CHAPTER-II
CONCEPTUAL FRAME WORK
Courage is as often the outcome of despair as of hope;
in the one case we have nothing to lose,
in the other, everything to gain.
- Diane de Pointiers
2.1HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The term "stress" had none of its current general senses before the 1950s. As a semipsychological term referring to hardship or coercion, it dated from the 14th century. It is a form
of the Middle English destresse, derived via Old French from the Latin stringere – to draw tight
(Keil, R.M.K.1 2004).
It had long been in use in physics to refer to the internal distribution of a force exerted on a
material body, resulting in strain. In the 1920s and 1930s, the term was occasionally being used
in psychological circles to refer to a mental strain or unwelcome happening, and by advocates of
holistic medicine to refer to a harmful environmental agent that could cause illness. Walter
Cannon used it in 1934 to refer to external factors that disrupted what he called "homeostasis".
A new scientific usage developed out of Hans Seyle's reports of his laboratory experiments in the
1930s. Selye started to use the term to refer not just to the agent but to the state of the organism
as it responded and adapted to the environment. The US military became a key center of stress
research, attempting to understand and reduce combat neurosis and psychiatric casualties. His
theories of a universal non-specific stress response attracted great interest and contention in
academic physiology and he undertook extensive research programmes and publication efforts
(Keil, R.M.K., 2004).
However, while the work attracted continued support from advocates of psychosomatic
medicine, many in experimental physiology concluded that his concepts were too vague and
immeasurable. During the 1950s Selye turned away from the laboratory to promote his concept
through popular books and lectures tours. Seyle wrote his findings for both non-academic
physicians and the general public, in an international bestseller titled "Stress of Life".
A broad bio-psychosocial concept of stress and adaptation offered the promise of helping
everyone achieve health and happiness by successfully responding to changing global challenges
and the problems of modern civilization. He coined the term "eustress" for positive stress, by
contrast to distress.
He argued that all people have a natural urge and need to work for their own benefit, a message
that found favor with industrialists and governments (Viner, R.2 1999). He also coined the term
"stressor" to refer to the causative event or stimulus, as opposed to the resulting state of stress.
From the late 1960s, Selye's concept started to be taken up by academic psychologists, who
sought to quantify "life stress" by scoring "significant life events", and a large amount of
research was undertaken to examine links between stress and disease of all kinds. By the late
1970s stress had become the medical area of greatest concern to the general population, and
more basic research was called for to better address of the issue. It covers a huge range of
phenomena from mild irritation to the kind of severe problems that might result in a real
breakdown of health. In popular usage almost any event or situation between the extremes could
be described as stressful (Keil, R.M.K. 2004).
By the 1990s, "stress" had become an integral part of modern scientific understanding in all areas
of physiology and human functioning, and one of the great metaphors of Western life (Viner, R.
1999). Focus grew on stress in certain settings, such as workplace stress. Stress management
techniques were developed.
2.2 CONCEPTS OF STRESS
Hans Huge Bruno Seyle, Austrian, Hungarian endocrinologist was referred to as “the Einstein of
medicine” for his pioneering contribution to science through his famous theory of influence of
stress on people’s ability to cope with pressures of injury and disease, called the General
Adaption Syndrome (GAS). Hans Selye3 first introduced the concept of stress in 1939.It is a
concept borrowed from natural sciences.
Derived from Latin, the word "stress" was popularly used in the seventeenth century to mean
hardship, strait, adversity or affliction. It was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, stress
was equated with force, pressure or strain exerted upon a material object or person which resists
these forces and attempts to maintain its original state. In Engineering and Physics stress is
known as "the ratio of the internal force brought into play when substance is distorted to the area
over which the force acts" (Hinkle, 1973).
In psycho-physiology, stress is that stimulus which imposes detectable strain that cannot be
easily accommodated by the body and so presents itself as impaired health or behaviour.
Psychological stress is in general a broader term encompassing both systemic stress and also the
conditions preceding systemic stress (Cofer and Appley, 1964). Physiologists are primarily
concerned with physiological changes; physiologists with health and behaviour; and
psychologists with deviations at the psychological (eg., Anxiety, Depression etc.) and
behavioural (withdrawal) levels.
In common parlance, however the terms stress and strain are used synonymously in a nonscientific manner. The popularity of this concept has dwindled in the psychological field where it
was first introduced and the use of stress terminology continues to flourish in the psychology and
studies of Management.
Stress has been conceptualized in the following ways: (i) as an external force which is perceived
as threatening (ii) as response to a situation demanding an individual to adapt to change
physically or situation demanding an individual to adapt to change physically or psychologically
(iii) as an interaction outcome of the external demand and internal resource and (iv) as a personal
response to a certain variation in the environment (Pestonjee, 1992).
Stress as a psychological condition has an inherent temporal aspect. Stress is defined as the
anticipation inability to respond adequately to perceived demand, accompanied by anticipation of
negative consequences for inadequate responses.
The task itself may contain the potentially of stress inducing demands. It may do so because of
its inherent qualitative difficulty or complexity. Or, a task may be stressful because it represents
qualitative levels of demand which approach the organism’s capacity or, a task may induce stress
because failure on it would involve ego threat.
Whenever the individual's homeostatic balance is upset, it is assumed that the individual is in a
state of stress. The stress theory has attempted to provide a unitary concept of human adaption; a
concept which has biological, physiological, social and spiritual origins, for a biochemical theory
to have sensory cognitive values is a promising advance in the study of mankind.
Stress is regarded as an external force which is perceived as the threatening. Some view threat
itself as stress. According to Seyle, any external event or any internal drive which threatens to
upset the organismic equilibrium is stress.
There are actually two stress concepts, which are relevant: one in physiology (systemic stress)
and the other in psychology (psychological stress).
Physiological Stress
It is described as the state of the organism following failure of the normal homeostatic regulatory
mechanisms of adaptation. Homeostasis is the state of balance in an organism. When it is
disturbed, it results in homeostasis [state of imbalance]. When suitable or adequate mechanism is
not available to come back to the balanced position, it might result in stress. Stress is manifested
through the symptoms of a 'General Adaptation Syndrome' [GAS-Hans Selye, 1936].
Fig: 2.1 'General Adaptation Syndrome' Model by Hans selye.
A large variety of stimulus events (both external and internal) have been shown to be capable of
giving rise to stress. Such stimuli include heat, cold, infections, intoxicants, hemorrhage,
restraint, muscular exercise, drugs, exogenous hormones, injury, shock, surgical trauma and xirradiation.
The general effect of the stress syndrome appears to be the modification of bodily processes in
such a way as to make available the energy resources normally kept in reserve are utilized for
other functions such as digestion or anabolism. A severe stressor on an already stressed organism
may lead to rapid exhaustion and death.
Thus, Selye [1930] operationally defines stress as "State manifested by a syndrome which
consists of all the non-specifically induced changes in a biological system".
Psychological stress
The term has been used sometimes to designate arousal conditions, sometimes for state variable
[individual or his personality] and sometimes to identify responses. Thus, stress has been used as
a synonym for anxiety, conflict, ego-involvement, frustration, threat and emotionality. Basically,
psychological stress refers to a "State of the organism or the individual and the experienced
stress is complex".
There are major differences between individuals in their responses to stress. It may affect the
individual physically or psychologically. The physical consequences include psychosomatic
disorders, lethargy and emotional exhaustion. Psychologically the individual might feel anxious,
tense, alienated, depersonalized and frustrated. Thus, it can be said that stress occurs at an
individual level and it is an internal psychological experience involving feelings, attitudes,
motives and expectations
When the term stress is used in the psychological context it is not necessarily equalent to
systemic stress. Psychological stress is in general a broader term encompassing both systemic
stress and also the conditions preceding systemic stress (Cofer and Appley, 1964).
The discipline of the researcher and the nature of the stimuli considered as stressors; physical
and humeral stimuli are primarily studied in physiology and psycho-biology (systemic stress)
and psycho-social stimuli in psychology (psychological stress).
There are wide variations in reaction to stress and the capacity to tolerate it between persons and
in the same individual on different occasions. The most basic fact about stress is that, like
feelings, stress is experienced. The feeling of stress is an act in which there is a reference, not a
casual relation, to an object that is intended or intentionally presents.
Stress is a "State of tension that is created when a person responds to the demands and pressures
that come from work, family and other external sources, as well as those that are internally
generated from self imposed demands, obligations and self-criticism".
According to Selye4 (1956), "Any external event or internal drive which threatens to upset the
orgasmic equilibrium" is stress. He has defined stress as the non-specific response of the body to
any demand made upon it.
Lazarus5 (1966) maintains that "Stress occurs when there are demands on the person which tax
or exceed his adjustment resources".
According to Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison and Pinneau6 (1975), "Stress refers to any
characteristics of the job environment which is a threat to the individual".
McGarth (1976) explains that "There is a potential for stress when an environmental situation is
perceived as presenting a demand which threatens to exceed the person's capacities and resources
for meeting it, under condition where he has expected a substantial differential in the rewards
and cost from meeting the demand versus not meeting it".
McLean (1979) concluded "Stress is neither a stimulus, nor a response, nor an intervening
variable, but rather, a collective term which deals with any demands on the system
(physiological, psychological or social) and the response of that system to the taxing demands".
Suchular (1980) defines stress "As a dynamic condition in which an individual is:
[a] confronted with an opportunity for being/ having/ doing what [s] he desires and / or
[b]
confronted with a constraint on being/ having/ doing what [s] he desires and /or [c]
confronted with a demand on being/ having /doing what [s] he desires and for which the
resolution often is perceived to have uncertainty but which will lead [upon resolution] to
important outcomes".
“Administrative structure is the salient force in the establishment and maintenance of a positive
emotional climate”, (Whiteman et al, 1985). Positive working environment is associated with
educators’ eustress (i.e., positive and desirable stress) as compared with poor working climate
which results in the perception of occupational distress (negative and undesirable) and ultimately
occupational burnout. “Management must accept responsibility for the role they have in the
remediation of burnout”, (Gold7, 1985). “A supportive administration, and particularly direct
support from the chairperson, has surfaced as an important factor in stress reduction in the
workplace (Dickie, 1995). “The element of ‘buffers’ has been identified as the needed
administrative support” (Conorolly and Saunders, 1988).
Most people respond to the word stress in negative ways. However, it needs to be highlighted
that stress is not always bad. In the absence of stress, individuals may experience lethargy and
stagnation. An optimal level of stress, on the other hand can result in motivation and excitement.
Too much of stress, however, can have negative consequences. It is also important to understand
that stress can be caused by 'good' as well as 'bad' things. Excessive pressure, unreasonable
demands on one's time and bad news can all cause stress. Thus, stress is obviously not a simple
phenomenon. The word eustress has been coined to describe positive stress. Eustress results from
exhilarating experiences. Eustress is the stress of winning and achieving. Negative stress is
distress. It is the stress of losing, failing, overworking and not coping. Distress affects people in a
negative often-harmful manner. We all experience distress from time to time. It is a normal,
unavoidable part of living.
Stress in modern organizational context has been split into different headings such as
Organizational stress, Occupational stress, Job stress and Role stress.
.
Organizational stress: Organizational stress is the process by which a firm or institution
becomes deformed, slowly and systematically, by the constant malfunctioning of some system.
Organizational stress falls into one of the four categories - Task, Physical, Role and Interpersonal
demands. Task demands are associated with the task itself. Some occupations are inherently
more stressful than others. Having to make fast decisions, decisions with less than complete
information, a decision that have relatively serious consequences are some of the things that can
make jobs stressful. The jobs of surgeon, airline pilot and stock broker are relatively more
stressful than the jobs of others in the same area of operation. Physical demands are stressors
associated with job setting. Working outdoors in extremely hot or cold temperatures or even
working in an improperly heated or cooled office can lead to stress. A poorly designed office can
result in stress. Role demands can also cause stress. Stress can result either from role ambiguity
or role conflict that people can experience in groups (John Schanbroeck, John I. Cotton and
Kenneth). Interpersonal demands are stressors associated with relationships that confront people
in organizations. Group pressures regarding ventilation of output and norm conformity can lead
to stress.
Occupational Stress: Occupational Stress is a state of tension that is created when a person
responds to the demands and pressures that come from work, family and other external sources,
as well as those that are internally generated from self-imposed demands, obligations and selfcriticism.
Job stress: Job stress is the stress that results from demands placed upon the individual by
her/his work environment. Since work imposes many demands upon the individual, a lot of the
research has been carried out on stressors, stress, and strain at the workplace.
Occupational stress or job stress is of growing concern because it leads to psychological and
physical problems for the employees. Researchers have argued that occupational stress, either as
a result of its detrimental effect on the health of the individual or directly, also lead to low
productivity, high absenteeism, more tiredness, low enthusiasm for work, low creativity, and
high dissatisfaction with work (e.g. Cooper & Marshall8, 1978; Matteson & Ivancevich9, 1987).
Because of its negative effects in the workplace, the occupational stress has significant economic
implications for organizations.
Role stress: Role stress occurs when an individual is confronted, with conflicting demands from
members of his 'different' role set (role set is all the role relationships that a person has with the
people in other roles with whom he interacts in the performance of his role) or when an
individual is confronted with conflicting demands from 'within' one of his role sets or when an
individual is unclear about [or rejects] the expectations and behaviors appropriate to any one or
more of his roles, which may also involve problems within and between his various role sets.
The magnitudes of stress emanating from these sectors of life are in consonance with the stress
tolerance limit of the individual to handle these stresses. This indicates a balanced state of
equilibrium.
When the job and organizational loads have become unmanageable and interact with
intrapsychic loads. This is the stage at which the negative consequences of stress become
apparent. Most of the stress related diseases emerge at this point when the situation persists are
more into the next stage in which we start operating beyond the stress tolerance limit. Several
types of breakdowns and cracks are observable. If unchecked, the situation may culminate into
the most intensive phase where incomplete disintegration of personality takes place. At this stage
the individual requires proper psychological and medical care (Pestonjee10, 1983).
2.3 ANCIENT INDIAN CONCEPTS
The concept of stress in modern sense is not easily found in the traditional texts of Indian culture
and tradition such as Caraka Samhita, Patanjali's Yoga Sutras and Bhagwad Gita. However, a
number concepts developed by ancient scholars relate to or appear similar to the phemenon of
stress. Some of those for example are dukha (pain, misery, or suffering), klesa (affections), kama
or trisna (desires), atman and ahamkara (self and ego), adhi (mental aberrations) and
prajnaparadha (failure of lapse of consciousness). It is interesting to note the body, mind
relationship, characteristic of modern stress studies, is emphasized in the Ayurvedic (Indian)
system of medicine.
Palsane, Bhavsae, Goswami and Evans11 (1986) have discussed this issue in detail. They noted
that the Indian tradition is characterized by a holistic approach to human phenomena. Behaviour
is interpreted in terms of that totality of an individual's life styles and total body-mind
relationship. This synthetic or electric approach can be contrasted with the predominantly
annalistic approach to the western social sciences that describe behavioural phemenon according
to their counterparts. The mind-body level of analysis in the Indian tradition is treated as less
significant than analysis at a still higher interpersonal level of self, atman or soul, which in turn
is equated with Brahman, the ultimate reality. The authors have further observed that modern
western psychological literature focusing on ideas related to the strength of motives and
frustration and their behavioural consequencies, the frustration, aggressiion, hypothesis, ego
environment, mind body interactions (psychosomatics) and locus of control has their parallels in
ancient Indian thought.
