CHAPTER - IV
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS LEADING TO STRESS OF BANK EMPLOYEES OF BARAK VALLEY
4.1. INTRODUCTION
"Situations, circumstances or any stimulus that is perceived to be a threat is
referred to as a stressor, or that which causes or promotes stress."
- Brian Luke Seaward
Role stress has become universal attribute of recent organizations. An employee's
job role, which is composed of set of activities to be performed by him,
constitutes the most significant part of his job life and is accountable for job
stress and job satisfaction. Role stress results from conflicting incompatible or
unclear expectations that are derived from work environment (Kaur and Kaur,
2009). It is imperative to say that almost any job condition can cause stress,
depending on an employee's reaction to it. To examine and understand the causes
of role stress is an important step in stress prevention. Because a single stressor
may cause harmful consequences in the workplace.
This chapter depicts in detail the relative importance of factors leading to job
stress of bank employees of Barak Valley and the important factors causing
significant different level of stress between different genders, among different
educational qualifications, between different designations, among different
districts and between public and private sectors.
148
KelcUX^e/ ImportcLnce/ of fouctory.
The researcher used Organizational Role Stress Scale (ORS Scale) developed by
Udai Pareek (1993) to measure the job stress of the bank employees. ORS scale is
based on 50 items measuring 10 types of organizational role stresses. Each type
has 5 items. The 10 types of organizational role stresses (factors) are given
below:
(i) Inter-Role Distance (IRD):
1. My role tends to interfere with my family life. 2. I have various other interests (social, religious, etc) which remain
neglected because I do not get time to attend to these. 3. My role does not allow me to have enough time with my family. 4. My organizational responsibilities interfere with my extra
organizational roles. 5. My family and friends complain that I do not spend time with
them due to heavy demands of my work role.
(ii) Role Stagnation (RS):
1. I am afraid I am not learning enough in my present role for taking up higher responsibility.
2. I am too preoccupied with my present role responsibility to be able to prepare for taking higher responsibility.
3. I do not have time and opportunities to prepare myself for the future challenges of my role.
4. There is very little scope for personal growth in my role. 5. 1 feel stagnant in my role.
(iii) Self-Role Distance (SRD):
1. 1 am not able to satisfy the conflicting demands of various people over me.
2. I am not able to satisfy the conflicting demands of the various peer level people and my juniors.
3. I am not able to satisfy the demands of clients and others, since these are conflicting with one another.
4. The expectations of my seniors conflict with those of my juniors. 5. I am bothered with the contradictory expectations different people
have from my role.
149
KelatOi^e/Ivytportounce^ of factory...
(iv) Role Ambiguity (RA):
1. My role has recently been reduced in importance. 2. Many functions of what would be a part of my role have been
assigned to some other role. 3. I would like to take more responsibility than I am handling at
present. 4. I can do much more than what I have been assigned 5. I wish I had been given more challenging task to do.
(v) Role Expectation Conflict (REC):
1. My work load is too heavy. 2. The amount of work I have to do interfere with the quality I want to
maintain. 3. I have been given too much responsibility. 4. There is a need to reduce some parts of my role. 5. I feel overburdened in my role.
(vi) Role Overload (RO):
1. Other role occupants do not give enough attention and time to my role.
2. There is not enough interaction between my role and other roles. 3. I wish there was more consultation between my role and other
roles. 4. There is no evidence of involvement of several roles (including
my role) in joint problem solving or collaboration in planning action.
5. Even when 1 take initiative for discussions or help, there is not much response from the other roles.
(vii) Role Erosion (RE):
1. I do not have adequate knowledge to handle the responsibilities in my role.
2. I wish I had more skills to handle the responsibilities of my role. 3. I have not had pertinent training for my role. 4. 1 wish I had prepared myself well for my role. 5. I need more training and preparation to be effective in my work
role.
150
KelcUtA/e/ ImportcLvice/ of factory..
