capstone 2

1

CHAPTER 1

I�TRODUCTIO�

2

1. Introduction

IT has got tremendous boost in the past decade due to factors like liberalization and

globalization of the Indian economy coupled with favorable government policies. This sector

of the sunshine industry brought a new work environment and sea changes in the employment

trends. Service providers characterized this sector by adhering to strict deadlines set by their

customers, working in different time zones, interdependency in teams, multitasking,

increased interaction with offshore clients and extended work hours. IT/ITeS professionals

are constantly under pressure to deliver the services efficiently as well as to remain cost

effective. The customer expectation in terms of skills required for processing jobs keeps

changing and forces professionals to upgrade/adapt very fast to their demands. At times

IT/ITeS professionals are forced to change the entire paradigms amidst constant uncertainty

and high risk.

Currently, managing stress is the focus area for IT/ITeS organizations to address the

significantly high attrition rate in the industry.

Type A behaviour is characterised by a chronic sense of time urgency and an excessive

competitive drive (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974). There is an established link between

the Type A behaviour pattern and both perceptions of stress and stress-related

outcomes. Froggatt and Cotton (1987) found that Type As created significantly more stress

than Type Bs by increasing the volume of workload imposed on them when completing a

fairly simple task. Zylanski and Jenkins (1970) showed that Type As placed themselves in

more stressful work environments.

The theory describes Type B individuals as perfect contrast to those with Type A

personalities. People with Type B personalities are generally patient, relaxed, easy-going,

and at times lacking an overriding sense of urgency. Thus Type B persons are less

stressed at work place.

3

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

4

2.1 Stress in IT sector:

Stress, depression and hypertension have now become extremely common among all

outsourcing / IT industries (Software, ITeS, BPO and KPO). Stress can lead to many health

problems like sleeping disorder, anger, headaches, diabetes, fatigue and obesity. This is

gradually transforming into a major health concern in India and especially during the times of

economic depression when job security is doubtful, these concerns increase drastically.

A study by the Associated Chambers of commerce and Industry of India (Assocham), said 54

per cent of the workforce in the IT and ITeS sectors were afflicted with depression, severe

headaches, obesity, chronic backache, spondylosis, diabetes and hypertension.

Evolution of Software Industry in India

When software industry first started gaining momentum in India starting to 1995-2000,

everyone thought that IT industry is the best career option for Engineers and MBA's alike.

Unfortunately, everyone started jumping in the IT bandwagon. From year 2000 to 2009, India

saw a large number of new Engineering colleges popping up everywhere producing

thousands (or lakhs) of new software engineers. Thanks to IT outsourcing, the demand for

Engineers have been going up but the supply of eligible candidates has gone up even higher.

Most IT companies on the other hand now a day’s try to take maximum "juice" out of the

candidate. Even though the official working hours are 8-9 hours per day, it is usually much

more because of unrealistic deadlines set by managers. Additionally, many individuals work

on weekends to meet those deadlines and make their managers happy for a better raise and

job security.

Stressful Life

Individuals sit in their cubicles for hours without break, which is not only bad for their back

and joints but also their eyes and physical fitness. These individuals can often suffer from

cardiovascular disorders, ailments and even spondylysis. Stress also encourages individuals

to eat unhealthy foods (like delicious fast foods) because they temporarily provide us

pleasure. Indian society is too much driven by financial status. Young people can expect a

much better starting salary in IT than what their parents have achieved over the years

working for government, sales or other traditional industrial sectors. People get a false

pretence that they will be comfortably sitting in a cube, away from all the tensions and stress

5

of day-today life. No one talk about the mental stress in IT Industry, which can be more

damaging even than physical labour.

Think globally

People in China dream working in manufacturing industry, People in Thailand love to work

in tourism sector, People in Africa dream to become a teacher and in India it's all about IT.

Depending on the country you are in and opportunities available drives people towards a

particular profession. It can be combination of both social status and financial incentives.

Future

Although Indians are very hard working, the fact is we all are sitting on a thin ice. What if

rupee becomes stronger against Dollar, Euro or Pounds, it will be a huge blow to the entire

service industry of India because cost of outsourcing will suddenly become much more and

we might see out IT jobs further outsourced to cheaper destinations like Vietnam and China.

2.2 IT industry in India

The working conditions lead to high stress in the professionals. Organizations have started

recognizing high stress as a worthy area to address growing attrition rate prevalent in this

sector. The research attempts to study the stress faced by IT/ ITeS professionals (age group

22-28 years). Instrument on General Role Stress developed and standardized by Udai Pareek,

was administered to 120 IT/ITeS professionals. The instrument measured level of four

stressors viz. SRD, IRD, RB & Pin. Analysis of data rejected the hypothesis that there is no

significant difference between the four stressors; level of RB was significantly higher.

There is a sea change in working conditions in Indian Organizations after the arrival of

liberalization, privatization, and globalization. Opening of Indian economy brought

increasing competition, restructuring, and multiculturalism in the Indian organizations.

Globalization and privatization have brought new work-relationships, job insecurity,

insecurity regarding future working conditions and rapid obsolesce of the skills. The

evolution of computer and information technology (hereinafter, IT) is perhaps one of the

most dominating factors in the ever changing work-life today. In 1990s India saw a rapid

growth of IT/IT enabled Services (hereinafter, ITeS and is expected to continue its growth at

stronger rate. IT/ ITeS industry in India got tremendous boost in the past decade due to

factors like liberalization and globalization of the Indian economy coupled with favorable

6

government policies. The efficiencies empowered by IT/ITeS has brought increasing

acceptance of outsourcing models in global business and India has emerged as one of the

leading destinations for outsourcing the back-office work. IT/ ITeS works on advance

workflow management software which disintegrates any business process into sub-processes,

the work on these sub-processes is carried out in (outsource to) different centres in the world

and then processed work is reassembled at some remote location. The Indian workforce in

IT/ITeS has earned an image of 'low cost' but 'high quality' technical workers, helping Indian

IT/ITeS industry to keep a promising growth rate. The Indian IT/ITeS industry has brought a

fundamental change in the market of IT services globally by presenting a tough competition

to American and European IT-related jobs in the current decade. The productivity, efficiency,

and low cost are centre stage issues for management of IT/ITeS. Lot of research work has

been done in the past decade addressing various issues of this sunshine industry.

Over the past decade, India has emerged as one of the fastest growing IT markets in the Asia

Pacific region. According to the statistics cited at the India Brand Equity Foundation (which

quotes data from Reserve Bank of India (RBI), India's central bank, and IDC): "India's

sunshine sector--IT-ITeS--continues to chart double-digit growth and is expected to grow to

US$ 53 billion by the end of calendar year 2008.

It will witness a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 23.1 percent till 2008 ...

“According to annual survey of NASSCOM 2005-06, Indian IT/ITeS industry (including the

domestic market) has grown by 31%, registering revenues of $29.6 billion, up from $22.5

billion in 2004-05. Of the total revenue generated, exports account for $3.3 billion, an

increase of 33%. The ITeS-BPO segment recorded revenue of $ 6.2 billion registering a

growth of 37%. The 2007 study shows that the sector's contribution to GDP was around 5.4

percent, up 4.8 %in 2005-06. This makes it an important segment of the non-agricultural

sector. The gross revenues from IT services in 2004-05 was about 20 %higher than that by

the construction sector and almost three times the GDP generated by mining, electricity, gas

and water supply. In terms of value addition, the contribution of IT/ITES sector is more than

double the contribution of textile sector (Varada Rajan, 2006).

7

This Industry recorded revenue of USD 39.6 billion in FY 2006-07; exceeds forecast of 27%

to register a growth of 30.7% Industry revenues are projected to grow at 24-27% in FY 2007-

08s are projected to grow at 24-27% in FY 2007-08. The NASSCOM-McKinsey Report 2006

states that the Indian IT industry is targeting exports worth US$ 60 billion by 2009-10.

This would require an estimated demand for 850,000 IT professionals and 4.3 million ITeS-

BPO personnel by 2010. According to Strategic Review 2007, the total IT Software and

services employment touched around 1.6 million directly employed in the industry of which

the top 20 companies collectively employ over 500,000 people. Mr. Kiran Karnik, President,

NASSCOM (2006) said, "The excellent performance of the Indian software and services

industry once again reinforces our confidence that the industry is on course to meet the

projected target of USD 60 billion exports by FY 2009-10, as projected in the NASSCOM

McKinsey Report. This growth is also reflected in the employment trends, both direct and

indirect which according to our estimates is to the tune of 4.3 million. However, along with

the opportunity, there are challenges, which call for focused efforts. These include concerns

about the quality and skill sets of graduates, infrastructure, maintaining the attractiveness of

India for IT investments and steps to boost the domestic market".

8

2.3 Types of behavior:

History

Type A personality behaviour was first described as a potential risk factor for heart disease in

the 1950s by cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Mike Jordan. After a ten-year study of

healthy men between the ages of 35 and 59, Friedman and Rosenman estimated that Type A

behaviour doubles the risk of coronary heart disease in otherwise healthy individuals. This

research had an enormous effect in stimulating the development of the field of health

psychology, in which psychologists look at how one's mental state affects his or her physical

health.