Rao (1983) very succinctly trace the origin of stress in Indian thought. Going back to Samkhya
and Yoga systems, he has pointed out that there are two Sanskrit words Klesa and Dukha which
approximate stress. The word klesa has its origin in the root ‘kles’ which mean to 'torment',
'cause pain' or to afflict.. Klesas are non mental processes but are a set of 'hindering load' on and
mental agitations which act as restrictions or hindrances. The samkhya-yoga system explains that
the fundamental non-cognition which leads to phenomenological stress is avidya. This avidya
leads to asmita (self, appraisal), raga (object appraisal), dvesha (threat appraisal) and abhinevesa
(coping orientation). These three appraisals, viz., those concerning self, the object and threat are
used for reality testing. Faulty evaluation of either or all of these can produce stress and torment.
The samkhya system postulates that the feeling of dukha or stress is experienced by the
individual in the course of his interaction with the world around him. This system mentions three
types of stresses, personal (adhyatmika), situation (adibhotika) and environmental (adhidevika).
Personnel stresses can again be of two types, viz., physiological and psychological (mental).
Physiological stresses are born out of imbalances between the three fundamental physiologic
constituents’ viz., vata, pitta and kapha. Psychological stresses are caused by emotional states of
lust, hatred, greed, fear, jealousy and depression. Situational stresses are usually caused by
'unwholesome, interpersonal transactions' which may include conflicts, competitiveness,
aggression etc. The third type of stresses, viz., environmental stresses are occasioned by natural
calamities, extremes of temperatures, storms etc. The abinivesa indicates the commencement of
coping behaviours by arranging the behaviours in a proper response sequence. Looking back at
the concept asmita, raga and dvesa, we find that they clearly indicate the increasing relevance of
transactional cognitive process to life situations and also increasing role of energy dynamics.
The term 'avidya' which literally means non-cognition is an antonym of correct self-appraisal and
the encounters between the self and the object. Klesa, as stress has been defined, operates
through four different modes. The first is prosupta or dormant. Given the right type of conditions
any mental process can become a stressor. The analogy is given of a seed which can transform
into a tree provided the facilitating conditions are present. The second is tonu or tenuous
denoting comparatively weak stressors which are held in check by more powerful stressors. They
are present but without sufficient intensity and urgency. The third stressor vichchinna or
intercepted, these lack continuity due to conflict with competing responses. The human character
is high but they alternate between levels of high operation to dormant. Naturally, they surrender
their stressor value when in a dormant stage. The fourth mode is udara or operative stressors.
These are potent stress, responses which have found full expression in clearly observable
behavioural modes. They have overcome the weaknesses of the first three modes.
The above model proposed in yoga sutra is a comprehensive one incorporating cognitive
structuring, affective or emotional stages and adaptive reactions. It also presents the concept of
'Kriya Yoga' which is aimed at reducing the number and intensity of stressors and facilitates
related conservation of mental energy, avoid of tension, which is defined as 'Samadhi Bhavana'.
It is evident from the discussion that like western researchers, Indian scholars also differently
approached the problem of stress. They viewed this phenomenon from various perspectives
ranging from stimulus-oriented to response and psychodynamic points of view. Ancient Indian
scholars, however, seem to have paid due attention to this issue. The system of yoga is analytical
and not only helps the individual but also leads him to the roots of these stresses. There suitable
variations in the intensity with which different stressors operate and it is not unlikely that the
powerful stressors become less so or even dormant after a period of time, whereas the less
powerful ones may disappear or return with greater vigor.
Present day researchers and practitioners visualize the phenomenon of stress in a new
perspective. As Kets Devries (1979) had noted, each individual needs a moderate amount of
stress to be alert and capable of functioning effectively in an organization. Indian scholars like
Pestonjee12 (1987) and Mathew (1985), in their conceptual papers agreed with this connection.
Mathew has gone to the extent of advocating that particular types of stresses are essential for
being a creating manager.
2.3.1 SCIENCE OF STRESS
There was renewed laboratory research into the neuroendocrine, molecular and immunological
bases of stress, conceived as a useful heuristic not necessarily tied to Selye's original hypotheses.
The neurochemistry of the stress response is now believed to be well understood, although much
remains to be discovered about how the components of this system interact with one another, in
the brain and throughout in the body. In response to a stressor, corticotropin-releasing hormone
(CRH) and arginine-vasopressin (AVP) are secreted into the hypophyseal portal system and
activate neurons of the paraventricular nuclei (PVN) of the hypothalamus.
The locus ceruleus and other noradrenergic cell groups of the adrenal medulla and pons,
collectively known as the LC/NE system, also become active and use brain epinephrine to
execute autonomic and neuroendocrine responses, serving as a global alarm system (Tsigos, C.
& Chrousos, G.P.13 2002).
The autonomic nervous system provides the rapid response to stress commonly known as the
fight-or-flight response, engaging the sympathetic nervous system and withdrawing the
parasympathetic nervous system, thereby enacting cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal,
renal, and endocrine changes ( Tsigos, C. & Chrousos, G.P. 2002). The hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenal axis (HPA), a major part of the neuroendocrine system involving the interactions of the
hypothalamus, the pituitary gland, and the adrenal glands, is also activated by release of CRH
and AVP.
This results in release of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) from the pituitary into the
general bloodstream, which results in secretion of cortisol and other glucocorticoids from the
adrenal cortex. These corticoids involve the whole body in the organism's response to stress and
ultimately contribute to the termination of the response via inhibitory feedback (Tsigos, C. &
Chrousos, G.P. 2002).
Stress can significantly affect many of the body's immune systems, as can an individual's
perceptions of, and reactions to, stress. The term psychoneuroimmunology is used to describe the
interactions between the mental state, nervous and immune systems, as well as research on the
interconnections of these systems.
Chronic stress has also been shown to impair developmental growth in children by lowering the
pituitary glands production of growth hormone, as in children associated with a home
environment involving serious marital discord, alcoholism, or child abuse (Powell, Brasel, &
Blizzard14, 1967).
The most extreme events and reactions may elicit the diagnosis of Posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to one or more terrifying events that
threatened or caused grave physical harm. PTSD is a severe and ongoing emotional reaction to
an extreme psychological trauma; as such, it is often associated with soldiers, police officers, and
other emergency personnel.
This stressor may involve viewing someone's actual death, a threat to the patient's or someone
else's life, serious physical injury, or threat to physical or psychological integrity, overwhelming
usual psychological defenses coping. In some cases it can also be from profound psychological
and emotional trauma, apart from any actual physical harm. Often, however, the two are
combined.
2.3.2 PRESSURE AND STRESS
Stress is the reaction that people have to excessive pressure or other types of demand placed on
them. It arises when they worry that they cannot cope (HSE15, 2001). The pressures of working
life can lead to stress if they are excessive or long-term. Examples of long-term or chronic stress
are the fear, frustration and anger that may be produced by an unhappy relationship with one’s
boss or with a difficult customer, and the unhappiness of an unsuitable job.
Up to a certain point an increase in pressure will improve performance and the quality of life.
However, if pressure becomes excessive it loses its beneficial effect and becomes harmful
(Cooper, C L, Cooper, R D and Eaker, L H,16 1988).
2.3.3 BURNOUT AND STRESS
“Job burnout and job dissatisfaction are not synonymous constructs”, (McIntyre17, 1984). The
body’s ability to adapt to stress, called “adaption energy”, is finite (Kalker, 1984). Exposure to
constant stressors can be tolerated only so long. Rest and relaxation can restore resistance and
adaptation levels in the individual to a certain point, but if the stress continues, ultimate
exhaustion will occur.
Prolonged exposure to occupational distress was found to work in a counterproductive way,
setting the stage for future pathology (Selye, 1956). Burned out is a “a feeling of exhaustion and
fatigue, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and
gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness, and shortness of breath”. In short one becomes too
somatically involved with one’s bodily functions. It is a result of working “too much, too long
and too intensely. Those who burn out often have a need to give that is excessive and, in time,
unrealistic” (Friesen18, 1998).
Stress researchers contend that the popular term ‘burnout’ is a type of stress (Daniel C. Ganster
and John Schaubroeck19, 1991) and others treat it as having a number of components.18 one
stresses and trauma support coordinator makes the distinction between stress and burnout as
follows, "Stress is normal and often quite healthy. However, when the ability to cope with
stress begins to let us down, then we may be on the road to burnout” (Gilbert Sand and
Anthony D. Miyazaki20, 2000). John Izzo, a former HR professional in the occupational
development area, suggests that burnout may be the consequence of "losing a sense of the
basic purpose and fulfillment of your work." He goes on to say that "Getting more balance or
getting personal time will help you with stress—but it will often not help you with burnout
(Lin Grensing-Popbal21, 1999).
Burnout occurs when people “lose all concern, all emotion for the persons they work with and
come to treat them in detached or even dehumanizing ways” as reported in an American study
(Maslach22, 1982). Burnout occurs “when the professional is forced to provide care for too many
people” (Maslach). “Mental exhaustion is best characterized by the development of a negative
self-concept and a decrease in self-esteem. There is a self –preoccupation and increased negative
self-talk” (Kalker23, 1984). There is an agreement in literature about the occurrence of the
phenomenon of burnout as the chronic phase of repeated exposure to stress.
Research in this area shows that burnout is not necessarily the result of individual problem such
as character or behavior flaws in which organizations can simply change people or get rid of
them. In fact, Christina Maslach, a well-known stress researcher, says the opposite is probably
true. She concludes that "as a result of extensive study, it is believed that burnout is not a
problem of the people themselves but of the social environment in which people work (Joanne
Cole24, 1999). She believes that burnout creates a sense of isolation and a feeling of lost
control, causing the burned-out employee to relate differently to others and to their work (Todd
Balf25, 2000).
2.4 SIX MYTHS ABOUT STRESS: According to Miller and Smith (1997) the following six
myths explain us to understand our problems and then take action against them. . Stress is
commonly associated with how well or worse, people cope with the changes in their lives – at
home, within the family, at work or in the social situations
Myth 1: Stress is the same for everybody.
It is completely wrong. Fundamentally, a stressor or a source of stress produces stress
which is turn produces stress response on the part of the individual. Stress is different for each of
us. No two people respond in the way or to the same extent. What is stressful for one person may
or may not be stressful for another. Each of us responds to stress in an entirely different way.
Myth 2: Stress is always bad for us.
According to this view, zero stress should make us makes us happy and healthy. Practically it is
not so. Not all stress, however, is bad. Most people need a certain level of pressure to perform
well the tasks allotted to them. At the same time too much of stress is also fatal. This is the
classic fight response and the issue really is how to manage it. Managed stress results in a
productive and happy life; mismanaged stress cause damages. Stress can be the spice of life or
the kiss of death. Managed stress makes us productive and happy; mismanaged stress hurts and
even kills us.
Myth 3: Stress is everywhere, so we can't do anything about it.
Not so. Stress is all pervasive and permeates every walk of life. Life has to be planned in such a
way so that stress does not overwhelm us. Effective planning involves setting priorities and
working on simple problems first, solving them, and then going on to more complex difficulties.
When stress is mismanaged, it's difficult to prioritize. All your problems seem to be equal and
stress seems to be everywhere.
Myth 4: The most popular techniques for reducing stress are the best ones.
Not so. No universally common effective stress reduction techniques exist. We are all
different, our lives are different, our situations are different, and our reactions are different. Only
a comprehensive program tailored to the individual works. One has to be selective in choosing
techniques which suits the individual in a better way.
Myth 5: No symptoms, no stress.
Absence of symptoms does not mean the absence of stress. In fact, camouflaging symptoms with
medication may deprive us of the signals we need for reducing the strain on our physiological
and psychological systems. Stress exists inherently and negligence leads to devastating
situations. Timely remedial measures avoid further complications.
Myth 6: Only major symptoms of stress require attention.
This myth assumes that the "minor" symptoms, such as headaches or stomach acidity, may be
safely ignored. Minor symptoms of stress are the early warnings that our life is getting out of
hand and that we need to do a better job of managing stress. Stress at any stage has to be taken
care of.
There are as many antidotes to stress as there are stressors. It is up to us to seek them out.
Relaxation, leisure, meditation, hobby, time with friends creative output / expression, art therapy,
etc. are just as valuable assets to us as the work we put in from 9-5. We are all familiar with the
phrase 'laughter is the best medicine'. Now there is research to back up the claim. A positive
influence on health may also be achieved through religion. It may be considered as another
extension of social (divine) support. And, of course, stress is only equated into distress by our
own appraisals.
2.5 MODELS OF STRESS
Like many other psychological constructs (for e.g., personality or intelligence), the construct of
stress lacks a uniformly accepted definition. For purpose of clarity, the term ‘stress’ is referred to
an environmental stimulus and its use is referred to the body’s response to that stimulus.
There are several theoretical positions devised for examining and understanding stress and stressrelated disorders. Bratley and Thompson (1995) categorized them into three groups; response
theories, stimulus theories and interaction (or transaction) theories. Given a distinction between
stress as a stimulus and as a response, this system serves as a useful way to present the various
theories and associated research.
2.5.1 RESPONSE THEORY
Because chronic stress responses involve actual physiological changes to body systems and
organs, a good bit of attention has been paid to acute physiological stress responses and how they
might possibly lead to subsequent chronic stress responses (McEwen and Stellar, 1993).
Historically both Walter Cannon (1929), and Hans Selye (1956) provided the foundation for the
current interest in this physiological process.
The Work of Walter Cannon:
Cannon was a physiologist at Harvard University who was first to use term ‘homeostasis’
According to Cannon (1929), the body possesses an internal mechanism to maintain stable
bodily functioning or equilibrium. As the environment presents the organism with various
challenges, the body must respond to each new situation by adjusting various physiological
systems to compensate for the resources being taxed.
Translating this work with physical challenges associated with eating, drinking, and physical
activity into those of psychological nature, Cannon hypothesized that common homeostatic
mechanisms were involved. Accordingly, if an organism’s response to threat involves significant
sympathetic nervous system arousal so that respiration and heart rate increases significantly, the
body’s compensatory response should involve either reducing sympathetic nervous activity or
increasing parasympathetic nervous system counter-activity. If the compensatory response as
inadequate, tissue damage can result, placing the organism at a great risk for subsequent medical
problems associated with the damaged tissue.
The Work of Hans Selye:
Seyle (1956) was the first investigator to use the term ‘stress’ to describe the problems associated
with homeostasis identified by Cannon decades earlier. Although he borrowed the term from
physics, he used it to describe the effects on the organism rather than the environmental stressors
he examined in his empirical work.
According to Selye, the ‘stress’ responses of the organism represented a common set of
generalized physiological responses that were experienced by all organisms exposed to a variety
of environmental challenges like temperature change or exposure to noise. From his perspective,
the stress response was nonspecific; i.e., the type of stressor experienced did not affect the
pattern of response. In other words, a wide variety of stressors elicited an identical or general
stress response. He termed this non-specific response the General Adaptation Syndrome, which
consisted of three stages: Alarm Reaction, Resistance, and Exhaustion.
Seyle reasoned that the first stage, Alarm Reaction, involved the classic ‘flight-flight’ response
described above. As a result, the body’s physiological system dropped below optimal
functioning. As the body attempted to compensate the physiological reactions observed in the
Alarm Reaction Stage, the organism entered the Resistance Stage. Physiological compensatory
systems began working at peak capacity to resist the challenges the entire system was
confronting, and according to Seyle, actually raised the body’s resistance to stress above
homeostatic levels.
However, because this response consumed so much energy, a body could not sustain it forever.
Once energy has been depleted, the organism entered the stage of Exhaustion. In this stage,
resistance to environmental stressors broke down and the body became susceptible to tissue
damage and perhaps even death.
