job stress among production executives
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
1/84
CHAPTER ICHAPTER I
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
1
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
2/84
For Further Details Contact:
+91-9962179698
044-26821138
www.lacrosstechnologies.org
2
http://www.lacrosstechnologies.org/http://www.lacrosstechnologies.org/ -
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
3/84
INTRODUCTION
The existence and importance of stress in industry was first recognized in America in 1956.
A machine operator called James Carter cracked up while working on the General Motors
Production line in Detroit. Mr. Carter had experienced what is now commonly known as a
nervous breakdown and he sued General Motors claiming that the stresses of his job had
contributed to his condition and was even successful in winning his case.
In the last few years evidence has accumulated from around the world to show that of the
different types of stress that cause illness and disease the most common and most
destructive is stress at work. Researchers have not only built up evidence showing links
between industrial stresses in general and ill health but have even accumulated evidence
showing that it is possible to link specific occupations with specific types of stress induced
disease. No one is immune. The men or women on the shop floor are just as vulnerable as
the men or women on the board. The man with virtually no responsibility may be just as
vulnerable as the woman with an enormous amount. It is not just high-powered executives
who suffer from stress.
Although there is absolutely no doubt that stress is killing many people, disabling manymore and costing industry billions of pounds every year, there is one important question
that has to be asked.
Why are we so susceptible to stress these days?
The answer to this apparently unanswerable paradox is quite simple.
Our bodies were designed a long, long time ago. We were not designed for the sort of
world in which we live today. We were designed for world in which fighting and running
were useful practical solutions to everyday problems. We were designed to cope with
physical conformations with saber-toothed tigers.
3
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
4/84
The problem is that our environment has changed far more rapidly than we have evolved.
We have changed our world for faster than our bodies have been able to adapt. At no other
time in the history of the world, has there been such a constant progression of ideas.
Fashions, themes and attitudes have never changed as rapidly as they have in the last
hundred years or so.
Never before have expectations and pressures been so great. Revolutionary changes in
agriculture, navigation, medicine, military tactics, design, transport, communications, and
industrial methods have all transformed our world. But our bodies are still the same as they
were since thousands of years ago. It takes millennia for the human body to adapt. We
have moved far too quickly for our own good.
Nearly everyone agrees that job stress results from the interaction of the worker and the
conditions of work. Views differ, however, on the importance of worker characteristics
versus working conditions as the primary cause of job stress. These differing viewpoints
are important because they suggest different ways to prevent stress at work.
According to one school of thought, differences in individual characteristics such as
personality and coping style are most important in predicting whether certain job conditions
will result in stress, in other words, what is stressful for one person may not be a problem
for someone else. This viewpoint leads to prevention strategies that focus on workers in
ways to help them cope with demanding job conditions.
Although the importance of individual differences cannot be ignored, scientific evidence
suggests that certain working conditions are stressful to most people (for example,
excessive workload demands and/or conflicting expectations). Such evidence argues for a
greater emphasis on working conditions as the key source of job stress, and for job redesign
as a primary prevention strategy.
4
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
5/84
JOB STRESS, HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY
Short-lived or infrequent episodes of stress pose little risk. However, when stressful
situations go unresolved, the body is kept in a constant state of activation, which increases
the rate of wear and tear to biological systems. Ultimately, fatigue or damage results, and
the ability of the body to repair and defend itself can become seriously compromised. As a
result, the risk of injury or disease escalates.
In the past 20 years, many studies have looked at the relationship between job stress and a
variety of aliments. Mood and sleep disturbances, upset stomach and headache, and
disturbed relationships with family and friends are examples of stress-related problems that
are quick to develop and are commonly seen in these studies. These early signs of job stress
are usually easy to recognize. But the effects of job stress on chronic diseases are more
difficult to see because chronic diseases take a long time to develop and can be influenced
by many factors other than stress. Nonetheless, evidence is rapidly accumulating to suggest
that stress plays an important role in several types of chronic health problems, especially
cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal disorders, and psychological disorders.
Some employers assume that stressful working conditions are a necessary evil-- thatcompanies must turn up the pressure on workers and set aside health concerns to remain
productive and profitable in today's economy. But research findings challenge this belief.
Studies show that stressful working conditions are actually associated with increases
absenteeism, tardiness, and intentions by workers to quit their jobs -- all of which have a
negative effect on the bottom line.
Recent studies of so-called healthy organizations suggest that policies benefiting worker
health also benefit the bottom line. A healthy organization is defined as one that has low
rates of illness, injury, and disability in its work-force and is also competitive in the
marketplace. NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) research has
identified organizational characteristics associated with both healthy, low-stress work and
high levels of productivity. Examples of these characteristics include the following:
5
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
6/84
Recognition of employees for good work performance.
Opportunities for career development.
An organizational culture that values the individual worker.
Management actions that is consistent with organizational values.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Stress exists in every aspect of life. The manufacturing environment poses stressful
working conditions. The demands of meeting the required production and added to this
factor, things such as job repetition, potential job dissatisfaction, poor ergonomics or low
pay results in higher level of stress.
If stress in the workplace is not on the agenda, the results of stress are revealed through
higher absenteeism than other parts of the company, higher Worker's Compensation claims
and ultimately in reduced customer satisfaction. This operations topic focuses on various
approaches to managing stress. Raising the pay isn't necessarily the solution. There are
many other creative means of managing stress.
This Study focuses on the level of stress due to the working conditions, sources of stress, its
consequences and the steps taken to manage stress in the work place. The present study is
to make an attempt to mainly identify the level of stress, various sources of stress, its
consequences and the stress management techniques adopted by organizations.
MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
Job stress is also a very costly affair with the price tag for the U.S. industry estimated at
over $300 billion annually because of:
Accidents
Absenteeism
6
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
7/84
Labor turnover
Diminished productivity
Direct medical, legal, and insurance costs
Workers compensation awards, and many more
Consider the following statistics:
40% of job turnover is due to stress.
Xerox estimated that it cost them $1 to $1.5 million to replace a top executive and
that was two decades ago
Replacing an average employee today costs between $3,000 and $13,000.
60 to 80% of accidents on the job are stress related and some, like the Three Mile
Island and Exxon Valdez disasters, can affect untold thousands many miles away.
In California, the number of Workers' compensation claims for mental stress
increased by almost 700 percent over eight years and ninety percent were successful
with an average award of $15,000 compared to a national average of $3,420.
In 1987, California shelled out almost $1,000,000,000 for medical and legal fees
alone, which is more than most states spend on actual awards.
Double digit increases in Workers' compensation premiums every year as a result of mental
stress claims threaten to bankrupt the system in several states.
A jury in New York awarded nearly $6 million in 1996 to three women for repetitive stress
injury allegedly due to faulty computer keyboards.
Repetitive musculoskeletal injuries like carpal tunnel syndrome have become the nation's
leading workplace health cost and account for almost a third of all Workers' compensation
awards.
7
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
8/84
Studies show that keyboard entry operators who are under stress (because they are
uncertain as to whether their activities are being monitored for performance evaluation)
have a significantly higher incidence of such complaints and injuries.
CURRENT SCENARIO
This information was obtained in the 1990's in large surveys by Northwestern National Life
Insurance Co, Princeton Survey Research Associates, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance
Co., Yale University and The Families and Work Institute.
It is estimated that;
40% of workers reported their job was very or extremely stressful.
25% view their jobs as the number one stressor in their lives.
Three fourths of employees believe that workers have more on-the-job stress than a
generation ago.
29% of workers felt quite a bit or extremely stressed at work.
26% of workers said they were often or very often burned out or stressed by their
work..
Job stress is more strongly associated with health complaints than financial or family
problems.
More recently, the 2000 annual "Attitudes in the American WorkplaceVI" Gallup Poll
sponsored by the Marlin Company found that:
80% of workers feel stress on the job, nearly half say they need help in learninghow to manage stress and 42% say their coworkers need such help.
14% of respondents had felt like striking a coworker in the past year, but didn't.
25% have felt like screaming or shouting because of job stress, 10% are concerned
about an individual at work they fear could become violent.
8
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
9/84
9% are aware of an assault or violent act in their workplace and 18% had
experienced some sort of threat or verbal intimidation in the past year.
