Gurukul Business Review (GBR) Vol. 7 (Spring 2011), pp.

53-61 ISSN : 0973-1466 (off line) ISSN : 0973-9262 (on line)

ROLE STRESS AMONG EMPLOYEES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF COMMERCIAL BANKS

Jyoti Sharma* Arti Devi** Table of Contents Abstract Introduction Previous Studies Research Methodology Conclusion and Policy Implications Limitations and Scope for Future Research References ABSTRACT stress induced due to roles performed by individuals as employees has been a potent organizational stressor (Kahn et al., 1964; Srivastava, 2007) the outcomes of which have been found to be costly to the organization (Fisher and Gitelson, 1983). One of the pioneers of research on organizational role stress, Pareek (1993) has reiterated that the performance of a role in an organization has built in potential for conflict due to which stress may start rearing its head. Such stress can contribute to various dysfunctional outcomes for the organization like job related tensions, job dissatisfaction, lower performance, etc. (Behrman and Perreault, 1984; Singh, 1992; Shahu & Gole, 2008). In such circumstances, efforts to sustain a high level of work performance over time can be a tedious task for organizations as well as employees. Considering role stress as a debilitating syndrome, this study has been undertaken with an aim to systematically investigate the factors causing role stress amongst bank professionals. Banks are among the top ten high stress workplaces ([Link]) in India. Elucidating the causes of role stress is important not only for its potential implications for stress management at banks but also for enhancing an understanding of strategic human resource management. With this aim, the study makes an effort to identify the sources of role stress experienced by the employees of commercial banking sector. In the next section the relevant literature is presented. This is followed by Section II which discusses the data base and the research methodology. While Section III makes an attempt to explore the broad dimensions of role stress, with an application of factor analysis, applicable to both public and private sector banks, Section IV tries to find out significant differences in the experience of role stressors across public and private sector banks. The study is concluded with Section V examining managerial implications of the results and suggestions for future research. SECTION I PREVIOUS STUDIES Stress is associated with impaired individual functioning in the workplace. A number of aspects of

Stress has been on a rise in this era of hightechnology speed, global competition and consumerism. Taking its toll on the physical and psychological health of the employees, it is affecting the productivity and functioning of an organization. Researchers have demonstrated the direct and indirect costs of stress (Matteson and Ivancevich, 1987). Due to its cost, the critical importance of a stress-free worklife for an organization for creating and sustaining competitive advantage cannot be underestimated and it comes with the realization that employees are susceptible to high levels of stress. According to Kalia (2002), an estimate of The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Burden of Disease Survey shows that mental health disease, including stress-related disorders, will be the second leading cause of disabilities by the year 2020. A survey in 2007 by Associated Chamber of Commerce and Industry of India also reported that work related stress and mental fatigue is affecting the Indian employees ([Link]). In such an environment, it becomes the responsibility of the employing organizations and the individual to identify the causes of stress at the workplace and make efforts to reduce them for the effectiveness and efficiency of the individual and the organization itself.
INTRODUCTION At workplace, stress related to the role performed by the employee in the organization is one of the important determinants of successful adjustment and subsequent performance of an employee. The

*Assistant Professor, School of Business, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University-182320 **Lecturer, School of Business, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University-182320