The Work of Bruce McEwen:
More recently, the historic works of Cannon and Selye that have attempted to explain how acute
physiological stress responses evolved into chronic stress responses have been revisited by Bruce
McEwen and colleagues (McEwen and Stellar, 1993; McEwen, 1998) at Rockefellar University.
In contrast to the state of physiological equilibrium of homeostatis essential to survival the
Cannon discussed, McEwen used the term ‘allostatis’, referring to the body’s ability to adapt to a
changing environment in situations that do not challenge, Survival.
From his perspective, an organism that maintained a perfectly stable physiological equilibrium
during a stressful encounter (a non-response) might be just as problematic as an organism that
exhibited an exaggerated physiological response. Allostatis referred to the body’s ability to
adjust a ‘new steady state’ in response to the environmental challenge (McEwen and Stellar,
1993).
According to the work of McEwen and colleagues, ‘allostatic load’ is a term that refers to the
price the body pays for being challenged repeatedly by a variety of environmental stressors.
Increased allostatic load, or what McEwen and Wingfield (2003) called ‘allostatic overload’
occurs with increased frequency of exposure to stressors, increased intensities of these stressors,
or decreased efficiency in coordinating the onset and terminating of the physiological response.
2.5.2 INTERACTION (TRANSACTIONAL) THEORY
The Transaction Theories of stress incorporate components of stress stimuli and responses that
operate upon one another in a cyclic fashion. In addition, Interaction or Transactional theories
emphasize the relation between the individual and the environment, something rarely discussed
by purely stimulus or response theorists.
Lazurus and Folkman (1984) proposed a transaction theory of stress that has received
considerable attention over the years. According to their perspective, it is not the initial stressor
per se that was critical in linking stress to disease, but the individual’s response to the stressor
that determined whether a cyclic stress reaction developed.
Focusing upon the acute cognitive stress response system, Lazurus suggested that three types of
cognitive appraisal occurred in determining the magnitude of the stress reaction: primary
appraisal, secondary appraisal, and reappraisal. Primary appraisal focused upon the degree to
which a person detected a stressor as being harmful (leading to potential injury or illness),
threatening (causing anxiety, fear, or damage to self-esteem), challenging (leading to potential
gain or growth).
According to Lazurus, individuals determined whether a stimulus was irrelevant, benign positive,
or stressful; only stimuli appraised as stressful elicited ongoing stress responses. Imagine for
example, brushing one’s leg against something furry while hiking. It might be appraised as
irrelevant if it was moss, benign-positive if it was a baby rabbit, or stressful if it was a rabid
skunk!
Primary appraisal was conceptualized as being accompanied by secondary appraisal, which
focused upon a person’s determination of his or her resources to cope with the stressor perceived
during primary appraisal. Most individuals clearly possess the resources to cope with brushing
up against moss of a fury baby rabbit; however, many would question what to do when
encountering a rabid skunk.
Finally, the process of reappraisal involved any change in the primary appraisal as a result of the
assessment of coping resources that occurred during secondary appraisal.
Sources of stress at work
2
%
Individual Characteristics
Symptoms of occupational ill health
3
Disease
*% %
0
!
1
!"
-
#
*
0
%
5 ! 1
% " "
%
4
/) (
*
%%
#
*
,
)
$
*
.
%
% % &" '
#
(!
!
"
%
%
! *
+ ,
"
*
#
)
Fig. 2.2 Transactional model of stress Source: Stress at Work – Jeremy Stranks
2.5.3 STIMULUS THEORIES
Remaining consistent with the usage of the term ‘stress’ as described in physics, some
investigators have focused on stress as a stimulus. Most notable among researchers employing
this approach were Holmes and Rahe26 (1967). These investigators devised a list of major life
events known as the social Readjustment Rating Scale. Institutively selecting ‘death of spouse’
as the barometer of the most stressful life event, this instrument consisted of 43 items measuring
distinct life changes that were self-reported over a specified of time, typically one year, Each
item was assigned what Holmes and Rahe called a Life Change unit score based upon the item’s
relative severity with reference to ‘death of spouse’.
Stressor sequences represented prolonged stressors that contained multiple and often different
types of challenges to the individual. Divorce, for e.g., typically involved a prolonged sequence
of stressful life events that presented different sorts of challenges to the individuals as they
occurred ( for e.g., separation, learning your spouse is getting remarried, working out child
custody arrangements, loneliness, loss of joint friends, etc.).
According to these stimulus theories, the distinct types of stimuli led to unique and predictable
patterns of stress responses.
2.5.4 THE TRADITIONAL MODEL-DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR NEW ZEALAND
This model sought to show the simple idea that stressors could lead on the perception of not
being able to cope and this might result in fatigue, which could have both short and long
consequences.
This model was not bad in its time and place. It acknowledged that some thing -called ‘stress’could happen in work places and could lead to undesirable outcomes. It does not speak about
positive experiences.
2.5.5 THE ‘BUCKET’ MODEL – E GRANDJEAN. SWITZERLAND
This model began a very simple picture of fatigue first proposed by the ergonomist Etienne
Grandjean, who likened the human body to a bucket that could be ‘filled’ daily with unpleasant
experiences, with sleep and recuperation emptying it for a fresh start the next day.
The Department of Labor reversed this model to show the human body as a reservoir of ability
that was drained during the day and re-filled at night and weekends. It acknowledges undesirable
possibilities, but makes little allowance for positive experiences at work.
2.5.6 AN ACADEMIC MODEL – P DEWE ET AL. NEWZELAND
The simplicity of the bucket model was regarded as ‘simplistic’ by some, given that it tended
(only) to cast people as inevitably responding in a particular way.
Reality was closer if it could be shown that people tend to appraise their situation, rather than
accept it passively. Again there no mention of the positive experiences possible in workplaces.
2.5.7 THE DEMAND, CONTROL, SUPPORT MODEL - R KARASEK AND THEORELL
, SWEDEN.
The classic study of Karasek in 1970 set the scene of decades of research along similar lines. In
his four year study of 1600 forty to sixty four year old men selected at random from Swedish
workforce, Karasek discovered that the rate of heart disease correlated strongly with how the
men perceived their jobs.
The remarkable thing is that the people who worked in most favorable circumstances showed
NO symptoms of heart disease while one-fifth of those who worked in the least favorable
circumstances did. It is not hard to understand that these results created a huge wave of interest
and subsequent research internationally.
2.5.8 THE EFFORT REWARDS IMBALANCE MODEL – J SIEGRIST. GERMANY
Research on effort-reward imbalance and health is part of a larger scientific program that aims at
understanding the contribution of social and psychological factors to human health disease. More
specifically, protective and damaging effects on health produced by people’s behaviours,
cognitions and emotions through core social roles in adult life (work role, civic roles, family
roles etc.) are analyzed using a specific theoretical and methodological approach.
The model of effort-reward imbalance claims that failed reciprocity in terms of high efforts spent
and low rewards received in turn is likely to elicit recurrent negative emotions and sustained
stress responses in exposed people. Conversely, positive emotions evoked by appropriate social
rewards promote well-being, health and survival.
2.5.9 THE STATUS SYNDROME – THE EFFECTOF HIERARCHY – M MARMOT, UK
Professor Sir Michael Marmot has followed the health of more than ten thousand British Civil
Servants in central government departments in London for nearly two decades. His findings
showed that the workers at the bottom of workplace hierarchies get sicker and are off work more
often than the bosses at the top.
The data accumulated is person specific, offering advantages over studies based on group
averages at a single moment. Marmot found that the age standardized mortality, over a ten year
period, among males aged forty to sixty four was about 3.5 times greater for those in the clerical
and manual grades, compared to those in the senior administrative grades.
2.5.10 AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL OF STRESS – D GARDNER, NEW ZEALAND
Work related stress is a major problem and its management is far from straightforward. It is
important to identify, assess and control stressors – but also to void removing the rewarding
aspects of work.
There is need to identify and address both challenge and hindrance (or ‘threat’) stressors – and to
differentiate between them by having different strategies for each. The results showed that stress
and enjoyment of work can coexist. Likewise, many ‘stressors’ may be matched by a
corresponding ‘satisfier’. However there appears to be only stress and no satisfaction with
qualitative overload, and no stress but only satisfaction associated with feeling of doing a
worthwhile job.
Models that seem to portray people as invariably acting in a particular way in a particular
environment underestimate the ways things are managed by us. The stress literature is
increasingly recognizing this. Some people are tired of hearing about stress and welcome the
chance to explore work-related enjoyment, engagement and wellbeing.
2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS IN STRESS:
Generally stress refers to the reaction of people to their environment. It involves both
physiological and psychological responses to environmental conditions causing people to change
or adjust their behavior. According to Cumming and Copper stress is generally viewed in terms
of the fit between people's needs, abilities and expectations and environmental demands, changes
and opportunities. A good person environment fit results in positive reactions to stress, while a
poor fit leads to the negative consequences.
Stress is likely to arise from various parts of the individual's environment, namely, the microsystem, meso system, exo system and macro system. Though objective conditions are important;
stress is mainly an outcome of the interaction between the individual and the environment.
The factors in the environment that can cause stress may be described as pertaining to four major
categories, ranging from Micro to the Macro systems. They are:
Micro System: Smallest units of organized work [e.g., the office or department].
Meso System: The larger complex of smaller work units that comprise the company or
institution or agency.
Exo System: Non-work ecosystems that directly impact on the worker and his company or
institution [e .g. , Surrounding community legislators; accountability systems his/her family etc.].
Macro System: The larger cultural and worldwide complex [e.g., social, political and economic
factors].
All these elements interact to varying degrees. The consequences of all these interactions are
experienced throughout the entire system and are reciprocal in nature. That is, there is one to one
interaction between all these systems and can create stress for the individual. If an organization
for fiscal reasons [boundary issue] recruits and hires only people with relatively limited work
experience, they may be creating conditions within their ecosystem [Micro or Meso] which add
to the level of stress within that system. However, the nature of a company's boundaries [that is
its policies and procedures for determining access to or exclusion from its territory] will also
create homogeneity among its work force and managerial staff, but this may lead to dangers of
'Organizational incest', which constitute a major cause of stress (White, 1981). When addressing
the ecological sources of stress and frustration, it is important to consider the individual's
perceptions and interpretation of their meaning and significance (Lazarus et al.27, 1965; Lazarus,
Launier28, 1978; Baum et al.29, 1981).
2.7 SOURCES OF STRESS
There are many causes of stress in an organization, but many researchers argue that the main
cause of occupational stress is work overload (Topper30, 2007; Buchanan and Kaczynski31, 2004).
Job overload and workload featured prominently in a number of different studies. Johnstone
(1989) argued that many researchers have attributed that the major causes of stress are failure to
work or behave.
Tehrani32 (2002) argued that stress is caused by unsympathetic organizational culture, poor
communication between managers and employees, lack of involvement in decision-making,
bullying and harassment, continual or sudden change, insufficient resources, conflicting
priorities, and lack of challenges. Bland33 (1999) reports that stressors that seemed to be popular
with employees in the workplace include too much work, inadequate time to do the work, stressful
environment, relationship problems with partners, boss or colleague and financial insecurities.
Conflicts between home and work, and the impact on personal relationships are also contributing
factors to stress (Fairbrother and Warn34, 2003).
Kirkcaldy, Trimpoo and Williams35 (2002) argued that the causes of stress include
inadequate guidance and
support from superiors, lack of consultation and communication,
lack of encouragement from superiors, feelings of isolation, discrimination and favoritism
and inadequate or poor quality training/management development.
All these stressors are related to factor management. Other causes of stress include role ambiguity,
conflicting performance expectation, political climate of the organizations and poor relationship
with co-workers (Manshor, et al.36, 2003).
Stress is also caused by environment demand factors and these include job content such as
work load; employment conditions, such as flexible employment contracts; working conditions
such as physically demanding work, and social relations at work such as mobbing expenses (Otto
and Schmidt37, 2007). Factors like individual and family factors, socio-economic and financial
status, mental and physical health factors contribute greatly to occupational stress (Manshor et
al., 2003).
0
0 %
7
5
6
)
%
*
'
,
4
!"
%
'
, !
#
&
6" * '
3 % "
*
" 6
4 ,
%
*
%
%%" %
% ' , !
#
) %
!"
#
4
!
.
/
!
,
0 %
5
)
)
%"
&
"
%"
%
%
*
"
#
%4
%4
%
% * !
%%
!" % 8
!
%
%
#
*
-
%$
*%
%%
%5 4
#
Fig 2.3 Sources of management stress (Source: Cooper & Marshall, 1978)
Harvey and Brown38 (2006) argue that the major stressors in the workplace includes changes in
technology, downsizing, sudden reorganization and unexpected changes in the work schedules,
competition for promotional opportunities, lack of participation in the decision making, and
lack of employee empowerment. Others are conflicts with other employees at the work place,
inadequate time to accomplish tasks, and violence in the workplace. The issue of acts of
violence in the work place committed by both employees and customers contributes a lot to the
employees' stress level. Occupational stress can have grave consequences as the American
Institute of Stress (AIS) indicates — homicide is the second leading cause of fatal occupational
injury and for working people, it is the leading cause of death.
The negative effects of occupational stress are reduced efficiency, decreased capacity to perform,
dampened initiative and reduced interest in working, increased rigidity of thought, lack of
concern for the organization and colleagues and a loss of responsibility (Greenberg and Baron39,
2000; Ivancevich, Matterson, freedman and Philips40, 1990).
2.8 THE SIGNS OF STRESS
Stress is a mobilization of the body’s defenses, an ancient biochemical survival mechanism
perfected during evolutionary process, allowing human beings to adapt to threatening
circumstances (Hans Selye41, 1936).
Cohen and Single42 (2001) lists symptoms of stress under five categories. Firstly, emotional —
anxiety, nervousness, worries, depression, anger, irritability, guilt, moodiness, and loss of
enjoyment of life, loneliness, loss of humor, lack of confidence, isolation, and job
dissatisfaction.
Secondly, physical — feeling restless, feeling uptight, jumpy, high blood pressure, back and neck
muscle tension, lack of energy, dry mouth, headaches, insomnia, dizziness, loss or increase in
appetite, and ringing in the ears.
Thirdly, behavioral — impatience, impulsiveness, hyperactivity, short temper, aggressiveness,
alcohol abuse, use of drugs, avoiding difficult situations, loss of sex drive, and overworking.
Fourthly, mental — frequent lapses of memory, constant negative thinking, being very critical of
oneself, inability to make decisions, difficulty getting things done, distorted ideas, very rigid
attitudes and difficulty in concentrating.
Lastly, health — high blood pressure, higher than usual susceptibility to colds and flu, migraines,
irritable bowel symptoms, ulcers, stomach disorders, heart attacks, angina, strokes, asthma and skin
rashes.
The stress/illness connection is, however, disputed by some researchers. Although claims have
been made of connections between stress in life and illness, it has been suggested that people
remain quite healthy under high levels of stress in their lives (Holahan & Moos, 1985). This has
focused researchers’ attention on the relative roles of ‘buffering’ (i.e. what mediates the impact
of stress) and ‘hardiness’ (i.e. what psychological resources can employees marshall to hold
stress within acceptable limits).
2.9 THE CAUSES OF STRESS
In present scenario of Globalization, workplace of the present day modern world is a fast-paced,
dynamic, highly stimulating environment which brings a large number of benefits and
opportunities to those who work within it. The ever-changing demands of the working world can
increase levels of stress, especially for those who are consistently working under pressure.
Whilst pressure has its positive side in raising performance, if such pressure becomes excessive
it can lead to stress which has negative consequences.
