CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The purpose of the research is to identify a relationship of occupational stress and job satisfaction of sewage workers in operations and maintenance in an organisation
The purpose of the research is to identify a relationship of occupational stress and job satisfaction of sewage workers in operations and maintenance in an organisation. This chapter focuses on the main theories about stress, response-based models, transaction based models, theories of occupational stress, theories of job satisfaction, Maslow’s theory of motivation/satisfaction (1943), process theories, occupational stress and demographic factors, organisational stress, satisfaction and demographic factors, motivation and ability, and supportive leadership. This chapter also provides the structure and the content for the whole research based on the literature in the conceptual framework development. The overall occupational stress and job satisfaction as well as supportive leadership study conducted by other researchers are also discussed and reviewed.
Main Theories about Stress
According to Schafer (2000), the theoretical models that have been formulated for interpreting stress help to identify stressors in a particular situation and predicting the possibility of an individual’s adaptation to stressful situation.
Three are the main theoretical approaches for stress, each one interprets stress differently either as a stimulus, as a response or as a transaction.
Stimulus Based Models
In these models the stress is interpreted as a stimulus, a life event or a group circumstances which may awaken normal and / or psychological reactions and may increase the vulnerability of the individual to disease. According to Holmes, there are 43 life events or lifestyle changes, which can cause stress (Holmes 1978). According to this theory, both positive and negative life events are considered stressful. For instance, the scale of stressful life events is used to record the recent stressful experience of the individual, such as divorce, pregnancy, retirement (Holmes 1978). Ever since similar scales have been developed, they should be used with caution, since the extent of stress that is embodied to life events depends on the way in which is interpreted by the individual. Moreover, those scales must have been validated in the age and in the socioeconomic status as well as culturally adapted (Logothetis 1981).
Response Based Models
In those theoretical models, stress is interpreted as a response. The definition of stress as a response was developed and described by Selye, who defined stress as a nonspecific response of the body to any kind of demands applied on it (Selye 1956, 1976).
Selye’s model is called General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS). In order to differentiate the cause of stress from the response, Selye introduced the term ¨stressor¨ so that each factor can cause stress and affect the balance of the individual (Selye 1974, 1978). Selye also mentioned that as stress is a state of the body, it can only observed within the changes occurring in it (Selye 1978). This full response general adaptation syndrome (GAS) is manifested by releasing certain hormones, which resulted in changes in the structure and chemical composition of the body (Selye 1976, 1978). Apart from the adaption of the whole body, it is possible for a portion reaction of the body or of an organ to take place. This response to stress is called local adaptation syndrome – LAS (Selye 1978).
Transaction Based Models
All theoretical models that interpret stress as a transaction are based on the theory of Lazarus, who focuses on the fact that there are differences among people in interpretation of stress as a stimulus or as a response (Lazarus 1995). According to Lazarus, one of the previous theories could exactly explain which factors may lead some people to manage stress properly, while others are not. He also stated that there is a lack in theories into the interpretation of the factors that help some people to adjust for a longer period than others in to a stressful stimulus (Lazarus 1966).
Despite the fact that Lazarus acknowledges certain environmental conditions as causes of stress for many individuals, he points out that people and groups of people differ in sensitivity and vulnerability to certain types of events, as well as in the interpretation and in the respond to those events (Lazarus 1978). For the interpretation of the diversity among individuals that are experiencing similar stressful events, Lazarus’ model is taking into account the cognitive processes that mediate between stimulus and response, as well as the factors affecting these processes (Lazarus 1983).
Lazarus’ cognitive evaluation theory focuses on the individual, the environment and on the simultaneous cognitive evaluation of environmental demands and stimulus response options (Lazarus 1966). According to this theory, external and internal information arrive daily in the neurocognitive level of the body which are interpreted by the process of cognitive evaluation (Folkman ; Lazarus 1988, 1991). Cognitive evaluation is a process of judgment by which, the level of adjustment methods available that each person has is recognised. It includes identifying available resources and options, which will help the person to negotiate with potential or actual demands (Lazarus 1995). Upon the initial requirements’ evaluation, some can be assessed as irrelevant, while others as very stressful or as positive. Stress according to this theory is a process in which requirements outweigh the adaptive capacities of the individual. The requirements can be either external or internal (Lazarus 1983).
In the second stage, the evaluation is about the identification of sources and options that the individual has at his disposal. The reassessment is necessary and is the process of continuous redefinition of cognitive evaluation. Factors that influence the evaluation of the identification can bedivided into intrinsic factors and directly related with the individual. Intrinsic factors can include the intensity of external sources, the directness of conflict and doubt. Factors that are related with the individual are motivations, characteristics, beliefs, cognitive resources and skills (Lazarus & Folkman 1984).
Several occupational stress theories that utilise social systems theory have been developed (Bacharach et al., 1991; Edwards, 1992; Furnham & Schaeffer, 1984; Frone & McFurlin, 1989; Hart & Wearing (1995); Hobfoll, 1989; Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; McGrath 1976).
Karasek and Theorell (1990) viewed the occupational stress as a strategic communication of distress. Toohey, (1993, 1995) has expanded this concept into a model of functional communication. In this model, dissatisfaction at workplace may be expressed through illness behaviour (i.e occupational stress), which is assessed as “a safe and acceptable manner in which to communicate distress” (Toohey, 1995, p 57).
Another approach to understanding occupational stress has been proposed by Hart et al., (1993); Hart & Wearing, (1995); Headey & Wearing, (1992). They challenged the prevailing view of stress by Cannon (1929) Selye (1975) which is based on an engineering model where stress is understood as the force exerted on a structure, which may then show signs of strain in response to that force.
The experience of occupational stress and its concrete manifestation i.e the lodging of a worker’s compensation claims is the functional communication of distress brought about by alienation (Karasek ; Theorell, 1990). In Edward’s (1992) theory, alienation may be understood in terms of thwarted desires, which produce negative emotions such as anger, disillusionment, or the desire for retribution or revenge. Decreased worker morale, in dynamic equilibrium theory (Hart & Wearing, 1995), may be conceptualised as a precursor to alienation if steps are not taken to remedy the morale problem early in the cycle.
The development of this perspective into a model for explicating the antecedent processes of occupational stress based on cybernetics and systems theory has been fore- shadowed, but not yet realised (Cottone & Emener 1990; Cox, 1987; Edwards 1992; Hart & Wearing 1995; Kenny 1995e; Tate, 1992).
Theories of Occupational Stress
The predominant paradigm for understanding the causes of occupational injury and illness is the medical model (Quinlan & Bohle, 1991; Johnstone & Quinlan 1993). Its emphasis on individuals rather than groups on treatment rather than prevention, and on technological intervention are rather than the environmental change. The major criticism of the medical model has been its focus on treating sick or injured workers rather than on producing healthy working environments (Biggins, 1986). The outcome of this approach was to perpetuate the notion that workplace injuries are ‘accidents’ which were not preventable and to locate the blame for the injury in the individual worker or in the hazardous nature of the work (Davis & George, 1993; Ferguson, 1988; James, 1989).
The disciplines tend to focus on the characteristics and behaviours of individual workers and avoid addressing the role that the structure of power and authority in industry play in occupational well-being (Bohle, 1993). The factors such as shiftwork, excessively work demands, and poor working conditions on psychological and physiological stress responses in workers have been revealed (Clegg & Wall, 1990), their impact is predominantly assessed in relation to individual attitudes and behaviour, rather than in relation to the structure of workplaces and the organisation of labour (Quinlan, 1988). The history of psychological theories of occupational stress, generally, has always victims to be blamed. Proponents of these models have variously blamed the job, the equipment, the worker, and management (Cooper, 1995; Kenny, 1995e; Habeck, 1993; Quinlan, 1988; Willis, 1994). Such theories have spawned an enormous amount of research searching for the putative factors responsible for occupational stress. Personality and organisational factors have been identi?ed as the major culprits. The individuals with different personalities will respond similarly to physical threats, but different responses to ego threats are related to personality differences (Eysenck, 1988).
