Job Stress Among Production Executives

8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives

1/84

CHAPTER ICHAPTER I

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

1


2/84

For Further Details Contact:

+91-9962179698

044-26821138

www.lacrosstechnologies.org

2
http://www.lacrosstechnologies.org/http://www.lacrosstechnologies.org/


3/84

INTRODUCTION

The existence and importance of stress in industry was first recognized in America in 1956.

A machine operator called James Carter cracked up while working on the General Motors

Production line in Detroit. Mr. Carter had experienced what is now commonly known as a

nervous breakdown and he sued General Motors claiming that the stresses of his job had

contributed to his condition and was even successful in winning his case.

In the last few years evidence has accumulated from around the world to show that of the

different types of stress that cause illness and disease the most common and most

destructive is stress at work. Researchers have not only built up evidence showing links

between industrial stresses in general and ill health but have even accumulated evidence

showing that it is possible to link specific occupations with specific types of stress induced

disease. No one is immune. The men or women on the shop floor are just as vulnerable as

the men or women on the board. The man with virtually no responsibility may be just as

vulnerable as the woman with an enormous amount. It is not just high-powered executives

who suffer from stress.

Although there is absolutely no doubt that stress is killing many people, disabling manymore and costing industry billions of pounds every year, there is one important question

that has to be asked.

Why are we so susceptible to stress these days?

The answer to this apparently unanswerable paradox is quite simple.

Our bodies were designed a long, long time ago. We were not designed for the sort of

world in which we live today. We were designed for world in which fighting and running

were useful practical solutions to everyday problems. We were designed to cope with

physical conformations with saber-toothed tigers.

3


4/84

The problem is that our environment has changed far more rapidly than we have evolved.

We have changed our world for faster than our bodies have been able to adapt. At no other

time in the history of the world, has there been such a constant progression of ideas.

Fashions, themes and attitudes have never changed as rapidly as they have in the last

hundred years or so.

Never before have expectations and pressures been so great. Revolutionary changes in

agriculture, navigation, medicine, military tactics, design, transport, communications, and

industrial methods have all transformed our world. But our bodies are still the same as they

were since thousands of years ago. It takes millennia for the human body to adapt. We

have moved far too quickly for our own good.

Nearly everyone agrees that job stress results from the interaction of the worker and the

conditions of work. Views differ, however, on the importance of worker characteristics

versus working conditions as the primary cause of job stress. These differing viewpoints

are important because they suggest different ways to prevent stress at work.

According to one school of thought, differences in individual characteristics such as

personality and coping style are most important in predicting whether certain job conditions

will result in stress, in other words, what is stressful for one person may not be a problem

for someone else. This viewpoint leads to prevention strategies that focus on workers in

ways to help them cope with demanding job conditions.

Although the importance of individual differences cannot be ignored, scientific evidence

suggests that certain working conditions are stressful to most people (for example,

excessive workload demands and/or conflicting expectations). Such evidence argues for a

greater emphasis on working conditions as the key source of job stress, and for job redesign

as a primary prevention strategy.

4


5/84

JOB STRESS, HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY

Short-lived or infrequent episodes of stress pose little risk. However, when stressful

situations go unresolved, the body is kept in a constant state of activation, which increases

the rate of wear and tear to biological systems. Ultimately, fatigue or damage results, and

the ability of the body to repair and defend itself can become seriously compromised. As a

result, the risk of injury or disease escalates.

In the past 20 years, many studies have looked at the relationship between job stress and a

variety of aliments. Mood and sleep disturbances, upset stomach and headache, and

disturbed relationships with family and friends are examples of stress-related problems that

are quick to develop and are commonly seen in these studies. These early signs of job stress

are usually easy to recognize. But the effects of job stress on chronic diseases are more

difficult to see because chronic diseases take a long time to develop and can be influenced

by many factors other than stress. Nonetheless, evidence is rapidly accumulating to suggest

that stress plays an important role in several types of chronic health problems, especially

cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal disorders, and psychological disorders.

Some employers assume that stressful working conditions are a necessary evil-- thatcompanies must turn up the pressure on workers and set aside health concerns to remain

productive and profitable in today's economy. But research findings challenge this belief.

Studies show that stressful working conditions are actually associated with increases

absenteeism, tardiness, and intentions by workers to quit their jobs -- all of which have a

negative effect on the bottom line.

Recent studies of so-called healthy organizations suggest that policies benefiting worker

health also benefit the bottom line. A healthy organization is defined as one that has low

rates of illness, injury, and disability in its work-force and is also competitive in the

marketplace. NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) research has

identified organizational characteristics associated with both healthy, low-stress work and

high levels of productivity. Examples of these characteristics include the following:

5


6/84

Recognition of employees for good work performance.

Opportunities for career development.

An organizational culture that values the individual worker.

Management actions that is consistent with organizational values.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Stress exists in every aspect of life. The manufacturing environment poses stressful

working conditions. The demands of meeting the required production and added to this

factor, things such as job repetition, potential job dissatisfaction, poor ergonomics or low

pay results in higher level of stress.

If stress in the workplace is not on the agenda, the results of stress are revealed through

higher absenteeism than other parts of the company, higher Worker's Compensation claims

and ultimately in reduced customer satisfaction. This operations topic focuses on various

approaches to managing stress. Raising the pay isn't necessarily the solution. There are

many other creative means of managing stress.

This Study focuses on the level of stress due to the working conditions, sources of stress, its

consequences and the steps taken to manage stress in the work place. The present study is

to make an attempt to mainly identify the level of stress, various sources of stress, its

consequences and the stress management techniques adopted by organizations.

MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM

Job stress is also a very costly affair with the price tag for the U.S. industry estimated at

over $300 billion annually because of:

Accidents

Absenteeism

6


7/84

Labor turnover

Diminished productivity

Direct medical, legal, and insurance costs

Workers compensation awards, and many more

Consider the following statistics:

40% of job turnover is due to stress.

Xerox estimated that it cost them $1 to $1.5 million to replace a top executive and

that was two decades ago

Replacing an average employee today costs between $3,000 and $13,000.

60 to 80% of accidents on the job are stress related and some, like the Three Mile

Island and Exxon Valdez disasters, can affect untold thousands many miles away.

In California, the number of Workers' compensation claims for mental stress

increased by almost 700 percent over eight years and ninety percent were successful

with an average award of $15,000 compared to a national average of $3,420.

In 1987, California shelled out almost $1,000,000,000 for medical and legal fees

alone, which is more than most states spend on actual awards.

Double digit increases in Workers' compensation premiums every year as a result of mental

stress claims threaten to bankrupt the system in several states.

A jury in New York awarded nearly $6 million in 1996 to three women for repetitive stress

injury allegedly due to faulty computer keyboards.

Repetitive musculoskeletal injuries like carpal tunnel syndrome have become the nation's

leading workplace health cost and account for almost a third of all Workers' compensation

awards.

7


8/84

Studies show that keyboard entry operators who are under stress (because they are

uncertain as to whether their activities are being monitored for performance evaluation)

have a significantly higher incidence of such complaints and injuries.

CURRENT SCENARIO

This information was obtained in the 1990's in large surveys by Northwestern National Life

Insurance Co, Princeton Survey Research Associates, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance

Co., Yale University and The Families and Work Institute.

It is estimated that;

40% of workers reported their job was very or extremely stressful.

25% view their jobs as the number one stressor in their lives.

Three fourths of employees believe that workers have more on-the-job stress than a

generation ago.

29% of workers felt quite a bit or extremely stressed at work.

26% of workers said they were often or very often burned out or stressed by their

work..

Job stress is more strongly associated with health complaints than financial or family

problems.

More recently, the 2000 annual "Attitudes in the American WorkplaceVI" Gallup Poll

sponsored by the Marlin Company found that:

80% of workers feel stress on the job, nearly half say they need help in learninghow to manage stress and 42% say their coworkers need such help.

14% of respondents had felt like striking a coworker in the past year, but didn't.

25% have felt like screaming or shouting because of job stress, 10% are concerned

about an individual at work they fear could become violent.

