CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER II

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

CHAPTER III

BPO PROFILE

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

CHAPTER V

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Contents

Chapter Page Number

List of Tables i

List of Charts ii

I Introduction 1 – 60

1.1 Background of Stress 31.2 Need for the study 101.3 Variables in the study 111.4 Objectives of the study 131.5 Hypothesis to be tested 131.6 Scope of the study 141.7 Period of data 141.8 Methodology 141.9 Statistical treatment 211.10 Proceedings of the study 221.11 Limitations of the study 231.12 Review and Literature 23

II Conceptual Framework 61-118

2.1 Historical background 612.2 Concepts of stress 622.3 Ancient Indian concepts 692.4 Six Myths about stress 742.5 Models of stress 762.6 Environmental factors in stress 832.7 Sources of stress 852.8 The signs of stress 872.9 The causes of stress 882.10 Symptoms of stress 962.11 The effects of stress 972.12 Coping strategies for stress 1082.13 Stress and work life 116

III Business Process Outsourcing 119-187

3.1 Definitions – outsourcing 1203.2 History of outsourcing 1213.3 Concepts of outsourcing 1253.4 Types of outsourcing 1263.5 Models for outsourcing 1273.6 Growth of the BPO Industry 1393.7 The evolution of the call centre 1453.8 Definition of Call centre 1473.9 Types of call centers 1493.10 Competencies of Call Centre Agents 1563.11 Voice–based BPO industry in India: challenges 1673.12 From BPO to BPM 1693.13 NASSCOM Key Highlights on Indian It-BPO Industry 1793.14 History of the four select BPOs 175

IV Data Analysis and Interpretation 188-274

4.1 Demographic profile 1894.2 Variable factors taken for the study 2094.3 Testing of Hypothesis 2534.4 Reliability and validity of analysis 254

V Findings, Conclusions and Suggestions 275-291

5.1 Findings of the study 2755.2 Recommendations 2845.3 Suggestions for managing stress 2895.3 Conclusions 2895.4 Scope for future research 292

AppendicesBibliography

List of Tables

Table No. Title of the table Page no.

1.1 Theoretical Sample Sizes(S) for definite population sizes (N) 161.2 Sample size, Confidence levels and Sampling error. 171.3 Sample size 181.4 Representation of the Universe of study 181.5 Company wise BPO Employees 19

4.1 Age in years 1904.2 Gender of the respondents 1914.3 Marital status of the respondents 1924.4 Educational qualification of the respondents 1934.5 Children 1944.6 Occupational levels of the respondents 1954.7 Annual income 1964.8 Present shift 1974.9 Organization 1984.10 Experience in years 1994.11 Company wise age of respondents 2004.12 Company wise gender of the respondents 2014.13 Company wise marital status of the respondents 2024.14 Company wise educational qualifications of the respondents 2034.15 Company wise occupational levels of the respondents 2044.16 Company wise respondents’ annual income 2054.17 Company wise experience of the respondents 2064.18 Company wise respondents having children 2074.19 Company wise work shifts 2084.20 Impact on health or behavior * Organization Cross tabulation 2094.21 Change in Financial status * Organization Cross tabulation 2104.22 Major change in responsibilities at work * Organization Cross tabulation 2114.23 Impact on living conditions and social status * Organization Cross tabulation 2124.24 Stressed due to long hours of work * Organization Cross tabulation 2134.25 Disturbance in schedule of rest or recreation * Organization Cross tabulation 2144.26 Change in sleeping habits * Organization Cross tabulation 2154.27 Change in eating habits * Organization Cross tabulation 2164.28 Lack of skill acquirements * Organization Cross tabulation 2184.29 Over workload * Organization Cross tabulation 2194.30 Unwilling attitude towards work * Organization Cross tabulation 2204.31 Inter role distance * Organization Cross tabulation 2214.32 Job dissatisfaction * Organization Cross tabulation 2224.33 Role interaction * Organization Cross tabulation 2234.34 Lack of time for family due to role * Organization Cross tabulation 2244.35 Absence of facilities at work place * Organization Cross tabulation 2254.36 Role stagnation * Organization Cross tabulation 2264.37 Self initiation * Organization Cross tabulation 227

4.38 Personal integrity * Organization Cross tabulation 2284.39 Self confidence * Organization Cross tabulation 2294.40 Timely action * Organization Cross tabulation 2304.41 Losing confidence * Organization Cross tabulation 2314.42 Lack of encouragement * Organization Cross tabulation 2324.43 Escapism * Organization Cross tabulation 2334.44 Rising to expectations * Organization Cross tabulation 2344.45 Self depression * Organization Cross tabulation 2354.46 Blaming others * Organization Cross tabulation 2364.47 Innovation * Organization Cross tabulation 2374.48 Confident planning * Organization Cross tabulation 2384.49 External influences * Organization Cross tabulation 2394.50 Circumstantial decisions * Organization Cross tabulation 2404.51 Overall Job stress * Organization Cross tabulation 2414.52 Exercise * Organization Cross tabulation 2434.53 Meditation & yoga * Organization Cross tabulation 2444.54 Music * Organization Cross tabulation 2454.55 Healthy diet * Organization Cross tabulation 2464.56 Proper sleep and rest * Organization Cross tabulation 2474.57 Prioritization and planning * Organization Cross tabulation 2484.58 Social activities * Organization Cross tabulation 2494.59 Transportation * Organization Cross tabulation 2504.60 Recreational activities * Organization Cross tabulation 2514.61 Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) * Organization Cross tabulation 2524.62 Case Processing Summary 2544.63 Reliability Statistics 2554.64 Descriptive Statistics of dependent and independent variables 2554.65 Descriptive Statistics of demographic factors 2574.66 Correlation coefficients of demographic factors 2584.67 Descriptive Statistics of personal factors 2614.68 Correlation between personal factors and overall job stress 2624.69 Descriptive Statistics of role factors 2634.69.a Descriptive Statistics of overall job stress and role factors 2634.70 Correlation between role factors and overall job stress 2644.71 Descriptive Statistics of personality variables 2654.72 Descriptive Statistics of overall job stress and personality variables 2664.73 Correlation between the personality variables and the overall job stress 2664.74 Descriptive Statistics of overall job stress and organizations 2674.75 Correlation between organization and overall job stress 2674.76 ANOVA of overall job stress and organization 2684.77 Report on overall job stress company wise 2694.78 Correlations between overall job stress and all variable factors 2704.79 Coefficients a 2714.80 Model Summary b Regression Analysis 271

5.1 Correlation between individual demographic factors and overall job stress 2815.1.a Correlation between demographic factors and overall job stress 2815.2 Model summary [without coping strategies] 2865.3 Model summary [with coping strategies] 2865.4 Coefficientsa 286

List of FiguresFigure No: Title of the Figure Page no.

2.1 'General Adaptation Syndrome' Model by Hans selye. 642.2 Transactional model of stress 802.3 Sources of management stress 863.1 Outsourcing-Internal Forces & External Forces 1253.2 Benefits of BPO 1373.3 Key facts of Indian BPM Industry 1703.4 Key Highlights during FY2012 (IT-BPO Revenues) 1713.5 Key Highlights during 2012-Total Domestic Market 1723.6 TOP 10 BPO companies in India 1743.7 Key highlights of Genpact 2013 1753.8 Key highlights of Infosys 2013 1783.9 Key highlights of Wipro ltd. 2013 1803.10 Key highlights of TATA Consultancy Services. 2013 1835.1 Factors effecting overall job stress 2845.2 Stress Sustenance Model 2855.3 Stress Reliever Model 288

List of ChartsChart No: Title of the Chart Page no.

4.1 Age in years 1904.2 Gender of the respondents 1914.3 Marital status of the respondents 1924.4 Educational qualification of the respondents 1934.5 Children 1944.6 Occupational levels of the respondents 1954.7 Annual income 1964.8 Present shift 1974.9 Organization 1984.10 Experience in years 199

List of GraphsGraph No: Title of the Graph Page no.

4.1 Company wise age of respondents 2004.2 Company wise gender of the respondents 2014.3 Company wise marital status of the respondents 2024.4 Company wise educational qualifications of the respondents 2034.5 Company wise occupational levels of the respondents 2044.6 Company wise respondents’ annual income 2054.7 Company wise experience of the respondents 2064.8 Company wise respondents having children 2074.9 Company wise work shifts 2084.10 Impact on health or behavior * Organization Cross tabulation 2104.11 Change in Financial status * Organization Cross tabulation 2114.12 Major change in responsibilities at work * Organization Cross tabulation 2124.13 Impact on living conditions and social status * Organization Cross tabulation 2134.14 Stressed due to long hours of work * Organization Cross tabulation 2144.15 Disturbance in schedule of rest or recreation * Organization Cross tabulation 2154.16 Change in sleeping habits * Organization Cross tabulation 2164.17 Change in eating habits * Organization Cross tabulation 2174.18 Lack of skill acquirements * Organization Cross tabulation 2184.19 Over workload * Organization Cross tabulation 2194.20 Unwilling attitude towards work * Organization Cross tabulation 2204.21 Inter role distance * Organization Cross tabulation 2214.22 Job dissatisfaction * Organization Cross tabulation 2224.23 Role interaction * Organization Cross tabulation 2234.24 Lack of time for family due to role * Organization Cross tabulation 2244.25 Absence of facilities at work place * Organization Cross tabulation 2254.26 Role stagnation * Organization Cross tabulation 2264.27 Self initiation * Organization Cross tabulation 2274.28 Personal integrity * Organization Cross tabulation 2294.29 Self confidence * Organization Cross tabulation 2304.30 Timely action * Organization Cross tabulation 2314.31 Losing confidence * Organization Cross tabulation 2324.32 Lack of encouragement * Organization Cross tabulation 2334.33 Escapism * Organization Cross tabulation 2344.34 Rising to expectations * Organization Cross tabulation 2354.35 Self depression * Organization Cross tabulation 2364.36 Blaming others * Organization Cross tabulation 2374.37 Innovation * Organization Cross tabulation 2384.38 Confident planning * Organization Cross tabulation 2394.39 External influences * Organization Cross tabulation 2404.40 Circumstantial decisions * Organization Cross tabulation 2414.41 Overall Job stress * Organization Cross tabulation 2424.42 Exercise * Organization Cross tabulation 243

4.43 Meditation & yoga * Organization Cross tabulation 2444.44 Music * Organization Cross tabulation 2454.45 Healthy diet * Organization Cross tabulation 2464.46 Proper sleep and rest * Organization Cross tabulation 2474.47 Prioritization and planning * Organization Cross tabulation 2484.48 Social activities * Organization Cross tabulation 2494.49 Transportation * Organization Cross tabulation 2504.50 Recreational activities * Organization Cross tabulation 2514.51 Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) * Organization Cross tabulation 2524.52 Regression Standardized Residual 2724.53 Regression Standardized Predicted Value 273

CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

“No one dies from working hard.

But when people don’t get any recognition in their work, -

The stress of that lack of control can kill them.”

Barrie S Greiff

Stress has been identified as one of the most common perils of modern times. It has become a

major buzzword and a legitimate concern of the ultimate human. The characteristics of life have

undergone radical changes over the last century and are still shifting at a twister pace.

The impact of Globalization, the continuous technological advancements and up gradations, the

win-win race velocity of fast track professions, and the ever changing life styles of

modernization has a great effect on many civilizations across the world. The impact of change

permeates into every crevice of life putting people under more and more pressure.

Human biological evolution is lagging behind developments in technology and life style.

Industrialization, Urbanization, Layoffs, mergers, acquisitions and bankruptcies has led to drastic

transformation of social life. The inevitable consequences of socio-economic complexity lead to

loss of control over one's life causing stress. There is no escape from stress in modern life. We

need to find ways and means for using stress in a productive way by dealing with it effectively.

In 1970 the American journalist and sociologist Alvin Toffler predicted that the rate of change in

modern civilization would accelerate to such a great degree that enormous numbers of people

would experience shattering stress and disorientation. Toffler described this condition as "Future

Shock". Today it is virtually impossible to avoid stress. Many try but find that the avoidance

strategies frequently generate more stress rather than reducing it. To cope with the stress of

"future shock" people need to get tough. A new word has been coined in the social sciences to

describe stress-toughness ... the word is HARDINESS.

1

One of the pioneers of the medical understanding of stress research, Dr. Hans Selye1 says that

"stress is essentially reflected by the rate of all the wear and tear caused by life." Stress comes in

all shapes and sizes, and has become so pervasive, that it seems to permeate everything and

everybody. Hans Seyle, describes, “The word stress, like success, failure, or happiness, means

different things to different people and no-one has really tried to define it, although it has

become part of our daily vocabulary”. The consequences of high levels of job stress, personal

frustration and inadequate coping skills have major personal, organizational and social costs, and

these are increasing day by day.

The term stress has come into wide use in behavioral study only within the past four decades.

Originating in the physical sciences, the term has the meaning of a force which, acting on a body,

produces strain or deformation. Later stress has come to represent the bodily condition under

strain. In physical and biological sciences and behavioral study the concept of stress meant an

extreme condition, involving tension, perhaps damage and some form of resistance to the

straining force.

Stress is epidemic in the western world. Over two-thirds of office visits to physicians are for

stress related illness. Stress is a major contributing factor either directly or indirectly, to coronary

artery disease, cancer, respiratory disorders, accidental injuries, cirrhosis of the liver and suicide;

the six leading causes of death in the United States. Stress aggravates other conditions such as

multiple sclerosis, diabetes, herpes, mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, family discord and

violence.

The problem of stress is a very common factor in any occupation or profession of the present day

world. Organizations are often unnecessarily stressful and have a negative impact on individual's

physical and mental health. In many job situations, high levels of stress are an integral and

largely unavoidable component of the work. The need to cope with complexity, ambiguity,

conflict and competing demands is a part of professional life among individuals occupying

different positions.

Call centre employees, Secretaries, Waitresses, Middle Managers, Police Officers, Editors and

Medical Interns are among those with the most highly stressed occupations marked by the need

to respond to others' demands and timetables, with little control over events. Common to this job

2

situation are complaints of too much responsibility and too little authority, unfair labor practices,

and inadequate job descriptions.

The environment in which professionals work has changed. Social, political, economic,

intellectual and professional trends have combined to increase stress and decrease alternatives.

Stress is one of the reasons behind the psychological imbalance of an individual and to manage

stress is an invitation to consider different understandings of nature of illness, unhappiness and

dynamics of life.

.The transformation of stress into vital forces of energy with knowledge of wisdom gives a

splendid future and joy of success. Stress is necessary in life as it makes an individual more

determine and gives enough clout to face any challenge with great sheer and endurance and

bounce back to a normal life with a positive attitude to hit the bull’s eye.

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STRESS

Work place stress is relatively a latest trend of common life.

Tabler’s2 Cyclopedia Medical Dictionary defines stress as “the result produced when a structure,

system or organism is acted upon by forces that disrupt equilibrium or produce strain”. The word

stress is derived from the Latin word stringere, meaning to draw tight. However, like other

abstract, subjective issues, stress is difficult to define and difficult to measure.

“Stress is the emotional, cognitive, behavioral and physiological reaction to aversive and noxious

aspects of work organizations. It is a state characterized by high levels of arousal and distress

and often by feelings of not coping.”- Guidance of work-related stress: ‘Spice of life or kiss of

death’, European Commission Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs.

“Stress is the reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demands placed on

them.”- Managing stress at work: Discussion document, United Kingdom Health and Safety

Commission, London, 1999.

“Job stress can be defined as the harmful physical and emotional response that occurs when

requirements of the job do not match the capabilities, resources, or needs of the worker”. Job

3

stress can lead to poor health and even injury.” – Stress at work, United States National Institute

of Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, 1999.

T.A.Beehr and J.E.Newman3 (1978) define job stress as "a condition arising from the

interaction of people and their jobs and characterized by changes within people that force them

to deviate from their normal functioning”.

Topper4 (2007) defines stress as a ‘person's psychological and physiological response to the

perception of demand and challenge’.

Nelson and Quick5 (1994) posit that “stress is one of the most creatively ambiguous words,

with as many interpretations as there are people who use the word, as even the experts do not

agree on its definition”. While Rees and Redfern6 (2000) assert that there is no universally

accepted definition of the term stress.

Ornelas and Kleiner7 (2003) argue that stress is the by-product of modern life that results from

our efforts of trying to balance the demands of the workplace and of family life.

Many researchers have defined the term stress in a variety of ways. Miller8 (1979) states that

“Stress occurs when nervous tensions reaches a degree of intensity that interferes with the

normal physiological processes in our bodies. He points out that stress comes from internal or

external factors in our lives. For example, stress usually occurs when significance changes in

our lives”.

Motowdlo, Manning, and Packard9 (1986) emphasize the emotions in characterizing stress as an

unpleasant emotional experience associated with elements of fear, dread, anxiety, irritation,

annoyance, anger, sadness, grief and depression”.

Ivancevich and Matteson10 define stress simply as "the interaction of the individual with the

environment," but then they go on to give a more detailed working definition, as follows: "an

adaptive response, mediated by individual differences and/or psychological processes, that is a

consequence of any external (environmental) action, situation, or event that places excessive

psychological and/or physical demands on a person”.