54

JYOTI SHARMA & ARTI DEVI

working life have been linked to stress. Elucidating these causes has been imperative for it may have direct implications for the assessment of the demands on the physical, psychological and emotional well-being of the employees as stressors may lead to ill health, anxiety, dissatisfaction, irritation and depression amongst employees (Sparks et al., 2001; Caplan, 1985; Parasuraman et al., 1981; Pal & Vasudeva, 1989; Ivancevich et al., 1982). Not only health, stress at workplace also impacts capability to solve problems and subsequent satisfaction with the job (Elfering et al., 2005; Jonge et al., 2001; Singh & Singh, 1984). Researchers have applied role-theory to understand stress problems at work and to examine how role pressures contribute to occupational stress (Gupta and Adhikari, 2008). There has been a growing support for the argument that role of the employee in the organization may create conditions that cause stress for employees at work affecting the quality of work life. Such Organizational role stress has been found to be negatively related to managerial effectiveness (Srivastava, 2009). A number of role based factors such as lack of power, role ambiguity, and role conflict (Burke, 1988; Nelson and Burke, 2000) can be stressful. Role overload, lack of senior level support, lack of group cohesiveness, inequity at workplace, role stagnation, resource inadequacy in the role, constraints of change contribute to the stress of employees (Kumar, 2006; Singh, 1989; Driscoll, 1994; Sen, 1981; Sharma & Devi, 2008). In special context to employees in the service sector, who are aggressively involved in direct dealing with the customers, role stress has been found to be very important in determining their commitment to the organization and satisfaction with supervisor and their intention to leave the organization (Dubinsky et al., 1984). Although the dynamics of role stress among other professionals and in other settings are relatively well documented (Rutter et al., 2002; Narayanan et al., 1999), understanding the causes of role stress among Bank professionals is of paramount importance for their well-being and formulation of stress management programmes. The banking sector is one of the emerging areas of service sector which is expanding very rapidly in the recent past. The market and customer orientation in commercial banks has put considerable pressure on the employees, especially front line employees. The front line employees of banking sector, who are in boundary spanning positions, endeavor to meet the needs of customers while attempting to fulfill the expectations of managers. An attempt to meet conflicting demands often leads to role stress (Wetzels et al., 2000), which impacts customer orientation of these employees and their job performance (Flaherty

et al., 1999). Associated Chamber of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM), in a study conducted in 2007, has also reported that those working in the banking sector - both public and private- tend to get stressed as they have to attract a large pool of customers for various schemes besides ensuring timely recovery of loans ([Link]/prels). This study will provide crucial information about the prevalence of specific role stressors at commercial banks. It shall also provide a unique glimpse at the significant public and private sector differences in exposure to the role stressors at the workplace, the studies in which regard have been found to be relatively less. SECTION II RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Sample With an aim to assess the causes of role stress, a total of 530 frontline employees from various public and private sector banks were surveyed for their experience on role stress. The anonymous responses of the bank employees were taken through questionnaire during the period of August, 2009 to January, 2010. However, 29 responses did not fully qualify to be included in the final analysis due to incomplete information provided in the questionnaire. So, the responses of only 501 respondents were found to be suitable for inclusion in the study. Majority of the employees (38 per cent) belonged to the age bracket of 21-30 years and maximum (34 per cent) were found to earn a salary between Rs. 21000 to Rs. 30000 per month. Of all, maximum number of the respondents were married and majority of the sample respondents had a graduation degree. Public and private sector commercial banks had an equal representation in the sample and the mean work experience of the sample respondents was 12.5 years. Study Design In order to identify the sources of role stress experienced by the commercial bank employees in Jammu and Kashmir State of India, a pre-tested questionnaire has been used. The development of the research instrument was based on the existing measurement scale. Organizational Role Stress (ORS) scale developed by Pareek (Pareek, 2005) has been used as the reference for development of the research instrument. Pestonjee (1992) observed that ORS is certainly one of the best instruments available presently for measuring role stress which is also corroborated by Srivastava (2007). However, to take into consideration the local requirements of employees especially of

ROLE STRESS AMONG EMPLOYEES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF COMMERCIAL BANKS

55

banking sector of Jammu and Kashmir State of India, ORS scale of Pareek was taken as base. The base was then used to generate a 30-item scale which was designed to tap the role stress of the individuals in the organization. The modifications for local consideration were made after interviewing a total of 100 employees of banking sector of Jammu and Kashmir before the final designing of questionnaire. Responses on the scale were given via the use of five-point likert type scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. An assessment of the reliability of the scale, using interitem Cronbach Alpha, resulted into the retention of 22 statements assessing the role stress. The reliability of modified version of role stress scale was also estimated using the split-half method on a sample of 70 employees which was found to be reliable. Besides, the estimated value of Cronbach Alpha of modified version of the role stress scale i.e. 0.805 also display that the modified scale is reliable. Further, to ensure the content validity of the scale, the view points of experts in the field and from banks regarding the modified role stress scale were taken which ensured about its face validity. SECTION III FACTOR ANALYTICAL APPROACH In order to identify the role dimensions contributing to the role stress of employees, the statistical technique 'Factor Analysis', which examines the relationships among various interrelated variables and represents them in terms of a few underlying factors, was applied. The scale was analyzed using principle component analysis with varimax rotation with the help of SPSS package version 14.0. Codes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 have been assigned to all the positive statements whereas the negative statements have been coded reversely. Initially, tests for adequacy of the data for the application of factor analysis (Stewart,

