia. If their working environment is pleasant, it
would have positive effects on the performance of the university teaching staff. And
simultaneously an unpleasant environment effects negatively to the academia and this create
stress and tension which adversely affect the performance of academia.
Keeping in view this situation the study has been designed to investigate the job stress of
academia and its effect on their performance in public sector universities across Punjab.
8
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objectives of the study were to:
i. Analyze factors responsible for job stress in academia in public sector universities.
ii. Identify the nature of job stress of academia in public sector universities.
iii. Explore a relationship between job stress and performance of academia in public sector
universities.
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Based on the above stated objectives the main research question of the study is to what
extent job stress of academia affects their performance in public sector universities of Punjab?
Following are the specific sub-questions to be added to reach on conclusions:
i. What are the major indicators of job stress in academia in public sector universities of
Punjab?
ii. What are the major indicators of performance in academia in public sector universities of
Punjab?
iii. What is the nature of job stress in academia in public sector universities of Punjab?
iv. What is the level of job stress in academia in public sector universities of Punjab?
v. What is the relationship between job stress and demographic characteristics of academia
working in public sector universities of Punjab?
vi. What is the effect of job stress on the performance of academia in public sector
universities of Punjab?
9
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study has immense significance and importance. Academically, this research study
can contribute its part by adding to the availability of literature and particularly from the
perspective of practical implication. There are so many researches that are done about job stress,
job motivation, job satisfaction, work anxiety, occupational pressure, work pressure and
teachers’ performance but, this research entails the element of specificity as it is conducted
particularly for academia job stress and its effect on their performance in public sector
universities of Punjab. There are only few researches are available on the university teachers and
their job stress. This study is also important and considerable from the aspect of practical
implications as it would provide impetus to the key stakeholder; Vice Chancellors, Deans and
Chairs. Once university managers/administrators have the knowledge and information about
these factors they can take corrective measures to eliminates these factors from the work life of
their academia. Moreover, this study would also provide ideas to the educational managers about
the factors through which motivate their academia. Furthermore, understanding about the job
stress of academia is helpful for the university stakeholder’s usages of motivational factors for
better performance of their academia.
Teaching, as a profession involves a tough working condition which leads toward the
stress. The job of university academia is challenging and demanding as well. University
academia Job is entirely different and more demanding than other teachers as it is much concern
with classroom, office work and research. The job of academia is also very important as other
profession. Throughout the world the academia has less resources as compared to their highly
demand of their job. This research study helps academia to control their job stress while knowing
about all the job stress factors.
10
This study may also immense interest and value for the academia as well as the deans,
chairs and Vice Chancellors for the deeper understanding of nature and levels of job stress of
academia working in public sector universities of Punjab. This is also helpful for the stakeholder
of the university to improve the performance of the academia by controlling different factors
responsible for job stress. Further, the said research also provides opportunities for developing
positive relationship among faculties of public sector universities. This positive relationship is
also helpful for the better performance of the academia at their workplace. The findings of the
study explore the job stress indicators of the academia. This study also opens new avenues for
researchers conducting in this field of education.
The findings of this research are helpful for the academia their heads and
prospective academia of universities while having the knowledge of job stress. It is also helpful
for the academia to control the stressful situation for better performance. This study is helpful for
policy makers and educational planners. It provides guidelines to educational managers for
completion of tasks assigned to academia of universities. It may also help the management as
well as academia to control their work stress and enhance their performance without any effect
on their health and well-being.
1.7 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Considering the time and resources, this study was delimited to:
i. Main campuses of the public sector universities of Punjab Province.
ii. Only public sector universities of the Punjab providing general education to their
students.
iii. One university with largest population from each region.
iv. The academic sessions from 2013 to 2015.
11
1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
No study is perfect as regarded; each study may have some deficiencies. This study also
has some limitations:
i. Writing dissertation in English is difficult for individual whom mother language is not
English. Therefore, written expression of this dissertation job stress of academia and its
effect on their performance may not be outstanding.
ii. The sample of this study was more than the required size of any research study. However,
the researcher takes only one university from the one region of the Punjab.
iii. Another limitation of the study that researcher could not added a women university in the
study as researcher opted one university from one region with large population.
iv. There is no universal standard for measuring stress and it is difficult to develop consensus
among various authors. The research tool used in this study was developed by the researcher
with the help of experts in this area. However, despite the careful measurement of job stress
of university academia, it may have some shortcomings.
v. In this descriptive type study, as the respondents were in four groups, therefore the researcher
compiled to use more close ended questions than open ended, However, the open-ended
suggestions also obtained from the respondents.
vi. The population of the study was spread over vast area, even after adopting proper sampling
procedure the researcher has to cover less area (one third) himself directly and remaining
from other’s help and cooperation of research assistants.
12
1.9 DEFINITION OF THE TERMS USED IN THE STUDY
The following terms are used in the study:
Job A task or piece of work, especially one that is paid demanding
circumstances.
Job Stress It can be defined as the harmful physical and emotional response
that occurs, when requirements of the job do not match capabilities,
resources, or needs of the academia.
Performance The action or process of performing a task or function.
Academia The environment or community concerned with pursuit of research,
education and scholarships.
Public Sector The part of an economy that is controlled by the state
University A high-level educational institution in which students study for
degrees and academic research is done.
Indicators A device providing special information on the state or condition of
something.
Organization An organization is a group of people with a particular purpose, such
as a business or government department.
13
ABBREVIATIONS USED
BZU Baha-ud-din Zakariya University
CC Communication Channel
ED Energy Drain
EF Equipment Facility
FB Financial Benefits
FW Flexibility of Work
GCUF Government College University, Faisalabad
GCU Government College University
IC Individual Control
IO Information Overload
IUB Islamia University Bahawalpur
JS Job Stress
OB Organizational Behavior
PBUH Peace Be Upon Him
PMAS-Arid Phir Mehar Ali Shah Arid University
PP Provision of Privacy
PS Personal Space
PU Punjab University
QW Quality of Work
SI Stress Indicator
SIW Social Interaction at Work
SO Space Organization
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
UOG University of Gujrat
UOS University of Sargodha
WC Working Condition
14
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter contains discussion on related literature for the purpose of review of
different material i.e. Government documents, books on the subjects of stress, encyclopedia
reports of different national and international organizations on job stress of academia, research
paper and other material from internet were consulted on job stress of academia. The main
objective of the study was to have latest knowledge pertaining to the study and go through
different studies on various aspects of stress of the academia. The main points of the literature
review are organized as follows:
i.) Academia: Role and function of academia
ii.) Stress: Concept, Stress in historical perspective, Nature, types, theoretical framework
iii.) Job stress: Stress at work place, University academia stress,
iv.) Symptoms and Causes: Symptoms/Sign of stress, Causes or source of stress, effect of
stress on organization
v.) Performance: Academia performance, Indicators of performance, academia Job
performance
vi.) Relationship and Managing stress: Relationship between job stress and performance of
academia, Research studies of job stress, managing stress of academia
vii.) Conceptual framework of the study
2.1 ACADEMIA
Academia is a person who is engaged by an educational institution to instruct others. In
15
the society and educational system roles of academia and behavior of academia are continuously
revolving. The role of a competent academia is to transmit knowledge, culture, skills and
improve the performance of students (Hassan, 2007).
According to Liakapolou (2011) that academia are those individuals who have the true
spirit of teaching while using various methods and provide different incentives to their students
to learn through participation. Academia tests their learning capacity by testing their mental
captivity. Academia use dialectical approaches like using various aids, pictures and tools to teach
them in a systematic way and also take steps to increase their abilities of learning. The academia
sets a criterion to estimate the learning capacities of students and assign the task accordingly.
The effective factor of teaching is to know the capacity of students and motivating student for
learning.
According to Duffy et al., (2005) academia is not only to disseminate information and
maintain order of students where students need an influential peer group to increase their
capabilities and they also need to learn more skills and seek more knowledge and find new
horizons. In the past the academia had to develop their skills and arrange their aspiring logical
material. Presently all the academia has to develop sophisticated efforts in order to prepare
themselves to teach the students technologically.
Academia is the pillar of every higher educational institution and only success of the that
institution possible with the help of them (Ballantine & Spade, 2007). The nation can only be
progress with the help of innovation and research and that only be possible with the help of
academia. The progress of a nation is a reflection of the quality of its people modeled by
academia for being the source of inspiration and guidance in their academic life. Academia
plays a significant role in the conduction of research for new innovation.
16
As per, Sajad et al., (2011) academia use teaching material and seeking technologies
pertinent to age, requirements and proficiencies of class. Proficient academia use strong and
cohesive skills and information which they construct for better and effective tutoring.
Technology is new dimension for research in disseminating information and teaching ideals
propose that in the long run an academia adopt the skills. Academia should design and develop
strategies and operative assessment tool of curriculum. The proficient organizers of the
educational institutions are instructors. They are philosophical experts, professionals dedicated to
lifetime learning and direct course content to students. They evaluate competencies of students;
know the methods of assessing their competencies, operative responses provided by them and
know the methods of improvement of system. The competencies of classroom are related to
educational quality.
2.1.1 Role and Function of Academia
Academia is the most significant factor in teaching learning process. He encourages
students to pursue knowledge for the improvement of their personality and social and economic
growth. Academia is a leader, friend, coach, mentor, actor and motivator for their students. A
university academia acts as administrator, guide, curriculum developer, counselor, evaluator,
disciplinarian, custodian, examiner, advisor and researcher etc. (Shah, 2009).
Guasch et al., (2006) described the role of academia surely associated with the character
and performance by the academia in making the learning more efficient. The university academia
must contain competencies and ensure more effective learning skills among the students. The
criterion of university academia must be defined and guideline should be given in order to ensure
the quality Education in the university classroom. The quality of academia is the source to
generate knowledge and competence in their learner for quality education.
17
As per Dodge (2000) mentioned the composite and varying characteristics of role of
academia and plans that they need to enhance and absorb their professional process more
efficiently and acutely. The academia must come to analyze their competencies and make
improvements if they found it necessary for their development. They have to be competent for
leading and upholding their development in profession for different conditions of learning. The
academia must improve their knowledge for their professional practices and add the existing
body of knowledge through research and development. It demonstrates that learning anywhere
can add the knowledge but there needs an active learning for academia which they transmit to
their students and the chain goes on.
In the present scenario the communication technologies have minimized the concept of
traditional teaching and change its facilitator/ instructor but not fully abolished. The academia
teach the students as in the conventional setting and even at the present times but academia needs
to be an advance learner to explore and evaluate the practices through research and bring them
into the contact of students with new skills and horizons. Such practice, not only, have impacts
upon the lives of academia but also development of students with new angles is achieved.
As per HEC report (2007) the university faculty performs following responsibilities,
while working in their respective institutions as:
Research and Development Teaching activities Teaching Development
• Participation in academic
conference
• Participation in evaluation team
• Research paper publication
• Administration activities related to
research.
• Organization, editing of research
journal and collection of articles
• Organization of conference
• Applying for research and
development funding
• Class room teaching
• Consultation of students
• Advising of students
• Supervision of students
(Master, M.Phil, Ph.D )
• Student assessment
• Administration of
entrance Examination
• Practical learning reports
• Preparation for classes
• Creation of study and
teaching aids
• Syllabus and curriculum
design
• Member of academic
decision body
• Participation in the work
of academic and
administrative bodies and
committees outsides the
university.
18
Figure 2.1 University Academia Responsibilities
University faculty plays significant role in the improvement of knowledge, development
of knowledge and innovation, in addition to education, research and training. Teaching at
different levels from primary to higher Educational institution is one of the most respectable and
significant profession in all over the World. Teaching is the base and central hub of any
profession. No profession is to complete without passing through the teaching learning process.
University academia plays very important role for the personality development and training of
their students.
Teaching, as a profession involves a very tough routine in the form of research and
innovation that lead toward the stress. The job of academia is both demanding and challenging.
University academia Job is entirely different and more demanding than other teacher as it is
much concern with classroom, office work and research. As so many other professions, have
less challenges as compare to the teaching. In many parts of the world, academia is suffering the
of physical facilities and other resource that required to fulfill their workplace demand. The long
hours at work (as they supervise students’ projects, evaluate students’ work, prepare lessons and
conduct the examination) and their own research publication for their promotion, coupled with
pressures of their job environments eventually lead to debilitating health problems (Wang, 2009).
Furthermore, the problems and hazards of society and particularly education and system is
aggravating factors that may cause, and as a consequence, academia may prone to experience
stress.
Now a day the job of the university faculty has becomes challenging and task oriented.
This makes the stress to the job of academia working in the faculty. It’s a big challenge for the
policy maker, educationist and administration of the university to control the job stress factors.
19
Teaching has many internal and external factors of stress that effect on the performance of the
academia working in this area. However, teaching is not without its inherent problems.
Problems associated with job related stress remain at the top of many academia lists. The wealth
of research published on academia stress has indicated that it is the number one health problem
amongst academia (Famine & Fastenau,1984). Historically, the duties and responsibilities of
academia have been viewed as demanding. Duties such as curriculum development, research
publication, decision making on administrative and academic matter, managing student research
work and assignment, managing student assignment, teaching new course and interacting with
other academia have continued to increase in both complexity and accountability. All these
situation and work demand can produce and stressful situation for academia.
It’s the right time to take decisions about the solution of the job stress of the academia
working in public sector universities of Pakistan Now a days the problems, nature of work and
stress of academia has been recognized. It’s also facts that academia is not enjoying their status
in the universities due to stress.
2.2 CONCEPT OF STRESS
Stress word derived from the Latin word “Stringer” meaning to draw tight. There are
many definition of the stress word that varied, from simple to one word statement such as
tension, pressure and physiological response of the human body to certain stimuli.
According to Matteson (2003) found that stress has different meanings to different
people. As per lay person’s perspective, stress can be described as feeling worried, anxious and
tense. Scientifically it has been proved that there are so many factors that are the responsible of
the job stress of the academia working in the universities. There is a general consensus of the all
20
individuals about that stress causes positive or negative effect on the performance of the teacher
in the educational institutions.
The physiological and psychological reaction of the events and situation is called stress.
This situation is called or considered the stressors (NIOSH, 2010).
According, to Davis (2002), Stress is the general terminology applied to the pressures, of
the people in their life.
As per, Snell (2004) stress is any physical, mental and emotional demands that require
adaptive skill.
Stress is dynamic state whereby the masses are faced with an opportunity, obstacle, and
constraints or demand regarding what one desires and the implications are considered too
uncertain terrifying and important. (Robbins, 2004)
Stress is complex pattern of emotional states, physiological reactions and related thoughts
in response to external demands. (Baron, 2000)
It is concluded from the above concept of the stress, that any physical and emotional
response which occurs dud the mismatch of the capabilities of the individuals. It may lead
toward the poor health Position of the individuals.
The terminology of the job stress is often mix with the other terminology of the
psychology. Theses motivate the learner to explore more and more path in this regarding the
situation. Challenges enhanced the capacity of the individuals in the form of skill, knowledge
and confidence. The importance of challenges in our work lives is probably what people are
referring to when they say “a little bit of stress is good for you” (NIOSH, 2012)
It may be concluded from above discussion that, stress can means different things to
different people. Stress can be causes negative effect on some individual and threaten to them,
21
while it can add excitement and challenges to others lives.Furthermore, stress define mismatch
between the demand place and the way individual handle it. It can have negative and positive
effects on the individuals.
Positive stress motivates individual to get things done those important for him/her.
However, negative stress when individual constantly feel pressurized by too many demands.
Everybody has demands placed on them and they come from their work, being unemployed,
from relationship, financial problem, deadlines, illness etc. often individual deals with major
changing like, job, home, married or passing with the death of love one. The way individual cope
with these demands will depends on the personality pervious life experiences and thinking.
It is concluded form the above discussion that stress is not simple a workplace or
environmental stimulus or response to demand, but a dynamic relational concept. There is
constant interplay between the person and the environment, which is mediated by a complex set
of ongoing cognitive processes that causes stress.
2.2.1 Stress in Historical Perspective
In the past Hans Selye (1981) developed the scientific usage of stress. According to that
phenomenon, stress is the condition or state of mind when one reacts to environ. He is also
known as father of stress. His theories of universal non-specific stress response are of great
value in the academic circle in Psychological and elsewhere.
Stress terms used in large context in the early fifty. It is semi-psychological term,
always refers to hardship and coercion. In Middle English destress, in Latin stringer-to draw
tight. Physics describes stress as the force applied on a physical body producing strain. During
the year 1920s and 1930s, stress is used in psychological circle; here it is mental strain or
22
unwelcome happenings. The advocate of holistic medicine refers stress to harmful environmental
agents, the implication of which is illness.
A number of researches have been conducted during 1960s and in the early 1970s to
develop link between the stress and diseases of various kinds and decline of individual
performance. To better address the critical issues of stress, research on stress in medical circle
has become a focal point during the recent years. (Rubina, 2004)
In the era of 1990s, job stress has become significant segment of social science. The
major focuses were on the job stress, its effect and work environment and find the way to stress
out.
As cited by Rubina (2004) historical review of stress literature noted that despite the lack
of acoxgreement in the definitions of stress, the term was widely used in academic, clinical and
lay settings. The literature review showed that there exist various classes of definitions
(Cox,1978; Lazarus, 1984; McGrath, 1976). Classically, theories of stress have also been
partitioned into three types, i.e, stimulus oriented, response oriented, and interactional or
transactional theories (Coyne; Lazarus; & Holroyd; Stotlan, as cited in Sarafino, (2005).
It is concluded from the above discussion in the view of historical perspective of the
stress, it’s the individual internal and external characteristics that lead toward the stress.
However, in history these terms used in different scenario for different aspect of the subjective
knowledge.
2.2.2 Nature of Stress
Every individuals believes that stress is multi constraint phenomena and it cannot be
viewed. According to Bowing and Harvey (2001) stress only be possible due to the interaction of
the individual due to their environment. Normally Stress is caused due to following as:
23
disequilibrium of the individual with their society. This may causes anxiety to the individual due
to these differences of the society. It is evident from the result of so many researches that
average employee loses about sixteen working days in a year due to stress in their life.
Blumenthal (2003) viewed that stress as mental phenomena that upset individual ability
to maintain within acceptable limit. It is associated with the experienced of the people with their
life as bad or pleasure moments. These moments give feeling some time bad and some time
excitement to the individual for their upcoming experience of the life. It is not necessary that bad
feeling give stress to the individual sometime the pleasure feeling also effect on the individual.
It is more evident from the result that unsatisfactory situation and bad experienced make the
individual stressful for the whole life. This situation converted into the different form of the
stress for the individual.
Blumenthal (2003) differentiated different effects of stress as follows:
Nature Effects
Subjective The subjective form of the stress leads toward the following as it may
cause anxiety, depression or frustration to the individual.
Behavioral This type of the stress effect on the behavioral aspect of the individual
like forgetfulness and impaired speech.
Cognitive This type of the stress is concern with the cognitive effect on the
individual in the form of the hypersensitivity.
Physiological The stress in the nature of psychological form pointed out the effect on the
brain of the individual. This is directly concern with the pituitary gland of the
individual. This may be effect on the brain of the individual in long term may
convert toward the psychological phase.
24
Health This is concern with the health of the individual as long term effect of
the stress effect on the health. This may cause different serious types
of disease like migraines, heart failure etc.
Figure 2.2 Direct explanation of nature and effect of stress
2.2.3 Types of Stress
There are four types of Stress according to (Taylor, 2001)
2.2.3.1 Chronic Stress
In this type of stress individual health started down day after day and year after year. It
effects at both emotional and physical health and leading to breakdown and even death.
2.2.3.2 Acute Stress
Acute is the one of the most important form of the stress. In this form of the stress the
individual knows about the causes and phenomena of the stress. It might be the one of the sad
incident of the life as lose of some love one or the accident which effect the individual in the
form of cognition. This type of the stress effect on the individual behavior and attitude. They
behave with different way in their normal life. In this form of the stress individual need the rest
to retain their position.
2.2.3.3 Traumatic Stress
This is one of the very important types of the stress that causes due to some natural
disaster. These disaster effects in long term on the life of the individual. In this form the
individual shock type of stress results from a catastrophic events or intense experience such as a
natural disaster, life-threatening accident. Here, after the initial shock and emotional fallout,
25
many trauma victims gradually begin to recover. These effect in form of long term so they
causes trauma situation. After this if they scene again these they sudden felt the shock of the
same their lives. This form is known as trauma stress.
2.3.3.4 Episodic Acute Stress
In such type of stress individual experiencing as lives are very chaotic, out of control and
they always seem to be facing multiple stressful situation. The victims of such types of the stress
always remain in hurry and mentally busy in multiple task. They are actual habitual in their life
and it continue with their life till death.
It is concluded from the above discussion that there are so many other types of stress
instead of above mentioned. These are frustration it may occur in life due to some long term
effect. Frustration occurs due to long term failures in practical life of any individual. Failure or
loss develop highly frustration in the behavior of individual. Internal conflict generates
considerable psychological distress. (King & Emmons, 1991).
Pressure involves expectations or demand to behave in a certain way. Professor at
research institutions are often under pressure to publish their research work in prestigious
journals. Pressures to conform to others expectations are also common in our lives. Weiten
(2008) has devised a scale to measures pressures as a form of life stress. He assesses self-
imposed pressure, pressure from work, from school, from family relation, peer relation and
pressure from intimate relation. He found a strong relationship between pressure, psychological
symptoms and problems.
2.3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Theoretical framework is also an important factor of each research study. It provides a
solid base for expanding a specific phenomenon and helps the researcher to confirm their
26
empirical research work on the basis of this information. Present study of job stress of academia
and its effect on their performance in public sector universities of Punjab. The present study has
its roots in the following work place model because these models link various explanatory
variables of the study to the status of the job stress of academia. Person-environment fit,
karasek’s Demand –Control, Siegrist Effort-reward imbalance, Beehr and Nawman , Lazarus’s,
Medical Model, Functional Communication model and Fimian stress models are being discussed
in this section.
2.3.1 Famine’s Stress Model
This model is related to the teacher stress. According to Famine there are ten factors
which responsible for the teacher. Five related to the source of work stress and five manifestation
of stress. All these factors are interlinked with each other’s.
Teacher stress is also related to the environment and perception of the individuals.
Teacher personal and professional variables such as teacher age, gender , qualification, post,
position, number of student and experience are effect on his/her level of stress. Famine’s (1984)
also further describe that frequency with which stressful incidents occurs and the strength of their
occurrence varies from teacher to teacher. Fimian describes the following factors of stress as:
i. Time Management
ii. Work-Related Stressors
iii. Professional Distress
iv. Professional Investment
v. Motivation and Discipline
vi. Emotional Manifestations
vii. Fatigue Manifestation
27
viii. Cardiovascular Manifestations
ix. Gastronomical Manifestations
x. Behavioral Manifestations
Time Management factors refer to the problem in managing time and deadlines by the
teachers. Many researchers identify time management as a source of stress for the teacher. It is
pointed out that work place stress may be the overload, time management and deadlines.
Professional distress is comprised the professional variable such as: Lack of promotion
opportunity, Lack of reward and recognition, Lack of physical facilities and low salary.
Discipline and motivation is also pointed out as a source of stress by many research studies.
Famine (1984) stress in teacher has been found to have a variety of manifestations. These
manifestations can be at behavioral physical and emotional levels. These manifestation such as
unable to cope, depressed, fatigue, sleeping more than usual and feeling insecurity.
So many studies investigated the association between the various occupational stress and
that lead toward the stress i.e., Psychological, physiological, and behavioral.
2.3.2 Lazarus’s Transaction model
This model pointed out the relationship between the environment and well-being.
(Lazarus,1984). This model identified theories of generalize to the group of employees.
Lazarus’s this model identifies stressful condition and how the stressor are cognitively appraised
by the individual (i.e.)
i. Are the stressor viewed as threating?
ii. Do the stressors produce negative responses?
28
It is also revealed that individual cope stress at their work place. For example, workers differ
with each other in duties and target of their deadlines by managing them. The capabilities are the
individual difference those lead toward the stress.
2.3.3 Siegrist’s Effort-Reward Imbalance Model
There was another model regarding work stress or job stress is known as Siegrist’s
Effort-Reward imbalance model. This model, suggested that job stress occurs where there no
reward of the individual efforts. (Vagg & Spielberger, as cited in Rittmayer, 2001) according to
this model when there is no appreciation and rewards of the employees efforts. He/she feel
stressed and demotivated from the work. Application of this model required both management
and individual characteristics explorations.
2.3.4 Beer and Newman’s Facet model
Beer and Newman (2002) proposed a model of the work stress process. As per this
model work place stress can be broken into various categories of facets.
i. Personal Facets: It refers to the characteristics of the individuals that employee with
them e.g., demographic and personal characteristics etc.
ii. Environment Facets: This type of facets identify the confrontation of employee with
environment e.g., characteristics of work, nature of job etc.
iii. Process Facets: This type refers to the interaction of person and situation. This is the
point where a person perceive work environment as stressful or not.
iv. Time Facets: It refers to the exhibit that processes of individual perception of stressor in
the environment are embedded with temporal.
29
It is concluded form the above facets that all these individual, environment and perception of
the individual are associated with each other. After the environment is perceived as stressful,
there may be a variety of consequences for both individual as well as for organization.
2.3.5 The Person-Environment Fit Model
According to Lewin (1947) believed that human behavior is an interaction between
person and situation characteristics. These models identify the situation with the work
environment and interaction of the individual. If there is lack between the interaction of the
individual and the environment such types of phenomena created. Occupational stress or strain
results from interaction of an employee and his or her workplace; in other words, the degree of
fit between a worker and his or her job determines the existence of job stress. Two types of
interaction, or degrees of fit, are explored when assessing occupational stress:
i. Interaction between outcomes of job and need of the person.
ii. Relationship between the demand and requirement of the job and the skills and
abilities of the worker.
Person-environment fit theory to the study of workplace stress has spurred the creation of
numerous, related measures of job characteristics, individual traits, and job satisfaction and job
performance. (Schaubroeck & Ganster, 2000).
2.3.6 Medical Model of Stress
This model identified the personality and organizational factors are the major culprits of
occupational stress. Medical model of stress take mediator as stress reactivity. Personality has
been considered a major mediator of stress reactivity; although certain events are regarded as
normatively stressful, sensitivity to stress varies between individuals. Individual with different
personalities respond similarly to physical threats, but different responses to ego threats are
30
related to personality differences (Eysenck, 1988). Most theories of occupational functioning
agree that personality makes significant contributions to performance and wellbeing, while
acknowledging the relationship between personality and environment factors.
Personality traits may be fixed to some extent, but their place in the system as
antecedents or consequences will depend on the nature of the interaction between individual and
environmental systems, and to any changes that may occurs within that system. Cooper (2000)
categorized six groups of organizational variables that may cause stress in the workplace. There
are as:
i. Factors intrinsic to the job includes, heat, noise, chemical fumes and shift work.
ii. A relationship at work includes conflict with coworkers or supervisors and lack of social
support.
iii. Role in an organizations and role ambiguity.
iv. Career development lack of status, lack of prospects for promotions, lack of career path
and job insecurity.
v. Organizational structure and climate include lack of prospects for promotion, lack of
opportunity to participate in decision making, lack of control over the pace of work.
vi. Home and work interface includes conflict between domestic and work roles, lack of
spousal supports for remaining in the workforce.
There is a complex relationship between occupational, organizational factors and psychological
characteristics.(Appelberg, Romanov & Kosdenvuo,2001).
2.3.7 Functional Communication Model
Toohey (1995) gave model of functional communications, in this model at workplace
may be expressed through ill behavior that is assessed as a safe and acceptable manner to
31
communicate distress. These issues must bring under discussion that how one can be safe and
secure at their work place. This is also most important to keep special need of the individual
health at workplace
2.3.8 Stress-Coping Strains Model
Osipow and Spokane gave stress-coping strain model. An important feature of this model
is it incorporates much strength of the earlier models. This model focused on three separates but
related domains e.g. job stress, job strain and coping resources available to counter the effects of
job stress. This model observes that the workers in any occupations might occupy a variety of
social roles, which may causes stress (Osipow & Spokane,1983).
On the basis of these model researcher developed their inventory of the stress for the
academia. The framework of these models provided situational, environmental, organizational
and individual characteristics for the present study. On the basis of these models, sixteen factors
of job stress as, Autonomy of work, Quality of work, Flexibility of work, Organizational
behavior, Financial benefits, Social Interaction at work, Provision of Privacy, Communication
Channel at work, working condition, Official furniture, Equipment facility, Space organization,
Personal Space, Individual control, Information overload and Energy draining.
These sub-scales further have sub items related to stress of the individual working in Public
sector Universities. These sub-scale further have as decision making, research publication,
promotion, injustice, internal conflict, lack of empowerment, overwork, Reward and recognition,
unable to use expertise, performance evaluation, new technology, teaching of new course,
contractual appointment, lack of physical facility and unbiased while writing performance report
of staff. These individual, social and organizational factors lead toward the stress.
32
2.4 WORKPLACE STRESS
Stress is a part of everyday life of all individual. Life stressors are as making money,
caring of others and meeting goals effect on the mental and physical health of every individual.
Rittmayer (2001) describes the emotional stresses as:
i. Time stress: Pressure of doing things before certain time.
ii. Anticipatory stress: This type of stress is about the worry of the individual
about events.
iii. Situational stress: Fear of finding one’s self in a situation posing threat, loss of
control, or loss of status in the eyes of others
iv. Encounter stress: Anxiety about dealing with people one finds difficult or
unpleasant.
However, jobs have always been to be at least a little stressful, including those emotional
stresses, the workplace has become increasingly stressful over the last twenty years. As
described by the Zaccaro (2002), job stress is not all bad or all good. Both boredom and burnout
undermine job performance and satisfaction.
The stress at workplace has gained much importance in the interests of stress researches
in the recent era. As per Beer and Newman (2012) Workplace stress is an emotional state that
people experience in situations where individual perceive an imbalance between the demands
place and their ability to cope these demands National Institute of Occupational safety and Health
(NIOSH, 2001) has more specifically defined work- related stress, as the harmful physical and
emotional responses that occur when the requirements of the job do not match the resources,
capabilities or needs of the individuals. Furthermore, it can be defined as the emotional,
33
cognitive, behavioral and physiological reaction to aversive and noxious aspects of work, work
environments and work organizations.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE,2005) defined work related stress as the reaction
individual have to excessive pressure and demand arising when individual try to cope the tasks.
It also defines that pressure of the completion task leads toward the stress. Workplace stress or
occupational stress is the result of the interaction between an individual and their work
environment. An individual psychologically and physically stressed when he/she don’t have the
ability to manage or complete his/her task with framework of time. Stressors can be of several
types. Stressors can also arise out of excessive work demands such as unrealistic deadlines, and
can arise out of personal factors such as health status, relationships ability to cope with difficult
situations etc.
Occupationally related stressors tend to vary from individual to individual, job to job and
from organization to organization. These stressors divided into three classifications.
i. Wide variety of job: This group includes issues regarding customer demands, time
constraints, and ineffective training.
ii. Wide variety of organization: This group includes related to absence of support from
organizational supervisor, Noncompetitive wage structure, poor job description, and
ineffective organizational motivational strategies.
iii. Interdepartmental activates: This group includes issues such as poor cooperation,
organizational environment and internal conflict etc. (Ganster, 2001).
34
2.5 UNIVERSITY ACADEMIA STRESS
University as organization provides the new knowledge and skills to their students. This
innovation is only possible with the help of academia. Stress is the part and parcel of the
reflection of the individual with their workplace (Pitchers, 2005).
There are four major issues concerning to the development of a definition of academia
stress. These are as:
First issue Academia stress term refer to the level of demand made on the
academia. It also reflects the emotion and feelings of the academia.
Second issue Stress may be positive and negative in any of the individual.
Third issue Academia emotional responses to their situation very much depend on
their perception of situation and their coping ability.
Fourth issue The balance between the levels of demands made on academia, or the
academia ability to meet such demands.
Figure 2.3 Academia stress definition issues
There are so many adequate definition of the stress of the academia exists in the
literature. Academia stresses as a negative psychological state that effect on the cognition of the
academia. Furthermore, academia stress is an experience of unpleasant emotions by the academia
resulting from aspects of the academia’s job, which are perceived by him or her as threat to
psychological and physical well-being.
University faculty plays a significant role in the improvement and developments of
knowledge and innovations, in additions to education and training. Fast changing educational
process in present society affecting educational process and teacher has to respond to both the
demand of knowledge as well as the needs of the society meaningfully. Understanding and
35
coping with the new trends in the educational system. Moreover, the increase in the body of
knowledge in each discipline poses an important challenge on how to encapsulate such enhanced
knowledge in a meaningful manner. A teacher has to find the right type of knowledge mix to
cater the needs of the students. The pressure related to human life are cropping up day by day,
society is changing abruptly the life style, modes, ways, relationship, and other psychological
variable that have increasing effects on teaching profession at University level consequently
teaching becomes a profession with complex work environments that leads to occupational role
stress (Varma, 2008).
A teacher has to live the same society in which people belonging to other professions
are living. Like others, he/she too lives in modern age, facing pressure, stress, strain , anxiety ,
burnout and less committed because of the working environment and individual difference. In
fact, due to advancement in the field of science and technology and ever- increasing pressure to
perform different roles in different situations, the present day teacher finds himself or herself
more worried and tense. Facets of performance, such creativity, classroom management and
implementation of educational techniques may suffer when teachers experience high level of
stress (Parsed, 2000).
In the past University, teaching was regarded as a low stress occupation. Although not
highly paid its comparison to her professionals in the commercial sector. People in the other
professions have envied them for their tenure. Light workload, flexibility, benefits such as
overseas trips for study or for the conference purpose and freedom to pursue their own has
increased .unproductive level of stress might be harmful to teachers and can affect their teaching.
As human beings are complex and diverse in nature and awareness of human resources is
very useful for perfect management, best place to knowing employee’s needs. Working
36
condition, and the gives a vision upon which a plan for professional or personal development
can be created. In order to become more aware of human resources, an understanding is required
in many psychological areas.
2.6 SYMPTOMS OF ACADEMIA STRESS
Stress response can vary, both between individuals and over time. Different individuals
may primarily experience physical symptoms whereas others may experience psychological
disturbance (Education Commission advisory committee, 2002). Brown and Ralph (2002)
describe the stress symptoms of academia as:
2.6.1 Performance at Work: Performance at work place mean to inability manage deadline,
concentration.
2.6.2 Relationship with Colleagues: These are the symptoms of the faculty at work place as:
irritation, aggression, introverted, inability to relate to colleagues, unwillingness to cooperate,
frequent irrational conflicts at work, inappropriate humor, de-motivation and withdrawing from
supportive relationships.
2.6.3 Behavioral Emotional: Following are the behavioral emotional systems of the stress as:
loss of appetite, reduced self- esteem, increase uses of alcohol, cigarettes, insomnia, bad dreams
or nightmares, feelings of alienation, loss of confidence, too busy to relax , frequent colds,
influenza or other infections, vague aches or pains and persistent negative thought.
It is concluded from the above symptoms of the stress in the individual working in the
educational organization. These symptoms of academia effect their performance in the university
as well in their daily life.
According to Kyriacou and Sutcliffe (2003) the symptoms of stress may be physical such
as peptic, ulcer, cardiovascular diseases etc. similarly, Dunham (1984) mentioned the two most
37
frequently indicated stress responses emerged over and over again, subsequent studies. These
were tension headaches and general irritability and bad temper.
Kyriako and Pratt (2005) described the most frequently mentioned symptoms in teaches
as being unable to relax or switch of after work; feeling very tense; being emotionally and
emotionally drained at the end of the universities day; and sleeplessness. Headaches, Anxiety,
Chest pain Sleeplessness Irritability Backaches Neck ache Stomach disorder Inability to
concentrate, Helplessness, Depression, Anger, Exhausted and Frustrated.