A subsequent European Commission survey found that:
More than half of the 147 million workers in the European Union complained of
having to work at a very high speed and under tight deadlines.
Approximately half reported having monotonous or short, repetitive tasks and no
opportunity to rotate tasks.
A 1992 United Nations Report labeled job stress The 20th Century Disease and a few
years later the World Health Organization said it had become a World Wide Epidemic.
A 1998 study reported that rapid changes in the workforce had resulted in a staggering
unemployment rate of 10% in the European Union and higher rates of job stress
complaints. Japan had a similar problem as a result of a major and prolonged recession.
Stress is a highly personalized phenomenon and can vary widely even in identical situations
for different reasons. There has been instances which have showed that having to complete
paper work was more stressful for many police officers than the dangers associated withpursuing criminals. The severity of job stress depends on the magnitude of the demands
that are being made and the individuals sense of control or decision-making latitude he or
she has in dealing with them.
RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
The nature of work is changing at whirlwind speed. Perhaps now more than ever before,
job stress poses a threat to the health of workers and, in turn, to the health of organizations.
Numerous surveys and studies confirm that occupational pressures and fears are far and
away the leading source of stress.
9
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
10/84
An estimated 1 million workers are absent every day due to stress. The European Agency
for Safety and Health at Work reported that over half of the 550 million working days lost
annually in the U.S. from absenteeism are stress related and that one in five of all last
minute no-shows are due to job stress. If this occurs in key employees it can have a
domino effect that spreads down the line to disrupt scheduled operations. A 1997 three
year study conducted by one large corporation found that 60% of employee absences could
be traced to psychological problems that were due to job stress.
A report released on September 10, 2001 stated that "more than 1 million Americans lost
their jobs this year, 83% higher than last year's total." That was a day before the Twin
Towers disaster, which added to the problems of job stress and insecurity for many
workers. Since then we have witnessed the collapse of Enron and its tidal wave of
repercussions on other companies and their employees. There are fears that this may be
just the tip of the iceberg as accounting irregularities of a similar nature may augur the
downfall of other large organizations widely assumed to be on a solid financial footing.
People are disturbed not by things, but by their perception of things
-Epictetus-
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
OBJECTIVES
To measure the level of stress.
To study the sources of job stress among production executives working in the
manufacturing sector.
To study the consequences of job stress among production executives working in
the manufacturing sector.
To study the stress management techniques adopted by organisations
10
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
11/84
HYPOTHESES
Null Hypotheses:
There is no relationship between age and level of stress.
There is no relationship between educational level and level of stress.
There is no relationship between type of family and level of stress.
There is no relationship between work experience and level of stress.
RESEARCH DESIGN
A Research Design is an arrangement of conditions for the collection and analysis of datafor a study, which will lend relevance and a scientific approach to the study.
-- Pauline V. Young
The Research Design that has been adopted is of Descriptive Research Design.
UNIVERSE
The whole group from which the sample is to be selected is referred to as the universe. For
the purpose of the study, the universe comprises of all the production executives working in
the MM Tools Manufacturing sector in and around chennai.
SAMPLING
Sampling refers to a method by which a small group is selected as representatives of a
whole universe. The sampling strategy used in this study is convenient Sampling. For
the purpose of the study, the size of the sample is 60. In this study, 60 samples have been
selected from the Universe. The entire samples were males.
11
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
12/84
TOOL OF DATA COLLECTION
The tool of data collection used in the study was a questionnaire. The questionnaire is a
device used for securing responses to questions by using a form, which the respondent fills
in himself/herself. The components of the tool are:
Part A comprises of the demographic details of the respondent.
Part B comprises of a work stress profile to find out the level of stress. This work
stress profile indicates three indicators of stress which are interpersonal, physical
conditions and job interest. Scoring has been provided to each statement for the
three indicators, through which the level of stress could be measured for the three
indicators and also to calculate the total level of stress. The scoring pattern for each
indicator and for the total level of stress is indicated in the table below.
LowStress
Normal Stress High Stress
Interpersonal 39 50 51 61 62 75
Physical 35 47 48 57 58 67
Job Interest 13 17 18 22 23 27
Total 91 - 116 117 140 141 167
Part C comprises of statements, which indicates the various sources of stress arising
due to work place stress.
Part D comprises of statements, which indicates the various consequences arisingdue to work place stress.
Part E comprises of statements, indicating the various stress management
techniques adopted by organizations.
Since the research had to be completed in a specific time frame, this method was found to
be best suited for data collection.
12
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
13/84
SOURCE OF DATA
Primary Data:
The primary data were collected from the respondents themselves.
PRE-TESTING OF THE TOOL
Pre-testing was carried out for 10 (ten) samples. These samples have been excluded from
the actual sample size.
ACTUAL COLLECTION OF DATA
The actual data collection was done during the months from December' 04 till February' 05.
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The analysis of the collected data was done with the help of Statistical Package For Social
Sciences (SPSS). The data were represented as tables and diagrams to facilitate better
understanding. Statistical test like Chi- square was used to test the hypotheses framed for
the study.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
Stress:
Stress refers to an individuals reaction to a disturbing factor in the environment.
13
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
14/84
Job Stress:
Job stress can be defined as the harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when
the requirements of the job do not match the capabilities, resources, or needs of the worker.
Job stress can lead to poor health and even injury.
In addition, Job stress refers to stress arising from the nature of job an individual performs.
Organization:
An organization comprises of two or more people with a definite structure and clearly set
rules and regulations working towards a commonly accepted goal.
Manufacturing Sector:
Any industry which is involved in making a product for sale, using machinery.
DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED
There were no serious difficulties faced by the researcher in completing the study.
However, the researcher had to spend more time to gather the required information due to
the fact that most of the organizations feared of having their organizational climate and
their working conditions from being exposed.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Since the sample size of the research study is 60, the study is not very comprehensive and
may not conclusively prove the effectiveness of the stress level prevailing in the field. Also
the responses may suffer from human bias and prejudice.
14
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
15/84
CHAPTERISATION
The study has been classified into different chapters in order to have better understanding.
Chapter I: It deals about introduction of the topic and research methodology adopted for
the study.
Chapter II: It deals about the review of the relevant literature for the study.
Chapter III: It deals with analysis and interpretation of the data collected for the purpose
of the study and to know the out come of the study.
Chapter IV: It deals about the Findings, Conclusions and Suggestions for the study and
this is followed by Bibliography and Appendix, wherein a copy of the Tool of data
collection is attached.
15
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
16/84
CHAPTER IICHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATUREREVIEW OF LITERATURE
16
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
17/84
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Stress is a word derived from Latin was used popularly in the seventeenth century to
mean hardship, straits, adversity or affliction. Only during the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries did its use evolve to denote force, pressure and strain or strong effort, with
reference now also to objects, but still primarily to a person or a person organs or mental
powers.
Stress is an important factor, which plays a vital role in each and every ones life. Each and
every individual come across stress in the course of his life. Stress also interrupts the
individual from reaching his goal or accomplishing his activity.
Stress is a dynamic condition in which an individual is confronted with an opportunity,
constraint or demand related to what he or she desires and for which the outcome is
perceived to be both uncertain and important.
Stress is not necessarily bad in and of itself. While stress is typically discussed in a
negative context, it also has positive value. It is an opportunity when it offers potential
gain.
More typically stress is associated with constraints and demands. The former prevents you
from doing what you desire. The latter refers to the loss of something desired. So when we
take a test at school or when we undergo our annual performance review at work, we feel
stress because we confront opportunities constraints and demands. A good performance
review may lead to a promotion greater responsibilities and a higher salary. But a poor
review may prevent you from getting the promotion. An extremely poor review might even
result in an employee being fired from his job.
17
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
18/84
Two conditions are necessary for potential stress to become actual stress. There must be
uncertainty over the outcome and the outcome must be important. Regardless of the
condition, it is only when there is doubt or uncertainly regarding whether the opportunity
will be seized, the constraint removed, or the loss avoided that there is stress. That is,
stress is highest for those individuals who perceive that they are uncertain as to whether
they will win or lose and lowest for those individuals who think that winning or losing is a
certainty. But importance is also critical. If winning or losing is an unimportant outcome,
there is no stress. If keeping our job or earning a promotion does not hold any importance
to us, then we have no reason to feel stress over having to undergo performance review.
