6.1 introduction - inflibnetshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/28497/15/15_chapter6.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 243
6.1 Introduction
Stress has been generally defined as an undesirable and negative force
causing disruption in the psychological and physiological homeostasis of the
focal person. In a situation of severe stress, human constitution and capacities
are taxed severely and his overall effectiveness is distorted. The majority of
stress researchers have concluded that stress gives rise to negative emotional
experiences causing significant deterioration in the individual’s adjustment,
behavioural effectiveness, and health.
Although a degree of stress may clearly be beneficial in providing
stimulation and creating energy for better productivity and efficiency, its
prolonged presence gives way to physical and mental reactions, collectively
known as ‘stress reactions’. If the pressure of work is too heavy or is
prolonged and the individual is unable to cope successfully, its reactions are
manifest in a wide variety of illness and behaviours such as Coronary heart
Chapter 6
244 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
disease (CHD), mental illness and some form of cancer, various minor
conditions such as skin rashes, asthma, back pain, dizziness, headache and
disrupted sleeping (Cox 1993, Payne and Fifth-Couzens 1987).
Excessive stress is, therefore, destructive, leading to a deterioration in
performance (Cox.1993) as well as job dissatisfaction, accidents, unsafe working
practices and high absenteeism (Cooper 1986); Smith and Sulsky, 1995). It is
also associated with mood changes causing feeling of tension, anxiety, fatigue
and depression (Cox and Ferguson, 1991; Stone et al.,1993). Studies have
demonstrated the relationship between stress and cold (Jones and Bright, 2001).
Certainly, stress is depressing, demoralizing and de-motivating. Affected
individuals often display decreased energy associated with an inability to keep
up with the pace of work. They often perceive that great personal expenditure is
required at work for very little personal gain or reward(Farrington, 1997). Self-
esteem may significantly decrease, accompanied by feeling of both failure and
hopelessness. The personal cost of work-related stress is, therefore, high and
may incorporate significant grief and suffereing and, at times, premature death
(Levi, 1996); it may significantly detract from general quality of life and well-
being (EASHW, 2000). Such effects, in turn, markedly influence the way
individuals feel, think and behave, resulting in cynicism, negativism and self-
depletion; these are often worsened by the fact that few people are prepared to
admit suffering from stress or seek help from it.
Most researchers argue that the consequences of stress can be classified
into three major types: Psychological, Physical and Behavioural (Brief, Schuler
and Van Sell, 1981; Cooper and Marshal, 1976; Ivancevich and Matterson,
1980). It is possible that the reaction to the stressor, generally, is psychological
first and then physiological and/or behavioural. Someone who perceives a great
deal of work overload might feel anxious (psychological strain), and the anxiety
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 245
might then cause one to lose sleep (physical strain) by thinking about the
overload. When one loses sleep for an extended period of time, the individual
might resort to taking extra sleeping pills (behavioural strain). Anxieties, loss of
sleep and taking sleeping pills have an effect on one’s overall performance.
6.2 Psychological Effects
The first major type of strain resulting from stressors is that of
psychological strain (Harrison, 1978) According to him strain refers to the
deviation from normal responses and that psychological strain includes
responses such as job dissatisfaction, depression, lowered self-esteem and
unsolved problems. Similarly, Downs, Driskill and Window (1990), in their
review of occupational stress, note that the experience of stress may lead to
depression, anger, fatigue, irritability, moodiness, boredom, low self-esteem,
accident withdrawal and burnout. Harrison (1998) also suggests that
psychological strain includes dissatisfaction, anxiety, diphoria, complaints of
insomnia and restlessness. Another commonly studied psychological strain is
burnout. Burnout is a psychological condition that is the result of job stress for
which one’s ability to cope with the stressor and manage stress has been
exhausted (Anderson, 1991; Shirom, 2003).
6.3 Physical Effects
The second major strain resulting from exposure to stressors is physical
strain. The relationship of stress with psychosomatic disease has been well
documented by eminent researchers and scientists. Substantial amount of
research has been done by psychologists, and a majority of these investigations
reveal positive relationship between job-related stress and a variety of somatic
symptoms and disorders. Physical or physiological strain is hypothesized to
manifest in symptoms such as high blood pressure, changes in blood eosinophils
Chapter 6
246 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
and elevated cholesterol (Harrison, 1978). Downs et al., (1990) have outlined in
their review that stress has been physically related to cardiovascular disease,
hyper-tension, ulcers, asthma and migraine headache. Edward and colleagues
(1998) note that physiological strain also includes elevated blood pressure and
compromised immune system functioning.
Previous studies related to stress and diseases has enlisted the following
strains and illnesses (Srivastava 1999).
• High pulse rate and blood pressure (Caplan, 1975)
• High serum cholesterol (Chadwick,1980)
• Disrupted sleep, bowel function, eating habits. (Mott,1976)
• Somatic complaints (Caplan, et. al.,1975)
• Heart disease (Glass, 1977)
• Hypertension (Cobb &Rose, 1973)
• Peptic ulcer (Cobb &Rose, 1973; House et al.,1979)
• Arthritis (Cobb, 1971)
• Headache (Kimball,1979)
• Respiratory illness (Caplan et al., 1975)
• Dermatitis, other skin afflictions (House, et al.,1979)
• General diffuse sickness (Mechanic, 1974)
• Total rate of illness (Hinkle, 1974; Rahe, et al.,1974).
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 247
6.4 Behavioural Effects.
Occupational stress may do considerable damage to a person internally,
but there are external manifestations too. The most important, and probably the
most relevant to an individual, is how stress affects his/her interpersonal
behaviour. Arguments and fight over relatively trivial matters, overdependence,
uncommunicativeness, unreasonableness, withdrawal of love, lack of
interest/over interest in sex are some of the commonly seen behavioral effects of
stress (Rita Agrawal, 2001). Quick et.al (1986) suggests that behavioral changes
are among the earliest and most easily recognized signs of increase in stress.
Some of the commonly seen behavioural effect of stress is Arguments and fights
over relatively trivial matters, uncommunicativeness, withdrawal of love,
increased cigarette smoking, increased alcohol and recreational drug abuse, and
frequent utilization of health care services.
It is agreed by the research community that the effect of job stress can be
classified into three groups: psychological, physical and behavioural. But there is
difficulty in measuring these outcomes, when there are situations where the
stress factors may produce an outcome that is not necessarily harmful to the
individual, particularly in the case of behavioural effect. The aim of this study is
limited to the assessment of psychological effects and physical effects of
occupational stress.
6.5 Psychological Effect of Occupational stress: Factor analysis
6.5.1 Methodology
This part of the research study was done to identify the psychological
effect of occupational stress among the bank employees in Kerala. Based on
the various theories and models in the field of occupational stress research, and
Chapter 6
248 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
in consultation with experts in the field of academic research and industry, 24
statements were developed for assessing the various psychological effects of
occupational stress in the field of banking industry. In order to test the internal
consistency of the scale and to reduce the number of statements to a
manageable size, a pilot study was conducted. Responses were obtained from
56 employees in the banking sector through interview scheduling. A five-point
Likerts scale was used to measure the agreement with the statements.
Reliability analysis was done to ensure the reliability of the instrument and
those items with item-to-total correlation below 0.3 and Cronbach’s alpha
below 0.7 were deleted resulting in a 15-item scale to measure the
psychological effect of occupational stress.