2.7 CAUSES OR SOURCE OF ACADEMIA STRESS
We all experience stress in our daily life, whatever the situation. Work is experienced
stressful when individuals feel, that they are not capable to manage it. The experience of stress
is a result of an interaction between individuals’ workplace, characteristics and their perception
about work. The circumstances that cause stress are called stressors. Stressors vary in situation
and duration. Some events are stressful for every individual but in other situation, individuals
may respond differently to the same event. A stressor for one individual may not be stressor for
other as it varies from situation to situation and person to person.
Some factors of society are directly or indirectly lead the individual toward the stress.
These factors are; terrorism, injustice, poor health, corruption, unemployment, poor economic
condition lead toward stress. Sources or causes of stress at work place which directly or
indirectly affect the individual are as: warlike situation, terrorism, immoral values, poor health
conditions, corruption, unemployment, poor economic conditions etc. these may lead to stress.
Sources of stress at workplace are: inadequate communication, internal conflict, shifting work,
lack of physical facilities, poor working environment, lack of control of manager, role conflict
and role ambiguity etc. These vary from individual to individual and organization to
38
organization. Frequently cited the causes of stress at workplace are organizational change,
inadequate communications, too much work, time pressures, shifting work, lack of control,
uncertainties, poor work environment, inadequate equipment, conflicting demands of work and
home poor relationship with supervisor and colleagues, lack of supports role conflicts and role
ambiguities etc.
It has been concluded by the researcher that whatever the source of stress, individual and
their job plays important role for their performance.
According to Fisher (2011) using a wide range of universities and academia has indicated
stressors in the area of the work role such as over work, decision making, internal conflict,
organization culture, physical facilities in class, Heating cooling in class room, workload, lack of
participation in decision making, non-supportive attitude of the head, dealing with students of
different backgrounds, culture and gender.
According to Cephe and Tuetteman (2010) job related factors those lead toward stress as
inadequate physical facilities, non-supportive attitude of colleagues, student misbehave,
excessive societal expectations and lack of praise/recognition. Brown and Ralph (2002) also
reported the causes of stress as structural change, classroom discipline, heavy workloads, and
lack of resources and poor universities management.
Overall from the above studies the researcher concluded and summarized the following
major causes or sources of stress in the faculty working in universities.
2.7.1 Factors Intrinsic to the Job
Factors intrinsic to the job may explain under these subs heading as:
39
i. Poor Working Conditions: It is the physically surrounding of the job place as: level of
noise, ventilation, heating cooling system and lighting. The physical design of office/
class room also included in the poor working condition.
ii. Shift Work: Shift work is required to fulfill the need of additional work. These shift
work effect on the worker health. It may causes blood pressure and other diseases.
iii. Long Hours: Long and continuous working effect on the health of the worker. It may
lead toward the higher level of stress.
iv. Risk and Danger: Many job have risk and danger at their workplace and it may causes
higher level stress in the individual. This is because when an employee is constantly
aware of potential danger and he is prepared to react immediately, this results in rush,
respiration changes and muscles tension which are all seen as potentially threatening
long-term health.
v. New Technology: Technology is rapidly influencing every aspect of life now a days.
Every organization adopt the technology for its growth and scope in the market. This
technology needs to the individual for the smooth functioning of it. Individual need a
skill to operate the technology that causes stress in them. For instance, a boss trained in
the latest methods may be extra burden for an employee trained in the old ways and this
may increase his/her stress level.
vi. Work Under-Load: The phenomena of work under load mean to understand the
problems of the worker at their workplace. Job under load mean the repeated routines of
the worker. This also mean when a work is assign to the worker that is under than the
capacity of the worker. It is also known as under utilization of the skills of the worker.
40
Work Overload: This phenomenon means when a worker has more work than his/her
capacity. This type of situation is causes stress in the worker.
2.7.2 Role in the Organization
Role clarity in an organization minimized the stress level of the individual, but it’s not
ideal in all cases. Cooper and Robertson (1993) continued to explain role in the organization
include:
i. Role Ambiguity: In such situation when individual do not know what is expected
from him/her on workplace. Furthermore, they don’t know where he/she fit in the
organization; such phenomena lead toward the stress. According to Johns (1996) it is
evident from the researcher that role ambiguity can prove stress.
ii. Role Conflict: In this situation individual experience high rate of stress when two
bosses are demanding conflicting things and when attending to one will mean they
are disobeying the other superior. This phenomenon makes individual confused and
frustrated. e.g., Individuals may often feel themselves torn between two groups of
who demand different types of behavior or who believe the job entails different
functions.
iii. Responsibility: In any of the organization there are many types of the
responsibilities of the workers. They performs different tasks for the attainment of the
objectives of their organization. They needs skills and knowledge for performing
different duties in their organization. They may have different types of issues and
conflict with other on their workplace that may leads toward the stress.
41
2.7.3 Relationship at Work
Workplace also causes the reason of stress, where individual interact with their peers
bosses and subordinate. On workplace where people interact with each other, and expect a high
level of expectation and relationship with colleagues. It is also prove from the findings of the
many researches that as much as more worker are in the organization. This mean more conflict
and differences of the opinion exist in the organization that lead toward the stress.
This is found that when individual have less working and poor experience and poor
relationship with colleagues and subordinate had higher level of stress. Many of the workers
spend a lot of the time at their workplace, so they need a good relation with their colleagues. This
is also suggested that workplace life and outside life relation of the individual causes of stress.
2.7.4 Career Development
The smooth promotion and career development is the factor of motivation toward their
performance. The workforce has becomes more diversified now days. Every individual who’s
start job wanted to get promotion in their organization. Individual career development causes a
lot of stress as they have to fulfill their requirement as developing skills, knowledge and others
needs for the promotion. Career development causes a lot of stress to employees through their
working lives. Lack of job security, fear of redundancy, obsolescence and numerous
performance appraisals can cause pressure and strain. In addition the frustration of having
reached one’s career ceiling, or having been over promoted can result in stress. University
academia promotion and career development differ from the general cadre. They need
publication and experience for every new stage, so this process makes the academia more
stressful.
42
2.7.5 Organization Structure and Climate
When individual have lack of participation in decision making process that lead toward
the stress. These phenomena develop the feeling of lack of importance and ignorance that again
lead toward the stress.
However, Betts (1994) pointed out that work place causes stress since from first day of
their days. It is also there are different level of stress in the individual and its vary from one to
another. He went further to state that, the physical causes include physical workload and physical
environment–temperature, humidity, vibration etc. The psychological causes include mental
workload and mental frustration
On the other hand, Robbins (2004) identified the following as causes of stress at work:
i. Economic Uncertainties: The economics uncertainties become the causes of stress in the
individual as he/she anxious about their job security. This phenomena increase the
level of stress in the individual.
ii. Technological Uncertainties: Innovations can make individual expertise and
knowledge outdated in very short span of time. Computers, robotics, automation and
similar forms of technological innovation are a threat to many employees and
therefore could cause stress.
iii. Organizational Leadership: This represents the managerial style of the organizations
senior executives. Many senior executives create a culture characterized by tension,
fear and anxiety. They establish unrealistic pressures to perform in the short run
impose excessively tight controls and routinely dismiss employees who do not
measure up to standard. This phenomena lead toward the stress.
43
2.7.6 Work- Home Interface
Working environment is one of the sources of stress.There are, however, potential
stressor that exists in the life of the academia, outside the work arena and affecting behavior at
work, which requires consideration when assessing the source and impact of academia stress.
Theses stressors include stressful life events; pressure resulting for example, one partner’s job
may require relocation etc. The interaction between home and work can create stress. Turner
(1997) has revealed that family-based strains can result from four possible sources:
i. Overload of office and home work
ii. Couple internal conflict or between parents and children conflict
iii. Restructuring of family roles through time
iv. Role captivity where they are bound by one role, but would prefer another.
2.8 EFFECT OF STRESS ON THE ORGANIZATION
g A new workplace as new job without any previous background of the office may
causes a lot of questions in the mind of the individual. These question leads toward the stress of
workplace, while thinking about behavior, attitude of the person on their workplace. Similar the
person already have work experience and knowledge of their environment may have less stress.
Luthans (2002) describe it might some stressor out the workplace exist, while these are
also associated with the stress of the workplace. As an organization is combination of different
department and directorate to achieve the goals of the organization. These units of organization
have strong association between each others for the completion of these tasks.
Desseler (2000) alluded that there were two main sources of job stress; environmental
and personal. As shows in the figure 2.5 below
44
Figure 2.5 : stress relation by Dosseler
As describe by the Desseler (2000) there are so many internal and external factors were
involves in the organization. These included timing of work, physical facilities and work place,
distance of work place from the environment, nature of service, work place environment and
clientage of the organization. It is further evident that the noise at work place the telephonic
communication and surrounding environment also lead toward the stress. However, individual
have different levels of stress on the same workplace and environment due to individual
differences.
According to Levin-Epstein (2002) stress on the job took its toll on nonprofits:
i. Wastage of time
ii. Low Productivity
iii. Demoralized staff with higher health cast
As described the Anderson and Kyprianou (1994) in the USA, UK and many other
European countries, about fifty percent the deaths each year for both men and women, were due
to cardiovascular diseases. The factors associated with high risk of heart diseases included
cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and blood sugar levels and excess body
weight. Furthermore, describe the other problems of stress as:
Sources of
Stress
Personal
Environmental
45
i. Social system
ii. Psychological system
iii. Tax system
iv. Physiological System
The above dimension of the stress pointed out that no one can live without stress in this
world, while having a lot of desired and needs. To fulfill their need, they have to do some work
and that place must have some issues that generate stress in the individual. It can be occurs to the
misfit of the individual and their environment of their workplace.
They further stated that stress in itself was not abnormal; nobody lives wholly free from
it. It was clear that far from all individuals who are exposed to do the same work, conditions
develop abnormalities of either a physical or a psychological character. It is only when stress is
irrational, unproductive and persistent that is may be a symptom of psychological and physical
illnesses.
Favreau was quoted by Levin-Epstein (2002) that stress problems should be discussed as:
i. Individual level: This level individual can become more responsible for their own well-
being by knowing the unhealthy emotional and work pattern before they reach on the
crisis proportions.
ii. Organizational level: Individual needs to understand and aware the workplace structures
that may contribute to burn out and take a creative approach to prevent the stress.
iii. Social level: The social environment within which employees operate often contributes
to the problem.
According to Levin-Epstein (2002), the most common indicators of stress are feeling
overwhelming and burn out. Theses feeling are the responses of physical and emotional
46
exhaustion. It is further described by the Levin that individual as implementer of the
policy and procedure should manage their stress if it effects on their job performance.
Bowing and Harvey (2001) summarized the following factors of stress at work as:
i. Organizational structure and behavior
ii. Lack of participation in decision making
iii. Administrator style
iv. Unexpected changes in work schedules
v. Internal conflict (Subordinates, HoD, Colleagues ) and other departments
vi. Lack of feedback
vii. Deadlines
viii. Role ambiguity
The attitude and behavior of the academia with negative attitude toward the work is the
cause of the environmental factors. These lack of appreciation and reward demonization of
organizational frustrate the academia toward their work. In this situation a frustrated
environment develop in the organization, so they did not bother their deadlines and target . This
definitely effects on the achievement of the organizational golas (Frost, 2003).
It is concluded from the above that to achieve the target academia need to be highly
motivated. This motivation possible with the help of rewards apperception smooth promotion.
Furthermore, these motivations will lead toward the target achievement with time frame.
2.9 ACADEMIA JOB PERFORMANCE
Higher educational process and its quality are not possible without university academia.
The quality is and process is questionable when the performance of the academia is slow. There
47
is a dire need of effective performance of the academia for the improvement of educational
system.
As per Motowilde et al., (1986) performance is judgmental and evaluation process.
Furthermore, as described by the (Campbell, 1993) the action, which can be measures, scaled are
considered the performance.
According to Nadeem et al., (2011) job performance refers to the degree on which an
individual execute his roles with reference to certain task.
So many factors contribute in the University for Academia Performance. A good
academia teaches with well ways in the class and has a great coordination with their students.
However, academia also mange time for his own research work and their student project also.
He manages the class discipline, student motivation and other academic activities .We can say
that factors contributing to the good job performance of University academia are many and
diverse.
According to Callin et al., (2006) it’s universally agreed upon that definition of
academia performance has not yet exactly attained. It’s the concern of the policy maker and
educationists to attain the exist measure of the performance
The role of the University in this century is very effective regarding imparting of
knowledge and research. No nation can achieve their objectives with research and innovation.
This is only possible with the help of university and their academia. in this regards academia
need a highly skills and solid knowledge and training (Cheng, 2006). In this regards, Academia
required a skill and competence to fulfill these responsibilities as: Curriculum developer, Pre-
service teacher, action researcher, team leader, decision maker and member of decision and
policy making of university (Boles, 1994).
48
Academia need to update with skill, competence and new technologies to perform all
task associated with their job. This is common phenomena that teacher is the key element of
education. (Raza et al., 2010)
Since from last two decades, policy-makers, educationist, educational manager and
Universities have implemented numerous initiatives to improve the performance of their
academia. There is great demand of research on university academia for the improvement of
their effectiveness. Especially academia role in classroom, research, curriculum development
need a specific training to make more effective in all these aspects.
It is concluded from the above discussion that academia perform a wide range of role in
the university. These relate to teaching, management, curriculum change, research and
community services. If want to maximize the role of the academia in their respective institution,
there is a dire need of professional competencies to overcome the workplace issues. In other
word we need solid knowledge for the professional development of the academia to overcome
these issues.
It further very important for effective role of the academia in public sector
universities, that their competencies may kindly be increased in the form of knowledge, skill
attitude and behavior. These skills are very important to meet the deadlines of their daily routine
work at their work place. For understanding of the appropriate plans and action, that is consistent
with university mission of higher education and research. That mission and goals of university,
can be achieved, when academia gain the necessary actions, attitude, skills, and knowledge to
implement the plan and policy to achieve the mission and goals.
49
2.9.1 Indicators of Academic Performance
Senol and Ismail (2010) distinguished the indicators of academia performance. They
further describe that academia performance is two types, the external and internal indicators.
Factors that impact on students’ learning are the knowledge, aptitude, attitude, and values
with students and teacher classroom. The knowledge, skills, aptitude, attitude and values of the
teacher are the factors of effective performance of academia in university.
According to Anderson (2001) teacher also differ in terms of Knowledge, skills,
aptitudes, attitudes, and values they bring to their classrooms. They also differ in their teaching
experience.
i. Attitude
Ahmed and Bora (2007) detailed may be positive and negative of the individual.
However, the positive and negative attitude effect on their performance.
Anders and Berg (2005) described that a inspiring attitude is the proof of inspiring
progression in the work. Academia attitudes effect on the students. The primary attribute of a
good academia is the ability to create a warms, friendly atmosphere in the classroom. The
teacher must have the positive attitude in the classroom.
ii. Subject Mastery of Academia
The qualification of the academia is based on a foundation of general education including
his/her mastery of subject. General education contributes to growth as a person, specialization
provides, scholarly knowledge of the subjects to be taught and integrated with professional
education leading to new understanding.(Nayak & Rao, 2002).
50
Competent academia apply broad, deep, and integrated sets of knowledge and skills as they
plan for, implement, and revise instruction. Technology dimension, meeting of dead line,
decision making skills and research expertise are the skills of the competent academia.
iii. Motivation
Hardre and Reeve (2003) distinguished three levels of motivation one is the highly
motivate, moderate and low motivate academia. These motivations are measurement from their
performance in the classroom, involvement with the students and creativity. Its internal factors
that motivate the academia to involves in their job. These vary from person to person and there
and so many individual difference exists in the individuals. Their knowledge, skill, and
background effect on their motivation. His /her motivations excel the achievement process of
their student. As teacher is ideal for their student, so they get motivation from them. Rewards
and appreciation also effect on the motivation level of the teacher.
iv. Teaching Style
Singh and Shan (2005) described that in service training comprehends the whole range of
activities on which academia can extend their professional education, and development of their
professional competencies and improve their understanding of educational techniques and
principles.
Academia teaching style is also one of the indicators of their performance. There are
generally four types of teaching method. These are Teacher-direct method, student- direct
method, inter-active method and problem solving method. All these teaching method effect on
the performance of academia.
v. Creativity
Matthew and Makel (2007) defines the role of academia in developing creativity in their
51
students in the classroom. Its depends on the performance of the teacher in the class. Teacher
involvement with their students plays a very important role to develop creativity in their
students. Furthermore the students achievements are the reflection of the teacher performance.
It’s the integrity of the teacher to polish their students. Teacher are also prepared to develop a
creativity and proper training are given to them for such purpose. Maciej et al. (2010) offered a
conceivable answer for a better education. The better education only be possible with the help of
teacher and their performance.
vi. Class Room Participation
Handelsman, et al. (2005) discussed that number of knowledge for instruction courses in
the class room. Academia commitment in the classroom is very important that depend upon on
his knowledge..
Allred & Swenson (2006) found that conventional lecture arrangement was losing its
pervasiveness in the classroom, as it was supplanted with a blended conveyance strategies
roommates utilizes discussion in groups and associate audit, the greater part of the which
diminished lecturing. Class participation has gotten to be progressively imperative with learners
who claimed further from their classroom collaboration skill.
vii. Research
Research publication is also one of the indicators of the academic performance of the
academia. HEC set a certain criteria for the promotion of the academia. The numbers of
publication are required to fulfill the eligibility of the certain position of the academic
performance. The paper published and the student supervised by him in a certain time period.
52
viii. Grades
Black, et al. (2003) expressed, that students performance were measured and grade are
allocated to determine their academic level. It also indicated the performance of the academia.
They student grades are the indicators of their performance. It shows their mastery of subject,
classroom participation their delivery method. The grades of the students one end is the
indicators of their achievement on the other end it’s the performance of their teachers also.
ix. Personal Characteristics
The person characteristics of the academia like knowledge, communication, behaviors and
levels of motivation influence in the classroom. These factors influence on the performance of
the academia and the achievement of the students. His levels of confidence develop a confidence
in their students and which defiantly motivates them toward the better academic performance.
On the other hand if the academia have low levels of knowledge, skill and motivation it
adversely effects on the performance of academia working in the university.
The communication skill of the teacher is also very important to understand their views about
the content and other materials. His/her subject mastery also play a vital role for developing
confidence in the students ( Raza, 2011).
x. Environment
The government of Pakistan educational policy (1998) has mentioned that quality education
is directly concern with the class room practice. It is evident that academia is the person who’s
responsible to implement the educational reforms. It is further facts that the knowledge skill and
motivation levels of the academia influence to creates environment. It’s impossible to develop a
positive teaching learning environment without teachers. (Ahmed, 2000).
53
Positive classroom learning environment are ones that maximize learning process in the class
room.Establishing learning environments that facilitate positive learning outcomes for all
students is indeed a challenge. They are advocating a particular way of being with students,
which will require them, the teacher, to provide opportunities that maximize student’s
participations their own learning and to utilize teaching and learning strategies that engaged
learners and are learner-centered.
2.10 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOB STRESS AND PERFORMANCE
OF ACADEMIA
According to Afe (2001) that academia has significantly impact on students’ academic
achievement. Furthermore, academia has a central role in the generation of all educational
activities for learner. Academia organized all the academic activities for students.
Starr (2002) pointed out a solid impact of academia on the academic achievement.
Meanwhile, the socio-financial foundation, family help, intellectual aptitude of students and
grades impact adversely either positively.
Jussim and Harber (2005) captured that learner ‘impression of academia backing held an
immediate impact on their interest and inspiration, and academia desires of student achievement.
It impact by three ways as:
i. Learner inspiration
ii. Self-perception
iii. Academic performance
Patrick et al., (2001) determined that academia helped in the form of students prosperity
and solace might be necessary yet deficient to promote authority objective orientation: care and
54
sympathy toward learners' learning may additionally be needed. It was also found that both
inside and outside academic performance depends on the academia teaching.
Thus, Michel and Peter (2007) aimed to expand of comprehension and learning
concerning academia professional competency improvement has a great impact on student
performance. Models are utilized as a part of current connections. Excellent and motivated
academia took for new methods and models to achieve their objectives. It is very important to
recognize the importance of academia for student performance.
2.11 RESEARCH STUDIES ON JOB STRESS
Khan et al., (2014) explore the factors of job stress among university teachers in Pakistan
a conceptual review. The findings of this study pointed out that there are nine factors are
responsible of the job stress of the university teacher working in Pakistan. These factors are
associated with the internal and external environment of the organizations. It is concluded from
the results of the study that teaching is stressful profession in Pakistan. It is further suggested
that the problems of the university teacher may be managed and reduce at individual and
institutional levels in Pakistan. As far as as individual levels is concerns academia should get
awareness about the stress. However, the institutional may also suggest some measures to
control the stress of their faculty. It is responsibility of the institutions provides conducive
environment to their faculty for better performance.
Ayaz and Ali (2014) conducted a research study titled “impact of stress among students
of a public sectors university.” There were eighteen hundred student enrolled in the different
degree programs were taken as the population of the study. A sample of the ninety student from
different degree program was taken to get their responses. A developed inventory of the
international association of stress was taken to get levels of the students. A three levels of the
55
stress were found among the students. A large majority of the students were found high levels of
stress and moderate levels stress were also exist in the student. It is concluded from the findings
of the study, that were worried about the socio-economical position of the country. It is also
concluded that stress effect on the lives of the peoples.
Ali et al., (2014) conducted a research study titled “ impact of stress on job performance:
an empirical study of the employees of private sector universities of Karachi, Pakistan. A
sample of 133 employees of the private sector universities employees working in Karachi were
taken for this study. These respondent were taken from different department of the universities
working in Karachi. A questionnaire was used to collect the opinion of the respondent. The
findings of the study indicated that majority of the faculty stress due to workload , job security,
and satisfaction levels. It is recommended on the basis of the findings of the study that the
workload of the faculty may kindly be divided to increase their performance.
Kousar and Talat (2013) conducted a research titled “occupational roles stress and
health related quality of life among secondary school teachers. The research examined
occupational role stress among Government secondary school teachers (S.S.T.s). The purpose of
the study was to find out the Role Stressors among secondary school teachers and the
relationship of Occupational Role Stress to the Health Related Quality of Life of the teachers.
The sample comprised of 200 S.S.T.s (100 men and 100 women). Purposive sampling technique
was applied to draw the sample. Cross-sectional Survey was used as research design in the study.
Data collection was done by using Questionnaires namely ORSS (Pareek, 1983), Q-LES-Q-
Short Form (Endicott, Neej, Harrison, & Blumenthal, 1993), and WHOQOL-BREF (World
Health Organization, 2004) in Urdu version. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used
for data analysis. The results showed that men S.S.T.s experienced more ORS than women
56
S.S.T.s and that men S.S.T.s had poor Physical Health as compared to women S.S.T.s. It was
also found that there had been no significant relationship between ORS and demographic
variables.
Faisal and Yusoff (2013 ) conducted a research study titled “ stress and burnout in the
Higher Education sector in Pakistan: A systematic review of literature.” The results of this
study indicated that poverty and socio-economical issues are responsible of stress. In addition of
all the internal factors of the organizations were also responsible of the job stress of the faculty.
It is concluded that the teaching staff and administration staff must aware about the job stress at
their workplace. The different techniques may be followed to reduce the stress levels.
Usman, et al., (2011) conducted a research tilted “work stress experienced by the
teaching staff of university of the Punjab, Pakistan: Antecedents and consequences.” The 160
teacher were participated in this study to give their views about the problems of the research. The
findings of the study indicated that role conflict, ambiguity and work stress negatively effect on
the performance of the teaching staff working in the university of Punjab.
Nosheen and Bano ( 2009) conducted a research study titled “ Occupational Role Stress among
public and private university teacher.” For conducting this study and measuring their variables
occupational role stress by Pareek (1982) were used. A convenient sampling were used for the
collection of the data. A sample were taken from the public and private universities of the
Punjab. The findings of the study revealed that a significant gender difference was found among
the public and private universities regarding their levels of stress. It is also evident from the
result that a women have more stress as compared to the male members working in these
universities.
57
H. Rubina (2004) conducted a research titled “teacher stress, teacher’ job performance
and self-efficacy of women school teacher.” Main study was carried out with two independent
sample i.e. teacher and students. Sample I was comprised of 330 women secondary school
teacher from government and private school of three cities i.e., Islamabad, Rawalpindi and
Chakwal. Sample II was selected from 9th and 10th classes of the schools selected in sample I. the
sample was comprised of randomly selected 990 girl students. Results showed that teachers
displayed moderate levels of stress, and highest scores were displayed on work related stressors.
The significant negative correlation was found between teacher stress and job performance and
teacher stress and job efficacy. The finding also showed that there were significant differences
between government and private school teachers on levels of teacher stress, job performance and
teacher efficacy. Government school teachers showed high levels of stress, poor job performance
and low self-efficacy as compared to the private school teacher’s.
2.12 MANAGING STRESS OF ACADEMIA
Stress can be controlled with the help of individual and organizational approach as
described by Robbins (2004). As per Robbins individual approach includes exercise such as:
walking, riding bicycle, swimming, playing tennis, Hiking and running. Furthermore, he
described individual can manage stress through relaxation.
At organization level stress can manage through training program, ensuring effective
communication upward and downward in the organization. Good job design, improvement in the
physical work environment.
In the same view, Lucy (2007) said stress can be managed in an organization through
increasing employee’s autonomy, quality of work, flexibility of work, organizational behavior,
58
financial benefits, physical facilities, better working condition and rewards and recognitions of
employees’ efforts.
Campbell et al., (2003) suggested the followings techniques to manage the stress at work
place.
i. Work as per expertise
ii. Involvement in decision making
iii. Feedback
iv. Training ongoing updating process
v. Reward and recognition
vi. Review of performance gaps
vii. Ensure work environment is free of hazard
viii. Secure and fair personnel practices
It is concluded from the whole literature and different concept about the job stress and
their performance of the academia working in the public sector universities of the Punjab. The
above mentioned factors can be helpful for the reductions of the levels of the stress among
academia. It is also evident from the start to the end of this chapter two, that job stress exists in
the academia working in the public sector universities of the Punjab. They have three levels of
stress as low, moderate and high levels of stress. All these levels of stress if continue in long
term then its effects on the performance of the academia.
59
2.13 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE PRESENT STUDY
This section of the study describes the possible course of action about job stress of
academia. Most of the researcher based on the stress models, which explain and predict the
problem under consideration for further course of action. Almost models are linked to conceptual
frame work and conceptual frame work linked with models of stress.
Before developing a conceptual frame for the present study, the literature was reviewed
to understand what researchers have published about job stress. Limited numbers of studies have
been conducted on job stress of academia working in universities of Pakistan and their effect on
their performance. The present study job stress of academia and its effect on their performance
was undertaken to fill this gap.
The conceptual frame work of the any study developed with the help of literature review
related to the problems. It presents a network between the variables of study. The figure 2.6
represents the conceptual frame work of the study which indicates association of the job stress of
academia working in public sector universities of the Punjab and their performance. Hence this
conceptual framework indicates the relationship between background variables and job stress
and performance. Hence, the job stress is the comb combination of the sixteen sub scale and
performance also. This indicates the relationship of dependent and independent variables of the
study.
Measuring techniques of these dimensions of job stress and sub dimension and their
influence on dependent (performance) variable in this study is given in chapter three.
60
Conceptual framework of the study
Figure2.6 Conceptual framework of the study
• Social Interaction at Work
• Financial Benefit
• Provision of Privacy
• Communication Channel
at Work
• Autonomy of Work
• Quality of Work
• Flexibility of Work
• Organizational Behavior
• Working Condition
• Official Furniture
• Equipment Facility
• Space Organization
• Personal Space
• Individual Control
• Information Overload
• Energy Drain
Dependent Variables
Demographic
Characteristics of
the Respondents
Background
Variables
Job Stress Performance
Independent Variables
variable
• Attitude/ Behavior
• Motivation
• Teaching Styles
• Campus
Environment
• Creativity
• Research
• Grade
• Personal
Characteristics
• Class Room
participation
• Subject Mastery of
Academia
61
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
The study was undertaken to analyze the job stress of academia and its effect on their
performance in public sector universities of Punjab. After deliberate discussion in the 2nd chapter
of the study about the problems. The methodology of the study was established to move forward.
Further, for such objective questionnaires were developed and interviewed was conducted to get
opinion about the problems. The detail elements of this chapter are as:
3.1 Design of the study
3.2 Selection of universities
3.3 Population of the study
3.4 Sample of the study
3.5 Research instruments
3.6 Procedure of data collection
3.7 Statistical analysis of data
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The study was descriptive in nature and survey method was used for this research.
Descriptive type of research is concerned with investigation of the existing position and deals
with current situation in an organized and arranged manner. A survey design provides a
quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitude, and opinion of population by studying a
sample of that population. From sample results, researcher generalizes or makes claims about the
population. (Creswell, 2009).
62
Therefore, selecting a research design for this study, researcher adopts the descriptive
types of research and survey method was used for the conduction of research. The figure given
below shows a detailed description of the study.
The following diagram shows research design of the study. It consists of three phases as:
Figure 3.1: Research design of the study
3.2 SELECTION OF UNIVERSITIES
There were nine regions in the province of the Punjab since the study was limited to
public sector universities of Punjab. These regions are Lahore, Bahawalpur, Dera Ghazi Khan,
Faisalabad, Gujranwala, Multan, Sahiwal and Sargodha. The study was further limited to one
main campus of a general public university from each region. There are 27 public sector
universities in Punjab. It is relevant to mention here that not a single university has its main
Phase-II
Development of Instrument
Review of the Related
Literature Validation of
thvavalidatioe scale
Pilot study
Analysis of the data
(Pilot Study)
Finalization of the scale
(Validity & reliability)
Phase-III
Data Collection
Books, Articles, Research
studies & web sites etc.
Data Analysis, Findings
Conclusions, Discussions
&Recommendations
Research Design of the study
63
campus in the two regions; these are Dera Ghazi Khan and Sahiwal. The selection of one
university from each region is decided by keeping in mind their culture and values. It was
therefore decided to collect data from the remaining seven universities of Punjab.
3.3 POPULATION OF THE STUDY
Population of the study comprises the following:
3.3.1 Population of universities
There are twenty seven universities working in Punjab. These universities offer studies in
various disciplines such as social science, arts and humanities, engineering, medical education
and other disciplines. The region wise numbers of higher educational institutions are as:
Table 3.1 No of Public Sector Universities by region in Punjab
Sr. No Region Name No of Universities
1 Multan 03
2 Bahawalpur 02
3 Faisalabad 04
4 Lahore 12
5 Sargodha 01
6 Gujranwala 02
7 Rawalpindi 03
8 Sahiwal 00
9 Dera Ghazi Khan 00
Total 27
Source: http://hed.Punjab.gov.pk/public_ universities
Table 3.1 shows numeric number of universities in their respective region. There are a
total of 27 universities. Two regions i.e. Dera Ghazi Khan and Sahiwal don’t have any
university. Resultantly, these regions were discarded from target population.
The target population universities are those which are included in this study.
64
Table 3.2 Public Sector Universities by Region included in the Study
Sr. No Region Name Universities name
1 Multan Baha–ud-din Zakariya University, Multan
2 Bahawalpur Islamia University , Bahawalpur
3 Faisalabad Government college University, Faisalabad
4 Lahore University of the Punjab , Lahore
5 Sargodha University of Sargodha , Sargodha
6 Gujranwala University of Gujrat , Gujrat
7 Rawalpindi Pir-Mehar Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University ,Rawalpindi
Source: http://hed.Punjab.gov.pk/public_ universities
Table 3.3 shows target universities of the study. This table depicts region wise names of the
selected universities.
Table 3.3 Total Number of faculty, departments, academia and students
Sr.
No
Universities name Faculty Departments Academia
(Regular+
Contract )
Students
1 BZU, Multan 8 43 622 18,000
2 IUB, Bahawalpur 7 44 454 9,000
3 GCUF ,Faisalabad 4 35 708 13,000
4 PU, Lahore 13 113 1109 24,000
5 UOS, Sargodha 8 33 654 14,000
6 UOG, Gujrat 7 34 518 14,000
7 PMAS-Arid,
Rawalpindi
7 29 279 8,800
Total 54 319 4344 101,000
Source: http://hed.Punjab.gov.pk/public_ universities
Table 3.3 shows population of each university with number of faculty, departments, academia
and the enrolled strength of students. In the table Punjab University, Lahore tops the list in
respect of all attributes of faculty, departments, academia and student strength. In contrast,
PMAS-Arid University has the least number of departments, faculty and student strength.
65
3.3.2 Target Population of the Study
Target population of the study comprises:
i. Vice Chancellors (07)
ii. Academic heads (Dean, Chairman)54+ 319=373
iii. All academia (Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Lecturer) =4344
iv. Students = 100,800
There were 7 vice chancellors of public sector universities of Punjab taken as population.
Similarly, 373 academic heads (54 deans and 319chairpersons/chairmen/in-charge) were taken
from the population. 4344 academia working in the universities including professors, associate
professors, assistant professors and lecturers were the population of study. 100,800 students of
these seven universities studying from graduation levels to doctoral levels were also taken as
population. (Table 3.4)
3.4 SAMPLE OF THE STUDY
According to Gay (2009, pp.125), “stratified random sampling is a way to guarantee
desired representation of the relevant subgroup within the sample. Hence, each region of the
Punjab was considered as a stratum and one university was selected from each stratum as a
sample.
Keeping in view the size of population of different categories, researcher selected 100%
of the vice chancellors, just about the same as academic heads, 10% of academia and 1% of
students for the purpose of data collection.
Data was collected through questionnaires from academic heads, academia and students.
3.4.1 Sample of the Study
Following is the sample of the study:
66
i. 7 (100 %) of the Vice Chancellors were included in the sample.=7
ii. 373 (100%) academia heads were included in the sample .=373
iii. 4344 (10%) academia were included in the sample = 434
iv. 100,800 (1%) students were included in the sample = 1008
The sample framework of the population is as:
Table No. 3.4 Sampling Framework of the Population
Univ
ersity
V.C Academia Heads Academia Students
Populatio
n
Sam
ple
Dean
Chair
Populatio
n
Sam
ple
Populatio
n
Sam
ple
Populatio
n
Sam
ple
Populatio
n
Sam
ple
BZU 1 1 8 8 43 43 622 62 18,000 180
IUB 1 1 7 7 44 44 454 45 9,000 90
GCUF 1 1 4 4 55 55 708 71 13,000 130
PU 1 1 13 13 113 113 1109 111 24,000 240
UOS 1 1 8 8 33 33 654 65 14,000 140
UOG 1 1 7 7 34 34 518 52 14,000 140
PMAS-
Arid
1 1 7 7 29 29 279 28 8,800 88
Total 7 7 54 54 319 319 4344 434 101,800 1008
G. T 7 373 4344 434 100,800 1008
Table No 3.4 reveals sampling framework of the population. This table depicted that an
equal number of the strata was developed for collection of data from various universities of
Punjab. All 7 Vice Chancellors were taken as sample. All academic heads were taken as sample.
Out of 4344 of the academia, 434 were taken as sample; furthermore, 1008 out of 100800 were
taken as sample for obtaining their opinion
67
3.5 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
This study job stress of academia and its effects on their performance in public sector
universities of Punjab. For collection of data, questionnaires were developed after a
comprehensive review of literature. The different stress models were included in the study as
described in the chapter two. These models pointed out different factors of stress as per their
social and economics and culture. Factors of these models are time management, individual
difference, personal facets, reward and appreciation, social interaction, communication channel
and Job ambiguity. Pakistani culture is different regarding social, economic and religious point
of view. A research instrument was developed for this research study while keeping these
factors in mind. Sixteen factors were selected for this study as: autonomy of work, quality of
work, flexibility of work, organizational behavior, financial benefits, social interaction at work,
provision of privacy, official furniture, personal space, information overload, energy drain,
equipment facility, personal space, individual control and communication channel at work. There
might be more factors of stress, but researcher only opted these sixteen factors for this study.