8


9/84

9% are aware of an assault or violent act in their workplace and 18% had

experienced some sort of threat or verbal intimidation in the past year.

A subsequent European Commission survey found that:

More than half of the 147 million workers in the European Union complained of

having to work at a very high speed and under tight deadlines.

Approximately half reported having monotonous or short, repetitive tasks and no

opportunity to rotate tasks.

A 1992 United Nations Report labeled job stress The 20th Century Disease and a few

years later the World Health Organization said it had become a World Wide Epidemic.

A 1998 study reported that rapid changes in the workforce had resulted in a staggering

unemployment rate of 10% in the European Union and higher rates of job stress

complaints. Japan had a similar problem as a result of a major and prolonged recession.

Stress is a highly personalized phenomenon and can vary widely even in identical situations

for different reasons. There has been instances which have showed that having to complete

paper work was more stressful for many police officers than the dangers associated withpursuing criminals. The severity of job stress depends on the magnitude of the demands

that are being made and the individuals sense of control or decision-making latitude he or

she has in dealing with them.

RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

The nature of work is changing at whirlwind speed. Perhaps now more than ever before,

job stress poses a threat to the health of workers and, in turn, to the health of organizations.

Numerous surveys and studies confirm that occupational pressures and fears are far and

away the leading source of stress.

9


10/84

An estimated 1 million workers are absent every day due to stress. The European Agency

for Safety and Health at Work reported that over half of the 550 million working days lost

annually in the U.S. from absenteeism are stress related and that one in five of all last

minute no-shows are due to job stress. If this occurs in key employees it can have a

domino effect that spreads down the line to disrupt scheduled operations. A 1997 three

year study conducted by one large corporation found that 60% of employee absences could

be traced to psychological problems that were due to job stress.

A report released on September 10, 2001 stated that "more than 1 million Americans lost

their jobs this year, 83% higher than last year's total." That was a day before the Twin

Towers disaster, which added to the problems of job stress and insecurity for many

workers. Since then we have witnessed the collapse of Enron and its tidal wave of

repercussions on other companies and their employees. There are fears that this may be

just the tip of the iceberg as accounting irregularities of a similar nature may augur the

downfall of other large organizations widely assumed to be on a solid financial footing.

People are disturbed not by things, but by their perception of things

-Epictetus-

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVES

To measure the level of stress.

To study the sources of job stress among production executives working in the

manufacturing sector.

To study the consequences of job stress among production executives working in

the manufacturing sector.

To study the stress management techniques adopted by organisations

10


11/84

HYPOTHESES

Null Hypotheses:

There is no relationship between age and level of stress.

There is no relationship between educational level and level of stress.

There is no relationship between type of family and level of stress.

There is no relationship between work experience and level of stress.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A Research Design is an arrangement of conditions for the collection and analysis of datafor a study, which will lend relevance and a scientific approach to the study.

-- Pauline V. Young

The Research Design that has been adopted is of Descriptive Research Design.

UNIVERSE

The whole group from which the sample is to be selected is referred to as the universe. For

the purpose of the study, the universe comprises of all the production executives working in

the MM Tools Manufacturing sector in and around chennai.

SAMPLING

Sampling refers to a method by which a small group is selected as representatives of a

whole universe. The sampling strategy used in this study is convenient Sampling. For

the purpose of the study, the size of the sample is 60. In this study, 60 samples have been

selected from the Universe. The entire samples were males.

11


12/84

TOOL OF DATA COLLECTION

The tool of data collection used in the study was a questionnaire. The questionnaire is a

device used for securing responses to questions by using a form, which the respondent fills

in himself/herself. The components of the tool are:

Part A comprises of the demographic details of the respondent.

Part B comprises of a work stress profile to find out the level of stress. This work

stress profile indicates three indicators of stress which are interpersonal, physical

conditions and job interest. Scoring has been provided to each statement for the

three indicators, through which the level of stress could be measured for the three

indicators and also to calculate the total level of stress. The scoring pattern for each

indicator and for the total level of stress is indicated in the table below.

LowStress

Normal Stress High Stress

Interpersonal 39 50 51 61 62 75

Physical 35 47 48 57 58 67

Job Interest 13 17 18 22 23 27

Total 91 - 116 117 140 141 167

Part C comprises of statements, which indicates the various sources of stress arising

due to work place stress.

Part D comprises of statements, which indicates the various consequences arisingdue to work place stress.

Part E comprises of statements, indicating the various stress management

techniques adopted by organizations.

Since the research had to be completed in a specific time frame, this method was found to

be best suited for data collection.

12


13/84

SOURCE OF DATA

Primary Data:

The primary data were collected from the respondents themselves.

PRE-TESTING OF THE TOOL

Pre-testing was carried out for 10 (ten) samples. These samples have been excluded from

the actual sample size.

ACTUAL COLLECTION OF DATA

The actual data collection was done during the months from December' 04 till February' 05.

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The analysis of the collected data was done with the help of Statistical Package For Social

Sciences (SPSS). The data were represented as tables and diagrams to facilitate better

understanding. Statistical test like Chi- square was used to test the hypotheses framed for

the study.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

Stress:

Stress refers to an individuals reaction to a disturbing factor in the environment.

13


14/84

Job Stress:

Job stress can be defined as the harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when

the requirements of the job do not match the capabilities, resources, or needs of the worker.

Job stress can lead to poor health and even injury.

In addition, Job stress refers to stress arising from the nature of job an individual performs.

Organization:

An organization comprises of two or more people with a definite structure and clearly set

rules and regulations working towards a commonly accepted goal.

Manufacturing Sector:

Any industry which is involved in making a product for sale, using machinery.

DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED

There were no serious difficulties faced by the researcher in completing the study.

However, the researcher had to spend more time to gather the required information due to

the fact that most of the organizations feared of having their organizational climate and

their working conditions from being exposed.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Since the sample size of the research study is 60, the study is not very comprehensive and

may not conclusively prove the effectiveness of the stress level prevailing in the field. Also

the responses may suffer from human bias and prejudice.

14


15/84

CHAPTERISATION

The study has been classified into different chapters in order to have better understanding.

Chapter I: It deals about introduction of the topic and research methodology adopted for

the study.

Chapter II: It deals about the review of the relevant literature for the study.

Chapter III: It deals with analysis and interpretation of the data collected for the purpose

of the study and to know the out come of the study.

Chapter IV: It deals about the Findings, Conclusions and Suggestions for the study and

this is followed by Bibliography and Appendix, wherein a copy of the Tool of data

collection is attached.

15


16/84

CHAPTER IICHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATUREREVIEW OF LITERATURE

16


17/84

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Stress is a word derived from Latin was used popularly in the seventeenth century to

mean hardship, straits, adversity or affliction. Only during the eighteenth and nineteenth

centuries did its use evolve to denote force, pressure and strain or strong effort, with

reference now also to objects, but still primarily to a person or a person organs or mental

powers.

Stress is an important factor, which plays a vital role in each and every ones life. Each and

every individual come across stress in the course of his life. Stress also interrupts the

individual from reaching his goal or accomplishing his activity.

Stress is a dynamic condition in which an individual is confronted with an opportunity,

constraint or demand related to what he or she desires and for which the outcome is

perceived to be both uncertain and important.

Stress is not necessarily bad in and of itself. While stress is typically discussed in a

negative context, it also has positive value. It is an opportunity when it offers potential

gain.

More typically stress is associated with constraints and demands. The former prevents you

from doing what you desire. The latter refers to the loss of something desired. So when we

take a test at school or when we undergo our annual performance review at work, we feel

stress because we confront opportunities constraints and demands. A good performance

review may lead to a promotion greater responsibilities and a higher salary. But a poor

review may prevent you from getting the promotion. An extremely poor review might even

result in an employee being fired from his job.

17


18/84

Two conditions are necessary for potential stress to become actual stress. There must be

uncertainty over the outcome and the outcome must be important. Regardless of the

condition, it is only when there is doubt or uncertainly regarding whether the opportunity

will be seized, the constraint removed, or the loss avoided that there is stress. That is,

stress is highest for those individuals who perceive that they are uncertain as to whether

they will win or lose and lowest for those individuals who think that winning or losing is a

certainty. But importance is also critical. If winning or losing is an unimportant outcome,

there is no stress. If keeping our job or earning a promotion does not hold any importance

to us, then we have no reason to feel stress over having to undergo performance review.