6.5.2 Reliability Analysis
Fifteen statements are considered to measure the psychological effect
of occupational stress which has an overall Cronbach’s alpha of 0.848 which
is well above the accepted norms of 0.70 (Nunnally, J.C, 1978). Hence the
variable identified and included in the instrument are reliable and relevant.
Table6.1 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items .848 15
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was carried out on 15 measures to
validate construct which will help to analyse the employees’ responses and to
evaluate factors which exert influence over the magnitude of psychological
effects of stress. The measures were subjected to Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) under the restriction that the Eigen value of each construct
should be more than 1. The various measures used to assess the psychological
effects of stress, along with item code, mean and S.D are exhibited in the
following Table
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 249
Table 6.2: Psychological Effects of Stress-Variables
Sl.No Item Code Statements Mean S.D
1 PE 1 I am totally satisfied with my present job. 2.4784 1.04485
2 PE 2 If a friend seeks my opinion on joining a job like mine, I will strongly
recommend it. 2.6190 1.10702
3 PE 3 I feel completely exhausted at the end of the day. 3.3723 1.04556
4 PE 4 I feel tired (even with adequate sleep) during the day. 2.9589 1.06840
5 PE 5 I worry if these mounting pressures persist for long, it will
significantly damage my efficiency to work hard. 3.2965 1.09264
6 PE 6 I feel frustrated in carrying out my responsibilities at work. 2.6732 .97434
7 PE 7 It is hard for me to feel calm and relaxed at work. 2.8550 1.05518
8 PE 8 I find it difficult to finish my work in the stipulated time. 2.8723 1.09174
9 PE 9 I often miss the get-together parties of my family and friends. 3.6212 1.02751
10 PE 10 I feel that I can’t serve the customers as expected. 2.6364 1.03193
11 PE 11 I have a lot of other interests (e.g. cultural, social, spiritual etc…)
which remain neglected due to workload. 3.4654 1.09321
12 PE 12 I spend so long at work that my outside relationships are suffering. 3.4177 1.10056
13 PE 13 I always get a good night’s sleep without worrying about my work. 3.2251 1.07686
14 PE 14 Since I am preoccupied with a hectic work schedule, I give only a little
attention to my family. 3.0173 1.07006
15 PE 15 I feel emotionally drained from my work. 2.9026 1.00607
6.5.3 KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
The result of KMO and Bartlettt’s Test of Sphericity are presented in
Table 6.3, which show that the value of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure
of Sampling adequacy value is 0.991 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is
significant at one per cent level of significance(P<.001), which reveal the
appropriateness of the sample data for conducting factor analysis.
Chapter 6
250 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
Table 6.3: KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .911 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2498.702
df 105 Sig. .000
6.5.4. Exploratory factors extraction model
Table 6.4 presents the results of factors’ extraction on the basis of the
Eigen values greater than 1 criterion, which resulted in identification of three
factors which together explain the variance of 56 per cent.
Table 6.4: Total Variance Explained
Com
pone
nts
Initial Eigen Value Extraction sums of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Tota
l
% o
f Va
rianc
e
Cum
ulat
ive
%
Tota
l
%of
Va
rianc
e
Cum
ulat
ive
%
Tota
l
% o
f Va
rianc
e
Cum
ulat
ive
%
1 5.894 39.292 39.292 5.894 39.292 39.292 3.504 23.362 23.362 2 1.275 8.500 47.793 1.275 8.500 47.793 2.798 18.654 42.016 3 1.160 7.730 55.523 1.160 7.730 55.523 2.026 13.507 55.523
Extraction method: Principal component analysis Source: Primary survey
6.5.5 Loadings of measured items on factors
After reducing the data into 3 constructs, Varimax rotation was
performed to get a holistic overview of all 3 factors. The Varimax rotation
matrix shows that the presence of a component matrix in which all
components register comparatively strong loadings and some measures load
to more than one component. The rotated factors and their respective
variables along with factor loadings are given in table 6.5
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 251
Table 6.5 Factors Influencing Psychological Effect of Job Stress among Bank Employees Rotated Component Matrix
Item code Statements Components
1 2 3 PE 1 I am totally satisfied with my present job. .201 .093 .850
PE 2 If a friend seeks my opinion of joining a job like mine, I will strongly recommend it. .177 .213 .819
PE 3 I feel completely exhausted at the end of the day. .509 .429 .075
PE 4 I feel tired (even with adequate sleep) during the day. .658 .140 .172
PE 5 I worry if these mounting pressures persist for long, it will significantly damage
my efficiency to work hard. .624 .277 .285
PE 6 I feel frustrated in carrying out my responsibilities at work. .754 .110 .192
PE 7 It is hard for me to feel calm and relaxed at work. .686 .128 .151
PE 8 I find it difficult to finish my work in the stipulated time. .602 .176 .174
PE 9 I often miss the get-together parties of my family and friends. .271 .741 .102
PE 10 I feel that I can’t serve the customers as expected. .535 .164 .038
PE 11 I have a lot of other interests (e.g. cultural, social, spiritual etc…) which remain
neglected due to workload. .109 .790 .196
PE 12 I spend so long at work that my outside relationships are suffering. .179 .802 .203
PE 13 I always get a good night’s sleep without worrying about my work. -.217 -.221 -.502
PE 14 Since I am preoccupied with a hectic work schedule, I give only a little attention
to my family. .384 .601 .174
PE 15 I feel emotionally drained from my work. .593 .390 .227
Extraction method: Principal component analysis Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
6. 6 Creation of Factors
On the basis of the findings of the exploratory factor analysis, three factors were created by adding (summing) the rating scores of all items loaded on each factor. The following sub-sections provide the three factors in the order of their importance with measures and item loadings.
6.6.1 Professional Anxiety
The first factor extracted a high variance of 39.29 per cent variation. This factor has significant loadings on eight statements, as given in Table 6.6
Chapter 6
252 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
Table 6.6 Significant Loadings of Variables on Varimax Factor 1
Item Code. Statements Loadings PE.3 I feel completely exhausted at the end of the day of my office work. 0.509
PE.4 I feel tired (even with adequate sleep) during the day. 0.658
PE.5 I worry if these mounting pressures persist for long, it will significantly
damage my efficiency to work hard. 0.624
PE.6 I feel frustrated in carrying out my responsibilities at work. 0.754
PE.7 It is hard for me to feel calm and relaxed at work. 0.686
PE.8 I find it difficult to finish my work in the stipulated time. 0.602
PE.10 I feel that I can’t serve the customers as expected. 0.535
PE.15 I feel emotionally drained from my work. 0.593
The highest loading in this factor is for PE.6, which denotes that job
stress leads to frustration in carrying out the responsibilities of bank
employees. PE.7 states that increased level of job stress prevents employees
from doing their work in a calm and relaxed mood. Feeling of tiredness
during day is another outcome of job stress which is substantiated by the high
loading of PE.4. The significant loading of PE.5 explains that efficiency of
bank employees is being hit by the increased pressure associated with
job.PE.8 denotes that bank employees cannot finish their work in the
stipulated time due to the job stress.PE.15 states that the employees feel
‘emotionally drained’ from work-related stress. PE.10 indicates that job stress
negatively affects the performance of bank employees in discharging their
service to the customers as expected, and the high loading of PE.3 illustrates
that full potential of bank employees is being exhausted at the end of the
office day. All these statements reflect the end results of high job stress
existing among bank employees. High loadings of all these statements show
the high anxiety experienced by the bank employees regarding their job, and
hence it is termed as “Professional Anxiety”.