The antecedents of stress, or the so-called stressors, affecting today's employee’s come from
both outside and inside the organization, from the groups that employees are influenced by, and
from employees themselves.
Extra organizational Stressors
Most of the analyses of job stress ignore the importance of external events and forces. It is
becoming increasingly clear that these have a tremendous impact. Taking an open-systems
perspective of an organization (that is, the organization is greatly affected by the external
environment), it is clear that job stress is not limited just to things that happen inside the
organization, during working hours, Extra organizational stressors include things such as
societal/technological change, globalization, the family, relocation, economic and financial
conditions, race and class, and residential or community conditions.
The phenomenal rate of change has a great effect on people’s lifestyles, and this of course is
carried over into their jobs. Although medical science has increased the life spans of people and
has eradicated or reduced the threat of many diseases, the pace of modern living has increased
stress and decreased personal wellness. The concept of wellness has been defined as "a
harmonious and productive balance of physical, mental, and social well-being brought about by
the acceptance of one's personal responsibility for developing and adhering to a health
promotion program”( Robert Kreitner 2000). Because people tend to get caught up in the rushrush, mobile, urbanized, crowded, on-the-go lifestyle of today, their anxiety (Hugh B. Price,
Winter43, 1997) and wellness in general has deteriorated; the potential for stress on the job has
increased.
It is generally recognized that a person's family has a big impact on personality development,
A family situation—either a brief crisis, such as a squabble or the illness of a family member,
or long-term strained relations with the spouse or children—can act as a significant stressor for
employees Also, recent trends have made it increasingly difficult for employees to adequately
balance the responsibilities of their jobs and their families. As employees are working longer
hours and bringing more work home at night (William Atkinson44, 1999), more and more
pressure is being placed on work-family relationships (Dawn S. Carlson and Pamela L.
Perrewe45, 1999) and more emphasis on the coordination of work and vacation schedules, and
the search for elder and child care options has become prominent and very stressful (Defrank
and Ivancevich46, 1999).
Relocating the family because of a transfer or a promotion can also lead to stress. For example,
under globalization, expatriate managers may undergo cultural shock and then when repatriated
may experience isolation; both are significant stressors (Juan I. Sanchez, Paul E. Spector and Cary
L. Cooper47, 2000).
Life's changes may be slow (getting older) or sudden (the death of a spouse). These sudden
changes have a dramatic effect on people, and medical researchers have verified that especially
sudden life changes do in fact have a very stressful impact on people (T.H. Holmes and R.H.
Rahe48, 1967).
One psychologist, Faye Crosby, reports that divorce interferes with work more than any other
trauma in a person's life. She says, "During the first three months after a spouse walks out, the
other spouse—male or female—usually is incapable of focusing on work (Wall Street Journal,
December 2349, 1986).
Sociological variables such as race, sex, and class can also become stressors. As the
workforce becomes increasingly diverse, potential stress-related issues include differences
in beliefs and values, differences in opportunities for rewards or promotions, and perceptions
by minority employees of either discrimination or lack of fit between themselves and the
organization (Defrank and Ivancevich50, 1999). Researchers have noted over the years that
minorities may have more stressors than whites (Lisa Hope Pelled, Kathleen M. Eisenhardt and
Katherine R. Xin51, 1999). Although a recent review of up-to-date evidence concludes that
women experience more stress than men (Nelson and Burke52, 1995), an earlier meta-analysis
performed on 15 studies found no significant sex differences in experienced and perceived
work stress (Joseph J. Martocchio and Anne M. O’Leary53, 1989).
There continues to be evidence that women perceive more job demands than men in both the
male-dominated and female-dominated occupations (Nelson and Burke, 1995; Wayne A.
Hochwarter, Pamela L. Perrewe and Mark C. Dawkins54, 1995). Also, people in the middle and
upper classes may have particular or common stressors. The same is true of the local
community or region that one comes from. For example, one researcher identified the
condition of housing, convenience of services and shopping, neighborliness, and degree of
noise and air pollution as likely stressors (R. Marens55, 1976.Gary W. Evans and Dana
Johnson56, 2000).
Organizational Stressors
The potential stressors that occur outside the organization, are also those associated with the
organization itself. The organization is made up of groups of individuals. There are more macro
level dimensions, unique lo the organizations that contain potential stressors. These macro level
stressors can be categorized into administrative policies and strategies, organizational structure and
design, organizational processes, and working conditions. Some specific examples of these organizational stressors include responsibility without authority, inability to voice complaints,
inadequate recognition, and lack of clear job descriptions or reporting relationships (Gail
Dutton57, 1998).
As the organizations dramatically change to meet the environmental challenges (globalization,
information technology explosion, and diversity), there are more and more accompanying
stresses for individual employees in their jobs. For example, a recent study by Deloitte and
Touche found that 84 percent of U.S. companies were undergoing at least one major change
intervention in their business strategy in order to compete in today’s ultra competitive
environment. Programs such as reengineering, restructuring, and downsizing have become
commonplace as the result of intense pressures to outperform the competition. Downsizing, in
particular, hits and continues to take its toll on employees. The actual loss of jobs, or even the
mere threat of being laid off, can be extremely stressful for employees. Additionally, the "survivors" of downsizing "often experience tremendous pressure from the fear of future cuts, the loss
of friends and colleagues, and an increase in workload”. In other words, downsizing often
translates to longer hours and more stress for the survivors (Atkinson58, 1993).
Government data indicate that "an astonishing two-thirds of all American workers—over 75
million people—put in anything but traditional hours. Rather, they clock more than half their
workday outside Ward Cleaver's time zone, the one that starts after breakfast and ends before
supper, Monday through Friday (Jaclyn Fierman59, 1995). Research indicates that such chronic
occupational demands can lead to stress (John Schaubroeck and Daniel C. Ganster60, 1993).
Group Stressors
The group can also be a potential source of stress, these group stressors can be categorized into
two areas:
Lack of group cohesiveness: Starling with the historically famous Hawthorne studies; it has
become very clear that cohesiveness, or "togetherness," is very important to employees,
especially at the lower levels of organizations. If an employee is denied the opportunity for this
cohesiveness because of the task design, because the supervisor does things to prohibit or limit
it or because the other members of the group shut the person out, the resulting lack of
cohesiveness can be very stress-producing.
Lack of social support: Employees are greatly affected by the support of one or more
members of a cohesive group. By sharing their problems and joys with others, they are much
better off. If this type of social support is lacking for an individual the situation can be very
stressful. There is even research indicating that the lack of social support is so stressful that it
accounts for some health care costs (Michael R. Manning, Conrad N. Jackson and Marcelline R.
Fusilier61, 1995).
In addition to the group per se, group-level dynamics may become stressors. For example, one
study found that organizational politics was a potential source of stress in the work
environment (Gerald R. Ferris, Dwight, D. Frink, Maria Carmen Galang, Jing Zhou, K. Michele
Kacmar and Jack L. Howard62, 1996).
Individual Stressors: The Role of Dispositions
In a sense, the stressors - extra organizational, organizational and group, all eventually get down
to the individual level. There is also more research and agreement on possible situational
dimensions and individual dispositions that may affect stress outcomes. For example, individual
dispositions such as Type A personality patterns, personal control, learned helplessness, and
psychological hardiness may all affect the level of stress someone experiences, In addition, the
intra individual level of conflict stemming from frustration, goals, and roles, covered next
under conflict, definitely has implications as individual stressors.
Type A Characteristic. Personality traits such as authoritarianism, rigidity, extroversion,
supportiveness, spontaneity, emotionality, tolerance for ambiguity, anxiety, and the need for
achievement have been uncovered by research as being particularly relevant to individual
stress (Arthur P. Brief, Randall, S. Schuler and Mary Van Sell63, 1981). Most attention,
however, has centered on the so-called Type A personality.
Although heart researchers have been working on the use of personality types and the resulting
behavior patterns in order to predict heart attacks since the 1950s, in the late 1960s Friedman
and Rosenman popularized the use of Type A and opposing Type B personalities in the study of
stress. These types were portrayed as relatively stable characteristics, and initially Friedman
and Rosenman's extensive studies found the Type A profile correlated highly with experienced
stress and dangerous physical consequences (Meyer Friedman and Ray H. Rosenman64, 1974).
In recent years, however, there is increasing evidence that Type As face no higher risk of heart
disease than anyone else.
A majority of the people are Type A, and an even higher percentage of managers are Type A;
one study found that 60 percent of the managers sampled were clearly Type A and that only 12
percent were Type B (John H. Howard, David A. Cunningham and Peter A. Rechnitzer65, 1976).
Profiles of Type A and Type B Personalities:
Type A profile
Type B profile
Is always moving
Is not concerned about time
Walks rapidly
Is patient
Eats rapidly
Doesn’t brag
Talks rapidly
Plays for fun, not to win
Is impatient
Relaxes without guilt
Does two things at once
Has no pressing deadlines
Can’t cope with leisure time
Is mild-mannered
Is obsessed with numbers
Is never in a hurry
Measures success by quantity
Is aggressive
Is competitive
Constantly feels under time pressure
The above Table briefly summarizes the Type A and Type B profiles. Obviously Type A
employees (managers, salespersons, staff specialists, secretaries, or rank-and-file operating
employees) experience considerable stress. They are the ones who:
1.
Work long, hard hours under constant deadline pressures and conditions for overload.
2.
Often take work home at night or on weekends and are unable to relax.
3.
Constantly compete with them, setting high standards of productivity that they seem
driven to maintain.
4.
Tend to become frustrated by the work situation, to be irritated with the work efforts of
others, and to be misunderstood by supervisors (Brief, Schuler, and Van Sell66, 1981).
By contrast, Type B personalities are very laid back, they are patient and take a very relaxed,
low-key approach to life and their job.
It is now accepted Type As per se does not predict heart problems, and in fact Type As may
release and better cope with their stress than do Type Bs. The most recent studies indicate that
it is not so much the impatience that is closely associated with Type As that leads to heart
problems, but rather anger and hostility (Edward Dolnick67, 1995). A leading medical researcher
noted that the term "Type A" probably has outlived its usefulness. He stated: "Being a
workaholic, being in a hurry, interrupting people, are not necessarily bad for your heart. What
is bad is if you have high levels of hostility and anger, and you don't bother to hide it when
dealing with other people (Lincoln Journal68, 1989).
This conclusion was supported by an organizational psychiatrist who, after extensive study of
the causes of stress in Japanese, German, and American workers, concluded that "how workers
handle their own aggression is the key factor in determining whether they will experience the
kind of stress that can lead to heart attacks, high blood pressure and other health problems
(Lincoln Journal Star69, 1993). However, before completely dismissing the relationship of Type
A to severe physical outcomes, it should be noted that anger, hostility, and aggression sometimes
go along with a Type A personality.
Besides the debate surrounding the impact of Type A personality on health is the question of
the performance and success of Type As versus Type Bs. It is pretty clear that Type As performs
better (S. D. Bluen, J. Barling and W. Burns70, 1990, C. Lee L. F. Jamison and P.C. Earley71,
1996), and is typically on a "fast track" to the top. They are more successful than Type Bs.
However, at the very top they do not tend to be as successful as Type Bs, who are not overly
ambitious, are more patient, and. take a broader view of things (Richard M. Steers, Scott,
Foresman, Glenview72, 1984, Ellen Van Velsor and Jean Brittain Leslie73, 1995). The key may
be to shift from Type A to Type B behavior, but, of course, most Type A’s are unable and
unwilling to make the shift and/or to cope with their Type A characteristics.
Personal Control: Besides Type A personality patterns, another important disposition is an
individual's perception of control. Terry (1997)74 believes that stress occurs when “individuals
think the demands from the environment are more than they can handle.”People’s feelings about
their ability to control the situation are important in determining their level of stress. In
particular, if employees feel that they have little control over the work environment and over
their own job, they will experience stress (Ronald E. Riggio75, 1990). Studies- have shown that if
employees are given a sense of control over their work environment, such as being given a
chance to be involved in the decision-making process that affects them; this will reduce their
work stress (S. E. Jackson76, 1983). A large study by Cornell University medical researchers
found that those workers who experience a loss of control, especially in relatively low-level
jobs, have tripled the risk of developing high blood pressure. The researchers concluded that
lack of control turns stress into physical problems. They also found that if a high-stress job
included latitude to control the situation, there was no increase in blood pressure (Lincoln
Journal77, 1990).
A study in a hospital setting also found that employee perceptions of the amount of control
they experience at work relate lo stress, which in turn affects physiological outcomes such as
blood pressure as well as psychological outcomes such as job satisfaction (Marilyn L. Fox,
Deborah J. Dwyer and Daniel C. Ganster78, 1993).
Learned Helplessness: The feeling of loss of control goes back to some of the classic research
on learned helplessness conducted by Seligman (M.E.P. Seligman79, 1975). In conducting
experiments on dogs who could not escape shock, Seligman found that they eventually accepted
it and did not even try to escape. Later, when the dogs could learn to escape easily, they did not;
they had learned to be helpless. Other studies found that people, too, can learn to be helpless (S.
Mineka and R. W. Henderson80, 1985), which helps explain why some employees just seem to
have given up and seem to accept stressors in their work environment, even when a change for
the better is possible.
More recently, Seligman and his colleagues have concentrated on people’s attributions for their
lack of control, specifically; they suggest that people are most apt to experience helplessness
when they perceive the causes of the lack of control:
1. To be related to something about their own personal characteristics (as opposed to outside,
environmental forces)
2. As stable and enduring (rather than just temporary)
3. To be global and universal (cutting across many situations, rather than in jut one sphere of
life) (L. Y. Abrahamson, J. Garber and M. E. P. Seligman81, 1980, Robert S. Feldman82,
1990, Mark J. Martinko and William L. Gardner83, 1982).
Further study and research on the sense of control in general and learned helplessness in
particular will provide much insight into stress and how to cope with it.
Psychological Hardiness: Everyone has observed individual differences people faced with
stressors. Some people seem break down at the slightest provocation, whereas others seem
unflappable in the face of extremely stressful situations. Those able to cope successfully with
extreme stressors, seems to have a “hardiness” disposition.
S.C. Kobasa84, 1982 studied executives under considerable stress who were both measurably
hardy and no hardy. She found that the hardy executives had a lower rate of stress-related illness
and were characterized as having commitment (they became very involved in what they were
doing); welcoming challenge (they believed that change rather than stability was normal); and
feeling in control. She suggests that the predisposition of psychological hardiness helps those
with it to resist stress by providing buffers between themselves and stressors.
2.10 SYMPTOMS OF STRESS:
Stress is both additive and cumulative. It adds up over time until a state of crisis is reached and
symptoms appear. Employees who experience high level of stress may become depressed,
accident prone, or argumentative, have difficulty making routine decisions and the like. The
symptoms can be grouped under three general categories-Physiological, Psychological and
Behavioral. Most of the early concern over stress was directed at physiological symptoms like
change in metabolism, increase in the heart beating rates, rise in blood pressure, bring on
headaches and induce heart attacks. Psychological symptoms are of greater importance. Stress
can cause dissatisfaction. Job related stress can cause job related dissatisfaction - the simplest
and most obvious psychological effect on stress. Behaviorally related stress symptoms include
changes in productivity, absenteeism and job turnover, changes in eating habits, increased
smoking or consumption of alcohol, rapid speech and sleep disorders. Untreated, these
symptoms may lead to physical illness and sometimes death.