DEFINITIONS OF STRESS

In the seventeenth century, stress was used to mean hardship, straits, adversity or

affliction. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the use of the word stress changed to

indicate, strain, pressure, force or strong effort. More recent dictionary definitions

actually associate the term stress with disease: suffered by managers etc: subject to

continual stress. (Oxford Dictionary, 1984)

Steadmans Medical Dictionary (1982, 24th edition) defines stress as a physical or

psychological stimulus which when impinging upon an individual procedures strain or

disequilibrium.

The Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicines, Nursing, and Allied Health (Miller and

Keane, 1978, 2nd edition); suggests that stress is, the sum of all the non-specific biological

phenomena elicited by adverse external influences including damage and defense.

Stress may be either physical or psychological or both. Just as a bridge is structurally

capable of adjusting to certain physical stresses, the human body and mind are normally

able to adapt to the stresses of new situations. However, this ability has definite limits

18


19/84

beyond which continued stress may cause a breakdown, although this limit varies from

person to person. For example peptic ulcers may result from prolonged nervous tension in

response to real or imagined stresses in people who have predisposition for ulcers.

Levis (1987) has defined stress as, The interaction between or misfit of environmental

opportunities and demands and individual needs and abilities, and expectations, elicit

reactions. When the fit is bad, when needs are not being met, or when abilities are over or

under taxed, the organism reacts with various pathogenic mechanisms. These are

cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and/or physiological and under some conditions of

internity. Frequently or duration, and in the presence or absence of certain interacting

variables, they may lead to precursors of disease.

This definition is consistent with a contemporary interactive approach to the study of stress.

Implicit in Levis definition is the view that stress can have both negative and positive

consequences. That is stress can have both negative and positive consequences. That is

stress can be a motivator to growth development and adaptation: it is a challenge and

variety it can be the spice of life.

Therefore, a distinction must be made between stressors that cause distress and those which

result in eustress, positive stress response, because stress is inevitable.

Bechr and Newman define Job Stress as, A situation where in job-related factors interacts

with a worker to change, disrupt or enhance, his or her psychological and or physiological

condition such that the person, mind or body, is force to deviate from normal functioning.

The above definition serves to define what we mean by employee health namely a

persons mental and physical condition.

According to Eve Warren and Caroline Toll in the book, The Stress and Work Book, the

terms Stress has been described to include any discomfort both emotional and physical

discomfort produced due to anxiety, dissatisfaction and unhappiness within a person, so

19


20/84

that the person is seriously disturbed and less able to hold a job. It is a feeling of

helplessness and a desire to withdraw from the harshness of reality.

Stress is usually an emotional discomfort accompanied by feelings of not being able to

cope that things are falling apart, that one is not under control.

-- Encyclopedia of Professional Management, Vol - I

Stress is the tension and pressure that results when an individual views a situation as

presenting a demand that threatens to exceed his capabilities and resources.

-- Stoner and Wankel

HISTORY OF STRESS

The Canadian Post Office recently issued a stamp honouring Dr. Hans Selye, who is

recognized internationally as one of the two fathers of Stress Theory. He was born in

Vienna in 1907 and came to Canada in 1932, where he settled in Montreal. It was at the

University of Montreal that he did most of his world-famous work.

Dr. Selye developed his concept of stress while studying medicine in Prague in the 1920s.

It was his genius that he saw something that his classmates and teachers were missing.

Much of medical education involved learning about different kinds of diseases and how to

distinguish one from another. In this analytical process, fine distinctions were made and

focused on. Thus, a patient with pneumonia presented differently than a patient with

tuberculosis and they both presented differently than patients with heart failure, ulcers,

cancer and so on. It was Selye's stroke of brilliance that, while everyone was concentrating

on the differences among these various diseases, he was struck by their similarities.

In 1926, as a second year medical student, he noted that the patients studied at rounds all

had a strikingly similar appearance: they were weak, tired, listless, apathetic, often had

20


21/84

muscle wasting and weight loss. They even had similar facial expressions indicating that

they were ill. He called this picture, "the general syndrome of just being sick." This set his

inquisitive mind off in a totally different direction, searching for the common elements that

affected all of these patients rather than focusing on the differences. This eventually led

him to identify the stress reaction as an underlying cause or major contributing factor to

most illness.

Selye's theories built on the earlier work of a noted Harvard physiologist named Dr. Walter

Cannon who had, at the beginning of the century, identified and named the "fight or flight

response", which is the body's response to feeling threatened or in danger. But whereas

Cannon saw the "fight or flight" syndrome as a positive mechanism that the body uses to

protect itself, Selye realized the hugely important fact that if the stress reaction goes on for

too long, it causes damage to the body and leads to illness.

Another of Selye's enduring legacies is that he borrowed the word "stress" from the field of

engineering (where it refers to external mechanical forces, strains and tensions) to describe

this reaction in the body. Walter Cannon had earlier introduced the term "stress" to

medicine but it was certainly Selye who popularized it.

Another of Selye's unique and important findings was that the stress response in the body

was the same no matter what the cause or source of stress (he called these sources

"stressors"). His experiments on rats in 1936 showed that various stressors such as cold,

heat, infection, trauma, haemorrhage, fear, and the injection of noxious substances, all

produced the same effect. When the rats were later examined, they all had swollen and

hyperactive adrenal glands, shrunken immune tissue (thymus gland and lymph nodes) and

gastrointestinal ulcers. He had created an experimental model of "the syndrome of just

being sick." He first called this reaction "a syndrome produced by various nocuous agents,"

but later, on noting that a wide assortment of stressors all produced the same response,

named it the general adaptation syndrome (or G.A.S.)

21


22/84

PREVELANCE OF STRESS

The American Academy of family physician estimates that two-thirds of office visits to its

members are attributable to stress-related symptoms.

Secondly, A recent Gallup Survey of Personnel and Medical directors at over two hundred

big and small companies showed that, on average twenty five percent of their companies

employees suffered from anxiety or stress-related symptoms.

Thirdly, stress-related health problems cost business and society a ton of money. The cost

to business of stress-related problems and mental illness has been estimated as high as 150

billion dollars a year, including health insurance and disability claims plus lostproductivity.

Fourthly, some stress seems to come with every job. Such as like air traffic controllers,

police officers, fire fighters, emergency room physicians. But low stress or no-stress jobs

are harder to identify.

Fifthly, the dramatic changes that have taken place in the economy, that is, mergers and

acquisitions, increased global competition, new technological innovations and the like

have resulted in large lay offs in many organizations and the restructuring of jobs. Few

jobs are totally secure any more. When co-workers or friends are losing their jobs and you

fear for your own the stress level is naturally going to increase.

Sixthly, restructuring is not only undermining employee security, it is also putting pressure

on employees especially managers to work longer hours. Twelve hour days and six-

day weeks have become the norm for many upcoming managers. A recent survey of

CEOs found that they expect their middle managers to average forty-nine hours a week

and their high level executives to put in fifty-four hours. The CEOs themselves devote

more than sixty hours a week to their jobs.

22


23/84

WHAT IS JOB STRESS?

Job stress can be defined as the harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when

the requirements of the job do not match the capabilities, resources, or needs of the worker.

Job stress can lead to poor health and even injury.

The concept of job stress is often confused with challenge, but these concepts are not the

same. Challenge energises us psychologically and physically, and it motivates us to learn

new skills and master our jobs. When a challenge is met, we feel relaxed and satisfied.

Thus, challenge is an important ingredient for healthy and productive work. The

importance of challenge in our work lives is probably what people are referring to when

they say "a little bit of stress is good for you.

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF JOB STRESS?

According to the NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), these are

job conditions that may lead to stress:

The design of tasks

Heavy workload, infrequent rest breaks, long work hours and shiftwork; hectic and routine

tasks that have little inherent meaning, do not utilize workers' skills, and provide little sense

of control.