Furthermore, the job stress, job burnout and job satisfaction scales developed by many
researchers as job stress scale by Alvesa et al., (2004); Skala soziler Stressoren am Arbeitsplatz
by Fress and Zapf (1987); Stress Reaktivitats-Skala(SRS) by Schulz et al.,(2005); Malach
Burnout Inventory by Kristensen et al., ( 1981); and Job satisfaction survey by Spector (1994)
were already available. These available scales have their own dimension and no one of these
scales meet the requirements of this research. It is evident from these inventories sub scale that
the requirement of the researcher about the job stress in the public sector was not be measured
with the help of these scales. So while keeping all factors in mind the researcher develop a new
68
scale with the help of his advisor to measure the job stress of the academia working in the public
sector universities of the Punjab.
Three questionnaires were developed as one for academic heads, one for academia and
one for students. Since Vice Chancellors were less in number there in person interviews were
conducted. A semi-structured interview of six Vice Chancellors was conducted. A set of
questions was developed while keeping in view above sixteen factors of job stress. Complete
details of this population is presented in table (3.4)
A designing of the excellent scale is very tough techniques (Blumer, 2004; Cresswell,
2003; McGurik and O’ Neill, 2005) for the generation of the objectives of the problems. The
content, the knowledge and order of wording is very important for considering its validity. The
content should be relevant with the problems for this has to be designed. It is common principal
for the statements, that these should be in sequential orders. This pattern will help the respondent
to understand the problems and he/she positively give their views about the problems. This will
help the researcher to move one topic to another with sequential order (Sarantakos, 2005). There
were only seven universities included in the study, so the interviewed of the Vice Chancellors
were conducted for this study.
Likert scale is one of the best scale which is commonly used in the survey types of
questionnaires. In this types of scale the respondent rate their reposes in a specific limit. This
scale helps the researcher to get response of the respondent about their problems.
Robson (2005) advocates that the process of surveys through questionnaires is highly
effective and efficient as making information available is in comparatively less time period
having low cost for conducting a study. Due to these reasons, researcher went for the descriptive
69
method of research study and designed a questionnaire survey tool to analyze the job stress of
academia and its effects on their performance in public sector universities of Punjab.
Each questionnaire comprised three parts, first on the demographic, second on the stress
symptoms and third on indicators of job stress of academia. Likert’s method of summated rating
scale was used. The respondent is asked to indicate existing symptoms of the stress on a scale of
five as: “Never”, “Rarely”, “Sometimes”, “Often” and “Always”. For part two, respondent is
also provided with five options as: “Strongly Agree”, “Agree”, “Undecided” “Disagree”, and
“Strongly Disagree”.
All the statements were close-ended questions except the last three statements which
were open-ended for collecting views of respondents on reasons of stress and suggestions
towards reduction of stress.
For this study, three questionnaires and one interview were used as a tool. Furthermore a
checklist was also used for availability of physical facilities.
1. One questionnaire was for all academia heads (Dean, Chairman/Chairperson/In-
charge). This questionnaire consists 66 items This questionnaire is placed as
Annexure-A
2. One for faculty (Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and Lecturers)
.This questionnaire consists 64 items. This questionnaire is placed as Annexure -B
3. For students, a separate questionnaire was constructed in English. This questionnaire
consists 48 items. This questionnaire was used to measure the performance of the
academia. This questionnaire was placed as Annexure-C
70
4. A set of questions was developed related to profile of the V.Cs and their working
style, coordination with staff and on different policy matters which directly affect
performance of academia working in the target universities.
5. A checklist was developed for checking availability of physical facilities in
universities. This checklist is devised to assess the number of facilities available to
academic heads, academia, and students as also generally available on the campus.
This was used to verify the few factors of job stress of the academia as equipment
facility, official furniture and campus facilities. The checklist is placed as Annexure-
E
All these questionnaires were developed after gone through literature of the study. After
development, these questionnaires were sent to 15 educationists in the field of Educational
Planning and Management. These educationists gave their professional opinion for improvement
of the formats. On the basis of opinion of these specialists’, a few items were redesigned.
Questionnaires used for this study have three parts i.e. individual data sheet, stress symptoms and
main stress indicators and their sub-indicators.
Part-I: Individual Data Sheet
First part of the questionnaires of both VCs and academic heads has the same information
like others respondents of the study.. All variables of the demographics are explained with the
underlined concept.
i. Gender: It refers to the gender of respondents whether male or female.
ii. Age: It refers to the length of respondents’ age.
iii. Qualification: It refers to academic qualifications of respondents i.e. MSc, MA, MS,
M.Phil, PhD, and Postdoc.
71
iv. Experience: This refers to the length of service in a university as academician.
v. Post: It refers to the respondents’ position whether working on permanent,
contractual or adhoc basis.
vi. Position of Academia: It refers to academia whether working as professor, associate
professor, assistant professor or lecturer
vii. Position of Heads: This refers to the position of academic heads i.e. dean,
chairman/chairperson or in-charge.
viii. Marital Status: This refers to whether respondent is married or unmarried.
Part –II:- Stress Symptoms
This portion describes stress symptoms of the university academia.
Table No 3.5: Stress Symptoms of Academia and Academic Heads
S.No Sample Symptom Factor
1
Academia and
Academia Heads
Headache 1
2 Anxiety 1
3 Chest pain 1
4 Exhaustion 1
5 Irritability 1
6 Backache 1
7 Neck ache 1
8 Frustration 1
9 Inability to concentrate 1
10 Helplessness 1
11 Depression 1
12 Anger 1
With this method, 12 stress symptoms of academia and academic heads were analyzed for
measuring the level of stress.
Part-III:-
This part of questionnaires included all sixteen indicators of job stress of academia. These
are as:
i. Autonomy of work
ii. Quality of work
iii. Flexibility of work
iv. Organizational behavior
v. Financial benefits
72
vi. Communication channel at work
vii. Social interaction at work
viii. Provision of privacy
ix. Official furniture
x. Personal space
xi. Information overload
xii. Energy drain
xiii. Equipment facility
xiv. Personal space
xv. Individual control
The above indicators have further sub factors of job stress for academia and their heads.
3.5.1 Rationale for Research Instruments
3.5.1.1 Questionnaires
Questionnaires are a one of the best tools for data collection as it is a combination of the
set of statements taken from the variables of the study. This is helpful for the primary data. The
following are the basic reasons of the using of the questionnaires as tool.
i. It is more appropriate and suitable for data collection as compare to the other tools of
data collection.
ii. It is very economical as compare to the other tools of collection of data.
iii. It can be easily coded and analyzed.
iv. It also be convenient for the respondents as it can be filled on his/her availability.
v. It is also helpful for the collection of data in large scale in minimum of time period.
3.5.1.2 Interview
Interview is a face to face purposeful conversation between individuals. An interview
may be a structured, semi structured and unstructured or informal. Researcher used a semi
structured interview for the present study. The reasons underlying for using interview as a tool of
data collection were as follows:
i. Interview will allow researcher to probe more deeply into respondents’ feelings,
73
attitudes, orientations, hopes and fears.
ii. Interview provides opportunities to seek more detailed factual information and
encourage respondents to elaborate opinions about their own experiences.
iii. Interview can yield rich evidence that complements the data collected through
questionnaires.
iv. It allows respondents to answer questions which cannot be answered in a printed
form.
3.5.2 Validation of Instrument
To assess validity of questionnaires, a pilot study was carried out. The purpose of pilot
study was achieved through the process of psychometric method. Through this technique, the
cleansing of items was carried out, eliminating vague, unrelated or overlapping items getting
dropped from questionnaires. This made the statements understandable. The length of items was
curtailed as to gain an insight into appropriateness of items in the questionnaires.
This pilot study was carried out on 10 academic heads, 10 academia and 10 students of
different universities who were not included in the sample of study. Two ex-Vice Chancellors
were also interviewed for improvement of the questions of interview.
After the pilot study, the scale of three sets was validated through expert opinion. For this
purpose, a group of ten experts from different universities of Punjab was consulted to validate
the contents of questionnaires. The suggestions of the experts were incorporated for the
improvement of the tool.
3.5.3 Reliability of Instruments
The reliability of the items of this study were checked with the help of Cronbach alpha.
The values of reliability exist between 0 to 1. It is further evident as thumb rules that at least
74
Cronbach’s alpha ranges between more than .40 alpha values are acceptable for social science.
The Cronbach’s Alpha of all three categories and their responses results are as:
Table No 3. 6 Reliability Statistics of Academic Heads
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items No of Items
.872 .867 65
The above table 3.6 shows the reliability analysis of the Academic Heads . The value of
Cronbach's Alpha is 0.872 which indicates high level of internal consistency and reliability of
academic head scale.
Cronbach alpha coefficient for individual items as given in table mentioned as:
Table no 3.7 Sub scale Reliability of Academic Heads
Sub scale of Stress Cronbach's Alpha No of Items
Autonomy of Work (AW) .91 5
Quality of Work (QW) .88 5
Flexibility of Work (FW) .83 4
Organizational Behavior (OB) .87 4
Financial Benefits (FB) .75 3
Social Interaction at Work (SIW) .89 5
Provision of Privacy ( PP) .81 4
Communication Channel at Work ( CCW) .77 4
Working Condition (WC) .89 4
Official Furniture (OF) .65 4
Equipment Facility (EF) .61 3
Space Organization (SO) .74 3
Personal Space (PS) .73 4
Individual Control (IC) .81 5
Information Overload(IO) .83 4
Energy Draining ( ED) .77 4
Total 65
Table no 3.7 shows the result of above values. The values of Alpha for each sub-
indicators was: Autonomy of work, .91; Quality of work.88; Flexibility of work, .83;
75
Organizational behavior,.87; Financial benefits.75; Social interaction at work,.89; Provision of
privacy, .81; Communication channel at work,.77; working condition,.89; official furniture,.65;
Equipment facility,.61; Space organization, .74; personal space, .73; Individual control, .81;
Information overload, .83; Energy drain, .77. It was concluded from the results all the values of
alpha coefficient shows it is a reliable instruments.
Table 3.8Over all Reliability Statistics of Academia
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items No of Items
.715 .715 64
The above table3.8 shows the reliability analysis of the Academia questionnaire items.
The value of Cronbach's Alpha is 0.715 which indicates high level of internal consistency and
reliability of our scale.
Table no 3.9 Sub Scale Reliability of Academia
Sub scale of Stress Cronbach's Alpha No of Items
Autonomy of Work (AW) .90 4
Quality of Work (QW) .87 4
Flexibility of Work (FW) .86 4
Organizational Behavior (OB) .88 5
Financial Benefits (FB) .68 4
Social Interaction at Work (SIW) .79 5
Provision of Privacy ( PP) .71 4
Communication Channel at Work ( CCW) .87 3
Working Condition (WC) .69 4
Official Furniture (OF) .63 4
Equipment Facility (EF) .65 3
Space Organization (SO) .84 4
Personal Space (PS) .83 3
Individual Control (IC) .84 3
Information Overload(IO) .83 4
Energy Draining ( ED) .67 4
Total 64
76
Table no 3.9 shows the result of above values. The values of Alpha for each sub-
indicators was: Autonomy of work, .90; Quality of work.87; Flexibility of work, .86;
Organizational behavior,.88; Financial benefits.68; Social interaction at work,.79; Provision of
privacy, .71; Communication channel at work,.87; Working condition,.69; Official furniture,.63;
Equipment facility,.65; Space organization, .84; Personal space, .83; Individual control, .84;
Information overload, .83; Energy drain, .67. It was concluded from the results all the values of
alpha coefficient shows it is a reliable instruments.
Table no : 3. 10Over All Reliability Statistics of Students
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items No of Items
.897 .899 48
The above table 3.10 shows the reliability analysis of the student’s questionnaires. The
value of Cronbach's Alpha is 0.897 which indicates high level of internal consistency and
reliability of our scale.
Table no 3.11 Sub Scale Reliability variables of students
Sub scale of Stress Cronbach's Alpha No of Items
Attitude/ behavior .91 5
Motivation .89 5
Teaching styles .83 5
Creativity .87 4
Class room participation .65 5
Research .89 5
Campus environment .71 6
Personal characteristics .85 7
Subject mastery .80 6
Total 48
Table no 3.11 shows the result of above values. The values of Alpha for each sub-
indicators was: Attitude/ Behavior, .91; Motivation 89; Teaching Styles, .83; Creativity,.87;
Class room.65; Researh,.89; Campus environment .71; Personal Characteristics,.85; Subject
77
Mastery,.80; It was concluded from the results all the values of alpha coefficient shows it is a
reliable instruments.
3.6 PROCEDURE OF DATA COLLECTION
The finalized questionnaires of all three categories of 4 pages each were duplicated.
Almost 2000 copies of all three types of questionnaires were prepared for final collection of data
from seven universities of Punjab of different regions. After preparation, these were handed over
to the research assistants, all EPM graduates. Researcher briefed research assistants in three
meetings how to administer the questionnaires. All questionnaires were dispatched by courier
with separate envelopes after identifying each category to the respective research assistant. The
list of research assistants is placed as Appendix-C.
Data collection began in May 2014 and was completed in September the same year.
Interviews of vice chancellors were conducted by researcher himself. Before conducting the
interviews, a letter requesting schedule for meeting along with interview questions was sent to
each respondent under signatures of the supervisor. The supervisor of this research study is
working as Chairman/Controller of Examinations at Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad.
After a call was received from the office of the respective VC confirming the meeting
time, researcher would arrive to meet the respondent for an interview. During the interview, the
wife of researcher also assisted researcher - recodingand incorporation of the answers with
permission of respondent. The assistant in interview is a doctoral student of education and well
aware of research and data collection ethics.
Before launching questionnaires to HoDs through research assistants, a letter signed by
supervisor of researcher was sent requesting their cooperation in filling out the questionnaires. In
response, all respondents willingly facilitated the research assistants in collection of data.
78
3.7 ANALYSIS OF DATA
The filled out questionnaires were collected by researcher from research assistants
through either personal visits or via registered mail. After receipt, the filled out questionnaires of
all respondents, these were sorted out under respective categories.
These questionnaires were codified carefully by striking out ambiguous and contradictory
responses. The vigorous work of presentation, tabulation and analysis of data with respect to
every aspect of the study then followed. This process was followed by feeding the data into IBM
PAS 10 statistics 18 of SPSS. The data presented in chapter four in tabular form was followed
by interpretation about each table. Further details of each table section are given below;
Part-i Univariate Analysis
Part-ii Bivariate Analysis
Part-iii Multivariate Analysis
In order to work out the relationship between job stress of academia and its effects on
their performance in public sector universities of Punjab and analysis of co variance test is
applied. The univariate analysis was done with the help of percentage and mean and standard
deviation the result of the semi structured interview was converted to quantitative data. The
analysis of VCs responses was done to verify the attributes results of academia. A checklist was
also used to verify the few factors of job stress of u working in public sector universities of
Punjab. The demographic variables association with stress index of sixteen explanatory variables
t and F test applied. For this purpose the t and F test application are applied to measure the
signification relation between different demographic variables. As mention and described in the
part one more than 67 statement for different questions related to job stress of academia and their
academic head were analyzed. Questionnaires of academia and academia heads were assigned 16
79
attributes with different statements to measure, job stress of academia in public sector
universities of Punjab. These attributes ( autonomy of work, quality of work, flexibility of work,
organizational behavior, financial benefits, social interaction at work, provision of privacy,
communication channel, working condition, furniture, equipment facility, space organization,
personal space, individual control, information overload and energy drain) with different
statements of each attribute were measured. These attributes help for the analysis of stress in
academia working in public sector universities. The t-test is applied to measure the significant
relation/association of two variables with these stress attributes. Anyhow F- test is applicable
where more than two variables are applied. The t and f test are the application of ANOVA. The
ANOVA is basically an extension of two sample test. In this study ANOVA application of t-test
and F-test are applied for the measure of stress with respect to following variable (age,
qualification, post, position, experience, marital status, gender). The P values have also been
shown to indicate the significance. The regression analysis was used to measure the effect of the
job stress of academia on their performance. The analysis was made by using SPSS and present
in the form of tables. The data collected through open-ended questions were measured as per
their frequency and converted into percentage for giving a clear view. The findings and
conclusions were drawn from data analysis and recommendations were made.
80
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter included the analysis and interpretation of data. The data regarding present
study “Job stress of academia and its effect on their performance in public sector universities of
Punjab” was collected, organized and analyzed using the method described in chapter 3. The
detail of each part is as:
Part I-Univariate Analysis
This part of the chapter contains analysis of data collected from academia heads,
academia, students and Vice Chancellors. This part deals with the analysis of following
categories.
i. Analysis of academia heads responses
ii. Analysis of academia responses
iii. Analysis of students responses
iv. Analysis of Vice Chancellors responses
v. Analysis of physical facilities
This analysis is based on the mean and standard deviation. The applied on all the groups
mentioned in part one excluding categories of physical facilities. For the purpose of simplicity
and convenience of description, the responses strongly agree (SA) and agree (A) have been
combined as single response, similarly the response disagree (DA) and strongly disagree (SDA)
have also been combined as single response.
Part II- Bivariate Analysis
This part of the chapter contains the analysis of the demographic variable association
81
between job stress of academia and their effect on their performance.
Part III- Multivariate Analysis
This part of the chapter contains the multivariate analysis between job stress and
performance of the academia.
(PART-I)
4.1 ACADEMIA HEADS RESPONSES ANALYSIS
In this portion, responses of university academia heads are analyzed. Academia heads
work on different positions in universities such as Dean, Chairman/Chairperson and in-charge.
They carry out different managerial and academic responsibilities.
Table 4.1.1 Total number of usable questionnaires of respondents
Respondents
Group-A
Population Sample Questionnaires
Distributed
Questionnaires
Returned
Useable
Questionnaires
Academic
Head 373 373 373 289 242
The research study for academia heads through table 4.1.1 shows that population of study
comprises a total number of respondents as 373. Hundred per cent (100 %) of the whole
population was taken as sample. This sample comprised all deans, chairpersons/chairmen and in-
charge of the targeted universities. Out of 373 academic heads, only 289 responded positively
and returned the filled out questionnaires. Out of 289 questionnaires, 42 were not counted due to
inaccuracies and an incomplete response rate. The remaining 242 questionnaires were
successfully sorted out in order to have a complete response.
4.1.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
The academia heads’ demographic and responses against a structured questionnaire are
presented. Information regarding demographic characteristics of respondents in term of gender,
82
post, position, academic qualification, experience, age and marital status is analyzed and
presented in the following seven tables:
Table: 4.1.2 Distribution of academia heads by gender N=242
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 179 74%
Female 63 26%
This table 4.1.2 shows that out of 242 respondents, 179(74%) were male and 63(26%)
were female.
Table: 4.1.3 Distribution of academia heads by post N=242
Post Frequency Percentage
Permanent 172 71%
Contractual 40 17%
TTS 30 12%
In table 4.1.3 the posts of head are classified into three categories. Out of 242
respondents, 172 (71%) were working on permanent, 40 (17%) were on contractual and 30
(12%) on TTS basis.
Table: 4.1.4 Distribution of academia heads by position N=242
Position Frequency Percentage
Dean 36 15%
Chairman/Chairperson 180 74%
In charge 26 11%
The frequency percentage of academia heads is bifurcated into three categories by
position. Maximum respondents fall in categories of chairman/chairperson i.e. 180 (74%),
whereas 36 (15%) in category of Dean and 26 (11%) in category of in-charge. Refer to Table
(4.1.4).
83
Table: 4.1.5 Distribution of academia heads by qualification N=242
Qualification Frequency Percentage
Post –Doc 38 16%
PhD 204 84%
The table 4.1.5 indicates that 204 (84%) of the respondents hold a Ph.D degree while 38
(16%) have a postdoctoral degree.
Table: 4.1.6 Distribution of academia heads by experience N=242
Experience Frequency Percentage
<10 48 20%
10-20 128 53%
21+ 66 27%
The table 4.1.6 depicts that 128 (53%) of the heads possess experience between 10 to 20
years, 66 (27%) respondents more than 21 years while 48 (20%) less than ten years working
experience.
Table: 4.1.7 Distribution of academia heads by age N=242
Age Frequency Percentage
Under 26 0 0%
26-35 0 0%
36-45 33 14%
46-55 142 59%
56+ 67 27%
Table 4.1.7 reveals that 142 (59%) respondents are between the age group of 46 to 56
years, 33 (14%) are less than 45 years while 67 (27%) of more than 56 years of age.
Table: 4.1.8 Distribution of academia heads by marital status N=242
Marital status Frequency Percentage
Married 205 85%
Un-married 37 15%
Table 4.1.8 depicts that 205 (85%) of respondent are married while 37 (15%) unmarried.
84
4.1.2 Results Based on Stress Symptoms of Academia Heads
In this section, responses of stress symptoms are analyzed. Researcher identifies 12
stress symptoms of academia heads working in universities. This table presents a
comprehensive, quantitative analytical frame work of stress symptoms of academia heads
working in public sector universities of Punjab. The detailed of the each response with given
frequencies are as:
Table 4.1.9 Response of academia heads on stress symptoms N=242
Symptoms
Option
Never
Rarely Sometime Often Always
f % f % f % f % f %
Anger 2 1 23 10 206 85 11 4 0 0
Anxiety 53 22 35 14 154 64 0 0 0 0
Backache 45 19 37 19 160 66 0 0 0 0
Chest pain 231 95 7 3 4 2 0 0 0 0
Depression 19 8 23 10 173 71 19 8 8 3
Exhausted 8 3 19 8 56 23 154 64 5 2
Frustrated 29 12 28 12 163 67 19 8 3 1
Headache 25 10 16 7 183 76 15 6 3 1
Helplessness 15 6 23 10 181 75 17 7 6 3
Inability to
concentrate
109 45 32 13 93 38 6 3 2 1
Irritability 12 5 57 24 167 69 4 2 2 1
Neck ache 63 26 37 15 134 55 6 3 2 1
This table no. 4.1.9 Provided the detail of stress symptoms of academia heads working in
public sector universities. On the basis of result of the above stress symptoms the level of the
stress mild stress, moderate stress and higher stress were determined. In the main sample of the
academia the response of symptoms were used to calculate the stress levels. The mean score
values were used to calculate the stress levels of the academia.
85
4.1.2.1 Levels and Percentage of Academia heads Stress
The level and percentage of stress were determined on the main sample. According to
Awino (2008) in finding job stress of University teacher and their stress levels as:
Table No 4.1.10 N= 242
Levels of stress N Percentage Mean score range
Mild Stress 79 33% 1.00-2.50
Moderate Stress 136 56% 2.51-3.50
High Stress 27 11% 3.51-5.00
Table no 4.1.10 portrays levels of stress, 33% academia heads have mild stress, 56 % have
moderate stress whereas 11% academia have high level of stress.
4.1.3 Results based on Professional Responses of Academia Heads
The overall responses of all academia heads of universities across Punjab were recorded
against sixteen sub indicators to understand the job stress of academic heads and its effect on
their performance. The following tables present a comprehensive quantitative analytical
framework of the job stress indicators of academic heads working in public sector universities of
Punjab. These tables’ present responses in the form of frequency, percentage, mean score and
standard deviation.
86
Table 4.1.11 Academia heads’ response on autonomy in work N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
F % f % f % Mean S.D
1 You are fully responsible for decision
making and know when and how to take
decisions
176 73 22 9 44 18 3.36 0.685
2 Role clarity in academic and
administrative domains
213 88 7 3 22 9 3.98 0.475
3 Freedom to share views during meetings 183 76 19 8 40 16 3.71 0.789
4 Lack of empowerment is a source of
stress
176 73 18 7 48 20 3.43 0.862
5 Lack of participation in decision making
is a source of embarrassment
178 74 42 17 22 9 3.56 0.636
Table no 4.1.11 mean scores (3.36, 3.98, 3.71, 3.43, 3.56) revealed positive agreement of
the five statements. This means that academia heads are fully responsible for decision making.
Their roles are clear in all administrative and academic domains. Furthermore, lack of
empowerment and decision making was a source of stress for them while they did enjoy freedom
to share their views during meetings.
87
Table 4.1.12 Academia heads responses on quality of work N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
F % f % f % Mean S.D
6 Your job itself provides proof of
your performance
182 75 13 5 47 19 3.77 0.485
7 Trying to meet the higher education
criteria is stressful for you
205 85 5 2 32 13 3.95 0..343
8 Overwork of department is stressful
for you
189 78 10 2 43 24 3.86 0.623
9 Internal conflicts of colleagues do
not affect the teaching and learning
process
37 15 19 8 186 65 1.56 0.762
10 A general feeling exists that effort of
the academic heads are not valued
163 67 19 8 60 25 3.72 0.163
In table 4.1.12 mean scores (1.56) showed a disagreement with response of statement. It is
pointed out that, internal conflicts among colleagues affected the teaching and learning process.
Furthermore, mean scores (3.95, 3.86, 3.77) showed an agreement with the statements that
academic heads overwork was stressful for them and that a general feeling exists that effort of
the academia heads were not valued. Furthermore, academic heads job itself provides the proof
of their performance. Meanwhile, mean score (3.95) showed that trying to meet the higher
education criteria was stressful for academia heads.
88
Table 4.1.13 Academia heads response on flexibility of work N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
F % f % f % Mean S.D
11 You are satisfied with the balance
between your commitment and the rest
of your life
53 22 23 10 166 69 1.67 0.316
12 You have time and opportunity for the
future preparation of your job and
promotion
188 78 17 7 39 16 3.81 0.572
13 You are unable to use your expertise as
academia
58 24 23 10 161 67 1.51 0.913
14 It is not easy for you to meet deadlines 55 23 23 10 164 68 1.53 0.862
Table No. 4.1.13 mean scores (1.67, 1.51, 1.53) revealed a disagreement with statements.
It is pointed out that academia heads do not have a balance between official commitments and
the rest of their life. Furthermore, they are unable to use their expertise and it was not easy for
them to meet deadlines. Meanwhile, mean score 3.81 supported, to some extent that academia
heads had time and opportunity for future preparation of their job promotion.
89
Table 4.1.14 Academia heads responses on organizational behavior N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
15 You performance is formally
evaluated by an appropriate
authority
213 88 10 4 19 12 3.95 0.386
16 While teaching new courses,
you help your academia
43 18 39 16 160 66 1.56 0.823
17 You do not get demoralized by
an unjust treatment of your
career promotion
24 10 36 15 182 75 1.23 0.562
18 Workload of department is
evenly distributed by you
among academia
54 22 23 10 165 68 1.52 0.463
Table No 4.1.14, mean scores (1.56, 1.23) indicated a disagreement with statements. It
pointed out that academia heads while teaching new courses do not support their academia and
they were demoralized by an unjust treatment of their career promotion. Furthermore, mean
score (3.95) supported statement that heads’ performance was formally evaluated by an
appropriate authority and that workload of department was not evenly distributed by heads
among academia.
90
Table 4.1.15 Academia heads response on financial benefits N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
F % f % f % Mean S.D
19 You are satisfied with your pay and
benefits
182 75 37 15 23 10 3.88 0.367
20 You receive enough internal funding to
conduct your work smoothly
53 22 24 10 165 68 1.46 0.987
21 You feel there is no gap between the
work you do and the way it is evaluated
44 18 23 10 175 72 1.23 0.923
The mean scores (1.46, 1.26) in table 4.1.15 indicated that majority of heads did not have
internal funding to conduct their work smoothly and they felt a gap between their work and the
way it was evaluated. Meanwhile, mean score (3.88) showed an agreement with the statement. It
pointed out that academic heads were satisfied with their pay and benefits.
Table 4.1.16 Academia heads responses on social interaction at work N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
F % f % f % Mean S.D
22
You enjoy a harmonious working
relationship with your academia
49 20 19 8 174 72 1.47 0.435
23 You enjoy working with your colleagues 52 21 14 6 176 73 1.45 0.543
24 You have an effective network of
support at work
189 74 5 2 38 24 3.76 0.623
25 Academic heads who are inducted on
contractual basis have the same social
status and respect as that of regular
ones’
34 14 12 5 196 81 1.25 0.162
26 You are encouraged at work by your
boss
63 26 21 9 158 65 1.96 0.613
In table 4.1.16 mean scores (1.47, 1.45, 1.25, 1.96) revealed a disagreement with the four
statements. It pointed out that academia heads didn’t have good working relation and they had no
effective network of support at workplace. Furthermore, academia heads working on contractual
91
basis didn’t enjoy the same respect as that of the regular ones and, the boss did not encourage
their academia heads. Meanwhile, mean score 3.76 pointed out that academia have an effective
network of support at their work place.
Table 4.1.17 Academic heads response on provision of privacy N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
F % f % f % Mean S.D
27
You often forego professional activities
(local or international meetings) because
of personal commitments.
66 27 25 10 151 62 1.57 0.385
28 you are subjected to workplace
harassment in the form of unkind words
and behavior
43 18 24 10 175 72 1..20 0.686
29 You never become impatient over small
inconveniences
189 74 5 2 38 24 3.76 0.923
30 You never feel physically ,emotionally
or spiritually threatened
176 73 18 7 48 20 3.73 0.862
Table no 4.1.17 mean scores (3.73, 3.76) indicated a strong agreement with statements,
that heads never feel physically, emotionally or spiritually threatened at campus and they never
become impatient over small inconveniences. Meanwhile, mean scores (1.57, 1.20) revealed
disagreement with statements, that heads often have to forgo professional activities because of
their personal commitments and that they are subjected to workplace harassment in the form of
unkind words and behavior.
92
Table 4.1.18 Academia heads responses on communication channel at work N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
F % f % f % Mean S.D
31
You don’t have any hesitation in taking
new initiatives even in the face of
resistance from academia
69 29 22 9 151 62 1.52 0.685
32 A well-developed “ Accountability
System” is needed for a sustainable
performance by you
176 73 27 11 39 16 3.76 0.686
33 Taking viewpoints of students is an
influential step taken by you
165 68 13 5 64 26 3.66 0.923
34 You feel there is a lack of provision of
mutual assistance among various
departments
176 73 18 7 48 20 3.73 0.862
According to table no 4.1.18 mean scores (3.76, 3.66, 3.73) showed an agreement with
all the three statements. It pointed out that a well-developed accountability system is needed for
sustainable performance, taking view point of students is an influential step and heads felt that
there is a lack of provision of mutual assistance among various departments. Furthermore the
mean score (1.52) shows a disagreement with statement that heads didn’t have any hesitation in
taking new initiatives even in the face of resistance from academia.
93
Table 4.1.19 Academia heads responses on working condition N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
F % f % f % Mean S.D
35 You have sufficient office space for
carrying out your official duties
215 89 12 5 15 6 3.95 0.685
36 Inadequate lighting is a cause of
disturbance for you in carrying out your
official work effectively
203 84 16 7 23 9 3.79 0.686
37 You can’t work effectively with
excessive cold and heat in your premises
189 74 5 2 38 24 3.76 0.923
38 Exterior noise and surrounding
environment does not disrupt your
working
48 20 18 7 176 73 1.23 0.862
The mean scores values ( 3.95, 3.79, 3.76) given in Table 4.1.19 pointed out that heads
have sufficient office space for carrying out official duties, inadequate lighting disturbed them in
an carrying out their official work effectively and they couldn’t work effectively in excessive
cold and heat. Furthermore, mean score (1.23) shows a disagreement with statement that exterior
noise and surrounding environment did not disrupt their working.
94
Table 4.1.20 Responses of academia heads on furniture N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
F % f % f % Mean S.D
39 A large flexible space and well
equipped labs are available to
accommodate student projects
156 65 22 9 64 26 3.07 0.685
40 You have adequate visitors space in
your office
165 68 23 10 54 22 3.10 0.686
41 You have sufficient furniture for your
use
189 74 5 2 38 24 3.79 0.923
42 You have enough furniture for staff
meetings
176 73 18 7 48 20 3.76 0.862
In table no 4.1.20 means scores (3.07, 3.10, 3.79, 3.76) indicated a positive relation with
all four statements. It pointed out that large flexible well equipped labs are available for student
projects and all heads have visitors space in their offices. Furthermore, heads have enough
furniture for holding staff meetings.
95
Table 4.1.21 Academia heads on equipment facility N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
F % F % f % Mean S.D
44 You have telephone and internet facility
for better communication
182 75 18 7 42 18 3.77 0.685
44 You have printer facility in your office 233 94 0 0 9 6 4.65 0.686
45 You have photocopier in your office 189 74 5 2 38 24 3.70 0.923
In table no 4.1.21 mean scores (3.77, 4.65, 3.70) supported all three statements. It pointed
out that all the offices of respondents were equipped with internet, telephone, printer and
photocopier.
Table 4.1.22 Academia heads response on space organization N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
F % f % f % Mean S.D
46
You are provided sufficient work space
and privacy
165 68 27 11 50 21 3.01 0.685
47 You have seminar /conference room
facilities for meeting with staff member
203 84 16 6 23 10 3.94 0.686
48 You and your staff member have
sufficient and convenient place for
parking your vehicles
179 74 25 10 38 16 3.74 0.923
According to table no 4.1.22 mean scores (3.01, 3.94, 3.74) revealed agreement with all
three statement. It pointed out that heads had sufficient work space and privacy, seminar and
conference room facilities. Furthermore the mean scores supported that heads and their staff
members had sufficient parking space for their vehicles.
96
Table 4.1.23 Responses of academia heads on personal space N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
49 You generally never feel isolated
on the campus
157 64 23 10 62 26 2.99 0.685
50 Poor rapport with academia does
not affect your work efficiency
53 22 9 4 168 69 1.23 0.686
51 Nonsense of daily life does not
affect your work
55 23 18 7 169 70 1.16 0.923
52 One of your potential features is
to set a practical example to
motivate your students
176 73 18 7 48 20 3.43 0.862
The mean scores (2.99, 1.23, 1.16) in table No. 4.1.23 indicated disagreement with three
statements. It pointed out that academic heads never felt isolated on campus. Meanwhile the poor
rapport with academia and nonsense of daily life affected their work efficiency. Furthermore,
mean score (3.43) supported the statement that potential feature of heads was to set an example
for motivating their students.
97
Table 4.1.24 Responses of academia heads on individual control N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
F % f % f % Mean S.D
53 Personal responsibilities and
commitments have slowed down your
carrier progression
166 69 18 7 58 24 3.10 0.615
54 You are psychologically supported in an
emotional and demanding working
environment
176 72 23 10 43 18 3.33 0.386
55 When a problem arises at work you are
able to cope with it constructively
189 78 5 2 48 20 3.59 0.723
56 Problems associated with your job never
keep you awake at night
176 73 18 7 48 20 3.43 0.812
57 Discriminating by your boss never
stresses you
52 21 30 12 170 70 1.52 0.363
Mean scores (3.10, 3.33, 3.59, 3.43) in table No 4.1.24 supported four statements. It is
pointed out that to some extent personal responsibilities did slow down carrier progression of the
academic heads. Furthermore, heads are emotionally and psychologically supported in emotional
and demanding work conditions and their constructive ability help them cope with problems at
work. And their official matters of heads do not affect their sleep. Meanwhile mean score (1.52)
indicated disagreement with statement. It pointed out that discriminating of boss stressed the
academic heads.
98
Table 4.1.25 Information overload N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
58 Your work is more than what you
can handle
165 68 32 13 45 19 3.07 0.685
59 Long and unpredictable working
hours increases your workload
167 69 13 6 62 26 3.11 0.686
60 Your job requires a great deal of
concentration that causes stress
189 78 25 10 28 12 3.66 0.923
61 You do not get enough time for
your family members due to
heavy research work load
179 74 16 6 47 20 3.53 0.862
In table No 4.1.25 mean scores (3.07, 3.11, 3.66, and 3.53) indicated a positive
agreement with all four statements. It pointed out that academic heads had more work than they
could handle and that long and unpredictable working hours increased their workload.
Furthermore, their job required a great deal of concentration that caused stress and that they did
not have enough time for their families.