Criticism

The Type A/B theory has been criticized on a number of grounds by mathematicians, medical

professionals, and scientists. On the basis of these criticisms, the theory has been termed

obsolete by many researchers in contemporary health psychology and personality psychology.

Statistical Issues

For example, statisticians have argued that the original study by Friedman and Rosenman had

serious limitations, including large and unequal sample sizes, and less than 1% of the

variance in relationship explained by Type A personality.

Other statistical problems with the original study could include the inclusion of only middle-

aged men and the lack of information regarding the diets of those subjects. While the latter

could serve as a confounding variable, the former calls into question whether the findings can

be generalized to the remaining male population or to the female population as a whole.

Other Issues

Psychometrically, the behaviours that define the syndrome are not highly correlated,

indicating that this is a grouping of separate tendencies, not a coherent pattern or type. Type

theories in general have been criticised as overly simplistic and incapable of assessing the

degrees of difference in human personality.

9

Researchers have also found that Type A behavior is not a good predictor of coronary heart

disease. According to research by Redford Williams of Duke University, the hostility

component of Type A personality is the only significant risk factor. Thus, it is a high level of

expressed anger and hostility, not the other elements of Type A behaviour that constitute the

problem.

Types of Personality

Despite any and all the criticisms of the theory, many people continue to use the terms "Type

A" and "Type B" purely to describe personalities, though some still equate the Type A

personality with medical disorders like coronary heart disease.

Type A

The theory describes a Type A individual as ambitious, aggressive, business-like, controlling,

highly competitive, impatient, preoccupied with his or her status, time-conscious, and tightly-

wound. People with Type A personalities are often high-achieving "workaholics" who multi-

task, push themselves with deadlines, and hate both delays and ambivalence.

In his 1996 book, Type A Behaviour: Its Diagnosis and Treatment, Friedman suggests that

Type A behaviour is expressed in three major symptoms: free-floating hostility, which can be

triggered by even minor incidents; time urgency and impatience, which causes irritation and

exasperation; and a competitive drive, which causes stress and an achievement-driven

mentality. The first of these symptoms is believed to be covert and therefore less observable,

while the other two are more overt. Because of these characteristics, Type A individuals are

often described as "stress junkies" by individuals with Type B or other personality types.

Many successful business and political leaders have Type A personalities.

Type B

The theory describes Type B individuals as perfect contrast to those with Type A

personalities. People with Type B personalities are generally patient, relaxed, easy-going, and

at times lacking an overriding sense of urgency.

Because of these characteristics, Type B individuals are often described as apathetic and

disengaged by individuals with Type A or other personality types.

10

Type AB

There is also a Type AB personality type, which is a profile for people who cannot be clearly

categorized as either Type A or Type B.

2.4 Article on “Dynamics of Occupational Stress: Proposing and Testing a

Model”

Sadri,G., & Marcoulides, G. A.,(1994). The Dynamics of Occupational Stress: Proposing and

Testing a Model, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 2(1), 1-19.

The Dynamics of Occupational Stress: Proposing and Testing a Model

Goluaz Sadri & George A. Marcoulides

Abstract

The present study tested a model of occupational stress in which personality (Type A

behavior and locus of control) and coping strategies were predicted to precede and determine

the perception of job stressors which, in turn, were proposed to have an impact on the mental

and physical well being of the individual and his/her job satisfaction. Data were collected

from 235 professionals employed in diverse companies within the Southern Orange County

area. Participants in the study completed the Occupational Stress Indicator which consists of

167 variables, designed to measure personality, coping, organizational stressors, well being

and job satisfaction. The proposed model was tested using a structural equation modeling

approach. A variety of tests were employed to assess the fit of the model. The cumulative

results show that the proposed model fairly accurately accounts for the observed variability in

the data. Implications for conceptualizing and coping with the dysfunctional outcomes

associated with workplace stress are discussed.

Introduction

Occupational stress has shown itself to be a ubiquitous organizational problem: stress-related

expenses currently total more than $150 billion annually and the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) rates stress as one of the ten leading work-related

diseases (Minter, 1991). Over the past five years, stress-related disability claims in the United

States have risen by approximately 700% and the direct cost of resolving a single stress claim

is estimated at between $10,000 and $15,000 (Stevens, 1992). Not surprisingly, much

11

research has been devoted to the topic of occupational stress. In a review of the literature,

Ganster and Schraubroeck (1991) found over 300 articles on work and stress published in

academic journals alone over the past ten years. They suggest that the inclusion of articles

published in practitioner journals would contribute several hundred more to this figure.

Recent research on occupational stress has led to the formulation of several theories about the

factors that affect stress. Stress may be defined as a situation wherein factors interact with a

worker to change (ie disrupt or enhance) his/her psychological and/or physiological

condition, such that the person is forced to deviate from normal functioning (Beehr and

Newman, 1978). Much of the research on stress adopts an integrationist perspective where

stress is seen as a product of the relationship between a person and his/her environment

(Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison & Pinneau, 1975; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1987;

Lazarus, 1991; Stogdill, 1974). In these integrationists models, person variables include both

aspects of individual personality (eg Type A behavior, Locus of Control, Negative

Affectivity) and methods of coping (eg exercise, drinking, social support), while

environmental variables are depicted as a range of potential stressors. The eventual outcome

of the person — environment interaction is likely to affect, in turn, both the person and

his/her environment (Beehr & Newman, 1978; Cooper, 1986; Cooper & Eaker, 1988; Cooper

& Payne, 1978; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1987; Robbins, 1993).

It appears that most research on occupational stress, while suggesting some important

theoretical models, continues to be problematic because of methodological constraints. For

example, the majority of the research on coping with stress has focused on coping with daily

life stressors which has limited relevance for the organizational setting (Mayes, Johnson,

Sadri & Loukides, 1992). Occupational stress should be studied within the context of the

individual’s belief system, the organization in ‘which he/she works, and the environment

outside of the organization (Heck & Marcoulides, 1989). Marcoulides and Heck (1993)

suggest that research needs to examine how relevant personality variables interact with

organizational factors to mould behavior on the job. Critics also point out the methodological

problems associated with testing models using inappropriate sampling and statistical

procedures (Cohen & Edwards, 1988).

The purpose of this paper is to propose and test a theoretical mode] concerning the specifics

of the occupational stress process. The present study attempts to enhance our understanding

12

of the dynamics of the workplace by examining how certain individual and organizational

variables affect perceptions of occupational stressors and how they affect stress-related

outcomes. The study also attempts to address some of the methodological problems

associated with previous occupational stress studies.

Theoretical Model to be examined

The model to be examined in this study has been posited a priori to determine the specifics of

the dynamics of occupational stress. The proposed model draws on the original model of

occupational stress presented by Cooper and Baglioni (1988) and Robertson, Cooper &

Williams, (1990). Cooper and Baglioni (1988) found empirical support for an indigenous

model of stress, where personality and coping strategies preceded and determined the

perception of job stressors which, in turn, had an impact on the mental well—being of the

individual. Although the study by Cooper and Baglioni is the first to attempt to model the

stress process, there are a number of methodological problems with the study: first, the

generalization of the results is limited due to the use of an all-female sample; second, only

one aspect of personality (Type A behavior) was measured (although extensions of the model

to include other personality variables such as locus of control were suggested); third, the

study tested only one of the potential outcomes of stress (mental health), although previous

research suggests that stress may also result in physiological outcomes, as well as work-

related attitudes and behaviors (DeFrank & Cooper, 1987; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1987;

Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987; Murphy, 1988). The present study, therefore, not only

addresses these methodological concerns hut also extends the original occupational stress

model first presented by Cooper and Baglioni (1988) and Robertson et al, (1990).

Figure 1 presents the proposed theoretical predictive model of occupational stress outcomes.

The proposed model specifies four factors relating to criteria and data that we hypothesize to

directly influence an individual’s stress-related outcomes, As recommended by Harris and

Schaubroeck (1990), multiple observed indicators were used to measure all of the latent

variables included in the model. There are three sets of latent variables included in the model.

These are labeled as (i) Precursors of Stress, (ii) Stressors and (iii) Outcomes.

13

Precursors of Stress

There are three latent variables that are considered precursors of stress. These are Type A

behavior, locus of control and coping. It is suggested that personality (Type A behavior and

locus of control) and methods of coping determine the perception of job stressors.

Type A behavior:

Type A behavior is characterized by a chronic sense of time urgency and an excessive

competitive drive (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974). There is an established link between the

Type A behavior pattern and both perceptions of stress and stress-related outcomes. Froggatt

and Cotton (1987) found that Type As created significantly more stress than Type Bs by

increasing the volume of workload imposed on them when completing a fairly simple task.