DEFINITIONS OF STRESS
In the seventeenth century, stress was used to mean hardship, straits, adversity or
affliction. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the use of the word stress changed to
indicate, strain, pressure, force or strong effort. More recent dictionary definitions
actually associate the term stress with disease: suffered by managers etc: subject to
continual stress. (Oxford Dictionary, 1984)
Steadmans Medical Dictionary (1982, 24th edition) defines stress as a physical or
psychological stimulus which when impinging upon an individual procedures strain or
disequilibrium.
The Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicines, Nursing, and Allied Health (Miller and
Keane, 1978, 2nd edition); suggests that stress is, the sum of all the non-specific biological
phenomena elicited by adverse external influences including damage and defense.
Stress may be either physical or psychological or both. Just as a bridge is structurally
capable of adjusting to certain physical stresses, the human body and mind are normally
able to adapt to the stresses of new situations. However, this ability has definite limits
18
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
19/84
beyond which continued stress may cause a breakdown, although this limit varies from
person to person. For example peptic ulcers may result from prolonged nervous tension in
response to real or imagined stresses in people who have predisposition for ulcers.
Levis (1987) has defined stress as, The interaction between or misfit of environmental
opportunities and demands and individual needs and abilities, and expectations, elicit
reactions. When the fit is bad, when needs are not being met, or when abilities are over or
under taxed, the organism reacts with various pathogenic mechanisms. These are
cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and/or physiological and under some conditions of
internity. Frequently or duration, and in the presence or absence of certain interacting
variables, they may lead to precursors of disease.
This definition is consistent with a contemporary interactive approach to the study of stress.
Implicit in Levis definition is the view that stress can have both negative and positive
consequences. That is stress can have both negative and positive consequences. That is
stress can be a motivator to growth development and adaptation: it is a challenge and
variety it can be the spice of life.
Therefore, a distinction must be made between stressors that cause distress and those which
result in eustress, positive stress response, because stress is inevitable.
Bechr and Newman define Job Stress as, A situation where in job-related factors interacts
with a worker to change, disrupt or enhance, his or her psychological and or physiological
condition such that the person, mind or body, is force to deviate from normal functioning.
The above definition serves to define what we mean by employee health namely a
persons mental and physical condition.
According to Eve Warren and Caroline Toll in the book, The Stress and Work Book, the
terms Stress has been described to include any discomfort both emotional and physical
discomfort produced due to anxiety, dissatisfaction and unhappiness within a person, so
19
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
20/84
that the person is seriously disturbed and less able to hold a job. It is a feeling of
helplessness and a desire to withdraw from the harshness of reality.
Stress is usually an emotional discomfort accompanied by feelings of not being able to
cope that things are falling apart, that one is not under control.
-- Encyclopedia of Professional Management, Vol - I
Stress is the tension and pressure that results when an individual views a situation as
presenting a demand that threatens to exceed his capabilities and resources.
-- Stoner and Wankel
HISTORY OF STRESS
The Canadian Post Office recently issued a stamp honouring Dr. Hans Selye, who is
recognized internationally as one of the two fathers of Stress Theory. He was born in
Vienna in 1907 and came to Canada in 1932, where he settled in Montreal. It was at the
University of Montreal that he did most of his world-famous work.
Dr. Selye developed his concept of stress while studying medicine in Prague in the 1920s.
It was his genius that he saw something that his classmates and teachers were missing.
Much of medical education involved learning about different kinds of diseases and how to
distinguish one from another. In this analytical process, fine distinctions were made and
focused on. Thus, a patient with pneumonia presented differently than a patient with
tuberculosis and they both presented differently than patients with heart failure, ulcers,
cancer and so on. It was Selye's stroke of brilliance that, while everyone was concentrating
on the differences among these various diseases, he was struck by their similarities.
In 1926, as a second year medical student, he noted that the patients studied at rounds all
had a strikingly similar appearance: they were weak, tired, listless, apathetic, often had
20
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
21/84
muscle wasting and weight loss. They even had similar facial expressions indicating that
they were ill. He called this picture, "the general syndrome of just being sick." This set his
inquisitive mind off in a totally different direction, searching for the common elements that
affected all of these patients rather than focusing on the differences. This eventually led
him to identify the stress reaction as an underlying cause or major contributing factor to
most illness.
Selye's theories built on the earlier work of a noted Harvard physiologist named Dr. Walter
Cannon who had, at the beginning of the century, identified and named the "fight or flight
response", which is the body's response to feeling threatened or in danger. But whereas
Cannon saw the "fight or flight" syndrome as a positive mechanism that the body uses to
protect itself, Selye realized the hugely important fact that if the stress reaction goes on for
too long, it causes damage to the body and leads to illness.
Another of Selye's enduring legacies is that he borrowed the word "stress" from the field of
engineering (where it refers to external mechanical forces, strains and tensions) to describe
this reaction in the body. Walter Cannon had earlier introduced the term "stress" to
medicine but it was certainly Selye who popularized it.
Another of Selye's unique and important findings was that the stress response in the body
was the same no matter what the cause or source of stress (he called these sources
"stressors"). His experiments on rats in 1936 showed that various stressors such as cold,
heat, infection, trauma, haemorrhage, fear, and the injection of noxious substances, all
produced the same effect. When the rats were later examined, they all had swollen and
hyperactive adrenal glands, shrunken immune tissue (thymus gland and lymph nodes) and
gastrointestinal ulcers. He had created an experimental model of "the syndrome of just
being sick." He first called this reaction "a syndrome produced by various nocuous agents,"
but later, on noting that a wide assortment of stressors all produced the same response,
named it the general adaptation syndrome (or G.A.S.)
21
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
22/84
PREVELANCE OF STRESS
The American Academy of family physician estimates that two-thirds of office visits to its
members are attributable to stress-related symptoms.
Secondly, A recent Gallup Survey of Personnel and Medical directors at over two hundred
big and small companies showed that, on average twenty five percent of their companies
employees suffered from anxiety or stress-related symptoms.
Thirdly, stress-related health problems cost business and society a ton of money. The cost
to business of stress-related problems and mental illness has been estimated as high as 150
billion dollars a year, including health insurance and disability claims plus lostproductivity.
Fourthly, some stress seems to come with every job. Such as like air traffic controllers,
police officers, fire fighters, emergency room physicians. But low stress or no-stress jobs
are harder to identify.
Fifthly, the dramatic changes that have taken place in the economy, that is, mergers and
acquisitions, increased global competition, new technological innovations and the like
have resulted in large lay offs in many organizations and the restructuring of jobs. Few
jobs are totally secure any more. When co-workers or friends are losing their jobs and you
fear for your own the stress level is naturally going to increase.
Sixthly, restructuring is not only undermining employee security, it is also putting pressure
on employees especially managers to work longer hours. Twelve hour days and six-
day weeks have become the norm for many upcoming managers. A recent survey of
CEOs found that they expect their middle managers to average forty-nine hours a week
and their high level executives to put in fifty-four hours. The CEOs themselves devote
more than sixty hours a week to their jobs.
22
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
23/84
WHAT IS JOB STRESS?
Job stress can be defined as the harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when
the requirements of the job do not match the capabilities, resources, or needs of the worker.
Job stress can lead to poor health and even injury.
The concept of job stress is often confused with challenge, but these concepts are not the
same. Challenge energises us psychologically and physically, and it motivates us to learn
new skills and master our jobs. When a challenge is met, we feel relaxed and satisfied.
Thus, challenge is an important ingredient for healthy and productive work. The
importance of challenge in our work lives is probably what people are referring to when
they say "a little bit of stress is good for you.
WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF JOB STRESS?
According to the NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), these are
job conditions that may lead to stress:
The design of tasks
Heavy workload, infrequent rest breaks, long work hours and shiftwork; hectic and routine
tasks that have little inherent meaning, do not utilize workers' skills, and provide little sense
of control.
Management style
Lack of participation by workers in decision-making, poor communication in the
organization and lack of family-friendly policies.
Interpersonal relationships
Poor social environment and lack of support or help from coworkers or supervisors.
23
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
24/84
Work roles
Conflicting or uncertain job expectations, too much responsibility, too many "hats" to wear.