99
Table 4.1.26 Response of academia heads on energy draining N=242
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f %
Mean
S.D
62 Publication requirements by HEC for
Promotion creates stress for you
172 71 25 10 45 19 3.51 0.685
63 You want to withdraw from a
demanding work schedule that
consumes your time and energy
200 83 11 5 31 12 3.95 0.686
64 You often energize your academia
with rewards and recognition of their
work
52 21 23 10 167 69 1.69 0.923
65 You remain unbiased while writing
performance report of your staff
156 78 46 19 40 17 3.77 0.862
Table no 4.1.26 (A) mean scores (3.51, 3.95, 3.77) of all responses showed agreement
with all statements. It pointed out that publication requirement by HEC for promotion created
stress and heads wanted to withdraw from a demanding work schedule that consumed time and
energy. Furthermore mean score 1.69 showed that heads did not energized academia with
rewards and recognition and remained unbiased while writing performance reports.
100
4.1.4 Analysis of Responses of Academia Heads Against Open-Ended Questions.
In this study , with the help of job stress of academia and its effects on their performance,
the perception of all sampled heads are also complied against five open-ended items related .
The responses of 242 heads are quantified, in order to find out the frequency of repeated
responses against each question and these responses were priorities after calculating their
percentage. This table presents the responses of all open-ended items.
Table no 4.1.27 Response of academia heads against open-ended response
Response Categories Frequency Percentage
Autonomy of work 131 54%
Quality of work 111 46%
Lack of facility 94 39%
Heavy workload/undefined work load 163 67%
Real time evaluation and reward/recognition 137 57%
Disobey of working mechanism 101 42%
Interference of administration 123 51%
Flexibility in work 112 46%
Internal conflict 165 68%
Unrealistic deadline and expectation 108 45%
Table no 4.1.27 revealed that 54 % of the responded viewed that, autonomy in work
caused the stress in academic head, meanwhile, 46 % were in viewed that, quality of work.
Furthermore, 39% were considering lack of facility is the caused. It was also found from the
open-ended response that, 67% were in viewed that heavy world/ undefined work load causes
job stress in academia. 42% of the responded were suggested that disobey working mechanism
created stress. It was also depicted from the open-ended responses that, 51 % considered
interference from admiration caused stress in academia. It were also concluded that, 46%
flexibility in work, 68% internal conflict and 45% of unrealistic deadlines and expectation were
considered job stress of academia.
101
Table No 4.1.28 Pearson Correlation of the Academia heads N=242
Job Stress Sub
Scale
Gender Post Position Experience Age Marital
Status
Qualification
Autonomy of
Work
Pearson
Correlation 0.16** 0.22** 0.13** 0.05** 0.04** 0.35** 0.04**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.32 0.00 0.32
Quality of Work Pearson
Correlation 0.05** -0.12** 0.08** 0.00** 0.19** -0.06** 0.19**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.22 0.00 0.07 0.99 0.00 0.14 0.00
Flexibility of
Work
Pearson
Correlation -0.08** 0.12** -0.17** -0.04** 0.38** -0.03** 0.38**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.51 0.00
Organizational
Behavior
Pearson
Correlation -0.02** 0.09** 0.08** -0.02** 0.13** -0.16** 0.13**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.69 0.03 0.07 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Benefits Pearson
Correlation -0.06** 0.07** 0.08** 0.00** 0.17** -0.05** 0.17**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.98 0.00 0.25 0.00
Social Interaction
at Work
Pearson
Correlation -0.15** -0.03** -0.01** -0.01** 0.28** -0.27** 0.28**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 0.43 0.81 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00
Provision of
Privacy
Pearson
Correlation -0.03** 0.03** -0.08** 0.02** 0.20** -0.08** 0.20**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.43 0.53 0.06 0.60 0.00 0.05 0.00
Communication
Channel at Work
Pearson
Correlation 0.08** 0.13** -0.24** 0.08** 0.17** -0.15** 0.17**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
Working
Condition
Pearson
Correlation 0.03** 0.07** -0.12** 0.03** 0.11** -0.06** 0.11**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.55 0.10 0.00 0.53 0.01 0.15 0.01
Official Furniture Pearson
Correlation -0.13** 0.00** -0.23** -0.05** 0.14** -0.15** 0.14**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Equipment
Facility
Pearson
Correlation -0.24** 0.14** -0.18** -0.05** 0.01** -0.04** 0.01**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.90 0.30 0.00
Space
Organization
Pearson
Correlation -0.03** 0.08** -0.23** 0.00** 0.08** 0.01** 0.08**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.53 0.05 0.00 0.93 0.06 0.77 0.00
Personal Space Pearson
Correlation -0.01** 0.19** -0.17** 0.00** 0.01** 0.18** 0.01**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.86 0.00 0.86
Individual
Control
Pearson
Correlation -0.02** 0.29** -0.17** 0.01** 0.13** 0.06** 0.13**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.19 0.00
Information
Overload
Pearson
Correlation -0.02** 0.29** -0.17** 0.01** 0.13** 0.06** 0.13**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.19 0.00
Energy Draining Pearson
Correlation -0.02** 0.29** -0.17** 0.01** 0.13** 0.06** 0.13**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.19 0.00
*P<0.05, **P<0.01
Table No 4.1.28 described the Pearson correlation of the academia heads job stress with
demographic variables. The results of the sub scales of indicated that gender have no relation
with job stress sub scales. Whereas, the post of the academia heads have the relationship with the
102
job stress sub indicators. The academia heads working on contractual position have a weaker
relationship with these variables as compared to the regular. Furthermore, the position of the
academia heads as dean, and chairperson have strong relation with these job stress sub scales as
compared to the position of in charge. It is further evident from the results of the Pearson
correlation form the marital status, as married women have more association with the job stress
variables as compared to the unmarried.
However, the results of correlation regarding qualifications indicated a relationship with
job stress variables. More qualified persons have more autonomy, quality and flexibility of work.
The less qualified have less relation with these variables of job stress. The age of the academia
heads also have significant relationship with job stress variables, the aged and experienced
academia heads have strong relation with variables as, compared to the younger and less
experienced academia heads.
Furthermore, the academia heads have strong relationship with the autonomy of work,
quality of work, flexibility of work and social interaction at work. It is concluded form the results
of the correlation age, experience, post, position and qualification have significant relation,
whereas, gender has insignificant relation.
103
4.2 ACADEMIA RESPONSE ANALYSES
In this section, responses of university academia are analyzed. Academia is an important
group of university. All academic activities of university are designed and performed by
academia, without academia no activity could be generated and completed. Academia works on
different position in universities such as Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and
Lecturer. Professor is the highest position of academia as well as Lecturer is initial one.
Table 4.2.1 Total numbers of usable questionnaires of respondents
Respondent
Group-B
Population Sample Questionnaires
Distributed
Questionnaires
Returned
Useable
Questionnaires
Academia 4344 434 500 470 422
The research study for academia through table 4.2.1 (B) shows that population of study
comprised a total number of respondents as 4344. Ten percent (434) of the whole population was
taken as sample. This sample comprised all Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor
and lecturer of targeted universities. Out of 500 academia(s) only 470 responded positively and
returned filled out questionnaires. Out of 470 questionnaires, 48 were not counted due to
inaccuracies and an incomplete response rate. The remaining 422 questionnaires were
successfully sorted out in order to have a complete response.
104
4.2.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
The academia demographic and responses against structured questionnaire are presented.
Information regarding demographic characteristics of respondents in terms of gender, post,
position, academic qualification, experience, age and marital status is analyzed as presented in
the following seven tables:
Table: 4.2.2 Distribution of academia by gender N=422
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 257 61%
Female 165 39%
This table no 4.2.2 shows that out of 422 respondents 257(61%) were male and 165(39)
were female.
Table: 4.2.3 Distribution of academia by post N=422
Post Frequency Percentage
Permanent 253 60%
Contractual 131 31%
TTS/Adhoc 38 9%
In table no 4.2.3 post of academia classified into three categories. Out of 422 respondents,
253(60%) were working on permanent basis, 131(31%) were on contractual basis and 38(9%) on
TTS basis.
Table: 4.2.4Distribution of academia by position N= 422
Position Frequency Percentage
Professor 24 6%
Associate Professor 55 13%
Assistant Professor 81 19%
Lecturer 262 62%
In table no 4.2.4 position of academia classified into four categories. Out of 422
respondents 262(62%) were working on the position of lecturer and 81(19%) were as assistant
professor. Furthermore, 55(13%) were as associate Professor and 24(6%) professor.
105
Table: 4.2.5 Distribution by qualification
Qualification Frequency Percentage
Post –Doc 17 4%
PhD 143 34%
MS/M.Phil 232 55%
MA/MSc 30 7%
The table no 4.2.5 indicate that, 232(55%) of the respondents hold MS/M.Phil degree,
143(34%) have PhD degree. Furthermore, 30(17%) hold MA/MSc and only 17(4%) respondent
hold Postdoctoral degree.
Table: 4.2.6 Distribution of academia by experience
Experience Frequency Percentage
<5 141 33%
5-10 122 29%
11-15 91 22%
15+ 68 16%
In this table no 4.2.6 shows that 141(33%) respondents have less than five years’
experience and 122(29%) possess experience between 5 to 10 years. Meanwhile, 91(22%)
having experience between 11 to 15 year and 68(16%) have more than 15 years.
Table: 4.2.7 Distribution by age
Age Frequency Percentage
Under 30 54 13%
30-40 215 51%
41-50 85 20%
50+ 68 16%
Table no 4.2.7 revealed that 54(13%) respondents less than 30 years age group, while
215(51%) between 30 to 40 years of age group and 85(20%) between 41 to 50 years.
Furthermore, 68(16%) are above 50 years of age group.
106
Table: 4.2.8 Distribution by marital status
Marital status Frequency Percentage
Married 279 66%
Un-married 143 34%
Table no 4.2.8 depicts that 279(66%) of respondent are married, while 143(34%) unmarried.
4.2.2 Results based on Job Stress Symptoms of Academia
In this section, responses of job stress symptoms are analyzed. Researcher identifies 14
stress symptoms of academia working in Universities. This table presents a comprehensive,
quantitative analytical frame work of stress symptoms of academic heads working in public
sector universities of Punjab. The detailed of the each response with given frequencies are as
Table 4.2.9 Response of academia on stress symptoms N=422
Symptoms
Option
Never
Rarely Sometime Often Always
f % F % f % f % f %
Anger 26 6 44 10 255 60 83 20 14 3
Anxiety 14 3 28 7 215 51 158 37 7 2
Backache 206 49 74 18 128 30 14 3 0 0
Chest pain 398 94 12 3 12 3 0 0 0 0
Depression 19 5 46 11 244 58 109 26 4 1
Exhausted 12 3 43 10 292 70 70 17 5 1
Frustrated 19 5 53 12 190 45 155 37 5 1
Headache 88 19 54 13 243 56 33 8 4 1
Helplessness 23 5 50 12 292 69 47 11 10 2
Inability to concentrate 105 25 42 10 267 63 8 2 0 0
Irritability 4 1 89 21 312 74 12 3 5 1
Neck ache 56 13 47 11 287 68 24 6 8 2
This table no. 4.2.9 Provided the detail of stress symptoms of academia working in
public sector universities. On the basis of result of the above stress symptoms the level of the
stress, mild stress moderate stress and higher stress were determined. In the main sample of the
academia the response of symptoms were used to calculate the stress levels. The mean score
were used to calculate the stress level of the university academia.
107
4.2.2.1 Levels and Percentage of Academia Stress
The level and percentage of stress were determined on the main sample. According to
Awino (2008) in finding job stress of university teacher and their levels as:
Table No 4.2.10 N= 422
Levels of stress N Percentage Mena score
Mild Stress 130 31% 1.00-2.50
Moderate Stress 228 54% 2.51-3.50
High Stress 64 15% 3.51-5.00
Table 4.2.10 portrays levels of stress, 31% academia has mild stress, 54 % have moderate stress
whereas 15% academia has high level of stress.
4.2.3 Results based on Job Stress Responses of Academia
In this section, the overall responses of academia of targeted universities across Punjab
were recorded against sixteen sub indicators to understand the job stress of academic heads and
its effects on their performance. A critical analysis of each items response by academia on sub
indicators was analyzed. The following tables’ presents a comprehensive quantitative analytical
framework of Job stress of academia working in public sector universities of Punjab. These
tables’ present responses in form of frequency, percentage, mean score and standard deviation.
108
Table 4.2.11 Academia response on autonomy in work N=422
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
1 You are fully responsible for decisions
making and knows when and how to
take decisions.
93 22 35 8 294 70 1.57 0.625
2 All aspects of your role are clearly
defined
301 71 23 5 98 24 2.70 0..450
3 During meeting , you have the freedom
to share your views
253 60 45 11 124 39 2.61 0.823
4 Lack of participation in decision making
is a source of embarrassment for you
310 73 35 8 77 19 3.05 0.462
In this table no 4.2.11 mean scores (3.05, 2.61, 2.70) depicts positive agreement of two
statements. It pointed out, lack of participation in decision is source of embarrassment and during
meeting academia have freedom to share views. Furthermore, academia role are clearly defined.
Furthermore, mean score (1.57) shows a disagreement with statement. It pointed out academia is
not fully responsible for decision making when and how to take decisions.
109
Table 4.2.12 Academia responses on quality of work N=422
Item N
o
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
Statements f % f % f % Mean S.D
5 You feel that your academic
work is valued
354 84 40 9 118 28 3.67 0.685
6 Trying to meet higher education
criteria is stressful for you
345 82 53 13 24 5 3.50 0.453
7 Your departmental conflicts are
responsible for you not coming
up to the expectations of your
students
320 76 43 10 59 14 3.10 0.923
8 Technological advancements in
education are difficult for you to
keep up with
106 25 48 11 268 64 1.26 0.862
Table no 4.2.12 mean scores (3.50, 3.10, 3.67) shows positive agreement with three
statements. It pointed out, trying to meet higher education criteria is stressful and departmental
conflicts are responsible to meet expectations of students. Meanwhile, academia work is valued.
Furthermore, mean score 1.26 indicates, technological advancement in education is difficult for
academia to keep up with.
110
Table 4.2.13 Academia response on flexibility of work N=422
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
9 You teach course that you would
prefer to teach
111 26 37 9 274 65 1.43 0.685
10 Your assigned work is related to
your interest
109 26 23 5 290 69 1.37 0.686
11 You have achievable deadlines 289 68 67 16 66 16 3.10 0.923
12 You are satisfied with the balance
between your commitment at work
and rest of your life
276 69 56 13 90 21 3.19 0.862
Table 4.2.13 mean scores (3.10, 3.19) depicted an agreement with statements. It pointed
out that academia have achievable deadline and satisfied with balance between their commitment
at work and their rest of life. Furthermore, mean scores (1.43, 1.37) showed a disagreement with
statements, that academia teach course that they would prefer to teach and their assigned work
is related to their interest.
111
Table 4.2.14 Academia responses on organizational behavior N=422
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
13 Workload of department is
evenly distributed among you
and your colleagues
305 72 27 6 90 21 3.71 0.41
5
14 While teaching new course
head of department help you
120 28 37 9 265 63 1.36 0.62
6
15 You are given supportive
feedback on the work you do
256 61 55 13 111 26 2.65 0.72
3
16 Your head of department
does not Psychologically
stress you
109 26 29 6 284 67 1.22 0.36
2
17 You are provided time and
opportunity to prepare
yourself for future job related
challenges
137 32 27 6 258 66 1.56 0.41
3
In this table no 4.2.14 mean scores (1.36, 1.22, 1.56) indicates a disagreement with
statements. It pointed out that heads of department does not help while teaching new course to
their academia. Furthermore, head psychologically stress to their academia and they have less
time and opportunity for preparation of their future related challenges. Meanwhile, mean score
3.71 indicated that departmental workload is evenly distributed. However, 2.65 mean score
shows that academia given supportive feedback on their work.
112
Table 4.2.15 Academia response on financial benefits N=422
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
18 You are satisfied with your pay and
benefits.
367 87 23 5 32 8 3.57 0.685
19 You usually get financial benefits for
additional work that you perform.
102 24 34 8 286 68 1.25 0.686
20 You feel that, there is strong gap
between work you did and the way it is
evaluated for promotion and salary raise.
265 63 33 8 124 29 2.66 0.923
21 You get same financial benefits as get
that of your colleagues.
396 94 19 4 7 2 4.23 0.123
Table no. 4.2.15 mean scores (3.57, 2.66, 4.23) indicated a strong agreement with
statements. It pointed out, academia satisfied with pay and benefits and there is a gap between
the work and evaluation of academia. Furthermore, all academia have the same financial
benefits. Meanwhile, mean score 1.25 indicated that academia does not get financial benefits for
additional work.
113
Table 4.2.16 Responses on social interaction at work N=422
Item N
o
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
Statements f % f % f % Mean S.D
22 You consider that there is harmony
between you and your colleagues
81 19 37 39 304 72 1.23 0.685
23 You enjoy working with your
colleagues
101 24 29 7 292 69 1.76 0.686
24 Academia who are inducted on
contractual basis have the same
social status as that of regular ones
97 23 17 4 308 77 1.19 0.923
25 Over ambitious colleagues try to put
you down
276 65 18 2 128 31 2.93 0.862
26 You have an effective network of
support and supervision at work
257 62 76 17 89 21 2.82 0.63
This table no 4.2.16 mean scores (1.23, 1.76, 1.19) revealed negative responses against
statements. It shows that, lack of harmony among academia and they enjoy working with their
colleagues. Furthermore, academia working on contract doesn’t have the same status as that of
regular. Meanwhile mean score (2.93, 2.82) shows agreement with statements. It pointed out that
over ambitious colleagues try to put down and academia has an affective network. Mean score
(2.82) supports the statement academia has effective network of support and supervision at work.
114
Table 4.2.17 Academia response on provision of privacy N=422
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
27 You often have to forgo
professional activities (local or
international meeting) because of
personal responsibilities.
79 19 33 8 310 73 1.23 0.335
28 You are subjected to workplace
harassment in form of unkind words
and behavior.
298 71 21 5 102 24 3.31 0.226
29 You never become impatient over
small inconveniences.
256 61 63 15 92 22 2.64 0.123
30 You never feel physically,
emotionally or spiritually
threatened.
123 29 38 9 261 62 1.21 0.112
This table no 4.2.17 mean scores (3.31, 2.64) showed positive response toward
statements. It pointed out, academia are subjected to workplace harassment in the form of
unkind words and behavior. Furthermore, academia never becomes impatient over small
inconveniences. Meanwhile, mean score (1.23, 1.21) shows a disagreement with statements. It
shows academia often forgo professional activities because of personal responsibilities and never
feel physically, emotionally or spiritually threatened.
115
Table 4.2.18 Academia responses on communication channel at work N=422
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
31
You get feedback on your
performance evaluation.
121 29 32 8 269 63 1.57 0.685
32 Poor rapport with colleagues and
head affect your efficiency at
work.
310 73 18 4 94 23 3.76 0.686
34 You have the same opportunity
of capacity building and pursuing
higher education as that of
others.
123 29 5 1 275 70 1.23 0.923
This table no 4.2.18 mean scores (1.57, 1.23) depicts a disagreement of statements. It
pointed out academia don’t get feedback on their performance and they don’t have equal
opportunities. Meanwhile mean score 3.76 shows that, poor rapport of academia effect on their
performance.
116
Table 4.2.19 Academia response on working condition N=422
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
35 Your working conditions are not
satisfying for you.
123 29 29 7 270 64 1.47 0.685
36 Your work does not suffer with
excessive cold and heat in the premises.
111 26 23 5 288 68 1.23 0.686
37 Exterior noise and surrounding
environment does not disrupt your work.
89 21 34 8 301 71 1.11 0.923
38 Poor ventilation of the classroom affects
the teaching and learning process.
121 29 43 10 258 61 1.53 0.862
This table no. 4.2.19 mean scores (1.47, 1.23, 1.11, 1.53) depicted a disagreement with
all four statements. It pointed out that, working conditions are not satisfying for academia and
their work suffer due to excessive cold and heat. Furthermore, exterior noise and poor ventilation
affects the teaching learning process.
117
Table 4.2.20 Academia responses on furniture N=422
Item N
o
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
Statements f % f % f % Mean S.D
39 A large flexible space and well
equipped labs are available to
accommodate student’s project.
287 68 89 21 46 11 2.67 0.215
41 You have visitor Space in your
office with facility.
110 26 39 9 273 65 1.33 0.316
42 You have sufficient furniture for
your use in your office.
296 70 18 4 113 27 1.66 0.623
43 You have enough furniture for
meeting with the staff
275 65 23 5 124 29 2.69 0.862
In this table no. 4.2.20 mean scores (1.33, 1.66) showed a negative responses of three
statements. It pointed out that, 273(65%) of academia has visitor space in their offices.
Meanwhile, 155(37%) respondents disagreed with that they have sufficient furniture in their
offices. Furthermore, 275 (65%) agreed with that they have enough furniture for meeting of
staff. However, the mean score (2.67) showed a positive response of statement, that a large
flexible space and well equipped labs are available to accommodate students project.
Table 4.2.21 Academia responses on equipment facility N=422
Item
No
Statements
Responses
Agree Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
44 You have telephone and internet facility
for better communication in your office.
280 66 87 21 55 13 2.69 0.685
45 You have the facility of printer in your
office.
108 26 33 8 281 67 1.76 0.686
46 You have the facility of photocopier in
your office.
109 26 23 5 290 68 1.56 0.923
This table 4.2.21 mean score (2.69) showed strong relation with statement. 280(66%) of
responses indicated that academia have telephone and internet facility. However, mean scores
(1.76, 1.56) showed a negative relation with statements. It pointed out that, academia don’t have
printer and photocopier in their offices.
118
Table 4.2.22 Academia response on space organization N=422
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
47
You are provided sufficient
work space and privacy.
320 76 67 16 35 8 3.17 0.313
48 By and large, you do not feel
isolation while on campus.
103 24 35 8 284 67 1.32 0.213
49 You have sufficient office for
operating your academic
activity.
270 64 37 9 115 27 2.63 0.323
50 You have your own
independent office
277 66 33 8 112 27 2..65 0.461
Table 4.2.22 mean scores (3.17, 2.63) showed a positive relation with statements. It
pointed out 320(76%) of respondents agreed with this that academia has sufficient work space
and privacy. 270(64%) of respondents agreed that academia have sufficient office for operating
their academic activity. However mean score (1.32) showed a disagreement with statement that,
by and large, academia does not feel isolation while on campus. Furthermore, (2.65) mean score
revealed that, to some extent academia have their own offices.
119
Table 4.2.23 Academia response on personal space N=422
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
51 You do not get frustrated by the
nonsense of daily life
103 24 23 5 296 70 1.43 0.686
52 Your job does not require a great
deal of concentration that causes
stress
119 28 25 6 278 66 1.53 0.923
53 One of your potential feature is
to set a practical example to
motivate students
376 89 18 4 28 7 3.73 0.862
In this table no 4.2.23 mean scores (1.43, 1.53) showed disagreement with statement. It
pointed out, that academia frustrated by nonsense of daily life and their job required a great deal
of concentration that causes stress. However means score (3.73) showed a positive relation with
statement. 376(89%) respondents agreed that, one of their potential features is to set practical
example to motivate their students.
120
Table 4.2.24 Academia responses on individual control N=422
Item N
o
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
Statements f % f % f % Mean S.D
54 Personal responsibility and
commitment has slow down
your carrier responsibility.
283 67 37 9 102 24 2.67 0.586
55 When problems arises at work
you are able to work with these
constructively
289 68 53 13 80 19 2.69 0.723
56 Problems associated with your
jobs do not affect your sleep
106 25 38 9 278 66 1.53 0.362
In this table no. 4.2.24 mean scores (2.67, 2.69) depicted an agreement with statement. It
pointed out, that personal responsibility and commitment have slow down academia carrier
responsibility and when problem arises at work they are able to work with these constructively.
However mean score (1.53) shows a disagreement with statement. It pointed out that problems
associated with jobs of academia affect their sleep.
121
Table 4.2.25 Academia responses on information overload N=422
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
57 Your workload is more than you
handle.
282 66 87 21 53 13 2.68 0.205
58 Long and unpredictable working
hours increase your workload.
280 66 31 7 111 26 2.69 0.372
59 You are threatened with an
emotional and demanding working
environment.
289 68 53 13 110 19 2.70 0.413
60 You have social and religious
interests that remain neglected due
to lack of time in hand.
103 24 25 6 294 70 1.22 0.510
This table no 4.2.25 mean score (2.68, 2.69, 2.70) supported three statements. It shows
workload of academia is more that, they handle and long working hours increases stress.
Furthermore, academia is threatened with an emotional and demanding working environment.
Meanwhile, mean score (1.22) showed disagreement with statement. It shows academia’s social
and religious interest remains neglected due to lack of time in hand.
122
Table 4.2.26 Academia response on energy draining N=422
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
61 Publication requirement by HEC
for Promotion Creates stress for
you
282 67 45 11 95 22 2.67 0.685
62 You want to withdraw from a
demanding work schedule that
consumes your time and energy
285 68 34 8 103 24 2.70 0.686
63 You do not get demoralized by
unjust treatment of your career
promotions
110 26 53 13 259 61 1.56 0.923
64 Your head often energizes you
with rewards and recognition for
your work
123 29 23 5 276 66 1.33 0.862
Table no 4.2.26 mean scores (2.67, 2.70) revealed positive responses of statement. It
shows that, publication requirement by HEC creates stress and academia wants to withdraw from
demanding work schedule that consume time and energy. Meanwhile, mean scores (1.56, 1.33)
shows a disagreement with statements. It pointed out academia demoralized by unjust treatment
of career promotion and their heads do not appreciate for their work.
123
4.2.4 Analysis of Responses of Academia against open-ended questions
Table 4.2.27 Response of academia against open-ended response
S. No Response Categories Frequency Percentage
i. Autonomy of work 213 50%
ii. Quality of work 256 61%
iii. Lack of facility 101 24%
iv. Heavy workload/undefined work load 302 72%
v. Real time evaluation and reward/recognition 219 52%
vi. Disobey of working mechanism 143 34%
vii. Interference of the administration 329 78%
viii. Flexibility in work 276 65%
ix. Internal conflict 386 91%
x. Unrealistic deadline and expectation 259 61%
In this table 4.2.27 shows the response made by the academia regarding stress in open
ended. It was found that 50% of the academia reported that autonomy in work is the cause of
stress. Furthermore, 61% viewed that, quality of work were main reason of stress in academia. It
was also found that, 72% heavy workload/undefined workload, 52% real time evaluation and
reward were the cause of stress in academia. Meanwhile, 61% were considering unrealistic
deadline as source of stress. 91 % of the academia agreed that internal conflict were the source
of stress. A less number (24%, 34%) were suggested lack of facility and disobey of working
environment as stress cause of academia. Moreover, (78%, 65%) of the respondent were
consider interference of administration and flexibility in work as source of stress in academia.
124
Table No 4.2.28 Pearson Correlation of the Academia N=422
Job Stress Sub
Scale
Gender Post Position Experience Age Marital
Status
Qualification
Autonomy of
Work
Pearson
Correlation 0.46** 0.63** 0.62** 0.65** 0.74** 0.18** 0.44**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Quality of Work Pearson
Correlation 0.33** -0.32** 0.68** 0.60** 0.59** -0.26** 0.39**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00
Flexibility of
Work
Pearson
Correlation -0.08** 0.62** -0.37** -0.64** 0.58** -0.33** 0.48**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00
Organizational
Behavior
Pearson
Correlation -0.22** 0.39** 0.38** -0.16** 0.39** -0.58** 0.13**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.69 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Benefits Pearson
Correlation -0.66** 0.77** 0.28** 0.10** 0.77** -0.65** 0.17**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Social Interaction
at Work
Pearson
Correlation -0.14** -0.55** -0.21** -0.09** 0.40** -0.16** 0.11**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.60 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Provision of
Privacy
Pearson
Correlation -0.73** 0.16** -0.59** 0.07** 0.60** -0.18** 0.50**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.43 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Communication
Channel at Work
Pearson
Correlation 0.78** 0.13** -0.54** 0.18** 0.67** -0.25** 0.67**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Working
Condition
Pearson
Correlation 0.44** 0.17** -0.22** 0.13** 0.31** -0.56** 0.41**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Official Furniture Pearson
Correlation -0.43** 0.50** -0.3 ** -0.65** 0.34** -0.45** 0.44**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Equipment
Facility
Pearson
Correlation -0.56** 0.64** -0.28** -0.15** 0.31** -0.6 ** 0.11**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Space
Organization
Pearson
Correlation -0.73** 0.68** -0.13** 0.30** 0.18** 0.71** 0.18**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.53 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Personal Space Pearson
Correlation -0.61** 0.39** -0.67** 0.60** 0.31** 0.88** 0.6 **
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.86 0.00 0.00
Individual
Control
Pearson
Correlation -0.22** 0.69** -0.67** 0.61** 0.73** 0.86** 0.53**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
Information
Overload
Pearson
Correlation -0.62** 0.89** -0.67** 0.61** 0.63** 0.96** 0.83**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Draining Pearson
Correlation -0.32** 0.29** -0.77** 0.41** 0.33** 0.76** 0.73**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
*P<0.01, **P<0.05
125
Table No 4.2.28 indicated the Pearson correlation of the academia working in public sector
universities of the Punjab with the demographic variables. The demographic variables; gender,
post, position, qualification, experience and marital status relation with job stress variables. The
result of the correlation of gender with sub scales variables of job stress shows insignificant
relationship. This is also evident from the results of the post of the academia shows significant
relation with job stress variables. This indicates that contractual and regular academia has
difference of their relationship with job stress.
Furthermore, the position of the academia Professor, Associate professor, Assistant
Professor and lecturer have significant relationship with job stress variables. It is also evident
from the results of the qualification regarding relationship with job stress variable have
significant association. It is concluded from the results that more qualified have more association
as compared to the less qualified. However, the aged and more experienced academia have
significant relationship with job stress variables.
The overall results of the person correlation shows the significant relationship with post,
position, qualification and experience whereas, gender has insignificant relation with job stress
variables.
126
4.3 STUDENTS RESPONSES ANALYSIS
In this section, responses of university Students are analyzed. Students of undergraduate
program to doctoral program are the respondents of this study. Respondents are senior students
representing an educated group. After completion of their enrolled degree programs, they enter a
critical stage of their life contributing to different fields of society. They are normally abreast of
the state of affairs in their institutions, and various aspects of the academic and managerial
activities. This is an important group as far as job stress of academia and its effects on their
performance is concerned.
Table 4.3.1: Total number of usable questionnaires of respondents
Respondents
Group-C
Population Sample Questionnaires
Distributed
Questionnaires
Returned
Usable
Questionnaires
Students 100,800 1008 1100 734 650
Research study for students through table 4.3.1 shows that population of study comprised
a total of 100,800. One percent of the whole population was taken as a sample. The sample size
is 1008. The sample comprised students from undergraduate program to PhD program. Out of
1100 students, only 734 responded positively and returned the filled out questionnaires. Out of
734 questionnaires, 84 were not counted due to inaccuracies and an incomplete response rate.
The remaining 650 questionnaires were successfully sorted out in order to have a complete
response.
127
4.3.1 Response of Students about their Academia’s Performance
In the following 10 tables and 48 statements, opinions of students were analyzed for
effect of job stress on performance of their academia.
Table 4.3.2 Students’ response on attitude/behavior of their academia N=650
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
1 Your academia replies positively
while students ask questions in class
443 68 82 13 125 29 3.29 0.685
2 Your academia performance seems
overshadowed by the attitude of the
head of department
203 31 27 4 410 63 1.72 0.686
3 Your academia remain unbiased
while evaluating student assignment
499 77 33 5 118 18 3.55 0.923
4 Your academia performance is
affected by the criticism of the HoD
476 73 33 5 141 22 3.42. 0.862
5 Your academia treat all students
fairly and honestly
293 45 17 2 340 53 2.06 0.617
Table no 4.3.2 mean scores (3.29, 3.55, 3.42) revealed positive agreement of the three
statements. This means that the academia positively replied while students ask question in class,
and remain unbiased while evaluating the students work. Furthermore, academia performance is
affected by the criticism of the HoD. However, the mean score (1.72) indicated a disagreement
with statement, that academia performance seems overshadowed by the attitude of the head of
department. Meanwhile, mean score 2.76 shows trend that academia treat all students fairly and
honestly to some extent.
128
Table 4.3.3 Students’ response on motivation of their academia N=650
Item N
o
Responses
Agree
Undecid
ed
Disagree
Statements f % f % f % Mean S.D
6 Your academia performance is always
appreciated by their departmental
heads
282
43 23 4 345 53 1.17 0.685
7 One of the energizing factors of your
academia is to get recognition and
rewards from HOD
433 67 53 8 164 25 3.20 0.686
8 Your academia performance is
supplemented with their promotion
489 75 33 5 128 20 3.36 0.923
9 Your contractual academia has the
same benefits as the regular ones
176 27 17 3 457 70 1.73 0.862
10 Your academia try to develop self
confidence in the students
233 36 21 3 396 61 1.55 0.765
Table no 4.3.3 the mean scores (3.20, 3.36) depicted that two statements were positively
supported. As per statements, that one of the energizing factors of your academia is to get
recognition and rewards from HoD and their performance is supplemented with their promotion.
Meanwhile the mean score (1.17, 1.73, 1.55) shows disagreement with statements. As per
statements, that academia performance is appreciated by the departmental heads and contractual
academia has the same benefits and regular ones. . Furthermore, academia tries to develop self-
confidence in the students.
129
Table 4.3.4 Students’ response on teaching styles of their academia N=650
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
11 Your academia satisfied their
students when they ask question
239 37 13 2 398 61 2.97 0.213
12 Your academia has full
information about what is going in
new trends and technologies
459 71 17 3 174 26 3.33 0.321
13 Your academia understand how
effective their work is in the
overall output of the organization
489 75 11 2 150 23 3.53 0.843
14 Your academia use modern audio-
visual aids to teach their subject
176 27 18 3 456 70 1.83 0.610
15 Your academia teaching
methodology is good
235 36 19 3 396 61 1.32 0.523
In table no 4.3.4 mean scores (1.83, 1.32) showed a disagreement with responses of the
statement. It pointed out that academia did not use modern audio-visual aids to teach their
subject and their teaching methodology is not good. Meanwhile, mean scores (2.97, 3.33, 3.53)
shows agreement with three statements. It pointed out that, academia satisfied their students
when they ask question and they have full information about new trends and technologies.
Furthermore, they understand how effective their work in the overall output of the organization.
130
Table 4.3.5 Students response on creativity of their academia N=650
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
16 Your academia can handle many
students in the class at a given
time
450 69 57 9 143 22 3.40 0.685
17 Your academia looks keen to
resolve issue related to their
responsibility
154 24 63 10 433 66 1.73 0.345
18 Your academia is too preoccupied
to prepare for taking up higher
responsibilities
141 22 16 2 493 76 1.03 0.686
19 Your academia needs to be
equipped with sufficient
knowledge and skill to handle the
classroom situations
462 71 45 7 143 22 3.53 0.862
Table 4.3.5 revealed that mean scores (3.40, 3.53) supported the statements. This means
that academia can handle many students in the class at a given time and they need to be equipped
with knowledge and skills to handle the classroom situation. Furthermore, the mean scores (1.73,
1.03) depicted disagreements with statements “academia is too preoccupied to prepare for taking
up higher responsibilities and looks keen to resolve the issue related to their responsibility.”
131
Table 4.3.6 Response on class room participation N=650
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
20 Your academia feels irritated in the class 521 80 39 6 90 14 3.77 0.685
21 Your academia arrives in the class in
time and leave the class late
233 36 13 2 404 62 1.23 0.686
22 Your academia often skip class due their
official work
480 74 17 2 153 24 3.56 0.923
23 Your academia often skip class due their
health issue
410 63 33 5 207 32 2.99 0.123
24 Your academia personal problems do not
affect their class activity
123 19 21 3 506 78 1.11 0.765
Table 4.3.6 showed that mean scores (3.77, 3.56, 2.99) has an agreement with statements
that academia feel irritated in the classroom and often skip class due to their official work.