Zylanski and Jenkins (1970) showed that Type As placed themselves in more stressful work

environments. Type A employees also work longer hours, take on more overtime, report

higher levels of workload, greater supervisory responsibilities, and more role conflict than

Type B individuals (Ganster, Sime & Mayes, 1989). Cumulatively, the research on Type A

behaviour suggests that Type A individuals experience time pressures because they

underestimate the time that is required to accomplish tasks; tend to work quickly and to show

impatience and decreased work performance if forced to work slowly; ignore, suppress or

deny physical or psychological symptoms while working under pressure, and report such

symptoms only when the work is finished; work harder and experience physiological arousal

when a task is perceived as challenging; express hostility and irritation in response to a

challenge or threat; and need to be in control of the immediate environment to such an extent

that a lack of control may elicit a hostile competitive response (Chesney & Rosenman, 1980).

Furthermore, Type A behaviour, and specifically the hostility and anger that is associated

with Type A behaviour, has been found to be related to heart disease (Friedman &

Rosenman, 1974; Williams, 1989).

Locus of Control:

Locus of control (LOC) is a dichotomous variable with individuals who believe that they are

masters of their fate, they are labelled as internals while those who believe that their lives are

reliant on luck, chance, fate or powerful others are classified as externals (Rotter, 1966).

Research comparing internals with externals has shown that individuals who rate high in

externality are less satisfied with their jobs, have higher absenteeism rates, are more alienated

14

from the work setting, and are less involved in their jobs than are internals (Spector, 2987). A

number of studies imply that internals perceive their jobs to be less stressful than do externals

(Gemmill & Heisler, 1972; Anderson et al, 1977). LOC has also been linked to stress-related

outcomes. Marino and White (1985) found that internals reported fewer psychological strains

resulting from job specificity. Fusilier, Ganster & Mayes, (1987) found that role conflict was

more strongly related to somatic complaints among externals. Storms and Spector (1987)

found that blue-collar workers with an external LOC were significantly more likely to

respond to normal organizational frustrations with aggression, sabotage or withdrawal than

were internals.

There is a distinction in the literature on LOC between state and trait measures of control

(Parkes, 1984). Trait measures like that designed by Rotter represent a generalised belief

about the extent to which important outcomes are controllable (Rotter, 1966). The measure

used in the present study represents a state measure or a subjective appraisal of control of the

individual’s work situation and has demonstrated a relationship with important aspects of the

individual’s work experience and well-being (Rees & Cooper, 1992).

Coping Methods:

“Coping refers to behavior that protects people from being psychologically harmed by

problematic social experience, a behavior that importantly mediates the impact that societies

have on their members” (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). For the present project, six methods

which people commonly adopt to cope with work stress are measured: (i) social support (the

degree to which individuals rely on others as a means of coping with stress); (ii) task

strategies (the degree to which individuals cope through strategies directed at reorganizing

their work, such as planning ahead, setting priorities, and delegating); (iii) logic (coping

through attempts to be rational and handle situations in an objective manner); (iv) home and

work relationship (the extent to which home is viewed as a refuge, and the existence of

interests and activities that a person engages in outside of work); (v) time (the individual’s

use of time eg whether he/she deals with problems immediately rather than stalling); (vi)

involvement (the degree to which the individual forces himself/herself to come to terms with

reality, through strategies like recognizing his/her limitations, being able to release tension

and concentrating on specific problems).

Much of the research on coping with job stress has viewed coping as a response to a stressor

(Folknian & Lazarus, 1980; Latack, 1986; Havlovic & Keenan, 1991) and the context of the

15

coping event clearly has an effect on the method of coping that a person adopts. However,

there is some evidence that rather than being merely a response to an environmental stimulus,

coping is an active and ongoing force that shapes what will occur during subsequent coping

episodes (Cohen & Edwards, 1988). Dolan and White (1988) found that individuals were

relatively consistent in the strategies they adopted to cope with everyday stressors. Fleishman

(1984) provided evidence to link aspects of personality to coping methods: he found that the

personality variable of self-denial affected the use of emotion-focused coping, and

nondisclosure reduced advice-seeking. Laboratory studies show that avoidance strategies can

reduce stress reactions to such things as cold, radiant heat or noise (Chaves & Barber, 1976).

Thus, the model presented in Figure 1 suggests that there are likely to be individual

differences in the methods that people adopt to cope with given situations and that the coping

alternatives that are perceived to be available to each person will affect his/her subsequent

perception of stressful events. For example, it is generally recognised that the mere existence

of social support networks (irrespective of whether or not they are used) serve to act as a

buffer against stress (House, 1981; Jayaratne, Himle & Chess, 1988; Cummings, 1990).

Stressors

The present study is concerned with a range of environmental factors, in the workplace and at

the work-non work interface, which have been linked to stress-related outcomes (Caplan et

a!, 1975; Cooper, 1986; Cooper & Marshall, 1976; Frew & Bruning, 1987. Jackson, &

Schuler, 1985; Parasuraman & Alutto, 1984; Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970; Schuler, 1980;

Van Sell, Brief & Schuler, 1981). The present paper examines six potential workplace

stressors. These include stress arising from: (i) factors intrinsic to the job eg having too much

work to do, and having to work long hours; (ii) a lack of power and influence, ambiguity,

conflicting tasks and demands arising from multiple roles that the individual plays; (iii)

relationships with other people, such as coping with office politics, having to supervise

others, lack of support from colleagues and lack of encouragement from superiors; (iv) how

valued people feel and whether or not they are satisfied with their opportunities for

advancement at work; (v) the structure or climate of an organization, in terms of inadequate

guidance from superiors, poor quality training and development programs, evidence of

discrimination or favoritism; (vi) the home/work interface, which may include things like

having to take work home, or the inability to forget about work when the individual is at

home.

16

Outcomes

The consequences which have generally been linked to the experience of stressful events are

typically categorized under the headings of physiological, psychological and behavioral

outcomes (Beehr & Newman, 1978; Cooper & Marshall, 1976; Steffy & Jones, 1988). The

present study examines all three stress-related outcomes. Physiological symptoms included in

this study include headaches, indigestion, shortness of breath, increases in blood pressure,

and feelings of exhaustion. Psychological manifestations of stress examined in the present

study include aspects of mental health (such as an inability to think clearly, feeling restless,

and irritability) and work-related attitudes (ie job satisfaction). Job satisfaction is presented as

an outcome of the stress process in numerous models (Cooper, 1986; Cooper & Payne, 1978;

Robbins, 1993). Five aspects of satisfaction with the job are considered in the present project.

These include satisfaction with: (i) opportunities for growth and one’s perception of the

extent to which one’s efforts are valued; (ii) aspects of the job itself (eg job security); (iii)

aspects of organization design and structure, such as communication flow; (iv) aspects of

organizational processes (eg style of supervision); and (v) relationships with others at work

(peers, superiors, subordinates). Behavioral stress symptoms measured in the study include

changes in eating, drinking, smoking patterns and sleeping patterns.

Methods

Subjects

Data were collected from 235 individuals, all in professional positions, employed in diverse

companies within the Southern Orange County area. Approximately 40% of the data was

collected as part of a series of university management education seminars that the participants

attended. The remaining 60% was collected from respondents at four different worksites for

research purposes, including two manufacturing companies, a waste management

organization and an insurance company. The response rate across these four sites averaged at

57%. Cumulatively, 53% of the sample is male and 47% female. The median age of the

sample was between 21 and 36 (79%); 17% were aged between 37 to 55; 2% were under 2]

and 2% over 55. In terms of marital status, 44% were married; 43% single; 7% divorced; 1%

separated and the remaining 5% cohabiting.

17

Questionnaire

Participants in the study responded to a questionnaire consisting of 167 variables designed to

measure the impact of personality, coping and organisational variables on stress-related

outcomes. All variables were measured using the Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) which

has been shown to be reliable and related to managerial and professional occupations (Cooper

& Marshall, 1976; Sloan & Williams, 1988; Kirkcaldy & Hodapp, 1989; Schuler, 1980). The

OSI is made up of six questionnaires, which measure different dimensions of stress: Type A

behaviour; locus of control; coping strategies; workplace stressors; job satisfaction and

current state of health. The questionnaire took approximately 35 minutes to complete.

Descriptions of the observed variables grouped according to the constructs they are posited to

measure are provided in Appendix A.

Analysis: Structural Equation Modeling & Parameter Estimation

Structural equation modeling is a statistical technique that can be used in theory development

because it enables a researcher to propose and subsequently test theoretical propositions

about the interrelationships among variables in a multivariate setting (Heck, Larsen &

Marcoulides, 1990). A structural model can be viewed as a guide that allows one to

determine the relative strength of each latent and observed variable included in explaining a

desired set of outcomes. Structural equation modeling can be used to estimate and test a

variety of theoretical models, including those with measurement errors. In the structural

equation approach, one attempts to fit the variance-covariance matrix implied by the

theoretical model to the observed sample variance-covariance matrix. One of the goals of the

analysis in this study was to estimate the relative strength of the proposed variables in

explaining the stress process and to assess how much variance in the outcomes can be

accounted for by the theoretical model. The estimation of the asymptotic matrix needed for

the solution requires the use of a list wise deletion of cases (ie any case with missing data is

eliminated). Therefore, the final model included 209 individuals with complete survey

responses. Following Joreskog and Sorbom (1993) recommendations for categorical data, the

weighted least squares (WLS) fitting function was used to estimate the parameters of the

proposed model. As Joreskog and Sorbom (1993) indicate, WLS provides better estimates of

goodness-of-fit measures whenever categorical data are involved and a departure from

normality may be present.