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 253
6.6.2 Social Isolation
The second factor consists of 4 variables. This factor extracted a
variance of 8.50 per cent of the total variance. The significant loadings of
variables under Factor 2 are presented in Table 6.7.
Table6.7 Significant Loadings of Variables on Varimax Factor2
Item Code. Statements Loadings PE.9 I often miss the get-together parties of my family and friends 0.741
PE.11 I have a lot of other interests (e.g. cultural, social, spiritual etc) which
remain neglected due to workload. 0.790
PE.12 I spend so long at work that my outside relationships are suffering. 0.802
PE.14 Since I am preoccupied with hectic work schedule, I give only a little
attention to my family. 0.601
PE.12 has the highest loading in this factor, which indicates that bank
employees have to spend longer hours in their work than the stipulated time,
which negatively affects their outside relationships. PE.11 states that the
cultural, spiritual, and social interests of the employees are being neglected
due to heavy workload and associated job stress. Inability to attend the get-
together parties of friends and family often leads them to discontent, as is
expressed in PE.9. The hectic work schedule of the bank employees often
culminates in laxity in family care, which is another outcome of job-related
stress as stated in PE.14. Since all these statements are related to the isolation
felt by the bank employees this factor is termed as “Social isolation”.
6.6.3 Professional Dissatisfaction
The third factor accounted for 7.73 per cent of the total variation. PE.
1, PE.2 and PE.13 constitute this factor. The significant loading of this factor
is presented in Table 6.8.
Chapter 6
254 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
Table 6.8 Significant Loadings of variables on Varimax Factor 3
Item code. Statements Loadings PE.1 I am totally satisfied with my present job. 0.850
PE.2 If a friend seeks my opinion of joining a job like mine, I will strongly
recommend it. 0.819
PE.13 I always get a good night’s sleep without worrying about my work. -0.502
High loading of PE.1 and PE.2 states the unpleasant attitude of bank employees regarding their job satisfaction. PE.13 indicates the disturbed sleep of bank employees due to work stress.
6.7 Effect of Stress in Relation to Socio-Economic Background Variables
Research studies prove that age, education, experience, income, personality, etc., will have a direct bearing on the stress outcome of employees in the different sectors.
6.7.1 Type of Bank and Psychological Effects
Here, in this part of the analysis, an attempt is made to check whether there is any difference in the psychological effect of job stress among employees in different sectors with respect to the type of bank in which they work.
Table 6.9 furnishes a comparative analysis of the mean and standard deviation of the psychological effect of job stress with respect to the type of bank in which they work.
Table 6.9: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Type of Banks
Factor Mean Standard Deviation PSB OPSB NGB Total PSB OPSB NGB Total
Professional Anxiety 23.909 22.530 24.223 23.567 5.707 5.438 6.032 5.713
Social Isolation 10.259 9.765 10.171 10.103 2.669 2.347 2.599 2.573
Professional Dissatisfaction 8.248 8.386 8.460 8.322 1.895 1.856 1.828 1.871
Source: primary data.
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 255
Figure 6.1 Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Type of Banks
The mean score distribution of psychological effect of job stress with
respect to type of bank shows that the mean score is the highest in new
generation banks with regard to two factors such as ‘Professional anxiety
(24.22) and ‘professional satisfaction’ (8.46), whereas public sector banks lead
in one effect, i.e., ‘Social isolation’ (10.26). It is noted that the mean scores of
psychological effects such as ‘professional anxiety’ and ‘social isolation’ are the
least among the employees in old private sector banks and none of the factors is
dominant among them.
To study the significance of difference in the mean scores of
psychological effects across different types of banks is attempted with the help
of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The following null hypotheses have been
framed for analysis.
H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effects of job stress
among employees of three types of banks.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
PSB OPSB NGB PSB OPSB NGB
Mean Standard Deviation
Professional Anxiety
Social Isolation
Professional Dissatisfaction
Chapter 6
256 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
H1 : There is difference in the psychological effects of job stress among
employees of three types of banks.
Table 6.10 depicts the summary of ANOVA of F values of
psychological effects of job stress with respect to type of bank.
Table 6.10: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Type of Banks
FACTORS Between the groups
Within the groups Total F
value Sig S.S D.F S.S D.F S.S D.F
professional anxiety 204.426 2 14846.993 459 15051.420 461 3.160 0.043*
Social isolation 21.667 2 3031.346 459 3053.013 461 1.640 0.195
Professional dissatisfaction 3.396 2 1611.551 459 1614.946 461 0.483 0.617
Source: primary data. * Significance at 5% level of significance.
Table 6.10 reveals that there is significant difference across the mean
scores of the psychological effect Professional anxiety between the employees of
different types of banks, as the value is p< 0.05 at 5 per cent level of significance
and no significant difference is noted in respect of the other two factors such as
Social isolation and Professional dissatisfaction. Hence, the null hypothesis is
rejected with respect to the psychological effects Professional anxiety, and the
null hypothesis is accepted with respect to other factors.
Table 6.11: Significance of Mean Difference based on Type of banks-Post Hoc Test (LSD)
Dependent variable
Type of bank (I)
Type of bank (J)
Mean Difference (I-J) Significance
Professional
Anxiety
PSB OPSB 1.37915* .024*
NGB -.31424 .673
OPSB NGB -1.69338* .039*
Source: Primary data * Significant at 5 percent level of significance
The Post Hoc analysis performed on the above to locate the areas of
difference indicates that employees of NGB lead in Professional anxiety and
there is significant difference between employees of NGB and OPSB in this
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 257
regard. It is also observed that there is significant difference between
employees of PSB and OPSB with regard to Professional anxiety which is
found more among PSB.
6.7.2 Location of the Bank and Psychological Effects
Location of the workplace may exert varying degrees of pressure on
employees due to many factors such as volume of business, customer’s
awareness and their varying demand, competition, distance from the place of
domicile, inadequate transportation facility, etc. Here, a comparative analysis
of mean scores and standard deviation is shown to see whether there is any
difference in the mean scores with respect to location of the branch. Location
is classified as rural, semi-urban and urban for the purpose of analysis.
Table 6.12: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Location of the Banks
Factor Mean Standard Deviation
Rural Semi- urban Urban Total Rural Semi-
urban Urban Total
Professional Anxiety 23.333 23.498 23.805 23.567 5.790 5.551 6.198 5.713 Social isolation 10.166 10.129 10.017 10.103 2.617 2.563 2.615 2.573 Professional dissatisfaction 9.666 8.305 8.159 8.322 2.114 1.873 1.755 1.871
Source: primary data.
Table 6.12 show that the means score of Professional anxiety is higher
among employees in urban areas and the least in rural areas. ‘Social isolation’ as
an outcome of job stress is more visible among the employees in semi-urban
areas and the same is the least among the employees in urban areas. The
psychological effect of Professional dissatisfaction is more among the employees
in rural areas and it is the least among the employees of urban branches.
The significance of the difference in the mean scores is tested using
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with the following hypotheses and the
results are given in Table 6.13.
Chapter 6
258 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effect of job stress
among employees working at different locations.
H1 : There is significant difference in the psychological effect of job
stress among employees working at different locations.
Table 6.13: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Location of the Banks.
FACTOR Between the groups
Within the groups Total F
value Sig S.S D.F S.S D.F S.S D.F
Professional anxiety 8.954 2 15042.466 459 15051.420 461 0.137 0.872 Social isolation 1.134 2 3051.878 459 3053.013 461 0.085 0.918 Professional dissatisfaction 35.632 2 1579.314 459 1614.946 461 5.178 0.00*
Source: primary data. * Significant at 5% level of significance.