Career concerns
Job insecurity and lack of opportunity for growth, advancement, or promotion; rapid
changes for which workers are unprepared.
Environmental conditions
Unpleasant or dangerous physical conditions such as crowding, noise, air pollution, or
ergonomic problems.
PREVENTING STRESS AT WORK - A COMPREHENSIVE
APPROACH
Industrial production executives co-ordinate the resources and activities required to
produce millions of goods every year. Although their duties vary from plant to plant,
industrial production executives share many of the same major responsibilities. These
responsibilities include production scheduling, staffing, procurement and maintenance of
equipment, quality control, inventory control, and the co-ordination of production activities
with those of other departments.
The primary mission of industrial production executives is planning the production
schedule within budgetary limitations and time constraints. They do this by analyzing the
plants personnel and capital resources to select the best way of meeting the production
quota. Industrial production executives determine, often using mathematical formulas,
which machines will be used, whether new machines need to be purchased, whether
overtime or extra shifts are necessary, and what the sequence of production will be. They
24
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
25/84
monitor the production run to make sure that it stays on schedule and correct any problems
that may arise.
As production techniques have evolved beyond traditional mass assembly lines, industrial
production executives have adapted to lean production techniques. Many manufacturers
have adopted lean production techniques, while some others use a combination of lean and
mass production techniques.
In a traditional assembly line, each worker is responsible for only a small portion of the
assembly, repeating that task on every product. Lean production employs teams to build
and assemble products in stations or cells. When companies use stations, one worker may
work alone with hand tools and various parts to complete a large portion of the assembly
process. Rather than specializing in a specific task, workers are capable of performing all
jobs within a team.
Without the constraints of the traditional assembly line, companies can be more flexible in
their production process, more easily changing production levels on different product lines.
The increased flexibility of lean manufacturing enables industrial production executives to
experiment with ways of improving the assembly and manufacturing process. As
companies strive to minimize inventory, they want to maintain only a limited stock of
finished products.
Employing manufacturing cells and stations, companies can more quickly react to changes
in customer demand so that limited inventories will not get too low.
Industrial production executives also must monitor product standards. Inspecting samples
of finished goods and recording defects enables managers to statistically analyze quality
control problems. While traditional quality control programs reacted only to problems that
reached a certain significant level, newer management techniques and programs, such as
25
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
26/84
ISO 9000, Total Quality Management (TQM), or Six Sigma, emphasize continuous quality
improvement.
If the problem relates to the quality of work performed in the plant, the manager may
implement better training programs or reorganize the manufacturing process, often based
upon the suggestions of employee teams. If the cause is substandard materials or parts from
outside suppliers, companies may work with their suppliers to improve their quality.
Because the work of many departments is related, managers work closely with heads of
other departments such as sales, procurement, and logistics to plan and implement company
goals, policies, and procedures. For example, the production manager works with the
procurement department to ensure that plant inventories are maintained at their optimal
level.
This is vital to a firms operation because maintaining the inventory of materials necessary
for production ties up the firms financial resources, yet insufficient quantities cause delays
in production. A breakdown in communications between the production manager and the
purchasing department can cause slowdowns and a failure to meet production schedules.
Just-in-time production techniques have reduced inventory levels, making constant
communication among the manager, suppliers, and purchasing departments even more
important. Computers play an integral part in this coordination. They also are used to
provide up-to-date information on inventory, the status of work in progress, and quality
standards.
Production executives usually report to the plant manager or the vice president for
manufacturing, and may act as liaison between executives and first-line supervisors. In
many plants, one production manager is responsible for all aspects of production. In large
plants with several operationsaircraft assembly, for examplethere are managers in
charge of each operation, such as machining, assembly, or finishing.
26
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
27/84
27
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
28/84
CHAPTER IIICHAPTER III
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONDATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
28
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
29/84
The researcher has presented the data collected in the form of simple tables. Significant
data have been portrayed in the form of diagrams. Chi-square test has been applied to test
the hypotheses. The tables have been organized as under:
SECTION TABLE NO. TABLE DETAILS
I Tables 1 to 4 Demographic profile
II Table 5 to 11 Work Stress Profile
III Table 12 Sources of Stress
IV Table 13 Consequence of Stress
V Tables 14 to 19Stress Management
Techniques
VI Table 20 to 23 Cross Tables
29
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
30/84
SECTION - I: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
TABLE NO: 1
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE
AGE
(In years)
FREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Below 30 22 36.7
31 40 18 30.0
4150 14 23.3
51 and Above 6 10
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table indicates the respondents by their age level.
We can see from the table that a little more than one - third of the respondents (36.7%) are
aged less than 30 years, whereas about one - third of the respondents (30%) are in the age
group of between 31 - 40 years and less than one - fourth of the respondents (23.3%) are in
the age group of between 41 - 50 years and one - tenth of the respondents (10%) are above
51 years. The mean age level is 35 years.
Thus we can infer that a majority of the respondents are in the more productive age group.
The above table is represented in the form of a Pie diagram.
30
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
31/84
DIAGRAM NO: 1
PIE DIAGRAM SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS
BY THEIR AGE
37%
30%
23%
10%
Below 30 years Between 31 - 40 years
Between 41 - 50 years Above 50 years
31
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
32/84
TABLE NO: 2
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONEDENTS BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL
LEVEL
EDUCATIONAL LEVELFREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Graduation 39 65.0
Post Graduation 13 21.7
Any other (D.M.E, ITI) 8 13.3
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table gives an insight into the education level of the respondents. Educational
level determines ones understanding of the job and its profile.
From the above table we can see that around two - thirds of the respondents (65%) are
graduates, whereas around one - fifth of the respondents (21.7%) are post graduates and
less than one - eight of the respondents (13.3%) are diploma or ITI holders.
Thus we can see infer that a majority of the respondents are well qualified and suited for
the job.
32
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
33/84
TABLE NO: 3
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR TYPE OF FAMILY
FAMILY TYPEFREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Joint Family 37 61.7
Nuclear Family 23 38.3
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table indicates the respondents by their type of family. To understand the level
of stress and various other factors associated to stress, it is essential to understand the
personal system of life of the respondents.
From the above table we can see that less than two - thirds of the respondents (61.7%)
belong to joint family system of life. Around one - third of the respondents (38.3%) belong
to nuclear family system of life.
Thus we can infer from the above table that it is surprising to see that most of the
respondents hail from joint family system of life, which proves that this type of family
system still does exist in the society.
TABLE NO: 4
33
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
34/84
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR WORK
EXPERIENCE
WORK EXPERIENCE
(In years)
FREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Below 5 13 21.7
5 9 22 36.7
10 14 17 28.3
15 19 3 5.0
Above 20 5 8.3
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table indicates the work experience of the respondents. The level of work
experience determines the respondents knowledge and expertise in the field.
From the above table we can see that a little more than one - third of the respondents
(36.7%) have a work experience between 5 - 9 years, whereas less than one - fifth of the
respondents (13.3%) have more than 15 years of experience. Less than one - fourth of the
respondents (21.7%) have a work experience of less than 5 years and more than two - fifth
of the respondents (28.3%) have a work experience of between 10 - 14 years. The work
experience is 10 years.
Thus we can infer that most of the respondents have good working experience with their
job. This show to prove that they have good expertise in the field.
34
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
35/84
SECTION - II: WORK STRESS PROFILE
This section presents the respondents response to the Work Stress Profile, which are in
terms of three indicators namely Interpersonal, Physical Conditions and Job Interest.
These indicators are represented in Tables 5, 7 and 9 respectively.
The work stress profile was developed and adapted by the research scholars of Victoria
University of Wellington, Newzeland.
Table No: 5, comprising of twenty-six statements measures stress due to problems in
interpersonal stress, whereas Table No: 7 comprising of twenty-two statements measures
stress due to physical demands and the physical conditions of their job and Table No:
9, comprising of nine statements measures stress due to job involvement or job interest.
Based on the responses provided, the levels of stress for the three indicators are represented
in Tables 6, 8 and 10 respectively. The last table in this section (Table No: 10) measures the
total level of stress incurred by the individual.
The total level of stress is measured by adding up the scores of the three indicators. Using
the scoring pattern indicated in the table below the level of stress is measured for the threeindicators and the total level of stress.