1981) were conducted. It was found that the value of the Kaiser-Meyer-Okin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy statistic was 0.714, which is quite large. Moreover, the correlation matrix revealed that there was enough correlation for the application of factor analysis. Besides, the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity value was found to be 1849.702 which was also highly significant (p<0.001). Eventually, the decision for arriving at the number of factors to be retained was made on the basis of Latent Root Criterion i.e. variables having eigen values greater than 1. Factors having loadings greater than or equal to 0.40 (ignoring the signs) were retained (Dixon, 1997). The solution yielded eight interpretable factors. The eight factors so derived account for 60.35 per cent of the total variance. This indicates that 60.35 per cent of the total variance is represented by the information contained in the factor matrix. Further, the percentage of total variance explained by factors I to VIII indicate the extent to which a particular factor solution accounts for what all the variables together represent. The communalities shown indicate the amount of variance a variable shares with all the other variables being considered. Large communalities reflect that a large amount of variance has been accounted for by the factor solution. The names of the factors, the statement labels, and the respective factor loadings are summarized in table 1. The relationship between the original variable and its factor is represented by the factor loading. Also, the signs are interpreted in the same mode as are correlation coefficients. On each factor 'like signs' of factor loadings indicate that factor loadings and factors are positively correlated and 'opposite signs' indicate that factor loadings and factors are negatively correlated.

Table 1: Role Related Variables and Underlying Role Characteristics Representing these Variables
F1 S9 S14 S5 F2 S16 S7 S22 S3 Role Indistinctness I know what the people I work with expect of me. I have to work under vague and unclear directions. I am not clear on the scope and responsibilities of my role. Role Excess I cannot do much more than what I have been assigned. I have so much work that I do not have time to think about maintaining quality. I am assigned tasks without much resource to complete it. I feel that the amount of work I have to do is more than it should be. i 0.73 0.72 0.60 0.49 Loadings -0.75 0.73 0.66

56

JYOTI SHARMA & ARTI DEVI

F3 S6 S1 S19

Role Invasiveness I have various other interests (social, religious, etc.) which remain neglected because I do not get time to attend to these. I am not able to give time to my family because of work. My family and friends complain that I do not spend time with them due to the heavy demands of my work role. Role Divergence I am not able to satisfy the demands of clients and others, since these are conflicting with one another. I have adequate knowledge to handle the responsibilities in my role. I am able to satisfy the conflicting demands of various people above me. Role Augmentation I see many growth opportunities for myself. I have enough time and opportunities to prepare myself for the future challenges of my role. Self-Diminution If I had full freedom to define my role, I would be doing some things differently from the way I do them now. I need more training and preparation to do my work properly. I should have given more attention to the development of skills which I need. -0.72 -0.65

0.77 0.64 0.61

F4 S11 S4 S2 F5 S15 S10

0.70 -0.57 -0.53

F6 S17 S21 S8 0.45 F7 S12 S20 F8 S13

0.76 0.53

Role Fortification I have been given too much responsibility I want more challenging tasks to do. Resource Shortage I feel isolated at work 0.78 0.72 0.64

NAMING OF THE FACTORS With the help of factor analysis, 22 statements were condensed into eight factors. The description of the eight factors is as follows: F1 Role Indistinctness Role Indistinctness has emerged as the most important factor accounting for 14.20 per cent of the total variance. Three statements are loaded on this factor. It suggests that respondents experience role stress because of non-clarity of issues, ambiguous directions, unclear scope and responsibilities in the role. These reasons signify the indistinctness in the role of the employee. The relatively higher loading of

all the statements on this factor indicates the relevance of this dimension for contributing to role stress in banks. This signifies that lack of clarity at workplace is the potent cause of role stress. This might mean that employees in banking sector are experiencing a system lacking in communication and planning of role expectations. Well laid out role expectations can help the employees envision the activities to be undertaken to meet the expectations. On the contrary, the employee becomes crippled if the expectations are not clear as he is not able to choose the interventions he must take to satisfy not only others' expectations but also of himself. Thus, vagueness or the lack of attention to these primary requirements is the major reason for the role stress of employees.