Management style

Lack of participation by workers in decision-making, poor communication in the

organization and lack of family-friendly policies.

Interpersonal relationships

Poor social environment and lack of support or help from coworkers or supervisors.

23


24/84

Work roles

Conflicting or uncertain job expectations, too much responsibility, too many "hats" to wear.

Career concerns

Job insecurity and lack of opportunity for growth, advancement, or promotion; rapid

changes for which workers are unprepared.

Environmental conditions

Unpleasant or dangerous physical conditions such as crowding, noise, air pollution, or

ergonomic problems.

PREVENTING STRESS AT WORK - A COMPREHENSIVE

APPROACH

Industrial production executives co-ordinate the resources and activities required to

produce millions of goods every year. Although their duties vary from plant to plant,

industrial production executives share many of the same major responsibilities. These

responsibilities include production scheduling, staffing, procurement and maintenance of

equipment, quality control, inventory control, and the co-ordination of production activities

with those of other departments.

The primary mission of industrial production executives is planning the production

schedule within budgetary limitations and time constraints. They do this by analyzing the

plants personnel and capital resources to select the best way of meeting the production

quota. Industrial production executives determine, often using mathematical formulas,

which machines will be used, whether new machines need to be purchased, whether

overtime or extra shifts are necessary, and what the sequence of production will be. They

24


25/84

monitor the production run to make sure that it stays on schedule and correct any problems

that may arise.

As production techniques have evolved beyond traditional mass assembly lines, industrial

production executives have adapted to lean production techniques. Many manufacturers

have adopted lean production techniques, while some others use a combination of lean and

mass production techniques.

In a traditional assembly line, each worker is responsible for only a small portion of the

assembly, repeating that task on every product. Lean production employs teams to build

and assemble products in stations or cells. When companies use stations, one worker may

work alone with hand tools and various parts to complete a large portion of the assembly

process. Rather than specializing in a specific task, workers are capable of performing all

jobs within a team.

Without the constraints of the traditional assembly line, companies can be more flexible in

their production process, more easily changing production levels on different product lines.

The increased flexibility of lean manufacturing enables industrial production executives to

experiment with ways of improving the assembly and manufacturing process. As

companies strive to minimize inventory, they want to maintain only a limited stock of

finished products.

Employing manufacturing cells and stations, companies can more quickly react to changes

in customer demand so that limited inventories will not get too low.

Industrial production executives also must monitor product standards. Inspecting samples

of finished goods and recording defects enables managers to statistically analyze quality

control problems. While traditional quality control programs reacted only to problems that

reached a certain significant level, newer management techniques and programs, such as

25


26/84

ISO 9000, Total Quality Management (TQM), or Six Sigma, emphasize continuous quality

improvement.

If the problem relates to the quality of work performed in the plant, the manager may

implement better training programs or reorganize the manufacturing process, often based

upon the suggestions of employee teams. If the cause is substandard materials or parts from

outside suppliers, companies may work with their suppliers to improve their quality.

Because the work of many departments is related, managers work closely with heads of

other departments such as sales, procurement, and logistics to plan and implement company

goals, policies, and procedures. For example, the production manager works with the

procurement department to ensure that plant inventories are maintained at their optimal

level.

This is vital to a firms operation because maintaining the inventory of materials necessary

for production ties up the firms financial resources, yet insufficient quantities cause delays

in production. A breakdown in communications between the production manager and the

purchasing department can cause slowdowns and a failure to meet production schedules.

Just-in-time production techniques have reduced inventory levels, making constant

communication among the manager, suppliers, and purchasing departments even more

important. Computers play an integral part in this coordination. They also are used to

provide up-to-date information on inventory, the status of work in progress, and quality

standards.

Production executives usually report to the plant manager or the vice president for

manufacturing, and may act as liaison between executives and first-line supervisors. In

many plants, one production manager is responsible for all aspects of production. In large

plants with several operationsaircraft assembly, for examplethere are managers in

charge of each operation, such as machining, assembly, or finishing.

26


27/84

27


28/84

CHAPTER IIICHAPTER III

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONDATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

28


29/84

The researcher has presented the data collected in the form of simple tables. Significant

data have been portrayed in the form of diagrams. Chi-square test has been applied to test

the hypotheses. The tables have been organized as under:

SECTION TABLE NO. TABLE DETAILS

I Tables 1 to 4 Demographic profile

II Table 5 to 11 Work Stress Profile

III Table 12 Sources of Stress

IV Table 13 Consequence of Stress

V Tables 14 to 19Stress Management

Techniques

VI Table 20 to 23 Cross Tables

29


30/84

SECTION - I: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

TABLE NO: 1

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE

AGE

(In years)

FREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Below 30 22 36.7

31 40 18 30.0

4150 14 23.3

51 and Above 6 10

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table indicates the respondents by their age level.

We can see from the table that a little more than one - third of the respondents (36.7%) are

aged less than 30 years, whereas about one - third of the respondents (30%) are in the age

group of between 31 - 40 years and less than one - fourth of the respondents (23.3%) are in

the age group of between 41 - 50 years and one - tenth of the respondents (10%) are above

51 years. The mean age level is 35 years.

Thus we can infer that a majority of the respondents are in the more productive age group.

The above table is represented in the form of a Pie diagram.

30


31/84

DIAGRAM NO: 1

PIE DIAGRAM SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS

BY THEIR AGE

37%

30%

23%

10%

Below 30 years Between 31 - 40 years

Between 41 - 50 years Above 50 years

31


32/84

TABLE NO: 2

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONEDENTS BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL

LEVEL

EDUCATIONAL LEVELFREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Graduation 39 65.0

Post Graduation 13 21.7

Any other (D.M.E, ITI) 8 13.3

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table gives an insight into the education level of the respondents. Educational

level determines ones understanding of the job and its profile.

From the above table we can see that around two - thirds of the respondents (65%) are

graduates, whereas around one - fifth of the respondents (21.7%) are post graduates and

less than one - eight of the respondents (13.3%) are diploma or ITI holders.

Thus we can see infer that a majority of the respondents are well qualified and suited for

the job.

32


33/84

TABLE NO: 3

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR TYPE OF FAMILY

FAMILY TYPEFREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Joint Family 37 61.7

Nuclear Family 23 38.3

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table indicates the respondents by their type of family. To understand the level

of stress and various other factors associated to stress, it is essential to understand the

personal system of life of the respondents.

From the above table we can see that less than two - thirds of the respondents (61.7%)

belong to joint family system of life. Around one - third of the respondents (38.3%) belong

to nuclear family system of life.

Thus we can infer from the above table that it is surprising to see that most of the

respondents hail from joint family system of life, which proves that this type of family

system still does exist in the society.

TABLE NO: 4

33


34/84

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR WORK

EXPERIENCE

WORK EXPERIENCE

(In years)

FREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Below 5 13 21.7

5 9 22 36.7

10 14 17 28.3

15 19 3 5.0

Above 20 5 8.3

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table indicates the work experience of the respondents. The level of work

experience determines the respondents knowledge and expertise in the field.

From the above table we can see that a little more than one - third of the respondents

(36.7%) have a work experience between 5 - 9 years, whereas less than one - fifth of the

respondents (13.3%) have more than 15 years of experience. Less than one - fourth of the

respondents (21.7%) have a work experience of less than 5 years and more than two - fifth

of the respondents (28.3%) have a work experience of between 10 - 14 years. The work

experience is 10 years.

Thus we can infer that most of the respondents have good working experience with their

job. This show to prove that they have good expertise in the field.

34


35/84

SECTION - II: WORK STRESS PROFILE

This section presents the respondents response to the Work Stress Profile, which are in

terms of three indicators namely Interpersonal, Physical Conditions and Job Interest.

These indicators are represented in Tables 5, 7 and 9 respectively.

The work stress profile was developed and adapted by the research scholars of Victoria

University of Wellington, Newzeland.

Table No: 5, comprising of twenty-six statements measures stress due to problems in

interpersonal stress, whereas Table No: 7 comprising of twenty-two statements measures

stress due to physical demands and the physical conditions of their job and Table No:

9, comprising of nine statements measures stress due to job involvement or job interest.