Furthermore, academia skips their classed due to their health issues. Meanwhile, the mean scores
(1.23, 1.11) depicted a disagreement with the statements of academia arrives in the class in time
and leave the class late and their personal problems do not affect their class activity.
132
Table 4.3.7 Response on research N=650
Item N
o
Statements
Responses Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
25 Your academia contributes a great
deal of research work that is
formally recognized by the
department.
122 19 75 12 453 69 1.57 0.685
26 Your academia involves you in
research work
111 17 65 10 474 73 1.76 0.686
27 Research publication requirement
by HEC for promotion is stressful
for your academia
475 73 70 11 107 16 3.75 0.923
28 Your University motivate your
academia for research publication
with cash award
210 32 33 5 407 62 1.56 0.862
29 Your academia is given sufficient
time to pursue independent interest
( e.g. research paper )
188 29 15 2 447 69 1.90 0.635
In table 4.3.7 mean scores (3.75) showed a positively significant relation with the
statement: research publication requirement by HEC for promotion is stressful for your
academia. Furthermore, mean scores (1.57, 1.76, 1.56, 1.90) reveal a disagreement with the
statements, that academia contributes a great deal of research work that is formally recognized
by the department and academia did not involve their students in research work. Meanwhile,
university did not motivates their academia for research publication with cash award and
academia is not given sufficient time to pursue independent interest in research work.
133
Table 4.3.8 Response on campus environment N=650
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
30 Your academia often feels
depressed in the campus
environment
113 17 23 4 514 79 1.37 0.625
31 Your academia is dissatisfied
with the organization
450 68 67 11 133 20 3.10 0.616
32 Your academia looks frustrated
with their academic work
489 75 55 8 106 17 3.58 0.923
33 Your academia never feels
isolated in the campus
176 27 21 3 453 70 1.83 0.562
34 Your academia feels
physically, emotionally and
spiritually threatened
233 36 13 2 404 62 1.11 0.765
35 The campus environment is
safe for you and your academia
421 65 33 5 196 30 2.98 0.432
Table 4.3.8 mean scores (3.10, 3.58, 2.98) pointed out a significantly positive response
towards statements, that academia is dissatisfied with the organization and looks frustrated with
their academic work. Furthermore, the campus environment is safe for student and academia.
However, the mean scores (1.37, 1.11) showed a disagreement with the statements of “academia
feels depressed and threatened emotionally and spiritually”.
134
Table 4.3.9 Response on personal characteristics N=650
Item N
o
Statements
Responses
Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
36 Your academia treat you and other
with respect
110 17 53 12 487 75 1.57 0.885
37 Your academia easily gets
resources for using in the
classroom.
500 77 32 5 118 18 3.76 0.486
38 Your academia has strong relations
at campus.
453 70 56 9 141 22 3.67 0.423
39 Your academia becomes impatient
on small inconvenience
451 69 13 2 186 29 3.15 0.413
40 You feel your academia is satisfied
with their job
392 60 67 11 191 29 2.76 0.512
41 Your academia positively views
about their colleagues in
classrooms
211 32 43 7 396 61 1.12 0.743
42 Your academia gets moody or
impatient over small issues
433 66 31 5 186 29 3.01 0.401
This table 4.3.9 means scores (3.76, 3.67, 3.15,2.76, 3.01) showed a positive agreement
with five statements. It pointed out that, academia easily get resources and have strong relation
at campus .Furthermore, they becomes impatient on small inconvenience and satisfied with their
job and get moody on small issue. However the mean score (1.57, 1.12) pointed out a
disagreement with statements that academia did not treat with respect and did not views
positively about their colleagues.
135
Table 4.3.10 Response on subject mastery of academia N=650
Item N
o
Statements
Responses Agree
Undecided Disagree
f % f % f % Mean S.D
43 Teaching new course is stressful
for your academia
122 19 75 12 453 69 1.57 0.685
44 Your academia assigned work is
of interest to them
111 17 65 10 474 73 1.76 0.686
45 Your academia independently
resolve their issue
475 73 70 11 107 16 3.75 0.923
46 Your academia is reluctant to
equip themselves with sufficient
knowledge while teaching
210 32 33 5 407 62 1.46 0.862
47 Your academia has the
capability to cope with
classroom
488 75 85 14 77 11 3.90 0.63
48 Your academia make their
subject matter interesting
,exciting and absorbing
410 63 37 7 203 31 2.95 0.456
In table 4.3.10 mean scores (3.75. 3.90, 2.95) showed a positively significant relation
with the statements that academia independently resolve their issue and have capability to cope
with classroom. Furthermore, academia makes their subject matter interesting, exciting and
absorbing for students. However, mean scores (1.57, 1.76, 1.46) reveal a disagreement with the
statements that teaching new course is stressful for academia and assigned work is not of their
interest. Furthermore, academia is reluctant to equip with sufficient knowledge while teaching.
136
4.4 RESULTS OF VICE CHANCELLORS’ INTERVIEW
In this section, analysis of the data collected from Vice Chancellors of public sector
universities of Punjab included in the study is presented. For this purpose, the researcher used a
structured interview of VCs of targeted universities. The respondents’ detailed are as follows:
Table 4.4.1 Sample of the interviewed group
Respondents
Group-D
Population Sample Interview Rate of return
Vice chancellor 7 7 6 86%
Table No 4.4.1 shows that the number of Vice Chancellors is 7. However, only six of
them spared time for the interview. One respondent could not be interviewed due to his earlier
commitments. Resultantly, the response rate from VCs was 86 percent.
4.4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
The interviewed vice chancellors’ demographics and response against structured
questions of the interview are presented in percentage. The information regarding demographic
characteristics of the respondents in terms of gender, academic qualification, experience, age and
marital status is analyzed and presented in the following six tables:
Table: 4.4.2 Distribution of V.Cs interviewed in the study by gender N=6
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 6 100%
Female 0 0%
This table no 4.4.2 shows gender of 100% respondents were male. It is also concluded
that there was no female occupying any vice chancellors post in public sector universities across
Punjab who could be included in this study.
137
Table: 4.4.3 Distribution of V.Cs by qualification N=6
Qualification Frequency Percentage
Post –Doc 4 67%
PhD 2 34%
The tables 4.4.3 indicates that 67% respondents hold a postdoctoral degree while 33%
have a PhD degree. It means that minimum academic qualification for VCs of universities is
PhD.
Table: 4.4.4 Distribution of V.Cs by experience N=6
Experience Frequency Percentage
<10 0 0%
10-20 0 0%
21-30 4 80%
30+ 2 20%
The table 4.4.4 depicts that 67% of the respondents have experience between 20 to 30
years while 33% respondents have more than 30 years. It is concluded that academicians with
longer experience were appointed on these posts.
138
Table: 4.4.5 Distribution by age N=6
Age Frequency Percentage
Under 40 0 0%
41-50 0 0%
51-60 4 60%
60+ 2 40%
Table 4.4.5 reveals that 67% respondents are between the age group of 50 to 60 years
while 33% are of more than 60 years of age. It is concluded that most of the time persons senior
in age are appointed on these higher ranking positions.
Table: 4.4.6 Distribution by marital status N=6
Marital status Frequency Percentage
Married 6 100%
Un-married 0 0%
Table 4.4.6 reveals that 100% of respondents are married.
4.1.2 Results Based on Professional Responses of V.Cs
In this section, analysis of data collected from Vice Chancellors of six public sector
universities of Punjab is presented. The result of the semi structured interview was converted into
quantitative data.
Table 4.4.7 Academia has an access to approach the VC office N=6
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Does your academia have the freedom to
approach your office for sharing their problems?
4 67 2 33
Table 4.4.7 shows that 67 percent respondents allowed their academia to approach their
offices for sharing problems. Thirty three (33) percent respondents did not allow academia to
directly approach the respondents’ office. It means that majority of the VCs has a significant
collaboration with their academia.
139
Table 4.4.8 Academia involvement in decision making N=6
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you involve your academia in decision
making?
5 83 1 17
Table 4.4.8 displays that the majority i.e. 83 percent respondents involved their academia
in decision making. A marginal number of them however take decisions by themselves.
Table 4.4.9 Infrastructure effect on performance of academia N=6
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you think lack of infrastructure affects the
performance of your academia?
6 100 0 0
Table 4.4.9 demonstrates that an absolute majority of 100 percent respondents are in
favor of the statement that lack of infrastructure affects the performance of academia. It means
for gaining maximum results from academia a strong infrastructure is needed in public sector
universities of Punjab.
Table4.4.10 Lack of coordination with academia and administrative department N=6
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you think lack of coordination with
administrative department for the provision of
logistic support affects performance of
academia?
6 100 0 0
Table 4.4.10 illustrates that 100 percent of respondents were in favor of the statement that
lack of coordination with administration department for provision of logistic support affects the
performance of academia. It means that lack of coordination has a major effect on the
performance.
140
Table 4.4.11 Response on lack of workload distribution N=6
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you think the work load of academia is
equally divided?
4 67 2 33
Table 4.4.11 indicates that 67 percent vice chancellors were of the view that workload is
divided equally among academia. This means that majority of the universities have an equal
distribution of the academia’s work.
Table 4.4.12 Response on autonomy to heads of department N=6
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Have you given autonomy to your HoDs for
distribution of work ?
6 100 0 0
Table 4.4.12 indicates that 100 percent of the vice chancellors are in favor of giving their
heads of department autonomy in distributing work among their faculty. It is therefore concluded
that, HoDs are empowered in universities to carry out decision making in their departments.
Table 4.4.13 Response on departmental conflict of academia N=6
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you think departmental conflicts of academia
are responsible for not coming up to the
expectations of students?
6 100 0 0
Table 4.4.13 depicted that an outright 100 percent of respondents agreed that
departmental conflicts of academia were a cause for their not coming up to the expectations of
students.
141
Table 4.4.14 Response on monitoring and evaluation system for academia N=6
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you have a monitoring and evaluation system
for your academia?
6 100 0 0
Table 4.4.14 reveals that 100 percent respondents answered in positive of having a
monitoring and evaluation system for academia. It is therefore concluded that all universities
have adopted a proper monitoring and evaluation system of their academia.
Table 4.4.15 Response on outside life of academia N=6
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you take interest in the outside life of your
academia?
2 33 4 67
Table 4.4.15 shows that a majority of respondents i.e. 67 percent did not take interest in
the outside life of their academia. Only 33% of them did take interest in this regard.
Table 4.4.16 Response on differences of opinion N=6
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you think your academia have a difference
of opinion with you?
3 50 50 0
Table 4.4.16 indicates that 50 percent of respondents agreed that they encounter
difference of opinion with academia. It may be concluded here that many of the academia differ
with the opinions of their vice chancellors. It means that majority of respondents have allowed a
free intellectual atmosphere in their universities and enjoys great collaboration with their
academia.
142
Table 4.4.17 Response on small inconveniences and mistakes N=6
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you tolerate minor inconveniences/mistakes
/human errors caused by your academia?
3 50 3 50
Table no 4.4.17 shows that 50 percent of respondents tolerated minor
inconveniences/mistakes/errors caused by their academia. It is also shown here that 50 percent of
respondents did not compromise on minor mistakes and take departmental actions.
Table 4.4.18 Response on facilitation outside of work
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Does your organization facilitate your academia
in coping with difficulties they face outside of
their work?
0 100 6 0
Table 4.4.18 indicates that 100% respondents pointed not having any interest in personal
life of their academia. It is concluded that academic institutions do not indulge in the private life
of their faculty members.
Table 4.4.19 Response on reward and recognition
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you motivate your academia with reward and
recognition?
6 100 0 0
Table 4.4.19 reveals that 100 percent of respondents agreed that they motivated their
academia with reward and recognition.
143
Table 4.4.20 Response on conflict of academia
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you take interest to resolve conflicts among
your academia?
6 100 0 0
Table 4.4.20 indicates that 100 percent of respondents took interest in resolving conflicts
created among their academia.
Table 4.4.21 Response on HEC Criteria
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you think to meet HEC criteria for induction
is difficult for academia?
6 100 0 0
Table 4.4.21 shows that 100 percent respondents agreed that to meet HEC criteria for
induction is difficult for academia.
Table 4.4.22 Response on relation with faculty
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you maintain relation with academia who
differ with your management policies?
3 50 3 50
Table 4.4.22 indicates that 50 per cent of respondents maintained relations with academia
who differ with their management policies. It is concluded that the same number does not take
interest with those who differed with the policies of higher management.
144
Table 4.4.23 Response on equal opportunities
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you provide equal opportunities for
professional growth to your faculty?
6 100 0 0
Table 4.4.23 shows that 100 percent of respondents supported the statement that they
provided equal opportunities for professional growth to their faculty members.
Table 4.4.24 Response on accountability system
Statement
Responses
Yes No
f % F %
Do you have an accountability system for the
performance of your academia?
6 100 0 0
Table 4.4.24 points out that 100 percent of the respondents positively responded of
having accountability system for the performance of their faculty.
145
4.5 PHYSICAL FACILITIES IN THE UNIVERSITIES
This portion of the study illustrates about physical facilities available to academic heads,
academia and students in the campuses of targeted universities of Punjab. These physical
facilities are listed with their respective university in four tables.
Table No4.5.1 Physical facilities for academia heads in public universities N=7
Item
No
Physical Facilities
Universities Name
IUB PU GCUF UOS UOG BZU PMAS-Arid
1 Independent Office 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 Visitor Room 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Independent
Washroom
2 2 2 1 1 1 1
4 Fax Machine 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 Photocopier 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 Telephone 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 Scanner 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
8 Internet 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
9 Faculty Hostels 2 2 2 2 2 2 0
10 Official Transport 2 2 2 2 2 2 0
11 Bachelor Hostel 2 2 2 2 2 2 0
14 Generator 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
15 UPS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
16 Committee Room 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
17 AC 2 2 2 2 2 2 0
18 Officer Club 2 2 2 2 2 2 0
Available and Working: 2 Available and Not Working: 1 Not Available: 0
Table no 4.5.1 shows physical facilities available to academic heads in public sector
universities. Almost all the academic heads have maximum facilities in public sector universities.
Only a few (lack) visitor rooms available and few of them don’t have backup generators in case
of load shading.
146
Table No.4.5.2 Physical facilities for academia in public universities N=7
Item
no
Physical Facilities
Universities Name
IUB PU GCUF UOS UOG BZU PMAS-
Arid
1 Independent Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Visitor Room 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Independent Washroom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Fax Machine 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 Photocopier 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 Telephone 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 Scanner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 Internet 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
9 Faculty Hostels 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
10 Official Transport 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
11 Air Conditioner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 Generator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13 UPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 Committee Room 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
15 Room Cooler 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Available and Working: 2 Available and Not Working: 1 Not Available: 0
In this table 4.5.2 points out that there is no designated office room for academia.
Academic staff of the universities doesn’t have visitor rooms, scanners, air conditioners, backup
generators or a UPS in their offices.
147
Table No.4.5.3 Physical facilities for students in public sector universities N=7
Item
no
Physical Facilities
Universities Name
IUB PU GCUF UOS UOG BZU PMAS-
Arid
1 Common Room 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 Labs/IT Room 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 Heating/Cooling System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Parking 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 Separate Washroom 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 Multimedia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Cafeteria 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
8 Internet/Wi-Fi 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
9 Water Cooler 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
10 Stationery Shop 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
11 Hostel 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
12 Transport 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
13 Resource Center 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
14 Generator for classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15
Adequate/proper
Classrooms
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
16 Hostel Laundry 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Available and Working: 2 Available and Not Working: 1 Not Available: 0
This table 4.5.3 reveals that a maximum number of facilities are available for students in
public sector universities of Punjab. There are only a few facilities i.e. cooling/heating in
classrooms, multimedia in classrooms, and backup generators for classrooms.
148
Table No. 4.5.4 Miscellaneous physical facilities in public sector universities N=7
Item
No Physical Facilities
Universities Name
IUB
PU GCUF UOS UOG BZU PMAS-
ARID
1 Mosque 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 Video Conference
Room
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 Shuttle Bus Service 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 Banks 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 ATM 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 Post Office 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 Filtered Water Tank 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
8 Online Postal 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
9 FM Radio Station 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
10 Healthcare Centre 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
11 Fitness Centre 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
12 Daycare Center 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
13 Bachelor Hostel 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
14 Guest House 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
15 Central Library 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
16 Seminar Hall 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
17 Auditorium 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Available and Working: 2 Available and Not Working: 1 Not Available: 0
The table 4.5.4 reveals that majority of universities have these facilities for their
academic heads, academia and students. However, a few universities don’t have these facilities
available to students as well as to the academia. It is concluded that physical facilities play an
important role for the teaching/learning process.
149
PART- (II)
4.6 BIVARIATE ANALYSIS
In order to work out the relationship between job stress of academia and its effect on their
performance in public sector universities of Punjab and analysis of co-variance test is applied.
For this purpose the t and F test application are applied to measure the signification relation
between different demographic variables. As mention and described in the part one more than 64
statement for different question related to job stress of academia and their academic head were
analyzed. The questions of academia and academia heads were assigned 16 attribute with
different statements to measure, job stress of academia in public sector universities of Punjab.
These attributes were; autonomy of work, quality of work, flexibility of work, organizational
behavior, financial benefits, social interaction at work, provision of privacy, communication
channel, working condition, furniture, equipment facility, space organization, personal space,
individual control, information overload and energy drain. These attributes help for the analysis
of stress in academia working in public sector universities. The t-test is applied to measure the
significant relation/association of two variables with these stress attributes. Anyhow F- test is
applicable where more than two variables are applied. The t and F test are the application of
ANOVA. The ANOVA is basically an extension of two sample test. In this study ANOVA
application of t-test and f-test are applied for the measure of stress with respect to following
variable (age, qualification, post, position, experience, marital status, gender). The P values have
also been shown to indicate the significance. The analysis was made by using SPSS and present
in the form of tables.
150
4.6.1 Association between demographic variables of academia heads
The demographic variables in this study divided into seven categories. In this analysis
association of job stress of academic heads with between different variables (gender, post,
qualification, experience, age, and marital status) were analyzed. A detail analysis of academic
heads on job stress and its effects is done to whether significant differences are existed. In this
analysis t-test and F-test were used because. It is also mentioned here, t- test for two variables
and F-test is applicable for than more than two variables.
Table 4.6.1 Analysis of gender and job stress association
Male
N=179
Female
N=63
Job Stress Indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D t
value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 2.704 0.394 2.732 0.430 0.950 0.324
Quality of Work 2.854 0.354 2.854 0.521 -1.126 0.320
Flexibility of Work 2.739 0.567 2.738 0.742 1.781 0.076
Organizational Behavior 2.765 0.535 2.657 0.667 -2.062 0.654
Financial Benefits 2.557 0.705 2.595 0.559 2.132 0.564
Social Interaction at Work 2.802 0.529 1.827 0.566 0.670 0.000
Provision of Privacy 2.872 0.623 2.875 0.993 -1.086 0.750
Communication Channel 2.849 0.878 1.713 0.586 -1.530 0.000
Working Condition 2.523 0.634 2.525 0.496 -2.338 0.520
Official Furniture 2.901 0.534 2.901 0.345 1.469 0.561
Equipment Facility 2.953 0.598 2.951 0.433 -4.397 0.765
Space Organization 1.750 0.578 1.782 0.505 -3.958 0.067
Personal Space 2.948 0.725 2.942 0.632 -2.423 0.455
Individual Control 2.206 0.755 2.203 0.634 5.338 0.134
Information Overload 2.067 0.906 2.064 0.439 5.971 0.657
Energy Drain 2.216 0.802 2.217 0.634 -3.960 0.765
P <0.05, df=240
This table 4.6.1 shows that the scores allocated to the qualitative statements for
determination of job stress of academic heads in the public sector universities. All sixteen
attributes of the job stress with different statements have been presented in the form of
descriptive measures i.e. average and standard deviations.
The association/relation between gender and job stress have been calculated and t-test
has been applied to determine its significant by considering different aspect of job stress under
151
gender such as autonomy of work, quality of work, quality of work, flexibility of work, etc. The
score of male and female academic heads as regards organizational behavior, financial benefits,
working condition , furniture, equipment, space organization, personal space, individual control,
information overload and energy drain is insignificant with p values as greater than 0.05. It is
implies that the male and female heads of the universities were the same under all these job
stress indicators.
It is further indicate in the above table the t values for the Social interaction at work and
communication channel is significant with p less than values 0.05. It is indicated that there is
difference of opinion in male and female regarding these indicators.
152
Table 4.6.2 Analysis of post and job stress association
Permanent
N=172
Contractual
N=40
TTS
N=30
Job Stress Indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D F
Value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 2.774 0.393 1.325 0.403 2.564 0.391 3.504 0.001
Quality of Work 2.814 0.384 2.811 0.430 2.818 0.346 2.297 0.103
Flexibility of Work 2.781 2.134 1.837 0.581 2.694 0.772 5.070 0.007
Organizational Behavior 2.957 0.588 1.133 0.602 2.710 0.291 1.795 0.001
Financial Benefits 2.892 0.674 2.894 0.689 2.896 0.510 1.902 0.550
Social Interaction at Work 2.960 0.460 1.490 0.543 2.872 0.596 2.445 0.009
Provision of Privacy 2.046 0.407 2.053 0.710 2.069 0.487 1.669 0.191
Communication Channel at
Work
2.722 0.348 1.919 0.900 2.538 0.344 3.072 0.038
Working Condition 2.824 0.582 1.787 0.647 2.615 0.243 1.047 0.000
Official Furniture 2.103 0.123 2.103 0.234 2.103 0.256 4.537 0.072
Equipment Facility 2.958 0.271 2.882 0.627 2.602 0.226 3.467 0.093
Space Organization 2.620 0.320 1.878 0.765 2.512 0.473 2.300 0.000
Personal Space 2.711 0.288 2.714 0.765 2.715 0.305 10.200 0.123
Individual Control 2.666 0.575 2.264 0.753 2.715 0.503 15.407 0.320
Information Overload 2.787 0.288 2.788 0.909 2.788 0.297 8.427 0.237
Energy Draining 2.695 0.516 2.697 0.791 2.692 0.376 16.911 0.356.
P<0.05, df =239
In table no 4.6.2 all the four indicators and sixteen sub indicators i.e. autonomy of work,
quality of work, flexibility of work, etc. The calculate P values are less than 0.05 for the
Autonomy of work, flexibility of work, organizational behavior, social interaction at work,
communication channel at work, working condition and space organization. The indicators
have significantly mean difference between permanent, contractual and Tenure track basis
appointment of the employees.
However, the p values greater than 0.05 for the quality of work, financial benefits, and
provision of privacy, official furniture, equipment facility, personal space, individual control,
information overload and energy drain. These stress indicators are insignificant for permanent,
contractual and tenure track basis appointment of the academia.
153
Table 4.6.3 Analysis of Position and job stress association
Dean
N=36
Chairperson
N=180
In-charge
N=26
Job Stress indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D F
Value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 3.174 0.393 2.715 0.403 1.164 0.391 3.604 0.002
Quality of Work 3.104 0.384 2.111 0.430 1.178 0.346 2.197 0.000
Flexibility of Work 3.181 2.634 2.137 0.581 1.794 0.772 5.170 0.001
Organizational Behavior 3.157 0.588 2.133 0.602 1.910 0.291 2.795 0.000
Financial Benefits 3.102 0.674 2.194 0.689 1.596 0.510 2.902 0.004
Social Interaction at Work 3.160 0.460 2.790 0.543 1.972 0.596 2.145 0.000
Provision of Privacy 3.146 0.407 2.813 0.710 1.769 0.487 1.569 0.011
Communication Channel at
Work 3.122 0.348 2.929 0.900 1.538 0.344 3.372 0.003
Working Condition 2.717 0.582 2.717 0.647 2.715 0.243 1.347 0.365
Official Furniture 3.158 0.271 2.812 0.627 1.102 0.226 4.337 0.013
Equipment Facility 3.158 0.271 2.812 0.627 1.602 0.226 3.167 0.007
Space Organization 3.120 0.320 2.818 0.765 1.512 0.473 2.100 0.001
Personal Space 3.501 0.288 2.124 0.765 1.725 0.305 1.200 0.012
Individual Control 2.666 0.575 2.664 0.753 2.625 0.503 3.407 0.234
Information Overload 2.447 0.288 2.448 0.909 2.448 0.297 8.327 0.231
Energy Draining 2.615 0.516 2.617 0.791 2.612 0.376 2.911 0.653
P< 0.05 d f=239
In this table 4.6.3, the calculated values of p are less than 0.05 for twelve indicators out of
sixteen for position of academic heads. It concluded that it significant for all positions of
academic heads as dean, chair and in charge. Therefore, it shows that there is mean difference
between these three categories of position.
However, the p values are more than 0.05 for working condition, individual control,
information overload and energy draining. Furthermore, it shows insignificant relation and there
is no mean difference for these three positions of the academic heads.
154
Table 4.6.4 Analysis of qualification and job stress association
Post-Doc
N=38
PhD
N=204
Job Stress Indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D t
value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 2.134 0.394 2.132 0.430 2.912 0.126
Quality of Work 2.854 0.354 2.890 0.521 1.563 0.213
Flexibility of Work 2.730 0.567 2.739 0.742 1.392 0.561
Organizational Behavior 2.755 0.535 2.757 0.667 -2.127 0.765
Financial Benefits 2.757 0.705 2.755 0.559 3.171 0.518
Social Interaction at Work 2.802 0.529 2.807 0.566 -0.888 0.317
Provision of Privacy 2.802 0.623 2.802 0.993 2.739 0.612
Communication Channel 2.849 0.878 2.849 0.586 3.379 0.897
Working Condition 2.523 0.634 2.525 0.496 0.665 0.123
Official Furniture 2.901 0.534 2.903 0.345 2.582 0.074
Equipment Facility 2.903 0.598 2.901 0.433 5.027 0.065
Space Organization 2.750 0.578 2.752 0.505 3.022 0.102
Personal Space 2.918 0.725 2.912 0.632 5.893 0.231
Individual Control 2.226 0.755 2.223 0.634 10.333 0.132
Information Overload 2.067 0.906 2.064 0.439 11.793 0.761
Energy Drain 2.256 0.802 2.257 0.634 9.437 0.091
P<0.05 d f= 239
In this table no 4.6.4. Show the analysis of variance technique has been applied to find
out whether or not there is a significant effect of qualification on the job stress of academia on
their performance. The analysis in this table is evident that there is no significant different in all
the stress indicators, although the academia heads have different qualification. The significant
level 0.05 values are less than all the calculated values of stress indicators.
It shows that the PhD and Post-doctoral qualification don’t have any significant difference
for the determinant of the job stress.
155
Table 4.6.5 Analysis of experience and job stress association
<10
N=48
10-20
N=128
21+
N=66
Job Stress Indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D F
value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 1.554 0.393 2.575 0.403 3.164 0.391 13.776 0.000
Quality of Work 1.704 0.384 2.811 0.430 3.178 0.346 3.738 0.000
Flexibility of Work 1.401 .0634 2.498 0.581 3.094 0.772 4.624 0.000
Organizational Behavior 1.657 0.588 2.833 0.602 2.910 0.291 5.754 0.000
Financial Benefits 1.902 0.674 2.694 0.689 3.096 0.510 15.632 0.000
Social Interaction at Work 1.960 0.460 2.790 0.543 2.972 0.596 10.051 0.000
Provision of Privacy 1.046 0.407 2.853 0.710 3.069 0.487 17.150 0.000
Communication Channel at
Work 1.722 0.348 2.919 0.900 3.038 0.344 10.609 0.000
Working Condition 2.824 0.582 2.787 0.647 3.015 0.243 6.998 0.001
Official Furniture 2.345 0.123 2.344 0.145 2.044 0.135 3.567 0.134
Equipment Facility 1.958 0.271 2.882 0.627 2.602 0.226 9.512 0.000
Space Organization 1.620 0.320 2.878 0.765 2.512 0.473 6.720 0.000
Personal Space 1.501 0.288 2.124 0.765 3.015 0.305 11.291 0.000
Individual Control 1.666 0.575 2.164 0.753 3.015 0.503 12.278 0.001
Information Overload 1.787 0.288 2.188 0.909 3.448 0.297 1.417 0.001
Energy Draining 1.685 0.516 2.107 0.791 3.092 0.376 8.406 0.002
P<0.05 df=239
In table no 4.6.5 the proportions of academia heads by experience have been presented
along with means and standard deviations.
For the comparison of average results F-test has been applied which gives a significantly
values for all results, excluding furniture only. The result evident that there is significant means
difference between lengths of experience of academic heads. As all the p values are less the 0.05
level of significant. It is conclude for the above result that experience have a significant effect
on the job stress of the academia
156
Table4.6.6 Analysis of age and job stress association
36-45
N=33
46-55
N=142
55+
N=67
Job Stress Indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D F
Value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 1.574 0.393 2.725 0.403 3.064 0.391 2.832 0.000
Quality of Work 1.904 0.384 2.811 0.430 3.078 0.346 .892 0.000
Flexibility of Work 1.481 2.634 2.837 0.581 3.094 0.772 13.687 0.000
Organizational Behavior 1.657 0.588 1.833 0.602 2.910 0.291 0.071 0.000
Financial Benefits 1.902 0.674 1.694 0.689 2.596 0.510 1.542 0.000
Social Interaction at
Work 1.960 0.460 2.790 0.543 3.072 0.596 2.821 0.001
Provision of Privacy 1.046 0.407 1.853 0.710 2.769 0.487 .672 0.000
Communication channel
at Work 1.722 0.348 2.919 0.900 3.038 0.344 3.567 0.030
Working Condition 1.824 0.582 1.787 0.647 2.615 0.243 .650 0.023
Official Furniture 1.824 0.582 2.787 0.647 3.015 0.243 .215 0.000
Equipment Facility 1.958 0.271 2.882 0.627 3.002 0.226 .152 0.006
Space Organization 1.620 0.320 2.878 0.765 3.512 0.473 14.501 0.000
Personal Space 1.510 0.288 2.024 0.765 3.015 0.305 4.165 0.017
Individual Control 1.666 0.575 2.264 0.753 3.115 0.503 2.780 0.054
Information Overload 2.787 0.288 2.788 0.909 2.778 0.297 3.433 0.064
Energy Draining 1.685 0.516 1.685 0.791 1.682 0.376 2.192 0.121
P<0.05, df=239
Table no 4.6.6 reveals the proportion of the age and its association with job stress and its
effect on their performance. The calculated values of F on all fourteen out of six sub-indicators
are less than table values. The fourteen sub indicators have significantly mean differences for
the above mention domains of age group.
Furthermore, the p values of information overload and energy draining is insignificant as
the P values are more than level of 0.05.
So it can be observed that above than 55 year age group academia has less job stress and
compared to the age group of 40 and below.
157
Table 4.6.7Analysis of marital status and job stress association
Married
N=205
Unmarried
N=37
Job Stress Indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D t
value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 1.734 0.394 1.732 0.430 2.982 0.123
Quality of Work 1.054 0.354 1.050 0.521 1.663 0.104
Flexibility of Work 1.730 0.567 1.729 0.742 1.292 0.131
Organizational Behavior 1.765 0.535 1.767 0.667 -2.227 0.072
Financial Benefits 1.757 0.705 1.755 0.559 3.271 0.328
Social Interaction at Work 1.122 0.529 1.127 0.566 -0.988 0.456
Provision of Privacy 1.962 0.623 1.962 0.993 2.639 0.211
Communication Channel 1.849 0.878 1.849 0.586 3.479 0.763
Working Condition 1.823 0.634 1.825 0.496 0.765 0.446
Official Furniture 1.901 0.534 1.903 0.345 2.982 0.454
Equipment Facility 1.953 0.598 1.951 0.433 5.327 0.452
Space Organization 1.750 0.578 1.752 0.505 3.222 0.123
Personal Space 1.948 0.725 1.942 0.632 5.693 0.081
Individual Control 2.226 0.755 2.223 0.634 12.333 0.060
Information Overload 2.067 0.906 2.114 0.439 7.793 0.071
Energy Drain 1.916 0.802 1.957 0.634 6.437 0.092
P<0.05,df=240
Table no 4.6.7 shows mean, standard deviation among, married and unmarried on the
four stress indicators and sixteen sub indicators. The F and p values indicted that there were
insignificant differences in the average results obtained under different sub indicators of stress.
It reveals that the results of the sub indicators of the academic heads as compared to
marital status are insignificant for all.
4.6.1 Association between demographic variable of Academia
The demographic variables in this study divided into seven categories for academia. In
this analysis the association of job stresses of academia between different variables as; gender;
post, qualification, experience, age, and marital status were analyzed. A detail analysis of
academia on job stress and its effects is done to whether significant differences are existed. In
this analysis t-test and F-test were applied to determine the association between sub indicator of
stress and demographic variables. It is also mentioned here, t- test for two variables and F-test is
applied for than more than two variables.
158
Table 4.6.8 Analysis of gender and job stress association
Male
N=257
Female
N=165
Job Stress Indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D t
value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 2.471 0.394 2.472 0.430 0.896 0.371
Quality of Work 2.954 0.354 2.914 0.521 1.138 0.256
Flexibility of Work 2.312 0.567 2.309 0.742 1.898 0.058
Organizational Behavior 2.765 0.535 2.757 0.667 2.056 0.070
Financial Benefits 2.757 0.705 2.795 0.559 2.106 0.082
Social Interaction at Work 2.802 0.529 1.927 0.566 0.658 0.000
Provision of Privacy 2.962 0.623 2.902 0.993 1.111 0.267
Communication Channel 2.849 0.878 1.849 0.586 1.568 0.000
Working Condition 2.563 0.634 2.525 0.496 2.338 0.067
Official Furniture 2.901 0.534 2.923 0.345 1.543 0.084
Equipment Facility 2.903 0.598 2.905 0.433 4.387 0.129
Space Organization 2.750 0.578 2.752 0.505 3.941 0.123
Personal Space 2.948 0.725 2.985 0.632 2.394 0.087
Individual Control 2.226 0.755 2.223 0.634 5.057 0.958
Information Overload 2.067 0.906 2.065 0.439 5.790 0.812
Energy Drain 2.216 0.802 2.215 0.634 3.806 0.513
In table 4.6.8, the analysis of variances has been applied to compare the average results of
the male and female. It reveals that statistically there is no significant difference in fourteen sub-
indicators and excluding communication channel and social interaction at work.
Overall the results of the gender results shows that the male and female working in
universities insignificant in all sub indicators.
159
Table 4.6.9 Analysis of post and job stress association
Permanent
N=253
Contractual
N=131
TTS
N=38
Sub-indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D F
value
P
Value
Autonomy of work 3.174 0.393 2.725 0.403 1.987 0.391 9.957 0.003
Quality of Work 1.904 0.384 1.911 0.430 1.978 0.346 20.898 0.675
Flexibility of Work 3.181 2.634 2.837 0.581 1.794 0.772 0.412 0.001
Organizational Behavior 3.157 0.588 2.833 0.602 1.910 0.291 10.253 0.003
Financial Benefits 2.902 0.674 2.994 0.689 2.996 0.510 33.129 0.123
Social Interaction at Work 3.960 0.460 2.790 0.543 1.972 0.596 21.289 0.000
Provision of Privacy 3.046 0.407 2.853 0.710 1.769 0.487 31.512 0.000
Communication Channel at Work 3.122 0.348 2.919 0.900 1.538 0.344 27.981 0.000
Working Condition 3.124 0.582 2.787 0.647 1.615 0.243 9.789 0.000
Official Furniture 3.124 0.582 2.787 0.647 1.515 0.243 9.678 0.000
Equipment Facility 1.958 0.271 1.982 0.627 1.982 0.226 27.073 0.189
Space Organization 1.620 0.320 1.678 0.765 1.612 0.473 0.469 0.067
Personal Space 3.150 0.288 2.024 0.765 1.715 0.305 14.817 0.000
Individual Control 3.166 0.575 2.264 0.753 1.715 0.503 50.304 0.000
Information Overload 1.787 0.288 1.788 0.909 1.788 0.297 20.265 0.897
Energy Draining 1.685 0.516 1.677 0.791 1.682 0.376 8.474 0.321
P<0.05, df= 419
This table no 4.6.9 indicates the association of job stress with position of the academia
working in different public sector universities of Punjab.