ROLE STRESS AMONG EMPLOYEES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF COMMERCIAL BANKS

57

F2 Role Excess The second important dimension of role stress which emerged from factor analysis is Role Excess. This factor accounts for 12.59 per cent of the total variance. This factor indicates that employees in the banking sector are facing excess expectations at work. The employees feel that the amount of the work they have been assigned touches the threshold of their maximum capacity. Moreover, the work is so much that they are unable to pay enough attention to the quality of work. They are also of the view that the assignment of tasks does not meet the expectation for the resources to complete it. The employees of banks are under continuous pressure to meet the targets and productivity levels and outperform the competitors. Recent downsizing and liberalization have also put the employees under the scanner to do more and more in less amount of time. All of this indicates that the employees are facing excess workload which coupled with quality issues and lack of resources is contributing to their role stress. F3 Role Invasiveness The invasive character of roles is another most important factor causing role stress which accounts for 6.81 per cent of the total variance. In today's dynamic business environment, employees are expected to work more and more, as is evident from the second most important factor i.e. role excess, due to which work occupies a major portion of their lives. As a result, very less or negligible time is left for family and other pursuits like religion, hobby, social functions, etc. This contributes to stress as employee feels unable to apportion the available time amongst different pursuits in life. Thus, the invasive nature of role where employee feels unable, physically or mentally, to attend to the non-work issues of his life contributes to role stress. F4 Role Divergence The fourth important role stressor has been found to be Role Divergence which explains 6.19 per cent of the total variance. Almost every employee yearns for smooth relationships at work not only with the other employees but also with the customers of the service they are offering. The employee also wants to satisfy his own expectations in the role. However, the divergent potential of the role where he may get contradictory, conflicting and opposing expectations from self, customers and other employees at work can cause role stress. Thus, employee becomes stressed because he feels that he is unable to satisfy the demands of clients, seniors and others due to their conflicting nature.

F5 Role Augmentation Lack of scope for escalation of role is the next important stressor leading to role stress of employees at banks. This factor explains 5.76 per cent of the total variance. Table 2 shows the two statements which have been found to be loaded on this factor. The statements 'I see many growth opportunities for myself' and 'I have enough time and opportunities to prepare myself for the future challenges in my role' have gained negative loadings. It indicates lack of prospects for growth and the lack of time for preparation for growth contribute to role stress at work. This is quite relevant in the current scenario where competition for good positions and good pay package is very high. Employees are competitive and career oriented and wants the best deal for them. Lack of availability of such best deals, within the organization, leads them to make an effort for alternative opportunities outside the organization which consumes their time of work as well as off work leading to stress. F6 Self-Diminution The factor 'Self-Diminution' accounts for 5.17 per cent of the total variance. Three statements namely, 'If I had full freedom to define my role, I would be doing some things differently from the way I do them now', 'I need more training and preparation to do my work properly', 'I should have given more attention to the development of skills which I need' are found to be loaded on this dimension of role stress. In other words, personal shortness in the role can be a contributor to role stress to a great extent. However, this selfdiminution can be because of system dynamics at work, as is evident from the first statement loaded on this factor, thereby indicating jamming nature of the system at workplace which does not encourage employee latitude in working. It may also be due to inadequacy of the skills, knowledge, and expertise on the part of the individual himself. In this manner, selfdiminution is leading towards role stress at banks. F7 Role Fortification Factor analysis has acknowledged 'Role Fortification' as another independent role related factor contributing to the role stress of the respondents. Explaining 4.90 per cent of the total variance, two statements have loaded on this factor and it has been found to have an eigen value of 1.08. Table 2 illustrates that the variable 'I have been given too much responsibility' has got the highest loading of 0.72, which has been followed by variable 'I want more challenging tasks to do' with loading 0.64. It reveals that prevalence of too much responsibility for tasks leads to stress.

58

JYOTI SHARMA & ARTI DEVI

However, the tasks at banks are routine and monotonous which may not test the stretchable limits of the person making him yearn for challenging tasks and hence stressed. Therefore, constructs for enrichment of roles could impact the level of role stress at workplace. F8 Resource Shortage 'Resource Shortage' has been revealed as another independent role related factor with eigen value 1.04. This factor explains 4.74 per cent of the total variance and as Table 1 displays two variables are loaded on this factor namely, 'I feel isolated at work' and 'I do not lack the necessary facilities needed to carry out different varieties of tasks in my role'. It reveals that the respondents of the present study experience more stress when they are devoid of resources, human and material, at work. Isolation of the employee, making him unable to receive and give help to other roles, leads to role stress. Similarly, negative loading on the second variable, as shown by Table 1, indicates that the employees who perceive a lack of resources for the execution of tasks in his role experience role stress.