4

The above definitions confirm the observations of other researches, that the definition of

stress is quite confusing and ambiguous. Beehr11 (1998) states that job stress, is particularly

an area of research with the potential to be plagued by confusion because of the general, non-

technical, and popular usage of the word stress. To add to the ambiguity that already exists

concerning the term stress, it seems most researchers classify stress to be either "good" stress or

"bad" stress. Good stress being the kind of stress that is positive and motivates employees to

perform and "bad" stress being the kind of stress that brings negative consequences - Bland12

(1999).

Selye13 (1987) classified stress as eustress and distress, eustress being "good" stress and "bad"

stress as distress. To try and avoid this confusion over the term stress, most researchers have

opted to interpret the word stress in relation to their work or study.

Hausman14 (2001) defined stress as ‘the uncertainty and even fear in connection with the

implementation of new technology and systems between organizations’.

Varca15 (1999) defined stress by relating it to the environment. She gave the definition of a

stressful environment as a gap between the environmental demands and personal resources to

meet those demands.

From the above definitions, it can be inferred that the combined forces of a demanding job and a

feeling of low control over the situation generally lead to stress. Occupational stress and

workplace health are gaining significance in both corporate and social agenda. The business

environment has grown more complex today. Organizations’ are now experiencing a new culture

of increased speed, efficiency and competition. Careers are moving on the fast-track and

consuming a major share of one’s prime life. With the increased pressures that get passed on

from the business to the individual employees, and the amount of time spent at work, it is not

surprising that the levels of stress are also on the rise. Social life has also undergone

transformation with rising number of nuclear families, empowered women, working couples and

divorces. The changing complexions of workplace and personal life have increased the levels of

stress leading to loss of control over one’s life and business.

Stress occurs in more or less all lines of work activities. It is a never ending syndrome

originating from circumstances in the place of work that pessimistically affects a person’s

5

performance and well-being of his body, intellect and mind on the whole. In particular situations,

workplace stress can be rendering inoperative (www.lifepositive.com16).

The workplace has assumed a crucial role in the provision of human elements besides the

obvious physical rewards. Gootlieb17 (1983) said that the significant amounts of time that people

invest in their jobs have led to a “profound impact on their morale, their physical and mental

health, and their personal identity”. Trist (1977) insisted that the humanistic aspect associated

with work must be addressed to promote desirable outcomes in employment situation.

Occupational stress has been of great concern to the management, employees, and other

stakeholders of organizations. Occupational stress researchers agree that stress is a serious

problem in many organizations {Cooper and Cartwright18, 1994; Varca19, 1999; Ornelas and

Kleiner20 2003).

The United Kingdom’s Trades Union Congress (TUC, 2000) has called upon the Health and

Safety Executive to recognize that stress is a major workplace hazard by drawing up standards

for tackling excessive workloads, low staffing levels and long hours, all of which it believes

contribute to employee stress. And in addition, 7 November 2001 was designated a National

stress Awareness Day, during which stress-management events were planned, including seminars

to help people deal with stress in the work place.

Stress is widely recognized to be a common trait of present-day lifestyle, defining stress, its root

causes, symptoms and impact on persons is an intricate matter. It is repeatedly distinguished

from a prehistoric Stone Age reaction to recent managerial and societal aspects, identified as

stressors.

Origin and Terminology

The term "stress" was first used by the endocrinologist Hans Selye in the 1930s to identify

physiological responses in laboratory animals. He later broadened and popularized the concept to

include the perceptions and responses of humans trying to adapt to the challenges of everyday

life.

The term stress is commonly used by laypersons in a metaphorical rather than literal or

biological sense, as a catch-all for any perceived difficulties in life. It also became a euphemism,

6

a way of referring to problems and eliciting sympathy without being explicitly confessional, just

"stressed out".

Stress is a biological term which refers to the consequences of the failure of a human or animal

body to respond appropriately to emotional or physical threats to the organism, whether actual or

imagined (Hans Selye21, 1956.). It is "the autonomic response to environmental stimulus." In

Selye's terminology, "stress" refers to the reaction of the organism, and "stressor" to the

perceived threat.

It covers a huge range of phenomena from mild irritation to the kind of severe problems that

might result in a real breakdown of health. In popular usage almost any event or situation

between these extremes could be described as stressful Schore, Allan22 (2003).

Signs of stress may be cognitive, emotional, physical or behavioral and include (but are not

limited to) symptoms such as: poor judgment, a general negative outlook, excessive worrying,

moodiness, irritability, agitation, inability to relax, feeling overwhelmed, feeling lonely or

isolated, depressed, aches and pains, diarrhea or constipation, nausea, dizziness, chest pain, rapid

heartbeat, eating too much or not enough, sleeping too much or not enough, withdrawing from

others, procrastinating or neglecting responsibilities, using alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs to relax,

and nervous habits (e.g. nail biting, pacing).

Stress in certain circumstances may be experienced positively. Eustress, for example, can be an

adaptive response prompting the activation of internal resources to meet challenges and achieve

goals.

Costs of Work-Related Stress

The organizations, its policies and procedures, its culture and style of operation can be a cause of

stress. Hectic job environment has a direct impact on the health of the workers. The stress

epidemic not only has a deteriorating impact on those affected, but is also very costly to the

organizations. Over the last decade, the escalating costs associated with workplace stress indicate

an international trend among industrial countries. A study of mental health policies and programs

for work forces in Finland, Germany, Poland, United Kingdom and United States shows and

7

increasing incidence of mental health problems with almost one in ten workers subject to stress,

depression, anxiety or burnout, leading to consequences of unemployment and hospitalization.

The stress costs include costs of absenteeism, turnover, employee assistance programs, disability

costs, drug plan costs, workplace accidents costs, workmen’s compensation and costs of

lawsuits, besides loss of productivity due to stress while at work, ‘presenteeism’ costs etc.

Statistics relating to the costs of work-related stress can be shocking. Stress costs industry over

$300 billion a year in the United States, Over $16billion a year in Canada, and as much as £7.3

billion in the United Kingdom (http//www.teamchrysalis.com.) Research data indicates that 22%

of group health insurance costs are stress related. According to Foster Higgins Inc., a New Jersey

Insurance Company, Workplace stress costs US businesses to the extent of 45 percent of after-

tax-profits23.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor says that stress costs US businesses $300 billion annually in lost

productivity, absenteeism, accidents, employee turnover, and medical, legal and insurance fees,

and workers’ compensation awards. In the United States, Over 50 percent of the 550 million

working days lost each year due to absenteeism is found to be stress – related (European agency

for Safety and Health at work, 2000). This is estimated to cost the US companies an average of

$602 per worker per year. The National sleep Foundation has estimated that the direct cost of

lost productivity in the American workplace is about $18 billion.

According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), British industry loses 40 million working

days per year through stress related illness. It is reported by Entrepreneur magazine that every

year. 30,000 Japanese workers die from “Karoshi” they work themselves to death. Assocham

Business Barometer Survey, done among 270 CEOs on stress and its management, found that

stress levels for executives across corporate India are rising. Stress also has a cumulative effect,

in that it places additional pressure on those employees who have to cover for the employees

who get ill through stress.

Occupational stress is a global phenomenon that results in heavy costs to individuals, companies

or organizations and the society. Occupational stress contributes to low motivation and morale,

decrease in performance, high turnover, sick leave, accidents, low job satisfaction, low quality

8

products and services, poor internal communication and conflicts (Schabracq and Cooper24

2000; Murphy25, 1995; McHugh26, 1993).

One of the predominant reasons for increase in Occupational stress levels has been global

competition and economic conditions that have caused reductions in workforce, leading to leaner

organizations almost everywhere in the world. Employees are under pressure to comply with

increased demands in terms of both quantity and quality. Employees are no longer driven by

hierarchical controls but by indicators and targets. Stress is not limited to any specific level or

category of employee. It has become a universal factor effecting people in all line functions and

activities.

Impact of Stress

In the advent of Globalization, organizations are getting to be universally market driven ones

with “invest anywhere and share everywhere.” The impact of e-commerce, with rapidly changing

Info Tech (IT) enhanced the interactive communication potential of the market. The management

of business portfolios, mergers, splits, redesigning, restructuring, finding synergies and achieving

targeted values exert an effective pressure on the executive. In such a climate of optimizing

human and intellectual capital, stress plays an inevitable role in the work place.

Workplace stress is a global phenomenon that results in heavy costs to individuals, companies or

organizations and the society.

At the individual level, workplace stress can have a devastating effect on the physical and mental

health of the employee, causing irreparable damage to his well-being. It can erode the confidence

of an individual, leading to loss of capacity to cope with the challenging work and social

situations. It can effect concentration and focus on work, leading to poor performance, low of

career opportunities and loss of employment.

At the organizational level, stress can take heavy toll on the productivity and efficiency of the

organization. It costs the company in terms of increased absenteeism on account of sickness,

higher medical expenses, drop in performance due to low motivational levels, high labor

turnover associated recruitment and training costs, workmen’s compensation and legal costs.

9

Christo and Pienaar27 (2006), argued that the causes of workplace stress include perceived loss of

job, and security, sitting for long periods and time or heavy lifting, lack of safety, complexity of

representativeness and lack of autonomy in the job. In addition, workplace stress is caused by

lack of resources and equipment; work schedules (such as working late shifts or overtime) and

Organizational climate are considered as contributors to employees stress.

Workplace stress often shows high dissatisfaction among the employees, job mobility, burnout,

poor work performance and less effective interpersonal relations at work - Manshor, Rodrigue,

and Chong28 (2003).

Johnson29 (2001) similarly argued that interventions like identifying or determining the signs of

stress, identifying the possible causes for the signs and developing possible proposed solutions

for each signs are required. These measures allow individuals to build coping skills and develop

strategies to develop individual stress management plans that include eliminating the sources of

stress.

1.2 NEED FOR THE STUDY

The examination of occupational stress is extremely important in consideration of the billions of

dollars lost in stress-related disability claims. Decreased productivity, absenteeism and staff

replacement cost, particularly when stress claims were awarded by Worker’s Compensation

Boards in Canada (Finn, 1982). The annual report from Statistics Canada (1994) showed that

workplace stress costs Canadian businesses more than $13 billion annually and 70% of all

employees will, at some time, experience problems that reduce performance due to stress. It is

estimated that occupational stress costs American businesses over $15 billion per year

The cost of work place stress is very high in many organizations. For instance, the International

Labor Organization (ILO) reports that inefficiencies arising from occupational stress may cost

up to 10 percent of a country's GNP (Midgley30, 1996). At a personal level, occupational stress

might lead to increased morbidity and mortality (Mark, Jonathan and Gregory31, 2003).

Work-related stress is a complex issue with as many subtle variations as there are people affected

by it. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had declared stress a hazard of the

workplace. Stress is expensive. We all pay a stress tax whether we know it or not. Currently,

10

health care costs account for approximately 12 percent of the gross domestic product, escalating

yearly. In terms of lost hours due to absenteeism, reduced productivity, and workers

compensation benefits, stress - costs American industry more than $300 billion annually, or

$7,500 per worker per year.

At a UK level meet, the Trades Union Congress (TUC, 2000) has called upon the Health and

Safety Executive to recognize that stress is a major workplace hazard by drawing up standards

for tackling excessive workloads, low staffing levels and long hours, all of which it believes

contribute to employee stress. And in addition, 7 November 2001 was designated a National

Stress Awareness Day, during which stress-management events were planned, including

seminars to help people deal with stress in the work place.

The focus on wellness, renewal and health promotion in the workplace was reflected in

employee assistance programs that offered policies, education and training directed toward

enrichment in work organizations (Ford, Ford & Weingard, 1985).

Mansell (1980) claimed that there are various means of providing work environments with

innovative ways of enhancing organization effectiveness. MacBride (1983) and Mansell (1980)

believed in cooperation between management and employees toward the achievement of

collective goals. Pike (1985) argued that employment improvement strategies should continue to

be developed, expanded and refined to meet the changing needs of working people. He also

claimed that feedback is essential to the success of people-based, quality of working life

approaches.

1.3 VARIABLES IN THE STUDY:

The variables in this study are as follows

1.4.1 Demographic factors (Independent variable)

It refers to a set of demographic factors which constitute age, gender, educational qualification,

marital status, organization, occupational level, income level and experience of the call centre

employee.

1.4.2 Personal factors or the life events (Independent variable)

11

It refers to all the personal factors or the life events of the employee which will result in a major

effect on the employee. The personal factors like impact on health or behavior, change in

financial status, major change in responsibilities at work, impact on living conditions or social

status, stressed due to long hours of work, disturbance in rest or recreation, change in sleeping

habits, change in eating habits etc., are considered for the study.

1.4.3 Organizational factors or Role factors (Independent variable)

All the organizational factors which affect the individuals at work place have been considered for

the study. Role factors like role overload, personal inadequacy, role ambiguity, role expectation

conflict, role erosion, self role distance, inter role distance, role stagnation, resource inadequacy,

and role isolation are used to measure their impact on the individuals stress levels.

1.4.4. Personality variable (Independent variable)

The personality variables like the self concept and locus of control are considered to measure

their impact on the stress levels of the call centre employees. The personality variables like

personal integrity, self confidence, timely action, lack of encouragement, escapism, rising to

expectations, self depression, blaming others etc., are been considered for the study.

1.4.5 Coping strategies (Independent variable)

To manage the stress levels various coping strategies have also been considered for the study

viz., physical exercises, yoga & meditation, music, healthy diet, recreational activities,

transportation facilities, social activities and EAPs.

1.4.6 Overall job stress (Dependent variable)

The stress is “the result of a transaction between the person and his (or her) situation” (Cox &

Mackay, 1981, p.101). This definition forms the basis for understanding the concept of strss

among the various call centre employees under this study.

12

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

In view of the gap existing in the literature and the factors governing workplace stress in call

centre employees, the present study needs to be made, covering all the factors that would

influence the employees.

The following objectives are formulated for the study:

1. To study the impact of demographic factors on the stress levels of the call centre

employees.2. To study the relationship between the personal factors and its impact on call centre

employee stress.3. To study the relationship between the organizational role stress and its impact on call

centre employees.4. To study the relationship between the personality variables and their impact on call centre

employees stress levels.5. To explore various coping strategies and study their effect in reducing the stress levels of

the employees. 6. To develop stress reliever model for sustenance of stress.

1.5 HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED:

Ho1: There is no significant relationship between the demographic factors and the stress levels of

the call centre employees.

H1: There is a significant relationship between the demographic factors and the stress levels of

the call centre employees.

Ho2: There is no significant relationship between the personal factors and stress levels of call

centre employees.

H2: There is a significant relationship between the personal factors and stress levels of call

centre employees.

Ho3: There is no significant relationship between the organizational role stress and its impact on

stress levels of call centre employees.

13

H3: There is a significant relationship between the organizational role stress and its impact on

stress levels of call centre employees.

Ho4: There is no significant relationship between the personality variables and their impact on

stress levels of the call centre employees.

H4: There is a significant relationship between the personality variables and their impact on

stress levels of the call centre employees.

Ho5: There is no significant difference in stress levels of call centre employees among different

select BPO companies.

H5: There is a significant difference in stress levels of call centre employees among different

select BPO companies.

1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The scope of the study was restricted to select BPO companies viz., Infosys, Genpact, TCS and

Wipro covering all the major four categories of employees i.e., managers, analysts, team leaders

and representatives. The study has been carried out in the Greater Hyderabad, Secunderabad and

Cyberabad regions. Thus, the BPO call centre employees in the said areas constitute the

population for the study.

1.7 PERIOD OF THE STUDY:

The primary data for the study were collected between the periods 2009 to 2013.

1.8 METHODOLOGY:

1.8.1 Sources of Data:

The primary data was collected from BPO call centre employees working in the Greater

Hyderabad, Secunderabad and Cyberabad regions. The primary data forms the core of the

research study. In addition to this secondary data is also used for the study which is purely based

on the literature of various books, articles on stress management, magazines, paper publications,

journals & various websites related to stress at workplace.

14

1.8.2 Sampling

It appears there is no conventional way of determining a sample size that is representative of the

target population as there are diverse views on this issue. According to Bless and Higson-Smith

(2000:86) a representative sample must have the same properties as the population from which it

is drawn. Moreover these authors suggest that “correct” and ‘complete’ sampling frame should

be used to ensure representativeness of the sample. That is to say that a representative sample

will reflect characteristics of the target population if the sample is carefully chosen.

Sowell (2001:43) defines a target population as a group of people that share common

characteristics from which the researcher aims to generalize his/her results. She stresses the need

for the researcher to describe an accessible population within the target population from which a

sample is taken. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006:93) also concur that a sample should be taken from

the accessible population rather than using the target population. They assert that while the target

population is ‘ideal’ in research, the accessible population is ‘realistic’. Based on the afore-

mentioned point, the researcher drew the sample for this study from the accessible population.

Gay and Airasian (2003:104) state that the first thing to do in the sample selection process is to

‘identify’ and ‘define’ the target population. According to these scholars, the target population is

the interest group the researcher intends to study and to which the research result will be

generalized. Bless and Higson-Smith 92000:85) emphasize the need to clearly define and

describe the target population to make the compilation of the list of people in the population

possible and more importantly, to ensure that the sample is selected among those who belong to

the target population only.

Leedy and Ormroad (2005:207) stress the importance of obtaining a sample that is representative

of the target population from which inferences are to be drawn. They argue that it would be

accurately generalized to the target population due to under representativeness of the sample in

other words, a sample that is too small can make the generalizability of the study almost

impossible and meaningless, this may be used to explain why some scholars, for example, Cohen

et al (2001:94) believe that the ‘larger the sample, the better’.