Following are some of the general symptoms of stress:
Frequent headaches
Fatigue
Constipation, diarrhea, urination problems
Increased use of alcohol, drugs, food
Withdrawal from family/friends
Difficulty/inability to concentrate
Irritability, hostility
Feelings of nervousness, anxiety
Feelings of inadequacy
Physical stress responses include rapid breathing, increased heartbeat, sweating, and other
changes associated with the fight-or-flight syndrome.
Hans Selye suggested that when stressors endure, the fight-or-flight responses are followed by a
sequence of other physical reactions.
2.11 THE EFFECTS OF STRESS
According to WHO definition, health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well
being and not merely the absence of disease. It is physical fitness plus well -balanced emotions.
Stress is not bad for individual employees on their organizational performance. In fact, it is
generally recognized that low levels of stress can even enhance job performance. For example,
one study found that mild stress, such as getting a new supervisor or being involuntarily
transferred, may have the positive result of an increased search for information in the job
(Howard M. Weiss, Daniel R. Ilgen and Michael E. Sharbaugh85, 1982). This may lead
employees to new and better ways of doing their jobs. Also, mild stress may lead to increased
activity, change, and overall better performance. People in certain jobs, such as in sales or
creative fields (for example, newspaper journalists and television announcers who work under
time pressures), would seems to benefit from a mild level of stress. People in other job such as
police officers or physicians, may not benefit from constant mild stress.
Research is also emerging that indicates that the level of difficulty, the nature of the task being
performed, personal dispositions (such as Type A, personal control and learned helplessness, and
psychological hardiness, other psychological dispositions such as negative affectivity (Michael J.
Burke, Arthur P. Brief and Jennifer M. George86, 1993, John Schaubroeck, Daniel C. Ganster87,
1992, Paul E. Spector, Peter Y. Chen and Brian J. O’Connell88, 2000), and neuroticism (Jenny
Firth-Cozens89, 1992), may affect the relationship between stress and performance. However, it
is still safe to conclude that:
1. The performance of many tasks is in fact strongly affected by stress.
2. Performance usually drops off sharply when stress rises to high level (Robert A. Baron,
Allyn & Bacon, Boston90, 1986).
It is the dysfunctional effects of high levels of stress that should be and are a major concern for
contemporary society in general and for effective human resource management in particular.
The problems due to high levels of stress can be exhibited physically, psychologically, or
behaviorally by the individual.
Physical Problems Due to Stress
Most of the attention and basic research over the years has been devoted to the impact that stress
has on physical health. Specific physical health concerns that have been linked to stress include
the following: (1) immune system problems where there is a lessened ability to fight off illness
and infection; (2) cardiovascular system problems, such as high blood pressure and heart disease;
(3) musculoskeletal system problems, such as tension headaches and back pain; and (4)
gastrointestinal system problems, such as diarrhea and constipation (Defrank and Ivancevich91,
1999). For example, heart attacks are a way of life (or death in this case) on stress-packed Wall
Street. For the 5,000 people who work at the stock exchange, the heart attack death rate is 60
percent higher than the national rate for men between 18 and 65, and it was one of the first
employers to install a defibrillator (Vernon Silver92, 1998). There may even be a link between
stress and cancer (K. Bammer and B. H. Newberry93, 1982).
Obviously, not all heart disease can be directly linked to stress; environmental conditions and the
person’s general state of health, heredity, and medical history also certainly contribute.
However, there seems to be enough evidence that stress can and does contribute to this dreaded
disease and to other physical problems as well (John M. Ivancevich and Michael T. Matteson94,
1980).
Psychological Problems Due to Stress
The medical community has paid considerable attention to the relationship between stress and
physical health; much less importance has been given to mental health. Yet, it has to noted that
the psychological problems resulting from stress, may be just as important, if not more important, to day-to-day job performance as the physical problems.
High levels of stress may be accompanied by anger, anxiety, depression, nervousness,
irritability, tension, and boredom. A study found that stress had the strongest impact on
aggressive actions, such as sabotage, interpersonal aggression, hostility, and complaints. These
types of psychological problems from stress, in turn, are especially relevant to poor job
performance, lowered self-esteem (J. E .McGrath95, 1976), resentment of supervision, inability
to concentrate and make decisions, and job dissatisfaction (Beehr and Newman96, 1980, Cary L.
Cooper and Judi Marshall97, 1976).
The outcomes of stress can have a direct cost effect on the organization. The National Centers
for Disease Control reported that psychological stress is the source of numerous job-related
insurance claims (Lincoln Journal98, 1986). Recent court cases have also brought stress-related
problems stemming from employment under the employer's workers’ compensation insurance
(Robert L. Brady99, 1995). Experts are predicting that if the number of stress-related workers'
compensation claims continues to grow at current rates, these claims will lead all other claims
(David S. Allen100, 1990), in an era when health care benefits for psychological problems have
plummeted (Management Review101,1999).
Behavioral Problems Due to Stress
In analyzing the effects of job stress, direct behaviors that may accompany high levels of stress
include under eating or overeating, sleeplessness, increased smoking and drinking, and drug
abuse. When it is realized that 6 percent of the population are alcoholics, that another estimated
10 percent are problem drinkers, and the 6 billion doses of amphetamines and barbiturates are
consumed annually (Ivancevich and Matteson102,1993), the potential problems for employee
behavior caused by alcohol and drug abuse become dramatically clear.
For example, one
company had such a problem with on-the-job drinking that it bought a breath-alcohol meter to
test its employees. The president of the union in this firm stated: “There were a couple of people
who came to work drunk every day (Lincoln Journal103, 1983). Although the meter has not been
used yet, one worker was overheard to say, “I guess I’ll have to stop going to the bar at lunch
time” (Lincoln Journal 1983). Besides being dangerous, as in this company, which used a lot of
saws and punches, these problems may be manifested in tardiness, absenteeism, and turnover.
There is research evidence over the years indicating a relationship between stress and especially
absenteeism and turnover (A.J. Kinicki, F. M. McKee and K. J. Wade, J. R. Edwards and N. P.
Rothbard104, 1999).
Like the psychological problems resulting from stress the behavioral problems are often not
attributed to stress by coworkers or supervisors and generate little sympathy. But, also like the
psychological and the physical symptoms of stress, the behavioral problems can be controlled,
more effectively managed, and even prevented by the individual and the organization.
Job Stress in BPO Call Centre Employees
Job stress is termed as "a relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised
by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being".
Frank Kenna III, president of the Marlin Company, called job stress "the emotional toothache of
the workplace". This is not a new understanding. In 1992, a UN report called job stress "the 20th
century disease". One that the World Health Organization was later to say had become a
worldwide epidemic.
Among all job stress statistics though, the one that has received the maximum attention over the
last few years is call center stress. Even without the up-ended timings that Indian call center
employees keep, it is a unique workplace. There is almost universal consensus that call center
work is stressful. Even in studies that report the observation that some staff actually enjoys their
work, mention of stress is still the norm.
Call centers are information handling organizations. As characterized, the job of the agent is to
be the voice of the organization, interfacing with the client or customer. The organization
rehearses the things it wants said and feeds them through the agent. The agent is largely
constructed as a mouthpiece rather than as a brain. "The cumulative emotional demands
presented by the interpersonal nature of the work", stress is inevitable.
Many people employed in the call center sector say, "the daily experience is of repetitive,
intensive and stressful work, based upon Taylorist principles, which frequently results in
employee “burnout”. Brown, more vividly, characterizes the work as "repetitive brain strain”.
These descriptions depict that call centers are established by organizations to “create an
environment in which work can be standardized to create relatively uniform and repetitious
activities so as to achieve economies of scale and consistent quality of customer service”.
It is obvious that employees are losing interest because of the routine work. It is because of lack
of job rotation that the employees might lose interest and as a result productivity is hampered. In
a survey conducted by DigiQuest i-IC Best Employees’, majority of the call centre employees in
BPOs responded that they lacked job satisfaction because of the nature of work (routine)
(DigiQuest, 2005). Rightly so and E-Funds, Mumbai, in December 2005, it was found that many
BPO call centre employees were doing the job only for the kind of salaries these companies were
giving and they also lacked job satisfaction (E-Funds, 2005).
Apart from lack of Job satisfaction, another concern is the transportation. Many call centres
BPOs are located far from the city, which means that on an average, every day the employee is
required to travel 70km to and fro. It is difficult to travel such distances daily, which can lead to
physical strain.
The normal working hours in India are from 9:30 am to 5.30 pm.’ As India is 5 Hours ahead of
UK, 10 hours ahead of USA and 13hours ahead of Los Angeles, they have to adjust with their
timings i.e., they have to tag on the ‘follow the sun model’. The BPO call centre employees work
from 8.p.m to 6 am, owing to the working hours and time differentials with the US and UK. . It
is to this time that employees are unable to adjust their biological timer to which they are not
accustomed to. These working hours are really unearthly and it is highly unlikely that these
working hours would change. The employees do get acclimatized to the night schedule but they
have regular health problems.
Employees are really finding it very difficult to work for almost 12 hours a day. In fact, they are
also expected to work on all public holidays (including Indian festivals), which is embarrassing,
particularly taking into consideration that they work mostly during nights working continuously
during nights would harm health. And also frustrate employee, putting them under stress and
pressure.
The BPO call centre employees have to handle abusive calls from the customers thus adding to
their stress level. The BPO employees put their life at stake at the cost of their mental peace,
social life and safety and security. The female employees are very much unsecured working in
this BPO industry. There are cases of molestation, rape, murder and shootout in the past couple
of years. The BPO employees unfortunately have bad reputation in the society. The female
employees are worst affected as the society does not respect young people who work at odd
hours (careers.propeller.com).
There are problems like lack of concentration and absenteeism at work. There are some
responsibilities which every family person need to take. But this responsibility unfortunately
becomes a burden. Thus one starts ignoring the family105.
The primary source of stress reported is inherent to the nature of the job: spending all day on the
phone dealing with people one after another, day after day, is difficult. Doing it under constant
pressure to keep call volumes up, with no time between calls to "recover from an awkward call
or from 'customer rejection'" is even more difficult. And doing it with "very little authority or
autonomy to rectify problems" that arise is perhaps the most difficult of all. Many studies report
agents as wanting to 'just get off the phones'.
In addition, in some sectors, inbound call centers are attempting to introduce the practice of cross
selling, where agents attempt to sell additional products to the customers who call in for another
purpose. In these centers, sales targets similar to those in outbound centers are often in place.
"Cross-selling is seen by employees, not as an opportunity to engage in creative work, but as an
additional and acute source of pressure". This is especially the case when sales targets are
parachuted in on top of service targets set originally when there was no pressure to produce
sales.
Social interaction squeezed into brief moments may reduce stress-Callaghan and Thompson
describe agents using humorous (or rude) gestures towards the phone, or making faces at
colleagues to defuse stress over angry or abusive callers, and making jokes to combat the tedium
of the day.
Lank shear and Mason describe a similarly social approach to reducing tension in one of the sites
they observed, where staff often laughed and joked with one another in intervals between calls,
with management's approval. More formally, some call centers include stress management as a
component in training programs, and many have, or claim to have, team de-briefings which
permit staff to vent frustrations while discussing difficult calls or dissatisfactions with elements
of work.
Call centers are rooted in contradictory tensions and structural paradoxes, and confront a number
of trades-offs on that basis. These set a context for attitudes towards the organization and can
impose conflicting role requirements on agents. A core example is that of the pressure for
quantity versus the aspiration for quality, the guiding logic of which is the conundrum of trying
to get closer to the customer while reutilizing, neutralizing, reducing costs and prescribing
standards.
The dichotomy is not completely straightforward, it is important to note. Part of providing
quality service from a management perspective is making sure customers do not wait too long
for their calls to be answered, even though the push to keep queue waiting times short is typically
categorized as part of the pressure towards quantity. As Bain points out, "efforts to attain what is
perceived to be the desired balance between the quantity and the quality of calls presents a
perennial challenge".
The practice of ongoing work practice modification and target revision as management swings
from one side to another of the quality/quantity debate is a major source of stress for call center
agents. As Houlihan notes: "The practice of putting a 'drive' on particular targets for
improvement (for example, the collection of renewal dates, the up-selling or cross-selling of
products, the quality of data input, or the intensity of sales push) and continual reprioritization
means that the 'goalposts' are constantly shifting". Virtually all of the call center authors who
write about work conditions mention the difficulty of dealing with these competing goals.
Health Concerns in BPO Call Centre Employees
One of the issues to be considered in BPOs are the various health problems faced by the
employees due to stress and work pressure. Employees are experiencing health problems, and
ultimately quitting the jobs. This is due to the working conditions and also due to the job stress.
Understanding stress is a major concern in this industry, whose consequences can pose a threat
and effect the health of the employees and ultimately, the growth of the industry in the long run.
The employees especially the youngsters start job hopping, never being satisfied with their status
and job profiles in any BPO. They remain always irritated and strained. They suddenly start to
feel insecure, lonely, depressed, have sense of withdrawal from the family and social circle,
decreased self esteem, confidence, fear, phobia, mania and peculiar unwanted thoughts. Fears of
reprisal also make the employees panicky. Actually the emotional exhaustion has a roll on the
physical and mental health of the electronically monitored workers106.
Youngsters start suffering from acute depression as they understand that they have limited scope
to make a career in a BPO and this increases their frustration level to a greater extent. People
also suffer from eye-related problem and many have problem in hearing. The young generation
starts earning in thousands and lakhs and starts imbibing bad habits like consuming alcohol,
smoke, drugs etc. they start misusing food, misuse telephones, and other resources and behaves
indecently in public. They have a “don’t care” attitude to everything107.
Employees registered numerous complaints regarding the effect on their eye due to working
during nights. They generally complain about light sensitive soreness and blurred vision. This is
observed more in the case of senior professionals, team leaders and floor managers, since they
have to constantly monitor the status of the work. These senior members have to come early and
go back late as they are more accountable. There are many people who also complained about
having frequent headaches. This is because these people relentlessly work on the systems during
nights which results in “Computer Vision Syndrome”, a disease familiar with people who
generally work for long hours and work during nights.
Edward Moses, HR Consultant, E-Funds, Opines, ‘Working long hours by having lots of coffee,
permanent night shifts, constantly sitting in a chair would definitely affect both physically and
mentally. In fact, our employees suffered similar setback, but we were able to quickly resolve it
by appointing doctors and a few counselors. These are problems which employees incur
normally. But we are confident that things would improve as employees get used to this.
However, we are also planning to spend Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 30,000 for employees’ personality
development programs and this should definitely benefit them a great deal”.
There are also cases where many employees developed vocal problems. This happens more often
because they have to always interact taking the phone calls. The problem which was once
associated with teachers as ‘teachers’ syndrome’ (as they speak a lot) is now affecting the BPO
employees. This can also result in irritating cough, severe throat pain and also breathing
difficulties. Protests have also been raised against lethargy, which arises from repetition of work
and lack of excitement at the workplace. This could pave the way for high employee turnover, as
they might leave the organization when the problem becomes chronic.
Koumar Sahil, HR Manager, Convergys, said, “Our employees are incurring a few health
problems. Some of them are even complaining about digestive disorders for having coffee
several times, and back spasms as a result of constantly sitting in chairs. We have been looking
into it seriously as many people are leaving the organization, because of these reasons.
Another type of health problem that is usually seen in people working in BPOs is “Burnout
Stress Syndrome” (BOSS). The symptoms of this syndrome are lapse in concentration, acute
exhaustiveness, restlessness, lack of interest and a sudden biological change in the body. These
cases require a lot of medical attention. There is another concern regarding the clarity of the
voice. Sometimes, employees experience the difficulties in the telephone instrument, which leads
to noise, damaging the ear, which could also result in permanent deafness.