(viii) Resource Inadequacy (RIn):
1. I have to do things in my role that are against my better judgment. 2. I am not able to use my training and expertise in my role. 3. The work I do in the organization is not related to my interests. 4. If I had full prepared to define my role I would be doing some things
different from what I do now. 5. 1 experience conflict between my values and what 1 have to do in
my role.
(ix) Personal Inadequacy (PI):
1. I am not clear on the scope and responsibilities of my role Gob). 2. I do not know what the people 1 work with expect of me. 3. Several aspects of my role are vague and unclear. 4. My role had not been defined clearly and in detail. 5. I am not clear as to what are the priorities in my role.
(x) Role Isolation (RI):
1. I do not get the information needed to carry out responsibilities assigned to me.
2. I do not get enough resources to be effective in my fole. 3. I do not have enough people to work with me in my role. 4. I am rather worried that I lack the necessary facilities needed in my
role. 5. I wish I had more financial resources for the work assigned to me.
As mentioned in the research methodology portion of CHAPTER-1, the responses
of 397 bank employees regarding their level of agreement on the 5 items
(statements) for each of the the above 10 factors in the questionnaire are collected
on 5 possible response categories (i.e., rarely, a few times, sometimes, frequently
and always). Then values are assigned to the response categories as follows.
Rarely = 0, A few times = 1, sometimes = 2, frequently = 3, and Always = 4.
The data so collected through the questionnaire from the respondents for each of
the factors are computed for its relevant interpretation.
151
KelatOi/e^ Ivwportajvioe/ of factory.
4.1.1. Relative importance of the ORS factors causing stress to the
employees
The researcher is interested to know the relative importance of the 10 types of
stresses (factors) which lead to the total stress of the bank? employees. Mean,
Standard Deviation and Coefficient of variation of scores of bank employees'
stress of the ten different factors taken for the study and their implications are
discussed in the tables given below.
ORS Variable
IRD
RS
SRD
RA
REC
RO
RE
Rln
PI
RI
Table No. of respondents
397
397
397
397
397 ,
397
397
397
397
397
no.- 4.1: Ranks ORS variable Maximum possible score
4x5=20
4x5=20
4x5=20
4x5=20
4x5=20
4x5=20
4x5=20
4x5=20
4x5=20
4x5=20
Mean score of stress
9.93
7.08
6.86
7.28
8.88
7.54
8.05
6.66
5.64
6.94
Std Dev.
4.183
4.050
4.234
3.904
4.582
3.388
4.266
3.782
4.498
4.181
% Max Score 49.65
35.40
34.30
36.40
44.40
37.70
40.25
33.30
28.20
34.70
Rank
1
6
8
5
2
4
3
9
10
7
Source: Primary Data
From the above table, it reveals that Inter-Role Distance (IRD) factor is the most
important factor because it has the highest percentage of maximum score from
the maximum ORS possible score. Thus it gets Rank 1 indicting the factor which
impacts most on the stress level of bank employees of Barak Valley. The relative
importances of the factors are given in terms of rank no. in the "Rank" Column.
152
KelatOve^Importcunce/ of facton,'.
The higher the standard division of a particular factor indicates greater is the
variation in the impact of the factor from individual to individual and lesser is the
standard deviation of a particular factor indicates lesser in the impact of the factor
from individual to individual. So, the relative importance of the factors causing
different degree of stress, in order of ranks are IRD,REC, RE, RO, RA, RS, Rl,
SRD, RIn and PI respectively.
4.1.2. Important factors causing significant level of stress between
male and female bank employees
For determining important factors causing significant level of stress between
male and female bank employees, Z-test is conducted between the mean scores of
stress of male and female employees for every factor considered for the study.
The null hypothesis for each and every factor is given below.
Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of stress
between male and female employees.
Alternative hypothesis: There is significant difference in the mean scores of
stress between male and female employees.
The decision rule will be that if the calculated value of Z (absolute value) > table
value, the null hypothesis will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis is to be
accepted. And if calculated value of Z< table value, the null hypothesis is
accepted. The detail calculations of Z for each factor are given in the appendix-
Ill. Calculated value of Z for each factor and its interpretation are given below.
