During the past decade, the public and private sector organizations have undergone rapid and striking changes due to emergence of globalization, liberalization and increased competition has given rise to high level of role stress among employees in the both sectors. Role stress is a pattern of reactions that occur when workers are presented with work demands unmatched to their knowledge and skills that challenge their ability to cope. Stress occurs in many different circumstances, but is particularly strong when a person’s ability to control demands at work are threatened. Although individual and organizational characteristics play a role in the development of role stress, yet the majority agree that role stress results from the interaction between the worker and the conditions of work. A study was conducted on 200 managers’ equiproportinately drawn from 40 public and private sector organizations in Kolkata, using General Information Schedule and Organizational Role Stress Scale [1]. Findings showed that the nature and distribution of Organizational Role Stress Scale Scores revealed dissimilarities among the four sample groups, and moderate level of organizational role stress was the general characteristic feature of the managers. Some components for organizational role stress in organization showed reportable variation with rank position (senior/junior) of the managers.
Swelling global competition has gripped the corporate world to face innovative challenges and recognize that their own employees can provide them a sustainable competitive advantage. This realization has come up with an amended emphasis on managing of human resources, the driving force behind the survival and accomplishments of any organization. However, in this era of uncertainty, intricacy and change, it is worth giving attention to job stress as it has become an important issue that is gradually becoming a grave problem for employees, employers and the society at large. Originating from workplace, the stress is induced due to roles performed by individuals as employees at workplace have been a critical organizational stressor [
The term Stress is discussed not only in everyday dialogues but has also become an all pervading feature of people’s life in modern world. Dr. Hans Selye said “Without stress, there would be no life” [
Today people are living in the “Age of stress” [
Work-related stress that has bothered organizational thinkers from the 1980s is now acutely bothering the ever-evolving post-global organizations that have digested considerable change, from the contingent environment, for concomitant necessity of organizational survival. This in turn has created the mushrooming growth of opportunities and expectations. The advancing business organizations have become the domain of hyperactive, hyper-competitive and hyper-expecting personnel, with high levels of competition, technological advancements, amplified work demands, diminishing resources, and transformations in the opportunities and competences of employees consequently giving rise to stress that should be effectively managed [
Sociologically roles are the positions in a situation that a person occupies in society to discharge certain expected functions. Role theory suggested that human behaviour is guided by expectations held both by the individual and by other people corresponding to different roles individuals perform or enact in their daily lives. The functionalists perceive a role as the set of expectations that society places on individual, unspoken consensus behavior deemed appropriate and others inappropriate, relatively inflexible and more-or-less universally agreed upon. The interactionist definition of role is more fluid and subtle something that is constantly negotiated between individuals. Organization can be defined as a system of roles [
Role is thus defined as “the position one holds in an organization having a set of functions to perform in response to the expectations of others and his/her own expectations about the role” [
Role is the position occupied by a person as defined by the expectation of the other. Each role is a system of functions and there are two important aspects of an individual’s role that should be considered when examining role stress: 1) Role set, which is the role system in an organization that defines individual roles; 2) Role space, which is the roles people occupy and perform. In an organisational context, role behaviours are the recurring patterns of actions that are considered important for effective functioning in that particular role and in that particular organisation (Biddle, 1986). In performance of that role, there are inherent problems due to which stress is inevitable. This study has used Pareek’s [
1. Inter-role distance (IRD): Stress is experienced when there is conflict between organizational and non-or- ganizational roles, for example, the role of a manager versus the role of a husband.
2. Role stagnation (RS): The feeling of being “stuck” in the same role.
3. Role expectation conflict (REC): Conflicting expectations and demands between different role senders, i.e., superiors, subordinates, and peers in the organization.
4. Role erosion (RE): The feeling that functions that should belong to the respondent’s role are being transformed/performed or shared by others, i.e. when a role has become less important than it used to be, or when the credibility is being shared in the role.
5. Role overload (RO): The feeling that more is expected from the role than the respondent can cope with.
6. Role isolation (RI): Lack of linkages between the respondent’s role and that of other roles in the organization.
7. Personal inadequacy (PI): Inadequate knowledge, skills, or preparation for a respondent to be effective in a particular role.