However, Gay and Airasian (2003:111) assert that it is most likely to obtain a representative

sample if random sampling technique is used. In addition, Gay and Airasian (2003:111) state that

the sample of 10% to 20% of the target population is often used in descriptive research.

15

However, these authors claim that the sample size of 400 is sufficient when the population size is

about 5000 units or more. Krejcie and Morgan (in Hill 1998:60 used the United States office of

Education formula to produce a table, which indicates a sample size of a given population.

According to Hill (1998:6) the table can be used as long as the definite population size is known.

Krejcie and Morgan (in Hill 1998:6) suggest that the following sample sizes for the

corresponding specific population sizes can be used.

Table 1.1 Theoretical Sample Sizes(S) for definite population sizes (N)

N S N S N S N S N S10 10 100 80 280 162 800 260 2800 33815 14 110 86 290 165 850 265 3000 34120 19 120 92 300 169 900 269 3500 34625 24 130 97 320 175 950 274 4000 35130 28 140 103 340 181 1000 278 4500 35435 32 150 108 360 186 1100 285 5000 35740 36 160 113 380 191 1200 291 6000 36145 40 170 118 400 196 1300 297 7000 36450 44 180 123 420 201 1400 302 8000 36755 48 190 127 440 205 1500 306 9000 36860 52 200 132 460 210 1600 310 10000 37065 56 210 136 480 214 1700 313 15000 37570 59 220 140 500 217 1800 317 20000 37775 63 230 144 550 226 1900 320 30000 37980 66 240 148 600 234 2000 322 40000 38085 70 250 152 350 242 2200 327 50000 38190 73 260 155 700 248 2400 331 75000 382

95 76 270 159 750 254 2600 335 100000 384

Source: Airasain (2003:113)

Cohen et al.(2001:94) suggest that using random sampling technique to determine sample size

associated with confidence level and sample error’ is another way of obtaining sample

representativeness. These scholars specify certain population sizes with their corresponding

sample sizes at 95 percent confidence level. In essence, there is the likelihood that the sample

will be representative if the researcher ensures that sampling error of 5percent with a confidence

level of 95 percent is obtained as indicated in the table below.

16

Table 1.2 Sample sizes, Confidence levels and Sampling error.

Sampling error of 5% with a Confidence level of 95%

Population (N) Sample Size (S)50 44100 79200 132500 2171000 2782000 3225000 35710000 37020000 37750000 381100000 3831000000 384

Source: Cohen et al., (2001:95)

Thus, the sample represents various levels of call centre employees in the select BPO companies

taken for the study. The select companies are from the top 10 leading companies of India in the

BPO industry using criteria of size, performance and reputation - Infosys, Genpact, TCS and

Wipro. The respondents are selected from four categories viz., Call centre representatives, Team

leaders, Analysts and Managers are identified covering all work shifts as the sample units of the

study, using convenient sampling method. All the respondents were administered with the

questionnaires. A detailed picture about the sampling frame is presented in the following table.

Table 1.3 Sample Size

Company\Cadre Representatives Team

leaders

Analysts Managers Total

Infosys 271 20 12 6 309Genpact 283 22 14 7 326TCS 274 22 13 6 315Wipro 266 18 11 6 301Total 1094 82 50 25 1251

In all 1600 call centre employees randomly selected, 400 from each company were given the

questionnaire but out of which only 1251 questionnaires were accounted for the study as the

remaining were either not returned despite of efforts by the researcher or were disqualified due to

17

inadequate/incomplete responses. The proportion of sample in the total universe of the select

four BPOs is 1251 out of 29379 call centre employees representing 0.0426 percent of the

universe. The detailed picture of the universe, company wise representation of the respondents,

percentage of respondents to the total number of call centre employees at various levels are

enumerated below.Table 1.4 Representation of the Universe of study

Note: The figures in the brackets represent the total number of call centre employees working in respective companies.

The following table shows the total number of employees working at global level and national

level. The figures are presented in accordance to the companies selected for the study.

Table 1.5 Company wise BPO Employees

18

Compan

y\ Cadre

Representatives Team leaders Analysts Managers

Total Sample

No.

Total

No.

Percent Sample

No.

Total

No.

Percent Sample

No.

Total

No.

Percent Sampl

e No.

Total

No.

Perce

nt

Infosys 271 1003 0.271 20 52 0.385 12 28 0.429 6 22 0.273 309 (1105)

Genpact 283 7511 0.038 22 351 0.063 14 172 0.081 7 81 0.086 326 (8115)

TCS 274 9082 0.030 22 604 0.036 13 325 0.040 6 116 0.052 315 (10127)

Wipro 266 9506 0.028 18 278 0.064 11 184 0.059 6 64 0.094 301 (10032)

Total 1094 27102 0.040 82 1285 0.064 50 709 0.071 25 283 0.088 1251(29379)

Company

Total Number of BPO Employees

India Globally

Infosys 19000+ 24661

Genpact 8000+ 60500+

TCS 45000+ 276000+

Wipro 28000+ 140000+

Total 77000+ 501161+

Source: Nasscom report

1.8.3 The Survey Instruments

The study was mainly based on the primary data and an instrument used for collecting the data is

in the form the questionnaire designed in two parts, covering all the essential factors of work life

of BPO call centre employees.

Part I: Preliminary data consisting of demographic factors including age, gender, educational

qualification, marital status, children, occupational level, annual income, present shift,

organization and experience of the respondent.

Part II: Main data consisting of life events like personal factors, organizational role factors,

personality variables like self concept and locus of control and coping strategies.

1.8.4 Pre-testing of the questionnaire

The questionnaires were pre-tested on a sample of 100 respondents covering all the major

categories of call centre employees in the four select organizations. The pre-testing of

questionnaires helped in modifying some questions in accordance to the study. The final

questionnaire after necessary modifications was used for collecting the main data of the study.

A comprehensive questionnaire consisting of scales which are self administrative were designed.

The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part consists of preliminary data representing

demographic factors containing 10 questions and the second part consists of variable factors

covering personal factors, organizational role factors, and personality factors and coping

strategies with 42 questions. The scaled questions from 1-8 represent life events or personal

factors, the questions from 9-18 are role factors, the questions from 19-32 represents personality

variables and from 33-42 represents coping strategy. The questionnaire was administered to BPO

call centre employees of the select companies.

19

1.8.5 Data Collection

The samples for the survey have been collected from four select BPO companies which consist

of Infosys 309/400 respondents (77.25%), Genpact 326/400 respondents (81.5%), TCS 315/400

respondents (78.75%) and Wipro 301/400 respondents (75.25%) respectively, hence the total

number of respondents were 1251/1600 representing (78.19%).

1.8.6 Data Processing And Analysis

The questionnaires collected from the respondents were examined for the completeness in all

manners. Later a code book was prepared in order to enter the data in the statistical package for

social sciences (SPSS 17). Data were processed using the same statistical package. Firstly,

frequency tables were prepared for the demographic variables which include age, gender,

educational qualifications, marital status, occupational level, annual income, experience and

companies to which they belong. Secondly, means and standard deviation were computed for the

independent and dependent variables in order to present the results pertaining to the stress levels

of call centre employees of select companies of BPO industry.

1.9 STATISTICAL TREATMENT

To analyze the collected data both descriptive and inferential statistics is used. In descriptive

statistics means, standard deviations, frequencies, correlation coefficients and regression analysis

were computed. Inferential statistics were used in Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) i.e., F values

were computed and analysis was made based on the f-value. Details are as follows –

F-Values

It is measurement of distance between individual distributions on given variables. As F value

goes up, P goes down (i.e., more confidence in there being a difference between two means). To

calculate f value, the formula (mean square of X / mean square of error) has been used. Thus,

using this value, the means difference on given study variables can be examined for significant

variations.

20

Correlation analysis

Correlation is a technique for investigating the relationship between two quantitative, continuous

variables. Correlation is the degree or extent of the relationship between two variables. If the

value of one variable increases when the value of other increases, they are said to be positively

correlated. If the value of one variable decreases when the value of other variable is increasing it

is said to be negatively correlated. If one variable does not affect the other they are considered

not to be correlated. The correlation coefficients were computed between independent and

dependent variables. The correlation coefficient quantifies the degree of linear association

between two variables. It is typically denoted by r and will have a value ranging between

negative one and positive one. Thus, the correlation between independent and dependent

variables have been computed.

Regression Analysis

It is the relationship between the mean value of the random variable and the corresponding

values of one or more independent variables. Regression is a model for predicting one variable

from another and a statistical analysis assessing the association between two variables.

Regression analysis is a method of analysis that enables you to quantify the relationship between

two or more variables (X) and (Y) by fitting a line or plane through all the points such that they

are evenly distributed about the line or plane. The formula for computing regression is

Y = a + b X

Using this formula, the predictive relationships between independent variables and the dependent

variable have been examined in this study. The regression equation expected is

Y = a + b1 x 1 – b2 x 2

1.10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE STUDY

Chapter I deals with introductory part consisting of the introductions to the topic, significance of

the concept, literature review, objectives of the study, scope of the study, methodology, period of

21

the study, sample design data collection procedures, data analysis, sampling techniques followed

for carrying out the study and the chapters to be followed for the study.

Chapter II reveals in detail the conceptual background of the study which explains the

significance and various factors that result in stress in an individual effecting is personal life as

well as work life. It elucidates various models of stress and six myths of stress, etc.

Chapter III explains the emerging of BPO industry and its prospects in the global economy as

well as Indian economy. The top ten BPOs in the Indian perspective are given and elaborate

explanation regarding the select BPO companies.

Chapter IV deals with data analysis part of the study. It gives various analysis of the factors

taken for the study in detail. This chapter also gives interpretations drawn on the basis of various

techniques applied for the study.

Chapter V gives findings and conclusions drawn from various analyses conducted in the

previous chapter. This also gives certain suggestions and coping strategies to manage the stress.

Lastly, Bibliography and Annexure are given towards the end.

1.11 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The following limitations have been framed in view of the time adequacy, availability of

resources, area of survey and access to respondents for conducting the study.

1. The study was carried out to understand the stress level of the call centre employees of the

select BPO companies only.2. The study has been restricted to four select BPOs viz., Infosys, Genpact, TCS and Wipro

from the top ten BPO companies.3. The total sample for the study has been restricted sixteen hundred only, consisting of four

hundred from each of the four select companies.4. The study has been confined to the Greater Hyderabad, Secunderabad and Cyberabad

regions.5. The period of the study is restricted to time duration of the research.6. The findings of the study are entirely dependent on the sample and hence cannot be

generalized.

22

In spite of the above limitations the study throws some light on the understanding of overall job

stress and various factors affecting the stress levels of the call centre employees. Since the study

is exploratory in nature, it is expected that this will pave the way for further research in the area.

1.12 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The workplace of the 21st century is a fast-paced, dynamic, highly stimulating environment

which brings a large number of benefits and opportunities to those who work within it. The

ever-changing demands of the working world can increase levels of stress, especially for those

who are consistently working under pressure. Whilst pressure has its positive side in raising

performance, if such pressure becomes excessive it can lead to stress which has negative

consequences.

A scan of literature available on job stress on BPO call centers looking at what factors do

contribute most to employee stress, what kind of ailments are peculiar to this industry and how

employees are likely to behave in the face of such situations are of prime review.

The kind of data mankind chooses to record at any point is in some ways the sign of its times. Its

perception of what is important to the present. Of what future historians must understand. And

perhaps the sign of our times is that along with daily stock market reports and quarterly company

results, we have in recent years begun to keep job stress and illness statistics.

There is a lack of published data on the status of stress in call centres, even when some

information is available; it is scanty and not updated. In the absence of these secondary sources

of information, the present study has to begin with little guidance in this unexplored area.

Recent researchers have found that:

1. Stress is one of the most important reasons behind sickness from work and stress – related

absence is increasing32.

2. Three quarters of executives say that stress adversely affects their health, happiness and home

life as well as their performance at work (Wheatley.R33, 2000).

3. Stress may be experienced as a result of an exposure to a wide range of work demands and in

23

turn can contribute to an equally wide range of health outcomes. It is important to recognize that

stress is a state, not an illness (Doherty. N and Tyson.S34, 1998).

4. Where employees are stressed because they have no say on how work is done, or need to do

work that involves a fast pace and need to resolve conflicting priorities, or have a lack of

recognition, understanding and support from their managers, there is a higher risk of the

employee suffering a psychiatric disorder (HSE35 2000) .

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has indicated that:

• Stress is likely to become the most dangerous risk to business in the early part of the 21st

century.

• One in five workers report feeling extremely stressed at work. This equates to 5 million in

the UK (Smith, A, Johal, S and Wadsworth, E36, 2000).

Review

Occupational stress occurs in different contexts; social, political, cultural, organizational settings,

psychological, biological, physical and environmental. Occupational stress influenced by

political and sociological factors is considered a more complex construct than merely inclusive

of some sources of stress at work. Certain social motivating factors such as team spirit, respect,

acceptance and friendly social interactions contribute to a positive work environment, as

compared to hostile work environments that foster racism, sexism, and office politics which lead

to occupational stress. Workers’ perceptions of the degree of participation in the decision-

making process on issues affecting the organization have proven to be related to job satisfaction,

and enhanced self-esteem. Participative management styles to establish vision, mission and

strategic planning of any organization are the current trends to ensure a healthy sociopolitical

work environment.

Administrative structure is the” salient force in the establishment and maintenance of a positive

emotional climate” (Whiteman et al37, 1985). “A supportive administration, and particularly

direct support from the chairperson, has surfaced as an important factor in stress reduction in the

24

workplace (Dickie, 1995). “The element of ‘buffers’ has been identified as the needed

administrative support” (Conorolly and Saunders38, 1988).

Lazarus and Folkman39 (1984) viewed stress as a dynamic and reciprocal relationship between

the person and environment. In this theory, stressors can range from catastrophic events to

irritating incidents. However, these stressors do not elicit a stress response in the individual until

the person appraises it as exceeding the available resources (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1977 cited by

Wilson, 1979). The factors investigated in this study are psychological, emotional, and physical

safety.

Terry40 (1997) believes that stress occurs when “individuals think the demands from the

environment are more than they can handle.” Dunham points out “the lack of recognition,

appreciation and understanding of their increased efforts, their feelings of frustration are

heightened”.

Stress manifests itself through a variety of symptoms. The most common sign of stress is

nervousness, anxiety & tension. Symptoms of stress include muscle aches, stomachaches,

insomnia - loss of sleep, increased heartbeat, high B.P, compulsive eating, loss of appetite, etc.

(Harris, 1987).

In 1990, the leading cause of death in the United States was Heart Diseases making up 32.1% of

all deaths in the U. S. (Quick, et al41., 1997).

Matteson and Ivancevich42 (1982) state that there is a direct relationship between coronary heart

disease and stressors, such as job dissatisfaction, work load, responsibility, time pressures, and

ambiguity in job roles.

In the 1996 American Management Association research report, it was estimated that $80 billion

was spent on disability and workers, compensation claims during 1996 (Quick et al., 1997). In

addition, 70% of the companies surveyed reported that there was an increase in disability claims

in the areas related to tension and stress. The disability categories related to stress included

mental illness, psychiatric treatment, substance abuse, cardiovascular problems, hypertension

and back pain, strain, or injury (Quick, et al., 1997).

25

Miller & Smith (1997) study found that 43 percent of all adults suffer adverse health effects from

stress. 75 to 90 percent of all physician office visits are for stress-related ailments and

complaints. Stress is linked to the six leading causes of death-heart disease, cancer, lung

ailments, accidents, cirrhosis of the liver, and suicide.

Literature on coronary heart disease (CHD) comprehensively reviews the published proceedings

of the 1994 Stockholm international conference "Women, Stress, and Heart Disease," edited by

Kristina, Margaret & Nanette43 (1994). It is easy to understand that most women think they will

die from cancer rather than from heart disease, but this is not true. Heart disease is the leading

cause of death for women as it is for men. Research on risk factors for heart disease has also

been almost entirely focused on men. This is true for psychosocial/behavioral aspects of

cardiovascular risk. Aiming to fill this gap, the book, (women, stress, and heart disease) contains

contributions from outstanding international and national researchers from different fields such

as sociology, psychology, epidemiology, cardiology, clinical medicine, and physiology.

Survey research in the late 1980's has revealed that 41% of people needed help from some stress-

related problem.

7 to 8 out of every 10 people in the hospital was due to some stress-related problem

230 million prescriptions written for stress

25 million reported cases of high blood pressure

8 million reported cases of stomach ulcers 12 million alcoholics

50-75 billion dollars lost to industry.

Various studies had been conducted on stress. Hursey et al.44 (1985) conducted a study on

physiological reactions to stress. Results indicated that the subjects prone to tension and

headache show higher frontal muscle tension than the subjects who rarely experienced headache

do. Other studies by Passchier45 (1985), Trave et al.46 (1985) studied the causes of stressors.

Results indicated that tension, headache was due to psychological and psychosocial stress.

Verma47 (1989) also found that women, who scored high on General Health Questionnaire for

psychological distress, reported significantly more stressors in area of societal and family stress

(Life stress).