Work Adjustment Theory (Rounds, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1987) is founded on the notion that stable cognitive, behavioural and emotional dispositions underpin work adjustment. Similarly, Headey & Wearing (1992) found that enduring personality characteristics, such as neuroticism and extraversion, determine people’s daily work experiences, use of coping strategies, and levels of psychological distress and well-being. Extraversion has been positively correlated with subjective well-being (Costa ; McRae, 1980), while introversion and neuroticism are associated with increased stress (Fontana ; Abouserie, 1993), emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (Piedmont, 1993). Hobfoll (1994), reacting to what he perceives to be the current over-emphasis on environmental factors, has urged a re-consideration of the role of personality in the etiology of occupational stress. In similar vein, Roskies, et al., (1993) concluded that “personality can cushion as well as aggravate the impact of occupational stress”. Negative affectivity, for example, has been associated with interpersonal con?ict (Spector ; O’Connell 1994), negative emotions (Chen & Spector 1991), psycho-logical distress, physical symptoms (Watson et al., 1986), and job strain (Decker & Borgen, 1993). The relationship between role stress and role distress has been found to be moderated by a range of personality characteristics including intolerance of ambiguity, dependency, strong af?liation needs, low risk propensity (Siegall & Cummings 1995), and high self-focused attention (Frone, et al., 1991). On the positive side, humour and optimism can signi?cantly moderate the relationship between daily hassles, self-esteem maintenance, emotional exhaustion and physical illness (Fry, 1995). On the other hand, the empirical support for such moderating effects has been mixed (Frone & McFarlin, 1989). The literature is replete with evidence that personality characteristics are notoriously dif?cult to modify (McRae & Costa, 1994). The personality may also be de?ned as a function of coping style (Eysenck, 1988); consistent with a systemic framework, coping behaviors will also be in?uenced by the sources of occupational stress (O=Driscoll & Cooper, 1994) and the resources and external support available for dealing with them (Hart & Wearing, 1995). In two reviews of occupational stress, Cooper (1983; 1985) summarised and categorised six groups of organisational variables such as intrinsic factors to the job, relationships at work, roles in the organisation, career development, and organisational structure and climate, as well as home and work interface.
Dissatisfaction with life, daily stress, neuroticism and hostility have been found to be signi?cant risk factors for interpersonal con?icts at work for both men and women (Appelberg, et al.,1991). Responses arising from a psychological frame-work have focused on tertiary and secondary interventions. Tertiary interventions include individual counselling, stress management programs, employee assistance programs, and workplace mediation for con?ict resolution (Appelberg et al., 1996). Secondary interventions include training and education (Mackay & Cooper, 1987; Bohle, 1993). Reynolds (1997) reported that individual counselling improved psychological well-being while organisational level interventions did not. Nevertheless, Bohle (1993) had stated that, in general, interventions of this nature imply that the problem of stress lies primarily with the individual, that the responsibility for change consequently lies primarily with workers, and that organisations are only responsible for assisting individual workers to change.
Job Stress Theory
Robbins Work Stress Model
According to Robbins and Judge (2010), this model is divided into two parts which are potential sources and consequences. There are three potential sources of stress namely environmental factors, organisational factors and personal factors. There are three consequences such as physiological symptoms, psychological symptoms and behavioural symptoms (Robbins and Judge, 2010).
Environmental factors are divided into three types which are economic uncertainty, political uncertainty and technological uncertainty. Economic uncertainty occurs as a result from changes in the business cycle. Political uncertainty will not cause stress especially to employees in countries with stable political systems but countries with political threats and changes will definitely create stress. Other than that, technological changes tend to cause stress to people because human’s skills and experience will no longer in use due to innovations.
Organisational factors are divided into three types such as task demands, role demands and interpersonal demands. Task demands are connected to a person’s work, for example the task variety, degree of autonomy and the degree of automation. Role demands are related to the physical force placed on people as function of certain role of that person held in the organisation. It includes role conflicts, role overload and role ambiguity.
Interpersonal demands are defined as a type of stress created by other workers. An organisation with poor interpersonal relationship among their employees would cause towards stress.
Personal factors are divided into three types which are family problems, economic problems and personality. Family problems include marital difficulties, breaking of relationship children problems which cause stress to employees. Economic problems relate to problems in handling finance where some people are not good in managing their income and exceed their earning capacity. In addition, personality could also create stress on job because it is a person’s basic disposition.
There are few consequences of stress where the symptoms are divided into three categories namely physiological symptoms, psychological symptoms and behavioural symptoms. Physiological symptoms are headaches, high blood pressure and heart disease, while psychological symptoms are such as anxiety, depression and decrease in job satisfaction. Behavioural symptoms include productivity, absenteeism and turnover.
According to research done by O?Leary, Wharton and Quinlan (2009), an attitudinal variable that reflects towards how people love their job is generally known as job satisfaction. Employee health and job performance appear to have a positive relationship with job satisfaction. In addition, a good relationship with office colleagues and friends, control over annual leave taken, sufficiency of resources and clinical autonomy are those that job satisfaction depends on, as viewed by many physicians. Moreover, in order to better meet the needs of doctors and patients, reliable measure of physician job satisfaction clarifies the physicians’ behaviour in clinical, economic and organisational domains together with re-engineering the medical workplace.
Meanwhile, increase in physician turnover or leaving the career, decrease in continuity of caring for the patients, increase in cost of medical system and increase of patient dissatisfaction were the results that bring to dissatisfaction (O?Leary et.al, 2009).
According to Crossman and Abou-Zaki (2003), there is an impact of demographic characteristics for example age, gender, tenure and education on job satisfaction based on many studies conducted by researchers. The results of relationships between demographic characteristics and job satisfaction tend to be a mix of positive and negative relationships or an interaction between the variables.
According to Groot and Brink (1999), women and men have different experiences of job satisfaction. Women tend to be happier when compared to men in doing their job. After controlling a number of variables, women appear to have high job satisfaction compared to men. According to Droussiotis and Austin (2007), for business owners and also top managers, the most crucial factor that relates to job satisfaction is dissatisfaction among the employees, which consequently give rise to high absenteeism and high employee’s turnover. Therefore, the most important factor that relates to the issue of job satisfaction is the organisation commitment itself.
According to a research by Singh ; Loncar (2010), among the three of pay satisfaction, job satisfaction and intention of turnover, study show the main influence on the turnover among the nurses are both the pay satisfaction and job satisfaction itself. Thus, the study indicates that every angle of the salary level, structure benefits and raises are to be taken into account in addressing this issue.
Referring to study by O?Leary et.al (2009), cultural and organisation differences are the reason that are particularly difficult of international comparison in job satisfaction. The strong predictors of satisfaction tend to be the professional relations, opportunities for continuing medical education, patient care and intellectual stimulation whereas the strong predictors of dissatisfaction were time available for family, friends or leisure, workload, administrative burden and work-related income and prestige.
Referring to the study done by Linz (2003), job satisfaction relates to worker’s performance among the United States workers but in Russia. In order to improve the performance of the firms without having to incur large additional costs, the firm managers whether domestic or foreign need to find ways to encourage job satisfaction among their workers. Firms will gain among the Russian workers, if the job satisfaction among the Russian workers is interpreted into high labour productivity or lower labour turnover.
According to Crossman and Abou-Zaki (2003), health of an organisation depends on job satisfaction which known as one criterion that needs to take into account. The effective of the service totally depends on human source. Therefore, job satisfaction reported by the workers produce the quality of service by the workers. In addition, according to Linz (2003), a positive job evaluation generally derived from job satisfaction brings along a positive effect. This is a positive emotional state which derived from function of a person works appraisal or working experience (Linz, 2003; Crossman and Abou-Zaki, 2003). A study has been done among the Russian workers where the aim was to measure the factor that increases probability of high job satisfaction among the employees (Linz, 2003).