8. Self-role distance (SRD): Conflict between the respondent’s values/self-concepts and the requirements of his or her organizational role.
9. Role ambiguity (RA): Lack of clarity about others’ expectations of the respondent’s role, or lack of feedback on how others perceive the respondent’s performance.
10. Resource inadequacy (RIN): Nonavailability of resources needed for effective role performance.
Contextually, in a fast-evolving organizational world, stress arising out of technological advancement is globally obliging managers to work under increased pace of managing and handling multitasks pertaining to a technological innovation (new technical artifacts, devices or products), process innovation (new services, programs, products or procedures) or an administrative innovation (new institutional policies, structures or systems), and this is creating new and increased work pressure [
In view of the above, this study aims to ascertain the influence of various determinants of role stress. The next section reviews the literature followed by the methodology adopted. The ensuing sections discuss the results followed by the conclusion and implications emanating from the study.
While literature illustrates that Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal [
However, role ambiguity and role conflict [
Linzer et al. [
However, studies suggested that role stress may result from an intricate interaction between personal characteristics and the work environment [
Role stress is a multidimensional complex phenomenon [
to explore the differences in job-related stress, if any, between public and private sector mangers , based on ten role stressors.
to study the differences in the nature of role stress variables with respect to rank position (senior and junior) of the managers in public and private sector organizations.
Public Sector organizations are a consortium of organizations that have governmental governance (controlled fully/partially by the government), an undertaking where the government rules and policies impinge upon organizational rules of governance, joint venture organizations where the government of a state or the central government jointly float a company with shares holding that govern policy making and investments.
Private Sector organizations are those, private limited companies of Indian origin, Multinational corporations (MNC’s) and other related organizations that have operations in various countries. These organizations are governed by rules and policies formulated according to certain guidelines of the state and central government.
During the past decade, the organizations in India had undergone rapid and striking changes due to emergence of globalization, liberalization and increased competition. That is why the employees are experiencing a high level of stress. Our focus, however, is on Organizational Role Stress (ORS), which measures total role stress.
Managers working in these organizations, include all those who fall in the managerial cadre according to book rules of the concerned organization as designations differed from organization to organizations.
1) Forty organizations (20 public and 20 private) were selected on the basis of the criteria that a) they fulfilled the ISO standards; b) they have had a de-layering/downsizing exercise after the 1991 liberation policy (restructuring of the organization); c) they followed at least two among the following procedural systems: Competency mapping/performance appraisal, business balance scorecard, benchmarking, Kaizen (continuous improvement). 2) Altogether, 200 managers’ equiproportinately drawn from public and private organizations. The sample was also equiproportinately drawn with regard to ranks/ positions (senior or junior) according to designations as per organizational allotments through purposive sampling based on the inclusion criteria of age range (30 - 40 years) and number of years of service (5 - 10 years).
Responses of 200 managers of private- and public-sector organizations were collected and considered through the General Information Schedule and Organizational Role Stress Scale [
Mean, standard deviation, and ANOVA were calculated on the basis of the scores of the abovementioned inventories and scale.
In data collection, negotiation has been made with the organizations and respondents to gain permission in order to conduct interviews. Respondents were informed the purpose of the study. Anonymity was maintained and the data was handled with confidentiality.
Considering the objectives of the study, the analyses of results of ORS were concentrated on two areas:
a) Analysis of the trend and distribution pattern of Organizational Role Stress Scale Scores.
b) Comparative status of Organizational Role Stress Scale Scores of managers both Public and Private sector Organizations.
In order to achieve the objective the total scores of ORS scale with its components-were analyzed and presented in the following table. In order to test the sample characteristics, as well as the nature of tests scores, central tendencies and dispersion were calculated for total scores and has been presented in the following sub-section and (
The values displayed in the
The chi-square test was compiled to measure the nature of divergence from the normal distribution and result revealed the following X2 value viz.
