Job Stress Among Production Executives

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
For Further Details Contact: +91-9962179698 044-26821138 www.lacrosstechnologies.org
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 many more 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.
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.
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-- that companies 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:
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
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.
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 Workplace VI" Gallup Poll sponsored by the Marlin Company found that: 80% of workers feel stress on the job, nearly half say they need help in learning how 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.
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 with pursuing 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.
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
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 data for 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
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.
Low Stress Interpersonal Physical Job Interest Total 39 50 35 47 13 17 91 - 116
Normal Stress 51 61 48 57 18 22 117 140
High Stress 62 75 58 67 23 27 141 167
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 arising due 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
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
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
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
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
16
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
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. 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. More recent dictionary definitions actually associate the term stress with disease: suffered by managers etc: subject to
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
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
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
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
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 lost productivity. 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 sixday 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
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
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
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
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
27
CHAPTER III
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
28
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
I II III IV V VI
TABLE NO.
Tables 1 to 4 Table 5 to 11 Table 12 Table 13 Tables 14 to 19 Table 20 to 23
TABLE DETAILS
Demographic profile Work Stress Profile Sources of Stress Consequence of Stress Stress Management Techniques Cross Tables
29
SECTION - I: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE TABLE NO: 1 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE
AGE (In years) Below 30 31 40 4150 51 and Above TOTAL
FREQUENCY (n) 22 18 14 6 60
PER CENT (%) 36.7 30.0 23.3 10 100.0
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
DIAGRAM NO: 1 PIE DIAGRAM SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE
10% 23% 37%
30%
Below 30 years Between 41 - 50 years
Between 31 - 40 years Above 50 years
31
TABLE NO: 2 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONEDENTS BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL Graduation Post Graduation Any other (D.M.E, ITI) TOTAL
FREQUENCY (n) 39 13 8 60
PER CENT (%) 65.0 21.7 13.3 100.0
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
TABLE NO: 3 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR TYPE OF FAMILY
FAMILY TYPE Joint Family Nuclear Family TOTAL
FREQUENCY (n) 37 23 60
PER CENT (%) 61.7 38.3 100.0
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
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR WORK EXPERIENCE
WORK EXPERIENCE (In years) Below 5 59 10 14 15 19 Above 20 TOTAL