The study put on focus on four specific things which are firstly, using the multiple measures to see the different dimension of job satisfaction in order to recognise Russian workers reported level of job satisfaction. Second is capturing the difference in employee’s characteristics where this includes both objective and subjective factors in order to detect the variation in job satisfaction. Third is determining the relation between job satisfaction together with selecting intrinsic job characteristics and also extrinsic job characteristics. Finally is to evaluate the link of job satisfaction with organisational commitment alternative measures (Linz, 2003).
Next, in the study by Linz (2003), among the United States of America workers, the intrinsic and extrinsic job characteristics tend to highly correlate with job satisfaction.
Factors that influence the feelings or perceptions of the employees together with motivating them to work better every day is an intrinsic job characteristic. For the Russian employees, the positive correlation tends to appear if there is high probability in experiencing the intrinsic job characteristics at their current workplace. In addition, the outcome that is created by fulfilling a job for example, job security, pay and promotion, is the reflection of extrinsic job characteristics (Linz, 2003).
According to Crossman and Abou-Zaki (2003), interaction of variables such as task characteristics, organisational characteristics and individual characteristics that influences job satisfaction is assumed by situational theories. In addition, before commencement of employment, individual appraise the situational characteristics while the situational occurrences are appraised afterwards. The combination of both situational characteristics and situational occurrences is a function of overall satisfaction.
Based on the study by Crossman and Abou-Zaki (2003), factors such as work itself, pay, promotion, supervision and co-workers are the key factors in job satisfaction and are commonly proposed as the situational characteristics. Employee involvement and organisational commitment are the other variables that also give an impact on job satisfaction.
According to the study done by O?Leary et.al (2009), in term of physician’s job, rewards, other people, nature of job and organisational context were the facets commonly accessed in research even though multidimensional construct is a physician’s job satisfaction. The concept of job characteristics was the main theoretical framework of the study. Affective and behavioural job outcomes were also related to the skill variety, task significance, feedback, autonomy and friendship opportunities for the model.
Some studies showed that the relationship between job satisfaction and performance where it is imprudent to believe that high job satisfaction leads to high performance. The relationship is still questionable. Some studies suggested a weak link between satisfaction and performance where others tend to indicates potential relationship. However, it cannot be ascertained whether high performers being satisfied with their works or job satisfaction leads to high performance because the cause and effect determinants are still not clear.
According to study done by Oshagbemi (2000), the concept of job satisfaction is a general attitude towards an object which is a job. Job satisfaction is viewed as an emotional state that is positive that came from a person’s evaluation of job experience (Oshagbemi, 2000). The leadership and high job satisfaction are known to be related between the supervisor and co-workers are defined in positive team member interaction as shown by the previous research that done by Bartolo and Furlonger (2000).
According to Carmeli, Shalom, Weisberg (2007), career is viewed as a stage that reflects from one phase of life to another. It is also defined as design of work experiences of a person (Carmeli et. al, 2007). A high in career performance could be achieved by implementing a career plan accordingly. The relationship between career strategy and career satisfaction is the professional enhancement which mediates it (Lee, 2002).
According to Shain (1999) in his study, absenteeism, high insurance claims, loss of efficiency and, productivity are the results that are related to the stress in the workplace.
According to the study by Fairbrother and Warn (2003), work load and role-based factors such as role ambiguity, role conflict and lack of power may be aspects that are linked towards stress in working life. The occupational outcome of job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee withdrawal behaviour have been associated with the stress itself. This will at the end cause negative relationship such as the intention to leave the job and thus contribute to high employee turnover. According to the O?Leary et.al (2009), based on the Canadian oncology physicians, they believe that major sources of job stress seem to be the increasing workloads whereas patient care and contact are meant to be the greatest source of job satisfaction (O?Leary et. al, 2009).
Theories of Job Satisfaction
According to Robbins (1998), satisfaction is the contentment felt after a need is fulfilled and Shajahan and Shajahan (2004) stated that it is a general attitude that is determined by job factors (i.e., salary, work, supervision etc.), individual or personal characteristics (demographics) and other social and group factors. Whereas, Newstrom (2007) reckoned that people bring with them certain drives and needs that affect their performance therefore, understanding how needs stimulate performance and how rewards on such performance lead to the job-satisfaction is indispensable for the managers.
Of any kind, theoretical method is used to study about the job satisfaction, majority of the researchers have found two groups of variables: environmental factors and personal characteristics of individuals (Saif-ud-Din, Khair-uz-Zaman, & Nawaz., 2010; Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001; Shajahan & Shajahan, 2004; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Luthans (2005) reckoned that, job satisfaction is a popular research subject for the researchers in organisation and management studies mainly, organisational behaviour.
Even though majority of the discussions about theories of job-satisfaction start with Maslow’s theory of ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ (1943) however, the story started with the idea of ‘scientific movement’ or ‘Taylorism’ by Frederick W. Taylor (1911), which treats the people as ‘Economic-man’ where ‘Money’ is the prime motivator for job-satisfaction. This opinion was criticised by Elton Mayo ; Associates (1924) during ‘Hawthorne Studies’ about the nature of human being.
According to Weihrich ; Koontz (1999), they found that various factors contribute to the motivation and satisfaction of workers comprising of personal morale, positive interrelationships, management realised on the understanding of individual and group behaviour through interpersonal skills like motivating, counselling, leading and communicating.
Maslow’s Theory of Motivation/Satisfaction (1943)
Weihrich & Koontz, (1999) mentioned that, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is “the most widely mentioned theory of motivation and satisfaction”. Luthans (2005) pointed that, next higher level of need has to be activated in order to motivate and thereby satisfy the individual.
Abraham Maslow argued that an individual’s motivational requirements could be ordered as a hierarchy. Maslow (1943) identified five levels of need hierarchy:
1. Physical needs: (food, clothing, shelter, sex),
2. Safety needs: (physical protection),
3. Social: (develop close associations with others),
4. Esteem/Achievement needs: (prestige given by others), and
5. Self-Actualisation: (self-fulfilment and accomplishment through personal growth)(Maslow, 1943)
Table 1 summarises the theories falling under content theories.
Table 1: Content Theories
Maslow’s Theory of Motivation/Satisfaction (1943) Maslow highlights the elements of an overall theory of human motivation and views human motivation in terms of a hierarchy of five elements, namely physiological needs (food, clothing, shelter, sex), safety and security needs (physical protection), belongingness and love needs (develop close associations with others), esteem needs (prestige given by others) and the need for self-actualisation (self-fulfilment and accomplishment through personal growth). According to axioms of Maslow’s hierarchy, workers in modern societies (technologically advanced societies) have basically satisfied their physiological, safety and belonging needs. As such, they will be motivated by the needs for self-esteem, esteem of others, and then self-actualisation, provided that these needs are present at work and the job itself should be meaningful and motivating.
Herzberg’s Two Factor theory (Herzberg et al., 1959) This theory identifies certain factors as job satisfiers (motivators) and job dissatisfies (hygiene factors). Herzberg argued that motivators (achievement, advancement, recognition and responsibility) are related to the job contents while hygiene factors are concerned with the job context, where these factors do not motivate/ satisfy’ but rather prevent dissatisfaction’ and these factors are contextual namely administration, company policy, interpersonal relations, supervision, salary, supervisor, and working conditions. The Herzberg Motivator- Hygiene theory is an extension of the work of Maslow.
Theory X and Theory Y (Douglas McGregor, 1960) McGregor observed how managers handle employees and proposed that the manager’s view about the nature of human being is founded on a group of assumptions, namely Theory X (negative view of Human-being) and Theory Y (positive view of Human-being). He also found that these assumptions influenced managers’ behaviour towards their subordinates about different employees (Robbins, 1998).