SECTION IV An attempt has been made in this section to throw light on significant differences in the experience of various aspects of role stress across public and private sector banks in Jammu and Kashmir State. The null hypothesis for the present section is: H1: There is no significant difference in the experience of various dimensions of role stress in public and private sector banks. Table 2 depicts a dimension-wise comparison of role stress as perceived by the employees of public and private sector banks. A perusal of Table 2 reveals that 'role augmentation' is one such constituent of role stress where private sector banks scored appreciably lower than the public sector banks. The banks from the two sectors have also significantly differed on this dimension at 5 per cent level of significance indicating employee perception of greater growth opportunities in the private sector which in due course influences role stress. Private sector bank employees are here, notably, less stressful than

Table 2: Dimension-wise Comparison of Role Stress in Public and Private Sector Banks
Publica X Privateb

Role Stress

Role Indistinctness Role Excess Role Invasiveness Role Divergence Role Augmentation Self-Diminution Role Fortification Resource Shortage 0.024 -0.032 0.028 -0.009 0.115 0.084 0.136 0.060 0.993 1.025 1.004 1.091 0.954 0.968 0.973 1.021

-0.024 0.033 -0.029 0.009 -0.116 -0.085 -0.138 -0.060 1.008 0.975 0.997 0.900 1.034 1.027 1.010 0.976 0.54 -0.73 0.63 -0.20 2.59** 1.89*** 3.09* 1.34

Note: an = 252, bn = 249, *significant at 1 per cent level of significance, **significant at 5 per cent level of significance, ***significant at 10 per cent level of significance, X= Arithmetic Mean = Standard Deviation

ROLE STRESS AMONG EMPLOYEES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF COMMERCIAL BANKS

59

public sector bank employees. This disclosure means that the public sector employees feel stressful for being pigeonholed in one position for long. A plateaued career is what faces most of the public sector employees who see their counterparts in the private sector growing in career and earning more money as well. The perceived lack of growth and learning opportunities in the public sector banks, which, in turn, might be an offshoot of saturation in the industry, has resulted into stress. On the contrary, banks in the private sector have been able to satiate the hunger for growth and learning opportunities of their employees through expansion, diversification, training and development. The absence of employee loyalty to one organization in the private sector may also be a factor due to which the employees have not reported to be relatively stressed on account of lack of opportunities for escalation in the role. Similarly, on 'self-diminution' dimension of role stress, employees of the public sector feel more short of the skills, knowledge, expertise or in other words capability to meet the demands in their roles in comparison to the employees of the private sector. This difference between the two sectors has also been found to be significant at 10 per cent level of significance. Moreover, significant difference, at 1 per cent level of significance, has also been reported on 'role fortification' aspect of role stress indicating stress due to lack of enrichment of roles more a characteristic of public sector banks. This is reflected by the reorganization policies adopted by public sector banks whereby horizontal promotions devoid of enrichment of role assignments are granted (Ahmad & Shah, 2007). Confinement to routine operational tasks leads to monotony and boredom and eventually to stress. So, it can be said that as compared to private sector, public sector bank employees feel stagnant, tedium and selfshort in their roles. Public sector banks are also found to be marked by 'role indistinctness' which suggests that employees of the public sector banks perceive greater ambiguity and vagueness in their roles and consequently role stress. Employees in these banks see a lack of adequate information on changing role demands, responsibilities, role expectations and task priorities. However, the 't' value being insignificant implies that the employees of the two sectors do not significantly differ on this dimension of role stress. The quickly changing market rules surrounding the banking sector have infused increasing levels of uncertainty and imprecision in both public as well as private sector banks. On the contrary, the employees of the private sector have been found to be more burdened with the