FREQUENCY (n) 13 22 17 3 5 60
PER CENT (%) 21.7 36.7 28.3 5.0 8.3 100.0
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
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 three indicators and the total level of stress.
Low Stress Interpersonal Physical Job Interest Total 39 50 35 47 13 17 91 - 116 Normal Stress 51 61 48 57 18 22 117 140 High Stress 62 75 58 67 23 27 141 167
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
TABLE NO: 5 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BASED ON THEIR INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP ON THE JOB
INTERPERSONAL NEVER RARELY 1. Support personnel are incompetent 6 or inefficient. (10.0%) 2. My job is not very well defined. 3. I am not sure about what is expected of me. 4. I am not sure what will be expected of me in the future. 5. I cannot seem to satisfy my superiors. 6. I seem to be able to talk with my superiors. 7. My superiors strike me as incompetent, yet I have to take orders from them. 8. My superiors seem to care about me as a person. 9. There is a feeling of trust, respect, and friendliness between myself and my superiors. 10. There seems to be tension between administrative personnel and staff personnel. 11. I have autonomy in carrying out my job duties. 12. I feel as though I can shape my own destiny in this job. 13. There are too many bosses in my area. 2 (3.3%) 3 (5.0%) 2 (3.3%) 2 (3.3%) 6 (10.0%) 3 (5.0%) 1 (1.7) 3 (5.0%) 2 (3.3%) 5 (8.3%) 19 (31.7%) 32 (53.3%) 30 (50.0%) 25 (41.7%) 28 (46.7%) 22 (36.7%) 18 (30.0%) 33 (55.0%) 16 (26.7%) 11 (18.3%) 24 (40.0%) 18 (30.0%) 27 (45.0%) 26 (43.3%) SOME OFTEN TIMES 18 (30.0%) 4 (6.7%) MOST TIMES 2 (3.3%) 5 (8.3%) 3 (5.0%) 10 (16.7%) 1 (1.7%) 4 (6.7%) 2 (3.3%) 1 (1.7%) TOTAL 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%)
21 5 (35.0%) (8.3%) 23 9 (38.3%) (15.0%) 18 7 (30.0%) (11.7%) 34 2 (56.7%) (3.3%) 17 16 (28.3%) (26.7%) 21 (35.0%) 3 (5.0%)
17 17 (28.3%) (28.3%) 29 18 (48.3%) (30.0%) 29 (48.3%) 32 (53.3%) 22 (36.7%) 12 (20.0%) 4 (6.7%) 4 (6.7%) 4 (6.7%) 2 (3.3%)
36
TABLE NO: 5 (CONTINUED)
INTERPERSONAL NEVER RARELY 14. It appears that my boss has "retired 25 on the job." (41.7%) 15. My superiors give me adequate feedback about my job performance. 16. My abilities are not appreciated by 3 my superiors. (5.0%) 17. There is little prospect of personal 1 or professional growth in this job. (1.7%) 18. The level of participation in planning and decision-making at my place of work is satisfactory. 25 (41.7%) 12 (20.0%) 30 (50.0%) 23 (38.3%) 15 (25.0%) 33 (55.0%) 2 (3.3%) 20 (33.3%) 17 (28.3%) 31 (51.7%) 26 (43.3%) 26 (43.3%) 24 (40.0%) SOME TIMES 6 (10.0%) 29 (48.3%) 21 (35.0%) 29 (48.3%) 35 (58.3%) OFTEN MOST TIMES 3 1 (5.0%) (1.7%) 17 2 (28.3%) (3.3%) 6 (10.0%) 7 (11.7%) 7 (11.7) 3 (5.0%) TOTAL 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%)
19. I feel that I am overeducated for 10 my job. (16.7%) 20. I feel that my educational 1 background is just right for this job. (1.7%) 21. I fear that I will be laid off or 32 fired. (53.3%) 22. Inservice training for my job is inadequate. 23. Most of my colleagues are 7 unfriendly or seem uninterested in me (11.7%) as a person. 4 24. I feel uneasy about going to work. (6.7%) 25. There is no release time for personal affairs or business. 26. There is obvious sex/race/age discrimination in this job. 5 (8.3%) 17 (28.3%)
11 5 1 (18.3%) (8.3%) (1.7%) 5 20 32 (8.3%) (33.3%) (53.3%) 5 2 1 (8.3%) (3.3%) (1.7%) 21 19 3 (35.0%) (31.7%) (5.0%) 20 (33.3%) 26 (43.3%) 25 (41.7%) 16 (26.7%) 2 (3.3%) 4 (6.7%) 4 (6.7%) 3 (5.0%) -
* Parentheses are figures and percentages
37
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
TABLE NO: 6 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE INTERPERSONAL LEVEL OF STRESS
LEVEL OF STRESS Low Normal High TOTAL
PER CENT (%) 3.3 23.3 73.3 100.0
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 of interpersonal 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