It can be observed from the Table that there is significant
difference in mean scores among the employees working at different
locations with respect to Professional Dissatisfaction as the value is p<0.05 at
a significance level of 5 per cent and at the same time no significant
difference is noted in the case of the other two psychological effects. Hence,
the null hypothesis is rejected with respect to professional dissatisfaction and
accepted for other two psychological effects such as professional anxiety and
social isolation.
Table 6.14 Significance of Mean Difference based on Location of Banks-Post Hoc Test (LSD)
Dependent variable
Location of Branch
(I)
Location of Branch
(J)
Mean Difference
(I-J) Significance
Professional
dissatisfaction Rural
Semi-Urban 1.36153* .003*
Urban 1.50737* .001*
Semi Urban Urban .14584 .471
Source: Primary data * Significant at 5 percent level of significance
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 259
The analysis based on Post Hoc (LSD) shows that Professional dissatisfaction as an outcome of job stress is found more among the employees working in rural areas, followed by employees in semi- urban and urban areas respectively. Significant difference is observed between employees working in rural branches and semi-urban branches. Similar is the case with employees working in rural branches and urban branches. Such difference is not observed between semi-urban and urban branches.
6.7.3 Employment Status and Psychological Effects
The influence of stress factors over its employees in an industry depends on a lot of internal and external factors related to the industry and its workforce. In a given stressful work situation, the reaction of two people will be different. The magnitude of authority and level of responsibility of the employees differ with regard to their designation in an office. In the banking sector, the managers and officers will have higher authority and corresponding responsibility in its operational efficiency, whereas the employees in the clerical cadre are the direct victims of customer pressure. It is noteworthy to examine whether there is any difference in the psychological effect of job stress among employees of different status in the banking industry. Here, employees are grouped into managers, officers and clerks.
Table 6.15 explain the mean score distribution and standard deviation of the psychological outcomes of job stress among employees in different cadres in the banking industry.
Table 6.15: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Employment Status
Factor Mean Standard Deviation Manager Officer Clerks Total Manager Officer clerks Total
Professional Anxiety 24.104 24.603 22.264 23.567 5.970 5.557 5.442 5.713
Social Isolation 10.576 10.886 9.073 10.103 2.578 2.294 2.472 2.573
Professional Dissatisfaction 8.624 8.459 7.988 8.322 1.928 1.888 1.772 1.871
Source: primary data.
Chapter 6
260 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
Figure 6.2: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Employment Status
It is seen from Table 6.15 that the psychological effect of job stress is dominant among employees in the officer status, as the mean scores of two factors, Professional anxiety and Social isolation, are found higher among them. The mean value of Professional dissatisfaction is more among the employees in the manager cadre and the mean value is found to be the lowest among clerks with respect to all the three groups of psychological effects in this study.
Table 6.16 depicts the result of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) done to check whether there is any significant difference in the mean scores of psychological effects of job stress in relation to the employment status of the respondents under study, at 5 per cent level of significance. The following hypotheses are framed in this regard.
H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effects of job stress among employees with different employment status.
H1 : There is difference in the psychological effects of job stress among employees with different employment status.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Manager Officer Clerks Manager Officer clerks
Mean Standard Deviation
Professional Anxiety
Social Isolation
Professional Dissatisfaction
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 261
Table 6.16: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Employment Status.
Factor Between the groups
Within the groups Total F
value Sig S.S D.F S.S D.F S.S D.F
Professional anxiety 509.144 2 14542.276 459 15051.420 461 8.035 0.000*
Social Isolation 314.472 2 2738.541 459 3053.013 461 26.354 0.000*
Professional Dissatisfaction 34.156 2 1580.790 459 1614.946 461 4.959 0.007*
Source: primary data. * Significant at 5% level of significance.
The test results given in Table 6.16 show that there is significant difference in the mean scores of psychological effects of job stress among employees in different employment status with regard to Professional anxiety, Social isolation and Professional dissatisfaction as the value of p<0.05 at 5 per cent level of significance. So, the null hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that there is significant difference in the psychological effects of job stress among different employment cadres.
Table 6.17: Significance of Mean Difference based on Employment Status-Post Hoc Test (LSD)
Dependent variable
Employment Status (I)
Employment Status (J)
Mean Difference (I-J) Significance
Professional Anxiety
Manager Officer -.49977 .458 Clerks 1.83996* .005*
Officer Clerks 2.33973* .000*
Social Isolation
Manager Officer -.31079 .288 Clerks 1.50297* .000*
Officer Clerks 1.81376* .000*
Professional dissatisfaction
Manager Officer .16488 .458 Clerks .63524* .004*
Officer Clerks .47036* .021* Source: Primary data * Significant at 5 percent level of significance
The Post Hoc analyses (LSD) show that there is significant difference
among employees of different status with regard to the psychological effects
of job stress. All the variables for the psychological effects are found to be at
95 per cent significance level. Professional anxiety and Social isolation are
Chapter 6
262 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
dominant among officers, followed by managers. Managers are found to be
the most affected by Professional dissatisfaction, followed by officers,
whereas employees in clerical cadre are the least affected by this variable.
6.7.4 Gender and Psychological Effects
The Psychological outcome of job stress over gender groups is studied to
identify the relationship between gender and effects of job stress. The
psychological reaction to a given stressful situation may vary among different
gender groups due to the difference in the physical and psychological fabric
(structure) of the focal persons. Analysis of Variance is done with the following
hypotheses and the test results are given in Table 6.18 and Table 6.19.
H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effects of job stress among
different gender groups.
H1 : There is difference in the psychological effects of job stress among
different gender groups.
Table 6.18: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Gender Groups
Factors Mean Standard Deviation Male Female Total Male Female Total
Professional Anxiety 24.017 22.879 23.567 5.905 5.352 5.713
Social isolation 10.329 9.759 10.103 2.540 2.592 2.573
Professional dissatisfaction 8.555 7.967 8.322 1.953 1.683 1.871
Source: Primary survey
The mean score statement given in Table 6.18 shows that the male
group dominates in the psychological effects of job stress in all the factors
such as Professional anxiety (24.01), Social isolation (10.329) and
Professional dissatisfaction (8.55).
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 263
Table 6.19: ANOVA of psychological effects of stress across Gender Groups
Factor Between the groups
Within the groups Total F
value Sig S.S D.F S.S D.F S.S D.F
Professional anxiety 143.154 2 14908.266 459 15051.420 461 4.417 0.036*
Social isolation 35.929 2 3017.084 459 3053.013 461 5.478 0.020*
Professional dissatisfaction 38.254 2 1576.699 459 1614.946 461 11.161 0.001*
Source: Primary data. * Significance at 5% level of significance.
The Analysis of Variance given in Table 6.19 shows that the
difference in the mean scores is significant in respect of all the factors related
to the psychological effects. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected and it is
concluded that psychological effects of job stress such as Professional
anxiety, Social isolation and Professional dissatisfaction and gender are
dependent.
6.7.5 Marital Status and Psychological Effects of Job Stress.
Marriage is an important event in the life of an individual. It will bring
about a lot of changes in the perception of an individual towards his/her life.
The capacity of an employee to withstand the stress associated with the job is
vital to his/her existence. In the case of married groups they will get adequate
support from their spouses and at the same time there are a lot of additional
responsibilities on their shoulders. Unmarried groups have limited family
responsibilities and their social interaction with friends can reduce stress to a
great extent. The domestic and social environment of widows and divorced
employees are also different. So the impact of occupational stress over these
groups may vary from one group to another. Here, an effort is made to see
whether there is any difference in the psychological effects of job stress
among employees having different marital status with the following
hypotheses.