The stress/illness connection is, however, disputed by some researchers. Although claims have

been made of connections between stress in life and illness, it has been suggested that people

26

remain quite healthy under high levels of stress in their lives (Holahan & Moos48, 1985). This

has focused researchers’ attention on the relative roles of ‘buffering’ (i.e. what mediates the

impact of stress) and ‘hardiness’ (i.e. what psychological resources can employees marshall to

hold stress within acceptable limits).

There is some evidence that stressed people make more mistakes than unstressed people (Firth-

Cozens49, 1992).

Further comparative evidence is provided by a survey of safety representatives across most

occupational sectors (TUC, 2000). Stress or overwork was mentioned as the main work hazard

by 82% of the representatives from the education sector, the same percentage as from the

voluntary sector. This was more than from the health service (74%) but less than banking,

finance and insurance (86%).

The TUC also draws our attention to the ‘long hour’s culture’ by pointing out that workers in the

UK work longer hours than employees anywhere else in Europe (43.6 hours compared with an

EU average of 40.4).

The workplace has assumed a crucial role in the provision of human elements besides the

obvious physical rewards. Gootlieb50 (1983) said that the significant amounts of time that people

invest in their jobs have led to a “profound impact on their morale, their physical and mental

health, and their personal identity”. Trist51 (1977) insisted that the humanistic aspect associated

with work must be addressed to promote desirable outcomes in employment situation. “A new

work ethic is beginning to emerge concerned about workplace as a central part of the quality of

life as a whole” (Trist, 1977). This trend of thinking was viewed as particularly important in

relation to the increased demands facing people in today’s work force.

Jean Bureau52 (1983) regarded adaptability to this type of change as “the key to survival”.

Adaptation was also called a means of living healthy existence (Greenwood, 1990). The focus

on wellness, renewal and health promotion in the workplace was reflected in employee

assistance programs that offered policies, educaton and training directed toward enrichment in

work organizations (Ford, Ford & Weingard53, 1985). Mansell (1980) claimed that there are

various means of providing work environments with innovative ways of enhancing organization

effectiveness. MacBride (1983) believed in cooperation between management and employees

27

toward the achievement of collective goals. Pike (1985) argued that employment improvement

strategies should continue to be developed, expanded and refined to meet the changing needs of

working people. He also claimed that feedback is essential to the success of people-based,

quality of working life approaches.

Rehana Ghadially and Pramod Kumar54 (1990) undertook a study to explore the stresses, strains

and coping styles of 35 female professionals from different organizations. The salient features in

India they found were inadequate pay, under utilization of skills, variability in workload.

Frequently reported strains included tension and fatigue. Reading to increase knowledge,

planning and goal setting, were major adaptive responses. On Social Readjustment Rating Scale,

no significant problem was reported in majority of cases, while some reported mild or moderate

problems.

Job overload and workload plus little time featured prominently in a number of different studies

(Byrne55, 1992; Wynne et al, 1991). For example, Dewe (1986) found that workload consistently

came top as the most frequent problem. G.P.Prakash56 (1990) studied the occupational stress,

strain and coping on 50 male and 50 female full term university faculty members. The results

indicated that the correlations between stress and strain are positive and correlation between

occupational strain and coping tends to be negative. The amount of strain produced by stress is

greater than the amount reduced by the coping strategies.

Srikanth Reddy and Ramamurti57 (1991); analysed the influence of age, personality, and general

ability on stress experience of a person. The sample included 200 executives in and around

Hyderabad City. The results showed that there were age differences in the sources of stress. It

was observed that the influence of personality and general ability on stress experience was

limited but significant.

Review of research studies in India and other Asian countries in general on stress by Pestonjee58

(1999), Prabhu59 (1991), Sharma60 (1988), Laur & Palsane reveals two major trends, Replication

of western findings in India / Asia context, identification of indigenous pattern of stress and

coping as culture specific manifestations.

Recently, studies on stress have multiplied, including the impact of stress on various aspects of

life. Most of the stress studies conducted were pertaining to industrial settings and on stress

28

levels experienced by executives in general, the various stressors and their impact, multiple

stress manifestations and coping strategies employed. But, not many studies have been

conducted on stress experienced by BPO call centre employees. Few studies have highlighted the

stress experienced by few professional groups, stress levels of men and women. But, overall

research in the stress experienced BPO call centre employees is quite limited.

Work related stress is on the rise and identifying the causes of this stress and discovering

strategies for intervention are challenge (Terry, 1997; Dinham & Scott, 1996; Travers & Cooper,

1996; Barnette, 1990).More research on occupational stress in work organizations, particularly in

BPO call centres, must be done to examine the types and extent of demographic and personal

variables as related to the perception of occupational stress and to compare these stressors with

the research results of the past decades .Undoubtedly the study of job stress will receive similar

importance in future.

1.3.1 LIFE STRESS:

The Role of stressful life events in the etiology of various diseases has been a fertile field of

research for the last 25 years. It is increasingly recognized that stress is one of the components of

any disease, not just those labeled 'psychosomatic'. In fact researchers like Schmalo and Engel61

(1967), Holmes and Rahe62 (1967), Grant et al.63 (1974) have established this point beyond doubt

that there exists a positive relationship between stressful life events and subsequent illnesses. It is

important to study the life events between the onset of illness and a recent increase in the number

of stressful events that necessitate socially adaptive responses on the part of the individual. The

underlying assumption is that such events serve as predisposing and/or precipitating factors for

the subsequent illness episode.

Research in socially induced stress in India seems to follow the standard life events methodology

which until recently has characterized much of the stress research in the West. The

reorganization of daily life consequent upon migration from village to city provides an

opportunity to identify the stressors in everyday life and assess their health consequences.

29

Furthermore, the study of the role of the Indian joint family in moderating life stress could

contribute to a better conceptualization of the effects of stress on health outcomes.

Initial research on life events focused on establishing the stability and generalization of life

adjustment weights. Generally high rank order correlation has been found on individual's rating

of the relative severity of life events. Death of a spouse, divorce, loss of a child, job change, and

relocation are consistently rated among the life events requiring the most personal adjustment in

American society.

The second phase of work on life events examined potential relationships between life events

and health. Both retrospective and prospective studies linked life events to physical and

psychological illness. Outcome measures have included: Heart disease, colds and flu, hospital

admissions, mild psychiatric disorders, depression, anxiety, general mental health status,

academic performance, and job performance. Dohenrenwend and Dohrenwend64, 1974; Rabkin

and Struening65, 1976; Sarason, Johnson, and Siegel66, 1978).

While the concept that socially induced stress acts as precipitating factors in physical and mental

disease is now relatively well accepted in Western, industrialized societies; serious conceptual

and methodological limitations of the life event literature have been raised.

Perhaps the most serious criticism of the life event literature is the relatively small magnitude of

association between life events and illness. Rabkin and Struening67 (1976) note, for example,

that nearly all life event studies explain less than 10% of the variance in illness They and other

critics of the life events literature (Lazarus and Cohen68, 1977), suggest that the failure of the life

events approach to explain illness is due to inadequate conceptualization of the processes

involved in the stressor-health relationship. We briefly review below some of the major

methodological and conceptual shortcomings of life events work in order to provide background

for the study of stress in India.

Methodological problems: Several statistical psychometric and logical criticisms have been made

of life event research. Early life event research was often retrospective, thus potentially

confounding cause and effect. Perhaps an individual's cognition of previous life events is colored

by their present health status. Persons, for example, might exaggerate their perceptions of

previous life events to explain a current unhealthful condition.

30

Another source of contamination of causal inference between life events and health is the overlap

of items of some life events with the health outcomes that are to be predicted. Some scales

include items that directly relate to health, thus creating a tautology. As an example, consider

these life event items from the Holmes and Rahe69 (1967) SRRS: changes in the health of a

family member, major personal illness or injury, major change in sleeping habits.

Causal inference about life events in the etiology of disease is also made difficult by the potential

operation of other variables correlated with both life events and health. Thus, Mechanic70 (1974)

argued that some individuals may be predisposed to report more events and worse health status

because of certain attribution factors such as boredom, depression or attitudes about sick role.

Furthermore, most life "events" are, in reality, loosely associated with a host of lower level,

repetitive annoyances and demands. As humans cope with the impediments of daily annoyances,

there is a dissipation of adaptive energy, which, in turn, may lead to reduce efficiency, lower

productivity and various social costs ( Pealim and Schooleer 71 , 1981).

What little cross-cultural work that has been done on life events has found ordinal

correspondence in the ordering of life events (Holmes and Masuda72, 1974). Several caveats are

in order, however, in evaluating the status of cross-cultural similarity of life events. First, low

frequency, rather severe events constitute much of the scale. No cross-cultural research has

examined respondent-generated life events, or more typical, daily sources of irritation and

annoyance. Thus, there is great need to examine culturally appropriate adaptive tasks that

accompany the stresses and strains of daily life. Second, the cross-cultural work has largely taken

place in Western Europe and Japan. Both cultures in many respects are industrialized and

"Western". Extremely little research on life events has been undertaken in non-industrialized

countries. Furthermore, nearly all of the cross-cultural work has used middle and upper class

samples. Third, although the rank ordering of events seems stable across the cultures studied to

date, marked differences exist in the absolute magnitude of life change estimates. Magnitude

estimates may differ because the comparison event (e.g., marriage) differs in relative importance

for different societies. In addition, some cultures tend to use larger or smaller numbers, and some

groups may report all events as requiring greater adjustment (Fairbank and Hough73, 1981).

31

Conceptual problems: Several conceptual problems with the life event approach to dying stress

have been raised. The original theoretical framework for life events emanated from the concepts

of adaptation and homeostasis. The perspective emphasizes that stressful events will alter the

organism's susceptibility to illness to the extent that adjustment is required to return the body

back to normal limits. This view led to the weighting of life events in terms of the amount of

adaptive change or adjustments they required, irrespective of the valence of the event. Thus,

change per se regardless of its degree of pleasantness was considered the crucial factor. Other

investigators taking a more cognitive approach argued those negatively toned events more likely

to produce illness since not only change per se, but also individual's appraisal of change would

influence the pathogenic effects of life events.

In one of the most careful empirical studies on the issue of change, Gerseten, Langer, Eisenberg,

and Orzeckr74 (1981) found that absolute change scores were more highly associated with a

general measure of anxiety; whereas undesirable change correlated more strongly with various

specific measures of psychological problems (e.g., conflict, delinquency, self-destructive

tendency). They reasoned that generalized arousal and anxiety frequently reflect immediate

reactions to any environmental change. Subsequent studies, by and large, have indicated the

superiority of negative change over absolute change in predicting illness (Paykel, Meyers,

Dienelt, Klerman, Lindenthal and pepper75, 1969; Ross and Mirowsky76 1979; Vinokur and

Selzer77, 1975).

Closely related issue to the above discussion is whether more objective, normative event

weightings or subjective appraisals of events should be used to investigate life events and health.

The former approach assumes that the significance or meanings of events is presumed to be the

property of the events themselves. Lazarus and Cohen78 (1977) strongly criticize this

presumption as an overly simplistic model of stress that ignores individual's difference in the

appraisal of events and available coping resources to adjust to environmental demands.

Dohrenwend and colleagues79 (1978), however, argue that objective; normative-based measures

of adjustment allow investigators to measure environmental components of disease etiology

uncontaminated by individual predispositions, vulnerability, or assessment of likely health

outcomes.

32

Empirical evidence on this question is quite clear in demonstrating the superior health prediction

capabilities of subjective rating scale measures that monitor the perceived severity of events, in

comparison to simple frequency counts of events or the use of normative weighting scales (cf.,

Sarason et al80., 1978).

The existence of individual differences in reactions to stressors is indisputable (Lazarus81, 1966;

Lazarus and Launier82, 1978). We favor the more psychological approach advocated by Lazarus

because we believe that the processes involved in the relationship between events and individual

coping resources are critical to understanding how life events affect health.

The third conceptual issue related to the life events literature is the operation of mediating

processes between life events and individual health outcomes. Recent work on life events

indicates a trend toward study of the circumstances under which life events are capable of

producing adverse health consequences. Given that in the face of life events some people get

sick while others do not. Kobasa83 (1979) research has begun to investigate physiological (e.g.,

genetic), psychological (e.g., personality) and social (e.g., social support) factors that may play a

role in the health consequences of life event experiences.

Several studies suggest those uncontrollable life events and / or events that are less predictable

are more likely to produce illness (McFarlane, Norman, Streiner, Roy and Scott84, 1980).

Moreover such events are particularly salient for coronary prone behavior personalities (Type A)

in the etiology of heart disease (Matthew's and Glass85, 1981). In addition, individuals who

generally feel less autonomy and control over their own lives (external locus of control) have

greater anxiety and depression in response to negative life events than do internals (Johnson and

Sarason86, 1979).

The most extensively discussed and researched mediating factor between life events and health is

social support. Scholars have hypothesized that the quantity and quality of an individual’s social

relationships with family, friends, co-workers and others will have an intervening effect on the

health consequences of stressors (Cohen and McKay, Gottlieb87, 1981).

Life Events Research in India:

33

Evans, Palsane and D'Souza88 (1983) while reviewing Indian studies pertaining to life stresses

made the following observation: Most of the work (on life stress) is more or less replications of

research completed in the United States, The use of retrospective designs limits the potential

importance of the work. Second, they reported that all the Indian studies related to stressful life

events were confined to clinical case studies. They were, however, able to review only four

Indian life events studies conducted by Rao and Nammalvar89 (1977), Satija, Nathawal and

Shah90 (1982); Singh, Kaur and Kaur91 (1981), and Wig, Menon and Chawla92 (1982).

Contrary to this observation, the review of literature has revealed a very different picture. For

example, researches on life stress have increased many folds since Evans and associates

published their review in 1983. Second, Indian researchers have studied life stresses covering a

wide cross-section of the population such as working/non-working, married/unmarried women,

youth including students and adults, and patients suffering from cancer, hysteria, depression,

schizophrenia, anxiety, etc. In other words, life stress studies are no longer confined to clinical

case studies only. Third, but for a few exceptions, most of the researchers either developed and

standardized new life stress measures for their respective studies are used Indian adaptations of

already standardized life stress tools.

India is undergoing vast social, economic, and demographic change associated with urban

migration. Large numbers of individuals, particularly of the lower classes, are undergoing

dramatic changes in life circumstances by migrating from villages to urban centers.

Only recently has scholarly attention been given to empirical investigation of the stressful

aspects of migration. Recent reviews note the important need for careful, longitudinal studies

since the previous work is based largely on case studies or theoretical speculations about the

harmful aspects of migration (Coelho, Ahmed, and Yuan93, 1980; Shumaker and Stokols94,

1983).

All of the principal investigators of life stress in India to date have used scales from Anglo-

European cultures consisting primarily of dramatic, discrete events. Rao and Nammalvar (1977),

using a life event schedule developed in Australia, found that depressed patients experienced the

same.

34

Singh, Kaur and Kaur (1981) standardized a life events scale for use in India following Homes

and Rahe's95 (1967) approach of magnitude estimation of adjustment. They also added some

items pertinent to the Indian culture such as conflict over dowry, going on a pilgrimage, lack of a

male child. Amongst a small sample of 120 the authors report no age, educational or marital

status differences in life adjustment score estimates. Some interesting gender differences were

noted, however, indicating that women were more bothered by family conflict, death of a family

member or gain of a new family member. All of the gender differences found were in the area of

intra-familial matters, which may reflect the continually predominant role of the Indian woman

in family life.

Satija, Nathawal and Shah (1982) studied life events in depression. They found that psychiatric

patients who were more severely depressed had significantly greater life events scores during the

six months preceding depression onset.

Shejwal96 (1984a) conducted a two-fold study to establish a) the stressfulness of life events b) to

test some of its personality correlates. Study I was based on Holmes and Rahe's scale. A list of

49 life events was presented to 402 subjects in Pune city (between the age groups of 18 to 60

years). Study II dealt with the perception and experience of life events with the personality

variable locus of control. The findings of study I revealed a high consensus in the mean ratings

and rankings of life events of different subgroups - male, female, age below 25 years, 25 years

and above, students / nonstudents, and Hindu / non-Hindu. The correlations ranged from 0.93 to

0.97.The findings of study II revealed that the high stress group was found to have internal

control whereas the low stress group was found to have external control.

Another study, which compared the stressfulness of certain life events for Indians and

Americans, was conducted by Jahan and Hasan97 (1987). They found that the relative

stressfulness of the life events for the two cultural groups were quite different.

Shejwal and Ram98 (1983) studied the effect of sex differences in the perception of stressful life

events on a sample of 69 male and 54 female respondents. Threat to personal attachment was the

underlying theme of these events. It was found that there is no sex difference in the perceived

stress related to events threatening personal attachment. Differences in the evaluation of stress by

35

married and unmarried persons were not significant. Married subjects perceived death of spouse

and the son/daughter leaving home more stressful.

Investigating the impact of life stress on mental health, Kumari and Prakash99 (1986) observed a

trend for life events to increase with age regardless of the sex of the subject and younger age

groups to experience more psychological distress.

Agrawal and Naidu100 (1988) conducted a study on the impact of desirable and undesirable

events on health. The correlation for undesirable events was higher than those for desirable and

ambiguous events. It was also observed that distress was a more sensitive measure of

stressfulness in comparison to change. Regression analysis revealed those undesirable events

alone were significant predictors of strain.

Life events on current scales occur with very low frequency, particularly those that entail major

adjustments (e.g., marriage, fired from job, death of spouse, etc). Low frequency of high scores

truncates variance and leads to conservative estimates of correlation with outcome measures.