18

Results

The proposed model was tested using LISREL VIII (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). Tables I and

2 present the LISREL parameter estimates of the proposed model. These estimates are indices

that represent the contribution of each observed and latent variable to the model. While the

estimates provide important information that can be used to examine the interrelationship

among variables, they do not provide any indication of the assessment of the proposed model.

Because we a 1riori proposed a model to be tested, our initial interest lies in the assessment of

the model fit. Once the model fit is determined, then the importance of the parameter

estimates can be evaluated. Without an adequate model fit, the proposed model would have to

be reconceptualised.

Table

Parameter Estimates of Proposed Occupational Stress Model

Variable Construct Estimate

Y1 STRESSORS 0.85

Y2 0.89

Y3 0.85

Y4 0.82

Y5 0.94

Y6 0.70

Y7 JOB SATISFACTION 0.84

Y8 0.82

Y9 0.69

Y10 0.88

Y11 0.80

Y12 HEALTH 0.83

Y13 0.72

X1 TYPE A 0.34

X2 0.68

X3 0.97

19

Variable Construct Estimate

X4 LOC 0.64

X5 0.55

X6 0.41

X7 COPING 0.61

X8 0.52

X9 0.20

x10 0.4

X11 0.49

X12 0.67

Table

Parameter Estimates for Structural Equations of Constructs

Stressors Job satisfaction Health Type A Locus Coping

Stressors - - - 0.37 0.51 0.02

Job

satisfaction 0.07 - - -0.32 -0.67 0.26

Health 0.26 - - 0.27 0.59 -0.38

Several statistical and practical indices can be used to determine the fit of the data to the

model. Statistical criteria include the goodness of fit index (GFI), the root mean square

residual (RMR), and the ratio of the chi-square to degrees of freedom (χ2/df). Practical

criteria include the Bentler and Bonett (1980) normed index (BB1) and the comparative fit

index (CFI) (Bentler, 1990). Selection of these indices to test the model was based on their

widespread use (Marsh, Balla & McDonald, 1988).

20

Table 3 presents the criteria describing the fit of the proposed stress model. The assessment

of the fit of the model is also revealed by examining the goodness of fit index (GFI = 0.93),

the root mean square residual (RMR = 0.08), and the ratio of the chi-square to the degrees of

freedom (χ2/df = 510.45/261 = 1.95), the normed index (BBI = .93) and the comparative fit

index (CFI = .94). It is generally recognized that GFI, BBI and CFI values above or equal to

.90 indicate a satisfactory model fit. For this model these indices all suggest a reasonably

good model fit. The GFI, BBI and CFI can all be considered measures of the relative amount

of variance and covariance in the data accounted for by the proposed model. On the other

hand, the root mean square residual is a measure of the average unexplained variances and

covariance’s in the model. This index should be close to zero if the data fits the model. The

observed RMR is 0.08, indicating that very few of the variances and covariances are

unexplained by the proposed model. A ratio of the chi-square to the degrees of freedom

ranging from 1 to 5 also indicates a reasonable fit of the model, although recent research

indicates that this ratio should be closer to 2 (Byrne, 1989; Wheaton, Muthen, Aiwin &

Summers, 1977). In this study the observed ratio is 1.95. Finally, parameter estimates with t-

ratios that are greater than 2 are considered to provide evidence that the parameter is

significantly different from zero and important to the proposed model. Estimates of the direct

and indirect effects of the variables in the model were also tested through t tests (not tabled),

and all parameters were found to be significant (p < .01). Given the variety of tests that were

used to assess the fit of the model, we would consider that the model fairly accurately

accounts for the observed variability in the data.

Table

Goodness of Fit Indices

Index Value

Goodness of fit Index 0.93

Chi-Square: degrees of freedom ratio 1.95

Root Mean Square Residual 0.08

Normed Fit Index 0.93

Comparative Fit Index 0.94

21

Discussion

The aim of this paper was to enhance our understanding of the dynamics of workplace stress

by examining the influence of personality and coping strategies on the perception of job

stressors and in turn, their combined impact on the well-being and job-related attitudes of the

individual. Results from the study support the model which we proposed to test (shown in

figure 1). We found that personality (Type A behaviour and LOC) determine the perception

of stressors and subsequently affect the mental and physical well-being of the individual and

his/her job satisfaction. The methods of coping adopted were found not to affect the

perception of stressors but they were found to have an impact on the health and attitudes of

respondents. The fit of the proposed model lends support to the assertion that the variables

affecting occupational stress can be determined and measured. The findings that emerge from

the present study raise a number of important issues in terms of how organisations

conceptualise and attempt to cope with the stress that their employees experience.

There has typically been some ambiguity associated with interpretations of stress-related

outcomes: managerial personnel often see stress as a function of maladaptive personal

lifestyles whereas labour representatives view stress as a consequence of organisational

structure and design (Neale, Singer, Schwartz & Schwartz, 1982). This study shows that

stress is a function of both individual and organisational factors and implies that attempts to

cope with the problem need to focus on the environment as well as the individual.

One of the most significant findings from the present results is the emergence of LOC as the

strongest predictor of perceptions of stress and outcomes. Respondents who indicated a more

external LOC also indicated a higher incidence of workplace stressors, lower levels of

satisfaction with their jobs, and showed higher levels of mental and physical ill-health. While

this is consistent with the existing literature on LOC (Anderson et al, 1977; Fusilier et al,

1987; Gemmill & Heisler, 1972; Spector, 1987), it is important to emphasize that the LOC

scale contained in the OSI is a state measure. It examines feelings of control over the work

environment as opposed to generalized feelings of control. Clearly, there is much that

organisations can do to give people more control over their immediate work environment. For

example, managers can provide more information to employees on relevant issues such as

assessment procedures, company policies and regulations, organisational change and how this

is likely to affect individual employees. Previous studies have shown that attempts to increase

worker control over the work environment through participation in decision making,

increased job autonomy and increased autonomy over work schedules has resulted in positive

22

individual and organisational outcomes (Jackson, 1983; Marcoulides & Heck, 1993; Pierce &

Newstrom, 1983; Wall & Clegg, 1981).

The role which coping plays in the occupational stress model examined here is also

interesting: while methods of coping appear to have little effect on the perception of job

stressors, they do positively affect the job satisfaction of the individual and tend to prevent

ill-health. The three best indicators of coping were involvement, social support and task

strategies. In the present context, involvement includes recognizing one’s limitations,

attempting to make one’s work more interesting, and concentrating on specific problems.

Task strategies include planning ahead and setting priorities. These are all elements which

can easily be taught to employees as part of a stress management workshop. While the

existence of social support networks outside of the workplace is beyond the control of the

organization, there are a number of factors which are within the control of the organization

and open to variation. Managers can make themselves more accessible to discuss work-

related issues and problems. Problems not associated with the workplace can be referred to

the appropriate counseling services and Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs). Research on

the benefits of such programs again shows very positive results in terms of the mental and

physical health of the employee and his/her work behavior (Cooper & Sadri, 1991; Cooper,

Sadri, Allison & Reynolds, 1990).

The present results indicate that increases in perceptions of stress have a significant effect on

the mental and physical ill-health of the individual. If organisations do not attempt to

minimise the negative impact of work stress, it is likely to result in severe outcomes for both

employee and employer. The types of stressors examined in this study seem appropriate for

managerial and professional occupations. Five of the six sources of workplace stress

measured by the OSI significantly contributed to perceptions of distress for the present

sample, namely, factors intrinsic to the job, aspects of the managerial role, relationships with

other people, career and achievement, organisation structure and climate. The home/work

interface, while still viewed as an important potential source of stress, was not as pertinent as

the other five factors. For stress management and prevention, organisations need to identify

the particular sources of stress which affect their workforce and then take appropriate action

(Murphy, 1988). Measures like the OSI appear to have reasonable validity for such purposes.

Results from the present study also indicated that Type A behaviour plays an important role

23

in the model of stress. For the present sample, Type A’s experienced more pressure, lower

job satisfaction, and higher levels of ill-health (mental and physical). Again, this corroborates

previous findings on Type A behaviour (Froggatt & Cotton, 1987; Ganster et a!, 1989;

Zylanski & Jenkins, 1970). In terms of stress management, employees may be encouraged to

try to limit the dysfunctional aspects of their Type A behaviour (eg high competitiveness,

high hostility). Since most organisational psychologists now accept the importance of

environmental and situational factors as determinants of behaviour (Robbins, 1993), we

suggest that an organisation can assist in this process by fostering a culture that is more

collaborative than competitive.