LowStress
Normal Stress High Stress
Interpersonal 39 50 51 61 62 75
Physical 35 47 48 57 58 67
Job Interest 13 17 18 22 23 27
Total 91 - 116 117 140 141 167
Not all the statements are valued in the same direction. Certain statements receive reverse
scoring. The higher the score, the higher the level of stress is incurred for each individual.
35
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
36/84
TABLE NO: 5
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR RESPONSE TO
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BASED ON THEIR
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP ON THE JOB
INTERPERSONAL
NEVER RARELYSOME
TIMESOFTEN
MOST
TIMESTOTAL
1. Support personnel are incompetentor inefficient.
6(10.0%)
32(53.3%)
18(30.0%)
4(6.7%)
-60
(100.0%)
2. My job is not very well defined. 2(3.3%) 30(50.0%) 21(35.0%) 5(8.3%) 2(3.3%) 60(100.0%)
3. I am not sure about what isexpected of me.
3(5.0%)
25(41.7%)
23(38.3%)
9(15.0%)
-60
(100.0%)
4. I am not sure what will beexpected of me in the future.
2(3.3%)
28(46.7%)
18(30.0%)
7(11.7%)
5(8.3%)
60
(100.0%)
5. I cannot seem to satisfy mysuperiors.
2(3.3%)
22(36.7%)
34(56.7%)
2(3.3%)
-60
(100.0%)
6. I seem to be able to talk with mysuperiors.
6(10.0%)
18(30.0%)
17(28.3%)
16(26.7%)
3(5.0%)
60
(100.0%)
7. My superiors strike me asincompetent, yet I have to take ordersfrom them.
3(5.0%)
33(55.0%)
21(35.0%)
3(5.0%)
- 60(100.0%)
8. My superiors seem to care about meas a person.
-16
(26.7%)17
(28.3%)17
(28.3%)10
(16.7%)60
(100.0%)
9. There is a feeling of trust, respect,and friendliness between myself andmy superiors.
1(1.7)
11(18.3%)
29(48.3%)
18(30.0%)
1(1.7%)
60
(100.0%)
10. There seems to be tension betweenadministrative personnel and staffpersonnel.
3(5.0%)
24(40.0%)
29(48.3%)
4(6.7%)
-60
(100.0%)
11. I have autonomy in carrying outmy job duties.
2(3.3%)
18(30.0%)
32(53.3%)
4(6.7%)
4(6.7%)
60
(100.0%)
12. I feel as though I can shape myown destiny in this job.
5(8.3%)
27(45.0%)
22(36.7%)
4(6.7%)
2(3.3%)
60
(100.0%)
13. There are too many bosses in myarea.
19(31.7%)
26(43.3%)
12(20.0%)
2(3.3%)
1(1.7%)
60
(100.0%)
36
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
37/84
TABLE NO: 5 (CONTINUED)
INTERPERSONAL
NEVER RARELYSOME
TIMESOFTEN
MOST
TIMESTOTAL
14. It appears that my boss has "retiredon the job."
25(41.7%)
25(41.7%)
6(10.0%)
3(5.0%)
1(1.7%)
60
(100.0%)
15. My superiors give me adequatefeedback about my job performance.
-12
(20.0%)29
(48.3%)17
(28.3%)2
(3.3%)60
(100.0%)
16. My abilities are not appreciated bymy superiors.
3(5.0%)
30(50.0%)
21(35.0%)
6(10.0%)
-60
(100.0%)
17. There is little prospect of personalor professional growth in this job.
1(1.7%)
23(38.3%)
29(48.3%)
7(11.7%)
- 60(100.0%)
18. The level of participation inplanning and decision-making at myplace of work is satisfactory.
-15
(25.0%)35
(58.3%)7
(11.7)3
(5.0%)60
(100.0%)
19. I feel that I am overeducated formy job.
10(16.7%)
33(55.0%)
11(18.3%)
5(8.3%)
1(1.7%)
60
(100.0%)
20. I feel that my educationalbackground is just right for this job.
1(1.7%)
2(3.3%)
5(8.3%)
20(33.3%)
32(53.3%)
60
(100.0%)
21. I fear that I will be laid off or
fired.
32
(53.3%)
20
(33.3%)
5
(8.3%)
2
(3.3%)
1
(1.7%)
60
(100.0%)22. Inservice training for my job isinadequate.
-17
(28.3%)21
(35.0%)19
(31.7%)3
(5.0%)60
(100.0%)
23. Most of my colleagues areunfriendly or seem uninterested in meas a person.
7(11.7%)
31(51.7%)
20(33.3%)
2(3.3%)
-60
(100.0%)
24. I feel uneasy about going to work.4
(6.7%)26
(43.3%)26
(43.3%)4
(6.7%)-
60
(100.0%)
25. There is no release time forpersonal affairs or business.
5(8.3%)
26(43.3%)
25(41.7%)
4(6.7%)
-60
(100.0%)
26. There is obvious sex/race/agediscrimination in this job.
17(28.3%)
24(40.0%)
16(26.7%)
3(5.0%)
-60
(100.0%)
* Parentheses are figures and percentages
37
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
38/84
The above table indicates the respondents response to the statements based on the
interpersonal relationship on their job.
From the table, we can see that most of the respondents have either sometimes or
rarely agreed to the statements. This means that the conditions or feelings posed by
these statements either exists about (25%) or (50%) of the time respectively. The
statements indicate the relationship between their superiors, subordinates and peers.
Also, there are statements indicating their role they perform in the work place. Half
of the respondents (50%) do occasionally feel that they are not sure of what is
expected of them in the future. Also, two - thirds of the respondents (65%) do feel
that their relationship with their superiors is constrained, possibly leading to high
interpersonal stress. However, it seems that half of the respondents (50%) feel that
their superiors do recognize their performance, whereas half of the respondents
(50%) feel that their promotions and career opportunities are rather less in their job.
Also, around half of the respondents (53.3%) the feel that their job is secured, and
finally more than two - fifth of respondents (40%) do feel that there is sense of
discrimination in their work place.
Thus we can infer that most of the respondents do feel a sense of poor constrained
relationships in their job, in particular between their superior and subordinates. This
possibly leads to high interpersonal stress in their job.
38
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
39/84
TABLE NO: 6
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE
INTERPERSONAL LEVEL OF STRESS
LEVEL OF
STRESS
FREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Low 2 3.3
Normal 14 23.3
High 44 73.3
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table indicates the distribution of respondents based on the interpersonal stress
level.
The Scoring pattern for each statement is as follows
Never 1; Rarely 2; Sometimes 3; Often 4; Most times 5
Also, as indicated previously, certain statements receive reverse scoring.
From the table, we can see that a majority of the respondents (73.3%) incur a high level of
stress in their job, whereas more than one - fifth of the respondents (23.%) incur normal
level of stress and less than one - tenth of the respondents (3.3%) have low level ofinterpersonal stress.
Thus, we can infer that interpersonal stress is very high among production executives; one
possible fact is due to the poor superior- subordinate relationship in their job.
39
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
40/84
TABLE NO: 7
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR RESPONSE TO
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BASED ON THEIR
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ON THE JOB
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
NEVER RARELY
SOME
TIMESOFTEN
MOST
TIMESTOTAL
1. The physical work environmentis crowded, noisy, or dreary.
4(6.7%)
9(15.0%)
6(10.0%)
21(35.0%)
20(33.3%)
60
(100.0%)
2. Physical demands of the job are
unreasonable.