Chapter 6
264 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effects of job stress
among employees with different marital status.
H1 : There is difference in the psychological effects of job stress among
employees with different marital status.
Table 6.20: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Marital Status
Factor Mean Standard Deviation
Mar
ried
Unm
arrie
d
Divo
rcee
Wid
owed
Tota
l
Mar
ried
Unm
arrie
d
Divo
rcee
Wid
owed
Tota
l
F1(P.A) 23.656 23.416 20.500 18.000 23.567 5.726 5.690 5.446 0.000 5.713
F2(S.I) 10.112 10.111 10.000 8.500 10.103 2.582 2.575 2.708 0.707 2.573
F3(P.D) 8.322 8.375 8.250 6.500 8.322 1.907 1.698 1.707 0.707 1.871
Source: primary data.
Comparative mean score statement given in Table 6.20 shows that
mean scores related to professional anxiety and social isolation are the
highest among the married groups and the mean score of professional
dissatisfaction is more among unmarried employees. It is also noted that the
mean value is the lowest among widowed groups in respect of all factors.
The Analysis of Variance given in Table 6.21 shows that the
difference in the mean score is insignificant in respect of all the factors
related to the psychological effects. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted
and it is concluded that marital status and psychological effect of job stress,
such as Professional anxiety, Social isolation and Professional dissatisfaction,
are independent.
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 265
Table 6.21: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Marital Status
FACTOR Between the groups
Within the groups Total F
value Sig S.S D.F S.S D.F S.S D.F
Professional anxiety 104.295 3 14947.125 458 15051.420 461 1.065 0.364
Social Isolation 5.217 3 3047.796 458 3053.013 461 0.261 0.853
Professional dissatisfaction 6.863 3 1608.083 458 1614.946 461 0.652 0.582
Source: Primary data
6.7.6 Age and Psychological Effects of Job Stress
Age is an important variable in social science research as the view of
an individual may vary as one advances in age. The opinion and perception
of an individual on personal, official and social issues will be shaped by the
experience he has got and observation he has made during the past years.
Problems related to job stress also will have such implications. Here, an
attempt is made to study whether there is any significant difference in the
psychological effects of job stress with respect to the age of the respondents
under study.
Table 6.22 gives the mean score distribution of the psychological
effects of job stress among employees in different age groups.
Table 6.22: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Age Groups
Factor Mean Standard Deviation
30 and below 31-40 41-50 51 and
above Total 30 and below
31-40 41-50 Above
50 Total
F1(P.A) 23.394 24.153 23.897 23.101 23.567 5.867 5.974 5.684 5.494 5.713 F2(S.I) 10.201 10.256 10.063 9.986 10.103 2.606 2.615 2.701 2.429 2.573 F3(P.D) 8.376 8.102 8.629 8.135 8.322 1.947 1.931 1.880 1.752 1.871
Source: Primary data
It is observed from the Table that the mean score of psychological
effects such as professional anxiety and social isolation is more among
employees in the age group of 31-40 years. The influence of the third factor,
Chapter 6
266 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
Professional dissatisfaction, is more among employees in the age group of
41-50 years.
In order to study the statistical significance of the difference in the
mean value, Analysis of Variance has been done with the following
hypotheses and the results are given in Table 6.23.
H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effect of job stress among
employees in different age groups.
H1 : There is difference in the psychological effect of job stress among
employees in different age groups.
Table 6.23: ANOVA of Psychological Effects across Different Age Groups
Factor Between the groups
Within the groups Total F
value Sig S.S D.F S.S D.F S.S D.F
Professional anxiety 76.080 3 14975.340 458 15051.420 461 0.776 0.508 Social isolation 5.113 3 3047.900 458 3053.013 461 0.256 0.857 Professional dissatisfaction 21.285 3 1593.661 458 1614.946 461 2.039 0.108
Source: primary data
The results of ANOVA given in Table 6.23 indicate that there is no
significant difference in the mean scores of psychological effects of job stress
among bank employees in different age groups as the value of p>0.05 at 5
per cent level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted with the
conclusion that the age of the employees and the psychological effects of job
stress are independent.
6.7.7 Education and Psychological Effects of Job Stress
It is imperative to study whether the educational qualification of the
employees in the banking sector has any relation to their psychological
reaction to the job stress. Many studies in social science prove that
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 267
educational levels of the employees have a direct bearing on the mental
capacity to face the official challenges. In the banking sector, the minimum
qualification fixed to join service is secondary education. But in actual
situations the majority of them have higher qualification. In this part of the
study, an evaluation is done to look whether the educational qualification of
the employees in the banking sector has any dependence on their
psychological reaction to job stress. Table 6.24 furnishes the mean score
comparison of psychological reaction to job stress with respect to their
education.
Table 6.24: Mean and SD of Psychological effects of stress across Education
Factor Mean Standard Deviation
School level Graduate Post
graduate Total School level Graduate Post
graduate Total
Professional Anxiety 23.636 23.174 24.149 23.567 5.903 5.571 5.893 5.713 Social Isolation 8.636 9.988 10.364 10.103 2.110 2.513 2.656 2.573 Professional Dissatisfaction 7.181 8.274 8.464 8.322 0.873 1.834 1.947 1.871
Source: Primary data
It can be observed from the Table that the mean value is the highest
among the Post-Graduate employees in relation to the three factors of
psychological reaction to job stress. It is further noticed that while
professional anxiety is the least among Graduates, Social isolation and
Professional dissatisfaction are the lowest among the least qualified group.
The test result of Analysis of Variance to know the significance of
difference in the mean values is given in Table 6.25. The following
hypotheses are framed in connection with this analysis.
H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effect of job stress
among employees with different educational qualifications.
H1 : There is difference in the psychological effect of job stress among
employees with different educational qualifications.
Chapter 6
268 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
Table 6.25: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Education
Factor Between the groups
Within the groups Total F
value Sig S.S D.F S.S D.F S.S D.F
Professional anxiety 103.084 2 14948.336 459 15051.420 461 1.583 0.207
Social isolation 39.567 2 3013.446 459 3053.013 461 3.013 0.050
Professional dissatisfaction 18.574 2 1596.371 459 1614.946 461 2.670 0.070
Source: Primary data The test results shown in the Table indicate that the difference in the
mean values is insignificant at 5 per cent level of significance as the value of
p is less than 0.05, and it can be concluded that psychological reaction to job
stress and the educational background of the employees are independent.
6.7.8 Salary and Psychological Effects of Job Stress
Salary of the bank employees includes basic pay, dearness allowance,
house rent allowance, special allowance and bonus. Different pay structures
are fixed for different categories like managers, officers and clerks. Here, an
attempt is made to identify whether the income level of the employees has
any dependence on the psychological outcome of the job stress. Respondents
are grouped into four classes based on the total salary per month such as less
than Rs. 15000, Rs.15000 to 30000, Rs.30000 to 50000 and above Rs.50000.
A table 6.26 explains the mean score and standard deviations in
respect of 3 psychological effects of job stress in relation to the monthly
salary of employees in the banking sector.