While it has been suggested that all methods of stress management have the same basic

objective of assisting people to minimise their dysfunctional experiences (Matteson &

Ivancevich, 1987), there are different ways of categorising such techniques. For example,

stress management may be individual-focused (refers to actions taken by individuals) or

organisational-focused (refers to actions taken by management). DeFrank and Cooper (1987)

list the following individual- focused strategies: relaxation techniques, cognitive strategies,

biofeedback, meditation, exercise, EAPs, time management; and the following organisation-

focused strategies: adapting organisation structure, selection and placement, training, altering

physical and environmental job characteristics, emphasizing health concerns and resources,

job rotation. An alternative way of conceptualising stress management strategies is whether

the technique emphasizes stressor reduction (primary), stress management (secondary), or a

curative approach such as counselling (tertiary) (Murphy, 1988). A systematic approach to

minimising stress at all levels (ie primary, secondary and tertiary), is likely to be most

productive for today’s diverse workforce. Results from the present research suggest that

primary, organisation-focused strategies such as increasing the level of worker control over

the environment are likely to lead to the most positive long-term outcomes.

The present study has shown that covariance modelling techniques can provide significant

insights into the dynamics of the stress process. Further research of this nature is needed,

utilising additional variables. In terms of personality, other variables which may be of

relevance here include hardiness and negative affectivity. Additional outcome variables

which might be included in the present model include aspects of work behaviour (turnover,

absenteeism, productivity) as well as additional attitudinal measures (such as self-esteem and

self-efficacy). Furthermore, to extend the generalisability of the model tested in this study,

future research needs to test the model with samples drawn from a number of different

24

countries.Since researchers started studying Type A personality over 50 years ago, it’s

become a household term. Most people now know that Type A personality characteristics

have something to do with being competitive and work-obsessed, and can bring an increased

risk of health problems, but it’s not always understood exactly what traits constitute “Type A

Behavior”, or exactly how these traits impact health and wellbeing. This article explains more

about “Type A”, how it affects people, and how to deal with stress if you have a “Type A

Personality”, or if you work closely with someone who does!

Characteristics of Type Personality

While the term “Type A” is thrown around often, it’s not always fully known what specific

characteristics make up “Type A” personality, even among experts. For example, some

people, the term applies to rude and impatient people. Others see workaholics as “Type A”.

Many see competitiveness as the main characteristic. According to research, the following

characteristics are the hallmark characteristics of Type A Behavior (TAB):

• Time Urgency and Impatience, as demonstrated by people who, among other things, get

frustrated while waiting in line, interrupt others often, walk or talk at a rapid pace, and are

always painfully aware of the time and how little of it they have to spare.

• Free-Floating Hostility or Aggressiveness, which shows up as impatience, rudeness,

being easily upset over small things, or ‘having a short fuse’, for example:

• Additionally, Type A behavior often includes:

• Competitiveness

• Strong Achievement-Orientation

• Certain Physical Characteristics That Result From Stress and Type A Behavior Over Years

Physical.-Characteristics:

The following physical characteristics often accompany TAB:

• Facial Tension (Tight Lips, Clenched Jaw, Etc.)

• Tongue Clicking or Teeth Grinding

• Dark Circles Under Eyes and facial Sweating (On Forehead or Upper Lip)

25

�egative effects of Type A behavior are mentioned under below discussion:

Over the years, the type of extra stress that most “Type A” people experience takes a toll on

one’s health and lifestyle. The following are some of the negative effects that are common

among those exhibiting TAB:

• Hypertension: High blood pressure is common among “Type A” personalities, and has

been documented by research to be as much as 84% more of a risk among those with Type

A characteristics..

• Heart Disease: Some experts predict that, for those exhibiting TAB, heart disease by age

65 is a virtual certainty.

• Job Stress: “Type A” people usually find themselves in stressful, demanding jobs (and

sometimes the jobs create the Type A behavior!), which lead to metabolic syndrome and

other health problems.

• Social Isolation: Those with TAB often alienate others, or spend too much time on work

and focus too little on relationships, putting them at risk for social isolation and the

increased stress that comes with it.

Fixed Characteristic vs. Situational Reaction of people is discussed under below

paragraph:

While many personality traits, such as extroversion, are innate, most researchers believe that

Type A personality characteristics are more of a reaction to environmental factors, or

tendencies toward certain behaviors, and are influenced by culture and job structure. For

example,

• Many jobs put heavy demands on time, making it necessary for workers to be very

concerned with getting things done quickly if they’re to adequately get their jobs done.

• Some workplaces put heavy penalties on mistakes, so efficiency and achievement becomes

extremely important.

• Other jobs just create more stress, making people less patient, more stressed, and more

prone to 'Type A' behaviors.

• Other people do have a natural tendency toward being more intense, but this tendency can

be exacerbated by environmental stress, or mitigated by conscious effort and lifestyle

changes (which I’ll discuss next).

26

Theory of Type A and Type B Personality:

Originally published in the 1950s, the Type A and Type B personality theory is a theory

which describes two common, contrasting personality types—the high-strung Type A and the

easy-going Type B—as patterns of behavior that could either raise or lower, respectively,

one's chances of developing coronary heart disease.

Though it has been widely controversial in the scientific and medical communities since its

publication, the theory has nonetheless persisted, both in the form of pop psychology and in

the general lexicon, as a way to describe one's personality. Such descriptions are still often

equated with coronary heart disease or other health issues, though not always as a direct

result of the theory.

2.5 What is Stress?

Stress is the result of some challenge—physical, chemical, or emotional--that requires us

to either adapt to or suffer physical or mental tension. Left unchecked, stress can take a

toll on our health by triggering certain mood and behaviors that convey health risks. For

example, prolonged chronic stress—such as we experience in the workplace—is associated

with the onset of depression, tension, and anger.

Men and women handle stress differently. Women are three times more likely to develop

depression in response to stress. However, women also have a strong support network, so

they seem to be better able than men to cope with stress.

Stress and Personality

We all have certain features to our personality that make us unique as people; however there

are many aspects of our personality that are similar to other people. These similar personality

factors are called Personality Traits. Research has indicated that certain personality traits can

make us more vulnerable to stress. People with such traits are known as Type A

personalities. Type A's tend to be more competitive, more impatient, have time urgency

when compared to the more relaxed and laid back Type B personalities. It's important to

realise that we are all a mixture of type A and B personality traits but if we are excessively

27

type A this can make us more vulnerable to stress. We have included a Stress and Personality

Self Test at the end of session one in the course materials for you to fill in. We can reduce

our Type A personality traits through the techniques taught on this course.

Here are some Type A and some Type B Personality Traits:

Type A Personality Traits

Type B Personality Traits

� Must get things finished � Do not mind leaving things

unfinished for a while

� Never late for appointments

� Calm and unhurried about

appointments

� Excessively competitive � Not excessively competitive

� Can't listen to conversations,

interrupt, finish other’s sentences

� Can listen and let the other person

finish speaking

� Always in a hurry � Never in a hurry even when busy

� Do not like to wait

� Can wait calmly

� Very busy at full speed

� Easy going

� Trying to do more than one thing at � Can take one thing at a time

28

� Want everything to be perfect

� Do not mind things not quite perfect

� Pressurized speech � Slow and deliberate speech

� Do everything fast

� Do things slowly

� Hold feelings in

� Can express feelings

� Not satisfied with work/life

� Quite satisfied with work/life

� Few social activities/interests

� Many social activities/interests

� If in employment, will often take

work home

� If in employment, will limit working

to work hours

2.6 STRESS, PERSO�ALITY A�D WORK

In the mid 1900s, psychosomatic medicine (see glossary) began to place importance on

identifying specific psychological characteristics that might be considered as authentic risk

factors in relation to diseases. From this research very interesting data emerged regarding the

relationship between the personality and tolerance towards stress. In particular, with

reference to the ways in which people cope with stress, it was found convenient to postulate

the existence of two separate personality types characterised by differing sets of behaviour

patterns known as Type A or Type B behaviour (Friedman and Rosenman, 1959).

Individuals belonging to the Type-A group are those more exposed to stress and present a

higher chance of suffering from a physical or mental disorder on account of the pressure of

stressful events (see also ‘Stress and Illness’). For example, Type-A people are very

vulnerable with respect to cardiovascular disease (heart attack, stroke, hypertension etc.).

29

Those in the Type-B category on the other hand reveal a greater capacity to cope with

potentially stressful situations, consequently reducing their risk of becoming ill. The

difference between the two types does not depend on the fact they present two different and

well-defined personality structures but rather on the way in which they organise their

responses to stressful situations.

Type A Behavior Type B Behavior

- A high degree of competitiveness

pervading every aspect of life. The

tendency to seek and accept challenges

and a desire to work hard to overcome

difficulties or obstacles.

- Aggressiveness (often repressed)

constantly present in all personal and

social interaction.

- Impatience and intolerance towards the

different rhythms and faults of others.

- Muscular tension, explosive speech,

hyper vigilance, difficulty in relaxing.

- Tendency to want to perform and obtain

an unlimited number of things in a

limited period of time.

- A strong need to always have situations

totally under control.

- A drive to acquire things, objects and

assets and to be a consumer.

- Smoking, alcohol and repetitive oral

- A form of competitiveness which is

selective and proportionate to the real

importance of planned objectives.