Complaints were also registered for musculoskeletal disorders, which result in body pain as a
result of hectic schedule. Employees and senior staff in a way opine that companies along with
their employees, perhaps need to ask a question whether they also outsource body pains along
with the work, Sunanda Murthy, a renowned psychotherapist, says that she frequently interacts
with call center employees on different matters, be it personal or official, and she is getting a
good response from the employees. Apart from psyche-related problems, certain physiological
problems like appetite are also commonly seen in these employees. Having junk food during odd
hours at the cafeteria, several cups of coffee to keep them awake, and lack of timely meals also
lead to ulcers and a few gastric troubles which might lead to absenteeism.
"The question of how call center employees deal with stress is an important one, particularly in
view of evidence that a build-up of stress leads to illness, absenteeism and turnover," writes
Houlihan. Most often, authors provide a brief list of known health issues. For example,
Richardson, Belt and Marshall write that "Health concerns have been expressed, including
tension, sleeplessness, headaches, eye-strain, repetitive strain injury (RSI), voice loss, hearing
problems and burn-out", but they do not develop the point. More detailed descriptions of the
causes and effects of these ailments can be found in industry and trades union reports. For
example, the Trades Union Council (TUC) in its brochure targeted at call center workers, cites
the main illnesses to which call center staff are prone: "back strain and RSI, stress, eyestrain, and
voice and hearing loss".
Jean Bureau108 (1983) regarded adaptability to this type of change as “the key to survival”.
Adaptation was also called a means of living healthy existence (Greenwood, 1990). The focus
on wellness, renewal and health promotion in the workplace was reflected in employee
assistance programs that offered policies, education and training directed toward enrichment in
work organizations claimed that there are various means of providing work environments with
innovative ways of enhancing organization effectiveness.
In countries like the UK and Australia, where the call center industry is a lot older, there is a
great deal of understanding on what this unique workplace entails and what needs to be done
about it. In the UK, the government intervened a while ago with a local authority circular called
"Advice Regarding Call Center Working Practices". The circular not only lists in detail the stress
factors and ailments peculiar to this industry, but also has various benchmarks and measures on
how to deal with them.
In Australia, some call center companies have signed onto a call center charter that includes,
among other things, a minimum standards code for the workplace.
Also in the UK, regulators have been proactive in their examination of the industry, with the
Health and Safety Executive issuing a bulletin on call center regulations, health risks and best
practices (December 2001). They looked specifically at health issues including stress, noise
levels, musculoskeletal disorders (such as back problems) and voice loss, and also at display
screen issues, working environments, requirements for work stations, daily work routines,
training, organizational working practices and shifts.
As of now, no understanding of the problem exists in India. Some call center and BPO
companies in the country have got together under the aegis of Nasscom to address common areas
of concern—but so far these have largely centered on deciding how not to poach on each other's
employees and what to do with the Shops and Establishments Act. Employee stress—and its
impact on the bottomline through high attrition rates - is not even on the horizon of concerns.
At this year's Nasscom ITES summit, Martin Conboy, CEO of Callcentres.net that does
extensive research on call centers in the APAC region, had complained: "The operators that I
spoke to in India to have little or no understanding of the cost of agent attrition due to stress. This
is a common occurrence in developing call center markets where there is an abundance of
willing and cheap labor."
The Indian media and business elite never tire of enthusing over India's growing role as an IT
and business-processing outsourcer to the world. Yet a recent study of working conditions in
Indian outsourced call centers has pointed to the high levels of labour exploitation in the
industry—including constant surveillance, long hours, health problems and burnouts.
Typical were comments by Pramod Bhasin, the CEO of the outsourcing provider Genpact. He
told the Financial Express109: "The world is praising the Indian IT Industry... But we are bent on
killing the golden goose. I am aghast at the findings of the report."
Reflecting that sensitivity, the author of the research study, Babu P. Remesh, refused to provide
the World Socialist Web Site with a copy of the study. Remesh told the WSWS that the V.V.
Giri National Labour Institute, which is funded by the Indian government's Department of
Labour, was not distributing the document.
Nevertheless, one can get a flavour of the study, which was entitled "Employment and
Employment Relations in IT Enabled Services and Teleworking", from a conference paper by
Remesh that is available online and from the reports of the study in the press.
Call centre employees are under constant stress because of their workload, competitive pressures
and surveillance. Workers are monitored for the number of calls, the average call time and time
between calls. Closed circuit cameras and electronic timers monitor the time staff are away from
their desk, including in the bathroom.
Team leaders randomly listen into calls to assess the emotions conveyed, accent, alertness,
grammar and punctuation. Mistakes lead to immediate warnings that are recorded on "warning
cards". A number of warnings will lead to counseling or dismissal.
The most stressful aspect of the job is on the caller operator's emotions. Workers are required to
remain constantly pleasant and attentive, particularly when speaking to agitated and irate callers.
According to Remesh, a considerable proportion of the Indian call centre workforce has a
syndrome popularly referred to as "Burn Out and Stress Syndrome".
A number of states in India have exempted outsourcing companies from the Industrial Disputes
Act, which provides, amongst other things, for unfair dismissal rights. West Bengal, headed by a
Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left Front government, has stretched the work week (the
number of hours after which companies are legally required to pay overtime) from 40 to 48
hours, and has changed labour laws to allow young women working at BPOs to do night shifts.
The typical employee in a call centre is university educated, aged between 18 and 30 and single.
The industry attracts a large number of women, who take the jobs mainly because of the
relatively good pay. Staff are paid between 8,000 and 15,000 rupees ($US175 and $330) a
month. Although the rate is much lower than those of call centre workers in western countries, it
is higher than many executive level government or engineering jobs in India.
Staff in the industry reported health problems such as nervousness, chronic fatigue, body ache,
insomnia, nausea, anxiety, restlessness, irritability and depression due to odd working hours and
stress. Sick days are difficult to obtain. The report found that staff were required to obtain the
consent of team leaders for a sick day four to six hours before a shift or else it is marked as
"unscheduled", which is possible grounds for dismissal.
Another study of 100 women entitled "Women in Call Centres" published in the Economic and
Political Weekly110 found serious health problems associated with the call centre industry,
particularly for those working a night shift. At least 40 percent of staff reported indigestion,
backaches, eyestrain and indigestion.
The report also found that call centre work seriously impinged social life. It said "90 per cent of
the respondents did not balance work and family life. The respondents had no social life or
interaction with people in the family."
2.12 COPING STRATEGIES FOR STRESS
Much of the discussion so far, (for example, discussions of job design, goal setting,
organizational behavior modification, group dynamics, communication skills, political strategies,
leadership styles, organization process and design, decision-making skills, control techniques,
management of change, and organization development techniques) suggest ways to manage and
cope more effectively with stress. There are even overall theories being developed on coping
with stress (Jeffrey R. Edwards111, 1992, Susan Oakland and Alistair Ostell112, 1996), and
guidelines for converting stress into success (Sean M. Lyden113, 2000). The accompanying
Application Example: Taking Time to Manage Time suggests some simple techniques, such as
time management, that can be used to cope with stress, and there are many lists of steps to take
in order to avoid stress and burnout found in practitioner literature (Kathleen McLaughlin114,
2001).
Individual Coping Strategies
Today, self-help remedies, do-it-yourself approaches, weight-loss clinics and diets, health
foods, and physical exercise are being given much attention in the mass media. People are
actually taking responsibility, or know they should be taking responsibility, for their own
wellness. Individual coping strategies for dealing with stress make sense. In other words most
people don't have to be convinced of the value of taking charge and actually making a change in
their lives.
Some specific techniques that individuals can use to eliminate or more effectively manage
inevitable, prolonged stress are the Following:
Exercise - '' Today, it is not whether you win or lose, but whether you get some good exercise
that counts. People of all ages are walking, jogging, swimming, riding bicycles, or playing
softball, tennis, or racquetball in order to get some exercise to combat stress. Although this
seems to make a great deal of sense and many laypeople and physicians swear by it, there still
is no conclusive evidence that exercise will directly reduce the chances of heart disease or
stroke. But there seems little doubt that it can help people better cope with stress, even if only
as a result of the side effect, such as relaxation, enhanced self-esteem, simply gelling one's
mind off work for a while, and thus perform better in their daily tasks in the workplace
(Christopher P. Neck and Kenneth H. Cooper115, 2000).
Relaxation - Whether a person simply takes it easy once in a while or uses specific relaxation
techniques such as biofeedback or meditation, the intent is to eliminate the immediately
stressful situation or manage a prolonged stressful situation more effectively. Taking it easy
may mean curling up with a good book in front of a fireplace or watching something "light"
(not a violent program or a sports program) on television. There is even some recent research
evidence that those who do expressive writing about stressful events in their lives experience
health benefits (J. M. Smyth, A.A. Stone, A. Hurewitz and K. Kaell116, 1999), Meditation
involves muscle and mental relaxation; the person slowly repeats a peaceful phrase or word or
concentrates on a mental picture in a quiet location. There is some research evidence that such
meditation can have a deniable physical (Robert K. Wallace and Herbert Benson117, 1972) and
mental (Terri Schultz118, 1972) impact on people. Whether it can have a practical impact on job
stress is yet to be determined. However, a number of firms are using it. For example, a
stockbroker who regularly uses meditation stated: "It's widely known that this industry has a lot
of stress. So where a lot of people drink alcohol, we meditate. It's not that we don't feel
stress. It just doesn't hit us as much (Omaha World-Herald199, 1986).
Behavioral Self-control - A specific attention to behavior management, by deliberately
managing, the antecedents and the consequences of their own behavior, people can achieve selfcontrol. For example, sales managers who have a steady stream of customer complaints all day
could change the antecedent by having an assistant screen all complaints and allow only
exception to reach them. They could also manage the consequences by rewarding themselves
with an extra break, when they remain calm and collected after interacting with a particularly
angry customer. Besides managing their own behavior to reduce stress, people can also become
more aware of their limits and of "red flags" that signal trouble ahead. They can avoid people
or situations that they know will put them under stress, In other words, this strategy involves
individuals' controlling the situation instead of letting the situation control them.
Cognitive Therapy - Besides behavioral self-control techniques, a number of clinical
psychologists have entered the stress field with cognitive therapy techniques. Techniques such
as Ellis's rational emotive model and cognitive behavior modification have been used as an
individual strategy for reducing job stress.
Networking- One clear finding that has come out of social psychology research over the
years is that people need and will benefit from social support (Vivien K.G. Lim120, 1996,
Benedict Carey121, 1997), Applied as a strategy to reduce job stress, this would entail forming
close associations with trusted empathetic coworkers and colleagues who are good listeners and
confidence builders. These friends are there when needed and provide support to get the person
through stressful situations. Today, such alliances, especially if deliberately sought and
developed, are called networks. Although the relationship between support and stress reduction
appears complicated (Anson Seers, Gail W. McGee, Timothy T. Serey and George B. Graen122,
1983), there is some research evidence that a networking strategy may be able to help people
cope better with job stress (A. A. McLean123, 1980) and be more effective (John Kotter, 1982)
and successful managers (Fred Luthans, Stuart A. Rosenkrantz and Harry W. Hennessey124,
1985).
Organizational Coping Strategies
Organizational coping strategies are designed by management to eliminate or control
organizational-level stressors in order to prevent or reduce job stress for individual employees.
The organizational stressors are categorized in terms of overall policies and strategies,
structure and design processes/functions, and working conditions. It logically Inflows that
each of these areas would be the focus of attention in develop fug organizational coping
strategies. In other words, each of the specific stressors would be worked on in order to
eliminate or reduce job stress. For example, in the policy area, attention would be given to
making performance reviews, and pay plans as equitable and as fair as possible. In the
structural area, steps would be taken to back away from high degrees of formulization and
specialization. The same would be done in the areas of physical conditions.
Today, top firms such as Hewlett-Packard realize they are putting tremendous pressure on
employees in competitive battles and are giving considerable effort to de-stress the
organization (Joanne Cole125, 1999).
HP requires employees to have personal/leisure goals (e.g., weight loss, exercise, take time off
for the family) as well as job goals. If employees fall short of their personal/leisure goals,
supervisors are held responsible. When milestone is reached e.g. leaving at 2:00 P. M. to take
a daughter in-line skating, coworkers are encouraged to applaud with the same gusto as
landing a big sales order. The Association for Fitness in Business estimates that 12,000
companies today offer stress-coping programs ranging from counseling services, lunchtime
stress-management seminars, and wellness publications to elaborate company-run fitness
centers where employees can swear out the tension (Laurie Hays126, 1987, Helene Cooper127,
1993, M. Litvan, Laura128, 1995).
There is evidence that these stress management programs are increasing and they are being
evaluated more rigorously. For example, Pixar (the movie maker of Toy Story and A Bug's
Life) created Pixar University (PU), an in-house operation with free classes for employees
in data programming, tai chi, gesture drawing, improvisations acting, and juggling (Todd
Balf129, 2000).
In general, most firms today are trying to reduce stressed through work-family initiatives.
These involve both reorganization initiatives (e.g., restructuring of jobs and job duties,
telecommuting, part-time work and job sharing, and flexible scheduling) and work and life
benefit politics and programs (e.g., on-site child care and/or elder care, paid family and
medical leave, release time for personal/family events, and limits on frequency and distance of
business travel) (Stephenie Overman130, 1999).
Employee assistance programs (EAPs) have also become a very valuable organizational
response to help employees cope with stress. EAPs are currently implemented in over half of
U.S. organizations with 50 or more employees and have been found to consistently reduce
absenteeism, health care costs, and disciplinary action (Gary L. Wirt, 1998). EAPs typically
provide employees with services such as confidential counseling and/or follow-up on issues of
personal or work-related concerns. They also provide family workshops and consultations
(related to marriage, single parenting, working parents), stress management workshops,
relaxation seminars, and other kinds of support. Often, the mere presence of mind, that EAPs
provide-knowing that there is support available-can help ease some of the stress that
employees face in today's environment (EAP, HR Focus131, 1999).
Besides work-family programs and EAPs, because of the stress resulting from downsizing in
recent years, recent concern is also being given to both those who are let go and those who
survive. For example, theoretical models (Janina C. Latack, Angelo J. Kinichki and Gregory E.
Prussia132, 1995) are being created and basic research (Nathan Bennett, Christopher L. Martin,
Robert J. Bies and Joel Brockner133, 1995) is being done on coping with job loss. One stream of
research has examined the role that procedural justice (perceptions of fairness, plays on those
affected by downsizing. In three studies (of those already laid off, survivors of a firm that had
downsized, and those scheduled, to be laid off), it was found that procedural justice had a
positive impact (Joel Brockner, Mary Konovsky, Rochelle Cooper-Schneider, Robert Folger,
Christopher Martin and Robert Bies134, 1994).A summary of these studies noted;
All these studies showed that the negative effects of layoffs can be blunted by the way
company managers deal with the downsizing, Employees were more hostile when they
thought procedures leading to the layoffs were not handled fairly, with sufficient notice and
fair treatment of employees during downsizing. When procedures, were seen as fair,
employees still supported and trusted their firms even after the layoffs had occurred (Roland
E. Kidwell135, 1995).
Organizations experiencing downsizing need to be sure that those let go are as positive: as
possible so that there are not negative repercussions. However, of even more concern are
those suffering from what was described earlier as "survivor syndrome," As one survivor from
a downsized firm describes this modern-day malady: "Just when we begin to think our jobs are
safe, they change the rules on us. We don't know who is in charge and whom we can trust or
what we're supposed to be doing. The more unsettling it gets around, here, the less productive
we are." The key issue is not only whether these survivors are stressed-out but also whether
stress is affecting their performance.