Based on the responses provided, the levels of stress for the three indicators are represented

in Tables 6, 8 and 10 respectively. The last table in this section (Table No: 10) measures the

total level of stress incurred by the individual.

The total level of stress is measured by adding up the scores of the three indicators. Using

the scoring pattern indicated in the table below the level of stress is measured for the threeindicators and the total level of stress.

LowStress

Normal Stress High Stress

Interpersonal 39 50 51 61 62 75

Physical 35 47 48 57 58 67

Job Interest 13 17 18 22 23 27

Total 91 - 116 117 140 141 167

Not all the statements are valued in the same direction. Certain statements receive reverse

scoring. The higher the score, the higher the level of stress is incurred for each individual.

35


36/84

TABLE NO: 5

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR RESPONSE TO

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BASED ON THEIR

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP ON THE JOB

INTERPERSONAL

NEVER RARELYSOME

TIMESOFTEN

MOST

TIMESTOTAL

1. Support personnel are incompetentor inefficient.

6(10.0%)

32(53.3%)

18(30.0%)

4(6.7%)

-60

(100.0%)

2. My job is not very well defined. 2(3.3%) 30(50.0%) 21(35.0%) 5(8.3%) 2(3.3%) 60(100.0%)

3. I am not sure about what isexpected of me.

3(5.0%)

25(41.7%)

23(38.3%)

9(15.0%)

-60

(100.0%)

4. I am not sure what will beexpected of me in the future.

2(3.3%)

28(46.7%)

18(30.0%)

7(11.7%)

5(8.3%)

60

(100.0%)

5. I cannot seem to satisfy mysuperiors.

2(3.3%)

22(36.7%)

34(56.7%)

2(3.3%)

-60

(100.0%)

6. I seem to be able to talk with mysuperiors.

6(10.0%)

18(30.0%)

17(28.3%)

16(26.7%)

3(5.0%)

60

(100.0%)

7. My superiors strike me asincompetent, yet I have to take ordersfrom them.

3(5.0%)

33(55.0%)

21(35.0%)

3(5.0%)

- 60(100.0%)

8. My superiors seem to care about meas a person.

-16

(26.7%)17

(28.3%)17

(28.3%)10

(16.7%)60

(100.0%)

9. There is a feeling of trust, respect,and friendliness between myself andmy superiors.

1(1.7)

11(18.3%)

29(48.3%)

18(30.0%)

1(1.7%)

60

(100.0%)

10. There seems to be tension betweenadministrative personnel and staffpersonnel.

3(5.0%)

24(40.0%)

29(48.3%)

4(6.7%)

-60

(100.0%)

11. I have autonomy in carrying outmy job duties.

2(3.3%)

18(30.0%)

32(53.3%)

4(6.7%)

4(6.7%)

60

(100.0%)

12. I feel as though I can shape myown destiny in this job.

5(8.3%)

27(45.0%)

22(36.7%)

4(6.7%)

2(3.3%)

60

(100.0%)

13. There are too many bosses in myarea.

19(31.7%)

26(43.3%)

12(20.0%)

2(3.3%)

1(1.7%)

60

(100.0%)

36


37/84

TABLE NO: 5 (CONTINUED)

INTERPERSONAL

NEVER RARELYSOME

TIMESOFTEN

MOST

TIMESTOTAL

14. It appears that my boss has "retiredon the job."

25(41.7%)

25(41.7%)

6(10.0%)

3(5.0%)

1(1.7%)

60

(100.0%)

15. My superiors give me adequatefeedback about my job performance.

-12

(20.0%)29

(48.3%)17

(28.3%)2

(3.3%)60

(100.0%)

16. My abilities are not appreciated bymy superiors.

3(5.0%)

30(50.0%)

21(35.0%)

6(10.0%)

-60

(100.0%)

17. There is little prospect of personalor professional growth in this job.

1(1.7%)

23(38.3%)

29(48.3%)

7(11.7%)

- 60(100.0%)

18. The level of participation inplanning and decision-making at myplace of work is satisfactory.

-15

(25.0%)35

(58.3%)7

(11.7)3

(5.0%)60

(100.0%)

19. I feel that I am overeducated formy job.

10(16.7%)

33(55.0%)

11(18.3%)

5(8.3%)

1(1.7%)

60

(100.0%)

20. I feel that my educationalbackground is just right for this job.

1(1.7%)

2(3.3%)

5(8.3%)

20(33.3%)

32(53.3%)

60

(100.0%)

21. I fear that I will be laid off or

fired.

32

(53.3%)

20

(33.3%)

5

(8.3%)

2

(3.3%)

1

(1.7%)

60

(100.0%)22. Inservice training for my job isinadequate.

-17

(28.3%)21

(35.0%)19

(31.7%)3

(5.0%)60

(100.0%)

23. Most of my colleagues areunfriendly or seem uninterested in meas a person.

7(11.7%)

31(51.7%)

20(33.3%)

2(3.3%)

-60

(100.0%)

24. I feel uneasy about going to work.4

(6.7%)26

(43.3%)26

(43.3%)4

(6.7%)-

60

(100.0%)

25. There is no release time forpersonal affairs or business.

5(8.3%)

26(43.3%)

25(41.7%)

4(6.7%)

-60

(100.0%)

26. There is obvious sex/race/agediscrimination in this job.

17(28.3%)

24(40.0%)

16(26.7%)

3(5.0%)

-60

(100.0%)

* Parentheses are figures and percentages

37


38/84

The above table indicates the respondents response to the statements based on the

interpersonal relationship on their job.

From the table, we can see that most of the respondents have either sometimes or

rarely agreed to the statements. This means that the conditions or feelings posed by

these statements either exists about (25%) or (50%) of the time respectively. The

statements indicate the relationship between their superiors, subordinates and peers.

Also, there are statements indicating their role they perform in the work place. Half

of the respondents (50%) do occasionally feel that they are not sure of what is

expected of them in the future. Also, two - thirds of the respondents (65%) do feel

that their relationship with their superiors is constrained, possibly leading to high

interpersonal stress. However, it seems that half of the respondents (50%) feel that

their superiors do recognize their performance, whereas half of the respondents

(50%) feel that their promotions and career opportunities are rather less in their job.

Also, around half of the respondents (53.3%) the feel that their job is secured, and

finally more than two - fifth of respondents (40%) do feel that there is sense of

discrimination in their work place.

Thus we can infer that most of the respondents do feel a sense of poor constrained

relationships in their job, in particular between their superior and subordinates. This

possibly leads to high interpersonal stress in their job.

38


39/84

TABLE NO: 6

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE

INTERPERSONAL LEVEL OF STRESS

LEVEL OF

STRESS

FREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Low 2 3.3

Normal 14 23.3

High 44 73.3

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table indicates the distribution of respondents based on the interpersonal stress

level.

The Scoring pattern for each statement is as follows

Never 1; Rarely 2; Sometimes 3; Often 4; Most times 5

Also, as indicated previously, certain statements receive reverse scoring.

From the table, we can see that a majority of the respondents (73.3%) incur a high level of

stress in their job, whereas more than one - fifth of the respondents (23.%) incur normal

level of stress and less than one - tenth of the respondents (3.3%) have low level ofinterpersonal stress.

Thus, we can infer that interpersonal stress is very high among production executives; one

possible fact is due to the poor superior- subordinate relationship in their job.

39


40/84

TABLE NO: 7



PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ON THE JOB

PHYSICAL CONDITIONS

NEVER RARELY

SOME

TIMESOFTEN

MOST

TIMESTOTAL

1. The physical work environmentis crowded, noisy, or dreary.

4(6.7%)

9(15.0%)

6(10.0%)

21(35.0%)

20(33.3%)

60

(100.0%)

2. Physical demands of the job are

unreasonable.