Name of Scores | Total Sample Scores | Public Sector Managers | Private Sector Managers | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Junior | Senior | Combined | Junior | Senior | Combined | ||
Mean | 122.48 | 112.28 | 130.40 | 121.34 | 131.92 | 115.32 | 123.62 |
Median | 126.00 | 114.00 | 135.50 | 121.00 | 131.00 | 119.50 | 127.50 |
Mode | 130.00 | 118.00 | 146.00 | 120.00 | 130.00 | 118.00 | 130.00 |
SD | 19.78 | 18.35 | 22.87 | 22.55 | 13.13 | 15.64 | 16.61 |
Skewness | −0.142 | −0.202 | −0.361 | −0.013 | −0.320 | −0.006 | −0.277 |
Kurtosis | −0.603 | 0.025 | −1.264 | −0.815 | 0.977 | −1.606 | −0.654 |
Enquiry Area | Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD) and Standard Scores (SS) of ORS Scale within: | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Private Sector Managers | Public Sector Managers | Private Sector Managers Junior + Senior 100 | Public Sector Managers Junior+ Senior 100 | Private and Public Sector Total = 200 | |||
Junior Group 50 | Senior Group 50 | Junior Group 50 | Senior Group 50 | ||||
Inter Role Distance (IRD) | M = 11.18 SD = 4.03 SS = 102.16 | M = 9.02 SD = 3.87 SS = 92.61 | M = 11.10 SD = 4.42 SS = 101.81 | M = 11.40 SD = 5.22 SS = 97.39 | M = 10.10 SD = 4.08 SS = 97.43 | M = 11.25 SD = 4.81 SS = 102.51 | M = 10.69 SD = 4.52 |
Role Stagnation (RS) | M = 12.76 SD = 2.98 SS = 105.22 | M = 11.28 SD = 3.09 SS = 96.12 | M = 12.02 SD = 3.59 SS = 100.67 | M = 11.58 SD = 3.21 SS = 97.97 | M = 12.02 SD = 3.11 SS = 100.67 | M = 11.80 SD = 3.39 SS = 99.32 | M = 11.91 SD = 3.25 |
Role Expectation Conflict (REC) | M = 11.66 SD = 2.66 SS = 94.95 | M = 11.38 SD = 4.09 SS = 93.20 | M = 13.44 SD = 3.73 SS = 106.05 | M = 13.40 SD = 4.16 SS = 105.80 | M = 11.52 SD = 3.43 SS = 94.07 | M = 13.42 SD = 3.93 SS = 105.93 | M = 12.47 SD = 3.81 |
Role Erosion (RE) | M = 13.20 SD = 2.91 SS = 104.76 | M = 14.10 SD = 2.88 SS = 110.17 | M = 11.42 SD = 3.75 SS = 94.04 | M = 12.88 SD = 3.36 SS = 102.83 | M = 12.67 SD = 3.01 SS = 101.20 | M = 12.15 SD = 3.61 SS = 98.43 | M = 12.41 SD = 3.32 |
Role Overload (RO) | M = 17.52 SD = 1.75 SS = 139.32 | M = 10.82 SD = 2.88 SS = 94.97 | M = 14.88 SD = 2.22 SS = 121.85 | M = 15.50 SD = 2.84 SS = 125.95 | M = 16.73 SD = 2.66 SS = 134.09 | M = 15.19 SD = 2.56 SS = 123.89 | M = 11.58 SD = 3.02 |
Role Isolation (RI) | M = 11.30 SD = 3.21 SS = 104.08 | M = 9.00 SD = 3.28 SS = 91.55 | M = 9.22 SD = 3.66 SS = 92.75 | M = 12.68 SD = 3.30 SS = 101.61 | M = 10.15 SD = 3.43 SS = 97.82 | M = 10.95 SD = 3.88 SS = 102.18 | M = 10.55 SD = 3.67 |
Personal Inadequacy (PI) | M = 12.96 SD = 3.64 SS = 105.33 | M = 12.50 SD = 4.21 SS = 102.94 | M = 9.82 SD = 3.37 SS = 89.09 | M = 12.44 SD = 3.54 SS = 102.64 | M = 12.73 SD = 3.92 SS = 104.29 | M = 11.13 SD = 3.68 SS = 95.86 | M = 11.93 SD = 3.87 |
Self Role Distance (SRD) | M = 17.66 SD = 1.88 SS = 129.18 | M = 15.80 SD = 2.82 SS = 135.04 | M = 14.94 SD = 3.19 SS = 115.24 | M = 15.90 SD = 3.59 SS = 120.16 | M = 16.62 SD = 2.60 SS = 123.85 | M = 15.42 SD = 3.42 SS = 110.87 | M = 11.97 SD = 3.90 |