Table 6.26: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Salary Groups
Factor Mean Standard Deviation
<15000 15000- 30000
30000- 50000
Above 50000 Total <15000 15000-
30000 30000- 50000
Above 50000 Total
F1(P.A) 21.982 24.169 23.738 23.115 23.567 5.019 5.852 5.603 6.357 5.713
F2(S.I) 9.701 10.225 10.078 10.365 10.103 1.954 2.763 2.529 2.890 2.573
F3(P.D) 7.894 8.354 8.366 8.519 8.325 1.838 1.839 1.879 1.935 1.871
Source: Primary data
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 269
It is clear from Table 6.26 that the psychological reaction of job stress is more visible among the highest salary groups. Social isolation and Professional dissatisfaction are dominant among them. Most probably they belong to the senior officers’ group or managers’ groups. They have to assume higher responsibility in the functioning of the banking business. Any deviation from the targeted performance may put them under pressure. But the job stress reaction of ‘professional anxiety’ is found more among the employees whose salary is between Rs.15000 and 30000. Less experience in handling the situation, coupled with higher pressure for more output, may be the reason for this situation.
The significance of the difference in the mean score of psychological reaction to job stress across different salary groups is tested through ANOVA with the following hypotheses and the result is given in Table 6.27
H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effects of job stress among employees with different monthly salary structures.
H1 : There is difference in the psychological effect of job stress among employees with different monthly salary structures.
Table 6.27: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Salary Groups
Factor Between the groups
Within the groups Total F
value Sig. S.S D.F S.S D.F S.S D.F
Professional anxiety 205.407 3 14846.013 458 15051.420 461 2.112 0.098 Social isolation 14.763 3 3038.250 458 3053.013 461 0.748 0.528 Professional Dissatisfaction 13.022 3 1601.924 458 1614.946 461 1.241 0.294
Source: Primary data
The test result shown in the Table indicates that the difference in the
mean value is insignificant at 5 per cent level of significance as the value of p
is less than 0.05, and it can be concluded that psychological reaction to job
stress and monthly salary of the employees are independent.
Chapter 6
270 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
6.7.9 Length of Service and Psychological Effect of Job Stress
Length of service or experience represents the years of service put in by
an employee in the present or past job over a period of time. As the length of
service of an employee progresses, his capacity to withstand the inordinate
work pressure may enhance. Rapid transformation in the operations and
service delivery of banking companies put the employees under acute stress
affecting their potential. Technological revolution and ever-increasing demand
from the part of customers usually nullify the benefit of experience in dealing
with work pressure. Here, an attempt is made to test whether length of service
of employees has any dependence on their psychological stress reaction.
Employees are classified into five groups based on length of service in years,
such as less than 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16 to 20 and above 20 years.
The mean scores and standard deviations of 3 psychological effects of
job stress with respect to length of service are furnished in Table 6.28.
Table 6.28: Mean and SD of Psychological effects of stress across Length of service (years)
Factor Mean Standard Deviation
5 &<5 6-10 11-15 16-20 >20 Total <5 6-10 11-
15 16-20 >20 Total
F1(P.A) 23.632 22.297 25.486 22.766 23.588 23.567 5.727 6.361 5.550 3.775 5.759 5.713
F2(S.I) 10.111 9.617 10.621 9.866 10.147 10.103 2.625 2.633 2.372 2.750 2.544 2.573
F3(P.D) 8.222 8.340 8.135 8.566 8.368 8.322 1.965 1.591 1.931 1.794 1.885 1.871
Source: Primary data
The distribution of mean scores of psychological effects of job stress
across different groups of bank employees in relation to their length of
service reveals that the mean score is the highest among employees whose
length of service is between 11 and 15 years, in the case of two psychological
reactions, viz., Professional anxiety and Social isolation. The mean value in
respect of Professional dissatisfaction is found more among employees who
have experience between 16 and 20 years.
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 271
The significance of difference in the mean score of different groups
with respect to their length of service is tested using ANOVA and the results
are furnished in Table 6.29. The following hypotheses are formulated and
tested here.
H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effects of job stress among
employees with difference in length of service.
H1 : There is difference in the psychological effects of job stress among
employees with difference in length of service.
Table 6.29: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Length of Service.
Factor Between the groups
Within the groups Total F
value Sig S.S D.F S.S D.F S.S D.F
Professional Anxiety 231.853 4 14819.567 457 15051.420 461 1.787 0.130
Social Isolation 23.186 4 3029.827 457 3053.013 461 0.874 0.479
Professional Dissatisfaction 4.757 4 1610.189 457 1614.946 461 0.337 0.853
Source: Primary data
It is revealed that psychological effects of job stress and length of service are independent at 5 per cent level of significance as the value of p >0.05. So, the null hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that there is no dependence between psychological effects of job stress and length of service.
6.7.10 Effective Work Load in Hours and Psychological Effects of Job Stress
Work load in this connection means time the employees have to spend in the office premises to finish the responsibilities assigned to them. After liberalization of the Indian economy in the early 90s, the Indian banking sector witnessed an upsurge. The entry of foreign banks into Indian financial sector and the unshackling of state control paved the way for competitive environment. The RBI guidelines to minimize the NPA to the control level forced the
Chapter 6
272 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
workforce in the banking sector to spend more time in their office to attain the targeted performance. Spending more time in the office naturally weakens their relationship with society in general and family in particular. Detachment from social life for long period and inability to give due attention to family requirement lead the employees to mental discomfort. Here, an attempt is made to study whether working hours of the employees in the banking sector do have any influence on the psychological reaction to job stress among the selected respondents. Employees are classified into 3 groups based on the working hours during a week such as 40 and below, 41-50 and above 50.
Table 6.30 explains the mean scores and standard deviations in respect of 3 psychological effects of job stress in relation to the workload in hours during a week of employees in the banking sector.
Table 6.30: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Workload (Hours)
Factor Mean Standard Deviation
40 and below 41-50 Above 50 Total 40 and
below 41-50 Above 50 Total
Professional Anxiety 22.529 22.445 24.885 23.567 5.323 5.547 5.725 5.713
Social Isolation 9.000 9.619 10.885 10.103 2.400 2.484 2.477 2.573
Professional dissatisfaction 8.117 8.097 8.585 8.322 1.951 1.777 1.900 1.871 Source: primary data
Figure 6.3: Mean and SD of Psychological Effects of Stress across Workload (Hours)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
40 and below
41-50 Above 50 40 and below
41-50 Above 50
Mean Standard Deviation
Professional Anxiety
Social Isolation
Professional dissatisfaction
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 273
Table 6.30 reveals that the mean scores of the three psychological
effects of job stress are the highest among the employees who have to spend
more than 50 hours in a week in their workplace to finish the official
assignment. Professional anxiety and Professional dissatisfaction are found to
be the least among those employees who work for 40 to 50 hours in a week,
but social isolation is found to be the least among employees who need to
work only 40 or fewer hours in a week.
In order to study the statistical significance of the difference in the
mean values in respect to their workload in a week, Analysis of Variance is
done with the following hypotheses and the results are given in Table 6.31.
H0 : There is no difference in the psychological effects of job stress
among employees with different working hours in a week.
H1 : There is difference in the psychological effects of job stress among
employees with different working hours in a week.
