Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CHAPTER 3
(Jones & Bright 2001). After extensive literature review, Cox (1985) defined
stress as “a complex Psychological state deriving from the person‟s cognitive
appraisal of the adaptation to the demands of the work environment.”
13. Values stress offers loss of sense and purpose, loss of ideals
and values, feeling that there‟s nothing more to believe in, or
reality seems to have no sense and feeling of internal value-
emptiness (Daniele Trevisani 2009).
15. The term stress has been defined by (Gold & Roth 1993) “a
condition of disequilibrium within the intellectual, emotional
and physical state of the individual. It is generated by one‟s
perceptions of a situation, which results in physical and
emotional reactions. It can be either positive or negative,
depending upon one‟s interpretations”.
in one‟s abilities increases and in turn positively impacts upon energy levels,
moral and productivity, Figure 3.2 shows the basics of stress level in
performances and health.
If task demands at work are too low, people can believe that they
are undervalued and are not challenged within the work place based on their
perceived and actual ability, their psychological arousal levels fall and this
can lead to a lack of motivation, disengagement and drop in performance.
This can sometimes lead to feelings of low mood and a questioning stance
regarding their abilities.
These effects are due to increased cortisol and its metabolites and
other accumulated metabolic products. The Figure 3.3 shows all the
psychological symptoms.
1. Mood swings
70
2. Anxiety
3. Depression
4. Outbursts of anger
5. Headache
6. Irritability
7. Dependence on alcohol
8. Lack of concentration
1. Heart attack
2. Stroke
3. Weight loss
4. Substance abuse
5. Anxiety disorder
6. Bipolar disorder
Now, these two hormones work together to see that the body gets
more energy by providing more oxygen and glucose. For these things to
occur, the following adjustments are done.
At the end of the response, the body is well geared up and it tackles
the situation. To put it in a nutshell- "The mind feels the danger and the body
tackles it. These actions are coordinated by hormones".
Once the trigger is gone, the hormonal levels drop and the body
returns to normal. But, if this happens repeatedly, all the hormonal levels are
persistently high and they would not allow the body to come back to normal.
The body keeps experiencing the above mentioned „adjustments'. Soon the
hormonal and energy stores get exhausted. The vital link between the mind
and the body is lost and the person suffers. The mind gets disturbed by the
fact that the threat is there. But, the body is too tired to handle it. The
coordination between the two is disturbed.
The term "coping" usually refers to dealing with the stress that
comes after a stressor is presented, but many people also use proactive coping
strategies to eliminate or avoid stressors before they occur.
1. Write a list. Include all the things that are stressing you out
and rank them in order. This will allow you to focus your
efforts on the big issues that will make the biggest
difference.
2. Manage your time. Write a list of all the things you need to
do and categorize them into must do‟s and should do‟s. If
they aren‟t must do‟s, cross them off the list for another
time. Sometimes simply organizing your time better is often
73
the best strategy in coping with stress. This can help you
avoid leaving things to the last minute creating unnecessary
stress. For example, you can pack your bag the night before
and save time in the morning.
5. Avoid foods with high sugar and caffeine. These foods often
release energy in bursts and cause you to crash. These
crashes often make you feel tire and can affect your mood,
actually making you feel worse in the long run. There are
links suggesting that healthy eating helps to reduce stress in
individuals.
10. Learn to say no. Don‟t say you will do something, if you
realistically do not have time to do it. This will only add to
your stressful life and allow things to build up.
This chapter also analyses the level of job stress experienced by the
bank employees and the influence of various demographic factors that
influence their level of stress is calculated and validity tests of the research is
performed using the demographic factor.
75
Null Hypothesis: 1
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Stress Male 240 36.4500 8.13161 .52489
Identification Female 72 39.4167 8.23724 .97077
For a degree of Freedom (df) 310, the „t‟ table value is 1.64
However, the obtained „t‟ value for Stress Identification is 2.7, which shows
that it is higher than the table value. Thus it can be concluded that, there exists
a significant difference between male and female related to stress at work.
This shows that, the stress level of male and female differ.
76
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Stress Male 295 36.1695 7.85661 .45743
identification Female 93 38.4839 8.25492 .85600
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 11698.874 4 2924.719 95.424 .000
Stress
Within Groups 9409.472 307 30.650
Identification
Total 21108.346 311
From the above table, it is clear that for stress at work, a „F‟ value
of 95.42 is obtained for the „df‟ of (4,307). The „F‟ table value is 2.46. Thus,
the calculated value is higher than the table value and hence it can be inferred
that, there exists a significant difference between the age group and the Stress
at work.