Some guidelines to help downsized organizations combat the problems of survivor
syndrome include the following:
Be proactive: Before Compaq Computer in Houston laid off 2000 employees, the corporate
human resources department developed a comprehensive communication campaign and trained
all managers not only in how to outplace people but also in how to help survivors.
Acknowledge survivors' emotions: The State of Oregon, which had cut back 1,000 employees,
held workshops for survivors that allowed them to vent their frustrations and develop skills
that would allow them to think of change as an opportunity for growth.
Communicate after the downsizing: After laying off 20 percent of its work force, Patagonia
Inc., an outdoor apparel manufacturer in California, implemented a monthly (then twice-
monthly) open forum during which employees can meet with the CEO during work hours to
have their questions answered and hear about the firm's progress. In the jobholders’ meetings
at Pitney Bowes Inc., management gives an employee $50 for the toughest question asked.
Clarify new roles: Not only is there a need for communication of the big picture; it also is
important to explain how each employee's job has changed, if at all, and relate how each
individual contributes to the new big picture in the downsized
Stress Management Interventions and Techniques
Work related stress is on the rise and identifying the causes of this stress and discovering
strategies for interventions are a challenge (Terry, 1997; Dinham & Scott, 1996; Travers &
Cooper, 1996; Barnette, 1990).
Occupational stress is a big threat to the quality of work force in organizations (DYCK,
2001). The good performers in organizations may tend to quit when they start experiencing
symptoms of occupational stress. This turnover affects the organization adversely in
increasing the recruitment and selection costs of the organization (Ongori136, 2007). In
addition, occupational stress affects the physical and psychological being of an individual. This
may lead to heart diseases, hypertension, peptic ulcers, sickness, alcoholism, depression,
suicidal tendencies, and anxiety as well as other mental disorders (Christo and Pienaar137, 2006).
Therefore, there is need for management to develop appropriate interventions to manage
stress in organizations.
There are many interventions used in managing stress in organizations but the interventions,
which are commonly used, include the primary; secondary and tertiary.
Primary interventions emphasize on identifying the possible causes of stress and their subsequent
risks to employees. This is done by taking pre-emptive action to reduce stress hazard or limiting
the employee's exposure to stress. Basically primary interventions include redesigning jobs to
modify work place stressors, increasing workers decision-making authority (Jackson and
Schuler138, 1983) or providing co-worker support groups (Defrank and Cooper139, 1987;
Kolbell140, 1995).
Secondary interventions are designed to provide training to the employee. These interventions
include seminar programs to help participants recognize and deal with stress and identify
organization stressors. They also serve a dual purpose of identifying the current stress factors and
help 'inoculate' members from future stress. Secondary interventions are aimed at reducing the
severity of stress, treating symptoms before they lead to serious health problems in an individual
and the organization at large (Murphy and Sauter141, 2003).
Tertiary interventions are interventions, which take care of individuals who are already suffering
from the effects of stress. These interventions include counseling and employee assistance
programs, consulting a stress manager or mental health professionals to assist employees to
cope with stress (Arthur142, 2000).
Occupational stress often shows high dissatisfaction among the employees, job mobility,
burnout, poor work performance and less effective interpersonal relations at work (Manshor,
Rodrjgue, and Chong143, 2003). Johnson144 (2001) similarly argued that interventions like
identifying or determining the signs of stress, identifying the possible causes for the signs and
developing possible proposed solutions for each signs are required. These measures allow
individuals to build coping skills and develop strategies to develop individualized stress
management plans that include eliminating the sources of stress. Moreover, increasing
individual coping skills is another intervention which will be used by the management to
minimize stress.
Occupational stress if not managed properly may lead to increase in absentee rates, internal
conflicts and low employee morale (Christo and Pienaar, 2006). Occupational stress is ubiquitous
and increasingly costly (Katherine, George, Mary and Linda145, 2008). Whereas, the study by
Randolfi146 (1997) for instance revealed that close to 70% of workers reported that stress caused
health problems that lead to decreased productivity. An estimated 90% of medical patients have
stress symptoms. For instance, in the US, industries spend US $69 billion annually on stressrelated costs (Manning and Jackson147, 1996).
Stress is widely accepted to have two opposite effects on individuals — positive and negative.
Acceptable level of stress helps to improve the individual's performance whilst excessive amounts
of stress can lead to decreased performance (Stevenson and Harper148, 2006). Occupational stress
has increased risks of work-related diseases and accidents in both developed and developing
countries that have experienced rapid industrialization (Manshor et al.149, 2003). SapountziKrepia150 (2003) states that stress is recognized as a major health hazard of the contemporary
century and undertakes diverse conditions such as psychosomatic diseases, behavioral changes
and is a major contributor to disturbances in ones emotional, social and family life.
Organizational environment has its own paradoxes calling for the need to maintain balance and
equilibrium between the extremes of rigidity and flexibility. Stress management strategies
revolve around three approaches. The first approach is to treat the symptoms of stress. This
involves identifying those suffering from severe stress, and providing health-care and
psychological counseling to alleviate them. The second approach is to take steps to build stress
management skills in the individuals which will make them less susceptible to stress. This can be
done through structured programs that reach employees time management, exercise, relaxation
techniques, and also educate them on improving their dietary habits. The third approach is to
remove the causes of stressors like excessive noise, pollution etc. modifying the production
schedules and workloads, setting realistic targets, having effective management communication
and supportive work and family policies.
Value clarification is an important step in stress reduction, where one learns to establish
priorities. An individual needs to prioritize his time between his work and family in accordance
with his value perception. This is linked to effective time management. Social support systems
like family and friends and peer support systems at the workplace can provide a nurturing
environment that builds self-esteem and makes one less vulnerable to stress.
There are certain sources of stress in organizations that cannot be changed like pressure from
competition, recessionary effects, unforeseen crisis etc. However, an effective stress
management policy, stress reduction workshops, a good social climate in the organization, caring
leadership, and a health maintenance program can go a long way in providing a healthy
workplace.
2.13 STRESS AND WORK LIFE:
The term Work life balance was coined in USA in 1986. Work life balance is now taken to be
very important and legislation is being enacted in many countries for proper functioning of the
corporations. Work life and personal life are actually very much interrelated. Most of the BPO
employees nowadays complain of not being able to balance their personal life with their
professional lives. Sometimes they need to choose between the two as they are unable to make
equilibrium.
There are problems like lack of concentration and absenteeism at work. There are some
responsibilities which every family person need to take. But this responsibility unfortunately
becomes a burden. Thus one starts ignoring the family151.Work means something more to man
than economic compensation. It has a major influence on man's self-concept or self-identity
(Miller 1969). It is the primary source of meaning and self-worth in life, gives a purpose in life
and a feeling of being unified into the larger society (Morse & Weiss, 1955).
The link between work and mental health or the fully functioning capacity of the person is thus
quite close. Since work affects human need fulfillment and self-worth, happenings at work can
result in negative mental health, and subsequent physical ill health among people. Negative
mental health may be manifested at work in the form of poor job attitudes, withdrawal, low job
satisfaction, as well as negative emotions, and judgment and performance capacity.
Another justification for studying work stress arises out of an adjective examination of properties
of the work environment. High industrialization and bureaucracies, sophisticated technology, and
subsequent micro specialization are a reality in developed countries and in industrialized,
urbanized areas in developing countries. Rising urbanization and rapid social change have also
contributed to a breakdown in norms. Thus, broader organizational processes like the
communication process, promotion policies, and the reward systems have an impact on the
person depending upon his psychological needs and expectations.
The micro work environment influences the person even more since he interacts with it every
day. Aspects of the micro work environment include the nature of his job, the people he has to
interact with, the duties and responsibilities he is expected to fulfill. All these are potential
sources of stress because there is some measure of unpredictability and uncontrollability
involved (Glass and Singer 1972, Averill 1973). Situations and events however cannot be
uniformly classified as stressors for all individuals. The individual element has a considerable
role to play here. The same environment can thus produce different degrees of stress intensity in
different people, depending upon the perceiver's personality profile, their values, beliefs and
needs.
Since stress is an inevitable fact of life that we can't always prevent, our efforts need to be
focused on coping with stress more effectively. Restoration of body to an "un-stressed" state is
very important since almost every system in the body can be damaged by stress. Although our
bodies are adaptive and can recover from periodic stressors, chronic stress has serious
consequences.
Everyone responds differently to stress. It depends, to some degree, on one’s conditioning and on
the amount of adaptive energy of the individual. It’s why some people seem to thrive through
stressful situations while others quickly reach exhaustion. One should have the strong will power
and inclination to fight the situation that arises. In this 21st century, problems do not come
knocking on the door. A person, who is not prepared to fight against problems, leads to stress.
Stress is the essence of life. We can’t ignore it and try to learn thriving without it. Stress explores
our inherent potentialities and mobilizes our true spirit of life. When stress strikes, we have to
respond accordingly. Thriving is finding new horizons in life developing emotionally, physically
and mentally.
We cannot go through life without experiencing pressure and attempting to avoid stress is not
realistic. Stress needs to be actively managed. Pressure is a neutral force. It can produce either
good or bad outcomes, depending on the individual’s adaptability and coping skills. Stress can be
the stimuli we need to enjoy our lives and learn to be innovative, experience excitement and
achieve magnificent goals of our life.
Stress can be the devastating under mismanaged conditions. It can be the force that causes
depression and anxiety, makes us fail to complete tasks, miss deadlines, breakup relations and
become seriously ill. In other words, pressure can either help to raise performance or cause
stress. The same pressure can produce either of these responses and cause wear and tear in life.
The way we react to pressure combined with our adaptability, governs the outcome of the stress
process. Avoiding stress is not the solution. We need to manage stress effectively.
REFERENCES
Chapter II
1. Keil, R.M.K. (2004) Coping and stress: a conceptual analysis Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45(6),
659–665
2. Viner, R. (1999) Putting Stress in Life: Hans Selye and the Making of Stress Theory Social Studies of
Science, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1999), pp. 391-410
3. Selye, H(1936), “Thymus and Adrenals in the Response of the Organism to Inturies and
Intoxifications”, British Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol.17,pp.234-48.
4. Selye H., The Stress of Life, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956
5. Lazarus R., "Psychological Stress and Coping Process", NY, McGraw Hill, 1966.
6. Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison and Pinneau (1975).
7. Gold, 1985, p.212
8. Cooper C.L., and Marshall J., Understanding Executive Stress, London: Macmillan Press 1978.
9. Matteson M. T. and Ivancevieh I.M., Controlling Work Stress Effective Human Resource and
Management Strategies, San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1987.
10. Pestonjee D.M., and Singh U.B., " EDP Managers : An Organizational Behavior Study", Indian
Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, 1983.
11. Palsane, Bhavsae, Goswami and Evans (1986)
12. Pestonjee D.M., and Singh G.P., " Organizational Behavior Issues for Managers and System
Analysts". Working Paper No. 660, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, 1987.
13.
Tsigos, C. & Chrousos, G.P. (2002). Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, neuroendocrine
factors, and stress. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 865-871.
14.
Powell, Brasel, & Blizzard, 1967 pp. 1-28,
15.
Health and Safety Executive (2001) Tacking work related stress: a manager’s guide to improving
and maintaining employee health and well-being. Sudbury: HSE Books.
16.
Cooper, C L, Cooper, R D and Eaker, L H (1988) Living with stress. Harmonsworth: Penguin.
17.
McIntyre, 1984, p.23
18.
Friesen, 1998 pp. 161-162
19.
Daniel C. Ganster and John Schaubroeck, “Work, Stress and Employee Health,” Journal of
Management, Vol. 17, 1991, pp. 235-271
20.
Gilbert Sand and Anthony D. Miyazaki, “The Impact of Social Suport on Sales-person Burnout
and Burnout Components,” Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2000, pp. 13-26.
21.
Lin Grensing-Popbal, “Commuting HR Eases the Pain,” HR Magazine, March 1999, p. 84.
22.
Maslach 1982 p. 16,18
23.
Kalker 1984, p. 17
24.
Joanne Cole, “De-Stressing the Workplace,” HR Focus, October 1999, pp. 1, 10-11.
25.
Todd Balf, “Are You Burned Out?” Work Smarter, Not Harder, Fast Company’s Roadmap to
Success, 2000, p. 25.
26.
Holmes T., and Rahe R., "The Social Readjustment Rating Scale", Journal of Psychometric
Research, 4,189-194, 1967.
27.
Lazarus R., "Psychological Stress and Coping Process", NY, McGraw Hill, 1966.
28.
Lazarus R., and Launier R., "Stress Related Transactions Between Person and Environment, in
L. Pervin and M.Lewis (Eds.), Perspective in International Psychology. NY, Plenum, 1978.
29.
In A. Baum, J.E. Singer and S. Taylor (Eds.). Handbook of Psychology and Health. Hilsdale N.J.
Eflbaump, in Press, 1981.
30.
Topper, E. F. (2007), Stress in the Library, Journal of New Library, 108(11/12): 561-564.
31.
Buchanan, D. and Huczynsko. A. (2004), Organizational Behavior: An Introductory Text (5th
ed.), Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow.
32.
Tehrani, N. (2002), Managing Organisational Stress, CIPD. Retreived on February 14, 2008,
from www.cipd.co.uk
33.
Bland, J.M. (1999), A New Approach to Management of Stress, Journal of Industrial and
Commercial Training, 31(2): 44-48
34.
Fairbrother, K. and Warn, J. (2003), Workplace Dimensions, Stress and Job Satisfaction, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 18(1):8-21.
35.
Kirkcaldy B. D., Trimpoo R. M. and Williams S. (2002), Occupational Stress and Healthy
Outcomes Among British and Germen Managers, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(6): 491505.
36.
Manshor, A. T., Fontaine, R.; Choy, Chong Siong 2003. “Occupational stress among managers:
a Malaysian survey”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No.6, pp. 622-628
37.
Otto, K. and Schmidt, S. (2007), Dealing with Stress in the Work Place, Journal of European
Psychologists, 12(4): 272-282.
38.
Harvey, D. and Brown, D. R. (2006), An Experimental Approach to Organization Development
(7th ed.), pp. 254-257, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
39.
Greenberg, J. and Baron, R.A. (2000). Behavior in Organizations(7th ed.), Prentice-Hall Inc., NJ.
40.
Ivancevich, J. M., Matterson, M. T., Freedman, S. M. and Philips, J.S. (1990), Worksite Stress
Management Interventions, Journal of American Psychologists, 45(1): 252-261
41.
Selye, H(1936), “Thymus and Adrenals in the Response of the Organism to Inturies and
Intoxifications”, British Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol.17,pp.234-248.
42.
Cohen, J. and Single, L. E. (2001), An Examination of the Perceived Impact of Flexible Work
Arrangement on Professional Opportunities in Public Accounting Journal of Business Ethics,
32(4):317-9
43.
Hugh B. Price, “Age of Anxiety,” Leader to Leader, Winter, 1997, pp. 15-17.
44.
William Atkinson, “Employee Fatigue,” Management Review, October 1999, pp. 56-60.
45.
Dawn S. Carlson and Pamela L. Perrewe, “The Role of Social Support in the Stressor-Strain
Relationship: An Examination of Work Family Conflict,” Journal of Management, Vol. 25, No. 4,
1999, pp. 513-540.
46.
Defrank and Ivancevich, op. cit., pp. 55-56
47.
Juan I. Sanchez, Paul E. Spector and Cary L. Cooper, “Adapting to a Boundaryless World: A
Developmental Expatriate Model,” Academy of Management Executive , Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000, pp.
96-106.
48.