Also, there is an overabundance of traumatic, severe life events on these scales to the exclusion

of more common, daily occurrences of stress stemming from irritations, frustration and the

typical demands and annoyances of everyday life. Lazarus and Cohen101 (1977) term these types

of events, daily hassles, which include such things as troubles with neighbors, social obligations,

and insufficient money for buying necessities. As we discuss subsequently, recent research

indicates that daily hassles are more strongly linked with health outcomes than are stressful life

events.

Furthermore, most life "events" are, in reality, loosely associated with a host of lower level,

repetitive annoyances and demands. As humans cope with the impediments of daily annoyances,

there is a dissipation of adaptive energy, which, in turn, may lead to reduce efficiency, lower

productivity and various social costs (Pearlin and Schooler 102 1981).

Life stress studies should focus on the common irritations, frustrations, distressing demands of

everyday life, rather than on the less frequent stressful life events. One could also investigate to

what extent daily sources of stress are mediated by the joint family system in India.

36

Finally, Indian research has failed to examine the more common daily sources of stress and strain

that may accompany people's lives. Instead, as in the American work on stress, the focus has

been on discrete, relatively infrequent, dramatic events.

1.3.2 ROLE STRESS:

Human behavior in an organization is influenced or directed by several physical, social and

psychological factors. One of the key concepts to understand the integration of the individual in

an organization is the role. It is through the role that the individual interacts with and gets

integrated with the system. Researchers have pointed out that role stress emanating from social

and family situation influences the degree of stress experienced at the work place (Vadra and

Akhtar103, 1989).

The term ‘Role’ is a modified version of the French word “roulle” which is derived from latin

word “rotula” referring to little wheel or a round log used to fasten sheets of parchment. Later it

was used to demote an assemblage of such parchments or leaves into a scroll or a book.

There are inherent problems in the performance of a role in an organization-giving rise to role

stress. Classical organizational structure and control systems form a potent source of stress

because they demand dependency, hamper initiative and creativity, in role performance and

direct behaviors along narrowly defined channels. The concept of role involves the self, the other

roles, the expectations held by the other roles and the expectations held by the self, which have

built-in potential for conflict or stress. The term's "strain" and "pressure" are used in the literature

to denote the impact of stress on the individual.

Work related stress is one of the most widely researched constructs in organizational behavior

over 100 studies and three reviews (including meta analysis) of the topic has been published in

the last two decades (Mc Gee et al.104, 1989 ; Jackson and Schuler105 1985). Organization

researchers typically define role stress as all aspects of conflict and ambiguity associated with a

particular work-related role (Bedian et al.106 1988; Leigh et al.107, 1988; Teas108 1983). Role in an

organization is the conducts, the behaviors and the activities that are performed by an individual

occupying a given position in an organization.

37

Sources of role stress are likely to vary with age and experience of employees and their

organizations -Madhu, Anand Rao109, (1990). According to Fischer & Gitelson110 (1983), Jackson

& Schuler (1985), Ravi Kumar & Madhu111 (1983), role stress can have serious detrimental

effects for employees and their organizations. Role stress is significantly determined by the

characteristics of the role incumbents, their jobs and their organizations.

Stress is a prerequisite to the success of people in the organizations. However, if the stress

experienced by them exceeds a particular level it may exert adverse effect on their performance

and their psychological and physical health. An organization can be defined as a system of roles.

However, role itself is a system.

Banton112 (1965) has proposed the concept of basic, general and independent roles. Basic and

general roles are related, e.g., a husband is a basic role and a working woman's husband is a

general role. The term “Role Tree" used by Ruddock113 (1969) indicates a branching network

concept. The trunk corresponds to the basic role, the main branches to the general roles, and the

secondary branches to the special roles and the leaves to the transient roles. We shall use the

word "role" for any position a person holds in a system (organization) as defined by the

expectations various significant persons, including himself, have from that position (Pareek114,

1976).

Concept of Role: A role can defined as the sum total of expectations that the individual and

significant others have about how the person should perform a specific job. Roles specify "who

does what, when and where". Roles are the expectations associated with given positions. It does

not exist by itself as it consists of activities, which are related to the activities of other people.

It can be said more clearly that "a role consists of set of norms that explains 'obligations', that is,

the actions which others can legitimately insist, that means the behavior that serves as the

dependent or outcome variable, that is, interest is focused on what the occupant of given position

"does and says'. The effectiveness, validity or propriety of such role enactment varies between

person and situations. In short, it can be said that a role consists of all the above referred qualities

or characteristics.

"Everyone is always and everywhere, more or less, consciously playing a role. It is in these roles

that we know each other, it is in these roles that we know ourselves" (Park115, 1926). So, a role is

38

'socially identified' more or less clearly as an entity, it is being played by different individuals

and it serves as a basis for identifying and placing persons in society.

Several research studies have shown that people's role at work can also be a source of stress. The

employee's relationship with peers, supervisors, vendors, customers and others can result in a

diversity of expectations about how a particular role should be performed. The employee must be

able to integrate these expectations into a meaningful whole in order to perform the role

effectively. Generally, problems arise, when there is a role ambiguity and the person does not

clearly understand what others expect of him/her when there is a role conflict and the employee

receives contradictory expectations and cannot satisfy the different role demands. Role

ambiguity and conflict can cause severe stress, resulting in increased tension, dissatisfaction and

withdrawal, and reduced commitment and trust in others.

From the point of view of an individual, two role systems are important: the system of various

roles an individual occupies and performs, and the system of various roles of which his role is

part, and in which his role is defined by other significant roles.

Each individual occupies and plays several roles. All these roles make up his role space. In the

center of role space is the self. As the concept of role is central to the concept of an organization,

the concept of self is central to the concept of role. Various roles occupied and performed by a

person are patterned around the self. These roles are at various distances from the self and from

each other. These relationships define role space as the dynamic relationship both between the

self and the various roles an individual occupies, and amongst these roles. Role set is the pattern

of relationship between the role being considered and other roles. The individual's role in an

organization is defined by the expectations of significant role senders in that organization,

including the individual himself. The expectations from the role by the individual himself are

termed as "Reflexive Role Expectations" by Kahn and Quinn116 (1970).

Katz and Kahn117 (1966) used the term for the individual who occupies the role and the "roles

sender" for the person in the role set of the individual. The concept of roles set was first proposed

by Merton118 (1957) who defined it as the "compliment of role relationships which persons have

by virtue of occupying a particular social status".

39

In any profession each member is directly associated with a relatively small number of others,

usually the occupants of offices adjacent to his in the workflow structure, that is, his colleagues

and others in the hierarchy. They constitute his role set and usually include his immediate

superiors, his subordinates and certain members of his own or other departments with whom he

must work closely. These are brought into his role set by virtue of the workflow, technology and

authority-structure of the organization. So, an individual is constantly exposed to stress,

whenever the cross of relationships he must balance the claims of his seniors, his juniors, his

colleagues, and external contacts.

Within these, he must find an acceptable balance between development, maintenance and coping

with failure. To a certain extent he will be helped in defining the boundaries of his work by the

existing shape of the organization. But in an organization there might not be congruence between

individual needs for integration and balance. This leads to intense stress.

In an organization, the 'role episode' becomes a "stress cycle" when something goes awry in the

match of role expectations, sent role demands, received role demands and role behavior. This

idea of role focuses attention on the fact that an individual' thoughts, values, feelings attached to

given position or role. Secondly; through the concept of 'role set' - "all the role relationships that

a person has with the people in other roles with whom he interacts in the performance of his

[role] provides a framework with which to examine the structure of the situation the individual is

embedded.

Stressful situations occur when:

An individual is confronted, with conflicting demands from members of his 'different' role sets or

with conflicting demands from 'within' one of his role sets.

An individual is unclear about [or rejects] the expectations and behaviors appropriate to any one

or more of his roles, which may also involve problems within and between his various role sets.

These difficulties often occur when managers [and others] move into new roles be modified in

some way as a result of technological or organizational change.

40

In terms of the influence attempts, especially from the members of one's role set one is likely to

experience contradictory expectations and pressures. Such a pattern of sent expectation which

contains logical incompatibilities or which takes inadequate account of the needs and abilities of

the focal person, results in conflict, termed as 'Role conflict'. Such dynamics arising out of role

overlaps become important in organizational analysis.

The degree of objective conflict in role demands on a given focal person and of objective

ambiguity, or lack of agreement among role senders on those role demands, and of the objective

sum total [i.e. load] of these role demands are matters arising from the play of factors in the

physical, technological and organizational environment. The degree of 'experienced stress'

arising from role conflict, ambiguity and load is an interaction of person with that [objective]

demands. It is clear that role relations represent a major source of potential stress in

organizations. Kahn et al119 [1964] make it apparent that effects of stress on performance is but

one narrow segment of the potential effects of stress, and of behavior in response to that stress, in

organizational settings. Indeed, role based stress has an impact on the continuing pattern of inter-

personal relations and on the psychological and even physical well being of the focal person as

well as on his role performance.

To conclude, individuals relate to organizations in terms of the positions they occupy and the

roles, which they perform. Performing the positional roles is not a smooth-drawn affair.

Individuals are subjected to various pressures; sometimes even their self-identity may be

affected. Thus, organizational life is replete with incidence of stress and strain.

Role Stress among Working People:

Many people are demanding new options for career and household responsibilities. They do not

feel that the family preordains their daily activities. They want to accomplish the sole

responsibility of fulfilling their family economic needs and drive a sense of accomplishment.

Apte's120 (1984) empirical work focused on two cognitive factors, namely, self-perceptions and

beliefs as contributing to conflict, which is stressful. A group of 185 couples (370 individuals)

from the middle economic class was contacted for the study.

41

The findings of the study revealed the following:

The relationship between conflict and stress was found to be positive and statistically significant

which is indicative of the fact that the presence of conflict in marriage is accompanied by stress

in both males and females.

Both dimensions of self-perception, namely, self-perception as a person and self-perception as a

spouse were reported to be positive and significantly related for males and females. Dimensions

of self-perception were significantly related with both marital conflict and stress variables. Belief

variables were reported to be positively and insignificantly associated with marital conflict and

stress. Demographic variables such as years of marriage, age, employment, children, income and

type of family were not found to be related to marital conflict and stress for both males and

females.

Role difficulty was found to be significantly associated with a number of personal bio-social

characteristics such as modernity of values, non-economic motivation, job satisfaction and job

tenure in the case of the total sample. It was apparent from the study that the professional role of

housewives conflicts and poses difficulties in the performance of their family roles. Part-time

employment and readjustment of work schedules for married women employees may be a useful

solution in many cases. Childcare services such as nurseries, kindergartens, boarding schools

may be extended suitably and improved quantitatively to cope with the difficulties working

women face in fulfilling their role as mothers.

Mittal, Uma121 (1988) studied the relationship between perceived need satisfaction and role stress

on a sample of 50 Government Doctors and 50 University Lecturers using Pareek's ORS scale.

The major findings were that perceived need satisfaction is negatively related to role stress.

Doctors experience more role stress than lecturers and female doctors and female lecturers

experience more role stress than their male counterparts.

Vadra and Akhtar122, (1989) have pointed out that role stress emanating from social and family

situation influences the degree of stress experienced at the work place. The sample comprised 60

women teachers and 50 nursing staff. The results indicated that for women teachers job tenure

emerged as the significant predictor of social and family stress while for nurses the number of

dependents contributed significantly to the of social and family role stress.

42

Jasmine123 (1987) conducted a study to compare the level of job related stress among public and

private sector blue -collar employees. A job stress scale developed by Pestonjee was

administered to a sample of 120 blue-collar workers from public and 120 from private sector

organizations. The analysis of data revealed that role incumbents of public sector organizations

experience more stress than those of private Sector organizations. Second, job stress was

reported to be significantly and negatively associated with income. No significant relationship

was found between stress and age.

Two more studies, which deal with public and private sector professionals, were conducted by

Pestonjee and Singh124 (1987). Both investigations studied computer professionals. The former

study dealt with two job categories, namely, systems analysts and managers of both public and

private sectors whereas in the later study, Singh studied three job categories, namely, managers,

systems personnel and operational personnel of both types of organizations.

Sharma125 (1987) conducted another study on two job categories, namely, supervisors of both

public and private pharmaceutical organizations to ascertain the effects and roles of motivational

climates on four psychological variables such as job satisfaction, participation, alienation and

role stresses. The sample comprised of 150 respondents each from public and private sector,

including 75 managers and 75 supervisors. A set of five instruments was administered.

The findings of the study showed that: Employees of private organization scored higher and

significantly differed from those of public organizations as regards inter- role distance, role

expectation conflict, role erosion, role isolation, personal inadequacy and resource inadequacy.

Public organization employees, however, scored higher on role stagnation. Supervisors of the

public sector scored higher on role stagnation, role ambiguity and resource inadequacy than

managers (public). Role stress correlated negatively with job satisfaction variables and positively

with participation. The most important explanatory variable of role stress was found to be

dependency climate in the public sector organizations and control climate in the private sector

organizations.

As incongruence’s are more specific to public rather than private sector organizations.

Dwivedi126 (1989) selected a purposive sample of 101, personnel executives from four large

organizations and administered Pareek's ORS Scale to determine the relative importance of

43

various factors in influencing the structure and dynamics of organizational role stress as a

measure to identify strategies for managing role stress among personnel. The study revealed low

but significant negative relationships between most of the ORS measures and pay, and a low but

significant relationship of one ORS measure with children. This implies that such correlates of

ORS measures may be taken into account in evolving preventive stress management strategies in

organizations similar to those under study.

Ahmed, Bharadwaj and Narula127 (1985) conducted a study on 30 executives from both public

and private sectors on role stress. It was found that out of 10 dimensions of role stress,

significant differences were obtained in three dimensions, namely role isolation, role ambiguity,

and self-role distance. It was observed that public sector executives experience slightly more

stress than their counterparts in private sector.

Kaur and Murthy128 (1986) conducted a study on 98 managerial personnel, 91 males and 7

females in a major public sector (HAL). ORS Scale, Role Pics (O) Scale and I-E Locus of

Control Scale were used to study role stress, coping strategies and locus of control. It was

hypothesized that there was no significant difference in the role stress of people, coping

strategies adopted and in the locus of control of people working at different levels in the

organization.

Three studies on computer professionals conducted by Pestonjee and Singh (1983, 1987) have

been discussed here. In general, the findings of these studies are in contrast to the findings of

similar studies conducted abroad. For example, Couger and Zawacki129 (1978) predicted that job

dissatisfaction and the rate of turnover is on an increase among computer professionals. On the

contrary, none of the three Indian studies reported such findings. Instead, the mean job

satisfaction score of computer professionals was found to be within the range of satisfied to

highly satisfied in all the three Indian studies.

Pestonjee and Singh (1983) studied the psychodynamics of people working in the field of

computers as software or hardware personnel. A sample of 102 personnel consisting of

programmers/systems analysts or EDP managers was studied.

44

The analysis of results indicated that self-role distance exerted a negative influence on job

management, and social relation's areas of job satisfaction in particular and overall satisfaction in

general along with all the dimensions of morale.

Inter-role distance adversely affected job satisfaction and morale in such areas as job,

management, personal adjustment, social relations, fairness of employer's policies and behavior,

adequacy of immediate leadership and regard for and identification with the organization. Role

ambiguity, role isolation, role erosion and overall role stress had a detrimental effect on all

aspects of job satisfaction and morale.

While role overload was observed to have a detrimental effect on such aspects of job satisfaction

as job, management, personal adjustment and social relations, it had no effect on the morale of

the EDP professionals.

In another empirical investigation, Pestonjee and Singh (1987) explored the stress-strain

relationship in the case of systems analysts and managers of both public and private computer

service organizations. Reviewing the literature on the subject, they noted a general consensus

among foreign researchers that job dissatisfaction and the rate of turnover is on an increase

among computer professionals. On the other hand, they noted a paucity of scientific studies on

the Indian population. Their attempt in this direction may be conceived as a step to fill this void.

A group of 70 EDP managers (35 each from public and private sector) and 70 systems analysts

(35 each from public and private sector) from computer organizations constituted the sample of

the study. Two psychometric instruments - the ORS Scale (Pareek130, 1983c) and the Employee

S-D Inventory (Pestonjee131, 1973a) - were administered to the sample population to obtain

information pertaining to role stress and job satisfaction variables. The salient findings are as

follows: Role erosion and resource inadequacy were experienced as dominant whereas role

expectation conflict and personal inadequacy as remote contributors of role stress in the case of

managers and systems analysts of both types of organization. Managers in the private sector

scored significantly higher on satisfaction in the management area and inter-role distance as

compared to managers in the public sector. Systems analysts (Private sector) scored significantly

higher on role stagnation, role expectation conflict and role over-load as compared to systems

analysts (public sector). Managers (public sector) scored significantly higher on inter-role

distance and role overload as compared to systems analysts in the public sector. On the other

45

hand, systems analysts (private sector) scored significantly higher on inter-role distance than

managers in the public sector.