4
(6.7%)
12
(20.0%)
28
(46.7%)
15
(25.0%)
1
(1.7%)
60
(100.0%)
3. My workload is never ending.3
(5.0%)39
(65.0%)13
(21.75)3
(5.0%)2
(3.3%)60
(100.0%)
4. The pace of work is too fast.4
(6.7%)13
(21.7%)36
(60.0%)4
(6.7%)3
(5.0%)60
(100.0%)
5. My job seems to consist ofresponding to emergencies.
12(20.0%)
24(40.0%)
15(25.0%)
6(10.0%)
3(5.0%)
60
(100.0%)
6. There is no time for relaxation,coffee breaks, or lunch breaks onthe job.
3(5.0%)
26(43.3%)
27(45.0%)
3(5.0%)
1(1.7%)
60
(100.0%)
7. Job deadlines are constant andunreasonable.
3(5.0%)
28(46.7%)
24(40.0%)
2(3.3%)
3(5.0%)
60
(100.0%)
8. Job requirements are beyond therange of my ability.
4(6.7%)
30(50.0%)
22(36.7%)
3(5.0%)
1(1.7%)
60
(100.0%)
9. At the end of the day, I amphysically exhausted from work.
1(1.7%)
16(26.7%)
32(53.3%)
8(13.3%)
3(5.0%)
60
(100.0%)
10. I can't even enjoy my leisurebecause of the toll my job takes onmy energy.
3(5.0%)
27(45.0%)
20(33.3%)
8(13.3%)
2(3.3%)
60
(100.0%)
11. I have to take work home tokeep up. 31(51.7%) 15(25.0%) 11(18.3%) 3(5.0%) - 60(100.0%)
12. I have responsibility for toomany people.
4(6.7%)
29(48.3%)
18(30.0%)
6(10.0%)
3(5.0%)
60
(100.0%)
13. Support personnel are too few.2
(3.3%)28
(46.7%)24
(40.0%)4
(6.7%)2
(3.3%)60
(100.0%)
40
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
41/84
TABLE NO: 7 (CONTINUED)
* Parentheses are figures and percentages
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
NEVER RARELYSOME
TIMESOFTEN
MOST
TIMESTOTAL
14. Support personnel areincompetent or inefficient.
6(10.0%)
33(55.0%)
18(30.0%)
3(5.0%)
-60
(100.0%)
15. I am not sure about what isexpected of me.
3(5.0%)
26(43.3%)
18(30.0%)
13(21.7%)
-60
(100.0%)
16. I leave work feeling burned out. 4(6.7%) 21(35.0%) 30(50.0%) 4(6.7%) 1(1.7%) 60(100.0%)
17. I feel that there are no careeropportunities in my job
6(10.0%)
17(28.3%)
28(46.7%)
9(15.0%)
-60
(100.0%)
18. Inservice training for my job isinadequate.
1(1.7%)
23(38.3%)
23(38.3%)
10(16.75)
3(5.0%)
60
(100.0%)
19. There is little contact withcolleagues on the job.
2(3.3%)
22(36.7%)
26(43.3%)
10(16.7%)
-60
(100.0%)
20. Most of my colleagues areunfriendly or seem uninterested in
me as a person.
6(10.0%)
30(50.0%)
24(40.0%)
0(0.0%)
-60
(100.0%)
21. I feel uneasy about going towork.
3(5.0%)
25(41.7%)
25(41.7%)
7(11.7%)
-60
(100.0%)
22. I am not sure what will beexpected of me in the future.
6(10.0%)
26(43.3%)
14(23.3%)
5(8.3%)
9(15.0%)
60
(100.0%)
41
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
42/84
The above table indicates the respondents response to the statements based on the physical
demands or physical conditions on their job.
From the table we see that most of the respondents have rarely agreed to the statements,
which means the conditions or feelings posed by the statements exists only about for (25%)
of the time. The statements indicate the job demands, physical environment, and
relationship with superiors, subordinates and peers and also their roles and responsibilities
on the job. less than two - fifth of the respondents (35%) feel that the work environment is
noisy, less than half of the respondents (46.7%) feel that they have unreasonable job
demands, less than two - thirds of the respondents (60%) feel that their pace of work is too
fast. Also, half of the respondents (50%) feel that their relationship with others is poor.
However, around two - fifth of the respondents (41.7%) feel uneasy about going to work.
Thus we can infer that for most of the respondents, the physical demands on the job do not
take much toll of their energy. This show to prove that most of the people are normally
stressed and are able to cope with it.
TABLE NO: 8
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE PHYSICAL
CONDITIONS LEVEL OF STRESS
42
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
43/84
LEVEL OF
STRESS
FREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Low 3 5.0
Normal 34 56.7
High 23 38.3
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table indicates the distribution of respondents based on the physical conditions
stress level.
The Scoring pattern for each statement is as follows
Never 1; Rarely 2; Sometimes 3; Often 4; Most times 5
Also, as indicated previously, certain statements receive reverse scoring.
From the table, we can see that more than half of the respondents (56.7%) incur normal
level of stress in their job, whereas less than one - fifth of the respondents (38.3%) incur
high level of stress and less than one - tenth of the respondents (5%) have low physical
condition stress level.
Thus, we can infer that physical condition stress is normal among production executives;
maybe due to the fact that most of the organizations provide concern for high safety
measures and better employee welfare services.
TABLE NO: 9
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR RESPONSE TO
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BASED ON THEIR
JOB INTEREST
43
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
44/84
JOB INTEREST
NEVER RARELY
SOME
TIMESOFTEN
MOST
TIMESTOTAL
1. The complexity of my job isenough to keep me interested.
3(5.0%)
22(36.7%)
29(48.3%)
4(6.7%)
2(3.3%)
60(100.0%)
2. My job is very exciting. -22
(36.7%)31
(51.7%)7
(11.7%)-
60
(100.0%)
3. My job is varied enough toprevent boredom.
2(3.3%)
23(38.3%)
22(36.7%)
11(18.3%)
2(3.3%)
60
(100.0%)
4. I seem to have lost interest inmy work.
3(5.0%)
24(40.0%)
29(48.3%)
1(1.7%)
3(5.0%)
60
(100.0%)
5. I feel as though I can shape myown destiny in this job.
3(5.0%)
18(30.0%)
31(51.7%)
7(11.7%)
1(1.7%)
60
(100.0%)
6. I leave work feeling burnedout.
4(6.7%)
31(51.75)
21(35.0%)
4(6.7%)
-60
(100.0%)
7. I would continue to work at myjob even if I did not need themoney.
9(15.0%)
24(40.0%)
23(38.3%)
3(5.0%)
1(1.7%)
60
(100.0%)
8. I am trapped in this job.13
(21.7%)28
(46.7%)15
(25.6%)4
(6.7%)3
(5.0%)60
(100.0%)
9. If I had to do it all over again, Iwould still choose this job.
5(8.3%)
14(23.3%)
32(53.3%)
6(10.0%)
3(5.0%)
60
(100.0%)
* Parentheses are figures and percentages
The above table indicates the respondents response to the following statements based on
their interest in their job.
From the table, we can see that most of the respondents have either sometimes or
rarely agreed to the statements. This means that the conditions or feelings posed by these
statements either exists about (25%) or (50%) of the time respectively. All the statements
indicate the respondents interest in the job. Less than half of the respondents (48.3%) feel
that their complexity of the job keeps them interested, whereas less than two - fifth of the
44
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
45/84
respondents (38.7%) feel that their job is not varied enough to prevent boredom. More than
half of the respondents (51.7%) leave work feeling burned out and less than half of the
respondents (46.7%) feel that they are trapped in their job. Around half of the respondents
(53.3%) feel that they would still choose this job if they had to do it all over again.
Thus we can infer that most of the respondents feel a low sense of association towards their
job possibly due to the fact that their job is highly monotonous and is not varied enough.
Also, poor constrained relationships as indicated in the previous tables are also a causative
factor for their low sense of association to the job.
TABLE NO: 10
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE
JOB INTEREST LEVEL OF STRESS
LEVEL OF
STRESS
FREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Low 2 3.3
Normal 8 13.3
High 50 83.3
TOTAL 60 100.0
45
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
46/84
The above table indicates the distribution of respondents based on the job interest stress
level.
The Scoring pattern for each statement is as follows
Never 1; Rarely 2; Sometimes 3; Often 4; Most times 5
Also, as indicated previously, certain statements receive reverse scoring.
From the table, we can see that more that majority of the respondents (83.3%) incur high
level of stress in their job, whereas more than one - tenth of the respondents (13.3%) incur
normal level of stress and less than one - tenth of the respondents (3.3%) have low job
interest stress level.
Thus, we can infer that stress is high among the respondents; maybe due to the fact that
most of the respondents do feel a low sense of association towards their job.