Theory of Needs – Achievement Theory (McCelelland ; David, 1961) This theory postulates that some people have a compelling drive to succeed and therefore strive for personal achievement rather than the rewards of success themselves. This theory focuses on the achievement motive, also known as achievement theory’, and is founded on achievement (the drive to excel and achieve beyond the standards of success), power (the desire to have an impact, to be influential, and to control others) and affiliation motives (the desire for having friendly and close interpersonal relationships).
Alderfer’s ERG theory (1969) Alderfer explored Maslow’s theory and linked it with practical research. He regrouped Maslow’s list of needs into three classes of needs: Existence (physiological and security needs), Relatedness (social and esteem needs) and Growth (self-actualisation), thus named it the ERG theory. He also suggested a range of needs rather than hierarchical levels or two factors of needs.
Process theories are more concerned with ‘how the motivation takes place?’ Similarly, the concept of ‘expectancy’ from ‘cognitive theory’ plays dominant role in the process theories of job-satisfaction (Luthans, 2005). These theories strive to explain how needs and goals are fulfilled and accepted cognitively (Perry et al., 2006). Table 2 details the process theories.
Table 2: Process Theories
Equity theory (J. Stacy Adams, 1963) This theory suggests that employees balance what they put into the job (input) against what they get from the job (outcome) and compare this input- outcome ratio with other workers. It is primarily a motivation theory which highlights some important issue regarding the causes of satisfaction /dissatisfaction. Under this theory, a person’s satisfaction is determined by his perceived equity of his input-output balance compared to that of others’ input-output balance.
Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (1964) This theory is based on three major variables namely valance (strength of an individual’s preference for a particular output), expectancy (probability that a particular effort will lead to a particular first-level outcome) and instrumentality (the degree to which the first-level outcome will lead to a desired second-level outcome). This theory challenges management to demonstrate employees that extra effort will reap commensurate reward.
Goal Setting theory (Locke, 1968) Locke (Late 1960s) asserted that intentions can be a major source of motivation and satisfaction (Shajahan ; Shajahan, 2004). Some specific goals (intentions) lead to increased performance. Specific hard goals produce a higher level of output than generalised goals of do your best’. Furthermore, people will do better when they get feedback on how well they are progressing toward their goals. These feedbacks identify the discrepancies between what they have done and what they want to do. Moreover, Robbins (2005) finds that challenging goals with feedback work as motivating forces.
Porter/Lawler Expectancy Model (1968) Porter and Lawler stress that this theory is about the mental processes regarding choice and explain the processes that the individual undergo to make choices. In this model, effort (force or strength of motivation) does not lead to performance directly, but it is rather moderated by the abilities and traits’ and the role perceptions’ of an employee. However, the abilities and traits and role-perceptions’ of employee will affect the efforts used for performance. Motivation is found to be influenced by numerous interrelated cognitive factors, for example motivation results from the perceived effort-reward probability. While Weihrich ; Koontz (1999) found that satisfaction does not depend on performance but is rather determined by the probability of receiving fair rewards, Luthans (2005) discovers that perceived equitable rewards determine job-satisfaction of the workforce.
Job Characteristics Theory (Hackman ; Oldham, 1975-76) This theory proposes three psychological states of a job holder which result in improved work performance, internal motivation, and lower absenteeism and turnover. The motivated, satisfied, and productive employee is one who experiences meaningfulness of work performed, experiences responsibility for work outcomes, and has knowledge of the results of the work performed. According to Hackman and Oldham, there are five core dimensions of job characteristics, namely
1. Autonomy (the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the processes to be used to carry out the task),
2. Skill variety (the degree to which the job holder make use of different skills and talents to carry out a range of diverse activities),
3. Task feedback (the individual is being given clear and direct information about the effectiveness of his or her performance based on the work activities done),
4. Task identity (the degree of which the job requires the completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work that has been assigned to the individual and this will enable the employer to have visible outcome of his or her employee), and
5. Task significance (the degree to which the job has a significant impact on the work or lives of other people either in the immediate organisation or in the external environment).
Workplace stress is a vague concept that has come to mean a number of things. It is defined as the “characteristic of the job environment which makes demands on (tax or exceed) the abilities or resources of the people for meeting the demands or which may otherwise threaten the attainment of people’s need” (Abramis, 1994, Ismail ; Ismail, 2006). Numbers of researchers have reported the influence of age and/or gender on role stress (Bhattacharya ; Basu 2007, Dasgupta ; Kumar 2009). Srivastav (2007) specific kind of problem leads to role stressor which is encountered by the role occupant during the course of his/her role performance. Once the problem is identified in form of role stressor(s) at the organisational level is useful for identifying the most important problem(s) to be solved for the organisation and offers excellent opportunities for enhancing organisational performance and effectiveness (Srivastav 2007).
Richardson Astrid, Burke ; Ronald (1991), examined the relationship among occupational stress, job satisfaction and stress outcomes. The results indicated that sources of stress was largely related to time pressure, however the ability to help patients and relationship with colleagues were the major sources of satisfaction. Early theorists (e.g. Likert, 1961; Mayo, 1933; McGeorge, 1960) implied that employee well-being is related to performance but does not explicitly hypothesise about the appropriate level of analysis (e.g. individual, group or organisation). In relation to this importance, a considerable amount of research has been conducted on topics ranging from job satisfaction (e.g. Judge, Bono ; Locke, 2000, Spector ; Fox, 2004) to life satisfaction (e.g. Veenhoven, 1996) as well as considering the link between the two (e.g. Ernst ; Ozeki, 1998). Job stress is the recognized problem in health care workers (Burbeck, Coomber, Robinson, Todd, 2002; Podsakoff, LePine, and LePine (2007) and doctors are considered to be at particular risk of stress and stress related problems.
Occupational stress has been extensively studied in the form of occupational demand, occupational role stress and its impact on job dissatisfaction (Thakaran, 1992) anxiety (Singh and Mohanty, 1996), negative and positive indicators of mental and physical well-being (Mishra ; Somani, 1993; Sankhyan, 2001). Study by Verma, (2008) says that occupational stress was found to be significantly related to job satisfaction; the greater the stress the lower the satisfaction. According to Correa and Ferreira (2011) ,occupational stress such as role conflict, work overload, interpersonal difficulties, work-family conflict, work instability, lack autonomy and pressure of responsibility showed that the role conflict and work overload had a negative impact on job satisfaction. The role of conflict showed a negative impact on the positive emotions at work, while the pressure of responsibility interfered positively in it. The work overload interfered positively in negative emotions at work while the pressure of responsibility interfered negatively. The type of contract did not affect significantly any one of the psychological reactions to occupational stress (Correa and Ferreira, 2011). In another research, Linzer, Marks, Martha, Doughlas, Jeffery, Mc Murray ; Julia (2002) studied the assessed predictors of stress in US physicians and found that job demand such as solo practice, work hours, time pressure, and less control of workplace hassles, lack of support by colleagues for balancing work and home worsened by work demands were the major predictors of stress (Jones,2006, Greguras ; Diefendorff, 2010).
According to Halkos and Bousinakis ( 2010), stress is known as unpleasant emotions condition that are experienced by individuals related to work and the emotions is unstable if one did not find a solution to it. Consequently, there will be emotional changes in dealing with it.
Chen and Silverthorne (2008) emphasized that the stress can be described as an individual’s reaction towards their job and it is different from general stress which may also be job and organisation related.
According to Halkos and Bousinakis (2010) where satisfaction can be a factor that controls stress. Employee who satisfied with their job will have a good impact on the productivity. Satisfaction and productivity bring up the existence of cause effect relationship.