Role Ambiguity (RA) | M = 12.38 SD = 3.04 SS = 109.34 | M = 9.64 SD = 3.26 SS = 95.50 | M = 7.84 SD = 3.84 SS = 84.42 | M = 12.24 SD = 3.83 SS = 108.63 | M = 11.90 SD = 3.53 SS = 106.92 | M = 10.04 SD = 4.39 SS = 97.52 | M = 10.53 SD = 3.96 |
Resource Inadequacy (RIN) | M = 11.34 SD = 3.02 SS = 106.70 | M = 9.68 SD = 2.92 SS = 96.49 | M = 7.60 SD = 3.77 SS = 83.70 | M = 12.38 SD = 4.11 SS = 113.09 | M = 10.51 SD = 3.08 SS = 101.59 | M = 9.99 SD = 4.60 SS = 98.40 | M = 10.25 SD = 3.91 |
Groups X2
Public Junior 9.31
Public Senior 13.24
Private Junior 7.36
Private Senior 5.71
None of the values X2 earned a statistically high significance indicating their respective closeness towards normal distribution.
To highlight the relative weight age and variation of influence of the different components of Organizational Role Stress Scale in the different groups of managers, the mean values (of all components) given in the (
It has been observed from
Enquiry Areas of Role Stress Scale | Mean of Sample Group | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Public Sector Managers | Private Sector Managers | |||||||||||
Junior | Senior | Overall | Junior | Senior | Overall | |||||||
Mean | Rank | Mean | Rank | Mean | Rank | Mean | Rank | Mean | Rank | Mean | Rank | |
Inter Role Distance (IRD) | 11.10 | 6 | 11.40 | 10 | 11.25 | 7 | 11.18 | 10 | 9.02 | 9 | 10.10 | 10 |
Role Stagnation (RS) | 12.02 | 4 | 11.58 | 9 | 11.80 | 6 | 12.76 | 5 | 11.28 | 6 | 12.02 | 5 |
Role Expectation Conflict (REC) | 13.44 | 3 | 13.40 | 3 | 13.42 | 3 | 11.66 | 7 | 11.38 | 5 | 11.52 | 6 |
Role Erosion (RE) | 11.42 | 5 | 12.88 | 4 | 12.15 | 5 | 13.20 | 3 | 12.14 | 4 | 12.67 | 4 |
Role Overload (RO) | 14.88 | 2 | 15.50 | 2 | 15.19 | 2 | 17.52 | 2 | 15.10 | 2 | 16.31 | 2 |
Role Isolation (RI) | 9.22 | 8 | 12.68 | 5 | 10.95 | 8 | 11.30 | 9 | 9.00 | 10 | 10.15 | 9 |
Personal Inadequacy (PI) | 9.82 | 7 | 12.44 | 6 | 13.11 | 4 | 12.96 | 4 | 12.50 | 3 | 12.73 | 3 |
Self-Role Distance (SRD) | 14.94 | 1 | 15.90 | 1 | 15.42 | 1 | 17.66 | 1 | 15.58 | 1 | 16.62 | 1 |
Role Ambiguity (RA) | 7.84 | 9 | 12.24 | 8 | 10.04 | 9 | 12.16 | 6 | 9.64 | 8 | 10.90 | 7 |
Resource Inadequacy (RIN) | 7.60 | 10 | 12.38 | 7 | 9.99 | 10 | 11.34 | 8 | 9.68 | 7 | 10.51 | 8 |
ences of 5 stressors, namely Self Role Distance (SRD), Role Overload (RO), Personal Inadequacy (PI), Role Erosion (RE), and Role Stagnation (RS), were prominent among the public sector managers. Similarly, the relative weightage of stressors, namely Self Role Distance (SRD), Role Overload (RO), Role Expectation Conflict (REC), Personal Inadequacy (PI), and Role Erosion (RE), were prominent among private sector managers. Significant differences in job-related stress pertaining to the managers in both public and private sector were identified. Results indicated that the influence of Self Role Distance (SRD) and Role Overload (RO) were the most significant among both the public and private sector managers.