153
KelatOi/e/Importa^ice^ of fcLCtory.
Table no.- 4.2: Results of Z-test of factors on the scores of stress between male and female employees
Variable
IRD
RS
SRD
RA
REC
RO
RE
RJn
PI
RI
Mean score 10.2
7.09
6.78
7.25
9.3
7.78
8.56
6.89
5.79
7.09
Male
Std Dev, 4.211
4.142
4.084
4.049
4.659
3.457
4.344
3.887
4.69
4.332
N
317
317
317
317
317
317
317
317
317
317
Female
Mean score 8.88
7.01
7.19
7.41
7.23
6.6
6.03
5.75
5.04
6.35
Std Dev. 3.921
3.689
4.795
3.287
3.861
2.932
3.249
3.196
3.612
3.479
N
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
Calculated Vale of Z
2.655
0.169
-0.704
-0.371
4.107
3.105
5.802
6.551
3.232
3.523
Table Value of Zat alpha=5% 1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
Sig
sig
insig
insig
insig
sig
sig
sig
sig
sig
sig
Source: Primary Data 'sig' means significant, 'insig' means insignificant.
The above table reveals that IRD, REC, RO, RE, RIn, PI and RI are important
factors because they cause significant different level of stress between male and
female bank employees.
4.1.3. Important factors causing significant level of stress among
bank employees having different level educational background
For determining important factors causing significant level of stress among bank
employees having different level educational background, F-test (ANOVA) is
conducted amongst the mean scores of stress of employees of different level of
educational back ground for every factor considered for the study.
The null hypothesis for each and every factor is given below.
154
KelatrA/e/ Importcunce^ of foLct&ry.
The null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of
stress of employees of different educational background.
The alternative hypothesis: There significant difference in the mean scores of
stress of employees of different educational background.
The decision rule will be that if the calculated value of F > table value at a= 5%,
the null hypothesis will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis is to be
accepted. And if calculated value of F < table value, the null hypothesis is
accepted.
In other words, if the p-value < .05, the F-value is Significant at a= 5%. Then null
hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. And if P> .05, the
F-value is insignificant at a= 5%. Then null hypothesis is accepted. The details of
F-test for each factor as produced by SPSS are given in the appendix-Ill.
Calculated value of F for each factor and its interpretation are given below.
Table no.- 4.3:Results of F-test on the scores of stress of employees having different educational backgrounds
Vari able
IRD RS SRD RA REC RO RE RIn PI RI
Matriculate Mean
8.6 6.4
8 7.6 10.4 10.8 10.2 7 9 10.2
Std Dev. 7.861 6.189 7.583
4.93 7.765 1.643 0.447 6.595 8.216 7.759
N
5 5 5
5 5 5' 5 5 5 5
Intermediate Mean
10.43 7.38 7.71 7.62 9.95 8.52
8.76 7.1 6.48 8.24
Std Dev. 3.919 4.043 4.209 4.006 4.105 3.124 3.604 4.024 5.134 5.224
N
21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
Bachelor Mean
10.17 7.07 6.82
7.30 9.20 7.7 8.43 6.61 5.48 7.04
Std Dev. 3.815 4.096 4.105 4.107 4.39 3.205 4.19 3.679 4.252 4.001
N
254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254
Master Mean
9.37
6.06 6.74 7.17
7.94 6.88 6.98 6.67 5.69 6.34
Std Dev. 4.759 3.902
4.381 3.407 4.818 3.724
4.453 3.871 4.699 4.102
N F
1.262
.086
.440
.097 2.656 3.896 3.821 .118 1.286 2.564
Sig
.287
.968 ,725 .962 .048 .009 .010 .950 .279 .054
'sig' means significant
155
UelatOi^e^ Importcuxce' of factory.
Since the P-value of REC is .048 which is less than .05, therefore F value is
significant (i.e. null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted).