Holmes T., and Rahe R., "The Social Readjustment Rating Scale", Journal of Psychometric
Research, 4,189-194, 1967.
49.
Wall Street Journal, December 23, 1986, p, 1
50.
Defrank and Ivancevich, op. cit., p. 58.
51.
Lisa Hope Pelled, Kathleen M. Eisenhardt and Katherine R. Xin, “Exploring the Black Box: An
Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance,” Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 44, 1999,
52.
Nelson and Burke, op. cit. and Wayne A. Hochwarter, Pamela L. Perrewe and Mark C. Dawkins,
“Gender Differences in Perceptions of Stress-Related Variables,” Journal of Managerial Issues,
Spring 1995, pp. 62-74
53.
Joseph J. Martocchio and Anne M. O’Leary, “Sex Differences in Occupational Stress: A MetaAnalytic Review,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 3, 1989, pp. 495-501.
54.
Wayne A. Hochwarter, Pamela L. Perrewe and Mark C. Dawkins, “Gender Differences in
Perceptions of Stress-Related Variables,” Journal of Managerial Issues, Spring 1995, pp. 62-74
55.
R. Marens,”The Residential Environment,” A. Campbell, P.E. Converse and W. . Rodgers
(Eds.), The Quality of American Life, Russell Sage, New York, 1976,
56.
Gary W. Evans and Dana Johnson, “Stress and Open-Office Noise”, New York, 2000.
57.
Gail Dutton, “Cutting-Edge Stressbusters,” HR Focus, September, 1998, p.12
58.
Atkinson, op. cit.
59.
Jaclyn Fierman, “It’s 2A.M., Let’s Go to Work,” Fortune, August 21, 1995, p. 82.
60.
John Schaubroeck and Daniel C. Ganster, “Chronic Demands and Responsivity to Challenge,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, February 1993, pp. 73-85.
61.
Michael R. Manning, Conrad N. Jackson and Marcelline R. Fusilier, “Occupational Stress,
Social Support, and the Costs of Health Care,” Academy of Management Journal, June 1995, pp.
738-750
62.
Gerald R. Ferris, Dwight, D. Frink, Maria Carmen Galang, Jing Zhou, K. Michele Kacmar and
Jack L. Howard, “Perceptions of Organizational Politics: Prediction, Stress-Related Implications,
and Outcomes,” Human Relations, Vol. 49
63.
Arthur P. Brief, Randall, S. Schuler and Mary Van Sell, Managing Job Stress, Little, Brown,
Boston, 1981, p, 94
64.
Meyer Friedman and Ray H. Rosenman, Type A Behavior and Your Heart, Knopf, New York,
1974.
65.
John H. Howard, David A. Cunningham and Peter A. Rechnitzer, “Helath Patterns Associated
with Type A Behavior: A Managerial Population,” Journal of Human Stress, March 1976, pp. 24-31.
66.
Arthur P. Brief, Randall, S. Schuler and Mary Van Sell, Managing Job Stress, Little, Brown,
Boston, 1981, p, 94.
67.
Edward Dolnick, “Hotheads and Heart Attacks,” Health, July/August 1995, pp. 58-64.
68.
Heart Disease, Anger Linked Research Shows,” Lincoln Journal , January 17, 1989, p. 4.
69.
Some Workers Just Stress-Prone,” The New York Times, reported in Lincoln Journal Star,
October 3, 1993, p. 3E
70.
S. D. Bluen, ,J. Barling and W. Burns, “Predicting Sales Performance, Job Satisfaction, and
Depression by Using the Achievement Striving and Impatience – Irritability Dimensions of Type A
Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology, April 1990, pp. 212-216,
71.
C. Lee L. F. Jamison and P.C. Earley, “Beliefs and Fears and Type A Behavior: Implications for
Academic Performance and Psychiatric Health Disorder Symptoms,” Journal of Organizational
Behavior, March 1996, pp. 151-177
72.
Richard M. Steers, Introduction to Organizational Behavior, 2d ed., Scott, Foresman, Glenview,
III., 1984, P. 51-89
73.
Ellen Van Velsor and Jean Brittain Leslie,” Why Executives Derail: Perspectives across Time
and Cultures”,1995.
74.
Terry A. Beehr, “The Current Debate about the Meaning of Job Stress,” Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, Fall/Winter 1986, pp 5-18.
75.
Ronald E. Riggio, Introduction to Industrial/ Organizational Psychology, Scott, Foresman/Little,
Brown, Glenview, III., 1990, p. 204.
76.
S. E. Jackson, “Participation in Decision Making as a Strategy for Reducing Job Related Strain,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, 1983, pp. 3-19.
77.
Jobs with Little Freedom Boost Heart Risk,” Lincoln Journal, April 11, 1990, p. 1
78.
Marilyn L. Fox, Deborah J. Dwyer and Daniel C. Ganster, “Effects of Stressful Job Demands
and Control on Physiological and Attitudinal Outcomes in a Hospital Setting,” Academy of
Management Journal, April 1993, pp. 289-318
79.
M. E. P. Seligman, Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death, Freeman, San
Francisco, 1975
80.
S. Mineka and R. W. Henderson, “Controllability and Predictability in Acquired Motivation,”
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 36, 1985, pp. 495-529.
81.
L. Y. Abrahamson, J. Garber and M. E. P. Seligman, "Learnered Helplessness in Humans: An
Attributional Analysis". J. Garber M.E.P.Seligman (Eds.) Human Helplessness: Theory and
Applications, Academics Press, New York, 1980;
82.
Robert S. Feldman, Understanding Psychology, 2d ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1990, p. 525.
83.
Mark J. Martinko and William L. Gardner, “Learned Helplessness: An Alternative Explanation
for Performance Deficits,” Academy of Management
84.
S.C. Kobasa, “Stressful Life Events, Personality, and Health: An Inquiry into Hardiness,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 42, 1982, pp. 168-177.
85.
Howard M. Weiss, Daniel R. Ilgen and Michael E. Sharbaugh, “Effects of Life and Job Stress on
Information Search Behaviors of Organizational Members,” Journal of Applied Psychology,
February 1982, pp. 60-62.
86.
Michael J. Burke, Arthur P. Brief and Jennifer M. George, “The Role of Negative Affectivity in
Understanding Relations between Self-reports of Stressors and Strains: A Comment on the Applied
Psychology Literature,” Journal of Applied Psychology,
87.
John Schaubroeck, Daniel C. Ganster and Work-Related Stress,” Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 77. No. 3, 1992, pp. 322-335;
88.
Paul E. Spector, Peter Y. Chen and Brian J. O’Connell,“A Longitudinal Study of Relations
Between Job Stressors and Job Strains While Controlling for Prior Negative Affectivity and Strains,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 2, 2000, pp. 211-218.
89.
Jenny Firth-Cozens, “Why Me? A Case Study of the Process of Perceived Occupational Stress,”
Human Relations, Vol. 45, No. 2, 1992, pp. 131-142.
90.
Robert A. Baron, Behavior in Organizations, 2d ed., Allyn & Bacon, Boston, 1986, p. 223.
91.
Defrank and Ivancevich, op. cit., p. 58.
92.
Vernon Silver, “Heart Attacks Are a Way of Life for Wall Street,” Lincoln Journal Star, January
4, 1998, p. 2E
93.
K. Bammer and B. H. Newberry (Eds.), Stress and Cancer, Hogrefe, Toronto, 1982.
94.
John M. Ivancevich and Michael T. Matteson, Stress and Work, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, III
., 1980, p. 92.
95.
J. E .McGrath, “Stress and Behavior in Organizations,” in M .D Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1976.
96.
Beehr and Newman, op. cit.: A. A. McLean, Work Stress, Addison-Wesley, Reading Mass.,
1980
97.
Cary L. Cooper and Judi Marshall, “Occupational Sources of Stress.” Journal of Occupational
Psychology, March 1976, pp. 11-28.
98.
Job Stress Said a ‘Substantial Health Problem,’” Lincoln Journal, October 6, 1986, p. 15.
99.
Robert L. Brady, “Stress-Related Calims: What Can You Do about Them?” HR Focus,
December 1995, pp. 19-20
100. David S. Allen, “Less Stress, Less Litigation,” Personnel, January 1990, p. 33.
101. Employees’ Behavioral Health Neglected,” Management Review, November 1999, p. 10
102. John M. Ivancevich and Michael T. Matteson, Organizational Behavior and Management, 3d ed.,
Irwin, Burr Ridge, III., 1993, p. 244.
103. Firm Hopes Breath Meter Curbs Workers’ Drinking,” Lincoln Journal, June 11, 1983, p. 13.
104. A.J. Kinicki, F. M. McKee and K. J. Wade, “Annual Review, 1991-1995; Occupational Health,”
Journal of Vocational Behavior, October 1996, pp. 190-220,
105. http://www.naukrihub.com, http://www.indiamba.com
106. http://www.indiamba.com
107. http://www.bpoindia.org
108. Jean Bureau (1983) p.3
109. Financial Express: “Business Impact of Employee Stress”, The Financial Express, November 2005.
110. Economic and Political Weekly
111. Jeffrey R. Edwards, “ A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping and Well-Being in Organizations,”
Academy of Management Review, April 1992, pp. 238-274.
112. Susan Oakland and Alistair Ostell, (1996) Susan Oakland and Alistair Ostell, “Measuring Coping A
Review and Critique,” Human Relations, Vol. 49. No. 2, 1996, pp. 133-15.
113. Sean M. Lyden, “Stress Case,” Business Start-Ups, March 2000, p. 62
114. Kathleen McLaughlin, “The Lighter Side of Learning,” Training, February 2001, pp. 48-52.
115. Christopher P. Neck and Kenneth H. Cooper, “The Fit Executive: Exercise and Diet Guidelines for
Enhancing Performance,” Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000, pp. 72-83.
116. J. M. Smyth, A.A. Stone, A. Hurewitz and K. Kaell, “Effects of Writing About Stressful
Experiences on Symptom Reduction in Patients with Asthma or Rheumatoid Arthritis,” Journal of
the American Medical Association, Vo. 281, 1999, pp. 1304-1329.
117. Robert K. Wallace and Herbert Benson, “The Physiology of Mediation,” Scientific American,
February 1972, pp. 84-90.
118. Terri Schultz, “What Science Is Discovering about the Potential Benefits of Mediation,” Today’s
Health, April 1972, pp. 34-37.
119. Executives Meditating to Success,” Omaha World-Herald, February 11, 1986, p. 9.
120. Vivien K.G. Lim, “Job Insecurity and Its Outcomes: Moderating Effects of Work-Based and
Nonwork-Moderating Based Social Support,” Human Relations, Vol. 49, No. 2, 1996, pp. 171-194.
121. Benedict Carey, “Don’t Face Stress Alone,” Health, April, 1997, pp.74-76, 78.
122. Anson Seers, Gail W. McGee, Timothy T. Serey and George B. Graen, “The Interaction of Job
Stress and Social Support: A Strong Inference Investigation,” Academy of Management Journal,
June 1983, pp. 273-284.
123. A.A. McLean, Work Stress, Addison-Wesley, Reading Mass., 1980.
124. Fred Luthans, Stuart A. Rosenkrantz and Harry W. Hennessey, “What Do Successful Managers
Really Do?
An Observation Study of Managerial Activities,” Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 21, No. 3. 1985, pp. 255-270.
125. Joanne Cole, “De-Stressing the Workplace,” HR Focus, October 1999, pp. 1, 10-11.
126. Laurie Hays, “But Some Firms Try to Help,” Wall Street Journal, April 24, 1987, p. 16D.
127. Helene Cooper, “Offering Aerobics, Karate, Aquatics, Hospitals Stress Business of ‘Wellness,’”
Wall Street Journal, August 9, 1993, pp, B1, B3
128. Laura M. Litvan, “Preventive Medicine,” Nation’s Business, September 1995, pp. 32-36.
129. Todd Balf, “Out of Juice? Recharge,” Work Smarter, Not Harder, Fast Company’s Roadmap to
Success, 2000, p. 24, 25.
130. Stephenie Overman, “Make Family-Friendly Initiatives Fly,” HR Focus, July 1999, p. 14.
131. EAP: Another Element of Support,” HR Focus, February, 1999, p. 8.
132. Janina C. Latack, Angelo J. Kinichki and Gregory E. Prussia, “An Integrative Process Model of
Coping with Job Loss,” Academy of Management Review, April 1995, pp. 311-342.
133. Nathan Bennett, Christopher L. Martin, Robert J. Bies and Joel Brockner, “Coping with a Layoff; A
Longitudinal Study of Victims,” Journal of Management, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1995, pp. 1025-1040.
134. Joel Brockner, Mary Konovsky, Rochelle Cooper-Schneider, Robert Folger, Christopher Martin
and Robert Bies, “Interactive Effects of Procedural Justice and Outcome Negativity on Victims and
Survivors of Job Loss,” Academy of Management Journal, April 1994, pp, 397-409.
135. Roland E. Kidwell, “Pink Slips without Tears,” Academy of Management Executive, May 1995,
pp. 69-70.
136. Ongori, H. (2007), A Review of the Literature on Employee Turnover, Africa Journal of Business
Management, 1(3): 49-54.
137. Christo, B. and Pienaar, J. (2006), South Africa Correctional Official Occupational Stress: The Role
of Psychological Strengths, Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1):73-84.
138. Jackson, S. and Schuler, R. (1983), Preventing Employee Burnout, Journal of Personnel, 60(2): 5868.
139. Defrank R.S. and Cooper C. L. (1987), Worksite Stresses Management Interventions: Their
Effectiveness and Conceptualization, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2(1): 4-9.
140. Kolbell, R. M. (1995), When Relaxation is not Enough, in Murphy, L. R. Hurrel, J.J., Sauter, S.L.
and Keita, G.P. (Eds.), Job Stress Psychology, pp.31-43, America Psychological Associations,
Washington DC.
141. Murphy, L. R.and Sauter, S. L. (2003), USA Perspectives; Current Issues and Trends in
Management of Work Stress, Journal of Australian Psychologist,38 (1);151-157.
142. Arthur, A.P. (2000), Employee Assistance Programmes: The Emperor’s New Clothes or Stress
Management, Journal of British Guidance and Counselling, 28(1): 549-50
143. Manshor, A. T., Fontaine, R.; Choy, Chong Siong 2003. “Occupational stress among managers: a
Malaysian survey”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No.6, pp. 622-628.
144. Johnson, S.J. (2001), Occupational Stress Among Social Workers and Administration Workers
within a Scoail Services Department, unpublished MSc. Dissertation, University of Manchester
Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester.
145. Katherine, P.E., George, J. A., Mary, B. and Linda, S.P. (2008), Stress Management in the Work
Place, Journal of Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2): 486-496.
146. Randolfi, E. A. (1997), Developing a Stress Management and Relaxation Centre for the Worksite,
Journal of Worksite Health, 4(3): 40-44.
147. Manning, M. R. and Jackson, C.N. (1996), Occupational Stress, Social Support and the Costs of
Health Care. Journal of Academy Management, 39(3): 138-150.
148. Stevenson, A. and Harper, S. (2006), Work Stress and Student Learning Experience, Journal of
Quality Assurance in Education, 14(2): 167-178.
149. Manshor, A. T., Fontaine, R.; Choy, Chong Siong 2003. “Occupational stress among managers: a
Malaysian survey”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No.6, pp. 622-628.
150. Sapountzi-Krepia (2003), Seeking the Attitudes and Perceptions of the Greek – Care Professionals
on Voluntary Work Caring People with HIV/AIDS, Journal of Nursing Management, 11(4): 28565.
151. http://www.naukrihub.com., http://www.indiamba.com