The present findings about the influence of significant stressor variables of managers of both (public and private) sector organizations were also supported by research findings of different researchers [
H1: “Irrespective of rank position in the organizations the nature of perceive Organizational Role Stress test scores of managers in the public sector organizations and that of private sector organizations”.
In order to test the significance of the above-mentioned (
Components of Organizational Role Stress Scale. | Mean Values and Mean Difference in ORS Scores for Sources of Variation between Managers | F-Ratio Values for Sources of Variation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Two Kinds of Organizations (Public and Private) | Two Rank Condition (Junior and Senior) | Within the Types of Organizations | Within Both the Two Rank of Managers | Due to Interactions of the Kind of Organization and Ranks Positions. | |
Composite Organizational Role Stress scores | Pub Org-M-121.34 Pvt Org-M-123.62 MD-1.72 | Junior-120.85 Senior-122.73 MD-1.88 | 0.08 | 0.74 | 42.14* |
Inter Role Distance (IRD) | Pub Org-M-11.25 Pvt Org-M-10.10 MD-1.15 | Junior-11.17 Senior-10.21 MD-0.96 | 3.17 | 2.32 | 4.01* |
Role Stagnation (RS) | Pub Org-M-11.80 Pvt Org-M-12.02 MD-0.22 | Junior-12.39 Senior-11.43 MD.96 | 0.23 | 4.42* | 1.29 |
Role Expectation Conflict (REC) | Pub Org-M-11.52 Pvt Org-M-13.42 MD-1.90 | Junior-12.55 Senior-12.39 MD-0.16 | 13.09* | 0.09 | 0.05 |
Role Erosion (RE) | Pub Org-M-12.15 Pvt Org-M-12.67 MD-0.52 | Junior-12.31 Senior-12.51 MD-0.20 | 2.02 | 0.08 | 7.95* |
Role Overload (RO) | Pub Org-M-15.19 Pvt Org-M-16.31 MD-1.12 | Junior-16.20 Senior-15.30 MD-0.90 | 6.62* | 10.25* | 18.88* |
Role Isolation (RI) | Pub Org-M-10.95 Pvt Org-M-10.15 MD-0.85 | Junior-10.26 Senior-10.84 MD-0.58 | 2.82 | 1.48 | 36.52* |
Personal Inadequacy (PI) | Pub Org-M-11.13 Pvt Org-M-12.73 M D-1.60 | Junior-11.39 Senior-12.47 M D-1.08 | 9.33* | 4.25* | 8.64* |
Self Role Distance (SRD) | Pub Org-M-15.42 Pvt Org-M-16.62 MD-1.20 | Junior-16.30 Senior-15.74 MD-0.56 | 1.80 | 8.30* | 13.33* |
Role Ambiguity (RA) | Pub Org-M-10.04 Pvt Org-M-10.90 MD-0.97 | Junior-10.11 Senior-10.94 MD-0.93 | 3.83* | 2.80 | 51.93* |
Resource Inadequacy (RIN) | Pub Org-M-10.51 Pvt Org-M-9.99 MD-0.52 | Junior-9.47 Senior-11.03 MD-1.56 | 1.11 | 9.95* | 42.41* |
NB: *Indicates the “F” value is significant at 0.05 level.