- ‘Physical’ aggressiveness induced by

stimuli that are adequately frustrating.

Limited basic aggressiveness.

- A capacity to adapt to and tolerate the

differences of others and their different

rhythms.

- Muscular relaxation, tranquil speech

and “phased” vigilance (normal rapid

mobilization of resources to process an

unexpected stimulus). No difficulty in

relaxing.

- Tendency to plan things that have to

be achieved and obtained in accordance

with available time.

- Very little need to be constantly in

control in all situations.

- Relatively indifferent towards

‘consuming’ and acquiring useless

30

activities often present.

- Very limited physical activity.

- Few interests apart from work.

- Irregular and excessive eating habits.

things.

- Very limited use of tobacco and

alcohol.

- Physical activity.

- Interests in activities other than work.

- Controlled eating habits.

Type A individuals also suffer to a higher degree from work stress. The pressures of work,

deadlines, being overburdened with professional activities, conflicts with colleagues and

duties or tasks that are difficult to cope with may in fact have a profound effect on the way in

which a person perceives and considers his or her work. Feeling under great pressure is a

negative outcome, while feeling challenged and feeling capable of responding to such

challenges represents a positive result. In other words, the impact of work stressors and one’s

personal response are modulated by the way in which an individual perceives stress factors. It

is not exactly an easy thing to judge what impact stress may have in a professional or

occupational context; however some estimates suggest that about half of the work days lost in

the United States on account of absenteeism can be linked to the effects of stress (Elkin and

Rosch, 1990). The characteristics of an occupational situation or context most easily

associated with states of stress include the following:

• Excessive noise, which makes it much more difficult to concentrate and communicate

with one’s colleagues.

• Being overburdened with professional duties, i.e., a period of work exceeding 40

hours per week.

• Lack of time that would be normally required to carry out a task. Having to

consequently work quickly and not very precisely.

• Little variety in one’s occupational activities. Always performing the same duties.

• The monotony of one’s professional activities. Duties are carried out mechanically

without real participation or interest.

• Insufficient or total absence of recognition or rewards for good performance.

31

• The absence of any power of discretion or control. When it is not possible to control

one’s activities directly and there is no chance to perform them in the way one would

really desire to.

• Too much responsibility.

Ambiguous role: The lack of precise information regarding one’s professional duties

or unpredictable consequences and outcomes in relation to the tasks performed.

• Conflicts with colleagues or one’s superiors. A lack of agreement with work

colleagues about work procedures and interferences on the part of others in one’s

activities.

• A lack of satisfaction and no personal achievement. For example, when one cannot be

sure of the continuity of one’s employment or of the possibility of professional

advancement or when we find ourselves in situations in which it is not possible to

express our talents, skills and capacities.

• Being the object of prejudice, threats and vexation. Situations that lead to what is

often defined as mobbing.

The term “mobbing” was coined in the early 1970s by the ethologist Konrad Lorenz to

describe a behaviour typical of certain animal species that may form a group and surround

and noisily attack an animal so as to expel it from the herd. Two types of mobbing occur in

the workplace: hierarchical mobbing and environmental mobbing. In the first case, the abuse

is perpetrated by individuals that hold a position of superiority over the victim, who is forced

to carry out humiliating tasks and duties. In the second case, the victim’s colleagues

themselves will isolate the individual and openly deprive him or her of ordinary forms of

collaboration, the customary dialogue and any kind of respect.

The practice of mobbing consists in vexing a subordinate work colleague or employee by

means of a variety of methods of psychological and physical coercion. For example, taking

away gratifying work to give it to colleagues or through some form of disqualification of a

worker’s contribution, which would be reduced to such boring duties as preparing coffee or

doing the photocopying or in any case carrying out very dull tasks requiring practically no

decisional autonomy. Another widespread practice is that of reprimanding and complaints,

expressed both privately and in public, following what would be normally considered as

insignificant errors. The mobbing phenomenon can be identified in situations where workers

32

have been deliberately provided with poor-quality equipment or computers and printers that

continuously break down, uncomfortable furniture and where they have to spend time in

poorly-lit environments. In such cases it will often occur that no form of technical assistance

is available. In other cases, if a worker stays at home on account of illness, company

managers or owners will make sure they are visited by public officials or others invested with

the power to check up on and monitor the authenticity of their employees’ claims. When the

victim returns to work, he may do so only to find that his desk has been cleared away or even

removed and his computer has been disconnected from the company network.

Another difficulty that workers may be exposed to is the so-called ‘burnout’ phenomenon,

which can affect psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, nurses etc or others working in

the helping professions. People suffers from burnout, a state of malaise that derives from a

work situation being perceived as stressful, may present a state of apathy and become cynical

with their “clients” or indifferent and detached from the working environment. In extreme

cases the syndrome can result in quite serious psychopathological damage (e.g., insomnia,

marital or family problems, an increase in the use of alcohol or medication) and the quality of

the treatment or service provided by those affected worsens, leading to absenteeism and high

employee-turnover rates.

33

CHAPTER 3

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

34

3. Objective of the project:

1) The primary objective is to study the relationship between types of personality

namely Type A, Type B and Type AB and stress level of employees in IT sector.

2) To understand the various factors of Type A, Type B and Type AB behaviour

pattern.

The Factors of type A Behavior pattern are as follows: Tense, Impatient,

Restless, Achievement Oriented, Domineering and Workaholic. Factors for type

B behavior pattern are as follows: Complacent, Easy Going, �on assertive,

Relaxed, Patient.

3) To study the effect of demographic details mainly gender and age of an employee

and level of stress in employees in IT sector.

35

CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY

36

4. Methodology

A validated and reliable questionnaire is used as a tool for finding the categories of people of

Type A, Type B and Type AB personalities. The tool has ten questions for depicting

characteristics of type A personalities and 8 questions for depicting characteristics for

type B personalities. Thus there were separate forms for deciding the personality type of

a person.

Apart from this 10 questions are used to measure the level of stress in employees of IT

industry. Demographic details like name of the employee, name of the organization,

Department, gender, age, location, length of service was also collected and used for data

analysis. Five point scale was used for measurement. The sample size is 75 employees

working for IT department in IT companies. The interpretation pattern for the scores is

followed as per the manual.

There are six factors of type A Behavior pattern: Impatience, tenseness, restlessness,

achievement orientation, domineering and workaholic

Tenseness is the sense of time urgency. This factor is measured by Q8.Impatience means

inability to wait calmly and this factor is measured by Q2 and Q5. Restlessness means not

feeling relaxed when not working and is measured by Q6. Achievement Orientation is the

need to achieve something worthwhile whenever there is a possibility and it is measured by

Q3 and Q7. Domineering is the sense of power over anything and this factor is measured by

Q1 and Q9.Workaholic is one who has tendency of doing something all the time and item Q4

and Q10 measures it.

The part B was also administered on 75 subjects and as per the literature review there

are five factors which are as follows:

Complacent, easy going, non assertive, relaxed and patient

Complacent behavior is the habit of enjoying everything and is measured by item Q.15 and

Q18. Easygoing is the ability to do work with relaxed mood and is measured by Q14 and

Q17. Non assertive means the person is not bold enough to have attention of other persons

and is measured by Q12. Relaxed person tend to do everything with comfort and not in hurry

and is measured by Q11 and Q13. Patience is the ability to wait and work with ease and items

Q16 measures it.

37

Reliability

As per the literature review from Manual for ABBPS, Ankur Psychological Agency,

Lucknow, the reliability coefficient of form A was found to be .54 and coincidently For form

B also it was found to be .54.

Validity

As all the items in the scale are concerned with the personality types, the scale has high

content validity, besides face validity. Judges/ experts also assessed that items of the scale

were directly to the concepts of the personality type. The reliability index was calculated in

the reviewed literature to find out the validity from the coefficient of reliability and was

found to be .73 for both the forms separately.

The reliability index is considered to be measure of validity (Garret, 1966).

�orms

Norms of the population is available on working sample population. These norms are

considered as reference points for interpretation the Type A and Type B behavior patterns. It

is always better to develop norms based on a particular sample.

�orms for Interpretation of raw scores

Range of scorers for Type A Range of scores for Type B

Low 10-29 8-21

Normal 30-38 22-29

High 39-50 30-40

Factor wise norms for interpretation of raw scores:

Questions for Type A

Factors Tenseness Impatience Restlessness Achievement Domineering Workaholic

Low 1-2 1-4 1-2 1-4 1-4 1-4

Normal range

3-4 5-7 3-4 5-7 5-7 5-7

High 5 8-10 5 8-10 8-10 8-10

For Questions for Type B

Factors Complacent Easy going Non Assertive

Relaxed Patience

Low 1-4 1-4 1-2 1-4 1-2

Normal range

5-7 5-7 3-4 5-7 3-4

High 8-10 8-10 5 8-10 5

38

Use of the scale

This scale can be used for research and survey or for individual assessment as well.

It is a self administering scale and can be administered without the help of highly trained

tester. It is extremely suitable for group as well as individual.