DIAGRAM NO: 2
MULTIPLE BAR DIAGRAM SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF
RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE VARIOUS INDICATORS OF
STRESS
46
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
47/84
3.3%
23.3%
73.3%
5%
56.7%
38.3%
3.3%
13.3%
83.3%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Interpersonal Physical
Conditions
Job Interest
Low Normal High
TABLE NO: 11
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE TOTAL
LEVEL OF STRESS
LEVEL OF
STRESS
FREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
47
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
48/84
Low 2 3.3
Normal 13 21.7
High 45 75.0
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table indicates the distribution of respondents based on the physical conditions
stress level.
The total level of stress is measured by adding up the final scores of all the three indicators
for each respondent. based on the overall scoring, the respondent falls into the three
categories of stress level, which are high, normal and low stress.
From the table, we can see that three - fourth of the respondents (75%) incur high level of
stress in their job, whereas less than one - fifth of the respondents (21.7%) incur normal
level of stress and less than one - tenth of the respondents (3.3%) have low level of stress.
Thus, we can infer that a majority of the respondents feel highly stressed on their job. The
major reason is due to the contribution of high interpersonal stress level in their job. Also, a
high level of stress in job interest further adds to high level of stress.
DIAGRAM NO: 3
BAR DIAGRAM SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS
BASED ON THE TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
48
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
49/84
75%
21.7%
3.3%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Low Normal High
Total Level of Stress
SECTION - III: SOURCES OF STRESS
TABLE NO: 12
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENTS BASED ON THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF
STRESS
49
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
50/84
ALWAYS OFTEN
SOME
TIMESNEVER TOTAL
1. Need to accomplish tasks intime
44(73.3%)
12(20.0%)
2(3.3%)
2(3.3%)
60
(100.0%)
2. Discrepancies in the work
place
39
(65.0%)
12
(20.0%)
7
(11.7%)
2
(3.3%)
60
(100.0%)
3. No clear job responsibilities,work objectives
22(36.7%)
14(23.3%)
18(30.0%)
6(10.0%)
60
(100.0%)
4. Feeling that others do tasksmeant for you
3(5.0%)
13(21.7%)
22(36.7%)
22(36.7%)
60
(100.0%)
5. Work load or work pressure35
(58.3%)11
(18.3%)10
(16.7%)4
(6.7%)60
(100.0%)
6. Too many expectations fromyour superiors
20(33.3%)
31(51.7%)
7(11.7%)
2(3.3%)
60
(100.0%)
7. Poor interpersonalrelationships
37(61.7%)
11(18.3%)
7(11.7%)
5(8.3%)
60(100.0%)
8. Strict rules and regulationswhich is unnecessary
10(16.7%)
15(25.0%)
25(41.7%)
10(16.7%)
60
(100.0%)
9. Lack of recognition amongother members
10(16.7%)
19(31.7%)
19(31.7%)
12(20.0%)
60
(100.0%)
10. Lack of support from yoursuperiors
25(41.7%)
21(35.0%)
11(18.3%)
3(5.0%)
60
(100.0%)
* Parentheses are figures and percentages
The above table indicates the various sources of stress that commonly occurs in any work
place situation.
From the table, we can see that a majority of the respondents (73.3%) feel that need to
accomplish tasks in time is a great source of stress and around two - third of the
respondents (65%) feel that discrepancies in the work place is a source of stress. Only less
than one - tenth of the respondents (5%) feel that others doing tasks meant for them is a
source of stress. Around half of the respondents (51.7%) feel that too many expectations
from their superiors are a source of stress. Also, around two - third of the respondents
50
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
51/84
(61.7%) always feel that poor interpersonal relationships is a source of stress. Less than two
- fifth of the respondents (41.7%) always feel that lack of support from their superiors is a
source of stress.
Thus we can infer that task accomplishment. Discrepancies in the workplace and poor
interpersonal relationships are major source of stress in the work place. From the above
statements we can say that interpersonal stress is very high among the respondents.
51
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
52/84
SECTION - IV: CONSEQUENCES OF STRESS
TABLE NO: 13
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENTS BASED ON THE VARIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF
STRESS
ALWAYS OFTEN
SOME
TIMESNEVER TOTAL
1. Fear15
(25.0%)
10
(16.7%)
17
(28.3%)
18
(30.0%)
60
(100.0%)2. Excessive and Rapid swingsin moods
4(6.7%)
27(45.0%)
25(41.7%)
4(6.7%)
60
(100.0%)
3. Worrying unreasonably aboutthings of no concern
12(20.0%)
25(41.7%)
18(30.0%)
5(8.3%)
60
(100.0%)
4. Withdrawal25
(41.7%)16
(26.7%)13
(21.7%)6
(10.0%)60
(100.0%)
5. Sleepingdisorders/daydreaming
11(18.3%)
15(25.0%)
23(38.3%)
11(18.3%)
60
(100.0%)
6. Lack of Concentration27
(45.0%)
21
(35.0%)
9
(15.0%)
3
(5.0%)
60
(100.0%)
7.Over eating or loss of appetite9
(15.0%)16
(26.7%)23
(38.3%)12
(20.0%)60
(100.0%)
8. Palpitations38
(63.3%)12
(20.0%)4
(6.7%)6
(10.0%)60
(100.0%)
9. Smoking/Alcohol abuse6
(10.0%)13
(21.7)30
(50.0%)11
(18.3%)60
(100.0%)
10. Emotional Breakdown40
(66.7%)9
(15.0%)6
(10.0%)5
(8.3%)60
(100.0%)
* Parentheses are figures and percentages
52
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
53/84
The above table indicates the various consequences of stress that commonly occurs in any
work place situation.
From the table, we can see that a little more than two - third of the respondents (66.7%) feel
that emotional breakdown is a consequence of stress and the same two - third of the
respondents (63.3%) feel that palpitations is a consequence of stress. Only one - tenth of the
respondents (10%) feel that smoking/alcohol abuse is a consequence of stress. Less than
half of the respondents (45%) always feel that lack of concentration is a consequence of
stress. Less than two - fifth of the respondents (41.7%) always feel that withdrawal is a
consequence of stress. More than one - third of the respondents (38.3%) often feel that
worrying unreasonably about things of no concern is a consequence of stress.
Thus we can infer that most of the respondents do feel that biological factors such as
palpitations and emotional breakdown are major consequences of stress.
53
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
54/84
SECTION - V: STRESS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
TABLE NO: 14
RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON THEIR ORGANISATIONS
ATTEMPT TO RELIVE THEIR JOB STRESS
FREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Always 5 8.3
Often 27 45.0
Sometimes 25 41.7
Never 3 5.0
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table indicates the respondents response on whether their organisation has
attempted to relive the job stress.
From the above table we can see that two-fifth of the respondents (45%) often agree to the
statement, whereas another two-fifth of the respondents (41.7%) sometimes agree to the
statement and the remaining less than one-tenth of the respondents (8.3%) and (5%) always
and never agree to the statement respectively.
Thus, we can infer that most of the respondents do feel that their organisation do take steps
to evade their job stress as part of the welfare measures.
54
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
55/84
TABLE NO: 15
RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON WHETHER THEY SEEK
PROFESSIONAL HELP TO EVADE JOB STRESS
FREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Always 6 10.0
Often 28 46.7
Sometimes 25 41.7
Never 1 1.7
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table indicates the respondents view that whether they seek professional help to
evade job stress.
From the above table we can see that two-fifth of the respondents (46.7%) often agree to
the statement, whereas another two-fifth of the respondents (41.7%) sometimes agree to the
statement and lone-tenth of the respondents (10%) always agree to the statement and theremaining less than one-tenth of the respondents (1.7%) never agree to the statement.
Thus, we can infer that a most of the respondents do seek professional help either through
their organisation or personally.
55
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
56/84
TABLE NO: 16
RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON WHETHER THEIR
ORGANISATION PROVIDES FREE EMPLOYEE HEALTH
SERVICES
FREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Always 29 48.3
Often 16 26.7
Sometimes 14 23.3
Never 1 1.7
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table indicates the respondents view that whether their organisation provides
free employee health services.
From the above table we can see that two-fifth of the respondents (48.3%) always agree tothe statement, whereas more than one-fifth of the respondents (26.7%) often agree to the
statement and less than one-fifth of the respondents (23.3%) sometimes agree to the
statement and the remaining less than one-tenth of the respondents (1.7%) never agree to
the statement.