4

(6.7%)

12

(20.0%)

28

(46.7%)

15

(25.0%)

1

(1.7%)

60

(100.0%)

3. My workload is never ending.3

(5.0%)39

(65.0%)13

(21.75)3

(5.0%)2

(3.3%)60

(100.0%)

4. The pace of work is too fast.4

(6.7%)13

(21.7%)36

(60.0%)4

(6.7%)3

(5.0%)60

(100.0%)

5. My job seems to consist ofresponding to emergencies.

12(20.0%)

24(40.0%)

15(25.0%)

6(10.0%)

3(5.0%)

60

(100.0%)

6. There is no time for relaxation,coffee breaks, or lunch breaks onthe job.

3(5.0%)

26(43.3%)

27(45.0%)

3(5.0%)

1(1.7%)

60

(100.0%)

7. Job deadlines are constant andunreasonable.

3(5.0%)

28(46.7%)

24(40.0%)

2(3.3%)

3(5.0%)

60

(100.0%)

8. Job requirements are beyond therange of my ability.

4(6.7%)

30(50.0%)

22(36.7%)

3(5.0%)

1(1.7%)

60

(100.0%)

9. At the end of the day, I amphysically exhausted from work.

1(1.7%)

16(26.7%)

32(53.3%)

8(13.3%)

3(5.0%)

60

(100.0%)

10. I can't even enjoy my leisurebecause of the toll my job takes onmy energy.

3(5.0%)

27(45.0%)

20(33.3%)

8(13.3%)

2(3.3%)

60

(100.0%)

11. I have to take work home tokeep up. 31(51.7%) 15(25.0%) 11(18.3%) 3(5.0%) - 60(100.0%)

12. I have responsibility for toomany people.

4(6.7%)

29(48.3%)

18(30.0%)

6(10.0%)

3(5.0%)

60

(100.0%)

13. Support personnel are too few.2

(3.3%)28

(46.7%)24

(40.0%)4

(6.7%)2

(3.3%)60

(100.0%)

40


41/84

TABLE NO: 7 (CONTINUED)


PHYSICAL CONDITIONS

NEVER RARELYSOME

TIMESOFTEN

MOST

TIMESTOTAL

14. Support personnel areincompetent or inefficient.

6(10.0%)

33(55.0%)

18(30.0%)

3(5.0%)

-60

(100.0%)

15. I am not sure about what isexpected of me.

3(5.0%)

26(43.3%)

18(30.0%)

13(21.7%)

-60

(100.0%)

16. I leave work feeling burned out. 4(6.7%) 21(35.0%) 30(50.0%) 4(6.7%) 1(1.7%) 60(100.0%)

17. I feel that there are no careeropportunities in my job

6(10.0%)

17(28.3%)

28(46.7%)

9(15.0%)

-60

(100.0%)

18. Inservice training for my job isinadequate.

1(1.7%)

23(38.3%)

23(38.3%)

10(16.75)

3(5.0%)

60

(100.0%)

19. There is little contact withcolleagues on the job.

2(3.3%)

22(36.7%)

26(43.3%)

10(16.7%)

-60

(100.0%)

20. Most of my colleagues areunfriendly or seem uninterested in

me as a person.

6(10.0%)

30(50.0%)

24(40.0%)

0(0.0%)

-60

(100.0%)

21. I feel uneasy about going towork.

3(5.0%)

25(41.7%)

25(41.7%)

7(11.7%)

-60

(100.0%)

22. I am not sure what will beexpected of me in the future.

6(10.0%)

26(43.3%)

14(23.3%)

5(8.3%)

9(15.0%)

60

(100.0%)

41


42/84

The above table indicates the respondents response to the statements based on the physical

demands or physical conditions on their job.

From the table we see that most of the respondents have rarely agreed to the statements,

which means the conditions or feelings posed by the statements exists only about for (25%)

of the time. The statements indicate the job demands, physical environment, and

relationship with superiors, subordinates and peers and also their roles and responsibilities

on the job. less than two - fifth of the respondents (35%) feel that the work environment is

noisy, less than half of the respondents (46.7%) feel that they have unreasonable job

demands, less than two - thirds of the respondents (60%) feel that their pace of work is too

fast. Also, half of the respondents (50%) feel that their relationship with others is poor.

However, around two - fifth of the respondents (41.7%) feel uneasy about going to work.

Thus we can infer that for most of the respondents, the physical demands on the job do not

take much toll of their energy. This show to prove that most of the people are normally

stressed and are able to cope with it.

TABLE NO: 8

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE PHYSICAL

CONDITIONS LEVEL OF STRESS

42


43/84

LEVEL OF

STRESS

FREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Low 3 5.0

Normal 34 56.7

High 23 38.3

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table indicates the distribution of respondents based on the physical conditions

stress level.




From the table, we can see that more than half of the respondents (56.7%) incur normal

level of stress in their job, whereas less than one - fifth of the respondents (38.3%) incur

high level of stress and less than one - tenth of the respondents (5%) have low physical

condition stress level.

Thus, we can infer that physical condition stress is normal among production executives;

maybe due to the fact that most of the organizations provide concern for high safety

measures and better employee welfare services.

TABLE NO: 9



JOB INTEREST

43


44/84

JOB INTEREST

NEVER RARELY

SOME

TIMESOFTEN

MOST

TIMESTOTAL

1. The complexity of my job isenough to keep me interested.

3(5.0%)

22(36.7%)

29(48.3%)

4(6.7%)

2(3.3%)

60(100.0%)

2. My job is very exciting. -22

(36.7%)31

(51.7%)7

(11.7%)-

60

(100.0%)

3. My job is varied enough toprevent boredom.

2(3.3%)

23(38.3%)

22(36.7%)

11(18.3%)

2(3.3%)

60

(100.0%)

4. I seem to have lost interest inmy work.

3(5.0%)

24(40.0%)

29(48.3%)

1(1.7%)

3(5.0%)

60

(100.0%)

5. I feel as though I can shape myown destiny in this job.

3(5.0%)

18(30.0%)

31(51.7%)

7(11.7%)

1(1.7%)

60

(100.0%)

6. I leave work feeling burnedout.

4(6.7%)

31(51.75)

21(35.0%)

4(6.7%)

-60

(100.0%)

7. I would continue to work at myjob even if I did not need themoney.

9(15.0%)

24(40.0%)

23(38.3%)

3(5.0%)

1(1.7%)

60

(100.0%)

8. I am trapped in this job.13

(21.7%)28

(46.7%)15

(25.6%)4

(6.7%)3

(5.0%)60

(100.0%)

9. If I had to do it all over again, Iwould still choose this job.

5(8.3%)

14(23.3%)

32(53.3%)

6(10.0%)

3(5.0%)

60

(100.0%)


The above table indicates the respondents response to the following statements based on

their interest in their job.

From the table, we can see that most of the respondents have either sometimes or

rarely agreed to the statements. This means that the conditions or feelings posed by these

statements either exists about (25%) or (50%) of the time respectively. All the statements

indicate the respondents interest in the job. Less than half of the respondents (48.3%) feel

that their complexity of the job keeps them interested, whereas less than two - fifth of the

44


45/84

respondents (38.7%) feel that their job is not varied enough to prevent boredom. More than

half of the respondents (51.7%) leave work feeling burned out and less than half of the

respondents (46.7%) feel that they are trapped in their job. Around half of the respondents

(53.3%) feel that they would still choose this job if they had to do it all over again.

Thus we can infer that most of the respondents feel a low sense of association towards their

job possibly due to the fact that their job is highly monotonous and is not varied enough.

Also, poor constrained relationships as indicated in the previous tables are also a causative

factor for their low sense of association to the job.

TABLE NO: 10

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE

JOB INTEREST LEVEL OF STRESS

LEVEL OF

STRESS

FREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Low 2 3.3

Normal 8 13.3

High 50 83.3

TOTAL 60 100.0

45


46/84

The above table indicates the distribution of respondents based on the job interest stress

level.




From the table, we can see that more that majority of the respondents (83.3%) incur high

level of stress in their job, whereas more than one - tenth of the respondents (13.3%) incur

normal level of stress and less than one - tenth of the respondents (3.3%) have low job

interest stress level.

Thus, we can infer that stress is high among the respondents; maybe due to the fact that

most of the respondents do feel a low sense of association towards their job.