Table 6.31: ANOVA of Psychological Effects of Stress across Workload (Hours)
Factor Between the groups
Within the groups Total F
value Sig S.S D.F S.S D.F S.S D.F
Professional Anxiety 669.765 2 14381.655 459 15051.420 461 10.688 0.000* Social Isolation 254..386 2 2798.627 459 3053.013 461 20.861 0.000* Professional dissatisfaction 26.691 2 1588.255 459 1614.946 461 3.857 0.022*
Source: Primary data
The test results given in Table 6.31 show that there is significant
difference in the mean scores of psychological effects of job stress among
employees with difference in duration of working hours in a week, with
regard to professional anxiety, social isolation and professional satisfaction,
as the value of p<0.05 at 5 per cent level of significance. So, the null
hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that there is significant difference in
Chapter 6
274 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
the psychological effects of job stress among employees with difference in
workload due to the long working hours in a week.
Table 6.32 Significance of Mean Difference Based on Workload in a Week (Hrs)-Post Hoc Test (LSD)
Dependent variable
Effective working hours
in a week (I)
Effective working hours
in a week (J)
Mean Difference
(I-J) Significance
Professional Anxiety
40 and below 40-50 .08376 .916 Above 50 -2.35630* .003*
40-50 Above 50 -2.44006* .000*
Social Isolation 40 and below 40-50 .61957 .078
Above 50 -1.88571* .000* 40-50 Above 50 -1.26615* .000*
Professional dissatisfaction
40 and below 40-50 .01982 .940 Above 50 -.46807 .072
40-50 Above 50 -.48789* .010* Source: Primary data * Significant at 5 percent level of significance
The result of the Post Hoc LSD analysis reveals that significant
difference is present between employees who spend ‘Above 50 hours’ in a week
and those who spend only 40 hours in a week, with regard to professional
anxiety and social isolation. Significant difference is again observed between
employees who have to work 40-50 hours in a week and those who have to work
above 50 hours in a week. Significant difference in professional dissatisfaction is
manifest between ‘40-50 hours’ and ‘Above 50 hours’ groups.
6.7.11 Conclusion
Fifteen statements are considered to measure the psychological effects
of occupational stress which have an overall Cronbach’s alpha of 0.848
which is well above the accepted norm of 0.70. It is seen that the mean values
of the 15 statements vary from2.478 (SD, 1.04) to3.621 (SD, 1.02).
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was carried out on the 15 measures to
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 275
validate constructs which will help to analyse the employees’ responses and
to evaluate factors which exert influence over the magnitude of psychological
effects of stress. The measures were subjected to Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) under the restriction that the Eigen value of each construct is
more than 1. Principal Component Analysis reduced the data into 3
components which together explain the variance of 56 per cent. On the basis
of the findings of the exploratory factor analysis, three factors were created
by adding (summing) the rating scores of all items loaded on each factor. The
factors so framed in the order of importance are Professional Anxiety, Social
Isolation, and Professional Dissatisfaction. The three factors of psychological
effects of stress are related to various demographic and other job- related
variables to study the association between them. The study reveals that the
psychological effects of stress differ according to the difference in the
demographic and job-related background variables.
Type of bank, Location of the branch, Employment status, Gender,
Marital status, Age, Education, Salary, Length of services and Workload in a
week are the 10 background variables considered here for cross-analysis.
Significant difference is observed in five variables such as type of bank,
location, employment status, gender and effective workload in a week and no
such difference is seen in other variables such as marital status, age,
educational qualification, salary and length of service. With regard to the
background variables, employment status, gender and effective working
hours in a week, the mean difference is significant in all the three
psychological effects of job stress, whereas in the case of type of bank, the
mean difference is applicable only in ‘professional anxiety’, and in the case
of location, the difference observed is related to ‘professional dissatisfaction’.
Chapter 6
276 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
6.8 Physical Effects of Occupational Stress
On the basis of the review of literature and discussion with medical
experts, 14 indicators of physiological effects of job stress have been
identified. A five-point scale has been used to measure the extent of each
indicator where a score of 5 is assigned for ‘always’, 4 for ‘often’, 3 for
‘sometimes/occasionally’, 2 for ‘rarely’ and 1 for ‘never/hardly ever’. These
scores are collected, summated, averaged and compared for each indicator.
The descriptive statistics of mean and S.D is depicted in the following Table.
Table 6.33: Descriptive Statistics
Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Headache 462 1.00 5.00 2.4567 .90866 Back/Neck//Shoulder pain 462 1.00 5.00 2.8398 1.10623 Chest pain/discomfort 462 1.00 5.00 1.7273 .88325 Sleeping difficulties 462 1.00 5.00 2.0909 1.03327 Gastro intestinal problem (Indigestion, nausea, diarrhea etc.)
462 1.00 5.00 2.2338 1.13966
Breathing difficulties 462 1.00 5.00 1.7143 .94339 Tiredness or fatigue 462 1.00 5.00 2.7316 1.11460 Skin problems 462 1.00 5.00 1.7273 1.03898 Eye strain 462 1.00 5.00 2.9221 1.14577 Cold/Virus/Fever 462 1.00 5.00 2.3896 .91252 Feeling dizzy 462 1.00 5.00 2.1364 .97963 Ulcers/Constipation 462 1.00 5.00 1.8009 1.01793 Elevated blood pressure 462 1.00 5.00 1.9026 1.08291 Elevated serum cholesterol 462 1.00 5.00 1.8896 1.15160 Total 462
Source: Primary survey.
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 277
It is observed that the mean scores of various physical effects vary
from 1.7143(SD-.943) to 2.9221 (SD-1.146). The mean is comparatively
higher in the case of eye strain (2.92), Back/Neck/Shoulder pain (2.84),
Tiredness (2.73) and Headache (2.46). However, Breathing difficulty (1.71),
Chest pain (1.73), Skin problem (1.73) are not much severe owing to their
lower mean values. The mean, SD, minimum values and maximum values
are depicted in the following spider diagram.
Fig 6:4 Physical effects-Descriptive statistics
6.8.1 Grouping of physical Effects.
After consultation with the experts, all the fourteen physical effects are compartmentalized under seven heads based on their nature. Since this classification is technical in nature, the researcher made use of expert advice from renowned physicians in modern medicine. The various symptoms of physical effects and their grouping based on nature are exhibited in the following Table.
.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.001
2
3
4
5
6
78
9
10
11
12
13
14
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Chapter 6
278 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
Table 6.34: Grouping of physical Effects
Symptoms/Indicators Group Headache
Sleeping difficulty
Eye strain
Neurological problem
Back/Neck/Shoulder pain Musculoskeletal disorder
Chest pain/discomfort
Elevated blood pressure
Elevated serum cholesterol.
Cardio vascular problem
Indigestion, nausea, diarrhea, etc.
Ulcers/Constipation Gastro-Intestinal problems
Breathing difficulty Respiratory complaints
Tiredness or fatigue
Cold/Virus/Fever
Feeling dizzy
General health problems
Skin problems Skin problems
6.9 Strength of Interrelationship between Sources and Effects
of Job Stress (Canonical correlation analysis)
Canonical correlation analysis is a multivariate statistical model that
facilitates the study of interrelationships among sets of multiple dependent
variables and multiple independent variables. It measures the strength of the
overall relationships between the linear composites (canonical variates) for
the independent and dependent variables. In effect, it represents the bivariate
correlation between the two canonical variates. While multiple regressions
predict a single dependent variable from a set of multiple independent
variables, canonical correlation simultaneously predicts multiple dependent
variables from multiple independent variables. In situations with multiple
dependent and independent variables, canonical correlation is the most
appropriate and powerful multivariate technique. It has gained acceptance in
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 279
many fields and represents a useful tool for multivariate analysis, particularly
as interest has spread to considering multiple dependent variables. Canonical
correlation identifies the optimum structure or dimensionality of each
variable set that maximizes the relationship between independent and
dependent variable sets.