Zeffane and McLoughlin (2006) stated that, the factor that contributes towards worker’s absence, turnover and poor performance tends to be the high workplace stress.
Based on Johnson et.al., (2005), the increase of the likelihood of person experiencing negative stress outcome has been linked with the existence of a number of work related stressors.
Elangovan (2001) in the research pointed out that, stress is strongly related to satisfaction where high stress will lead to low satisfaction. Satisfaction is also strongly associated with commitment where low satisfaction will cause low commitment. Job stress is usually known to be connected with the work attitudes and turnover intentions. An individual tend to resign from a job when job stress exceed a certain limit (Elangovan, 2001).
In Western Australia, approximately one quarter of their employees suffer occupational stress from their job which leads to dissatisfaction (Savery and Luks, 2001). According to a study done by Holdsworth and Cartwright (2003), mental distress and also excess chronic disease are related to the low levels of empowerment in working life. There should be increasing awareness on psychological and physical well-being that comes together with decreasing sickness, absenteeism and turnover rates which can ultimately increase the levels of empowerment among the employees in the organisation (Holdsworth and Cartwright, 2003).
Occupational Stress and Demographic Factors
In this section, the literature concerning occupational stress is reviewed briefly. Based on it, hypotheses are formulated. The literature review primarily focus on the effects of the four individual characteristics (age, income, length of service and hierarchical level) on the five dimensions of occupational stress (unhealthy relationship at work, ineffective leadership style, difference in perceptions among staff, lack of control at work, job pressure and lack of advancement opportunities) and four health effects of stress (lack of confidence and concentration, lack of positivity, disturbed mind and body aches and pains).
The demographic factors and their influence on the dimensions of occupational stress have been studied by various researchers in the past (Beena and Poduval, 1992; Akinnusi, 1994; Bhatia et al., 2008). Santamaria (2000) found no significant correlation between nurses’ stress levels and demographic or professional background. However, significant correlations were detected between nurses’ personality profiles and stress levels. Further, Laal and Aliramaie (2010) revealed significant differences between gender and job experience with negative response to stress, viz., the males with low job experience of less than 5 years were more annoyed due to stress. Singh and Sehgal (1995) identified that men experienced greater role erosion than women and single career husbands had higher wellbeing but working women displayed higher irritability, anxiety and depression. In addition to this, some studies revealed that female participants exhibited greater anxiety, work-related stress and psychosocial stressors as compared to men (Arnten et al., 2008; Sharma et al., 2010).
Researches by Marwat and Khan (2010) and Chandriah et al. (2003) reported more stress levels in young age groups as compared to their counterparts. Also, Sharma et al. (2012) revealed that the respondents of age more than 30 years suffered from less role stress than the respondents of age less or equal to 30 years. However, Bhatnagar and Bose (1985) did not confirm that age gives a person the strength to cope with stressors or that advancing age makes a person more nervous. Preuss and Schaeke (1998) found no relationship between age, experience and level of perceived strain. Goldenberg and Waddlle (1990) found that age of the respondent, number of years of full-time teaching and tenure status were most often significant factors relating to the level of stress. Further, Pandey (1997) also identified the positive but non-significant relationship of age with all the stressors except role ambiguity.
Another study by Stacciarini and Tro´ccoli (2004) identified the relationship between job stress and demographic variables, viz., gender, age, religion, marital status, institution, job grade, salary, graduate studies and any concurrent job and found no significant differences in job stress based on the aforesaid demographic data, though, gender contributed significantly toward differences in psychological and physical ill health.
Though, Sharma et al. (2012) revealed high stress among high income groups. In addition, Sharma et al. (2008) brought into light that role stress is more with the banking employees who earn a monthly salary of more than Rs. 20,000. The reason attributed in the study was that banks forced directly or indirectly their employees to work for long hours. This forceful long working hours in the case of private sector banks was done in order to economise the cost. Furthermore, the study identified that the majority of the respondents falling in the category of below 40 years of age group were more concerned about the present enjoyment of their hard-earned money. The study also revealed that employees with higher salary were six times more susceptible to role stress as compared to those who earning relatively less salary.
According to Gillespie et al. (2001), stress level changes over time and staff members experience fluctuating levels of stress throughout the year, associated with periods of higher and then lower workload. Lai et al. (2000) found that when gender, education, age, designation and work experience in the organisation are controlled, factors such as work pressures, uncertain job prospects and professionalism contribute significantly to the overall experience of work stress of insurance agents. The study further identified that ‘work demands’ were the major contributor in the organisational stress and work experience (length of service) in the organisation tended to enhance job satisfaction, which ultimately reduced the experience of stress.
However, Janice (1996) found that teachers in UK experienced high level of stress and stress experience was irrespective of the length of teaching experience. Also, Laal and Aliramaie (2010) concluded that nursing staff with 5-9 years of working experience coped effectively with stress than those with less job experience.
Researches have also highlighted the relationship between occupational stress and various hierarchical levels in the organisations. In case of academicians, Pestonjee and Azeem (2001) pointed out that lecturers have reported higher level of role stress as compared to readers and professors. In another study on university staff, Gillespie et al., (2001) found that the academic staff reported moderate to very high level of work stress while general staff reported a low level of stress. Another study found that lower level employees were exposed to more performance stress than higher level employees (Biswas, 1998), while Coetzer and Rothmann (2006) witnessed high occupational stress and physical and psychological ill health for insurance sector managers and professionals than clerical employees. Moreover, Gaertner and Ruhe (1981) found that junior staff accountants experienced more stress than senior staff accountants due to the role under load, role ambiguity, lack of advancement opportunities and lack of participation in decisions. Modekurti and Chattopadhyay (2008) indicated that nurses are prone to higher organisational role stress than people working in other professions considered in the study.
Organisational stress is the response that workers may experience when faced with work demands and pressures that are beyond or not matched to their knowledge, skills, and abilities, often challenging their ability to cope (Leka, Griffiths ; Cox, 1999). According to Greenberg and Baron (2008), stress can be defined as the pattern of emotional states and psychological reactions occurring in response to demands from within or outside the organisation. These demands, known as stressors (or awful situations that create extreme demands on an individual), lead to stress reactions when they are cognitively appraised as being threatening, and beyond one’s control. Oosthuizen & Van Lill (2008) define stress as “the reaction or response to excessive psychological and physical demands”. It is important to note that organisational stress is restricted to the work environment, caused by work-related aspects and has consequences for the work context (Viljoen and Rothmann, 2009).
In the institutions of higher learning, stress is reported to be prevalent due to the overload of demands and under supply of response mechanisms (Rothman & Barkhuizen, 2008). Rothman (2003) has raised a concern about one perspective of stress at work, and this is the fact that it could cause illness. Organisational stress interferes with happiness at work, therefore stress levels need be reduced in order for organisations to have happy and productive workers (Rothmann et al., 2011).
Stress is an awful situation which in most cases employees find intolerable, and each case or situation involves external events which are beyond the control of the individual (Greenberg, 2011). Due to stress, administrators at universities have been reported to be a misfit, and often have poor coping ability, and most of the time they consider changing jobs (Blix & Lee, 1991). In a study conducted at a university in Arizona, academic administrators also reported some feelings of unhappiness in their jobs (Khairuddin & Makhbul, 2011). Khairuddin and Makhbul (2011) further assert that stress generally occurs when the individual is unable to respond adequately or efficiently to the stimuli of his/her environment or when it is only achieved by affecting the organism’s health. Organisational stress is, then, the imbalance between the individual’s hopes and the reality of his or her working conditions or, in other words, the perceived difference between the professional demands and the individual’s ability to carry them out. All the factors mentioned above could lead to stress.