Singh132 (1987) conducted another study related to computer professionals. While reviewing the

literature, he noted that there are very few studies on computer professionals and all of them are

conducted by foreign researchers using foreign samples. All such studies have reported that job

dissatisfaction; High role stress and high rate of turnover are common phenomena related to

computer professionals. In the same line of thought, Singh tested the moderating effect of six

types of motivational climates on the relationship between role stress and job satisfaction

variables in the case of six job categories of computer professionals, on a sample of 348

professionals, three from public and three from private computer service organizations. Analysis

indicated those Managers of private computer organizations scored high on both overall role

stress and job satisfaction as compared to their counterparts in public organizations. Managers in

the private sector scored significantly higher on job area, management area, on-the-job, overall

job satisfaction, inter-role distance, role expectation conflict, personal inadequacy and overall

role stress than managers in the public sector. Further, managers (private sector) also perceived

their work place as significantly higher in achievement climate and lower in affiliation climate as

compared to managers of public organizations.

As regards the implications of the study, the author concluded that (a) contrary to the findings of

western researchers, job satisfaction among computer professionals of the subcontinent was not

deteriorating; (b) some role stresses such as role erosion, role isolation and inter-role distance

were general contributors of role stress in all the job categories and, therefore, need to be

carefully managed.

Gupta133 (1989) conducted a study on role stress, locus of control, coping styles and role efficacy

of first generation entrepreneurs. A group of 60 first generation entrepreneurs was selected and

several tools were used, namely, Entrepreneurial Role Stress (Pareek, unpublished);

Entrepreneurial Inventory of Locus of Control (Rao, 1975); Role PICS (Pareek, 1983d) and Role

Efficacy Scale (Pareek, 1980a). Statistical analysis both descriptive and inferential was done.

The analysis indicated that the maximum role stress was experienced in the dimension of result

inadequacy. Intropersistive style was the most frequently used coping style. Approach strategies

46

of coping were used more frequently than avoidance strategies. A significant negative

relationship was seen between the approach mode of coping and total role stress.

A study of Srivastava and Sinha134 (1983) revealed that employees experiencing higher job

involvement reported to be less stressed. A study by Srilata (1986) revealed that managers in

large organisations have experienced more role stress than those working in small or medium

organisations. The work of Sagar (1991) indicated that job stress of a manager contributes to low

job involvement. It was observed by Pestonjee (1987a) that the inter role distance and role

erosion have contributed significantly to managerial stress. Further, it was observed that role

ambiguity and personal inadequacy were the least contributors to managerial stress.

Menon and Akhilesh135 (1994) found that role ambiguity has significantly contributed to

managerial stress. Overall, the review of earlier studies in this stipulated area has revealed a

consistent pattern of relationship between high role stress and low job involvement.

Soumi Mitra, Aditya & Arun K. Sen136 (1993) studied the effect of stress among executives.

Among the various role stressors they found that inter role distance (IRD) stress was more for

female executives as they found it more difficult to combine their organizational roles and family

roles together as seen by their high scores on IRD. In another study conducted by them on job

stressors and anxieties which affect both male and female executives, and also to make a

comparison between the two groups on a sample consisted of 80 male and 80 female middle

level executives working in three public sector undertakings. Results showed that male and

female executives differed significantly on role ambiguity, role conflict, inter role distance,

future prospects, and human relations at work, femininity and masculinity dimensions. Male

executives with a masculine sex role orientation faced greater job stress and anxiety than females

possessing an androgynous personality.

In the past two decades, empirical researches on the theme of stress have increased many folds.

For example, one of the major areas of research in India appears to be organizational stress in

general and role stresses in particular. Researchers have focused their attention on causal factors

of stress, stress manifestations, moderators of stress -strain relationship, types of stresses

experienced by diverse work populations and various coping strategies / relaxation techniques

adopted by organizational entities to cope with stress. Thus, a large number of stress studies have

47

been conducted in the work setting linking different types of stressors and stress. The type of

occupations studied has varied widely.

Thus, the literature review conducted in this area (i.e., Role stress in special groups) has been

highlighted in the above section. Plenty of researches have been conducted to study the

relationship between role stress and job satisfaction in different types of organizations. These

studies indicate that various aspects of role stress are associated with satisfaction/ dissatisfaction

of the employees.

1.3.3 SELF-CONCEPT:

Personality causes reflect the dynamics of an individual's self-perception and characteristic

attitudes and behaviors, which may somehow contribute to excess stress. A variety of personality

characteristics have been found to be associated with the career development of women. Self-

concept is one of the most popular ideas in psychological literature. Unfortunately, self-concept

is also an illusive and often poorly defined construct. Reviews of literature have found at least 15

different "self terms used by various authors (Strein137, 1993). Terms such as "self-concept,"

"self-esteem," "self-worth," "self-acceptance," and so on are often used interchangeably and

inconsistently, when they may relate to different ideas about how people view themselves.

Rogers138 (1951) defined the self-concept as "an organized configuration of perceptions of the

self which are admissible to awareness. It is composed of such elements as the perceptions of

one's characteristics and abilities:’ the percepts and concepts of the self in relation to others and

to the environment; the value qualities which are perceived as associated with experiences and

object; and the goals and ideals which are perceived as having positive or negative valence.

Self - concept is operationally defined as a measure of the evaluation which the individual make

and customarily maintains with regards to himself, it expresses an attitude of approval or

disapproval, and indicates the extent to which the individual believes himself to be capable,

significant, successfully and worthy (Cooper, Smith 1959, 67). The awareness of self comes

through the gradual process of adaptation to the environment. (Piaget, 1969). Today, our self-

concept, i.e. our knowledge, assumptions, and feelings about us, is central to most of the mental

processes.

48

Mc David and Harari139 (1968), self represents the summation of what he/she is behaviorally and

thus it represents the object of perception that he/she is. The term self-concept is used to refer to

the organized cognitive structure derived from one's experience of his own self. It was

recognized that a person might show certain misperceptions and distortions in his understanding

of himself just as he might misperceive or distort his perception of other people. For this reason,

the notion of self-concept was evolved.

According to Markus140 (1977), information concerning oneself is processed in terms of its

relevance to one's self-schemata. Self-schemata are defined as cognitive structures embodying

networks of meaning associated with particular attributes that together coalesces to form the self-

concept.

Rosenberg141 (1979) coined the term 'psychological centrality', the importance that an individual

attaches to a particular domain or activity that will affect the individual's self-esteem. He noted

that components of the self-concept are of unequal centrality to the individual's concerns. Thus,

the individual strives to excel at that which he values and to value that at which he excels'. The

notion of self-concept has arisen out of an attempt to conceptualize behavior in terms of a single

unified process. It refers to the experience of one's own being. It includes what people come to

know about themselves through experience, reflection and feedback from others. It is the totality

of attitudes, judgments and values of an individual relating to his behavior, abilities, qualities, his

worth as a person-in short, how he perceives and evaluates himself. The term self-concept

subsumes within it the notion of self-image (the individual description of the self) as well as that

of self esteem (the individual's evaluation of the self).

There are a variety of ways to think about the self. Two of the most widely used terms are self-

concept and self-esteem. Self-concept generally refers how we think about ourselves.

Purkey142 (1988) defines self-concept as "the totality of a complex, organized, and dynamic

system of learned beliefs, attitudes and opinions that each person holds to be true about his or her

personal existence".

The most important personality determinant of stress is the concept of self. Poor self-

expectations lead to failure at behavioral tasks and have been more tragically linked with serious

mental and physical diseases as well. There are a several different components of self-concept:

49

physical, academic, social, and transpersonal. The physical aspect of self-concept relates to that

which is concrete: what we look like, our sex, height, weight, etc.; what kind of clothes we wear;

what kind of car we drive; what kind of home we live in; and so forth. Our academic self-

concept relates to how well we do in school or how well we learn. There are two levels: a general

academic self-concept of how good we are overall and a set of specific content-related self-

concepts that describe how good we are in math, science, language arts, social science, etc. The

social self-concept describes how we relate to other people and the transpersonal self-concept

describes how we relate to the world beyond ourselves or to existential unknowns.

Franken143 (1994) has developed a flow chart that provides a visual model of how some of the

most important affective and cognitive (regulatory) variables are related to personal success.

Franken believes there is an important relationship between self-concept (and its corollary, self-

esteem) and motivation. He states that "there is a great deal of research which shows that the

self-concept is, perhaps, the basis for all motivated behavior. It is the self-concept that gives rise

to possible selves, and it is possible selves that create the motivation for behavior".

Self-esteem generally refers to how we feel about or how we value ourselves. Self-concept can

also refer to the general idea we have of ourselves and self-esteem can refer to particular

measures about components of self-concept. Some authors even use the two terms

interchangeably.

James144 (1890) explains that, the intervening variable of self-concept is personal expectations.

His formula is Self-esteem = Success/ Pretensions. That is, increasing self-esteem results when

success is improved relative to expectations. An interesting corollary to this equation is that

expectations and self-esteem limit success.

Branden145 (1992) defines self-esteem as "the disposition to experience oneself as competent to

cope with the challenges of life and as deserving of happiness". He suggests that self-esteem

rests on the "twin pillars" of self-efficacy (one's perceptions of confidence in an ability to

perform successfully) and self-respect (a sense of personal worth). Barell (1995) provides an

effective rationale for why personal efficacy should be an important educational goal. Huitt

(1997) also presents evidence for the importance of self-efficacy in terms of the trends related to

the movement from the agricultural/industrial age to the information age.

50

The self is the phenomenal experience of identity. It grows out of and thrives on social

interaction. It emerges in response to the reaction of others. Advocates of the self -perception

theory maintain that contrary to commonsense belief we do not know our own selves directly

(Bern, 1972). Self knowledge can only be achieved indirectly, through the same attempts to find

consistencies, discount irrelevancies and interpret observations that help us to understand other

people. Fazio, et al (1981) sought to demonstrate that the outcome of a social interaction might

result in a general change in the target's self-concept. By engaging in a self-perception process,

the target person may come to internalize the dispositions implied by his or her behavior.

Generalizations about the self may be constantly updated and modified by social interactions and

behavioral experiences. Thus, given the biological potentialities and capacities, the self arises out

of socio cultural influences that play on the individual.

A large part of the behavior that constitutes personality is self-oriented behavior. Like all other

objects of experience, the self grows out of the matrix of indefiniteness, which exists at the first

perceptual level. It comes gradually into being as the process of differentiation goes on within

the perceptual field.

With the development of the self emerges the self-conception and self-image of the individual.

When the self is perceived and reflected upon, it becomes self-conception. The dynamic aspect

of the self, in the sense of the motive structure that aids its development, seems to move during

infancy and early childhood, from body awareness to other concerns, prestige and power. The

self becomes less and less a pure perceptual object and more and more a conceptual trait system.

Turner146 (1985) distinguishes between the self-concept which he regards as a relatively enduring

cognitive structure, and self-images, which reflect the functioning of that system at any point in

time, may operate relatively independently of each other and may be responsive to specific

situational demands, reflecting the possibility that people have learnt to regulate their social

behavior in terms of different self-conceptions at different times.

The self has two facts: the self-as-object and the self-as-a-process. The self-as-object is the

individual's self-image. This image incorporates the perception of what he is really like (self-

identity), his value as a person (self-evaluation) and his aspirations for growth and

accomplishment (self-ideal). The self is the core of the individual's frame of reference - his

51

assumptions concerning facts, values and possibilities when self-as-a process is the knower,

striver and doer.

The self is the essence of personality and the substratum of all consciousness. It gives to

personality its dynamic and unique character. The self is the subjective nucleus of personality. It

represents an individual's inner world as contrasted with the outer world, which comprises other

people and physical objects. It is the nucleus on which, in which and around which experiences

are integrated into the uniqueness of the individual. The self determines in a large measure the

goals for which one strives, the likes and dislikes one has and the satisfaction one obtains. Much

of what we say and do centers around or derives from an awareness of the self.

We develop and maintain our self-concept through the process of taking action and then

reflecting on what we have done and what others tell us about what we have done. We reflect on

what we have done and can do in comparison to our expectations and the expectations of others

as well as to the characteristics and accomplishments of others (James, 1890; Brigham, 1986).

That is, self-concept is not innate, but is developed by the individual through interaction with the

environment and reflecting on that interaction. This dynamic aspect of self-concept (and, by

corollary, self-esteem) is important because it indicates that it can be modified or changed.

Franken147 (1994) states "there is a growing body of research which indicates that it is possible to

change the self-concept. Self-change is not something that people can will but rather it depends

on the process of self-reflection. Through self-reflection, people often come to view themselves

in a new, more powerful way, and it is through this new, more powerful way of viewing the self

that people can develop possible selves".

Literature Findings on Self-Concept:

The crucial importance of a positive self- concept to psychological health and optimal

functioning has long been a fundamental assumption in psychology (Rogers148 1951). Further,

the self-concept plays a very central role in at least one theory of career choice and development.

According to Donald 149 (1957) super's theory states that, the career choices involve a process of

52

implementing the self-concept in vocational roles. Not surprisingly, then variables related to the

self-concept have been shown to be of considerable importance to women's career development.

A major focus of research related to the psychology has been based on the concepts of

psychological masculinity and femininity. The characteristics "Independent", "Assertive", "self -

sufficient", and "Acts of a leader", were considered masculine, while "Affectionate",

"Compassionate", "Tender', and "Loyal", were on the femininity scale (Bern, 1974). There is an

increasing tendency to avoid the terms "Masculinity", and Femininity", in favor of terms which

better summarize the actual behaviors and characteristics represented (Gilbert150, 1985).

Spence & Helmreich151, 1980 has suggested the term "instrumentality", referring to the

capabilities of self - assertion and competence, which descriptively summarize the key aspects of

traditional stereotypes of masculinity. More specifically, instrumentality appears to be strongly

related to both the extent and nature of women's career pursuits. Higher levels of instrumentality

are related to stronger career orientation, and to greater career achievement among working

women. The findings have led to a general view that at least in terms of personality, high career

oriented women may be more similar in personality to career oriented men.

'Sex-role' is commonly used to refer to a set of standards or prescriptions, which describe

appropriate masculine and feminine behavior in a particular culture. Sex-role identity concerns

the extent to which a person feels that his or her behavior is consistent with the standards, which

operate in the culture to determine male or female behavior in general.

In Keyes and Coleman's152 (1983) study, though no sex differences were found for measures of

personal adjustment, females appeared to experience more conflict over sex-role issues.

Individuals of both sexes who experienced highest levels of sex-role conflict also experienced

more problems in personal adjustment. Both males and females evidenced conflicts over sex-role

issues and both males and females who perceived themselves to be inferior to their ideal selves

and to societal expectations were likely to have the lowest levels of self-esteem, the highest

levels of psychological malaise and the lowest academic ambition.

Thus, the findings have indicated that self concept is associated with personal characteristics like

temperament, motivation, intelligence and talents, which interact with social and physical

environment. A number of studies have been undertaken to study the effects of self-concept on

53

academic achievement, social support and personal adjustment especially with adolescents and

children. But, not many studies have been conducted on the effects of self-concept on stress in

general.

1.3.4 LOCUS OF CONTROL:

Locus of control (Loc) is a personality dimension first described by Rotter153 [1954]. It refers to

an individual's perception of the locus of events as determined internally by his/her own behavior

vs. fate, luck, or external others. It is a concept describing whether people feel that control of

their lives rests in their own hands (Internal locus of control) or in the hands of others (External

locus of control). Some individuals believe that they have control over their actions in life events

and that their success or failure depends on their own effort, hard work and ability. Such

individuals are said to have internal Loc, other persons are said to have an external Loc, because

they attribute control over their actions and events to the external environment or to powerful

others [e.g.-parents, teachers, employers, etc.] They believe that success or failure is primarily a

function of luck or chance. This belief could either enable the person to perceive or not to

perceive control over his present or future form.

Srivasthava & Krishna154 [1992] explored the relationship of Loc, stress and coping styles.

Laboratory and field research indicates that this relationship is complex.

Averill155 (1973), say ‘Believing that an event is controllable, does not always lead to a reduction

in stress or to positive outcome and believing that an event is uncontrollable, does not always

lead to an increase in stress or to a negative outcome’.

Some research (McCombs156, 1991) suggests that what underlies our internal locus of control is

the concept of "self as agent." This means that our thoughts control our actions and that when we

realize this executive function of thinking we can positively affect our beliefs, motivation and

academic performance. "The self as agent can consciously or unconsciously direct, select, and

regulate the use of all knowledge structures and intellectual processes in support of personal

goals, intentions, and choices". McCombs asserts that "the degree to which one chooses to be

self-determining is a function of one's realization of the source of agency and personal control".

In other words, we can say to ourselves, I choose to direct my thoughts and energies toward

accomplishment. I choose not to be daunted by my anxieties or feelings of inadequacy. Thus,

54

individuals with internal locus of control are prone to less stress than individuals with external

locus of control. Optimistic individuals attribute success to stable factors and failure to unstable

and controllable factors.

Review on Locus of Control:

The above focuses on objective lack of control. Rotter (1966), conceptualized the I - E construct

referring to subjective perceptions of locus of control. The importance of subjective perceptions

of control has been demonstrated, in a study of objective lack of control over noise intensity,

performance of mental arithmetic under noise exposure, and locus of control (Lundberg and

Frankenhaeuser157 1978). It was found that the responses were consistent with the type of locus

of control held: thus, internals experienced less stress when they had control over noise intensity

than when they did not, whereas for externals the pattern was reversed. The study seems to

indicate that stress responses in uncontrollable situations are not uniformly the same. They vary

according to the tendency to perceive control in life generally. Internal control refers to the

perception of positive and/or negative events, as being a consequence of one's own actions, and

thereby under personal control. The concept is extremely popular, as indicated by Rotter's (1975)

estimate of well over 600 studies and the 1200 references gathered by Thornhill et al158 (1975).