Again the P-value of RO is .009 which is less than .05. therefore F value is
significant. Similarly P-value of RE is .010 which is less than .05; therefore F-
value is significant.
Hence the factors REC, RO, and RE are important factors because they cause
significant different level of stress among bank employees having different
educational background.
4.1.4. Important factors causing significant different levels of
stress between officer and clerk employees
For determining important factors causing significant level of stress between
officer and clerk employees of banks, Z-test is conducted between the mean
scores of stress of officer and clerk employees for every factor considered for the
study.
The null hypothesis/or each and every factor is given below.
Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of stress
between officer £md clerk employees.
Alternative hypothesis: There is significant difference in the mean scores of
stress between officer and clerk employees.
The decision rule will be that if the calculated value of Z (absolute value) > table
value, the null hypothesis will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis is to be
156
Kelatt^e/Importa^ice/ of fouctori'...
accepted. And if calculated value of Z< table value, the null hypothesis is
accepted. The detail calculations of Z for each factor are given in the appendix-
III. Calculated value of Z for each factor and its interpretation are given below.
Table no.- 4.4: Results of Z,-test of factors on the scores of stress between officer and clerk employees
Variable
IRD
Rs
SRD
RA
REC
RO
RH
RIn
PI
Rl
Officer
Mean
10.09
6.76
6.35
7.08
8.9
7.14
7.86
6.29
4.89
6.38
Std Dev. 3.975
4.051
3.989
4.054
4.293
3.412
4.405
3.639
3.944
3.869
N
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
Clerk
Mean Dev. 9.77
7.39
7.36
7.48
8.87
7.94
8.22
7.02
6.36
7.48
Std Dev. 4.381
4.035
4.412
3.752
4.858
3.326
4.13
3.892
4.877
8.382
N
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
Calculated value of Z
1.818
-1.559
-2.399
-1.020
0.065
-2.373
-0.841
-1.941
-3.318
-1.689
Table Value of Zat alpha =5% 1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
SIg
insig
insig
sig
insig
insig
sig
insig
insig
sig
insig
Source: Primary Data 'sig' means significant, insig' means insignificant.
The above table indicates that SRD, RO and PI and are important factors because
they cause significant different level of stress between officer and clerk of
employees of banks.
4.1.5. Important factors causing significant different levels of
stress among bank employees of different districts
For determining important factors causing significant level of stress among bank
employees of different districts, F-test (ANOVA) is conducted amongst the mean
scores of stress of employees of different districts for every factor considered for
the study.
157
KelatOi/e/IvriportcLnce^ of fcLCtx>ry.
The null hypothesis for each and every factor is given below.
The null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of
stress of employees of different districts.
The alternative hypothesis: There significant difference in the mean scores of
stress of employees of different districts.
The decision rule will be that if the calculated value of F > table value at a= 5%,
the null hypothesis will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis is to be
accepted. And if calculated value of Z< table value, the null hypothesis is
accepted.
In other words, if the p-value < .05, the F-value is Significant at a= 5%. Then null
hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. And if P> .05, the F-
value is insignificant at a= 5%. Then null hypothesis is accepted. The details of
F-test for each factor as produced by SPSS are given in the appendix-Ill.
Calculated value of F for each factor and its interpretation are given below.
Table no.- 4.5: Results of F-test on the scores of stress of employee's different districts
Variable
IRD
RS
SRD
RA
REC
RO
RE
RIn
PI
RI
Cachar
Mean
9.96
7
6.85
6.84
8.6
7.61
7.8
6.67
5.67
6.79
Sfd Dev.
4.341
4.129
4.169
3.655
4.558
3.353
4.203
3.703
4.29
4.064
N
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
Karimganj
Mean
9 85
6.57
6.86
7.43
9.3
7.55
8.23
6.4
5.78
7.26
Std Dev.