Organisational stress occurs when the equilibrium amongst the cognitive, emotional, and environment system is disturbed by independent or external factors (Rothmann. 2008; Viljoen ; Rothmann, 2009; Grobler et al., 2011). A research paper by Lourel, Ford, Gamassou, Gueguen and Hartmann (2008) discusses the importance of work-life balance and how the imbalance between work life and home life is related to the perceived organisational stress.
An important fact to note is that a couple of studies conducted on organisational stress have yielded results pointing out job insecurity as the most significant source of stress, followed closely by work relationships and work overload (Khairuddin ; Makhbul, 2011).
Jick and Payne (1980), stated that, there has been a significant growth in researchers’ interests in the concept of social psychological stress in work organisations. There are a number of explanations and justifications for this growth. First, this concept has been related to measures of organisational effectiveness such as absenteeism (Gupta and Beehr, 1979), quitting (e.g. Johnson and Graen, 1973) and job dissatisfaction (e.g. Miles, 1976). Second, it was implicated in the theology of chronic ailments like coronary heart disease (Matteson and Ivancevich, 1979; House, 1974) and psychiatric disorders (Jenkins, 1976; Kasl, 1974, 1978). It has been estimated that almost half of all Americans suffer from some form of stress-induced disorder (Syrne, 1974; Kasl, 1978). Moreover, there is also a number of books and articles dealing with work-related stress such as (Beehr and Newman, 1978; Newman and Beehr, 1979; Kasl, 1978; Cooper and Marshall, 1978).
According to Appley and Trumbull (1967), stress is conceived to be an interaction. Second, the interaction takes place between an employee and the work environment to which s/he is exposed.
Job Satisfaction and Demographic Factors
Examinations about job satisfaction have been conducted in many different areas and for many different occupations. For example, research in the field of law in many western countries (including Greece) has shown that lawyers are quite satisfied with their working conditions and their job itself, but not satisfied with their salary (Seron, 2007; Dinovitzer & Garth, 2007; Salman & Platsidou, 2011).
Other researches in the field of education have indicated that secondary school teachers in Europe experience high levels of job burnout and low levels of job satisfaction. For example, the research of Crossman & Harris (2006) indicated that teachers who work in independent and privately-managed school settings experience higher job satisfaction than those who work in foundation schools. As it seems, job satisfaction of teachers is an emotion which can be affected by school type, but there is no significant difference between teachers of different age, gender or years of experience. However, the research of Sunbul (2003) had revealed that the age of high school teachers is significantly predictive of their feeling of personal accomplishment.
In the field of bank employees, the investigation of Singh & Kaur (2009) showed that the level of job satisfaction among universal bank employees was most highly affected by the factors of supervision, cooperation with peers, payment and other facilities, and delegation of authority. Allam (2007) collected data from 300 bank manages and clerks and found that the experience of job satisfaction and job commitment of managers and clerks was mostly affected by personal accomplishment, while the job involvement of clerks is also likely to be affected by emotional exhaustion. Additionally, Malllik & Mallik (1998) found that bank managers were more job involved than clerks and sub staff, but experience less job satisfaction.
Moreover, the study of Shaw et al. (2000) revealed that job satisfaction of bank employees was strongly and negatively related to frustration and intention to quit of individuals with positive affectivity. In addition, Walther (1988) found that perceived communication adequacy in multi-branch banking organisations affected employee’s productivity and job satisfaction as well. Furthermore, Clinebell ; Shadwick (2005) found that employees of branch banks experienced lower level of job satisfaction, job involvement, organisational commitment and partial inclusion, and higher levels of role ambiguity and role conflict than employees of main office banks. Sowmya ; Panchanatham (2011) revealed that salary and promotion were the most influencing factors of job satisfaction among the banking sector employees in India. The next important factor was considered to be organisational aspects, and dissatisfaction with supervisory behaviour is likely to lead the employee to negligent behaviour and absenteeism.
Age and Job Satisfaction
Investigating the effect of age on job satisfaction, Choudhury ; Gupta (2011) collected data from employees from different industries, like Public Sector Units and Pharmacy, with median age of 25 years. According to the results, the feeling of job satisfaction and pay satisfaction is more likely to affect the turnover intention of employees under 25 years than those who are over 25 and relatively experienced. The researches of Falcon (1991), Oleckno ; Blacconiere (1993) and Lee ; Wilbur (1985) had revealed that job satisfaction increased with age, as older employees were more satisfied with the extrinsic features of their job.
Other researches, like the one of Blackburn ; Bruce (1989) had shown that job satisfaction is correlated with age, education and length of tenure. Al-Ajmi (2001) stated that young managers might share the opinion that their expertise is not appreciated and that aged generations enjoy an almost complete monopoly on important jobs. Thus, they tend to be less satisfied with their job, as job satisfaction is influenced by the factor of having a highly prestigious job and earning enough money.
Gender and Job Satisfaction
Jung et al. (2007) used data from the Korean Income and Labor Panel Study in order to investigate the feeling of job satisfaction of public and private employees. They came to the conclusion that job satisfaction was affected by the employees’ gender in terms of working environment and wages. On the contrary, the research of Hill et al. (1985) revealed that female bank employees were as dissatisfied with their job aspects as male employees and thus they were as prepared to take industrial action.
Another study of Asha (1994) showed that job satisfaction among women employees was related to their perception of family environment. The study of Warr (1992) revealed that job satisfaction was negatively related to the educational level of female employees, while Clark eta al. (1996) revealed that married and widowed employees experienced higher job satisfaction levels than single and divorced employees.
Educational Level and Job Satisfaction
An employee’s educational level has been found to be another factor that is likely to influence the feeling of job satisfaction. Many researches, like the ones of Clark et al. (1996) and Zou (2007) showed that highly educated employees were more likely to experience lower levels of job satisfaction, while others, like the ones of Phil (2009) and Wae (2001) indicated the opposite. Other researchers, like Green (2000) claim that there is no significant difference in job satisfaction among employees of different levels of education.
In the study of Bader et al. (2013), employees of secondary level education showed higher job satisfaction levels than employees holding an undergraduate degree. One possible explanation which is given is that highly educated employees are more likely to have higher expectations thus feel more dissatisfied with job opportunities.
Years of Experience and Job Satisfaction
Several researches have shown that the years of experience both in a certain institution and in general are likely to affect the feeling of job satisfaction of employees. Wae (2001), for example, indicated that bank employees with long working experience were more satisfied with their job than employees with short experience. Others, like Phil (2009) and Green (2000) found no statistically significant difference. In the recent study of Bader et al. (2013), employees with 1 to 10 years of experience showed lower levels of job satisfaction than employees with 21 to 40 years of experience, while employees with 11 to 20 years of experience showed lower levels of job satisfaction than employees with 21 to 30 years of experience.
Position Held and Job Satisfaction
An employee’s position in a certain institution is considered to be highly correlated with the feeling of job satisfaction. Studies like the ones of Reilly et al. (1993) and Howard & Frink (1996) revealed that managers are more likely to experience higher levels of job satisfaction than clerks and other staff, as they are provided with more opportunities for growth. However, the study of Bader et al. (2013) showed that high level managers, department managers and staff experience approximately the same job satisfaction levels.
2.8 Motivation and Ability
The ingredients of motivation lie within all and the internalised drive towards the dominant thought of the moment (Rabby 2001). Nevertheless, Panagiotakopoulos (2013) concluded that factors affecting staff motivation at a period where the financial rewards are kept to the least leads to stimulate employee performance. Park (2010) found, monetary incentive acts as a stimulus for greater action and inculcates zeal and enthusiasm toward work, it helps an employee in recognition of achievement. Likewise Beretti et al. (2013) discussed that monetary incentives used to build a positive environment and maintain a job interest, which is consistent among the employee and offer a spur or zeal in the employees for better performance.
As for Dysvik and Kuvaas (2010), intrinsic motivation was the strongest predictor of turnover intention and relationship between mastery-approach goals and turnover intention was only positive for employees, low in intrinsic motivation.