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 1. The physical work environment is crowded, noisy, or dreary. 2. Physical demands of the job are unreasonable. 3. My workload is never ending. 4. The pace of work is too fast. 5. My job seems to consist of responding to emergencies. 6. There is no time for relaxation, coffee breaks, or lunch breaks on the job. 7. Job deadlines are constant and unreasonable. 8. Job requirements are beyond the range of my ability. 9. At the end of the day, I am physically exhausted from work. 10. I can't even enjoy my leisure because of the toll my job takes on my energy. 11. I have to take work home to keep up. 12. I have responsibility for too many people. 13. Support personnel are too few. 4 (6.7%) 4 (6.7%) 3 (5.0%) 4 (6.7%) 12 (20.0%) 3 (5.0%) 3 (5.0%) 4 (6.7%) 1 (1.7%) 3 (5.0%) 31 (51.7%) 4 (6.7%) 2 (3.3%) SOME OFTEN TIMES 9 6 21 (15.0%) (10.0%) (35.0%) 12 28 15 (20.0%) (46.7%) (25.0%) 39 13 3 (65.0%) (21.75) (5.0%) 13 36 4 (21.7%) (60.0%) (6.7%) 24 15 6 (40.0%) (25.0%) (10.0%) 26 27 3 (43.3%) (45.0%) (5.0%) 28 24 2 (46.7%) (40.0%) (3.3%) 30 22 3 (50.0%) (36.7%) (5.0%) 16 32 8 (26.7%) (53.3%) (13.3%) 27 20 8 (45.0%) (33.3%) (13.3%) 15 11 3 (25.0%) (18.3%) (5.0%) 29 18 6 (48.3%) (30.0%) (10.0%) 28 24 4 (46.7%) (40.0%) (6.7%) MOST TIMES 20 (33.3%) 1 (1.7%) 2 (3.3%) 3 (5.0%) 3 (5.0%) 1 (1.7%) 3 (5.0%) 1 (1.7%) 3 (5.0%) 2 (3.3%) 3 (5.0%) 2 (3.3%) TOTAL 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%)
40
TABLE NO: 7 (CONTINUED)
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS NEVER RARELY 14. Support personnel are incompetent or inefficient. 15. I am not sure about what is expected of me. 16. I leave work feeling burned out. 17. I feel that there are no career opportunities in my job 18. Inservice training for my job is inadequate. 19. There is little contact with colleagues on the job. 20. Most of my colleagues are unfriendly or seem uninterested in me as a person. 21. I feel uneasy about going to work. 22. I am not sure what will be expected of me in the future. 6 (10.0%) 3 (5.0%) 4 (6.7%) 6 (10.0%) 1 (1.7%) 2 (3.3%) 6 (10.0%) 3 (5.0%) 6 (10.0%) SOME OFTEN TIMES MOST TIMES 1 (1.7%) 3 (5.0%) 9 (15.0%) TOTAL 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%)
33 18 3 (55.0%) (30.0%) (5.0%) 26 18 13 (43.3%) (30.0%) (21.7%) 21 30 4 (35.0%) (50.0%) (6.7%) 17 28 9 (28.3%) (46.7%) (15.0%) 23 23 10 (38.3%) (38.3%) (16.75) 22 26 10 (36.7%) (43.3%) (16.7%) 30 24 0 (50.0%) (40.0%) (0.0%) 25 25 7 (41.7%) (41.7%) (11.7%) 26 14 5 (43.3%) (23.3%) (8.3%)
41
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
LEVEL OF STRESS Low Normal High TOTAL
PER CENT (%) 5.0 56.7 38.3 100.0
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
JOB INTEREST NEVER RARELY 1. The complexity of my job is enough to keep me interested. 2. My job is very exciting. 3. My job is varied enough to prevent boredom. 4. I seem to have lost interest in my work. 5. I feel as though I can shape my own destiny in this job. 6. I leave work feeling burned out. 7. I would continue to work at my job even if I did not need the money. 8. I am trapped in this job. 3 (5.0%) 2 (3.3%) 3 (5.0%) 3 (5.0%) 4 (6.7%) 9 (15.0%) 22 (36.7%) 22 (36.7%) 23 (38.3%) 24 (40.0%) 18 (30.0%) 31 (51.75) 24 (40.0%) 28 (46.7%) 14 (23.3%) SOME MOST OFTEN TOTAL TIMES TIMES 29 4 2 60 (48.3%) (6.7%) (3.3%) (100.0%) 31 7 60 (51.7%) (11.7%) (100.0%) 22 11 (36.7%) (18.3%) 29 1 (48.3%) (1.7%) 31 7 (51.7%) (11.7%) 21 4 (35.0%) (6.7%) 23 (38.3%) 3 (5.0%) 2 60 (3.3%) (100.0%) 3 60 (5.0%) (100.0%) 1 60 (1.7%) (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 1 60 (1.7%) (100.0%) 3 60 (5.0%) (100.0%) 3 60 (5.0%) (100.0%)
13 (21.7%) 9. If I had to do it all over again, I 5 would still choose this job. (8.3%) * Parentheses are figures and percentages
15 4 (25.6%) (6.7%) 32 6 (53.3%) (10.0%)
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
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 Low Normal High TOTAL FREQUENCY (n) 2 8 50 60 PER CENT (%) 3.3 13.3 83.3 100.0
45
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
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Interpersonal Physical Conditions Normal High Job Interest 3.3% 5% 23.3% 13.3% 3.3% 38.3% 73.3% 56.7% 83.3%
Low
TABLE NO: 11 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS

LEVEL OF STRESS FREQUENCY (n) PER CENT (%)
47
Low Normal High TOTAL
2 13 45 60
3.3 21.7 75.0 100.0
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
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Low Normal Total Level of Stress High 3.3% 21.7% 75%
SECTION - III: SOURCES OF STRESS
TABLE NO: 12 RESPONDENTS BY THEIR RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BASED ON THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF STRESS
49
ALWAYS OFTEN 1. Need to accomplish tasks in time 2. Discrepancies in the work place 3. No clear job responsibilities, work objectives 4. Feeling that others do tasks meant for you 5. Work load or work pressure 6. Too many expectations from your superiors 7. Poor interpersonal relationships 8. Strict rules and regulations which is unnecessary 9. Lack of recognition among other members 10. Lack of support from your superiors 44 (73.3%) 39 (65.0%) 22 (36.7%) 3 (5.0%) 35 (58.3%) 20 (33.3%) 37 (61.7%) 10 (16.7%) 10 (16.7%) 25 (41.7%)
SOME NEVER TIMES 12 2 2 (20.0%) (3.3%) (3.3%) 12 7 2 (20.0%) (11.7%) (3.3%) 14 18 (23.3%) (30.0%) 13 22 (21.7%) (36.7%) 11 (18.3%) 31 (51.7%) 11 (18.3%) 15 (25.0%) 19 (31.7%) 21 (35.0%) 10 (16.7%) 7 (11.7%) 7 (11.7%) 25 (41.7%) 19 (31.7%) 11 (18.3%) 6 (10.0%) 22 (36.7%) 4 (6.7%) 2 (3.3%) 5 (8.3%) 10 (16.7%) 12 (20.0%) 3 (5.0%)
TOTAL 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%)
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
(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
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 1. Fear 2. Excessive and Rapid swings in moods 3. Worrying unreasonably about things of no concern 4. Withdrawal 5. Sleeping disorders/daydreaming 6. Lack of Concentration 7.Over eating or loss of appetite 8. Palpitations 9. Smoking/Alcohol abuse 10. Emotional Breakdown 15 (25.0%) 4 (6.7%) 12 (20.0%) 25 (41.7%) 11 (18.3%) 27 (45.0%) 9 (15.0%) 38 (63.3%) 6 (10.0%) 40 (66.7%) 10 (16.7%) 27 (45.0%) 25 (41.7%) 16 (26.7%) 15 (25.0%) 21 (35.0%) 16 (26.7%) 12 (20.0%) 13 (21.7) 9 (15.0%) SOME TIMES 17 (28.3%) 25 (41.7%) 18 (30.0%) 13 (21.7%) 23 (38.3%) 9 (15.0%) 23 (38.3%) 4 (6.7%) 30 (50.0%) 6 (10.0%) NEVER TOTAL 18 (30.0%) 4 (6.7%) 5 (8.3%) 6 (10.0%) 11 (18.3%) 3 (5.0%) 12 (20.0%) 6 (10.0%) 11 (18.3%) 5 (8.3%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%)
52
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
SECTION - V: STRESS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES TABLE NO: 14 RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON THEIR ORGANISATIONS ATTEMPT TO RELIVE THEIR JOB STRESS
FREQUENCY (n) Always Often Sometimes Never TOTAL 5 27 25 3 60
PER CENT (%) 8.3 45.0 41.7 5.0 100.0
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
TABLE NO: 15 RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON WHETHER THEY SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP TO EVADE JOB STRESS
FREQUENCY (n) Always Often Sometimes Never TOTAL 6 28 25 1 60 PER CENT (%) 10.0 46.7 41.7 1.7 100.0
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 the remaining 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
TABLE NO: 16 RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON WHETHER THEIR ORGANISATION PROVIDES FREE EMPLOYEE HEALTH SERVICES
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 to the 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
TABLE NO: 17 RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON WHETHER THEIR ORGANISATION ORGANISES FREE STRESS REDUCTION PROGRAMS
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
RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON THE FREQUENCY THE COMPANY ORGANISES THESE PROGRAMMES