3.874
3.647
4.339
3.917
4.579
3.238
3.889
4.104
5.005
4.517
N
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
Hailakandi
Mean
9.89
8.53
6.91
9.43
9.6
7.15
9
7.13
5.19
7.13
Std Dev.
3.979
4.138
4.457
4.51
4.675
3.884
4.179
3.567
4.637
4.158
N
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
F
.027
3.862
.004
9.150
1.440
.372
1.695
.573
.285
.489
Sig (p-value)
.973
.022
996
.000
.238
.689
.185
.564
752
.614
'sig' means significant
158
KelatOi^e^Ivyiporta^ice/ of factory.
The above table depicts that RS and RA are important factors because they cause
significant different level of stress among bank employees of different districts.
4.1.6. Important factors causing significant different levels of
stress between employees of private and public sector banks
For determining important factors causing significant level of stress between
employees of private and public sector banks, Z-test is conducted between the
mean scores of stress of employees of private and public bank for every factor
considered for the study.
The null hypothesis for each and every factor is given below.
The null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of
stress between employees of private and public sector banks.
The alternative hypothesis: There is significant difference in the mean scores of
stress between employees of private and public sector banks.
The decision rule will be that if the calculated value of Z (absolute value) > table
value, the null hypothesis will be rejected and the alternative hypothesis is to be
accepted. And if calculated value of Z< table value, the null hypothesis is
accepted. The detail calculations of Z for each factor are given in the appendix-
Ill. Calculated value of Z for each factor and its interpretation are given below.
159
TlelcUXA/e/ Importcwoce' of foLctor}^.
Table no.- 4.6: Results of Z-test of factors on the scores of stress between employees
of private and public sector banks
Variable
IRD Rs SRD RA REC RO RE RIn PI RI
Public
Mean
9.84
7.04
6.79
7.36
8.92
7.52
8.19
6.58
5.56
6.97
Std
Dev.
4.097
4.06
4.301
3.942
4.608
3.4 4.317
3.807
4.545
4.264
N
15 15 15 15 15 15 15
15
15 15
Private
WVIean
10.86 7.51 7.57 6.54
8.49 7.74
6.51
7.46
6.46 6.6
Std Dev.
4.959 3.981 3.424 3.450 4.348 3.302 3.39
3.467
3.958 3.219
N
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5
5 5
Calculatd Vale of Z
-0.415 -0.227 -0.412 0.443 0.188 -0.074 0.474
-0.479
-0.423 0.204
Table Value ofZat alpha =5% 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96
1.96 1.96
Sig
insig insig insig insig insig insig insig
insig
insig
insig
Source: Primary Data 'iitsig' means insignificant.
It is seen from the above table that the calculated value of Z for each of the factor
considered under study is less than the table value of Z at a=5%. Thus, the null
hypothesis for each of the factor is accepted. Therefore, there is not a single
factor of the ten factors under study that cause different level of stress among
employees of public and private sector banks.
4.2. CONCLUSION
The relative important factors causing different degree of stress, in order of ranks
are IRD, REC, RE, RO, RA, RS, RI, SRD, RIn and PI respectively.
The important factors that cause different level of stress among employees of
different genders (i.e. male and female) are IRD, REC, RO, RE, RIn, PI and RI.
The important factors that generate different level of stress among employees of
different educational background are REC, RO, and RE.
160
TlelcUiA/e/ Importcunce/ of fcLctory...
The important factors that cause significant different level of stress between
officers and clerk employees of banks are SRD, RO and PI.
And the important factors that they cause significant different level of stress
among bank employees of different districts are RS and RA. Further, it is found
that there is not a single factor of the ten factors under study that cause different
level of stress among employees of public and private sector banks.
REFERENCES
1. Kaur, N. and Kaur, S. (2009). Occupational stress in relation to
organizational design and hierarchical levels: A study of PSEB, Indian
Management Studies Journal, Vol. 13 (2), pp. 61-70.
2. Pareek, U. (1993). Organizational role stress scale: Manual, Navin
Publications, Ahmedabad.
161