Kuo (2013) stated that, a successful organisation must combine the strengths and motivations of internal employees and respond to external changes and demands promptly to show the organisation’s value. However, Barney and Steven Elias (2010) found that with extrinsic motivation there exist a significant interaction between job stress, flex time, and country of residence.
Smith and Rupp (2003) stated that performance is a role of individual motivation; organisational strategy, and structure and resistance to change, is an empirical role relating motivation in the organisation. Likewise, Luthans and Stajkovic (1999) concluded that advancement of human resources through rewards, monetary incentives, and organisational behaviour modification has generated a large volume of debate in the human resource and sales performance field.
According to Orpen (1997) better the relationship between mentors and mentees in the formal mentoring program, the more mentees are motivated to work hard and committed to their organisation. Likewise, Malina and Selto (2001) conducted a case study in one corporate setting by using balance score card (BSC) method and found out that organisational outcomes would be greater if employees are provided with positive motivation.
The establishment of operations-based targets will help the provision of strategic feedback by allowing the evaluation of actual performance against the operations-based targets. Goaldirected behaviour and strategic feedback are expected to enhance organisational performance (Chenhall 2005). Kunz and Pfaff (2002) stated no substantive reason to fear an undermining effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Decoene and Bruggeman (2006) in their study developed and illustrated a model of the relationship between strategic alignment, motivation and organisational performance in a BSC context and find that effective strategic alignment empowers and motivates working executives. Aguinis et al. (2013) stated that monetary rewards can be a very powerful determinant of employee motivation and achievement which, in turn, can advance to important returns in terms of firm level performance.
Vuori and Okkonen (2012) stated that motivation helps to share knowledge through an intra-organisational social media platform which can help the organisation to reach its goals and objectives. Den and Verburg (2004) found the impact of high performing work systems, also called human resource practices, on perceptual measures of firm performance.
Ashmos and Duchon (2000) recognizes that employees have both a mind and a spirit and seek to find meaning and purpose in their work, and an aspiration to be part of a community, hence making their jobs worthwhile and motivating them to do at a high level with a view to personal and social development.
Pantouvakis and Bouranta (2013) indicated job satisfaction as a consequence of physical features and as an antecedent of interactive features. Wickramasinghe (2009) investigated that gender and tenure are significant in job satisfaction measurement.
According to Ramzan, (2013), the level of performance or the ability of work done by the staff will only be achieved if the employees are satisfied by the internal environment of an organisation.
Stress is the result of an action against with a reaction, an emotional and physical response (Hellriegel et al., 1983). In particular, occupational stress is that the inability to deal with pressures in workplace (Ree, 1997), because of the person without the ability to fulfil working requirements and working conditions (Holmlund- Rytkönen and Strandvik, 2005).
.”Stress is a negative reaction towards events that are thought as to tax or exceed individual coping ability”. (Hockenbury, 2003)
Researchers have concluded that organisational stressors have more effect than operational stressors because of the perceived lack of ability to take corrective action (Alexander, et al., 1991; Davey et al., 2001).
Hussain (2010) found that, specific causes of stress at work range from unclear role specifications, high self-expectation and the inability to influence decision making, to clashes with superiors, isolation, poor communication and role conflict. Nevertheless, according to Cohan and Willis (1985), individual differences were found to be important in coping styles since people differed along their ability to personally prioritise demands or rely on social support.
Dweck (1995) explicates how there are differences in learner motivations with one relating to fixed levels of intelligence in which failure is seen as intrinsic to themselves as a lack of ability rather than a lack of effort.
Joshi (2012) reported that of all antecedents to performance, stressors are most unlikely to affect the innate ability e.g. knowledge and skill, thinking style, present with an employee as these are enduring characteristics of an individual.
Job stress will be experienced, when the imbalance between demands of work environment and the individuals’ abilities increases, so at work, stress may be an awareness indicated by ambiguity, conflict and overload arising from the work environment and the characteristics of the individual (Gharib, Jamil, Ahmad, & Ghouse, 2016).
Houtman, Jettinghoff, & Cedillo, (2007) agreed that, work-related stress is a pattern of reactions that occurs when workers are presented with work demands not matched to their knowledge, skills or abilities and which challenge their ability to cope.
Workload refers to the concentration or the amount of assignments and tasks, which employee responsible at work (Ali et al., 2014). This aspect refers to the degree of stress experienced by individuals due to the conception that they are unable to adapt or be active with the amount of work assigned to them (Idris, 2011).
Workload can be classified into: (1) role overload: when individuals are expected to do over than available time, resources and their capabilities, individuals face many expectations from direct boss, subordinates, colleagues, top management, local community and so on (Ammar, 2006). Role overload can be qualitative or quantitative (Trayambak et al., 2012), qualitative takes place when individual does not have sufficient abilities to do work, while quantitative task happens when individual has huge tasks to do or too time shortage to perform them (Conley & Woosley, 2000). (2) Role lower load: when tasks and duties of the role are less than the level of individual capabilities, which generates bored feelings or stress, in both last cases, individuals face job stress, in the first case they may be afraid, tenses and fear not lead their expected duties, and in the second they feel small work or lack of its importance, so this affects job performance and job satisfaction.
Sohail (2015) indicated that, cognitive problems include being unable to concentrate and confine thoughts, having consistent lack of ability to remember, ineffective thinking, less analytical skills, inability to learn, and being easily detracted. Job stress also described by Babatunde (2013) occurs when there are discrepancies between the physiological demands within a workplace and the inability of employees to either manage or cope with such work demands.
The factors such as insufficient time for planning, inability to complete required tasks in the allocated workday resulting in work being taken home, constant interruptions relating to other work demands (i.e., meetings), and unreasonable deadlines (Humphrey, 1998; Sauter & Hurrell, 1999). And such gaps will be resulted to the lack of ability to progress to more complex tasks (Muchinsky, 1997).
Other studies also have indicated that the inability to be involved in decisions that affect one’s work is particularly stressful for most workers (Schaubroeck et al., 1991) and that non- participation in decision making can lead to such negative consequences as lowered self- esteem, job dissatisfaction, and emotional distress for the worker (Beehr ; Drexler, 1986; Dawson, 1989; Spector, 1986).
A study by P. J. de Jong and Den Hartog (2007) found that, different people will view the term leadership differently. Based on majority view, they tend to defined leadership with some basic elements of “group” influence” and “goal”, although there is no ultimate definitions of leadership that exists. Some people believe that leadership is the process of influencing people in achieving the desired outcome.
Leadership is one of the important predictors among the determinants of job satisfaction. The process of influencing people in order to achieve the company’s goal and also directed toward people and social interaction is known as management function of leadership. Studies have shown that leadership and job satisfaction of health care providers is to be positive correlated based on several countries (Mosadeghrad and Yarmohammadian, 2006). Bartolo and Furlonger (2000) pointed that some studies shows that they support that there are relationship between worker’s job satisfaction and the supervisor leadership behavior but there are issues regarding the positive or negative nature of the relationship. Therefore, there are controversy whether the leadership behaviour relates with either low or job satisfaction among the worker (Bartolo and Furlonger, 2000).
According to the study done by Mosadeghrad and Yarmohammadian (2006), the goal and the objective of the company towards achievement depends on the leadership style of the manager and also the manager of the company itself. The productivity, commitment and also the employee job satisfaction can result through suitable or appropriate leadership style by the manager of the company.
Based on P. J. de Jong and Den Hartog (2007) study, transformational leadership, participative leadership and leader-member exchange (LMX) theory was investigated on the relationship between leader behaviour and individual innovation referred by available research. Hypothesis that encourages creativity is transformational leadership. Transformational leadership helps in enhancing creativity of followers where leaders stimulate followers to view problem in new ways together with developing their full potential. There is a mixed results showed by previous studies.