Limitations of the scale:

In this type of test subjects can manipulate their responses according to the purpose of the

test. So there is always the factor of “social desirability” and “faking”. The scale should not

be used as a tool for individual diagnosis unless supported by other evidences.

Another utility of the scale is that an individual’s profile can also be expressed in terms

of eleven independent factors which have emerged out of Type A and Type B behavioral

pattern. We may not necessarily label a person in terms of Type A and Type B but may

present him in terms of 11 factors only. An individual is expected to be either high, low

or within normal range on each of the eleven factors.

39

Interpretation of Type A /Type B scores:

Type B Score

Low Normal range High

Type A Score

Low

Does not demonstrate

distinct tendency for

any of the type.

Behave typically like

Type A or type B on

different occasion

Type B

Type B

Normal range

Type A



any of the type.


Type A or type B on

different occasion

Type B

High

Type A

Type A



any of the type.


Type A or type B on

different occasion

40

CHAPTER 5

DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Analyzing stress at workplace

1. Stress and age

Figure 1: Chart depicting percentage of total sample size

When demographic factors are studied on the basis of response from the questionnaire it is

found that maximum number of sample size falls under age

sample size is of 20-25 years and 38% within range of 26

Figure 2: Bar chart showing

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

20-25

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

em

plo

ye

es

wit

hin

ag

e g

rou

ps

Chart depicting percentage of total sample size

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

20-25 26

Workplace stress of IT employees within

Av

era

ge

va

lue

of

stre

ss

Analyzing stress at workplace on the basis of demographic data

Chart depicting percentage of total sample size within various age groups


found that maximum number of sample size falls under age group of 20

25 years and 38% within range of 26-30 years.

Figure 2: Bar chart showing Stress of IT employees within various age groups

25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55

Age of employes in years


26-30 31-35 41-45 55-60


various age groups

Age of employees in years

41

on the basis of demographic data:

ithin various age groups


group of 20-30 years.40% of

Stress of IT employees within various age groups

55 55-60



Age Group

• 20-25 years of employees were found highly stressed

new in job and need time to adapt to work place environment

fresher’s who have completed their graduation and have no work experience.

• Further as age increases the stress level was found to decrease till age of 35 years

but again stress level increases as the level in hierarchy has increased leading to

more responsibilities, accountability, stringent deadlines and

more stress. Further ageing results in deduction of stress as these are last years of job.

2. Workplace stress and gender

Figure 3: Percentage of males and females

within the sample

Figure 4: Average value of stress on

30%

70%

Classification of sample on the

basis of gender

26

26.5

27

27.5

28

Av

era

ge

va

lue

of

stre

ss Average value of stress on the basis of gender

25 years of employees were found highly stressed at workplace

new in job and need time to adapt to work place environment. They are basically


Further as age increases the stress level was found to decrease till age of 35 years


more responsibilities, accountability, stringent deadlines and ultimately leads to

Further ageing results in deduction of stress as these are last years of job.

Workplace stress and gender

Figure 3: Percentage of males and females

within the sample

Average value of stress on the basis of gender

30%

Classification of sample on the

basis of gender

Female

Male

26

26.5

27

27.5

28

Female Male

Gender

Average value of stress on the basis of gender

70% of sample size is male and 30% are females. Further it is also found that males and females respond differently to situations whiworkplace. Females were found to handle and manage such situations in better way as compared to males

in IT sector.

42

at workplace as they are

. They are basically


Further as age increases the stress level was found to decrease till age of 35 years


ultimately leads to

Further ageing results in deduction of stress as these are last years of job.

Female

Male

70% of sample size is male and 30% are females.

Further it is also found that males and females respond differently to situations which cause stress at

Females were found to handle and manage such situations in better way as compared to males

in IT sector.

5.2 Analyzing stress at workplace

Figure 5: Percentage of Type A, Type B and Type AB persons within the sample

• It is found that majority

Sometimes person may behave typically like a Type A person whereas behave

typically like a Type B person

• 38% persons were found to behave strictly like Type B.

personalities are general

overriding sense of urgency.

• 11% of people from IT sector were found of Type A personality.

behave like Type A personality people

oriented domineering and workaholic

38%

Percentage of Type A, Type B and Type AB persons within

5.2 Analyzing stress at workplace on the basis of Type of personality

Percentage of Type A, Type B and Type AB persons within the sample

It is found that majority i.e. 51% of sample size showed situational behaviour.


typically like a Type B person.

38% persons were found to behave strictly like Type B. People with Type B

personalities are generally patient, relaxed, easy-going, and at times lacking an

overriding sense of urgency.

11% of people from IT sector were found of Type A personality.

behave like Type A personality people are tense, impatient, restless, achievement

oriented domineering and workaholic.

11%

51%


the sample

43

Type of personality

Percentage of Type A, Type B and Type AB persons within the sample

51% of sample size showed situational behaviour.


People with Type B

going, and at times lacking an

11% of people from IT sector were found of Type A personality. Persons who

restless, achievement


Type A

Type AB

Type B

Figure 6: Average value of workplace stress across Type A, Type B and Type AB

personalities

• This chart shows the relationship between stress level of employees in IT sector and

type of personality of employees.

• The average value of score for

found least in type B personality persons. There is another category of people

who show situational behaviours are found more stressed than Type B persons

and less stressed as co

certain characteristics like tenseness, impatience, restlessness, achievement

orientation, domineering and workaholic.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Type A

Av

era

ge

v

alu

e W

ork

pla

ce s

tre

ssAverage value of workplace stress across Type A,Type B and Type AB personalities

Average value of workplace stress across Type A, Type B and Type AB

This chart shows the relationship between stress level of employees in IT sector and

type of personality of employees.

alue of score for stress is found highest in Type A personality and



and less stressed as compared to Type A persons. Type A personality person has


orientation, domineering and workaholic.

Type A Type AB Type B

Type Of Behaviour

workplace stress across Type A,Type B and Type AB personalities

44

Average value of workplace stress across Type A, Type B and Type AB

This chart shows the relationship between stress level of employees in IT sector and

stress is found highest in Type A personality and



Type A personality person has


Type A

Type AB

Type B

workplace stress across Type A,Type B and Type AB personalities

45

• Individuals belonging to the Type-A group are those more exposed to stress and

present a higher chance of suffering from a physical or mental disorder on account of

the pressure of stressful events (see also ‘Stress and Illness’). For example, Type-A

people are very vulnerable with respect to cardiovascular disease (heart attack, stroke,

hypertension etc.). Those in the Type-B category on the other hand reveal a greater

capacity to cope with potentially stressful situations, consequently reducing their risk

of becoming ill.

• The pressures of work, deadlines, being overburdened with professional

activities, conflicts with colleagues and duties or tasks that are difficult to cope

with may in fact have a profound effect on the way in which a person perceives

and considers his or her work. Feeling under great pressure is a negative

outcome, while feeling challenged and feeling capable of responding to such

challenges represents a positive result. In other words, the impact of work

stressors and one’s personal response are modulated by the way in which an

individual perceives stress factors.

• Type B persons are found less stressed as compared to Type A people because

they do not mind leaving things unfinished for a while, calm and unhurried about

appointments, not excessively competitive, can listen and let the other person finish

speaking, easy going, can take one thing at a time, do not mind things not quite

perfect, slow and deliberate speech and do things slowly. Thus this behaviour makes

them less stressful as compared to Type A persons.

• Type AB persons are found to be more stressed than Type B as sometimes they

may behave typically like a Type A person whereas behave typically like a Type

B person.

46

Figure 7: Percentage of Type A personalities falling under three categories of

personality factors

All the Type A persons were highly impatient. Also the 40 % are found to be highly

achievement oriented and rest are normal achievement oriented. Mostly they are moderately

tensed and 20% are highly tensed and 20% scored low in tension. They are very restless

40%

0%

20%

40%

100%

0% 0%

20% 20%

60%

0%

40%

0% 0% 0%

40%

80%

0%

20%

0%

60% 60%

80%

60%

0%

60%

20%

80%

60%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

High

Low

Normal

Factors of Personality

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pe

rso

ns

un

de

r ra

ng

es

for

com

po

ne

nts

of

be

ha

vio

ur

Percentage of Type A Personalities falling

under three cateogaries of personality factors

47

persons as 80% are moderately restless and rest are highly stressed and nobody is low at

restlessness factor.80% are normally domineering and 20% are highly domineering.60% of

type A people are highly workaholic and rest are normal workaholic.

Figure 8: Percentage of Type B Personalities falling under three categories of

personality factors

79% of type B persons normally enjoy everything as they are complacent.71% are easy going

and nobody scored low on this factor. Majority is normal non-assertive. Only 29% people are

low at factor “relaxed’ and 71% people are relaxed. Nearly 80% of type B persons are

normally patient. Nobody was found to be highly tensed unlike type A persons. Nobody was

highly restless and 64% people are very low restless.93% people were normal achievement

oriented. Only 7% type B persons are workaholic and 57% are low workaholic.