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
RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE PROGRAMMES

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
TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS AGE NORMAL 30 40 years 10 (25%) 5 (25%) 15 (25%) HIGH 30 (75%) 15 (75%) 45 (75%) 40 (100.0%) 20 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) TOTAL
Above 40 years
TOTAL
Value of Chi-Square = 0 Degree of Freedom = 1
Not Significant at 0.05 level
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
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
DIAGRAM NO: 4 BAR DIAGRAM SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE AND TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Between 30 - 40 years Normal Above 40 Years High 25% 25% 75% 75%
62
CROSS TABLE NO: 21 RESPONDENTS BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS TOTAL NORMAL 10 (25.6%) 5 (23.8%) 15 (25%) HIGH 29 (75.4%) 16 (76.2%) 45 (75%) 39 (100.0%) 21 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%)
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
Graduation
Others
TOTAL
Value of chi-square = 0.0304 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
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
DIAGRAM NO: 5 BAR DIAGRAM SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graduation Normal High Others 25.6% 23.8% 75.4% 76.2%
CROSS TABLE NO: 22
65
RESPONDENTS BY THEIR TYPE OF FAMILY AND TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS

TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS TYPE OF FAMILY NORMAL Joint Family 8 (21.6%) 7 (30.4%) 15 (25%) HIGH 29 (78.4%) 16 (69.6%) 45 (75%) 37 (100.0%) 23 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%) TOTAL
Nuclear Family
TOTAL
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
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
CROSS TABLE NO: 23 RESPONDENTS BY THEIR LEVEL WORK EXPERIENCE AND THE TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS
TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS TOTAL NORMAL 9 (25.7%) 6 (24%) 15 (25%) HIGH 26 (74.3%) 19 (76%) 45 (75%) 35 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%) 60 (100.0%)
WORK EXPERIENCE
Between 1 9 years
Between 10 and Above
TOTAL
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
According to the null hypothesis There is no significance between type of family and total level of stress, chi-square test was applied. The chi-square test result indicates the calculated value (0.022) 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 significant relationship between work experience and total level of stress. This proves to show that as indicated in the previous cross tables, stress can occur to any person and at any situation.
69
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
70
SUMMARY
Life events and pressures of every-day life have a forceful impact on health. A recent advance in mind-body medicine is an outcome of the empirical research on stress and its effects on body and mind. The need to identify these life events or the Environmental triggers has urged the researcher to take up a study on Job Stress among production executives in the manufacturing sector. Stress researchers have used schedules. Interview techniques to assess the stress levels of subjects. Schedule of Recent Experience (SRE) was the first of this kind. This has undergone many variations and modifications. HOMES and RAHE (1967) quantified the effects of stressful events in terms of life change events. The stress scale that has been administered for this study is a version of a work stress profile, which identifies three basic indicators of stress (Interpersonal, Physical Conditions and Job Interest) and the over all stress level. During the months of November 04 - February 05, the production executives across the manufacturing sector were surveyed. The present study has made an attempt to examine the level of stress among production executives, sources of stress, its consequences and the stress management techniques adopted by organizations to cope the rising pressure. The objectives of the study are: To assess and measure the stress level. To analyze the sources of stress. To analyze the consequence of stress. To study the stress management techniques adopted by organizations
Descriptive Research Design, which is involved with describing the characteristics of particular individual or group, has been adopted in completing this study. The universes of the study are production executives working in the manufacturing sector. 60 samples were selected from the universe. Convenient sampling procedure has been adopted.
71
Primary sources of data had been referred for the study. Sources were from persons, personally contacted for the relevant information. Questionnaire was the tool adopted by the researcher for the purpose of collecting data. Pre-testing was done on 10 samples as a part of preliminary enquiry. This was done to assess the effectiveness of the questionnaire. The data collected has been analyzed and interpreted. Findings and conclusions have been proved statistically insignificant. Suggestions given by the employees have been merged with the suggestions of the researcher. There were some limitations during the data collection. They were: The process was time consuming, as the researcher had to wait for almost three months to get the data. Responses may suffer from human bias and prejudice.
FINDINGS
From the study, it can be inferred that a great majority of the respondents (90%) are in the more productive age group (Refer Table No.1). It is also inferred that a majority of the respondents (81%) are well qualified and suited for the job (Refer Table No.2). It is surprising to see that most of the respondents (61.7%) hail from joint family system of life, which proves that this type of family system still does exist in the society. (Refer Table No.3) It is also found that most of the respondents (65%) have good working experience with their job. This shows to prove that they have good expertise in the field. (Refer Table No.4)
72
It is found 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. (Refer Table No.5) It is found that for a majority of the respondents (73.3%), the interpersonal stress is very high; one possible fact is due to the poor superior- subordinate relationship in their job. (Refer Table No.6) It is found that for most of the respondents, the physical demands on the job do not take much toll of their energy. This shows to prove that most of the respondents are normally stressed and are able to cope with it. (Refer Table no.7) It is identified that for more than half of the respondents (56.7%), physical condition level of 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. (Refer Table No.8) It is found that majority 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 statements are also a causative factor for their low sense of association to the job. (Refer Table No.9) It is found that stress is high among production executives; maybe due to the fact that most of the respondents do feel a low sense of association towards their job. (Refer Table No.10) 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. (Refer Table No.11) 73