Mean and F-ratio values (
With uniform loading of pressure of overall role stress both the groups of managers (private sector and public sector) exhibited their specificity in terms of the profile of four (4) components of the organizational role stress scale scores. Mean and F-values highlighted that the strength of influence of components role expectation conflict (M-13.42, F-13.09), role overload (M-16.31, F-6.62), role ambiguity (M-10.90, F-3.83) and personal inadequacy (M-12.73, F-9.33) were significantly higher among managers of private sector organizations than that of public sector organizations. Again the managers of private sector organizations had exhibited significantly different profiles of components of organizational role stress ORS and such trends of differences in the nature of three components role overload, personal inadequacy and role ambiguity (RO, PI and RA) between two groups of managers were also affected due to interaction of rank positions of (senior and junior) of managers.
This means that “Irrespective of rank position in the organizations the nature of perceived Organizational Role Stress test scores of managers in the public sector organizations and that of private sector organizations revealed dissimilarities”.
The present study findings of difference between the two groups of managers in terms of components of organizational role stress were corroborated by many studies [
The study further highlighted that irrespective of the type of organization, (public and private) the junior level managers indicated that the strength of influence of stress originating components, Role Overload (M-16.31, F-10.25), due to loading of time urgency, Role Stagnation (M-12.39, F-4.422) feeling of being stuck in the same habitual role without any opportunities for career advancement, and Self Role Distance (M-16.62, F-8.307), conflict arising out of the self-concept and expectations from the role etc. were significantly higher than the seniors. The senior level managers at the same time had projected that the pressure from feeling of Personal Inadequacy (M-12.47, F-4.25), to cope with the innovative changes and challenges of (technology and business process) both within and outside organizations and Resource Inadequacy (M-11.03, F-9.95), in terms of (human, financial and technological) resources for the performance expected for their role in organization were significantly more than that of the junior managers.
One reason behind such differences between junior and senior managers on the nature of stress generating factors personal inadequacy and resource inadequacy (PI and RIN) may be explained in terms of the supplied background information of the managers. An objective analysis indicated that senior managers expressed that they have had relatively lesser exposure to training and management of coping strategies as compared to junior managers, which may be the major cause of their personal inadequacy and lack of competency of handling and utilizing resources adequately for network management to cope with innovative situation and challenges of contingent organization. The junior managers were capable of handling these situations to their benefit as a motivating agent. Srivastava [
In the wake of substantial increase in the scale, pace and complexity of business activities worldwide the contemporary horizon of work organizations has changed considerably over the past several decades in economically advanced societies, as well as in the developing societies, due to mushrooming growth of opportunities, expectations, competitive employment situation, new types of job responsibilities, avenues of management practices, etc. Under these circumstances of changing process significant, theoretical and empirical observations had focused on that some of the sources and outcomes of occupation specific stress experiences were affected by the potential influences of different types of situation and person related variables in job situations.
The nature and distribution of Organizational Role Stress Scale Scores revealed dissimilarities among the four sample groups. The trend of moderate level of organizational role stress was the general characteristic feature of the managers. Some components for organizational role stress in organization showed reportable variation with rank position (senior/junior) of the managers.
As global competition has increased, managers in organizations have been forced to cope with new conditions of techno-social challenges, which are indirectly influencing and are influenced by the level of occupational stressof the managers. Such occupational stress can influence health, level of wellbeing and quality of performance of the managers on the one hand and organizational achievement status and development on the other hand.
Abaft globalization there has been a substantial increase in the scale, pace and complexity of business activity worldwide spawning widespread incidence of stress in life and work as an inevitable outcome. This has significant bearing on the organizational learning process as it requires explorations into newer and non-conventional sources and methods of learning that help develop multiple levels of managerial competence which is necessary for dealing with turbulence, uncertainty and the resulting stress.
Human capital is an organization’s greatest asset, without them everyday functions could not be completed. Humans and the potential they possess drive an organization and the community. Today’s organizations are continuously changing. Organizational change impacts not only the business but also its employees as well as the community in which they live. In order to maximize organizational effectiveness, human potential―individuals’ capabilities, time, and talents―must be managed.
Sudeshna Basu Mukherjee, (2015) Multidimensionality and Complexity of Role Stress: An Empirical Study of the Public and Private Sector Managers in Kolkata. Open Access Library Journal,02,1-14. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1101744