It is evident that the calculated values (0.675, 0.123, 0.189, 0.897, and 0.321) on post of
academia are greater than P values (1.96 at 0.05 level). Therefore, it shows that three position of
academia have no statistical mean difference for quality of work, financial benefits, equipment
facility, information overload and energy draining. It also reveals for the result eleven sub
indicators have statistical mean difference for position of academia.
Overall it is concluded that, there is mean difference of academia working on permanent,
tenure track and contractual basis. The academia workings of contractual basis have more job
stress as compared to permanent and TTS basis.
160
Table 4.6.10 Analysis of position and job stress association
Professor
N=24
Ass. Prof
N=55
Asst. Prof
N=81
Lecturer
N=262
Sub-indicators
Mean
S.D
Mean
S.D
Mean
S.D
Mean S.D F
value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 3.074 0.393 3.125 0.403 2.564 0.391 1.564 0.391 8.750 0.000
Quality of Work 3.004 0.384 3.211 0.430 2.978 0.346 1.978 0.346 8.760 0.000 Flexibility of Work 3.481 2.634 3.237 0.581 2.794 0.772 1.794 0.772 7.360 0.000 Organizational
Behavior 3.657 0.588 3.133 0.602 2.910 0.291 1.910 0.291 14.598 0.000
Financial Benefits 1.902 0.674 1.994 0.689 1.996 0.510 1.996 0.510 11.994 0.654 Social Interaction at
Work 3.060 0.460 3.290 0.543 2.972 0.596 1.972 0.596 10.262 0.000
Provision of Privacy 2.046 0.407 2.053 0.710 2.069 0.487 2.069 0.487 3.246 0.672 Communication Channel at Work
3.122 0.348 3.019 0.900 2.538 0.344 1.538 0.344 7.050 0.000
Working Condition 3.224 0.582 3.087 0.647 2.615 0.243 1.615 0.243 15.379 0.000 Official Furniture 1.824 0.582 1.887 0.647 1.815 0.243 1.815 0.243 15.379 0.467 Equipment Facility 3.158 0.271 3.082 0.627 2.602 0.226 1.602 0.226 22.027 0.000 Space Organization 3.620 0.320 3.478 0.765 2.512 0.473 1.512 0.473 3.873 0.000 Personal Space 3.055 0.288 3.004 0.765 2.715 0.305 1.715 0.305 7.337 0.000 Individual Control 3.166 0.575 3.064 0.753 2.715 0.503 1.715 0.503 11.559 0.000 Information Overload 3.087 0.288 3.068 0.909 2.448 0.297 1.448 0.297 14.838 0.000 Energy Draining 3.285 0.516 3.007 0.791 2.692 0.376 1.692 0.376 13.622 0.000
P<0.05 df=418
Table 4.6.10 shows the calculated value of F on overall stress indicators and its sub
indicators. The results show the association of stress with position of academia on job stress
indicators. The calculated values of P are less than table value 1.60 at 0.05 levels for all
indicators excluding provision of privacy and official furniture. On majority of the sub
indicators the lecture has the less mean score as compared to other positon of academia. ANOVA
revels that there is significant mean difference among four position of academia.
Overall it concluded lecturer has more job stress as compared to other position.
161
Table 4.6.11 Analysis of qualification and job stress association
Post-Doc N=17
PhD N=143
Ms/M.Phil N=232
MA/MSc N=30
Job Stress Indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D F.
value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 3.074 0.393 3.005 0.403 2.564 0.391 1.564 0.391 10.750 0.000
Quality of Work 3.024 0.384 3.000 0.430 2.978 0.346 1.978 0.346 11.760 0.000 Flexibility of Work 3.081 2.634 3.037 0.581 2.794 0.772 1.794 0.772 6.360 0.000
Organizational Behavior 3.057 0.588 3.033 0.602 2.910 0.291 1.910 0.291 17.598 0.000
Financial Benefits 3.092 0.674 3.004 0.689 2.596 0.510 1.596 0.510 10.994 0.001 Social Interaction at
Work 3.160 0.460 3.000 0.543 2.972 0.596 1.972 0.596 12.262 0.000
Provision of Privacy 3.146 0.407 3.053 0.710 2.069 0.487 1.019 0.487 6.246 0.000 Communication Channel
at Work 3.122 0.348 3.019 0.900 2.538 0.344 1.538 0.344 4.050 0.008
Working Condition 3.124 0.582 3.087 0.647 2.615 0.243 1.615 0.243 12.379 0.009
Official Furniture 3.123 0.456 3.023 0.672 2.534 0.234 1.001 0.213 11.002 0.000
Equipment Facility 3.158 0.271 3.182 0.627 1.902 0.226 1.002 0.226 18.027 0.000
Space Organization 3.120 0.320 3.078 0.765 2.012 0.473 1.512 0.473 11.873 0.009 Personal Space 3.201 0.288 3.024 0.765 2.715 0.305 1.015 0.305 11.337 0.003
Individual Control 3.666 0.575 2.264 0.753 1.715 0.503 1.005 0.503 10.559 0.000
Information Overload 3.187 0.288 2.788 0.909 2.048 0.297 1.748 0.297 13.838 0.002 Energy Draining 3.085 0.516 2.087 0.791 1.992 0.376 1.092 0.376 12.622 0.000
P<0.05 df=418
Table no 4.6.10 reveals the proportion of the qualification and its association with job
stress and its effect on their performance. The calculated values of F on all sub-indicators are
less than table values. The fourteen sub indicators have significantly mean differences for the
above mention domains of qualification levels.
Furthermore, the p values of information overload and energy draining is insignificant as
the P values are more than level of 0.05.
So it can be observed that above than Professor have less job stress as compared to the
Lecturer .
162
Table 4.6.12 Analysis of experience and job stress association
< 5
N=141
5-10
N=122
11-15
N=91
15+
N=68
Sub-indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D F
value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 1.074 0.393 1.725 0.403 2.864 0.391 3.164 0.391 0.390 0.002
Quality of Work 1.004 0.384 1.211 0.430 1.978 0.346 2.978 0.346 2.293 0.037
Flexibility of Work 1.081 2.634 1.637 0.581 1.794 0.772 2.794 0.772 1.531 0.006
Organizational
Behavior
1.057 0.588 1.833 0.602 2.010 0.291 3.310 0.291 .602 0.014
Financial Benefits 1.902 0.674 1.994 0.689 1.996 0.510 1.916 0.510 2.198 0.087
Social Interaction at
Work
1.060 0.460 1.590 0.543 1.972 0.596 2.972 0.596 1.652 0.000
Provision of Privacy 1.046 0.407 1.853 0.710 2.769 0.487 3.169 0.487 .719 0.001
Communication
channel at Work
1.022 0.348 1.919 0.900 2.538 0.344 3.538 0.344 .648 0.000
Working Condition 1.024 0.582 1.787 0.647 2.615 0.243 3.615 0.243 2.107 0.028
Official Furniture 1.723 0.435 1.732 0.647 1.615 0.243 1.615 0.243 2.073 0.754
Equipment Facility 1.958 0.271 1.882 0.627 1.602 0.226 1.602 0.226 .418 0.740
Space Organization 1.020 0.320 1.878 0.765 2.512 0.473 3.512 0.473 1.961 0.000
Personal Space 1.501 0.288 2.024 0.765 2.715 0.305 3.715 0.305 2.219 0.000
Individual Control 1.666 0.575 2.264 0.753 2.715 0.503 3.115 0.503 5.656 0.000
Information Overload 1.087 0.288 1.888 0.909 2.848 0.297 3.448 0.297 4.394 0.015
Energy Draining 1.085 0.516 1.607 0.791 2.692 0.376 3.692 0.376 .619 0.003
P<0.05 df= 418
Table no 4.6.12 reveals the proportion of the experience and its association with job
stress and its effect on their performance. The calculated values of F on all thirteen out of six
sub-indicators are less than table values. The thirteen sub indicators have significantly mean
differences for the above mention domains of experience.
Furthermore, the p values of information overload, energy draining and financial benefits
are insignificant as the P values are more than level of 0.05.
So it can be observed that above than 15 Plus years experienced academia have less job
stress and compared to the 30 and below.
163
Table 4.6.13 Analysis of age and job stress association
Under 30
N=54
31-40
N=215
41-50
N=85
50+
N=68
Job Stress Indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D F
Value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 1.074 0.393 1.725 0.403 1.964 0.391 2.964 0.391 26.109 0.000
Quality of Work 1.004 0.384 1.611 0.430 1.978 0.346 2.978 0.346 14.775 0.000
Flexibility of Work 1.081 2.634 1.537 0.581 1.994 0.772 2.994 0.772 4.903 0.001
Organizational Behavior 1.157 0.588 1.833 0.602 2.010 0.291 3.010 0.291 14.841 0.000
Financial Benefits 1.302 0.674 1.994 0.689 2.996 0.510 3.986 0.510 12.768 0.675
Social Interaction at Work 1.960 0.460 2.790 0.543 3.172 0.596 3.072 0.596 26.118 0.000
Provision of Privacy 1.046 0.407 1.853 0.710 2.069 0.487 3.769 0.487 2.92 0.021
Communication Channel at
Work 1.122 0.348 1.919 0.900 2.038 0.344 3.538 0.344 13.894 0.000
Working Condition 1.224 0.582 1.987 0.647 2.015 0.243 3.615 0.243 18.615 0.000
Official Furniture 1.165 0.764 1.934 0.755 2.545 0.350 3.530 0.123 14.764 0.089
Equipment Facility 1.058 0.271 1.082 0.627 2.602 0.226 3.602 0.226 4.140 0.000
Space Organization 1.620 0.320 1.878 0.765 2.912 0.473 3.012 0.473 10.938 0.000
Personal Space 1.103 0.288 1.924 0.765 2.015 0.305 3.015 0.305 12.505 0.001
Individual Control 1.666 0.575 2.264 0.753 3.115 0.503 3.715 0.503 7.171 0.000
Information Overload 1.087 0.288 1.888 0.909 2.448 0.297 3.448 0.297 5.167 0.000
Energy Draining 1.085 0.516 2.307 0.791 2.692 0.376 3.892 0.376 6.594 0.000
P< 0.05 d f = 418
Table no 4.6.13 reveals the proportion of the age and its association with job stress and its
effect on their performance. The calculated values of F on all fourteen out of six sub-indicators
are less than table values. The fourteen sub indicators have significantly mean differences for
the above mention domains of age group.
Furthermore, the p values of official furniture and financial benefits are insignificant as
the P values are more than level of 0.05.
So it can be observed that above than 55 year age group have less job stress and
compared to the age group of 40 and below.
164
Table 4.6.14 Analysis of marital status and job stress association
Married
N=279
Unmarried
N=143
Job Stress Indicators Mean S.D Mean S.D t
value
P
Value
Autonomy of Work 2.104 0.394 2.132 0.430 -0.678 0.478
Quality of Work 2.154 0.354 2.159 0.521 1.25 0.212
Flexibility of Work 2.130 0.567 2.119 0.742 -0.82 0.412
Organizational Behavior 2.165 0.535 2.157 0.667 -0.337 0.736
Financial Benefits 2.157 0.705 2.195 0.559 0.066 0.917
Social Interaction at Work 2.802 0.529 2.827 0.566 -0.227 0.917
Provision of Privacy 2.862 0.623 2.872 0.993 0.737 0.461
Communication Channel 2.849 0.878 2.847 0.586 -4.256 0.675
Working Condition 2.563 0.634 2.525 0.496 -1.4635 0.123
Official Furniture 2.901 0.534 2.913 0.345 0.935 0.134
Equipment Facility 2.903 0.598 2.951 0.433 -1.352 0.177
Space Organization 2.750 0.578 2.782 0.505 -2.95 0.084
Personal Space 2.948 0.725 2.912 0.632 5.535 0.071
Individual Control 2.226 0.755 2.203 0.634 -4.949 0.076
Information Overload 2.067 0.906 2.014 0.439 0.232 0.817
Energy Drain 2.916 0.802 2.957 0.634 3.023 0.817
P<0.05, df=420
This table no 4.6.14, the calculated values P are more than 0.05 level of significant. This
indicates that there is no significant statistical mean difference between married and unmarried.
It concludes the job stress is same for both married and unmarried academia.
165
PART-III
4.7 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
This type of analysis is used to check the relation between two variables. It is also evident
from the result that in many of the cases it does not indicates relationship between two variables.
The present study is to check the effect of job stress of academia and its effects on their
performance in public sector universities of Punjab. A multiple regression was carried out to
investigate the above mentioned relationship of job stress of academia and its effect on their
performance.
4.7. 2 Relevance of Multiple Linear Regression
This analysis is normally used to check the effect of one variable on the other variable. In
present situation this analysis is used to check the effect of job stress of academia on their
performance in public sector universities of Punjab. Whereas, the job stress is independent
variable and performance is dependent variable. These are multiple sub factors of the both
variables. The such analysis is used to check the said relation and their intensity also. There are
various methods to check the said relation. These methods are as:
4.7.2.1 Diagnosis Test for Multicollinearity
In this study the said application was use to find of out the relationship of the job stress of
academia and its effect on their performance in public sector universities of Punjab.
This shows that variable to be taken as liner combinations of other variables. In the below
table all the values of VIF does not exceed form 10 so in our multiple linear regression models of
Heads and Academia we do not found the problem of multicollinearity in the explanatory
variables. All these above discussion are supported with the result of numerical values and tables
of academia and their heads.
166
Table no:4.7.1 Diagnostic collinearity for academia heads
Variables Collinearity
Tolerance VIF
Autonomy in Work .436 2.295
Quality of Work .473 2.116
Flexibility in Work .451 2.217
Organizational Behavior .554 2.805
Financial Benefits .331 3.020
Social Interaction at Work .307 3.255
Provision of Privacy .291 3.442
Communication Channel at work .282 3.544
Working Conditions .403 2.480
Equipment Facility .445 2.246
Space Organization .414 2.415
Official Furniture .332 2.403
Personal Space .335 2.989
Individual Control .272 3.671
Information Load .394 2.538
Energy Drain .215 3.652
Job Performance is Dependent Variable
167
Table no: 4.7.2 Diagnostic collinearity for academia
Variables Collinearity
Tolerance VIF
Autonomy in Work .336 2.119
Quality of Work .413 2.206
Flexibility in Work .401 2.117
Organizational Behavior .454 2.610
Financial Benefits .301 3.111
Social Interaction at Work .317 3.135
Provision of Privacy .261 3.132
Communication Channel at Work .272 3.511
Working Conditions .413 2.118
Equipment Facility .425 2.116
Space Organization .454 2.315
Official Furniture .432 2.203
Personal Space .345 2.789
Individual Control .262 3.671
Information Load .374 2.438
Energy Drain .225 4.252
Job Performance is Dependent variable
4.7.2.2 Graphical Method to Check the Normality
A graphical method was also used to check the normality of the data. A histogram used
for this purpose. Moreover the shape of residuals have no definite shape it should be randomly
scatter plot in the below diagrams the shape and scatter plot satisfy both the conditions.
168
Histogram No 4.7.1
Liner Regression Line No : 4.7.2
Histogram No 4.7.3
169
Linear Regression Line No : 4.7.4
4.7.3 Multiple Regression Analysis of Academia Heads
A regression analysis was conducted to check the influence of the independent variables
on the dependent variable. Whereas, in this study the job performance is dependent variable and
job stress is independent variables.
170
Table 4.7.3 Summary of regression analysis of academia heads
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 0.6805 0.4631 0.4249 0.0418
This table no 4.7.3 value of which indicates the Goodness of fit test of the
model of Heads performance in their job. It means the forty six percent of the variation is
explained by the explanatory variables in job performance of academic heads. According to
(Webster, 2005), the values of R square up to 40 % are acceptable for social science. This value
supported the result of present study test of Goodness of fit test.
Table 4.7.4 ANOVA of academia heads
Model Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 28.588 15 1.90 26.388 .000
Residual 16.442 226 0.072
Total 45.030 241
The table no 4.7.4 ANOVA shows the F value 26.388 is highly significant .000awhich
means that variables are highly impact on the job performance
171
Box 4.7.5: regression model of job stress of academic heads on their performance
Heads Model: Job performance =
Job performance is independent variable,
In the above box 4.7.1 model of multiple linear regressions presented, whereas the job
performance is dependent variable. Here Betas are the estimated coefficients elaborating the
significant impact on Job performance of the persons included in academic head model. 3.869 is
constant value were values associated with Beta are the independent variable (Autonomy of
work, Quality of work, Flexibility of Work, etc)
172
Table 4.7.5 Influence of various stress indicators on performance on academic heads: A
multiple linear regression analysis
Coefficients
Model Indicator
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
T P. Value B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.869 .578 6.693 0.000
Autonomy in Work( AW) .461 .234 .197 1.970 0.005
Quality of Work(QW) .325 .214 .143 1.516 0.006
Flexibility in Work(FW) .286 .147 -.057 2.475 0.007
Organizational
Behavior(OB) .133 .141 .069 3.33 0.000
Financial Benefits( FB) .152 .155 -.037 -2.772 0.003
Social Interaction at
Work(SIW) .147 .203 -.084 -1.97 0.040
Provision of Privacy(PP) .413 .173 .286 2.394 0.017
Communication Channel
at Work(CCW) .354 .143 .303 2.478 0.014
Working Conditions(WC) .412 .155 -.026 -2.260 0.024
Furniture (F) .212 .134 -.015 -3.123 0.042
Equipment Facility(EF) .228 .164 -.136 -2.396 0.017
Space Organization(SO) .222 .137 -.081 -1.99 0.041
Personal Space(PS) .150 .149 -.111 -2.006 0.035
Individual Control(IC) .176 .154 .060 3.049 0.002
Information Load(IL) .428 .122 -.372 -3.501 0.000
Energy Drain(ED) .230 .172 .186 2.186 0.031
Table 4.7.5 shows the analysis of the analysis of the explanatory variables of job stress
and their effect on their performance. Therefore, in order to observe the effect of job stress on
performance a multiple liner regression model was developed. The performance was taken as
dependent variable, meanwhile autonomy of work, quality of work, flexibility of work,
organizational behavior, financial benefits, social interaction at work, provision of privacy,
communicational channel at work, working condition, official furniture, equipment facility,
space organization , personal space, individual control, information overload and energy drain
173
were the independent variables (job stress). The result of all stepwise regression analysis shows
that all the variables have effect on the performance of academia working in public sector
universities of Punjab.
In the above table first column present the significant variables. The second columns of
this table reflect the values of regression coefficient (B). Every B values indicate the variation in
dependent variable with change in explanatory variable (mentioned column one). Third column
indicates standardized error of estimated regression coefficients. A fourth column of this table
indicates standardized coefficients of each independent variable. The greater value of the
standardized coefficient shows greater influence and smaller shows less influence on the
explanatory variable. The fifth column shows the static t values and the last columns show the P
values.
In academic head model few variable i.e official furniture, personal space, equipment
facility, provision of privacy of and energy drain had significant influence on the performance of
academic heads with p-values less than 0.05 and greater than 0.00. Furthermore, all other
variables had significant (P< 0.05) influence on job performance.
174
Table 4.7.6 Summary of regression analysis of academia
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 0.7968 0.6349 0.6106 0.0003
The value of which indicates the Goodness of fit test of the model of
Academia. It means the sixty three percent of the variation is explained by the explanatory
variables in job performance.
Table 4.7. 7 ANOVA summary of academia
Model
Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 435.265 15 29.01 23.39 0.000
Residual 504.583 406 1.24
Total 939.849 421
The table no 4.7.7 about ANOVA shows the F value 29.39 is highly significant0.000 which
means that the demographic variables is highly impact on the job performance of educational
institutional heads.
Box 4.7.6: Regression model of Job Stress of job stress of academia on their performance
Academia Model:
Job performance = -2.027+
In the above box 4.7.2 model of multiple linear regressions presented, whereas the job
performance is dependent variable. Here Betas are the estimated coefficients elaborating the
effect on Job performance of the persons included in academic head model. Here Betas are the
175
estimated coefficients elaborating the effect on Job performance of the persons included in
academia model
Table 4.7.8 Influence of various stress indicators on performance on Academia: A Multiple
linear regression analysis
Coefficients
Model Indicator
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t P. Value B Std. Error Beta
2 (Constant) -2.027 0.494 -4.104 0.000
Autonomy in Work( AW) 0.315 0.105 .167 11.194 0.000
Quality of Work(QW) 0.254 0.087 -.152 2.920 0.004
Flexibility in Work(FW) 0.188 0.069 -.047 2.738 0.006
Organizational
Behavior(OB) 0.187 0.073 .079 2.567 0.011
Financial Benefits( FB) 0.143 0.042 -.039 3.384 0.033
Social Interaction at
Work(SIW) 0.087 0.079 -.071 -2.096 0.037
Provision of Privacy(PP) 0.298 0.072 .217 -4.122 0.000
Communication Channel
at Work(CCW)
0.262
0.066 .331
3.971
0.000
Working Conditions(WC) 0.336 0.064 -.016 -5.250 0.000
Furniture (F) 0.123 0.064 -.013 3.123 0.048
Equipment Facility(EF) 0.045 0.047 -.122 -2.952 0.033
Space Organization(SO) 0.162 0.072 -.071 7.766 0.000
Personal Space(PS) 0.103 0.069 -.101 2.938 0.005
Individual Control(IC) 0.115 0.070 .050 -3.648 0.000
Information Load(IL) 0.131 0.070 -.342 2.874 0.044
Energy Drain(ED) 0.177 0.084 .162 -3.294 0.001
In the above table first column present the significant variables. The second column of
this table reflects the result of regression coefficient (B). Every B values indicate that any
variation in dependent variable with one unit change in explanatory variable (mentioned column
one). Third column indicates standardized error of estimated regression coefficients. A fourth
176
column of this table indicates standardized coefficients of each independent variable. The
greater value of the standardized coefficient shows greater influence and smaller shows less
influence on the explanatory variable. The fifth column shows the static t values and the last
columns show the P values.
In academic head model few variable i.e. official furniture, personal space, equipment
facility, provision of privacy of and energy drain have significant influence on the performance
of academic heads with p-values less than 0.05 and greater than 0.00. Furthermore, all
remaining had highly significant (P< 0.05) influence on job performance.
4.7.4 Variable Wise Description of both Models
Both models indicate among the significant explanatory variables nine variables i.e. Social
interaction at work, Provision of privacy, communication channel at work, working condition,
official furniture, equipment facility, space organization, personal space and energy had
significant effect on their job performance. While remaining all have highly significant effect on
job performance.( table 4.7.3,4.7.6)
The value of regression coefficient b= .461 with p values 0.005 for heads and b= 0.315
for academia and p values 0.000. The variable autonomy of work indicated that any change like
involvement in decision making and empowering them will reduce their stress level and
defiantly will bring change in their behavior and performance will improve. It is obvious that in
lack of empowerment and lack of participation in decision making is source of stress and that
effect on the individual performance. These points of views were also supported by Doan and
Killen (2001) and Dixon- Muller (2009). All these evidence indicate that autonomy of work is an
important factor of job stress and have effect.
177
The value of regression coefficient b= .325 with p value 0.006 for heads and b= 0.254
with P .004 value for academia. The variable quality of work indicated that any change like,
overwork, internal conflict and proof of their performance will reduce their stress level and
definitely it will increase their performance. It is obvious that in internal conflict, no proof of
performance and overwork is source of stress and that effect on the individual performance.
These points of views were also supported by Kabeer (2001). All these evidence indicate that
autonomy of work is an important factor of job stress and have effect.
The results of the third types of analysis of regression shows that, ‘flexibility of work’
had effect on the performance of academia. Values of regression coefficient of b= .286 with p
values 0.007 for heads and b= 0.188 for academia. The variable flexibility of work indicated
that any change like involvement in time and opportunity and preparation for future job and
promotion and meeting deadlines. Meeting of deadline is also one of the causes of stress. It is
obvious that lack of flexibility of work is also source of stress for academia and their heads.
These points of views were also supported by Doan and Nazir (1999) Muller (2005). All these
evidence indicate that flexibility of work is one of the sources of job stress which effect on the
performance of academia working in public sector universities of Punjab.
Regression coefficient of academia head b=.133 with p value =0.000 and for academia
b=.118 with p value =0.011 for the job stress variable organizational behavior. The variable new
course teaching, demoralization of unjust treatment, workload evenly distribution had influence
on the performance of academia and their heads working in universities. It is obvious that change
in these variables were effect on their performance in public sector universities for both
academia and their heads. These point of views were also supported by Jones et al. (2006) .All
178
these evidence indicate that organizational behavior is one of the indicator of stress which effect
on the performance of the academia.
Regression coefficient of academia head b=.152 with p value =0.033 and for academia
b=.143 with p value =0.033 for the job stress variable financial benefits. These variables pay and
benefits, internal funding and gap between evaluated ways of their performance. It is obvious
that change in these variables were effect on their performance in public sector universities for
both academia and their heads. These points of views were also supported by Tisdell et al. (2006)
.All these evidence indicate that financial benefits is one of the indicator of stress which effect
on the performance of the academia.
Regression coefficient of academia head b=.147 with p value =0.040 and for academia
b=.087 with p value =0.037 for the job stress variable social interaction at work. These variables
harmonious working relationship, effective network, contractual appointment and
encouragement by boss were source of indicators of stress. It is obvious that change in these
variables were effect on their performance in public sector universities for both academia and
their heads. These points of views were also supported by Blumberg et al. (2005) .All these
evidence indicate that social interaction at work is one of the indicator of stress which effect on
the performance of the academia.
Regression coefficient of academia head b=.413 with p value =0.017 and for academia
b=.298 with p value =0.037 for the job stress variable Provision of privacy. These variables
professional growth, workplace harassment and impatience over small inconveniently were
source of indicators of stress. It is obvious that change in these variables were effect on their
performance in public sector universities for both academia and their heads. These points of
179
views were also supported by Blumberg et al. (2003) .All these evidence indicate that provision
of privacy is one of the indicator of stress which effect on the performance of the academia.
Regression coefficient of academia head b=.354 with p value =0.014 and for academia
b=.262 with p value =0.000 for the job stress variable communication channel at work. These
variables hesitation taking new initiative, well-developed accountability system, taking view
point of student and lack of provision of assistance were source of indicators of stress. It is
obvious that change in these variables were effect on their performance in public sector
universities for both academia and their heads. These points of views were also supported by
Loomer et al. (2001) .All these evidence indicate that communication channel at work is one of
the indicator of stress which effect on the performance of the academia.
Regression coefficient of academia head b=.412 with p value =0.024 and for academia
b=.336 with p value =0.000 for the job stress variable working condition. These variables office
space, inadequate lighting, excessive cold& heat and surrounding environment were source of
indicators of stress. It is obvious that change in these variables were effect on their performance
in public sector universities for both academia and their heads. These points of views were also
supported by Bate et al. (2004) .All these evidence indicate that working condition is one of the
indicator of stress which effect on the performance of the academia.
Regression coefficient of academia head b=.212 with p value =0.042 and for academia
b=.123 with p value =0.048 for the job stress variable official furniture. It is obvious that change
in these variables were effect on their performance in public sector universities for both
academia and their heads. These points of views were also supported by smith et al. (2001) .All
these evidence indicate that official furniture is one of the indicator of stress which effect on the
performance of the academia.
180
Regression coefficient of academia head b=.22 with p value =0.041 and for academia
b=.162 with p value =0.000 for the job stress variable space organization. It is obvious that
change in these variables were effect on their performance in public sector universities for both
academia and their heads. These points of views were also supported by Ahmadi et al. (1999)
.All these evidence indicate that space organization is one of the indicator of stress which effect
on the performance of the academia.
Regression coefficient of academia head b=.150 with p value =0.035 and for academia
b=.103 with p value =0.005 for the job stress variable personal space. These variables feeling
isolate, poor rapport daily life nonsense and potential feature to set example were source of
indicators of stress. It is obvious that change in these variables were effect on their performance
in public sector universities for both academia and their heads. These points of views were also
supported by Batliwal et al. (2003) .All these evidence indicate that personal space is one of the
indicator of stress which effect on the performance of the academia.
Regression coefficient of academia head b=.176 with p value =0.002 and for academia
b=.115 with p value =0.000 for the job stress individual control. These variables personal
responsibilities, emotionally demanding working environment, problem associated with work
and discrimination by boss were source of indicators of stress. It is obvious that change in these
variables were effect on their performance in public sector universities for both academia and
their heads. These points of views were also supported by Blumberg Mason et al. (2003) .All
these evidence indicate that individual control is one of the indicator of stress which effect on the
performance of the academia.
Regression coefficient of academia head b=.428 with p value =0.000 and for academia
b=.131 with p value =0.044 for the job stress variable information overload. These variables
181
work is more than you can handle, unpredictable working, deal of concentration and enough time
for heavy research work were source of indicators of stress. It is obvious that change in these
variables were effect on their performance in public sector universities for both academia and
their heads. These points of views were also supported by Roy et al. (2001) .All these evidence
indicate that information overload is one of the indicator of stress which effect on the
performance of the academia.
Regression coefficient of academia head b=.230 with p value =0.031 and for academia
b=.177 with p value =0.001 for the job stress variable energy drain. These variables HEC
publication requirement, demanding work schedule, reward and recognition and unbiased
performance were source of indicators of stress. It is obvious that change in these variables were
effect on their performance in public sector universities for both academia and their heads. These
points of views were also supported by Stormiest et al. (2003) .All these evidence indicate that
energy drain is one of the indicator of stress which effect on the performance of the academia.
4.7.5 Theoretical Implication of the Model
It was found that in Public sector universities of Punjab the autonomy of work; quality of
work; flexibility in work were associated with job stress. It was also found in the present study. It
was also found that the demographic variable also influence on the performance of academia
while stressing them. It was also found that the social, organizational, psychological and physical
indicator in the form of quality of work, flexibility of work, personal space etc. These factors
create stress and influence on their performance. These influences also shown diagrammatically
as:
182
Job Stress and Performance of Academia
Figure No 4.1 diagram of the explanatory variables of the job stress of academia
4.7.6 Conclusions of Analysis
This portion of the study included three types of the data analysis as: Univariate analysis,
bivariat analysis and multivariate analysis. The univariate analysis shows the effect of job stress
attributes, demographic variables public sector universities regarding job stress and its effect on
their performance. It was found that majority of the faculty have PhD degree, and large number
of faculty were working as lecturer and there were also a significant number on contractual
appointment.
The descriptive result shows the numerical agreement and disagreement with the
statement related to job stress. It was also found that following indicator of stress; autonomy of
work, quality of work, flexibility of work, provision of privacy, communication channel,
personal space, individual control were effect on their performance. It was also found from the
Job
performance of
Academia
Energy Draining Information Overload
Working Condition
Official Furniture
Individual Control
Personal Space
Space Organization
Equipment Facility
Flexibility of work
Organizational
Behavior
Financial Benefits
Social Interaction at
Work
Provision of Privacy
Quality of Work
Communication
Channel at Work
Autonomy of Work
183
sub domain of indicator; decision making, paper publication, lack of participation, internal
conflict, role clarity, reward and recognition, campus environment, work load, new course, pay
benefits, contractual induction, working relation, physical facilities, poor rapport, nonsense of
daily life, discrimination, biasness and long working hours stress him. This analysis concluded
that job stress of academia effects negatively on their performance in public sector universities.
Bivariate analysis was carried out for association of demographic variables with
explanatory variables of study. Findings of the bivariate analysis indicate that demographic
variables as: gender, post, qualification, experience, age, position and experience were associated
with explanatory variables. The bivariate analysis shows that academia with more experience
has less stress and less experience academia has more stress. Furthermore, the women have more
stress as compared to male academia. However, they stress levels varies of the PhD and non-
PhD, as PhD have less stress and compared to non -PhD. It was also found that, academia
working on contractual basis had more stress as compared to regular one. It was also noticed
from the results of the analysis, senior faculty with age and experience have less stress as
compared to less experienced and younger one. Furthermore, data also reflected that
respondent’s with higher qualification, married and working on the senior position have less
stress as compared to other with less qualification and experience.
In order to work out the job stress of academia and its effect on their performance, a
multiple regressions analysis was conducted. The identified sixteen job stress determinants of
academia working in public sector universities. These were; autonomy of work; quality of work;
flexibility of work; organizational behavior; financial benefits; social interaction at work;
provision of privacy; communication channel; working condition; official furniture; equipment
184
facility; space organization; personal space; individual control and information overload. The
next chapter of the study is about the results and their discussion about the data analysis.
185
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUMMARY
The study was aimed to examine the job stress of academia and its effect on their
performance in public sector universities of Punjab. Main objectives of the study were to analyze
the factors responsible for job stress in academia in public sector universities, and identify the
nature of job stress of academia in public sector universities. The third objective of the study
was, to explore a relationship between job stress and performance of academia in public sector
universities. There were six research questions under consideration: i) what are the major
indicators of job stress in academia? ii) What are the major indicators of performance in
academia of public sector universities? iii) What is the nature of job stress in academia in public
sector universities? iv). what is the level of job stress in academia in public sector universities?
v). what is the relationship between job stress and demographic characteristics of the academia?
vi).What is the effect of job stress on the performance of academia in public sector universities?
The study was initially planned in nine regions of Punjab namely Rawalpindi, Dera
Ghazi Khan, Multan, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Gujranwala, Sahiwal and Sargodha. One
public sector university from each region with a large number of people was selected as
population. Dera Ghazi Khan and Sahiwal regions were excluded from the study for having no
public sector university. The seven universities representing each region were the population of
the study. These universities were, P.U from Lahore, BZU from Multan, PMAS-arid from
Rawalpindi, UOS from Sargodha, UOG from Gujrat, IUB from Bahawalpur and GCU from
Faisalabad.
186
To conduct the study, stratified random sampling technique was used. Strata were made
with respect to population of the university from each region. The sample size was determined
by using criteria given in Johnson & Christensen (2000. P: 178). Four groups of respondents
were selected, that included academia heads of the universities (dean, chair), the academia,
students and Vice Chancellors. A sample of 373 academia heads, 434 academia, 1008 students
and 7 Vice Chancellors were selected randomly from the population. The response rate of
sample size was 64 % for academia heads, 97% for academia, 64 % for students and 86 % for
Vice Chancellors. Physical facilities for heads, academia and students were also verified with
checklist.
Review of available literature presented a detailed picture of earlier researches
conducted on different aspects of job stress. After extensive literature review, the researcher
developed a stress inventory for measuring stress of academia, accompanying views of various
experts in the field of education. There was no inventory available for measurement of stress of
academia working in universities. The researcher constructed different inventories for this
purpose. There were sixteen sub indicators in each inventory with different questions. These sub
indicators were autonomy of work, quality of work, organizational behavior, flexibility of work,
communication channel, financial benefits, provision of privacy, working condition, official
furniture, equipment facility, space organization, personal space, individual control, information
overload and social interaction at work etc. A semi structured interview technique was used to
interview the Vice Chancellors.
Information on various demographic variables was also collected. The collected
information on demographic variables and job stress and performance were gathered and
analyzed. For univariate analysis classification of data, percentage, mean and standard
187
deviation were computed. In bivariate analysis, association between job stress, demographic
variable and academia performance was observed through various statistical techniques. The
results were also verified through analysis of variance techniques and t-distribution. The
multivariate analysis was carried out by using all variables in the linear regression analysis. For
this purpose, regression analysis was applied on two target groups namely head and academia.