DIAGRAM NO: 2

MULTIPLE BAR DIAGRAM SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF

RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE VARIOUS INDICATORS OF

STRESS

46


47/84

3.3%

23.3%

73.3%

5%

56.7%

38.3%

3.3%

13.3%

83.3%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Interpersonal Physical

Conditions

Job Interest

Low Normal High

TABLE NO: 11

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE TOTAL

LEVEL OF STRESS

LEVEL OF

STRESS

FREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

47


48/84

Low 2 3.3

Normal 13 21.7

High 45 75.0

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table indicates the distribution of respondents based on the physical conditions

stress level.

The total level of stress is measured by adding up the final scores of all the three indicators

for each respondent. based on the overall scoring, the respondent falls into the three

categories of stress level, which are high, normal and low stress.

From the table, we can see that three - fourth of the respondents (75%) incur high level of

stress in their job, whereas less than one - fifth of the respondents (21.7%) incur normal

level of stress and less than one - tenth of the respondents (3.3%) have low level of stress.

Thus, we can infer that a majority of the respondents feel highly stressed on their job. The

major reason is due to the contribution of high interpersonal stress level in their job. Also, a

high level of stress in job interest further adds to high level of stress.

DIAGRAM NO: 3

BAR DIAGRAM SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS

BASED ON THE TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS

48


49/84

75%

21.7%

3.3%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Low Normal High

Total Level of Stress

SECTION - III: SOURCES OF STRESS

TABLE NO: 12

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING

STATEMENTS BASED ON THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF

STRESS

49


50/84

ALWAYS OFTEN

SOME

TIMESNEVER TOTAL

1. Need to accomplish tasks intime

44(73.3%)

12(20.0%)

2(3.3%)

2(3.3%)

60

(100.0%)

2. Discrepancies in the work

place

39

(65.0%)

12

(20.0%)

7

(11.7%)

2

(3.3%)

60

(100.0%)

3. No clear job responsibilities,work objectives

22(36.7%)

14(23.3%)

18(30.0%)

6(10.0%)

60

(100.0%)

4. Feeling that others do tasksmeant for you

3(5.0%)

13(21.7%)

22(36.7%)

22(36.7%)

60

(100.0%)

5. Work load or work pressure35

(58.3%)11

(18.3%)10

(16.7%)4

(6.7%)60

(100.0%)

6. Too many expectations fromyour superiors

20(33.3%)

31(51.7%)

7(11.7%)

2(3.3%)

60

(100.0%)

7. Poor interpersonalrelationships

37(61.7%)

11(18.3%)

7(11.7%)

5(8.3%)

60(100.0%)

8. Strict rules and regulationswhich is unnecessary

10(16.7%)

15(25.0%)

25(41.7%)

10(16.7%)

60

(100.0%)

9. Lack of recognition amongother members

10(16.7%)

19(31.7%)

19(31.7%)

12(20.0%)

60

(100.0%)

10. Lack of support from yoursuperiors

25(41.7%)

21(35.0%)

11(18.3%)

3(5.0%)

60

(100.0%)


The above table indicates the various sources of stress that commonly occurs in any work

place situation.

From the table, we can see that a majority of the respondents (73.3%) feel that need to

accomplish tasks in time is a great source of stress and around two - third of the

respondents (65%) feel that discrepancies in the work place is a source of stress. Only less

than one - tenth of the respondents (5%) feel that others doing tasks meant for them is a

source of stress. Around half of the respondents (51.7%) feel that too many expectations

from their superiors are a source of stress. Also, around two - third of the respondents

50


51/84

(61.7%) always feel that poor interpersonal relationships is a source of stress. Less than two

- fifth of the respondents (41.7%) always feel that lack of support from their superiors is a

source of stress.

Thus we can infer that task accomplishment. Discrepancies in the workplace and poor

interpersonal relationships are major source of stress in the work place. From the above

statements we can say that interpersonal stress is very high among the respondents.

51


52/84

SECTION - IV: CONSEQUENCES OF STRESS

TABLE NO: 13

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING

STATEMENTS BASED ON THE VARIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF

STRESS

ALWAYS OFTEN

SOME

TIMESNEVER TOTAL

1. Fear15

(25.0%)

10

(16.7%)

17

(28.3%)

18

(30.0%)

60

(100.0%)2. Excessive and Rapid swingsin moods

4(6.7%)

27(45.0%)

25(41.7%)

4(6.7%)

60

(100.0%)

3. Worrying unreasonably aboutthings of no concern

12(20.0%)

25(41.7%)

18(30.0%)

5(8.3%)

60

(100.0%)

4. Withdrawal25

(41.7%)16

(26.7%)13

(21.7%)6

(10.0%)60

(100.0%)

5. Sleepingdisorders/daydreaming

11(18.3%)

15(25.0%)

23(38.3%)

11(18.3%)

60

(100.0%)

6. Lack of Concentration27

(45.0%)

21

(35.0%)

9

(15.0%)

3

(5.0%)

60

(100.0%)

7.Over eating or loss of appetite9

(15.0%)16

(26.7%)23

(38.3%)12

(20.0%)60

(100.0%)

8. Palpitations38

(63.3%)12

(20.0%)4

(6.7%)6

(10.0%)60

(100.0%)

9. Smoking/Alcohol abuse6

(10.0%)13

(21.7)30

(50.0%)11

(18.3%)60

(100.0%)

10. Emotional Breakdown40

(66.7%)9

(15.0%)6

(10.0%)5

(8.3%)60

(100.0%)


52


53/84

The above table indicates the various consequences of stress that commonly occurs in any

work place situation.

From the table, we can see that a little more than two - third of the respondents (66.7%) feel

that emotional breakdown is a consequence of stress and the same two - third of the

respondents (63.3%) feel that palpitations is a consequence of stress. Only one - tenth of the

respondents (10%) feel that smoking/alcohol abuse is a consequence of stress. Less than

half of the respondents (45%) always feel that lack of concentration is a consequence of

stress. Less than two - fifth of the respondents (41.7%) always feel that withdrawal is a

consequence of stress. More than one - third of the respondents (38.3%) often feel that

worrying unreasonably about things of no concern is a consequence of stress.

Thus we can infer that most of the respondents do feel that biological factors such as

palpitations and emotional breakdown are major consequences of stress.

53


54/84

SECTION - V: STRESS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

TABLE NO: 14

RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON THEIR ORGANISATIONS

ATTEMPT TO RELIVE THEIR JOB STRESS

FREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Always 5 8.3

Often 27 45.0

Sometimes 25 41.7

Never 3 5.0

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table indicates the respondents response on whether their organisation has

attempted to relive the job stress.

From the above table we can see that two-fifth of the respondents (45%) often agree to the

statement, whereas another two-fifth of the respondents (41.7%) sometimes agree to the

statement and the remaining less than one-tenth of the respondents (8.3%) and (5%) always

and never agree to the statement respectively.

Thus, we can infer that most of the respondents do feel that their organisation do take steps

to evade their job stress as part of the welfare measures.

54


55/84

TABLE NO: 15

RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON WHETHER THEY SEEK

PROFESSIONAL HELP TO EVADE JOB STRESS

FREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Always 6 10.0

Often 28 46.7

Sometimes 25 41.7

Never 1 1.7

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table indicates the respondents view that whether they seek professional help to

evade job stress.

From the above table we can see that two-fifth of the respondents (46.7%) often agree to

the statement, whereas another two-fifth of the respondents (41.7%) sometimes agree to the

statement and lone-tenth of the respondents (10%) always agree to the statement and theremaining less than one-tenth of the respondents (1.7%) never agree to the statement.

Thus, we can infer that a most of the respondents do seek professional help either through

their organisation or personally.

55


56/84

TABLE NO: 16

RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON WHETHER THEIR

ORGANISATION PROVIDES FREE EMPLOYEE HEALTH

SERVICES

FREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Always 29 48.3

Often 16 26.7

Sometimes 14 23.3

Never 1 1.7

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table indicates the respondents view that whether their organisation provides

free employee health services.