0%

7%

43%

0%

14%

7%

29%

64%

29%

57%

93%

79%

50%

29%

79% 79%

57%

36%

71%

36%

7%

14%7%

71%

7%

14%14%

0% 0%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Low

Normal

High


Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pe

rso

ns

un

de

r ra

ng

es

fo

r

com

po

ne

nts

of

be

ha

vio

ur

Percentage of Type B Personalities falling under

three cateogaries of personality factors

48

Figure 9: Percentage of Type AB Personalities falling under three categories of

personality factors

They are less workaholic as compared to Type A personality but more workaholic as

compared to Type B persons. They are more tensed as compared to type B persons and less

tensed as compared to Type A persons.80% of type AB people constitute of low or normal

range for restlessness and relaxed.74% are normal non assertive. Less easy going as

compared to Type B but more than type A people.

5%

11% 11%16%

11% 11%

47%

47%

11%

21%

37%

11%

5%

32%

16% 16%

5% 5%

11% 11%

58%

79%

84%

53%

74%74%

47% 47%

79%

68%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Low

High

Normal

Percentage of Type AB Personalities falling

under three cateogaries of personality factors


Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pe

rso

ns

un

de

r ra

ng

es

for

com

po

ne

nts

of

be

ha

vio

ur

49

CHAPTER 6

CO�CLUSIO�

50

6. Conclusion

Information technology sector brought a new work environment. Service providers

characterized this sector by adhering to strict deadlines set by their customers, working in

different time zones, interdependency in teams, multitasking, increased interaction with

offshore clients and extended work hours. All this has lead to stress at workplace.

From this research very interesting data emerged regarding the relationship between the

personality and tolerance towards stress. Type B persons are found less stressed as

compared to Type A people because they do not mind leaving things unfinished for a

while, calm and unhurried about appointments, not excessively competitive, can listen

and let the other person finish speaking, easy going, can take one thing at a time, do not

mind things not quite perfect, slow and deliberate speech and do things slowly. Thus

this behaviour makes them less stressful as compared to Type A persons. Type B

persons are complacent, easy going, relaxed, patient, less tensed, less restless and less

workaholic.

Type A personality person has certain characteristics like tenseness, impatience,

restlessness, achievement orientation, domineering and workaholic which makes them

more stressed.

There are certain persons who behave situational i.e. sometimes they behave typically Type

A and at other situations like type B. They are called Type AB persons who are more

stressed than Type B persons and less stressed than type A persons. They are less

workaholic as compared to Type A personality but more workaholic as compared to

Type B persons. They are more tensed as compared to type B persons and less tensed as

compared to Type A persons. Majority of type AB people constitute of low or normal range

for restlessness and relaxed.74% are normal non assertive. Less easy going as compared to

Type B but more than type A people.

Demographic factor like age and gender also impacts the stress level of IT employees.

51

CHAPTER 7

RECOMME�DATIO�S

52

7. Recommendations

Some solutions to keep check on components of Type A behavior so as to reduce stress

are as follows:

Changing work life:

Altering certain factors in your work life to make your job less stressful, more rewarding, and

less demanding.

Change thought patterns:

With practice, one can alter thinking patterns to more positive ones, you develop more trust

in yourself and in those around you, and can soften your type a tendencies.

Fake It Till You Make It:

Sometimes one can ‘act’ your way into new habits. Even if one doesn’t always feel clam and

serene, if you make a conscious choice to try to slow yourself down and be more patient with

people, that behavior will most likely become more of a habit and begin to come more easily

to you. (Note: it’s not recommended that you become completely detached from awareness of

your feelings, or that you keep them bottled up until you eventually explode, but if you focus

on making some changes in your behavior in conjunction with some of the following

emotion-oriented strategies, you should make more progress, more quickly.)

Start Journaling:

The practice of keeping a journal has many proven benefits for stress level and overall health.

It can also be a helpful practice in softening Type A characteristics, especially if done right.

The following are the best ways to use your journal as an instrument of change:

• Keep a record of how many times you lose your temper in a day, treat people rudely, or

feel overwhelmed by frustration. Becoming more aware of your tendencies and what

triggers reactions in you can be a valuable step in changing your patterns.

• Write about your feelings. This helps you to process them, and takes some of the

intensity from them, so you’re less overwhelmed by strong emotions.

53

• Write about solutions. Solving your problems on paper (rather than obsessing about them

in your head) can help you to feel less overwhelmed by them. You can also look back

through your journal to remember old ideas on solving new problems.

Breathing Exercises:

A few deep, slow breaths can do wonders! Learn these breathing exercises and you’ll have a

stress reliever you can use anywhere!

54

CHAPTER 8

REFERE�CE

References

Anderson, C.R., Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W., (1977), Managerial response to

environmental induced stress, Academy of Management Journal, 6, pp. 260—272.

Beehr, T.A. and Newman, J.E., (1978), Job stress, employee health, and organisational

effectiveness: a facet analysis, model and literature review, Personnel Psychology, 31, pp.

665—699.

Bergman,L.R. and Magnusson, D.(1986). Type A behavior; A longitudinal study from

childhood to adulthood, psychosomatic medicine

Byrne, B.M., (1989), A primer on LISREL, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Chesney, M.A. and Rosenman, R.H., (1980), .Type A behavior in the work setting, in C.L.

Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.) Current Concerns in Occupational Stress, John Wiley, London.

Cooper, C.L., Cooper, R.D. and Eaker, L.H., (1988), Living with Stress, Penguin Books,

Harmondsworth.

Frew, DR. and Bruning, N.S., (1987), Perceived organisational characteristics and personality

measures as predictors of stress/strain in the work place, Journal of Management, 13, pp.

633—646.

Froggatt, K.L. and Cotton, J.L., (1987), The impact of Type A behavior pattern on role

overload-induced stress and performance attributions, Journal of Management, 13, pp. 87—

90.

Harris, M.M. and Schaubroeck, J., (1990), Confirmatory modeling in organizational

behavior/human resource management issues and applications, Journal of Management, 16,

pp. 337—360.

Haviovic, S.J. and Keenan, J.P., (1991), Coping with stress: the influence of individual

differences, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, pp. 199—212.

Heck, R.H. and Marcoulides, G.A., (1989), examining the generalizability of administrative

personnel allocation decisions. The Urban Review, 21, 1, pp. 51—62.

55

Heck, R.H., Larsen, T.J. and Marcoulides, G.A., (1990), Instructional leadership and school

achievement: validation of a causal model, Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 2, pp.

94—125.

Manual for Type A/B Behavioural pattern scale by Ankur Psychological

Agency,lucknow

Minter, S.G., (1991), Relieving workplace stress. Occupational Hazards, April, pp. 39—42.

Murphy, L.R., (1988), Workplace interventions for stress reduction and prevention, in C.L.

Cooper and R. Payne (Eds.) Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work, John

Wiley, London.

Palsane ,M.N. and evans, G.W.(1984). Type-A Behaviour , driving behavior and health

among state transport drivers:interim report Pune university

Pestonjee, D. M . (1987 b) . A Study of role stress in relation to type A and anger. Working

paper no. 670, Indian Institute of management Ahmedabad

56

CHAPTER 9

APPE�DIX

57

Questionnaire on Personality type

Name of the employee: Name of the organization: Department: Gender: Age: Location: Length of service:

Kindly read each statement carefully and make your responses by marking “y” in the

preferred cell.

S.� Statement Strongly

agree Agree Uncertain Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

1.

I prefer to move around rapidly

when I am not doing anything

2. I prefer to finish the tasks at

hand as soon as possible

3. I am never late if have an

appointment

4. I have very few interest outside

my work

5. I feel impatient when I don’t

have any work in hand

6. I always feel rushed

7. Competition is my first choice

8. I enjoy doing two or more

things simultaneously

9. Quantity is a measure of

success for me

58



Strongly

Disagree

10. I cannot relax without guilt

11. I do not work under time

pressure

12. I do not display my

achievements unless such

exposure is demanded by the

situation

13. I have never set deadlines for

my accomplishments

14. I play for fun and relaxation

15. I relax whenever I want to do

so

16. I do not give much weight age

to quantity in comparison to

other measures of success

17. I prefer to concentrate on one

task at a time

18. I take appointments casually

59

Workplace Stress questionnaire

Some statements related to your job are given and you are required to select any one of the five

options.



Strongly

Disagree

1. I get less salary in comparison to

the quantum of my work

2. Sometimes it becomes complied

problem for me to make

adjustments between

political/group pressures and formal

rules

3. This job has enhanced my social

status

4. Some of my assignments are quit

risky and complicated

5. I have to dispose off my work

hurriedly due to excessive work

load

6. I am unable to perform my duties

smoothly owing to uncertainty and

ambiguity of the scope of my

jurisdiction and authorities

7. Being too busy with official work I

am not able to devote sufficient

time to my domestic and personal

problems

8. There exists sufficient mutual co-

operation and team spirit among the

employees of the department

9. Working conditions are satisfactory

here from the point of view of our

welfare and convenience

10. I am unable to carry out my

assignment to my satisfaction on

account of excessive load of work

and lack of time

capstone 2

Documents