The most significant variables were picked from all other variables and used in analysis. The
analysis was made by using SPSS version 15. Results were based on quantitative data and were
described in paragraphs.
In this study, a strong relationship was found between job stress and performance of
academia with respect to their demographic variables. These demographic variables of
academia as (gender, post, position, qualification, experience, age, marital status) working in
public sector universities may lead towards the stress. The findings o of the following autonomy
of work, quality of work, flexibility of work, provision of privacy, organizational behavior,
interaction at work place etc. lead towards the stress and influence the performance.
On the basis of findings of the respondents it can be concluded that the phenomena of
job stress is prevailing in our academia working in public sector universities of Punjab. It was
also apparent from the results that academia’s stress is multiple factor construct, and these entire
factors are associated with each other. It is also found that stress negatively affects on the
performance of academia working in public sector universities of Punjab.
5.2 FINDINGS
Following were the main findings drawn from univariate analysis.
188
5.2.1 Findings Based on Stress symptoms of Academia heads and their academia
It was found in the study that 33% of the academia head have mild stress and 56% have
moderate stress while 11% have high level of stress. Furthermore, the result of the academia
level of stress indicated that 31% have mild, 54% moderate and 15 % have high level of
stress. These findings exhibit that, majority of the academia have moderate level of stress due
to their nature of job. These findings of the study were also supported by (Awino, 2008;
Sarafat , (2007).
5.2.2 Findings based on Job Stress Indicators of Academia heads and their Academia
i. Autonomy of Work
It was found that 73% heads were fully authorized for decision making, whereas 70% of the
academia disagreed that they have authority to take decision. Majority of the academia and
their head have role clarity. However, lack of participation in decision making and
empowerment is source of stress for them. It was also verified from the result of the responses
of the Vice Chancellors that, 100% of the HoDs have autonomy in their work and 50 % of VCs
supported that they involve their academia in decision making. These findings were also
confirmed by open- ended responses of the academia and their heads as 50% of the academia
and 54% of their heads supported that autonomy of work is one of the indicator of job stress.
Furthermore, highly significant values of regression coefficient (0.315 with 0.000 for academia
and .461 with 0.005 for academia heads) for this variable. It also indicated that change in
autonomy of work will bring considerable change in the performance of the academia. These
findings were also supported by (Parveen, 2005; Jamal, 2004).
189
ii. Quality of Work ( QW)
It was found 75 % of heads responded that their job is not itself a proof of their
performance. Meanwhile, the academia and their heads agreed that their work is not valued. It
was also found that a large number of academia and their heads agreed that trying to meet the
HEC criteria is stressful for them. It was also found that a significant number of both categories
agreed that departmental conflict is responsible for not coming up to the expectation of their
students. Majority of the academia agreed that technological advancement in education is
difficult for them to keep up with. These results were also confirmed by comparing with the
responses of VCs. 100 % of the VCs supported that internal conflicts of academia are
responsible for not coming up to the expectations of students. These findings were also
supported by open-ended responses of academia and their heads. It was also found that 46% of
heads and 61% of the academia agreed that quality of work is one of the job stress indicators.
The highly significant values of regression coefficient (.325 with 0.006 for academic heads and
.254 with 0.004 for academia) shows that this variable has an effect on the performance of the
academia working in universities. These findings were also supported by ( Majeed, 2003;
Hockenbury, 2005).
iii. Flexibility of Work ( FW)
It was found that 65% of the academia responded that their teaching courses and
assigned work is not related to their interest. It was revealed from the results of VCs that 33%
of them take interest in the outside life of academia. These findings were also supported by the
open-ended responses of the academia and their heads as 46% academia heads and 65%
academia agreed that flexibility of work is one of the indicator of job stress. The highly
190
significant values of regression coefficient (.286 with 0.007 for academic heads and .188 with
0.006 for academia) is also confirm that this variable has an effect on the performance of the
academia working in universities. These findings were also supported by (Rees, 2007).
iv. Organizational Behavior (OB)
It was found that 72 % academia and 68 % o academia heads disagreed that workload
of department is evenly distributed among them. Whereas, 66% academia heads and 63%
academia disagreed that heads help their academia while teaching new course. It was also
found that 75% of heads agreed that they are demoralized by an unjust treatment of their career
promotion. Furthermore, 66% academia agreed that they were not provided time and
opportunity to prepare themselves for future job related challenges. It was revealed from that
50% of VCs agreed that workload of the academia is equally distributed. These finding were
also supported by the open-ended responses of faculty. 34% of the academia and 51% of the
academia heads supported the statement. The significant values of regression coefficient (.133
with 0.000 for academic heads and .187 with 0.011 for academia) shows that this variable has
an effect on the performance of the academia working in universities. These findings were also
supported by (Maik, 2013; Walker, 2009).
v. Financial Benefits(FB)
It was found that 75% academia heads and 87% academia were satisfied with their pay
and benefits. Whereas, 68% were disagreed that they received internal funding for conduct of
research work and 70% academia were not get financial benefits for additional work.
Furthermore, all heads have same benefits as per their position. The significant values of
regression coefficient (.152 with 0.003 for academic heads and .143 with 0.033 for academia)
191
shows that this variable has an effect on the performance of the academia working in
universities. These findings were also supported by (Malikow, 2005; Griffin , 2008).
vi. Social Interaction at Work (SIW)
It was found that 72% academia heads and 73% academia disagreed that they have
harmony and working relation with their colleagues. Meanwhile, majority of the academia and
their heads agreed that academia working on the contractual basis have equal social status as
regular. It was found that 65% academic heads disagreed that they encouraged by their boss.
Whereas, majority of the over ambitious colleagues try to put down their colleagues. 100% of
the VCs agreed that lack of coordination with administrative department for the provision of
logistic support effects on the performance of academia. The significant values of regression
coefficient (.147 with 0.040 for academic heads and .087 with 0.037 for academia) shows that
this variable has an effect on the performance of the academia working in university. These
findings were also supported by (Laikapolou, 2011; Johnston, 2007).
vii. Provision of Privacy (PP)
It was found that 72% of academia agreed that there is no workplace harassment in
universities. It was also found that 62% academia and 73% academia heads were agreed that
they feel threatened physically, emotionally or spiritually. Whereas, majority of academia and
their heads disagreed that they often forego professional activities (local or International
meetings) because of personal commitments. It was also found that 100% VCs agreed that
they does not facilitate their academia in coping with difficulties they face outside of their work.
The significant values of regression coefficient (.413 with 0.017 for academic heads and .298
with 0.000 for academia) shows that this variable has an effect on the performance of the
192
academia working in universities. These findings were also supported by (Colbert, 2000;
Goodman, 2003).
viii. Communication Channel at Work (CCW)
It was found that 73% heads and 77% academia agreed that a well-developed
accountability system is needed for sustainable development. Majority of the heads and
academia supported that taking viewpoints of students is an influential step taken by them. It
was also revealed that 73% academia agreed that poor rapport with colleagues and head affect
on their efficiency at work. It was found that 100% VCs supported that they have
accountability system for their faculty. The significant values of regression coefficient (.354
with 0.014 for academic heads and .262 with 0.000 for academia) shows that this variable has
an effect on the performance of the academia. working in university. These finding were also
supported by (Kabeer, 2001; Burazeri, 2005).
ix. Working Conditions (WC)
It was found that 89% heads agreed that they have proper and sufficient working
environment and space. Whereas, majority of the academia disagreed with it. Furthermore,
majority of heads and academia agreed that inadequate lighting is cause of disturbance for
carrying out their official work effectively. A significant number of academia and their heads
supported the statement that poor ventilation for the class room affects the teaching learning
process. These finding also confirmed the result of checklist of the Physical facilities for
academia head and their student in their campus. The significant values of regression coefficient
(.412 with 0.024 for academic heads and .336 with 0.000 for academia) shows that this variable
has an effect on the performance of the academia working in university. These findings were
also supported by (Jerrod,2002; Liacqua, 2005).
193
x. Official Furniture (OF)
It was found that 75% academia head were agreed that they have large flexible office.
Whereas, 68% academia disagreed that they have enough space in their office. These result also
confirmed with the findings of checklist for physical facilities for faculty in said Universities.
The findings of the official furniture for official use indicated that heads have more furniture
and space in their office as compared to their academia. As majority of the head have
independent offices while academia shares their office. These result confirmed with the result
of Physical facilities for academia and their head. The significant values of regression
coefficient (.212 with 0.017 for academic heads and .123 with 0.048 for academia) shows that
this variable has an effect on the performance of the academia working in university. The
findings were also supported by the (Robbin,2006; Kousar, 2004)
xi. Equipment Facility (EF)
It was found that all the academia and head working in the Universities have internet
facility for their official use. It was also found from the result that head have photocopier and
Printer for use in their office but the academia don’t have such facilities. These results were also
confirmed from the results of checklist used for gaining responses about physical facilities for
both categories. This mean that lack of these physical facilities is also a source of job stress for
academia. The significant values of regression coefficient (.228 with 0.017 for academic heads
and .045 with 0.033 for academia) shows that this variable has an effect on the performance of
academia working in universities. These findings also supported by (Michie ,2002; Lee ,2000).
xii. Space Organization (SO)
It was found that 69 % academia and their heads were not satisfied with their commitment
and rest of life. It was revealed that only 33% of the VCs take interest in the outside life of their
194
academia. The significant values of regression coefficient (.162 with 0.006 for academic and
.222 with 0.041 for academia head) shows that this variable has an effect on the performance of
the academia working in university. These findings were also supported by (Alliger, 2004;
Rees , 2007).
xiii. Personal Space (PS)
It was found that 64% academia head and 70% academia disagreed that they never feel
isolated in the campus overall. A large number of heads and their academia agreed that poor
rapport of them is a source of stress which effect on their performance. 70% heads and 65%
academia agreed that daily life nonsenses is a source of stress for academia. The findings
pointed out personal space of the individual is also one of the source of stress. The highly
significant values of regression coefficient (.150 with 0.035 for academic heads and .103 with
0.005 for academia) shows that this variable has an effect on the performance of the academia
working in university. These findings were also supported by (Allen ,2004; Rolland, 2007).
xiv. Individual Control (IC)
It was found that 69% academia heads and 67% academia agreed that their personal
responsibilities and commitments have slowed down their carrier promotion. A large number of
academia and their heads supported that they were capable to cope the problems, when it arises
at their work place. Majority of the academia and their heads are stressed with the
discrimination by their bosses. It was also confirmed with the responses of VCs as 50% agreed
that they tolerate on the mistake and human error of their academia. It was found that individual
control is also one of the stress indicators at the work place of the academia. The significant
values of regression coefficient (.176 with 0.002 for academic heads and .115 with 0.000 for
195
academia) shows that this variable has an effect on the performance of the academia working in
universities. These findings were also supported by (Pareek, 2006; Rehamn, 2003).
xv. Information Overload (IO)
It was found that 75% academia and 68% head agreed that their workload is more than
they can handle. Whereas, majority of the academia agreed that long and unpredictable
working hours increase their workload. A large number of academia and their head agreed that
their job required a great deal of concentration that causes stress. It is also found that
information overload is also one of the sources of stress for academia. The significant values of
regression coefficient (.428 with 0.000 for academic heads and .131 with 0.044 for academia)
shows that this variable has an effect on the performance of the academia working in
universities. These findings were also supported by (Cooper,2004; Wang, 2007).
xvi. Energy Drain (ED)
It was found that 67% academia and 71% heads agreed that HEC publication
requirements are stressful for them. It was also revealed that 83% heads and 67% academia
wanted to withdraw from demanding work schedule that consume their time and energy.
Majority,78% heads were agreed that their heads remain unbiased while writing their
performance reports while 66% of the academia disagreed that their bosses remain unbiased
while writing their performance evaluation reports. All of the VCs agreed that HEC criteria of
induction is difficult for academia. It was found that energy drain is also one of the indicators of
job stress of academia. The significant values of regression coefficient (.230 with 0.031 for
academic heads and .177 with 0.001 for academia) shows that this variable has an effect on the
performance of the academia working in university. These findings were also supported by
(Barrick, 2009; Buford ,2007).
196
5.2.3 Findings from the Students Responses about their Academia, Job Stress and
Performance
i. Attitude/ Behavior
It was found that 68% academia positively replied while student ask question in the
class. Majority of them disagreed that their performance is overshowed by the attitude of their
heads. It was found that 77% agreed that their academia remained biased while evaluating
assignment. It was also pointed out that 73% academia performance is affected by the
criticism of their head. Majority of the respondents disagreed that academia treat fairly and
honestly. These findings were also supported by (Lee ,2000; Shin, 2003).
ii. Motivation
It was found that 53 % respondents disagreed that their academia is not appreciated by
their departmental heads. Large number 67% students agreed that their academia get rewards
and recognition. Majority 67% of VCs agreed that they motivate their academia by rewards
and recognition. It was also revealed from the 70% of the respondents that their contractual
academia has the same benefits and regular ones. Majority 71% respondents’ views that their
academia did not develop self confidence in their students. These findings were also
supported by (Chaplin, 2008; Shafif, 2001).
iii. Teaching Styles
It was found that 61% of the respondents viewed that their academia did not satisfy
while replying the question of the students. A large number 71% agreed that academia have
information about latest knowledge. Majority of the respondents viewed that their academia did
not use modern technology while teaching and 61% viewed that their academia teaching
methodology is not good. These findings were also supported by (Jepson, 2008; Shirmon, 2003)
197
iv. Creativity
It was found that 69% respondents agreed that academia can handle a large number of
students in the class. Meanwhile, 66% respondents disagreed that academia look keen to
resolve the issues related to their responsibilities. Furthermore, 76% disagreed that academia is
prepared for taking higher responsibilities. However, 71% respondents viewed that their
academia needs to equip with sufficient knowledge and skill to handle class room situation.
These findings also supported by (Makul,2009; Laron, 2004).
v. Class Room Participation
It was found that 80% respondents shows that academia feel irritated in the class.
Whereas, respondents pointed out that their academia arrive late in class late and leave early.
A majority 74 % academia often skips class due to their official work and majority of them
skip their class due to health. 78% academia’s personal problems effect their class activities.
These findings were also supported by (Malim & Uheara, 2006).
vi. Campus Research
It was found that 69% respondents were disagreed that their academia contributes a great
deal of research work that is formally recognized by the department. 73% of the students
reported that their academia did not involve them in research. A large number of respondents
were agreed that research publication requirements are stressful for their academia. All VCs
agreed that research publication is stressful for academia. Furthermore, 69% respondents
disagreed that their academia is given sufficient time to pursue their independent research
work. These findings of this study were also supported by (Roy & Niranjan,2004).
198
vii. Environment
It was found that 79% respondents disagreed that their academia feel depressed in
campus. A large number of academia supported that their academia feels frustrated, isolated
and depressed in the academia. Whereas, 65% of the respondents agreed that campus
environments is safe for you and for their academia.
viii. Personal Characteristics
It was found that 77% of academia get resources for their use in the classroom. A large
number 70% of the respondents agreed that their academia is satisfied with their job.
Meanwhile, 66% of the academia is moody or impatient over small issues. These findings
were also supported by (Maria, 2011; Colney & Woosely, 2000; Koustelios , 2004).
ix. Subject Mastery of Academia
It was found that 69% of respondents disagreed that teaching new courses is not stressful
for their academia and their assigned work is not of their interest. A large number 72%
respondents disagreed that their academia is reluctant to equip themselves with sufficient
knowledge while teaching. A large number 63% of academia makes their courses interesting
and exciting for their students. These findings were also supported by (Mirella, 2001).
5.2.4 Findings from the Association between Demographics variables and Job Stress of
Academia
i. Gender
In Bivariate analysis, the association between gender and job stress of academia heads
and their academia were calculated. It was found that the P values were greater than 0.05 of
the significant level, for all sixteen dimension of job stress i.e., autonomy of work, quality of
work, flexibility of work, organizational behavior, financial benefits and social interaction at
199
work etc. It is found that there is no mean difference for the gender of the academia and their
heads.
ii. Post
It was found from the bivariate analysis of the post of the academia and their association
with job stress dimensions. The calculated P values (0.001, 0.007, 0.001, 0.009, 0.038, 0.000,
0.0000) are less than 0.05of the significant level. This mean these dimensions have mean
difference for the post of academia. These dimensions were, autonomy of work, flexibility of
work, organizational behavior, social interaction at work, Communication channel at work,
working condition and space organization. These job stress indicators have significantly mean
difference for three categories of post, permanent, contractual and Tenure Track system. The
Mean values further indicated that permanent employees have less stress as compared to
contractual.
However, the P values are greater than 0.05 for the quality of work, financial benefits,
and provision of privacy, official furniture, equipment facility, personal space, individual
control, information overload and energy drain. These stress indicators were insignificant and
have no mean difference. These findings were also supported by (Fatama & Duke, 2003).
iii. Position
It was found for the p values of association between Position of university academia
and their job stress indicators. P values are significant for autonomy of work, quality of work,
flexibility of work, organizational behavior, space organization, financial benefits etc. These
indicators have mean difference with position of academia and their heads. It was further
evident from the results that Dean has less stress as compared to in- charge. Whereas,
Professor has less stress as compared to lecturer.
200
However, P values are more than 0.05 for working condition, individual control,
information overload and energy draining. These indicators have no mean difference for the
position of academia and their heads. These findings were also supported by (Duke and
Griffin, 2003).
iv. Qualification
It was found form p values of association between qualification of university faculty and
their job stress indicators. P values are significant for the autonomy of work, quality of work,
flexibility of work, organizational behavior, space organization, financial benefits etc. These
indicators have mean difference of PhD and master level qualification.
These indicators have mean difference for the qualification of academia and their heads.
These findings were also supported by ( Kreitner & Bashir, 2003).
v. Experience
It was found form p values of association between experience of University academia
and their job stress indicators. P values are significant for the autonomy of work, quality of
work, flexibility of work, organizational behavior, space organization, personal space,
information overload etc. These indicators have mean difference with experience of the
academia and their heads. It was further evident from the result that more experienced
academia has less job stress as compared to less experienced academia.
However, the P values are more than 0.05 for financial benefits, equipment facility and
official furniture. These indicators have no mean difference for the position of academia and
their heads. These findings were also supported by (Sim &Griffin, 2003).
201
vi. Age
It was found form p values of association between age of University faculty and their job
stress indicators. P values are significant for autonomy of work, quality of work, flexibility of
work, organizational behavior, space organization, financial benefits etc. These indicators
have mean difference with age of the academia and their heads. It was further evident from the
results that aged academia has less stress as compared younger ones.
However, the P values are more than 0.05 for information overload and energy draining.
These indicators have no mean difference for the age of academia and their heads. These
findings were also supported by (Radcliff & Lester, 2003).
vii. Marital Status
It was found form the p values of association between marital status of university
academia and their job stress indicators. P values are insignificant for all the determinants of
job stress. This means that there is no mean difference of these determinants of job stress with
respect to marital status. These findings were also supported by (Wang & Griffon, 2001).
5.3 CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions based on findings from the analysis of data are presented here in this part of
chapter -5, so that discussion and recommendations for future may be given. Conclusion
comprises over findings from three categories of the data analysis as univariate, bivariate and
multivariate analysis.
1. It was concluded from the above findings that, autonomy of work was one of the factors
of job stress of academia. More empowerment and involvement in decision making
reduce their job stress which definitely increase the performance of the academia and
vice versa.
202
2. It was also concluded that, quality of work was one of the job stress factors. Whereas,
quality of work will reduce the job stress of academia working in public sector
universities. This will definitely positively effect on the performance of academia and
vice versa.
3. Flexibility of work was also one of the factors of job stress of academia working in
Public Sector universities in Punjab. To provide sufficient support in this regards
definitely it will reduce the job stress of academia. This supportive attitude will effect on
their performance and vice versa.
4. Organizational behavior was also one of the factors of job stress of academia. The
positive and smooth career promotion motivates the academia toward their job. This
motivation will reduce their job stress. Furthermore, this phenomenon will increase the
performance of academia and vice versa.
5. It was also concluded that financial benefit was also one of the factors of job stress for
academia working in public sector universities. The rise in pay and benefits, caused
motivation towards work. This approach will reduce the job stress and definitely it will
increase the performance of academia and vice versa.
6. Social interaction at work was also one of the job stress factors of university teacher. A
supportive and good working with colleagues creates creativity of the work with
harmonious relationship. It will reduce the job stress and causes a positive change in
their performance and vice versa.
7. The provision of privacy was one of the job stress factors. A supportive approach in this
regards will reduce the job stress of academia. It will positively effect on the
performance of academia.
203
8. Communication channel at work was one of the factors of job stress of academia.
Provision of smooth and peaceful environment effect positively on the academia for job
stress reduction. This phenomenon will increase the performance and vice versa.
9. Working condition was also one of the factors of job stress. Provision of good working
condition causes reduction in job stress and it causes positive effect on the performance
of academia and vice versa.
10. Office furniture was one of job stress factors. To enhancement in these facilities caused
reduction in job stress of academia. It will positively effect on the performance of
academia and vice versa.
11. Equipment facility was one of the job stress factors of the academia working in
universities. Provision of these facilities will reduce the job stress and increase the
performance of academia and vice versa.
12. Space organization was also one of the job stress factors of academia. Provision in this
regards caused positive effect in the reduction of job stress of academia that caused
positive change in their performance and vice versa.
13. Personal space was also one of the factors of job stress of academia working in
universities of public sector. Poor rapport and daily life nonsenses reduction will cause
positive change in reduction of job stress. This will effect positively on the performance
of academia and vice versa.
14. Individual control was also one of the job stress factors. Discrimination of the boss and
problem arises at work caused stress. A reduction in these causes will reduce job stress.
This will effect positively on the performance of academia and vice versa.
204
15. Information overload was one of the job stress factors of academia. Work more than
they can handle and having less time for their family also factor of job stress. Control
on these causes will change in job stress and it will increase the performance of
academia and vice versa.
16. Energy draining was also one of the job stress factors. Facilitation in work will reduce
the stress and increase the performance and vice versa.
17. Gender and marital status had no significant effect on job stress of the academia
working in public sector universities.
18. Qualification, age and experience had positive relation with job stress of academia
working in public sector universities. It is concluded that higher qualified, more
experienced and senior aged academia have less job stress. It means qualification, age
and experience effects on the performance.
19. Post and position had positive significant effect on the job stress. It is concluded that
academia working on permanent position, dean and professor had less job stress.
Whereas, academia working on contractual basis, in-charge and lecturer had more job
stress. It means post and position had effect on the performance of academia working in
public sector universities.
5.4 DISCUSSION
The present study has explored the job stress of academia and its effect on their
performance in public sector universities in Punjab. The study was also focused to identify the
nature of job stress of academia, to analyze the factors responsible for job stress and one of the
objectives was to explore the relationship between job stress and academia’s performance in
public sector. There were six sub questions; major indicators of stress; nature of job stress;
205
performance indicators; effect of performance and effect of demographic variables on the
performance of academia.
The study was initially planned in nine regions of the Punjab namely Rawalpindi, Dera
Ghazi Khan, Multan, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Gujranwala, Sahiwal and Sargodha. One
public sector university from each region with a largest population was selected. Dera Ghazi
Khan and Sahiwal regions were excluded from the study for having no public sector university.
The seven universities representing each region were the population of the study. These
universities were, P.U from Lahore, BZU from Multan, PMAS-arid from Rawalpindi, UOS
form Sargodha, UOG from Gujrat, IUB from Bahawalpur and GCU from Faisalabad.
To conduct the study, stratified random sampling technique was used. Strata were made
with respect to population of the universities from each region. The sample size was determined
by using criteria given in Johnson & Christensen (2000. p 178). Four groups of respondents were
selected, that included academia heads of the universities (Dean, HoD), the academia, students
and Vice Chancellors. Questionnaires were developed separately for academia, academia heads,
students and a structured interview for the VCs. A sample out of 373 academia heads, 434
academia, 1008 students and 7 Vice Chancellors were selected randomly from population. The
response rate of sample size was 64 % for academia heads, 97% for academia, 64 % for
students and 86 % for Vice Chancellors. Physical facilities for heads, academia and students
were also verified with checklist. The psychometric properties of all these scales were
determined for the present research. And the findings and conclusion of this research study
aimed to reply the main research question and six sub questions of this research.
The main objective of this study was to find out nature of job stress of academia in
public sector universities of the Punjab. To identify the nature of job stress of the academia, the
206
univariate analysis was used. The result of the univariate analysis showed that academia level
of stress is higher as compared to their academia heads. And the literature review also shows
the nature of stress of university academia. The result shows that heads of academia have the
autonomy, flexibility of work, quality of work, communication network etc. The frequency of
the result indicated the nature of stress in academia.
The data was also analyzed to identify the factors responsible for job stress in academia.
Furthermore, the data analyses also identified the major indicators of stress in academia. The
result of the mean score of the sub indictors shows a high level of agreement with stress
indicators. It shows that prevalence of academia stress cannot be denied.
Another question of this research was about the relationship of academia stress and job
performance. It was assumed that higher level of academia will lead the lower level of
performance. The multivariate analysis was supported this phenomena. The results of
multivariate analysis shows that job stress of academia have effect on their performance.
(Table 4.7.3 and 4.7.6)
The results of data analysis were supported our research question and sub questions. The
review of related literature reveal that job stress in academia have negatively effect on their
performance. It was also found that various job stress factors affect the performance of
academia working in public sector universities of Punjab. The literature review of the job stress
of academia working in university and their performance revealed a negative relationship
between job stress of academia their performance. To determine the job stress and its effects on
their performance a multiple regression analysis was computed. The result shows that there is a
negative relation with job stress and performance of academia. The results of academia heads
indicated that R square was 0.4631 with F=26.388 (df, 241) P< 0.05. The effect of job stress
207
is significant on their performance. Similarly the result of academia R square was 0.63 with
F=23.39 (df, 421). Both the table has significant as the values of P are less than from the
significant level 0.05.
The above findings and literature review may lead to realize the importance of our
believe about system, regarding teaching at school or university level. If our academia has
positive beliefs about their self, they can face job stress and stressful environment and shows
their performance instead of all factors. We need to improve or restructure our belief system. In
this study, we also found out the relationship between job stress and performance with
demographic variables. The literature review indicated that there are certain individual variables
(Gender, Post, Position, Qualification, Experience, Age, Marital status) working in public sector
universities that may contribute to stress. To find out the relationship of these variables, t and
F-test, ANOVA analyses were computed for these. Academia demographic variables are
important factors that may lead toward stress and they effect on their performance. Their age,
experiences are the important factors that may affect the level of stress that may lead towards
the performance. In this study it was concluded that academia with senior age group has less
level of stress as compared to the younger. Similarly the academia with maximum long
experience has less level of stress as compared to less experienced academia. It was also
concluded that academia working in university with PhD qualification have less level of stress
as compare to the Non–PhD degree holder. Academia position were also associated with level
of stress, Professor or Dean and chair have less level of stress as compared to the lecturer or
academia working as in-charge. Furthermore, the marital status leads towards the level of
stress. Findings of the present study revealed that married academia has less stress as compared
208
to unmarried academia; similarly the result shows that, the male and female also have different
level of stress as findings revealed.
The findings of the multivariate analysis also indicted that, the indicators of job stress
influence the performance of the academia. The findings shows these stress indicators
autonomy, quality of work, flexibility of work, organizational behavior, financial benefits,
social interaction at work, provision of privacy, communication channel at work, official
furniture, equipment facility, space organization, personal space, individual control, information
load and energy drain influence the performance of academia. The analysis of these indicators
pointed out there sub items , decision making, role clarity, teaching of new course, lack of
participation in decision making , internal conflicts and HEC criteria for promotion were also
sources and causes of stress which influence on their performance. It was also concluded from
the findings that lack of opportunity for future preparation, deadlines, teaching of new course,
work load, unjust treatment for carrier promotion, pay benefits, funding for research, relation at
workplace ,also causes stress that affect their performance. the result of data also concluded that
lack of coordination, taking new initiative, office space, work place environment, official
furniture, poor rapport, personal responsibility, discrimination by boss; long working hours,
publication requirements, rewards and recognition, and unbiased performance evaluation are the
sources of stress for academia.
It is concluded from the above findings of this study, that job stress is the major issues
of our academia working in public sector university of Punjab. It was also evident from the
findings that job stress is a multiple factor construct, and these entire factors are associated with
each other’s. It is also found that academia job stress negatively effect on the performance of
academia.
209
5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STUDY
Analysis of empirical data and generation of findings of this research study,
recommended the following measures be put in place to help academia and university
management to reduce job stress on their work place. The conclusions lead the following
recommendations:
i. The Vice Chancellors, deans and heads of the departments need to explore the causes
of the dissatisfaction of the academia working in public sector universities of Punjab.
Academia may also involve in different decision making of the university. That
involvement will increase their confidence and it will increase their performance.
ii. The public sector universities deans and chairs may assess the level of their academia
knowledge and worth of their skills before assigning any task to them.
iii. The Head of department should assign work with the willingness of their academia as
per their expertise. That will reduce their stress and help to complete task within time.
iv. A continuous training may be given to the academia on different aspects for
enhancing their capacity. These training will help to reduce their job stress and will
increase their performance. This training will trained the academia for the completion
of different tasks within time. Further, the newly inducted academia may be given
training before assigning any official task to them. Moreover, time management
training may be given to academia on a continuous basis that will help to meet the
deadlines.
v. Academia inducted on contract may also be given the same status as regular one .
vi. University may invest in stress management strategy to reduce the stress of university
academia that will help in increasing their performance.
210
vii. Academia head may invite academia, who thinks that they are being given job that is
are in contradiction with each other, and clarify their roles for such activity.
viii. Academia head may facilitate an academia skill audit that will help to place
academia that feels underutilized. Further, academia will be involved in different
tasks as per their area of expertise.
ix. University management may revise their decision strategy. Further, financial benefits
may be given to the academia for additional work.
5.6 SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The study has suggested some lines for future research. The present study included the
one university from one region of the Punjab. But Sahiwal and Dera Ghazi khan have no public
sector universities. The study was also limited to categories of the Punjab furthermore; no
women university was included in the study. The results of the study may not be general views
of the entire public sector universities of Pakistan. The study could be further expanded by
including the public sector universities of other provinces. It is suggested that replication need to
involve greater number of academia and students in the study.
211
REFERENCES
Afe, J. O. (2001). Reflections on Becoming a Teacher and the Challenges of Teacher Education.
Inaugural Lecture Series 64. Benin City: University of Benin, Nigeria.
Ahmadi (2007). Stress and Job Satisfaction of the employee. Journal of Social Sciences and
Education (4).
Ahmed, S.,( 2013). Analysis of the problems of university education of Pakistan: Critical review
of Literature, Academic Research International , 4(2), 314-342.
Ali, S. (2008). Faculty Development Program for Universities of Pakistan: The Need to Develop
a Model. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of the Punjab: Lahore.
Ali, S., Haider , Z., Munir, F., Khan, H. and Ahmed, A. (2013). Factors Contributing to the
Students’ Academic Performance: A Case Study of Islamia University Sub-Campus
American J. Educational Research, 1(8): 283-289.
Allan, C., (2006). Stress Management of Academia: Inter-Relationships. Journal of Psychology
management ,17,( 1) 17-28)
Allred, S. M. & Gramling, S. E.(2006). Stress management: psychological Foundations.
Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Alves, M.G.D. M., Chor, D.,(2004). Short version of the “Job stress scale”: a
Portuguese- language adaption.Revista de Saude Publica, 38(2), 164-171.
American Psychological Association, (2013). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of
conduct. J. American Psychologist. (57): 1060–1073.
Anderson .(2001) . Work Psychology and indicators. London: Pitman Publishing.
Appelberg, R.k..(1991). Stress management of organization worker : psychological
Foundations. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Arnold, J., Cooper, L., & Roberston, (1993) . Work Psychology . London: Pitman Publishing
Arnold, J., Cooper, L., & Roberston, I.T.(2003) . Work Psychology . London: Pitman Publishing.
Awino, J.O.& Agolla.J.E.( 2008). A quest for level of stress measurement for universities
teacher: Case study of University of the University of Botswana,Educ.Res.Rev.3(6)
Ayaz, A., (2014).Impact of Stress among students of public sector universities: American J.
Educational Research, 1(2): 213-229.
212
Aziz, M. A. (2012). Effects of demographic factors and teachers’ competencies on the
achievement of secondary school students in the Punjab. Gomel Uni. J. Res., 28 (1): 18-41.
Barber, M. and M. Mourshed. (2007). How the world's best-performing school systems come out
on top. London: McKinsey and Company.
Baron, E., & Serinkan. (2000). Stress Syndrome of university teacher: An empirical study in
Denizli in Turkey. Social and Behaviorla Science, 310-322.
Barrick, M.R., R., Mount, M.k., (1999), The big five personality dimension and employee
performance ; A Meta-Analysis, personality Psychology, 44(1) ,1-26
Bassey, M. P. (2005). Availability of resources for the teaching of science in public secondary
schools. Afri Edu J., 1: 29-36.
Batliwat ,S . ( 2003). Individual impact on their performance. Concept and practices: New
Delhi: FAO-FFHC/AD.
Ballantine, J., and Spade., (2007). University and Society: A sociological approach to education.
(3rd Ed) Boston: Pine Press.
Beer, N.M., (2002). Organizational behavior and work stress .2nd Ed. London: Pitman
Publishing.
Betts.(2006). Organizational behavior.2nd Ed. London: Pitman Publishing.
Blackburn, R., & Lawrence, J. (2003). Faculty at Work: Motivation, Expectation, and
Satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Blix, A.G, Cruse,R.j., Mitchell, B.M.B., (2001). Occupational stress among University teacerhs.
Educational Research, 36, 157-170
Bluementhal, I.,(2003) . Serives SETA. Employee Assistance Conference Programme.
2 ( 2). P5-21.
Blumberg,R.L.( 2005) . Workplace stress and empowerment. Paper presented at annual meeting
of the American psychology Association, Philadelphia, August, 2005.
Boles, J.S , Johnston M.,(2007). Role Stress, Wor-Family conflict and Emotional Exhaution:
Inter-relationship. Journal of peronal Sellings & saddle management, 17, ( 1) 17-28
Borko, H. (2014). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrian.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Bowing. H. (2001). Stress Perspectives and processes. Buckingham: Open University Press.
213
Bowing. H. (2011). University teaching as profession, A methodology of teaching and research ,
fourth edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Brown. H. D. (2002). Teaching by Principles, An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy,
Second edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Bufrod,J.A., Bedeian,A.G., & Linder, J.R (2005). Management in Extension Columbus, Ohio:
Ohio State Univesity Extension.
Calin, A. L. (2006). Is Subject Matter Knowledge Affected By Experience? The Case of
Composition of Functions: Simon Fraser University, Canada. p.4 – 103
Campbell, J.P. , Mccloy, R.A. ,and Oppler , S. H. (2003), A Theory of Performance .N. Schmitl
and W.C. Borman, Personnel Selection in Organizations. San Francisco. Jossey- Bass,
U.S.A.
Campbell, R.L,& Sven son, L.W.(2003).Perceived level of stress among University. London:
Macmillan.
Canadian Psychological Association, (2000). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists (3rd ed.).
Available: http:// www.cpa.ca.
Cephe, P.T. (2010). A study of the factors leading university teacher to burnout. Journal of
Education, 25-34.
Cheng.(2006). Management skill of university teacher .( 4th Ed) London Thomson
company culture. Journal of American Academy of Business, 2 (1).
Colbert,G.A.,(2000). Management theory and Practicve .( 6th Ed) London Thomson
company culture. Journal of American Academy of Business, 3 (2).
Cooper, B. (2003) Testing of University Teacher performance: some critical comments on their
job stress control. The journal of Education and research.
Cooper, C.L( 2000). Testing of teacher performance; New York, NY: Oxford University
Cox, L.T. (1978) . A job stress of faculty and its effect on teacher. Journal of Education and
Research , 45-54.
Cox, T. (1978) .Stress. London: Macmillan.