Thus, we can infer that a majority of the respondents partially feel that free services are
provided as a part of the welfare measures to evade job stress.
56
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
57/84
TABLE NO: 17
RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON WHETHER THEIR
ORGANISATION ORGANISES FREE STRESS REDUCTION
PROGRAMS
FREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Always 2 3.3
Often 22 36.7
Sometimes 34 56.7
Never 2 3.3
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table indicates the respondents view that whether their organisation organizes
free stress reduction programmes.
From the above table we can see that half of the respondents (56.7%) often agree to the
statement, whereas more than one-third of the respondents (36.7%) often agree to the
statement and the remaining less than one-tenth of the respondents (3.3%) always and
sometimes agree to the statement respectively.
Thus, we can infer that as similar to the previous table, most of the respondents do feel that
their organization provides for stress reduction programmes as part of the welfare measure.
TABLE NO: 18
57
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
58/84
RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON THE FREQUENCY THE
COMPANY ORGANISES THESE PROGRAMMES
FREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Always 1 1.7
Often 15 25.0
Sometimes 42 70.0
Never 2 3.3
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table indicates the respondents view on the frequency their company organizes
these programmes.
From the above table we can see that two-third of the respondents (70%) sometimes agree
to the statement, whereas one-fourth of the respondents (25%) often agree to the statement
and the remaining less than one-tenth of the respondents (3.3%) and (1.7%) never and
always agree to the statement respectively.
Thus, we can infer that most of the respondents do feel that the frequency of organising
these programmes is to a lesser extent.
TABLE NO: 19
58
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
59/84
RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE
PROGRAMMES
FREQUENCY
(n)
PER CENT
(%)
Always 3 5.0
Often 6 10.0
Sometimes 36 60.0
Never 15 25.0
TOTAL 60 100.0
The above table indicates the respondents view on the effectiveness of these programmes.
From the above table we can see that less than two-third of the respondents (60%)
sometimes agree to the statement, whereas one-fourth of the respondents (25%) never agree
to the statement and one-tenth of the respondents (10%) often agree to the statement and
the remaining less than one-tenth of the respondents (5%) always agree to the statement.
Thus, we can infer that a majority of the respondents do occasionally have a positive
impact on the effectiveness of these programmes.
SECTION - VI: CROSS TABLES
CROSS TABLE NO: 20
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE AND TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
59
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
60/84
AGE
TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
TOTAL
NORMAL HIGH
30 40 years10
(25%)30
(75%)40
(100.0%)
Above 40 years5
(25%)15
(75%)20
(100.0%)
TOTAL15
(25%)
45
(75%)
60
(100.0%)
Value of Chi-Square = 0 Not Significant at 0.05 level
Degree of Freedom = 1
The above table is drawn to understand the significance between the two variables, age of
the respondents and the total level of stress. For the purpose of calculation, the age of the
respondents has been grouped as "Between 30 - 40 years" and "Above 40 years". Also, the
above table has been grouped into normal stress and high stress for the purpose of
calculation.
From the above table we can infer that a majority of the respondents (75%) incur high level
of stress at both age levels, whereas one - fourth of the respondents (25%) in the age group
of between 30 - 40 years and another one - fourth of the respondents (25%) in the age
group of above 40 years incur normal level of stress.
According to the null hypothesis There is no significance between age and total level of
stress, chi-square test was applied. The chi-square test result indicates the calculated value
(0) degree of freedom 1 stands insignificant at 0.05 level of significance (3.841). Hence we
accept the hypothesis.
60
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
61/84
Thus we can infer that there is no relationship between age and level of stress. This show to
prove that stress can occur at all age levels and all walks of life.
61
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
62/84
DIAGRAM NO: 4
BAR DIAGRAM SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS
BY THEIR AGE AND TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
25%25%
75%75%
0
10
20
30
40
5060
70
80
90
100
Between 30 - 40 years Above 40 Years
Normal High
62
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
63/84
CROSS TABLE NO: 21
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND
TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
EDUCATIONAL
LEVEL
TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
TOTAL
NORMAL HIGH
Graduation10
(25.6%)29
(75.4%)39
(100.0%)
Others5
(23.8%)16
(76.2%)21
(100.0%)
TOTAL15
(25%)
45
(75%)
60
(100.0%)
Value of chi-square = 0.0304 Not Significant at 0.05 level
Degree of Freedom = 1
The above table is drawn to understand the significance between the two variables,
educational level of the respondents and the total level of stress. For the purpose of
calculation, the educational level of the respondents has been grouped as "Graduation" and
"Others". Also, the above table has been grouped into normal stress and high stress for the
purpose of calculation.
From the above table we can infer that a majority of the respondents (75.4%) and (76.2%)
incur high level of stress at both educational levels respectively, whereas little more than
one - fourth the respondents (25.6%) at the graduate level and another and a little less than
one - fourth of the respondents (23.8%) who are Post Graduates, diploma or ITI holders
incur normal level of stress.
63
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
64/84
According to the null hypothesis There is no significance between educational level and
total level of stress, chi-square test was applied. The chi-square test result indicates the
calculated value (0.0304) degree of freedom 1 stands insignificant at 0.05 level of
significance (3.841). Hence we accept the hypothesis.
Thus we infer that there is no relationship between educational level and the stress incurred
by an individual.
64
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
65/84
DIAGRAM NO: 5
BAR DIAGRAM SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS
BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND TOTAL LEVEL OF
STRESS
23.8%25.6%
76.2%75.4%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Graduation Others
Normal High
CROSS TABLE NO: 22
65
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
66/84
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR TYPE OF FAMILY AND TOTAL
LEVEL OF STRESS
TYPE OF FAMILYTOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
TOTAL
NORMAL HIGH
Joint Family8
(21.6%)29
(78.4%)37
(100.0%)
Nuclear Family7
(30.4%)16
(69.6%)23
(100.0%)
TOTAL 15(25%) 45(75%) 60(100.0%)
Value of chi-square = 0.584 Not Significant at 0.05 level
Degree of Freedom = 1
The above table is drawn to understand the significance between the two variables,
educational level of the respondents and the total level of stress. Also, the above table has
been grouped into normal stress and high stress for the purpose of calculation.
From the above table we can see that a majority of the respondents (78.4%) who live in
joint family incur high level of stress and more than two - third of the respondents (69.5%)
who live in nuclear family incur high level of stress, whereas less than one - fifth of the
respondents (21.6%) who live in joint family incur normal stress and more than one - fourth
of the respondents (26%) who live in nuclear family incur normal level of stress.
According to the null hypothesis There is no significance between work experience and
total level of stress, chi-square test was applied. The chi-square test result indicates the
66
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
67/84
calculated value (0.584) degree of freedom 1 stands insignificant at 0.05 level of
significance (3.841). Hence we accept the hypothesis.
Thus we can infer that there is no relationship between the type of family and the level of
stress. This shows that stress can occur to any individual irrespective of the type of family
system.
67
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
68/84
CROSS TABLE NO: 23
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR LEVEL WORK EXPERIENCE AND
THE TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
WORK
EXPERIENCE
TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
TOTAL
NORMAL HIGH
Between 1 9 years9
(25.7%)26
(74.3%)35
(100.0%)
Between 10 and Above
6
(24%)
19
(76%)
25
(100.0%)
TOTAL15
(25%)
45
(75%)
60
(100.0%)
Value of chi-square = 0.022 Not Significant at 0.05 level
Degree of Freedom = 1
The above table is drawn to understand the significance between the two variables, work
experience of the respondents and the total level of stress. For the purpose of calculation,
the educational level of the respondents has been grouped as Between 1 - 9 years and
Between 10 and above. Also, the above table has been grouped into normal stress and
high stress for the purpose of calculation.
From the above table we can infer that a majority of the respondents (74.3%) who has an
experience of between 1 - 9 years incur high level of stress. Also, a majority of the
respondents (70%) who have an experience of between 10 years ands above incur high
level of stress, whereas a little more than one - fifth of the respondents (25.7%) having an
experience of between 1 - 9 years incur normal stress and another one - fourth of the
respondents (25%) incur normal stress.
68
-
8/2/2019 Job Stress Among Production Executives
69/84
According to the null hypothesis There is no significance between type of family and total
le