excess role expectations, as is evident by the greater mean value secured on 'role excess' dimension. But, the relationship is again not found to be significant implying insignificant differences in public and private sector banks with respect to role excess dimension of role stress. The incessant pressures of achieving the targets and meeting the productivity levels to surpass the competitors have been the underlying force for demanding from employees in excess. Recent downsizing and liberalization in banking sector have also put surplus demands on the employees. Cascio (1993) has also found increase in workload of workforce consequent upon downsizing. Thus, excess role expectations are actually a characteristic of banking sector in general. Similarly, there is insignificant difference among public and private sector banks as far as 'role invasiveness' is concerned. This indicates that the employees of both the types of banks perceive different role expectations interfering with each other's performance. It is likely that the excess role expectations prevalent in both public and private sector create hurdles in the employee's ability to meet expectations in roles other than work. With respect to 'role divergence' dimension of role stress, private sector banks with positive mean score have been exposed to divergent expectations at work more as compared to their counterparts. The reason attributed to this fact may be that private sector banks are not only characterised by high competition with other banks, both in the public and private sector, but also by competition within the bank, amongst various employees. Pressure to perform better may engulf an employee in vicious circle of opposing expectations from others at work who may also be trying to meet their own ends. However, the important point to note is that the difference has not been found to be significant which indicates employees of the public sector banks also getting influenced by role divergence. Differing expectations are usual when one's role is linked to various other roles at work. Also, the mean scores of public and private sector banks on 'resource shortage' indicate more shortage of resources in public sector compared to private sector. However, the difference is insignificant explaining that banks in both the sectors face stress due to the shortage of resources. The results indicate that though, banks in the public sector are more characterised by role indistinctness, role invasiveness, role divergence, resource shortage and banks in private sector by role excess but the difference is statistically insignificant. However, statistically significant differences have been found for role augmentation, self-diminution and role

60

JYOTI SHARMA & ARTI DEVI

fortification in public and private sector banks. Therefore, the null hypothesis is partially rejected for the results implying vital differences for employee experiences in role augmentation, self-diminution and role fortification across public and private sector banks. SECTION V CONCLUSION & POLICY IMPLICATIONS The foregoing analysis reveals that there are eight underlying role related factors which represent the twenty-two variables considered originally in the present study. The theoretical significance of the findings of this study is noteworthy as it has tried to explore the antecedents of organizational role stress in the commercial banks which are 'Role Indistinctness', 'Role Excess', 'Role Invasiveness', 'Role Divergence', 'Role Augmentation', 'Self-Diminution', 'Role Fortification', and 'Resource Shortage'. It has also pointed out the need for public sector banks, which significantly differ for employee experiences of role stress in role augmentation, self-diminution and role fortification, to give emphasis on providing opportunities for learning, training and development to its employees. The policy implications of the study establish the relevance for development of platforms to intensify communication throughout the workplace which would not only reduce ambiguity at work but also help employees prioritize the tasks for better management of work. This becomes important as role indistinctness, role excess, role invasiveness and role divergence have emerged as crucial determinants of role stress at commercial banks. Since, the majority of role senders of the employees come from their immediate work group, it is suggested that attempts to relieve role stress, by focussing on communication, should concentrate on team or group support building and the development of individual communication skills (Smeltzer, 1987). Openness, by means of communication, at work shall also clarify and sort the divergent expectations in the role. Role divergence may be overcome by engaging in stricter policy enforcement (Bacharach et al., 2002) which may help in clearing any inconsistency between employee expectations and capabilities and others' expectations. Efforts to provide growth and learning opportunities to the employees must be encouraged to offset stress created by role augmentation, role fortification and selfdiminution factors identified in the study. In special regard to the public sector banks where statistically significant differences for employee experiences of role stress in role augmentation, self-diminution and role fortification have been found, opportunities for growth

and learning in the form of training, development, challenging assignments, etc. have greater relevance. Building in job design features that increase the variety in work is likely to increase interest and motivation of the employees and will reduce role stress caused due to lack of it at public sector banks. Moreover, lack of adequate resources at work, which has been found to be a factor causing role stress, may end up in an experience of even greater workload as it may have direct negative effects and /or may interact with role excess dimension to produce negative effects (Chand & Sethi, 1997). Planning for making available the required resources is, therefore, imperative for reducing role stress at work. LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH In drawing conclusions it is important to note the limitation of the self-reporting nature of survey responses. Future research could usefully incorporate an analysis of the impact of role stress on physiological, behavioural, performance and other organizational outcomes. There is further scope to replicate the study in different environments and locations. REFERENCES Ahmad, S. Fayyaz & Shah, Farooq A. (2007), "Role Stress of Officers and Clerks: An Empirical Study in Banking Industry", Business Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 1-9. Bacharach, S.B., Bamberger, P.A. and Sonnenstuhl, W.J. (2002), "Driven to Drink: Managerial Control, Workrelated Risk Factors and Employee Problem Drinking", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 637-58. Behrman, Douglas N. & Perreault, William D. (1984), "A Role Stress Model of the Performance and Satisfaction of Industrial Salespersons", Journal of Marketing, 48, 9-21. Burke, R. J., (1988), "Sources of Managerial and Professional Stress in Large Organization", in Cooper C. L., Payne, R. (Eds.), Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work, John Wiley and Sons, Chicester, pp. 77-112. Caplan, Robert D (1985), "Psychosocial Stress in Work", Management and Labour Studies, Vol. 10(2), pp. 63-76. Cascio, W.F. (1993), "Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 95-104.