Meanwhile, participative leadership uses various decisions making procedures that examine how far people can influence the leader’s decisions while having the autonomy to design and implement the task on their own. LMX theory involves the social exchange relationship of leaders and employees. In addition, the quality relationship influences outcomes for example, subordinate satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, role conflict, performance, commitment, role clarity and turnover intentions (P. J. de Jong and Den Hartog, 2007).
In addition, interaction of employees with peers in the workplace has impact on employees? innovative behaviour. Employees? work behaviours influences by the powerful source of leaders. Moreover, there is no exception in innovative behaviour (P. J. de Jong and Den Hartog, 2007).
Bringing up the subordinate to perform to their highest capability only relies on the ability of the leader. Management put the respect on the workers, apply honesty and integrity, promote efficiency, and give the employee the right towards an open communication as how those factors are captured (Mosadeghrad and Yarmohammadian, 2006).
According to study by P. J. de Jong and Den Hartog (2007), work is defined less rigidly and has become more knowledge-based. Therefore, employees could use their skills to produce ideas and use that as building blocks for new, better product, services and work processes which by these employees can help to improve the business performance. Most of the practitioners and academics believe that organisational successes are attained from individual innovations. Employees themselves need to be both willing and able to innovate in order to realise a continuous flow of innovations.
According to Arzi & Farahbod (2014) that, the leadership style is known as a crucial determinant of staff’s job satisfaction. Through improving working context of employees, meeting their expertise needs and also assisting them to perform their jobs better are the positive aspects relevant to transformational leadership as a whole (Liu et al, 2003). And Wilkinson and Wagner (1993) stated that, the employees will be stressed to work if the leader demonstrates hostile behaviour and is not supportive of their needs as the employees. Also it was mentioned that if the relationship between employee and leader is negative so it will minimize productivity, maximizes turnover and absenteeism in the firm (Ribelin, 2003; Keashly, Trott, & MacLean 1994).
Scholars such as (Brockner, 1988; Chen & Spector, 1991; DeCremer, 2003) suggested that quality if relationship between employee and leader or its absence has a remarkable impact on self-esteem of employees in job satisfaction and workplace. When the subordinates cannot perform the work so they will select a leader who is able to provide sufficient instructions and guidance for doing the job in the best way possible (Wexley & Yukl, 1984). They will be highly satisfied with those leaders that are more supportive and considerate rather than those who are critical and indifferent with subordinates (Yukl, 1971).
Seashoreand Taber (1975) explained, job satisfaction mostly is impacted by internal organisation environment besides, while the response of members to leaders usually is related to the employee’s characteristics and also leader’s characteristics (Wexley &Yukl 1984).And job satisfaction is a critical and important outcome of having an effective leadership in an organisation (Bass &Avolio, 1994).
The positive behaviour of employee is the context in which staff have job satisfaction and the feeling of more responsibility, commitment and accountability to stay inside the organisation for a long time (Santhapparaja & Alam, 2005).
The findings from many studies demonstrated significant impact of transformational leadership on job satisfaction of subordinates (Wiratmadja et al., 2008; Griffith, 2004; Avolio and Bass, 2004; Antonakis et al., 2003; Bass and Avolio, 1994). Their researches have demonstrated that job satisfaction has crucial impacts on productivity, organisational efficiency, employee relations, turnover, organisational performance and absenteeism (Oshagbemi, 2003; Schroder, 2008; Chen et al., 2006; Okpara et al., 2005; Oshagbemi, 2003; Koustelios, 2001).
Job satisfaction is considered as the most familiar work attitude indicator and a reliable feature to assess an individual’s judgment regarding her/his job experience in an organisation (Dessler, 2004). Hence, job satisfaction is a critical and important outcome of having an effective leadership in an organisation (Bass &Avolio, 1994).
In today era, many leadership studies have been conducted. And according to Sree & Gunaseelan (2016), leadership is the process of providing direction and influencing, and as for supportive leadership is associated with positive follower attitudes and self-confidence. And as for Banai & Reisel (2007), they defined supportive leadership as “helping facilitate goal accomplishment by guiding subordinates to be effective and learn in their roles”.
Path-goal theory, originally developed by Evans (1970) and later modified by House (1971), was designed to identify a leader’s most practiced style as a motivation to get subordinates to accomplish goals. The path-goal theory reinforces the idea that motivation plays an important part in how a supervisor and a subordinate interact and, based on that interaction, the overall success of the subordinate.
Shin et al., (2016) pointed at investigating how team leaders’ supportive role helps the team members to perform their task efficiently. It indicates that individuals’ perceptions of supportive leadership were positively related to their subsequent task performance, and that this relationship was mediated by team commitment. On the other hand, team cooperation mediated the relationship between team-level perceptions of supportive leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour.
Prior to that, Hocine, Zhang, Song, & Ye (2014) had conducted an empirical research on leaders? autonomy-supportive behavior within the organisational context, among the finding is, the employees expect the presence of their leaders to recognise their work achievements.
Shirazi et al., (2016) conducted a research to study the effects of a workshop of supportive leadership behaviour on 110 head nurses working at university hospitals and proving the leadership performance improved among head nurses who participated in the study.
Wu & Parket (2014) undertook an empirical research to analyse how leaders support motivates employees proactive behaviour, mainly for those individuals who have lower attachment security and the result is, individuals high in attachment anxiety especially benefited from leader secure-base support in terms of its effect on role breadth self-efficacy; whereas those who are high in attachment avoidance especially benefited from leader secure-base support in terms of its effect on autonomous motivation.
Khalid et al., (2012) examined the moderating effect of supportive leadership on the relationship between job stress and job performance and the outcome is, the empirical results disclose that supportive leadership has a negative effect on job stress and directly impacts job performance.
Abir & Naqvi (2011) developed a conceptual study to find the effects of supportive leadership as a moderating variable and the relationship of the psychological empowerment and organisational commitment. Hence, the researchers found out that Psychological empowerment is the best solution to facilitate them with the feeling of autonomy and self-drive.
Banai & Reisel (2007) carried out an empirical research to examine the relationships between supportive leadership and job characteristics and workers? alienation in 6 countries (Cuba, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Russia, and the United States). After statistical analysis done, it was found that supportive leadership and job characteristics were found to be related to alienation.
Newton & Maierhofer (2005) investigated the extent that perceived congruence of employee organisational values impacts the supportive leadership- well-being/strain relationship. The empirical results found that higher levels of supportive leadership predicted higher levels of well-being. In addition, the results highlight complexity of relationship exists between leadership styles, person-organisation value congruence, and employee well-being.
Ogbonna & Harris (2000) presented an empirical research evidence of the links between different types of organisational culture (competitive culture, innovative culture, bureaucratic culture and community culture), a range of leadership styles (participative leadership, supportive leadership and instrumental leadership) and organisational performance. The statistical inferences prove that the relationship between leadership style and performance is mediated by the nature of organisational culture. All of the leadership styles analysed are significantly indirectly associated with performance; instrumental leadership is negatively linked while supportive and participative leadership styles are positively related. Besides, supportive and participative leadership styles are positively associated with innovative and competitive forms of culture. These results indicate that the generation of an organisational culture, which is externally oriented, is significantly influenced by the extent to which a leader is supportive of followers and includes followers in decision-making processes.
Summary of Literature
This chapter commences with brief description of occupational stress and job satisfaction as well as related theories of occupational stress and job satisfaction. It includes several literature reviews on occupational stress, job satisfaction, supportive leadership etc. Although some of these articles examined different topics, occupational stress and job satisfaction is a very important attribute which is frequently faced by organisations, Nevertheless, by understand the relationship and between occupational stress and the job satisfaction, measures can be taken to overcome the issues, and the expected results could increase productivity, enhance organisational commitment, lower absenteeism and turnover, and ultimately, increase organisational effectiveness.