This preoccupation with control is probably a reflection of the problems of current civilization,

viz. increasing powerlessness and lack of control.

The investigation of Wallston, Wallston, Kaplan, & Maides159, 1976 focused on the relationships

between culture, belief, and health. First, the influence of belief on health was explored. Past

research has noted a relationship between the perception of control and health, equating belief in

control as beneficial and perceived lack of control as deleterious. This was retested by looking at

the relationship between health locus of control (with the Health Locus of Control scale) and

self-reported psychosomatic symptoms (with the Psychosomatic Complaints Scale of Stress),

using a sample of 160 University of Massachusetts, Amherst students. A regression revealed a

marginally significant relationship of individuals with an internal health locus of control

displaying lower scores on the psychosomatic complaints scale of stress and externals displaying

higher scores (p= .056).

55

Morelli at al160 (1979) studied neuroticism and locus of control among 67 college students. He

found that while neuroticism correlated significantly with internal and chance control, no

relationship was found with powerful others. The findings were interpreted as indicating that

subjects predisposed to neurotic breakdown, are more likely to believe that they are not in

control of reinforcement contingencies, and that consequences are determined quite randomly.

Molinari161 (1979) found similar results in his study of locus of control, debilitating anxiety and

depression. While powerful others and chance scores correlated positively with debilitating

anxiety, internal control was significantly and negatively related to anxiety and depression.

Marshall162 (1979), found that locus of control was linked with the more general concept of

maladjustment. It was found that while powerful others and chances were positively related to

maladjustment, internal control was noncontributory. These findings are consistent with the

earlier reports.

Butterfield163 (1964) studied control expectancy, frustration reactions and anxiety. He found that

as locus of control became more external, intropunitive responses increased, while constructive

responses decreased. This has been interpreted to indicate that the less external individual reacts

in a more problem solving direction, wasting less time on guilt and blame. The increase in

external locus of control was found to correlate with decreased facilitating anxiety and increased

debilitating anxiety. In his study of small business owners (affected by losses due to hurricanes).

Anderson164(1977) related locus of control, perceived stress and coping behaviors. He found that

internals employed more task-centered as compared to emotion- centered coping behaviors. This

finding is consistent with the earlier one.

Tanck and Robbins165(1979) found that locus of control determined the type of coping strategy

used. Thus, internals were more inclined to use meditation, while externals showed a greater

likelihood to seek professional help, fantasize and drink alcohol.

Although there is evidence regarding the aversive effects of lack of control, from studies

conducted in laboratory settings, the locus of control versus stress relationship has been hardly

investigated in the work setting. A notable exception is the study by Anderson (1977), linking

locus of control, perceived stress and coping behaviors. He studied 90 owner/managers of small

56

business organizations, which had been faced with devastating losses (owing to the effects of a

hurricane).

Data was collected in two phases over a 2 1/2-year interval. He found that those with higher

internal control scores perceived less stress, exhibited more task oriented coping and fewer

emotion-centered coping behaviors. At the end of 2 1/2 years, successful internals became more

internal, while unsuccessful externals became more external. A similar finding has also been

reported by Andrisani and Nestel166(1976). They studied the influence of work experience on

changes in interval-external control among 2972middle aged American men. Their findings

indicated that success at work enhances the internal control dimension.

The linkage between the control dimension and illness is highlighted in the study by Kobasa167

(1979) conducted on executives in an American company. They compared the profiles of the

High Stress/High Illness (i.e., those who had reported experiencing stressful life events) group of

people, with the High Stress/Low Illness group. Among the personality traits discriminating the

two groups, they found the control dimension (specifically internal control) to be one of the

important contributing factors. This was indicated by the finding that the High stress/Low illness

groups were high on internal control compared to those in the High Stress / High illness group.

Internal Loc. markedly buffers the negative relationship between occupational stress and job

satisfaction and the external Loc. enhances the intensity of inverse relationship between the two.

Pestonjee and Singh168 (1981) investigated the moderating effect of locus of control on the stress

and job satisfaction relationship in the case of 101 role incumbents of a private electricity supply

company. A set of three psychological tools-the S-D Employee Inventory (Pestonjee, 1973a), the

ORS Scale (Pareek, 1983c) - and the Internal External Scale (Rotter, 1966) - was administered to

the respondents to measure job satisfaction, role stresses and locus of control. Sub grouping

analysis and product moment coefficient of correlation were computed.

In the light of a review of the literature, the authors tested two hypotheses. First, various role

stresses would be negatively and significantly related to the different aspects of satisfaction.

Second, the relationship between stresses and satisfaction dimensions would be mediated

through locus of control. The findings revealed that out of 63 coefficients of correlation between

role stress and job satisfaction variables, 50 were found to be negatively and significantly

57

correlated. The magnitude of correlation ranged between +.17 to -.53. Second, only role stress

variables, i.e., inter-role distance correlated significantly with area of social relations. Locus of

control relates to persistence in distance education (Student, 1997). Studies (Dille & Mezack,

1991) have found that students with an internal locus of control are more likely to persist in

distance education than those with external locus of control.

A study by Paul Norman, Paul Bennett, Smith and Simon169 (1998) on a representative sample of

11,632 people completed a questionnaire measuring health locus of control, health value and a

number of health behaviors as part of the 1989 Health in Wales Survey. Measures of smoking,

alcohol consumption, exercise and diet were combined to form a health behavior index,

representing key 'lifestyle' indicators. In line with predictions, scores on this measure were

positively associated with internal health locus V of control scores, and negatively associated

with scores on the chance and powerful others dimension. Classifying respondents according to

Wallston and Wallston's (1981): health locus of control typology revealed that 'pure internals'

performed the most health behaviors. Some evidence was found to suggest that health value

moderates the relationship between health locus of control and health behavior, although overall

the health locus of control construct was found to be a weak predictor of health behavior. The

results are discussed in relation to the need to consider other expectancy beliefs when predicting

health behavior.

A Study by Farmer & Ricky Joe170 (1989) examines the relationship of the competitive

dimension to perceived locus of control among surfers. Fifty individuals were surveyed in and

around Wilmington, North Carolina and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. A moderate non-linear

relationship of locus of control was found.

According to Robert P. Vecchio171 (1981), Blacks tend to be more external in their locus of

control than whites. Internal locus of control is related to job satisfaction. Finally, locus of

control does not moderate the relationship between occupational prestige and job satisfaction.

Kiran Rao, Subba Krishna and Prabhu172 (1990) in their study observed that the locus of control

orientation was not found to play a significant role in the experiencing and perception of stressful

life events.

58

Asha Shukla173 (1995) studied the causal attribution of success and failure by internally

controlled and externally controlled subjects under effort and chance conditions. The sample

consisted of 200 female postgraduate students. The main findings were that internal subjects do

not attribute more to internal causes as compared to externals. Subjects attribute to external

factors more in effort condition. Subjects attribute success more to internal factors in comparison

to failure where as they attribute failure more to external factors. Interaction of locus of control

and chance/effort conditions does not influence performance attribution.

The bulk of research evidence although largely correctional, supports the link between locus of

control and certain stress reactions like anxiety, neuroticism, depression, disease, as well as the

type of coping strategies adapted by people experiencing stress. Despite the variations in the

techniques of measurement used, findings are consistent.

Although there is evidence regarding the adhesive effects of lack of control, from various studies

on the locus of control versus stress relationship has been hardly investigated in the work setting.

Overall, the research on the linkages between self-concept and locus of control and stress on

women has been quite limited.

Salient Findings:

The literature review of empirical studies has revealed a number of consistent trends in the

findings despite the methodological differences and drawbacks.

The literature on general life stressors convincingly demonstrates the impact of person related

events on the individual stress reactions. But, life stress on current scales occurs with very low

frequency particularly those that entail major adjustments. However, it has been concluded that it

is just one out of a number of potential stressors.

A bibliographical survey of various role stress studies have highlighted that role stress had a

negative correlation with job satisfaction, approach mode of coping, perceived need satisfaction,

morale, job management, personal adjustment, social relations etc. Many studies have shown

positive correlation between ORS measures and externality and symptoms of mental ill health.

Very few studies have been made to study the role stresses experienced by samples in different

professional groups.

59

In the area of individual demographics relationship of stress with demographic variables like age,

experience, marital status, education, sex, family system etc. have been studied. Overall,

consistent and inconclusive findings have been reported in this area.

The personality stress linkage has been consistently established with reference to self-concept

and locus of control. With reference to causality of self-concept and locus of control there is

some prospective evidence available, which seems to indicate that self-concept and locus of

control could be an underlying factor influencing the stress reaction.

The review has thrown up a number of deficiencies:

There is a need to study the incidence of stress in different types of work settings, in order to

understand the impact of various settings on stress.

It is a known fact that employees in general and BPO call centre employees in particular

experience more stress. Many studies have been undertaken to study the impact of stress in

general on the total population but not many studies have been conducted on the occupational

stress experienced by BPO call centre employees.

A number of stressors have been found to be linked to stress. However, the relative importance

of the different stressors has not been established. This is very important in determining the level

or degree of stress experienced by the individuals and the level at which intervention strategies

should be aimed at.

Thus, keeping in view the complex work environment in Indian organizations, and the multi

-racial and multi-lingual composition of the work force, there is a tremendous scope for research

studies that can be conducted on the causes and consequences of work stress.

60

REFERENCES

Chapter I

1. Selye H., The Stress of Life, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956

2. Tabler’s Cyclopedia Medical Dictionary

3. T. A. Beehr and J.E. Newman, “Job Stress, Employee Health, and Organizational Effectiveness:

A Facet Analysis, Model, and Literature Review,” Personnel Psychology, Winter 1978, pp. 665-

699

4. Topper, E. F. (2007), Stress in the Library, Journal of New Library, 108(11/12): 561-564.

5. Nelson and Quick (1994), Organisational Behaviour Foundations: Realities and Challenges, West

Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN.

6. Rees, C. J. and Redfern, D. (2000), Recognizing the Perceived Causes of Stress – A Training and

Development Perspective, Journal of Industrial and Commercial Training, 32(4): 120-127.

7. Ornelas, S. and Kleiner, B. H. (2003), New Development in Managing Job Related Stress,

Journal of Equal Opportunities International, 2(5): 64-70.

8. Miller (1979), p.12

9. Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S. & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and

consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 17. (4), 6 18-629

10. Ivancevich and Matteson, Stress and Work, p. 96.

11. Beehr, T.A. (1998), Research on Occupational Stress: An Unfinished Enterprise, Journal of

Personnel Psychology, 51(5): 835-844

12. Bland, J.M. (1999), A New Approach to Management of Stress, Journal of Industrial and

Commercial Training, 31(2): 44-48

13. Selye, H. (1987), Stress Without Distress, Transworld, London.

14. Hausman, A. (2001), Variation in Relationship Strengths and its Impact on Performance and

Satisfaction Business Relationship, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 16(7): 660-16.

15. Varca, P. E. (1999), Work Stress and Customer Service Delivery, Journal of Services Marketing,

13(3): 229-241.

16. http://www.lifepositive.com

17. Gottlib B., (Ed.), "Social Networks and Social Support", Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.

18. Cooper, C.L. and Cartwright, S. (1994), Healthy Mind; Healthy Organization – A Proactive

Approach to Occupational Stress, Journal of Human Relations 47(1):455-71.

19. Varca, P. E. (1999), Work Stress and Customer Service Delivery, Journal of Services Marketing,

13(3): 229-241

20. Ornelas, S. and Kleiner, B. H. (2003), New Development in Managing Job Related Stress,

Journal of Equal Opportunities International, 2(5): 64-70.

21. Selye H., The Stress of Life, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956

22. Schore, Allan (2003). Affect Regulation & the Repair of the Self. New York: W.W. Norton.

23. http://www.professionaldoordealer.com

24. Schabracq, M. J. and Cooper, C. L. (2000), The Changing Nature of Work and Stress, Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 15(3): 227-42.

25. Murphy, L. R. (1995) Occupational Stress Management: Current Status and Future Directions, in

Cooper, C. L., Roussean, D. M. (Eds),Trends in Organizational Behavior, pp.1-14, John Wiley,

Chichester.

26. McHugh, M. (1993), Stress at Work: Do Managers Really Count the Costs, Journal of Employee

Relations, 15(1): 182-32.

27. Christo, B. and Pienaar, J. (2006), South Africa Correctional Official Occupational Stress: The

Role of Psychological Strengths, Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1):73-84.

28. Manshor, A.T., Rodrigue, F. and Chong, S.C. (2003), Occupational Stress Among Managers:

Malaysian Survey, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(6): 622-628.

29. Johnson, S.J. (2001), Occupational Stress Among Social Workers and Administration Workers

within a Scoail Services Department, unpublished MSc. Dissertation, University of Manchester

Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester.

30. Midgley, S. (1996). Pressure Points (managing job stress), Journal of people Management, 3(14):

36.

31. Mark, L.F., Jonathan and Gregory, D.K. (2003), Eustress, Distress and Interpretation in

Occupational Stress, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(7):726-744

32. CIPD: http//www.cipd.co.uk/surveys

33. Wheatley, R (2000) Taking the strain: A survey of managers and workplace stress. London:

Institute of Management.

34. Doherty, N and Tyson, S (1998) Mental well – being in the workplace: a resource pack for

management, training and development, Sudbury: HSE Books.

35. Health and Safety Executive (2000) work related stress information pack. Sudbury: HSE Books.

36. Smith, A, Johal, S and Wadsworth, E (2000) The scale of occupational stress, the Bristol stress

and health at work study. Sudbury: HSE Books.

37. Whiteman et al (1985), P. 301

38. Conorolly and Saunders (1988), p.11

39. Lazarus R., "Psychological Stress and Coping Process", NY, McGraw Hill, 1966.

40. Terry A. Beehr, “The Current Debate about the Meaning of Job Stress,” Journal of

Organizational Behavior Management, Fall/Winter 1986, pp 5-18.

41. Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L. & Hurrell, J. L, Jr. (1997). Preventive stress

management in organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

42. Matteson, M.T. & Ivancevich, J. M. (1982). Managing job strength and health New York: The

Free Press

43. Kristina Orth-Gom'er (Karolinska Institute, Stockholm), Margaret A., Chesney (University of

California, San Francisco School of Medicine) and Nanette K. Wenger "Women, Stress, and

Heart Disease" Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta (1994).

44. Hursey K.G., Holroyd K.A., Penzien D.B., and Hoim J.E., "The Influences of Pain State on

Psychological Reactivity of Tension and Headache", Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Volume 25 (2),79-84, 1985.

45. Passchier J., "Psychological Characteristics of Migraine and Tension Headache Patients",

Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 125(5), 1985

46. Trave H.C., Gottwald A., Henderson P.T., "Non-verbal Expressiveness and EMG Activity in

Tension Headache Sufferers and Controls", Journal of Psychosomatic Research.29(4),375-

381,1985.

47. Verma N., "Life Stress, Social Support and Coping in Individuals with Psychological

Distress", Ph.D. Thesis, Banglore University, Banglore, 1989.

48. Holahan & Moos (1985)

49. Jenny Firth-Cozens, “Why Me? A Case Study of the Process of Perceived Occupational Stress,”

Human Relations, Vol. 45, No. 2, 1992, pp. 131-142.

50. Gottlib B., (Ed.), "Social Networks and Social Support", Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.

51. Trist (1977), p.1

52. Jean Bureau (1983), p.3

53. Ford, R. N. (1979). Why jobs die and what to do about it. New York: American Management

Association.

54. Rehana Ghadially and Pramod Kumar., "Stress, Strain and Coping Styles of Female

Professionals', Indian Journal Of Applied Psychology, Volume 26(1), 1-8, 1990.

55. Bern D., "Self Perception Theory", in L.Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology (vol.6), NewYork: Academic Press, 1972.

56. Prakash G.P., "Occupational Stress, Strain and Coping in University Faculty Members", Indian

Journal of Psychology, 65 (1-4), 37-43,1990.

57. Srikanth Reddy V., and Ramamurti P.V., 'The Relation Between Stress Experience on the

Job, Age, Personality and General Ability", Psychological Studies, Volume 36, No. 2, 1991.

58. Pestonjee D.M., Stress and Coping, The Indian Experience, New Delhi, Sage India Publications,

1999.

59. Prabhu G.G., Research Review, 1989. Clinical Psychology, Nimhans Journal 8, 101-109, 1991

60. Sharma S., "Stress and Anxiety", in T.Pandey (Ed) Psychology in India: The State of Art

Volume, 1 (191-248), New Delhi, Sage Publications, 1988.

61. Schmalo A.H., and Engel G., "The Giving Up - Given Up Complex," Archives of General

Psychology, 26,130,1967.

62. T.H. Holmes and R.H. Rahe, “Social Readjustment Rating Scale,” Journal of Psychosomatic

Research, Vol. 11, 1967, pp. 213-218.

63. Grant I, Kyla G.C. et al " Recent Life Events and Diabetes in Adults," Psychosomatic

Medicine, 36, 121, 1974.

64. Rabkin J., and Struening E., "Life Events, Stress, and Illness", Science, 194, 1013-1020, 1976.

65. Sarson I.J., Johnson, and Siegel J., "Assessing the Impact of Life Changes: Development of the

Life Experience Survey", Journal for Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 932-946, 1978.