ANOVA
Sum of Mean Sig.
df F
Squares Square
Between Groups 14045.322 4 3511.331 125.099 .000
Stress
Within Groups 10750.170 383 28.068
Identification
Total 24795.492 387
From the above table, it is clear that for stress at work, a „F‟ value
of 125.099 for the „df‟ of (4,383). The „F‟ table value is 2.46. Thus, the
calculated value is higher than the table value and hence, it can be inferred
that, there exists a significant difference between the age group and the Stress
at work.
78
ANOVA
Sum of Mean Table
df F
Squares Square Value
Between Groups 6387.121 4 1596.780 33.300 2.46
Stress
Within Groups 14721.225 307 47.952
Identification
Total 21108.346 311
The above table reveals that the calculated „F‟ value (33.30) is greater
than the table value(2.46) with df 4,307 at 0.05 level of significance in the stress in
public banking sector with respect to work experience. Hence, the null hypothesis,
“There is no significant difference among the mean scores of the stress in public
banking sector identified by the researcher with respect to work experience” is
rejected. The alternate hypothesis is accepted therefore, there is significant
difference between the mean score of the stress in public banking sector and it is
identified by the researcher with respect to years of work experience in banks.
Work experience
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
< 1 yr 72 23.1 23.1 23.1
1-2 YRS 78 25.0 25.0 48.1
2-5 YRS 36 11.5 11.5 59.6
Valid
5-10 YRS 84 26.9 26.9 86.5
> 10 YRS 42 13.5 13.5 100.0
Total 312 100.0 100.0
79
The above table reveals that the calculated „F‟ value (57.045) is
greater than the table value (2.46) with df 4,383 at 0.05 level of significance
in the stress in Private banking sector with respect to work experience. Hence,
the null hypothesis, “There is no significant difference among the mean scores
of the stress in private banking sector identified by the researcher with respect
to work experience” is rejected. The alternate hypothesis is accepted and
therefore, there is significant difference the mean score the stress in Private
banking sector identified by the researcher with respect years of work
experience in banks.
80
Work experience
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
< 1 yr 66 17.0 17.0 17.0
1-2 YRS 99 25.5 25.5 42.5
2-5 YRS 89 22.9 22.9 65.5
Valid
5-10 YRS 92 23.7 23.7 89.2
> 10 YRS 42 10.8 10.8 100.0
Total 388 100.0 100.0
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Stress
Between Groups 3777.113 4 944.278 16.727 .000
Identification
Within Groups 17331.233 307 56.454
The above table disclose that the calculated „F‟ value (16.727) is
greater than the table value (2.46) with df 4,307 at 0.05 level of significance
in the stress in public banking sector with respect to marital status. Hence the
null hypothesis, “There is no significant difference among the mean scores of
the stress in public banking sector identified by the researcher with respect to
work experience” is rejected. The alternate hypothesis is accepted and
therefore, there is significant difference the mean score the stress in public
banking sector identified by the researcher with respect marital status of the
public sector employees. To identify the marital status and number of
employees in each group So, the frequency Test was applied
82
Table 3.12 Stress identification using frequencies test for marital public
sector banks
Frequencies Test
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Single 24 7.7 7.7 7.7
Married 180 57.7 57.7 65.4
Divorce 30 9.6 9.6 75.0
Valid
Separated 54 17.3 17.3 92.3
Widower 24 7.7 7.7 100.0
Total 312 100.0 100.0
ANOVA
Sum of Mean Table
df F
Squares Square Value
Stress
Between Groups 9257.264 4 2314.316 57.045
Identification
Within Groups 15538.228 383 40.570 2.46
Total 24795.492 387
The above table disclose that the calculated „F‟ value (57.045) is
greater than the table value (2.46) with df 4,383 at 0.05 level of significance
in the stress in private banking sector with respect to marital status. Hence the
null hypothesis, “There is no significant difference among the mean scores of
the stress in private banking sector identified by the researcher with respect to
work experience” is rejected. The alternate hypothesis is accepted and
therefore, there is significant difference the mean score the stress in private
banking sector identified by the researcher with respect marital status of the
private sector employees. To identify the marital status and number of
employees in each group So, the frequencies Test was applied.
84
Marital Status
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Single 24 6.2 6.2 6.2
Married 226 58.2 58.2 64.4
Divorce 29 7.5 7.5 71.9
Valid
Separated 69 17.8 17.8 89.7
Widower 40 10.3 10.3 100.0
Total 388 100.0 100.0