It is found that task accomplishment. Discrepancies in the workplace and poor interpersonal relationships are major source of stress in the work place. (Refer Table No.12) It is found that most of the respondents do feel that biological factors such as palpitations and emotional breakdown are major consequences of stress. (Refer Table No.13) It is found that most of the respondents feel that their organisation do take steps to evade their job stress. (Refer Table No.14) It is found that most of the respondents do seek professional help either through their organisation or personally. (Refer Table No.15) It is found that a majority of the respondents partially feel that free services are provided as a part of the welfare measures to evade job stress. (Refer Table No.16) It is found that most of the respondents do feel that their organization provides for stress reduction programmes as part of the welfare measure. (Refer Table No.17) It is found that most of the respondents do feel that the frequency of organising these programmes is to a lesser extent. (Refer Table No.18) It is found that a majority of the respondents do occasionally have a positive impact on the effectiveness of these programmes. (Refer Table No.19)
CONCLUSIONS
74
It is found 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. ((Refer Table No.20) It is found that there is no relationship between educational level and the stress incurred by an individual. Also, this show to prove that as indicated in the first chapter, stress can occur to any individual. (Refer Table No.21) It is found 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 or personal life. (Refer Table No.22)
It is found that there is no significant relationship between work experience and total level of stress. This proves to show that as indicated in the previous cross tables, stress can occur to any person and at any situation. (Refer Table No.23)
SUGGESTIONS
From the study it was clearly evident to the researcher that there needs to be a major change in the working style of today's manufacturing organisations; especially from a personnel standpoint. This can be done by seeking active employee participation at all levels. This gives the employee a chance to let others know what he aspires to do and provides the employee with better chance of growth and development. There needs to be 'clear-cut' communication and disposition of vital information to the employees regarding their roles and responsibilities and organisational expectations in a broader context. 'Prevention is better than cure'. The same is applicable here. Organisations have to give more importance to 'Job Stress Prevention Mechanisms'. This has to be a
75
continuous process that uses available data to refine or redirect proper intervention strategies. The organisation can also associate importance to 'Stress Management' and various coping strategies. It is evident from the study that the superior must understand his subordinates and provide them with amicable working conditions. This can reduces stress to a large extent at workplaces. Increased awareness regarding stress coping strategies both at the individual and also at the organisational level can also be given uttermost importance. Regular screening of health; both physical and mental, with special reference to stress at regular intervals can be conducted in organisations. Organisations can encourage better means of social interaction between its members. Social interaction between co-workers helps reduce stress in especially high stress jobs. Fear of rapid technological changes often has become a source of stress. There is a constant pressure among employees to keep up with the latest technology breakthroughs and improvisations. Organisations in this regard can help its employees by training them for future demands of the organisations and helping them to cope with the changes around them. Organisations need to associate importance to Employee Assistance Programmes, Industrial Social Work Programmes, and provision of personal Counselling services to both for the employee and his family members if necessary. It is necessary for the individuals to develop positive attitude in handling stressful situations in life by giving up negative traits such as fear, anger and revengeful attitudes, which actually germinate stress. They can revert to holistic relaxation and personal growth techniques such as meditation, breathing and exercises, to remodel the lifestyles. 76
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Work plays a powerful role in people's lives and exerts an important influence on their well-being. Although employment can be an exciting challenge for many individuals, it can also be a tremendous source of stress. Consequently, as work makes more and more demands on time and energy, individuals are increasingly exposed to both the positive and negative aspects of employment. The relationship between work and health (including mental healthy) may also contribute to career adjustment as well as to the productivity. Individuals vary greatly in their capacity to endure stressful situations, and there is, undoubtedly, self-selection in the kinds of jobs and stressors that individuals choose. Because sources of stress may vary from worker to worker, providing a solution for one worker may create stress for another. This does not exclude organizations from recognizing job stress as a vital factor. Organizations must also make efforts in not only helping employees in managing stress, but should also take a proactive approach by devising suitable preventive steps. Last but not the least, in today's competitive environment stress is here to stay. It is up to the organizations and their employees to devise suitable methods to cope with the challenges arising out of Job stress.
77
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Book Publications
78
Adam, J. D. 1994 Beehr, T.A. and Newman 1988 Brown, B. 1996 Cooper, C.L. 1989 Khan, R.L. 1964 Valerie, J. and Cary, L. 1976
: Stress Management in Work Settings; New York: John Wiley and Sons : Personnel Psychology; New York: Macmillan and Company : Handbook of Organizational Stress coping Strategies New York: Macmillan and Company : Human Resource Management Western Publishing Company : Organisational Stress New York: Issac Pitman and Sons : Understanding Stress New York: Addison Wesley Publishing,
Electronic Publications
www.vuw.ac.nz/hr/health_safety/ docs/Work%20Stress%20Profile.doc www.tvrls.com www.niosh.com www.jobstresshelp.com www.stress.org
79
APPENDIX
Questionnaire Job Stress among Production executives in the Manufacturing Sector