From the above table we can see that two-fifth of the respondents (48.3%) always agree tothe statement, whereas more than one-fifth of the respondents (26.7%) often agree to the

statement and less than one-fifth of the respondents (23.3%) sometimes agree to the

statement and the remaining less than one-tenth of the respondents (1.7%) never agree to

the statement.

Thus, we can infer that a majority of the respondents partially feel that free services are

provided as a part of the welfare measures to evade job stress.

56


57/84

TABLE NO: 17

RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON WHETHER THEIR

ORGANISATION ORGANISES FREE STRESS REDUCTION

PROGRAMS

FREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Always 2 3.3

Often 22 36.7

Sometimes 34 56.7

Never 2 3.3

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table indicates the respondents view that whether their organisation organizes

free stress reduction programmes.

From the above table we can see that half of the respondents (56.7%) often agree to the

statement, whereas more than one-third of the respondents (36.7%) often agree to the

statement and the remaining less than one-tenth of the respondents (3.3%) always and

sometimes agree to the statement respectively.

Thus, we can infer that as similar to the previous table, most of the respondents do feel that

their organization provides for stress reduction programmes as part of the welfare measure.

TABLE NO: 18

57


58/84

RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON THE FREQUENCY THE

COMPANY ORGANISES THESE PROGRAMMES

FREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Always 1 1.7

Often 15 25.0

Sometimes 42 70.0

Never 2 3.3

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table indicates the respondents view on the frequency their company organizes

these programmes.

From the above table we can see that two-third of the respondents (70%) sometimes agree

to the statement, whereas one-fourth of the respondents (25%) often agree to the statement

and the remaining less than one-tenth of the respondents (3.3%) and (1.7%) never and

always agree to the statement respectively.

Thus, we can infer that most of the respondents do feel that the frequency of organising

these programmes is to a lesser extent.

TABLE NO: 19

58


59/84

RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE

PROGRAMMES

FREQUENCY

(n)

PER CENT

(%)

Always 3 5.0

Often 6 10.0

Sometimes 36 60.0

Never 15 25.0

TOTAL 60 100.0

The above table indicates the respondents view on the effectiveness of these programmes.

From the above table we can see that less than two-third of the respondents (60%)

sometimes agree to the statement, whereas one-fourth of the respondents (25%) never agree

to the statement and one-tenth of the respondents (10%) often agree to the statement and

the remaining less than one-tenth of the respondents (5%) always agree to the statement.

Thus, we can infer that a majority of the respondents do occasionally have a positive

impact on the effectiveness of these programmes.

SECTION - VI: CROSS TABLES

CROSS TABLE NO: 20

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE AND TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS

59


60/84

AGE

TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS

TOTAL

NORMAL HIGH

30 40 years10

(25%)30

(75%)40

(100.0%)

Above 40 years5

(25%)15

(75%)20

(100.0%)

TOTAL15

(25%)

45

(75%)

60

(100.0%)

Value of Chi-Square = 0 Not Significant at 0.05 level

Degree of Freedom = 1

The above table is drawn to understand the significance between the two variables, age of

the respondents and the total level of stress. For the purpose of calculation, the age of the

respondents has been grouped as "Between 30 - 40 years" and "Above 40 years". Also, the

above table has been grouped into normal stress and high stress for the purpose of

calculation.

From the above table we can infer that a majority of the respondents (75%) incur high level

of stress at both age levels, whereas one - fourth of the respondents (25%) in the age group

of between 30 - 40 years and another one - fourth of the respondents (25%) in the age

group of above 40 years incur normal level of stress.

According to the null hypothesis There is no significance between age and total level of

stress, chi-square test was applied. The chi-square test result indicates the calculated value

(0) degree of freedom 1 stands insignificant at 0.05 level of significance (3.841). Hence we

accept the hypothesis.

60


61/84

Thus we can infer that there is no relationship between age and level of stress. This show to

prove that stress can occur at all age levels and all walks of life.

61


62/84

DIAGRAM NO: 4


BY THEIR AGE AND TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS

25%25%

75%75%

0

10

20

30

40

5060

70

80

90

100

Between 30 - 40 years Above 40 Years

Normal High

62


63/84

CROSS TABLE NO: 21

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND


EDUCATIONAL

LEVEL


TOTAL

NORMAL HIGH

Graduation10

(25.6%)29

(75.4%)39

(100.0%)

Others5

(23.8%)16

(76.2%)21

(100.0%)

TOTAL15

(25%)

45

(75%)

60

(100.0%)

Value of chi-square = 0.0304 Not Significant at 0.05 level


The above table is drawn to understand the significance between the two variables,

educational level of the respondents and the total level of stress. For the purpose of

calculation, the educational level of the respondents has been grouped as "Graduation" and

"Others". Also, the above table has been grouped into normal stress and high stress for the

purpose of calculation.

From the above table we can infer that a majority of the respondents (75.4%) and (76.2%)

incur high level of stress at both educational levels respectively, whereas little more than

one - fourth the respondents (25.6%) at the graduate level and another and a little less than

one - fourth of the respondents (23.8%) who are Post Graduates, diploma or ITI holders

incur normal level of stress.

63


64/84

According to the null hypothesis There is no significance between educational level and

total level of stress, chi-square test was applied. The chi-square test result indicates the

calculated value (0.0304) degree of freedom 1 stands insignificant at 0.05 level of

significance (3.841). Hence we accept the hypothesis.

Thus we infer that there is no relationship between educational level and the stress incurred

by an individual.

64


65/84

DIAGRAM NO: 5


BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND TOTAL LEVEL OF

STRESS

23.8%25.6%

76.2%75.4%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Graduation Others

Normal High

CROSS TABLE NO: 22

65


66/84

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR TYPE OF FAMILY AND TOTAL

LEVEL OF STRESS

TYPE OF FAMILYTOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS

TOTAL

NORMAL HIGH

Joint Family8

(21.6%)29

(78.4%)37

(100.0%)

Nuclear Family7

(30.4%)16

(69.6%)23

(100.0%)

TOTAL 15(25%) 45(75%) 60(100.0%)



The above table is drawn to understand the significance between the two variables,

educational level of the respondents and the total level of stress. Also, the above table has

been grouped into normal stress and high stress for the purpose of calculation.

From the above table we can see that a majority of the respondents (78.4%) who live in

joint family incur high level of stress and more than two - third of the respondents (69.5%)

who live in nuclear family incur high level of stress, whereas less than one - fifth of the

respondents (21.6%) who live in joint family incur normal stress and more than one - fourth

of the respondents (26%) who live in nuclear family incur normal level of stress.

According to the null hypothesis There is no significance between work experience and

total level of stress, chi-square test was applied. The chi-square test result indicates the

66


67/84

calculated value (0.584) degree of freedom 1 stands insignificant at 0.05 level of

significance (3.841). Hence we accept the hypothesis.

Thus we can infer that there is no relationship between the type of family and the level of

stress. This shows that stress can occur to any individual irrespective of the type of family

system.

67


68/84

CROSS TABLE NO: 23

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR LEVEL WORK EXPERIENCE AND

THE TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS

WORK

EXPERIENCE


TOTAL

NORMAL HIGH

Between 1 9 years9

(25.7%)26

(74.3%)35

(100.0%)

Between 10 and Above

6

(24%)

19

(76%)

25

(100.0%)

TOTAL15

(25%)

45

(75%)

60

(100.0%)



The above table is drawn to understand the significance between the two variables, work

experience of the respondents and the total level of stress. For the purpose of calculation,

the educational level of the respondents has been grouped as Between 1 - 9 years and

Between 10 and above. Also, the above table has been grouped into normal stress and

high stress for the purpose of calculation.

From the above table we can infer that a majority of the respondents (74.3%) who has an

experience of between 1 - 9 years incur high level of stress. Also, a majority of the

respondents (70%) who have an experience of between 10 years ands above incur high

level of stress, whereas a little more than one - fifth of the respondents (25.7%) having an

experience of between 1 - 9 years incur normal stress and another one - fourth of the

respondents (25%) incur normal stress.

68


69/84

According to the null hypothesis There is no significance between type of family and total

le

Documents

Job Stress Among Production Executives