Cresswell, J W. (2003) .Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and mixed method
approach. London: Sage Publications Inc.
214
Curtis, A., (2011). Burnout syndrome of faculty: An empirical study in denizli in Turkey, Social
and behavioral Sciences, 318-322.
Daniel, J. (2003). Mega Universities and Knowledge Media. London: koganpage ltd.
Davis, M. (2002). Universities Management and Knowledge Media. London: koganpage ltd.
Desseler ,G., (2007). Human Resource Management.8th Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Dixo- Mueller,R ( 2009). Autonomy of work place: published for resources for the future, Johns
Hopkins Press.
Dodge, B., (2000). Active learning on the web. Ret. Dec. 10
(2008).http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/ bdodge/Active/ActiveLearning.html.201p.
Duffy, A., ( 2005). Burnout syndrome of university teacher. London: Koganpage.ltd
Dunham.(2004 ). Factors of stress: Open University press Uk.
Education Commission and Advisory Committee., (2002), Education Commission Report No.5.
Educational Research Journal 27,279-300.
Ellis, A. K. and T. F. Jeffrey. (1993). Research on Educational Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Eye
on Education.
Eysenck, O. (1988). A motivational study on Personality: London Macmillan pre
Faisal, Y.( 2013). Stress and Burnout in the Higher education sector in Pakistan, Published in
the Journal of Education and Research 41(1) : 132-145.
Famian , M.J. (1984) The Development of an Instrument to Measure Occupational Stress in
Teachers, The Teacher Stress inventory Journal of Occupational Psychology.pp.277-293.
Ferguson, T. S. (1992). The theory of science inquiry. New York Allen Publication.
Ferrari, A., R. Cachia and Y. Punie. (2009). Literature review on Innovation and Creativity in E
& Tinte EU Member States. Asia-Pacific J. Teac. Edu. 41(1): 9-27.
Fisher, M.H., (2011) Influencing Stress, Burnout, and Retention of Teachers. Current Issues In
Education, 14(10 Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/
Fred , Luthen (2005), Orgazational Behaviour, M Crawhill Pub. Ed. 10th,378.
Frost. (2013). The theory work and efficiency. New York Allen Publication.
215
Gay, L.R ( 2009). Educational Research: Competencies for analysis and Application. Publisher
Merrill, The university of Michigan.
Glinner, J. A. and G. A. Morgan. (2000). Research Method in Applied Settings: An Approach to
Design and Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.USA.p.144.
Goodman, E.D.,(2003). How to handle stress of being a student. Imprint , 40,43
Goldenburg, G. and Waddell.,(2007). Occupational Stress and coping Strategies among
teachers. Journal of advance in Nursing , 15(5), 531-543.
Grangster, M. and G. Peter. (2011). Factors influencing teachers' professional competence
development. J. Voc. Edu. & Train.,59(4): 485-501. DOI:10.1080/13636820701650943.
Greenberg Jerrold , S., (2002) Comprehensive Management stress. New York: McGraw Hill
Guasch, T., I. Alvarez and A. Espasa. (2006). University Teacher competencies in a virtual
teaching/ learning environment: Analysis of a teacher training experience. Teaching and
teacher Edu. J., 26(2010): 199-206.
Gujarati,D.N.(2003). Basic Econometrics fourth edition McGraw Hill, New York.
Handoko (2013). Every University is a great Univrsity.London: Open University Press.
Hannon , A.J.(2013). Occupational Stress in Organizations and class room management .
Journal of Management of Research .8.(3). P123-135)
Hans. S. ( 1981). Stress and Workplce ( 3rd Ed). London: Rout ledge.
Hardre, R. (2003). Motivation and Stress in Teaching ( 2nd Ed).London: Rout ledge.
Hassan, I., N (2007). An evaluation survey of PhD studies completed in the last ten years in
Pakistan Universities: Islamabad: HEC.
Heath and Safety Executive (2005). Workplace stress and safety measure: NBF Islamabad.
HEC (2007). Higher Education: Midterm Development Framework 2007-10: Islamabad: HEC.
Hockenbury.A( 2003). Occupational Stress Among Canadian University Academia . A Review
of the Literature,3(2)
Hunter, J. E. & Hunter, R. F. (2004).Validity and utility of alternative predictors of
international accounting, 27.
Jacob, S., D. M. Decker and T. S. Hartshorne. (in press). Ethics and law for school psychologists
(6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
216
Jamal, M., (2007) Job stress and employee performance controversy revisited: A
Journal of Educational Management
Johns. (2006). Role of employee in organization: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment
Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 24(2).
Jussim, L. and K. D. Harber. 2005. Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophe-cies: Knowns
and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality &Social Psychology
Review, 9, 131–155.
Kabeer, N. ( 2001) . Autonomy at work place and its effect : New York : oxford
Keinan, G. & Perlberg, A.(2006). Sources of stress in Academe: The Israeli Case.
Khomeiran, R. T., Z. P. A. M. Kiger, F. Ahmadi. (2006). Professional competence: factors
described by nurses as influencing their development. Int. Nurs. Rev. Pub. med., 53(1): 66-
72.
Khudabakhsh Ahmadi & Kolivand Alireza (2007). Stress and Job Satisfaction among Air Force
Military Pilots. Journal of Social Sciences 3 (3): 159-163.
King .E.(2011). Sources of stress in School teacher: The brazeli Case.
Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (2006).Introducing organizational behavior and attitude.
Kreitner, K.A. (2007). What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors. Journal of
Educational Supervisions.
Kyriacou, P.(2005). The impact of different factors on teaching competencies at secondary level
in Pakistan. Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research. 3(7): 123-155.
Kyriacou, S.(2003). The impact of different factors on teaching competencies at secondary level
in Pakistan. Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research. 3(5): 648-655.
Langsajo, M. J. (2014). Impact of Subject Matter Knowledge of a Teacher in Teaching and
Learning Process.School of Education.University of the Gambia Middle Eastern & African J.
Edu. Res., 7.
Lazarus, R.S(1971) “The Concept of Stress and Disease” in L Levi’ [ed] Society, Stress and
Disease , vol.1, London ,OUP.
Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York: Mc Graw Hill.
217
Lazarus,R.S & Folkman,S.(1984). Stress, appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer
Publications.
Leary. B (1995) . An academic stress scale: Identification and rated importance of academic
stressor : Psychological Reports, 59,415-26.
Levin.E.(2010). Effect of Stress Management on teacher’s performance: Journal of Educational
management and Research, 22,109-188.
Lewin V & Henderson, MC, (1947). Occupational stress and organizational commitment in the
nurse administrators. Journal of nursing administration .26(5) ,221-28
Liakapolou. ( 2011) . University teacher Training and Professional Competencies. Voice of
Research, 1(4) : 29-33, March 2011, ISSN no 2277-7733.
Lucy, K.A. (2007). What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors. Journal of
Educational Supervisions.
Luthans, F.(2000). Organizational behavior,7th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill,Inc
Maciej, K.J., (2010). Teacher Competencies and Teacher Effectiveness, New York: The Free
Press.
Maik, A. and H. Thomas., (2013) The concept of competencies in the context of Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD). pp: 1-21
Makel, M. C. (2009). Help Us Creativity Researchers, You're Our Only Hope. In Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 3( 1): 38-42.
Malikow, M. (2005). Effective teacher study. National Forum of Teacher Education-journal
electronic, available at: www.nationalforum.com/Archives.htm. 16(3): 66-78.
Maslach , C., & Jackson, S.E.,(1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
organizational behavior,2(2), 99-113.
Malm, B. and H. Löfgren. (2006). Teacher competence and students’ conflict handling
strategies. Res. in Edu., 76, p.62-73.
Maria, L. (2011). The Professional Competence of Teachers: Which qualities, attitudes, skills
and knowledge contribute to a teacher effectiveness. Researcher. Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki. GREECE Int. J. Hum. and Soc. Sci., 1 ( 21) : 66-78.
Mason, K.O. and H.L., Smith (2003). Orgnizational behavior . New York: Springer publications.
Matteson, C. (2003). Job Stress: new Directions in research and intervention. Current
218
Matthew, M. (2007). Best practices in the application of professional ethics. In A. Thomas & J.
Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology. Bethesda, MD: National Association of
School Psychologists. 1933–1941
Mcber, H. (2000). Research into teacher effectiveness: a model of teacher effectiveness.
Research report 216.DfEE.
McCombs, B. I. and R. J. Maarzano, (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning. The self
as agent in integrating will and skill. Educational Psychologist. P. 51- 69.
McKean,M.,Misra, R., West, S, and Tony , R.( 2000). College Student Journal. Vol.34(2),
McGuirk, P. M. O’ Neill, P.,( 2005). Using Questionnaires in Qualitative Research Methods:
Hay, I., Oxford University Press, Australia, 147-162.
Mirella, H. G. (2003). Stress in the Workplace. Management Magazine, 7 (August): 19-21.
Mohanty Institute of occupational safety and rieved on Health. (2000). Job stress, retrieved on
3rd April ,2000 from www find articles .
Mohanty, J., (2000) Trends and Issues in Higher Education. New Dehli: Deep and Deep
Publications.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Economics of Education Review New York: ILR Press
Moore,K.A, Burrows, G.D. & Dalziel, J.(1992). Stress: How to define and Challenge it.
Nadeem, M., S. M. Rana, A. M. Lone, S. Maqbool, K. Naz and A. Ali. (2011). i Int. J. Bus. and
Soc. Sci., 2 (19): 217-222.
National Institutes of Safety Health. (2001). Safety on work place procedure: Islamabad :
NIOSH
National Institutes of Safety Health. (2010). Safety on work place procedure: Islamabad :
NIOSH
National Institutes of Safety Health. (2012). Safety on work place procedure: Islamabad:
NIOSH
National Institutes of Safety Health. (2014). Safety on work place procedure: Islamabad :
NIOSH
Nayak, R. (2002. Reducing the effect of numbers by quality Occupational role and Stress among
public and private university Teacher: Journal of Management and Research 42(3): 123-145.
219
Newman, K., Langbelle, E. Z.,(2012). Stress in organizational life. Journal of Psychology,495-
513.
Nosheen, B.( 2009). Job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relation
with School context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 1034-1038.
Olekalns, M.(2008). Teach tative evaluation. Tehran: Gozinebartar. In Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 29(2011): 1143–1150. Available online at
www.sciencedirect.com1877-0428.
Osipow, S. (1983). Stress Coping Strain Model in Nigeria, Lagos.Longman publication.
Parveen, R., (2005) .Research methodology. Practice-hall of india private limited New Delhi.
Pareek,U.( 2012).Organizational role stress scale manual . Ahmedabad: Navina Pub.
Patrick, M.W and Smith, R.E (2001). Psychology of teacher : The Science of the Mind and
Behavior
Pitcher. K., (2013). University faculty and stress. Journal of Management of Research .8.(5).
P113-145)
Prasad, N.S. (1990). Mental health of teacher, New Delhi: Giant Publishing house, Publication.
Radcliff, C. & Lester,H.(2003). Undergraduate medical Education and stress, New York :
Springer Publications.
Raza, S. A., Majid, Z., Zia, A., (2010). Perceptions of Pakistani University Students about Roles
of Academics Engaged in Imparting Development Skills: Bulletin of Education & Research.
32(2): 75-91.
Raza, S.A. & Naqvi, S. A. (2011). Quality of Pakistani University Graduates as Perceived by
Employers: Implication for Faculty Development Journal of Quality and Technology
Management, VII(I), 57-72.
Rees, S.A. & Naqvi, S. A., (2007) Quality of Pakistani University Graduates as Perceived by
Employers: Journal of Quality and Research Management, VII(I), 77-92.
Rees.S. (2003). Emotion and Stress of Teacher : A history of changing Review, 21(3), 230-250.
Rittmayer., (2001) Occupational Appreciation of employees and stress, New York : Springer
Publications.
220
Robbin,S.P.,(2004), Organizational Behaviour.11th Edition:. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Robbins, T.P.(2007), Organizational Behaviour.13th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Robson.( 2005). Survey method for research.5th Ed. New York: Springer Publications.
Rubina, H. (2004). Teacher Job Stress, Efficacy and performance. QAU (Unpublished PhD
thesis). QAU, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Sajad, M., (2011). Teacher Competence at University: An Interpretive Approach and Learning .
Goteborge, Sweden, Bas.
Sarantakos, S.,(2007). A toolkits for quantitative data analysis. Palgrave MacMillan, Hampshire.
Schaubroeck, G.,(2000) Changing of Work Nature and Stress.: Journal of Mnagerial Psychology
,Vol . 15 No. 3,pp.227-42.
Schulz, P., Jansen.,( 2005). Stressreaktivitat: theoretisches konzept und messing. Diagnostica,
51(30,124-133.
Selye , H (1976) Stress in Health and Disease ,Boston Massachusitls Butlerworth.
Selye , H (1974) Stress without Distress, New York Lippincott.
Selye ,H., (1952) The Story of the Adaptation Syndrome Montrcel , Acta Inc.
Selye ,H., (1956) The Stress of Life , New York, Mcgraw –Hill.
Selye ,H (1982) History and Present Status of Stress concept, in LGold berg and S Brench [eds]
Handbook of Stress : Theoretical and Clinical aspects , New York, Free press.
Selye, H. (1981). “The Concept of Stress”, In L.I Kutash, et al. (eds.), London: Jossey—Bass
Publishers.
Serafino, I., ( 2008). Performance indicators.. London: Sage (Second Edition) (p.123).
Shah, S. A. (2009). Teachers’ behavior on the academic achievement of university students. Arid
agriculture university Rawalpindi. (Unpublished) Ph. D. thesis.1-218.
Shiel, C., Filho, W., (2013). Evaluating the engagement of universities in capacity building for
sustainable development in local communities. Evaluation and program planning , 54, 133-
154.
Shirom, A.(1986). Students’s stress. Higher Education, Vol.15, No.6, 667-676
221
Singh, R. P. (2004), Modernization of Teacher Education, New Delhi: Common Wealth
GaliMurariLal, Ansari Road Darya Ganj. Gomal
Smith, J. K. and L. G. Smith. (1994). Education today the foundations of a profession.
St.Martin’s press, Inc.
Snell, B. L. (2004). Stress at Work Place in Samll organization Higher Education Growth and
Future Options. Jaipur, India: University Book House (Pvt.) Ltd
Starr. (2002). The Determinants of Student Achievement: Different Estimates for Different
Measures. Paper presented at the first annual CALDER research conference, Washington,
D.C., October 4.
Stock, J.H., and M.N. Watson., (2003). Introduction to basic econometrics: Pearson Education
INc. Addison –Wesely, USA
Taylor, K., (2010) Performance Management: a framework for management control system
research. Academy of Innovation and Research, 34,487-516
Taylor, P.S.(2001) Stress Management among teachers: Academy of management Research,
32,217-256.
Tidsell, C. ( 2006). Impact of financial benefits on performance. International Journal of Social
Economics 29(3): 73-99.
Toohey. (1995).The communicational model of Stress in employees. Organizational Behavior
,9(3) 203-207
Travers, C.J., MacMillan.R.B., ( 2013). Mental health , Job satisfaction and occupational stress
among UK teacher :Work and Stress,7(3), 209-231.
Turner.,(2007) Work home and interface. New York: Springer Publications.
Varma , R (2008) .Psychology of Teachers. New Delhi: anmol publication. Pvt. LTD.
Walker.,(2009) Teaching as Stress: Open University Press, Milton Keynes
Wang, W. (2009). Competences in Education: a confusion of tongues. In Journal of Curriculum
Studies.33(1):75-88.
Webster, A.L (2005). Applied statistics for business and economics. 2nd Edition: Richard D Irwin
inc. USA.
Weiten., (2008) Burnout, Depression symptoms and physical health among Chinese University
teacher. Psychology Reports, 103(3),1-7.
Annexure-A
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ACADEMIC HEADS
This Questionnaire is meant for PhD Study titled “Job Stress of Academia and its Effects on
their Performance in Public Sector Universities of Punjab”, and your opinion about it
Part 1: Background Details
1. Name (Optional): ___________________________________________________
2. Name of the University:_____________________________________________
3. Faculty: ________________________________________________________
4. Your Department: ______________________________________________________
5. Gender: i. Male ii. Female
6. Is your post i. Contractual ii. Permanent iii. Any other (Please Specify):
_____________________________________
7. Your position i. Dean ii. Chairman/Chairperson iii. In charge
8. Academic qualifications: _______ ii. Professional qualifications :______________
9. Experience in years: __________________________________________________
10. Age group: 1. Under 26 ii. 26-35 iii. 36-45 iv. 46-55 v. 56+
11. Marital Status i. Married ii. Unmarried
12. Email Address (optional): ____________________
Part 2: Stress Symptoms
Have you suffered from any of the following in the last two years? Please tick you think is most
appropriate:
S. No
Symptoms
Option
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
1 Headaches
2 Anxiety
3 Chest pain
4 Sleeplessness
5 Irritability
6 Backache
7 Neck ache
8 Stomach disorders
9 Inability to concentrate
10 Helplessness
11 Depression
12 Anger
13 Exhausted
14 Frustrated
Part 3: Indicators of Job Stress
A. (Autonomy in Work, Quality of Work, Flexibility in Work, Organizational Behavior)
Please tick you think is appropriate to you:
S.
No.
Statement SA A UN DA SDA
1 You are completely responsible for decisions on how and when the work
is to be done
2 Your role is very clear in all academic and administrative aspects
3 Lack of participation in decision making is a source of embarrassment to
you
4 Lack of empowerment is a source of stress for you
5 Your job itself provides the very proof about your performance
6 Trying to meet the Higher Education Commission’s criteria is stressful
for you
7 Internal conflicts with your colleagues do not affect the teaching and
learning process
8 A general feeling exists that the efforts of academic head are not valued
9 Over work of department is stressful for you
10 A general feeling exist that effort of the academia heads are not valued
11 You are satisfied with the balance between your commitment and the
rest of your life
12 You have time and opportunity for the future preparation of your job and
promotion
13 You are unable to use your expertise as academia
14 It is not easy for you to meet deadlines
15 Your performance is formally evaluated by an appropriate authority
16 While teaching new courses you help your academia
17 You do not get demoralized by an unjust treatment of your career
promotion
18 Workload of department is evenly distributed by you among academia
B. (Financial Benefits, Social Interaction at Work, Provision of Privacy, Communication Channel of Work)
19 You are satisfied with your pay and benefits
20 You receive enough internal funding to conflict your work smoothly
21 You feel there is no gap between the work you do and the way it is
evaluated
22 You enjoy a harmonious working relationship with your academia
23 You enjoy working with your colleagues
24 You have an effective network of support at work
25 Academic heads who are inducted on contractual basis have the same
social status and respect as that of regular ones
26 You are encouraged at work by your boss
27 You often forego professional activities (local or international meetings)
because of personal commitments.
28 You are subjected to workplace harassment in the form of unkind words
and behavior
29 You never become impatient over small inconveniences
30 You never feel physically, emotionally or spiritually threatened
31 You don’t have any hesitation taking now initiative even in the face of
resistance from academia
32 A well-developed “ accountability system” is needed for a sustainable
performance by you
33 Taking viewpoints of students is an influential step taken by you
34 You feel there of mutual assistance among various departments
C. (Working Condition, Office Furniture, Equipment Provision, Space Organization
35 You have sufficient office space for carrying out your official duties
36 Inadequate lighting is a cause of disturbance for you in carrying out
your official work effectively
37 You can’t work effectively with excessive cold and heat in your
premises
38 Exterior noise and surrounding environment does not disrupt your
working
39 A large flexible space and well equipped labs are available to
accommodate student projects
40 You have adequate visitors space in your office
41 You have sufficient furniture for your use
42 You have enough furniture for staff meetings
43 You have telephone and interest facility for better communication
44 You have printer facility in your office
45 You have photocopier in your office
46 You are provided sufficient work space and privacy
47 You have seminar/ conference room facilities for meeting with staff
members
48 You and your staff members have sufficient and convenient place for
parking your vehicles
D. (Personal Space, Individual Control, Information Overload, Energy Darin)
49 You generally neve feel isolated on the campus
50 Poor rapport with academia does not affect your work efficiency
51 Nonsense of daily life does not affect your work
52 One of your potential features is to set a practical example to motivate
your students
53 Personal responsibilities and commitments have slowed down your
carrier progression
54 You are psychologically supported in an emotional and demanding
working environments
55 When a problem arises at work you are able to cope with it
constructively
56 Problems associated with your job never keep you awake at night
57 Discriminating by your boss never stresses you
58 Your work is more than what you can handle
59 Long and unpredictable working hours increases your workload
60 Your job requires a great deal of concentration that causes stress
61 You do not get enough time for your family members due to heavy
research work load
62 Publications requirements by HEC for promotion creates stress for you
63 You want to withdraw from a demanding work schedule that consumes
your time and energy
64 You often energize your academia with rewards and recognitions of
their work
65 You remain unbiased while writing performance report of you staff
66. What are the main causes of job stress for you?
67. How can your work performance be enhanced?
68 Give suggestions to overcome the job stress?
(Thank you for your time)
Annexure-B
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACULTY This Questionnaire is About PhD study on the title “Job Stress of Academia and its Effects on their
Performance in Public Sector Universities of Punjab”, and your opinion about it
Part 1: Background Details:
1. Name (Optional): ____________________________________________________
2. Name of University :__________________________________________________
3. Faculty: ____________________________________________________________
4. Your Department: ____________________________________________________
5. Gender: i. Male ii. Female
6. Is your post i. Contractual ii. Permanent iii. Any other ( Please
specify)______________________________________
7. Your position i. Professor ii. Associate professor iii. Assistant Professor
Iv. Lecturer
8. i. Academic Qualification: ____________ii. Professional Qualification:__________
9. Experience in years: _________________________________________________
10. Age group: 1. Under 26 ii. 26-35 iii. 36-45 iv. 46-55 v. 56+
11. Marital status i. Married ii. Unmarried
12. Email Address(optional):_______________
Part 2: Stress Symptoms
Have you suffered from any of the following in the last two years? Please tick any that applies to you:
S. No
Symptoms
Option
Never Rarely Sometime Often Always
1 Headache
2 Anxiety
3 Chest pain
4 Sleeplessness
5 Irritability
6 Backache
7 Neck ache
8 Stomach disorders
9 Inability to concentrate
10 Helplessness
11 Depression
12 Anger
13 Exhausted
14 Frustrated
Part 3: Indicators of Job Stress
E. (Autonomy in Work, Quality of Work, Flexibility in Work, Organizational Behavior)
Please tick you consider the most appropriate:
S. No. Statement SA A UN DA SDA
1. You are responsible for decisions how and when the work is
done
2. All aspects of your role are clearly defined
3. During meeting, you have the freedom to share your views
4. Lack of participation in decision making is a source of
embarrassment for you
5. You feel that your academia work is valued
6. Trying to meet the HEC criteria is stressful for you
7. Your departmental conflicts are responsible for you not
coming up to the expectations of your students
8. Technological advancements in education are difficult in
education are difficult for your to keep up with
9. You teach course that you would prefer to teach
10. Your assigned work is related to your interest
11. You have achievable deadlines
12. You are satisfied with the balance between your
commitments at work and rest of your life
13. Workload of department is evenly distributed among you
and your colleagues
14. While teaching new course head of department help you
15. You are given supportive feedback on the work you do
16. Your head of department does not psychologically stress
you
17. You are provided time and opportunity to prepare yourself
for future job related challenges
B. (Financial Benefits, Social Interaction At Work, Provision of Privacy , Communication Channels
at Work)
18 You are satisfied with your pay and benefits
19 You usually get financial benefits for additional work that
you perform
20 You feel that, there is strong gap between work you did and
the way it is evaluated for promotion and salary
21 You get same financial benefits as get that of your
colleagues
22 You consider that there is harmony between you and your
colleagues
23 You enjoy working with your colleagues
24 Academia who are inducted on contractual basis have the
same social status as that of regular ones
25 Over ambitious colleagues try to out you down
26 You have an effective network of support and supervisors at
work
27 You often have to forgo professional activities( local or
international meeting) because of personal responsibilities
28 You are subject to workplace harassment in form of unkind
words and behavior
29 You never become impatient over small inconvenience
30 You never feel physically, emotionally or spiritually
threatened
31 You get feedback on your performance evaluation
32 Poor rapport with colleagues and head affect your efficiency
at work
33 You have the same opportunity of capacity building and
pursuing higher education as that of others
C. (Working Conditions, Furniture, Equipment Facility, Space Organization, Types of Office)
34 Your working conditions are not satisfying for you
35 Your work does not suffer with excessive cold and heat in
the premises
36 Exterior noise and surrounding environment does not disrupt
your work
37 Poor ventilation of the classroom affects the teaching and
learning process
38 A large flexible space and well equipped labs are available
to accommodate student’s project
39 You have visitors space in your office with facility
40 You have sufficient furniture for your use in your office
41 You have enough furniture for meeting with the staff
42 You have telephone and internet facility for better
communication in your office
43 You have the facility of printer in your office
44 You have the facility of photocopier in your office
45 You are provided sufficient work space and privacy
46 By and large , you do not feel isolation while on campus
47 You have sufficient for operating your academic activity
48 You have your own independent office
D. (Personal Space, Individual Control, Information Overload, Energy Draining)
49 You do not get frustrated by the nonsense of daily life
50 Your job does not require a great deal of concentration that
causes stress
51 One set of your potential feature is to set a practical example
to motivate students
52 Personal responsibility and commitment has slow down
your carrier responsibility
53 When problems arises at work you are able to work with
these constructively
54 Problems associated with your job do not affect your sleep
55 Your workload is more than you handle
56 Long and unpredictable working hours increases your
workload
57 You are threatened with an emotional and demanding
working environment
58 You have social and religious interest that remain neglected
due to lack of time in hand
59 Publication requirement by HEC for promotion creates
stress
60 You want to withdraw from a demanding work schedule that
consumes your time and energy
61 You do not get demoralized by unjust treatment of your
career promotion
62 Your head often energizes you with rewards and recognition
for your work
63. In your opinion, what are the main causes of job stress?
64. How can work performance be enhanced?
65. Give suggestions to overcome the job related stress.
(Thank you for your time)
Annexure-C
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENT
This Questionnaire is about PhD Study title “Job stress of academia and its effects on their performance in
public sector universities of Punjab”, and your opinion about it
Part 1: Background Details:
13. Name (Optional): _________________________________________________________________________
14. Name of University:_______________________________________________________________________
15. Faculty: ________________________________ 4. Your Department :_______________________________
5. Gender: i. Male ii. Female
6. Degree level: ____________________________7. Email Address( optional):_________________________
Part 2: job Stress of Academia and their Performance:
Please tick √ the answer you think is the most appropriate:
S.
No Statement
Responses
SA A UN DA SDA
1 Your academia has the freedom to talk to head of department about annoying work conflicts
2 Your academia is given equal participation in problem solving and decision making in their department and faculty
3 Your academia is involving in decision making in university matter
4 Your academia has authority to resolve issues related to their responsibility
5 Your academia looks keen to have more skills to handle their job responsibility
6 Your academia replies positively while students ask questions in class
7 Your academia performance is affected by criticism of the HOD
8 An even distribution of workload helps your academia perform better
9 Your academia teach the course of their choice
10 Your academia is given sufficient time to pursue independent interests ( e.g.,
Course development, research )
11 Your academia performance is always appreciated by their departmental
heads
12 Teaching new course is stressful for your academia
13 Your academia assigned work is of interest to them
14 Your academia often feels depressed in the campus environment
15 Your academia is dissatisfied with the organizations
16 Your academia performance is evaluated on regular basis
17 Your academia performance seems overshadowed by the attitude of the head of department
18 Your academia remain unbiased while evaluating students performance
19 One of the energizing factors of your academia is to get recognition and
rewards from HOD
20 Your academia performance is supplemented with their promotion
21 Your contractual academia has the same benefits as the regular ones
22 Your academia positively views their colleagues while in classroom
23 Your contractual academia enjoys the same amount of respect as that of
regular one
24 Your contractual academia has the same performance as that of regular one
25 Your academia has a cordial collaboration among their colleagues
26 Your academia treats you and others with respect
27 Your academia communication with head, colleagues, friends and students
seems strained
28 Your academia feels irritated in the class
29 Your academia looks frustrated with their academic work
30 Your academia becomes impatient on small inconveniences
31 Your academia never feels isolated in the campus overall
32 Your academia is enough support staff for their assigned work
33 Your academia easily gets resources for using in the classroom
34 Your academia has strong relation at campus
35 The space of classroom is sufficient for all academic activities
36 The university environment is safe for you and your academia
37 Your classroom have proper cooling /heating systems
38 Your academia feels physically, emotionally and spiritually threatened
39 Your classroom is equipped with sufficient audio and visual aid facilities
40 Your classrooms have enough physical resources for a smooth
teaching/learning process.
41 Your classrooms have enough and comfortable seating for students
42 Your classrooms are equipped with multimedia
43 You have internet facility throughout the campus
44 Your classroom are airy and ventilated
45 A well-developed “ accountability system” is needed for sustainable
performance of your academia
46 You feel your academia is fully satisfied with their job
47 Your academia feels fresh and active while on campus
48 Your academia understands how effective their work is in the overall output
of the organization
49 Seeking viewpoint of students about your academia is an influential step
taken by the HOD
50 Your academia is reluctant to equip themselves with sufficient knowledge
while teaching
51 Your academia independently resolves their work issue
52 Your academia has the potential to solve issue of students
53 One of the potential features of your academia is to set practical example to
motivate students
54 Your academia never gets angry with you or misbehaves in the classroom
55 Your academia can handle a large number of students in the class at a given
time
56 Your academia has the capability to cope with classroom issues
57 Your academia personal problems do not affect their class activity
58 Your academia is too preoccupied to prepare for taking up higher
responsibilities
59 Your academia needs to be equipped with sufficient knowledge and skills to
handle classroom situations
60 Your academia has full information about what is going on in new trends and
methodologies
61 Your academia often skips class due to other official matters
62 Your academia arrives in the class in time and leave class late
63 Your academia gets moody or impatient over small issues
64 Your academia contributes a great deal of work that is formally recognized by
the department
65. In your opinion, what are the main causes of job stress of your teacher?
66. How can the work performance of your teacher be improved?
67. Give suggestions to overcome the job stress of your teacher.
(Thank you for your time)
Annexure-D
Interview of Vice Chancellor for PhD study titled “job stress of academia and its effects on
their performance in public sector universities of Pakistan”
Questions
A. Background Details: i. May I request to take a brief of your academic record?
ii. Can you please summarize of your academic and administrative experience?
iii. May I know something about your strengths please?
B. Organizational
1. Does your academia have the freedom to approach your office for sharing their
problems?
2. Do you involve your academia in decision making?
3. Do you think lack of infrastructure affects the performance of your academia?
4. Do you think lack of coordination with administrative department for provision of
logistic support affects performance of academia?
5. Do you think workload of academia is equally distributed?
6. Have you given autonomy to your HoDs for distribution of work?
7. Do you think departmental conflicts of academia are the responsible for not coming up to
the expectations of students?
8. Do you have monitoring and evaluation system for your academia?
9. Do you take interest in the outside life of your academia?
10. Do you think your academia have a difference of opinion with you?
11. Do you tolerate minor inconvenience/mistake/human error caused by your academia?
12. Does your organization facilitate your academia in coping with difficulties they face
outside of their work?
13. Do you motivate your academia with reward and recognition?
14. Do you take interest to resolve conflicts among your academia?
15. Do you think to meet HEC criteria for induction is difficult for academia?
16. Do you maintain relation with academia who differs with your management policies?
17. Do you provide equal opportunities for professional growth to your faculty?
18. Do you have accountability system for the performance of your academia?
Annexure-E
CHECKLIST OF PHYSICAL FACILITIES IN PUBLIC SECTOR
UNIVERSITIES OF PUNJAB Name of the University:____________________________________________________
A. Academic Heads
No. Facilities Available & Working Available & Not Working Not Available
1 Independent Office
2 Visitor’s Room
3 Independent Washroom
4 Fax Machine
5 Photocopier
6 Telephone
7 Scanner
8 Internet
9 Air Conditioner
10 Faculty Hostels
11 Day Care Center
12 Committee Room
13 Bachelor Hostel
14 Official Transport
15 Official cell
16 Generator
17 UPS
18 Official Car
19 Guest house
20 Officer Club
21 Any other
B. Faculty( Teaching Staff)
No. Facilities Available & Working Available & Not Working Not Available
1 Independent Office
2 Visitor’s Room
3 Independent Washroom
4 Fax Machine
5 Photocopier
6 Telephone
7 Scanner
8 Day Care Center
9 Internet
10 Faculty Hostels
11 Official Transport
12 Bachelor Hostel
13 Generator
14 UPS
15 Committee Room
16 Room Cooler
17 Guest house
20 Officer Club
21 Any other
C. Students
No. Facilities Available & Working Available & Not Working Not Available
1 Common Room
2 Library
3 Labs/IT Room
4 Heating/Cooling System
5 Parking
6 Washroom
7 Multimedia
8 Cafeteria
9 Internet/Wifi
10 Water Cooler
11 Stationery Shop
12 Hostel
13 Transport
14 Resource Center
15 Generator
16 Central Library
17 Adequate/proper classroom
18 Any other
D. Miscellaneous
No. Facilities Available & Working Available & Not Working Not Available
1 Mosque
2 Video Conference Room
3 Shuttle Bus Service
4 Banks
5 ATM machine
6 Post Office
7 Filtered Water Tank
8 Online Portal
9 FM Radio Station
10 Health Care Centre
11 Fitness Centre
12 Any other
Appendix-A
Appendix-B
LIST OF EXPERT FOR THE CONTENT VALIDITY OF THE
QUESTIONER
Sr# Name of the Expert / University Qualification Experience
1 Prof .Dr. Muhammad Aslam Asghar , Former Dean
,AIOU, Islamabad
PhD 35years
2 Prof .Dr. A.R Saghir , former Chairman EPM
Department ,AIOU, Islamabad
PhD 45years
3 Prof .Dr. Rehana Masroor , Former Dean Education
,AIOU, Islamabad
PhD 32 years
4 Prof .Dr. Muhammad Asif Malik, IER, PU, Lahore PhD 35 years
5 Prof .Dr. Nabi Bux Jumani ,Dean , IIUI,, Islamabad PhD 20years
6 Prof .Dr. Hassan Raza chairperson , Management
Sciences Department AIOU, Islamabad
PhD 25years
7 Prof .Dr. Rubina Hanif , QAU, Islamabad PhD 20years
8 Prof Dr .Rukshan, Chairperson Education Department ,
NUML, Islamabad
PhD 20years
9 Prof .Dr. Naeem A Rashid , Dean Social Sciences
,AIOU, Islamabad
PhD 35years
10 Dr. Muhammad Ajmal Chuadhry, Chairperson ,
Distance , Non Formal and Continuing Education
,AIOU, Islamabad
PhD 20years
11 Dr.Fazal Ur Rehman, Chairman ,Early Childhood and
Elementary Education ,Department ,AIOU, Islamabad
PhD 20years
12 Dr. Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, AIOU, Islamabad PhD 10years
13 Dr .Almas Kiani , PMAS-Arid Agriculture University
,Rawalpindi, Pakistan
PhD 20 Years
222
WHO (2006) [World Health Organization] cited in conn,T (1993) Stress Research ad Stress
Management Pulling Theory to work Sudburg, Health Safety Executive.
Williams, B., L. Armistead and S. Jacob. (2008). Professional ethics for school psychologists: A
problem-solving model casebook. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Wilson , F., (2004), Organizational Behavior teachers Work, Oxford University Press,
ed.2nd,pp 253.
Wright, T.(2001). Teacher Stress and Performance , Oxford Press. New York.U.S.A. p25.
Zaccaro.(2002). Stress appraisal and performance . New York: Springer Publications.
Zapf, D., & Frese, M.,(1991). Soziale Stressoren am Arbeitsplatz. Psychology Stress am
Arbeitsplatz,168-184.