6.9.1 Sources of Job Stress and Psychological Effects
Here, a study on the association between 13 stress factors, causes of
stress, identified with 3 psychological effects, is attempted and the results of
the analysis are given below.
Table 6.35: Test of Canonical Dimension
Canonical Dimensions
Canonical correlation F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F
1 .82389 17.09585 39.00 1123.05 .000*
2 .34288 4.11556 24.00 760.00 .000*
3 .33535 4.38873 11.00 381.00 .000*
Source: Primary survey * Significant at 5 per cent level.
Table 6.36: Standardized Canonical Coefficients (Dimensions)
Variables( stressors) Dimensions 1 2 3
Work-home interface .72915 -.75204 -.58993 Leadership support .06785 .40864 -.55841 Work pressure .20097 .20612 .80379 Group cohesiveness .09051 .29147 -.25183 Customer relationship .01070 .32995 .56776 Career growth .02258 -.23503 .30898 Compensation .03718 .04023 -.09854 Job autonomy -.02221 .19983 .16639 Customer services .09911 .43604 -.23954 Lack of encouragement -.03153 .37963 .19246 Lack of professionalism in management -.02611 .04227 -.15173 Staff shortage -.06983 -.13755 .10801 Externalities .08180 -.30382 -.12730
Source: Primary survey
Chapter 6
280 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
Table 6.37: Standardized Canonical Coefficients for Covariates (Psychological Effects)
Covariate 1 2 3 Professional anxiety. -.53369 -.64269 -.99786
Social isolation -.51556 .98887 .62940
Professional dissatisfaction -.14923 -.68257 .78499
Tests of dimensionality for the canonical correlation analysis, as
shown in Table 6.35, indicate that all the three canonical dimensions are
statistically significant at the 5 per cent level. Dimension 1 has a canonical
correlation of 0.82 between the sets of variables, while for dimension 2 the
canonical correlation is much lower at 0.34. Also, the third canonical
correlation is .34 (.335).
Table 6.36 presents the standardized canonical coefficients for the
three dimensions across both sets of variables. The first canonical dimension
is most strongly influenced by work-home interface (.73) and for the second
dimension, by Work-home interface (-.75), Leadership support (.41) and
Customer services (.44). The third dimension is dominated by Work pressure
(.80), Work-home interface (-.58), Leadership support (-.56), and Customer
relationship (.57). For the covariates (Table 6.37), the first dimension
comprises Professional anxiety (-.53) and Social isolation (-.51). For the
second and third dimension all the three variables are important with Social
isolation (.98) dominating the second dimension and Professional anxiety
(-1.0) dominating the third dimension.
From the results of the study, it can be summarized that the first
canonical correlation of 0.82 indicates that there is a strong association
between the independent variable, Work-home interface with the dependent
variables, Professional anxiety and Social isolation. The second canonical
correlation of 0.34 indicates that there is interrelationship between stress
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 281
factors such as Work-home interface, Leadership support and Customer
service and psychological effects. The third dimension also shows canonical
correlation of .34, which also reflects an overall relationship between the
canonical variates for the independent and dependent variables. So, stress due
to extensive Work pressure from all directions including domestic pressure
on employees results in all the three psychological outcomes of job stress.
Since there is significant relationship between causes of stress such as
Work-home interface, Leadership support, Work pressure, Customer
relationship and Customer services, and psychological effect of stress such as
Professional anxiety, Social isolation and Professional dissatisfaction, the
null hypothesis is rejected and it is established that there is interrelationship
between sources and effects of job stress.
6.9.2 Causes of Job Stress and Physical Effects
The influence of stress factors over physical effects of stress is
analysed using canonical correlation analysis and the results are presented in
Table 6.38, Table 6.39 and Table 6.40.
Table 6.38: Test of canonical Dimension
Canonical Dimensions
Canonical correlation F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F
1 .52873 2.50217 91.00 2346.13 .000*
2 .29237 1.33721 72.00 2051.47 .032*
3 .23741 1.11941 55.00 1748.63 .257
4 .21775 .97978 40.00 1435.19 .507
5 .18281 .75949 27.00 1107.52 .807
6 .12137 .46751 16.00 760.00 .962
7 .06882 .25903 7.00 381.00 .969
Source: primary survey * Significant at 5 per cent level
Chapter 6
282 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
Table 6.39: Standardized canonical coefficients (Dimensions)
Variables( stressors) Dimensions 1 2
Work-home interface -0.56732 0.37074
Leadership support -0.28109 0.53909
Work pressure -0.03045 -0.17041
Group cohesiveness -0.02403 -0.37252
Customer relationship -0.14782 -0.42201
Career growth -0.06894 -0.05157
Compensation -0.09008 0.18202
Job autonomy 0.02653 0.23528
Customer services -0.03914 0.19385
Lack of encouragement -0.11475 -0.01401
Lack of professionalism in management 0.06256 -0.87866
Staff shortage 0.03805 0.23807
Externalities -0.09414 -0.02486
Source: Primary survey
Table 6.40: Standardized canonical coefficients for Covariates (Physical Effects)
Covariate 1 2 Neurological problems 0.53581 0.37542
Musculoskeletal disorders 0.01675 0.34152
Cardio problems 0.04899 0.31034
Gastro intestinal problems 0.13627 -0.25187
Respiratory complaints -0.03074 0.78135
General health problems 0.42633 -1.00628
Skin problems 0.04056 0.0134
Canonical correlation analysis is the test of dimensionality as shown
in Table 6.38, which shows that only two canonical dimensions are
statistically significant at 5 per cent level. Dimension 1 has a canonical
Effects of Occupational Stress
An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala 283
correlation of 0.53 between the sets of variables, while for dimension 2,
canonical correlation is lower at 0.29.
Table 6.39 presents the standardized canonical coefficients for the two
dimensions across both set of variables. The first canonical dimension is strongly
influenced by Work-home interface (-.57) and the second dimension by Lack of
professionalism in management (-.88), Leadership support (.54) and Customer
relationship (-.42). For the covariates, the first dimension comprises
Neurological problem (.54) and General health problem (.43). For the second
dimension, General health (- 1.00) and Respiratory complaints (.78) dominate.
From the results of the analysis, it can be summarized that the first
canonical correlation of 0.53 indicates that there is a strong association between
the independent variable, Work-home interface, with the dependent variables;
Neurological problem and General health problems. The second canonical
correlation of 0.29 indicates that there is interrelationship between stress factors,
such as Lack of professionalism in management, Leadership support and
Customer relationship with General health problem and Respiratory complaints.
So, job stress due to different factors influences the physical health of the
employees in different dimensions.
Since there is significant relationship between causes of stress such as
Work-home interface, Leadership support’, Customer relationship and Staff
shortage, and physical effects of stress such as Neurological problem,
Respiratory complaints and General health problem, the null hypothesis is
rejected.
6.9.3. Conclusion
Canonical correlation analysis is done to measure the strength of
interrelationship between sources and psychological effects of job stress. Tests
Chapter 6
284 An Analytical Study on Occupational Stress among Bank Employees in Kerala
of dimensionality indicate that all the three canonical dimensions are
statistically significant at 5 per cent level. Strength of interrelationship between
sources of job stress and physical effects is also measured through canonical
correlation, which shows that only two canonical dimensions are statistically
significant at 5 per cent level. It is concluded from the analysis that the
hypothesized relationship between stress factors and physical and
psychological effects of stress is statistically significant.
……. …….