ROLE STRESS AMONG EMPLOYEES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF COMMERCIAL BANKS

61

Chand, P. and Sethi, A.S. (1997), "Organizational Factors in Development of Work Stress", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 32 (4), pp. 453-462 Dixon, J.K. (1997), Grouping Techniques, in [Link] (Ed.) Statistical Methods for Health Care Research, 3rd Edn, Philadephia, PA; Lippincott, pp. 310-340. Driscoll, Michael P.; Beehr, Terry A. (1994), "Supervisor Behaviours, Role Stressors and Uncertainty as Predictors of Personal Outcomes for Subordinates", Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 15(2), pp. 141155. Dubinsky, Alan J. & Yammarino, Francis J. (1984), "Differential Impact of Role Conflict and Ambiguity on Selected Correlates: A Two Sample Test", Psychological Reports, 55, 699-707. Elfering, Achim, Grebner, Simone, Semmer, Norbert K., Kaiser-Freiburghaus, Dora, Ponte, Sandra LauperDel, Witschi, Isabella (2005), "Chronic Job stressors and Job Control: Effects on Event-Related Coping Success and Well Being", Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78(2), pp. 237-252. Fisher, Cynthia, D., and Gitelson, Richard (1983), "A Meta Analysis of the Correlates of Role Conflict and Ambiguity", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 320-33. Flaherty, T.B., Dahlstrom, R. and Skinner, S.J. (1999), "Organizational Values and Role Stress as Determinants of Customer-Oriented Selling Performance", Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 1-18. Gupta, Palas R. and Adhikari, Ajoy (2008), "Role Stress in Nurses", The ICFAI Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol VII (1), pp. 49-56. Ivancevich, John M., Matteson, Michael T., Preston, Cynthia (1982), "Occupational Stress, Type A Behaviour, and Physical Well Being", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 25 (2), pp. 373-391. Jonge, Jan de, Dormann, Christian, Janssen, Peter M.M, Dollard, Maureen F. (2001), "Testing Reciprocal Relationships Between Job Characteristics and Psychological Well-Being: A Cross- Lagged Structural Equation Model", Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 29-46. Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoeck, J.D. and Rosenthal, R.A. (1964), Organizational Stress Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, New York: Wiley.

Kalia, M. (2002), "Assessing the Economic Impact of Stress-the Modern Day Hidden Epidemic", Metabolism, Vol. 51 (6 Suppl 1), pp.49-53. Kumar, Dileep, M (2006), "A Study on Job Stress of Nationalized and Non Nationalized Bank Employees", [Link] Matteson, M., & Ivancevich, J. (1987), Controlling Work Stress: Effective Human Resource and Management Strategies, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Narayanan L, Menon S, Spector PE, (1999), "Stress in the Workplace: A Comparison of Gender and Occupation", Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, pp. 63-73. Nelson, D.L. and Burke, R.J. (2000), "Women Executives: Health, Stress, and Success", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 107-21. Pal, Madan; Vasudeva, Promila (1989), "Supervisory Style and Situational Favorableness as Related to Workers' Job-Satisfaction", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 24 (3). Parasuraman, Saroj, Alutto, Joseph A. (1981), "An Examination of the Organizational Antecedents of Stressors at Work", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24(1), pp. 48-67. Pareek, U. (1993), Making Organizational Roles Effective, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi. Pareek, Udai (2005), Training Instruments in HRD and OD, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, pp. 536-547 Pestonjee, D.M. (1992) Stress and Coping-The Indian Experience, 2nd edition, Sage Publications India Private Ltd., New Delhi Rutter H, Herzberg J, Paice E (2002), "Stress in Doctors and Dentists who Teach", Medical Education, 36, pp. 543-549. Web Resources : [Link] [Link] [Link]/prels

62

[kkyh