1. Age (in years): 80
a) Below 30 b) 41 - 50 2. Sex: a) Male
( ( (
) ) )
b) 31 - 40 d) 51 and above b) Female
( ( ( ( ( (
) ) ) ) ) ) ) 20
3. Educational Qualification: a) Graduation b) Post Graduation c) Any other (D.M.E, ITI etc) 4. Type of Family: a) Joint Family ( ) b) Nuclear Family 10 - 14 15 - 19
5. Work Experience (in years): Below 5 5-9
Work Stress Profile

The following statements describe work conditions, job environments, or personal feelings that workers encounter in their jobs. After reading each statement, indicate the answer that best reflects the working conditions at your place of employment. 1. Never 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2. Rarely 3. Sometimes 4. Often 5. Most times 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Support personnel are incompetent or inefficient. My job is not very well defined. I am not sure about what is expected of me. I am not sure what will be expected of me in the future. I cannot seem to satisfy my superiors. I seem to be able to talk with my superiors. My superiors strike me as incompetent, yet I have to take orders from them. My superiors seem to care about me as a person. There is a feeling of trust, respect, and friendliness between myself and my superiors. There seems to be tension between administrative personnel and staff personnel. I have autonomy in carrying out my job duties. I feel as though I can shape my own destiny in this job. There are too many bosses in my area. It appears that my boss has "retired on the job." My superiors give me adequate feedback about my job performance. My abilities are not appreciated by my superiors. 81
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
There is little prospect of personal or professional growth in this job. The level of participation in planning and decision-making at my place of work is satisfactory. I feel that I am overeducated for my job. I feel that my educational background is just right for this job. I fear that I will be laid off or fired. In-service training for my job is inadequate. Most of my colleagues are unfriendly or seem uninterested in me as a person. I feel uneasy about going to work. There is no release time for personal affairs or business. There is obvious sex/race/age discrimination in this job. The physical work environment is crowded, noisy, or dreary. Physical demands of the job are unreasonable (heavy lifting, extraordinary periods of concentration required, etc.) My workload is never-ending. The pace of work is too fast. My job seems to consist of responding to emergencies. There is no time for relaxation, coffee breaks, or lunch breaks on the job. Job deadlines are constant and unreasonable. Job requirements are beyond the range of my ability. At the end of the day, I am physically exhausted from work. I can't even enjoy my leisure because of the toll my job takes on my energy. I have to take work home to keep up. I have responsibility for too many people. Support personnel are too few. Support personnel are incompetent or inefficient. I am not sure about what is expected of me. I am not sure what will be expected of me in the future. I leave work feeling burned out. I feel that there are no career opportunities in my job In-service training for my job is inadequate. There is little contact with colleagues on the job. Most of my colleagues are unfriendly or seem uninterested in me as a person. I feel uneasy about going to work. The complexity of my job is enough to keep me interested. My job is very exciting. My job is varied enough to prevent boredom. I seem to have lost interest in my work. I feel as though I can shape my own destiny in this job. 82
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
59 60 61 62
I leave work feeling burned out. I would continue to work at my job even if I did not need the money. I am trapped in this job. If I had to do it all over again, I would still choose this job.
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5
Sources of Stress
The following statements indicate the various sources of stress that arises in any work place. Indicate the extent that best reflects your situation. 1. Always 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 2. Often 3. Sometimes 4. Never 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Need to accomplish tasks in time Discrepancies in the work place No clear job responsibilities, work objectives Feeling that others do tasks meant for you Work load or work pressure Too many expectations from your superiors Poor interpersonal relationships Strict rules and regulations which is unnecessary Lack of recognition among other members Lack of support from your superiors
Consequences of Stress
The following statements indicate the various consequences that arise due to work place stress. Indicate the extent that best reflects your situation. 1. Always 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 2. Often 3. Sometimes 4. Never 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Fear Excessive and Rapid swings in moods Worrying unreasonably about things of no concern Withdrawal Sleeping disorders/daydreaming Lack of Concentration Over eating or loss of appetite Palpitations Smoking/Alcohol abuse Emotional Breakdown
83
Stress Management Techniques deployed by organisations