66. Rabkin J., and Struening E., "Life Events, Stress, and Illness", Science, 194, 1013-1020, 1976.

67. Lazarus R., and Cohen J., "Environmental Stress, in I. Altaian and J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.). Human

Behavior and the Environmental NY, Plenum, 1977.

68. T.H. Holmes and R.H. Rahe, “Social Readjustment Rating Scale,” Journal of Psychosomatic

Research, Vol. 11, 1967, pp. 213-218.

69. Mechanic D., "Discussion of Research Programs on Relations Between Stressful Life Events and

Episodes of Physical Illness", in B.S. Dohrenwend and B.P. Dohrenwend (Eds.). Stressful Life

Events. NY, Wiley, 1974.

70. Pearlin and Schooler 1981

71. Holmes T., and Masuda M., "Life Change and Illness Susceptibility", in B.S. Dhorenwend and

B.P. Dohrenwend (Eds.). Stressful Life Events. NY, 1974.

72. Fairbank D., and Hough R., "Cross-cultural Differences in Perception of Life Events", in B.S.

Dohrenwend and B.P. Dohrenwend (Eds.). Stressful Life Events and their Contexts. NY, Prodist,

1981.

73. Gersten J., Langner T., Eisenberg J., and Orzek L., "Child Behavior and Life Events",

Undesirable Change or Change per se", in B.S. Dohrenwend and B.P. Dohrendend (Eds.),

Stressful Life Events and their Contexts, NY, Prodist, 1981.

74. Paykel E., Myers J., Dienelt M., Klerman G., Lindenthal J., and Pepper M., "Life Events and

Depression: A controlled study", Archives of General Psychiatry, 21, 753-760, 1969.

75. Ross C, and Mirowsky I, "A Comparison of Life Events Weighting Schemes: Change,

Undesirability, and Effect-proportional Indices", Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 20, 166-

177, 1979.

76. Vinokur A., and Selzer M., "Desirable versus Undesirable Life Events: Their Relationship to

Stress and Mental Distress., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,32,329-337.

77. Lazarus R., and Cohen J., "Environmental Stress, in I. Altaian and J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.). Human

Behavior and the Environmental NY, Plenum, 1977.

78. Dohrenwend B.S., Krasnoff L., Askenasy S., and Dohrenwend B.P., "Exemplification

of a Method for Scaling Life Events", The PERI Life Events Scale, Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 19, 205-229,1978.

79. Sarason I.G., Johnson J.H., and Siegal J.M., "Assessing the Impact of Life Change: Development

of the Life Experiences Survey", Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978.

80. Lazarus R., "Psychological Stress and Coping Process", NY, McGraw Hill, 1966.

81. Lazarus R., and Launier R., "Stress Related Transactions Between Person and Environment, in L.

Pervin and M.Lewis (Eds.), Perspective in International Psychology. NY, Plenum, 1978.

82. Kobasa S.C., "Stressful Life Events, Personality and Health: An Inquiry into Hardiness", Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 1-11, 1979.

83. McFarlane A., Norman G., Streiner D., Roy R., and Scott D., "A Longitudinal Study of the

Influence of the Psychosocial Environment on Health Status" A Preliminary Report, Journal of

Health and Social Behavior, 21,124-133,1980.

84. Mathews K., and Glass D.C., "Type A Behavior, Stressful Life Events, and Coronary Heart

Disease, in B.S. Dohrewend and B.P. Dohrenwend (Eds.). Stressful Life Events and their

Contexts. NY, Prodist, 1981.

85. Johnson J., and Sarason I., "Moderator Variables in Life Stress Research", in I. Sarason and C.

Spielherger (Eds.). Stress and Anxiety, Vol. 6. NY, Halstead. 1979.

86. Cohen S., and Mckay G., "Social Support, Stress and the Buffering Hypothesis: A Theoretical

Analysis", In A. Baum, J.E. Singer and S. Taylor (Eds.). Handbook of Psychology and Health.

Hilsdale N.J. Eflbaump, in Press, 1981.

87. Evans G.W., Palsane M.N., and D'Souza R., "Life Stress and Health in India" Indian

Psychologist, 2 (2), December 1983

88. Rao V., and Nammalvar M., "Life Changes and Depressive Disease. Indian Journal of

89. Satija K., Nathawal S., and Shah S., "A Comparative Study of Life Events in Psychiatric

Patients with High and Low Depression", Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the

Indian Psychiatric Society, Madras, 1982.

90. Singh G., Kaur D., and Kaur H., "Development of a Stressful Life Events Scale" (Unpublished

manuscript), Patiala, Department of Psychiatry, Government Medical College, 1981.

91. Wig N., Menon D., and Chawla H., "WHO Study of the Impact of Life Events on Short Term

Prognosis of Schizophrenia" (Unpublished manuscript), Chandigarh: Department of Psychiatry,

Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, 1982.

92. Coelho G.V., Ahmed P.I., and Yuan Y., (Eds.). Uprooting and Development: Dilemmas of

Coping with Modernization. New York, Plenum, 1980.

93. Shumaker S.A., and Stokols D., "Residential Mobility: Theory, Research and Policy", Journal

of Social Stress, 38,1-171, 1983.

94. Holmes T., and Rahe R., "The Social Readjustment Rating Scale", Journal of Psychometric

Research, 4,189-194, 1967.

95. Shejwal B.R., "Stressors Among College Students", University of Poona, Pune. 1984a.

96. Jahan M., and Hasan Q., "A Comparative Study of Stressfulness of Certain Life Events for

Indians and Americans," Advances in Psychology, 2 (1). 1-6,1987

97. Shejwal B.R., and Ram U., "Sex Differences in the Perception of Stressful Life Events

Threatening Personal Attachment". Paper presented at the seminar on Stress, University of

Poona, Pune, 1983.

98. Kumari H., and Prakash I.J., "Life Stress and Mental Health: A Study of Age and Sex

Differences", Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 2 (2), 103-7. 1986.

99. Agrawal M., and Naidu R.K., " Impact of Desirable and Undesirable Events on Health, Journal

of Personality and Clinical Studies, 4 (1), 53-62, 1988.

100. Lazarus R., and Cohen J., "Environmental Stress, in I. Altaian and J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.). Human

Behavior and the Environmental NY, Plenum, 1977.

101. Pealim L., and Schooleer G., "The Structure of Coping", Journal of Health and Social Behavior,

22, 227-356, 1981.

102. Vadra P.P., and Akhtar S., A study of Extra – Organizational Stress, Paper presented at National

Seminar on Anxiety, Stress and Depression in Modern Life, Patiala, November, 1989

103. Mc Ghee G.W., Ferguson C.E. and Seers A. (1989), “Role conflict and role ambiguity: Do the

scales measure these two constructs!”, Journal of Applied Psychology,4 (October), 815-818.

104. Jackson S.E., ans Schuler R.S.,(1985), A Meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on

role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behaviour and Human

Decision Processes, Vol.36,P.16-78.

105. Bedeian A.G.., Burke B.G., Moffett R.G. (1988),”Outcomes of Work-family Conflict among

married male and female Professionals, Journal of Management, Vol. 14(3),P.417-424.

106. Leigh J.H., Lucas G.H.Jr., and Woodman R.W.., (1988), “Effects of perceived organizational

factors on role stress, Job attitude relationships, Journal of Management, Vol.14 (1), P. 42-58.

107. Teas R.K.(1983), Supervisory behavior, role stress, and the job satisfaction of Industrial sales

people. Journal of Matketing research, Vol.20(1),P.84-91.

108. Madhu K., Anand RaoT.V., and Rao A.N., " Role Stress: Differential Influences of Some

Antecedent Factors", Psychological Studies, Volume 35, No. 1,1990.

109. Fischer CD., and Gitelson R., "A Meta analysis of the correlates of Role Conflict and

Ambiguity", Journal of Applied Psychology, 68,320-333, 1983.

110. Ravi Kumar R., and Madhu K., "Managerial Role Conflict, Certain Trends in Research".

SENDOC Bulletin, 111,Managerial and Behavioral Sciences, 11, 1-11, 1983.

111. Banton M., "Roles: An Introduction to the Study of Social Relations", New York: Basic Books,

Inc., 1965.

112. Ruddock Ralph., "Roles and Relationships", London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.

113. Pareek U., Interrole Exploration, in J.W Pfeiffer and J.E. Jones (Eds), The 1976 Annual

Handbook for Group Facilitators, Lajolla, California: University Associates, 1976.

114. Park R.E. (1926),”The concept of position in sociology”. The American Sociological Society,

Vol.20,P.1-14.

115. Kahn R.I., and Quinn R.P., "Role Stress: A Framework for Analysis," in A. McLean (Ed),

Mental Health and Work Organizations, Chicago: Rand McNally, 50-115,1970.

116. Kartz, D and R.Kahn. The Social Psychology of organization. New York, Wiley, 1966.

117. Merton R.K., "Social Theory and Social Structure", Glencoe: Free Press, 369, 1957.

118. Kahn R.L., Wolfe D.M., Quinn R.P., Snoek J.D., and Rosenthal R.A., "Organizational

Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity", New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.

119. Apte V.A., "Role of Some Cognitive Factors in Marital Conflict", Unpublished Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of Poona, Pune. 1984.

120. Mittal Uma., "A Study of the Relationship between Perceived Need Satisfaction and Role

Stress", M.Phil. Dissertation, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, 1988.

121. Vadra P.P., and Akhtar S., "A Study of Extra - Organizational Stress", Paper Presented At

National Seminar on Anxiety, Stress and Depression in Modern Life, Patiala, November, 1989.

122. Jasmine R., "A Comparative Study of Private and Public Sector Blue-Collar Employees on Job

Related Stress", Unpublished M.Phil Dissertation, Calicut University, Calicut, 1987.

123. Pestonjee D.M., and Singh G.P., "Organizational Behavior Issues for Managers and Systems

Analysts." Working Paper No.660, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, 1987.

124. Sharma T., "Differential Effects of Organizational Climates on Job Satisfaction, Sense of

Participation, Alienation and Role Stress", Ph.D. thesis, Gujurat University, Ahmedabad,

1987.

125. Dwivedi R.S., (1989) "Some Correlates and Clusters of Organizational Role Stress among

Public Sector Personnel in India", Cited in Pestonjee, 1992.

126. Ahmad S., BhardWaj A., and Narula S., "A Study of Stress among Executives", Journal of

Personality and Clinical Studies, 1(2) 47-50, 1985.

127. Kaur G and Murthy G.N., "Organizational Role Stress, Coping Strategies and Locus of Control

in a Major Public Sector Industrial Organization, (Unpublished Paper), Banglore University,

Banglore, 1986.

128. Couger J.D., and Zawacki R.A., “Who Motivates EDP Professionals?" Datamation, 24 (9),

116-23, 1978.

129. Pareek U., Role Stress Scale. ORS Scale Booklet, Answer Sheet, and Manual. Ahmedabad:

Navin Publications, 1983c.

130. Pestonjee D.M., " Employee Satisfaction - Dissatisfaction Inventory (ESDI)", in D.M. Pestonjee

(Ed,), Organizational Structure and Job Attitudes, Calcutta: Minerva Associates, 1973a.

131. Singh G.P., "Organizational Climate as Moderator of Role Stress - Job Satisfaction,

Relationship in case of Different Job Categories of Computer Professionals, Ph.D. Thesis,

Gujurat University, Ahmedabad, 1987.

132. Gupta P., "Role Stress, Locus of Control, Coping Style and Role Efficacy: A Study of First

Generation Entrepreneurs", M.Phil. Dissertation, University of Delhi, Delhi. 1989.

133. Srivastava.P.K., and Sinha M.M., "Perceived Role Stress as a Function of Ego Strength and

Job Involvement of Managerial Personnel", Psychological Studies, 28,8-12,1983.

134. Menon N., and Akhilesh K.B., "Functionally Dependent Stress Among Managers, A New

Perspective ", Employee Counseling Today : Vol.6 ISS: 4,16-25,1994.

135. Soumi Mitra Aditya, M.A. M.Phil, Arun K. Sen, M.Sc, Ph.D. "Executives under Stress", Journal

of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, Volume, 19, No. 1-2,1-6,1993.

136. Strein W., "Advances in Research on Academic sSelf-Concept: Implications for School

Psychology", School Psychology Review, 22,273-284, 1993.

137. Rogers C.R., "Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory', Boston:

Houghton- Mifflin Co., 1951.

138. McDavid J.W., and Harari H., "Social Psychology: Individual's, Groups and Societies".

Haorper and Row, 1968.

139. Markus H., "Self-schemata and Processing Information About the Self, Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78, 1977.

140. Rosenberg M., "Conceiving the Self." New York: Basic Books, 1979.

141. Purkey W., "An Overview of Self-Concept Theory for Counselors", ERIC Clearinghouse on

Counseling and Personnel Services, Ann Arbor, Mich. (An ERIC/CAPS Digest: ED304630),

1988.

142. Franken R., "Human Motivation", (3rd Ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.,

1994.

143. James W., " Principles of Psychology, New York: Henry Holt., 1890.

144. Branden N., “The Power of Self-Esteem", Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.,

1992.

145. Turner J.C., "Social Categorization and Self-Concept: A Social Cognitive Theory of Group

Behavior" in EJ Lowler (Ed), Advances In-Group Progress: Theory and Research, Vol.2,

Greenwich, CT: Jai Press, 1985.

146. Franken R., "Human Motivation", (3rd Ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.,

1994.

147. Rogers C.R., "Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory', Boston:

Houghton- Mifflin Co., 1951.

148. Super D.E., "Psychology of Careers". New York: Harper, 1957.

149. Gilbert L.A., "Measures of Psychological Masculinity and Femininity: A Comment on Gadd,

Glass and Arnkoff, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 163-166,1985.

150. Helmreich R.L., Spence J.T., Beane W.E., Lucker G.W., and Matthews K.A., "Making it in

Academic Psychology: Demographic and Personality Correlates of Attainment." Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 896-908, 1980.

151. Keyes S., and Coleman J., "Sex - Role Conflicts and Personal Adjustment: A Study of British

Adolescents", Journal of Youth and Adolescence,12(6),443-57, 1983.

152. Rotter J.B., "Social Learning and Clinical Psychology", Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall,

1954.

153. Srivasthava A.K., and Krishna A., "Moderating Effect of LOC on the Relationship of

Occupational Stress and Job Stress", Journal of Psychological Researches, 36 [2] 53-58, 1992.

154. Averill., In S. Folkman., [1984] "Personal Control, Stress & Coping Processes: A Theoretical

Analysis", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology - 46, [4]; 839-852, 1973.

155. MC Combs B., "Meta Cognition and Motivation in Higher Level Thinking", Paper Presented at

the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, EL,

1991.

156. Lundberg U., and Frankenhaeuser M., "Psychological Reactions to Noise as Modified By

Personal Control Over Noise Intensity", Biological, Psychology, 6, 51-59, 1978.

157. Thornhill M.A., Thornhill G.J., and Youngman M.B., "A Computerized and Categorized

Bibliography on Locus of Control", Psychological Reports, 36, 505-506, 1975.

158. Wallston B.S, Wallston, K.A., Kaplan G.D., and Maides S.A., "Development and Validation of

the Health Locus of Control (HLC) Scale", Journal of the Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

1976.

159. Morelli G., Krotinger H., and Moore S., "Neuroticism and Levenson's Locus of Control Scale",

Psychological Reports, 44, 153-154, 1979.

160. Molinari V., "Locus of Control", Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University,

1979.

161. Marshall P.S., "Multidimensional Locus of Control and Psychological Adjustment in a Semi-

Rural Group of Women", Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Colorado State University, 1979.

162. Butterfield E.C., "Locus of Control, Test Anxiety, Reactions of Frustration and Achievement

Attitudes." Journal of Personality, 32, 335-370, 1964.

163. Anderson C.R., "Locus of Control, Behaviors and Performance in a Stress Setting: A

Longitudinal Study", Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 446-451, 1977.

164. Tanck, R.H., and Robbins P.R., "Assertiveness, Locus of Control and Coping Behaviors used to

Diminish Tension", Journal of Personality Assessment, 396, 1979.

165. Andrisani P.J., and Nestel G., "Internal- External Control as a Contributor to and outcome of

Work Experience ", Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 156-165, 1976.

166. Kobasa S., "Stressful Life Events, Personality, and Health", An Inquiry into Hardiness, Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11, 1979.

167. Pestonjee D.M., and Singh U.B., "Locus of Control as Moderator of Role Stress -Satisfaction

Relationship", Working Paper No. 402, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmebabad,

1981.

168. Paul Norman Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, Paul Bennett

Department of Psychology, University of Bristol, Volume 03 Issue 02 - Publication, Health

Locus of Control and Health Behavior, 1 April 1998.

169. Farmer Ricky Joe M.A., "The Relationship between Locus of Control and Competitiveness

among Surfers", Directed by: Dr. Paul Lindsay. 58,1989.

170. Vecchio Robert P., "Workers' Belief in Internal Versus External Determinants of Success",

Journal of Social Psychology, 114,199-207,1981.

171. Rao K., Krishna S., and Prabhu., "L-C in Relation to Stress & Coping", Psychological Studies,

35[2] 112-117, 1990.

172. Asha Shukla., “A Study of the Role of Locus of Control in Attributing Causes of Success and

Failure", Indian Journal of Psychology, 70 (1&2), 35-39, 1995.