The following statements indicate the various steps adopted by organisations to counter stress in any work place. Indicate the extent that best reflects your situation 1. Always 83 84 85 86 87 88 2. Often 3. Sometimes 4. Never 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Has your company attempted to relieve your job stress or solve the problem causing it Do you seek professional help to evade job stress within your organisation Does your company Provide free employee health and counselling services Does your company organise any stress reduction workshops (Yoga, Exercise) The frequency in which your company organises these programmes How would you rate the effectiveness of these Programmes
84

Job Stress Among Production Executives

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Job Stress Among Production Executives

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CHAPTER I

For Further Details Contact: +91-9962179698 044-26821138 www.lacrosstechnologies.org

JOB STRESS, HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM

RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

TOOL OF DATA COLLECTION

Low Stress Interpersonal Physical Job Interest Total 39 50 35 47 13 17 91 - 116

Normal Stress 51 61 48 57 18 22 117 140

High Stress 62 75 58 67 23 27 141 167

PRE-TESTING OF THE TOOL

ACTUAL COLLECTION OF DATA

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

WHAT IS JOB STRESS?

WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF JOB STRESS?

PREVENTING STRESS AT WORK - A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH

SECTION - I: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE TABLE NO: 1 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE

AGE (In years) Below 30 31 40 4150 51 and Above TOTAL

PER CENT (%) 36.7 30.0 23.3 10 100.0

DIAGRAM NO: 1 PIE DIAGRAM SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AGE

10% 23% 37%

Below 30 years Between 41 - 50 years

Between 31 - 40 years Above 50 years

TABLE NO: 2 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONEDENTS BY THEIR EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

PER CENT (%) 65.0 21.7 13.3 100.0

TABLE NO: 3 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR TYPE OF FAMILY

FAMILY TYPE Joint Family Nuclear Family TOTAL

PER CENT (%) 61.7 38.3 100.0

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR WORK EXPERIENCE

WORK EXPERIENCE (In years) Below 5 59 10 14 15 19 Above 20 TOTAL

PER CENT (%) 21.7 36.7 28.3 5.0 8.3 100.0

SECTION - II: WORK STRESS PROFILE

TABLE NO: 5 (CONTINUED)

* Parentheses are figures and percentages

TABLE NO: 6 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE INTERPERSONAL LEVEL OF STRESS

LEVEL OF STRESS Low Normal High TOTAL

PER CENT (%) 3.3 23.3 73.3 100.0

TABLE NO: 7 (CONTINUED)

* Parentheses are figures and percentages

LEVEL OF STRESS Low Normal High TOTAL

PER CENT (%) 5.0 56.7 38.3 100.0

15 4 (25.6%) (6.7%) 32 6 (53.3%) (10.0%)

TABLE NO: 11 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS

Low Normal High TOTAL

3.3 21.7 75.0 100.0

SECTION - III: SOURCES OF STRESS

* Parentheses are figures and percentages

SECTION - IV: CONSEQUENCES OF STRESS

* Parentheses are figures and percentages

FREQUENCY (n) Always Often Sometimes Never TOTAL 5 27 25 3 60

PER CENT (%) 8.3 45.0 41.7 5.0 100.0

RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON THE FREQUENCY THE COMPANY ORGANISES THESE PROGRAMMES

RESPONDENTS RESPONSE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE PROGRAMMES

Value of Chi-Square = 0 Degree of Freedom = 1

Not Significant at 0.05 level

Value of chi-square = 0.0304 Degree of Freedom = 1

Not Significant at 0.05 level

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graduation Normal High Others 25.6% 23.8% 75.4% 76.2%

CROSS TABLE NO: 22

RESPONDENTS BY THEIR TYPE OF FAMILY AND TOTAL LEVEL OF STRESS

Value of chi-square = 0.584 Degree of Freedom = 1

Not Significant at 0.05 level