1. INTRODUCTION 1.

1 Organizational Role Stress

Stress at work is a relatively new phenomenon of modern lifestyles. The nature of work has gone through drastic changes over the last century and it is still changing at whirlwind speed. They have touched almost all professions, starting from an artist to a surgeon, or a commercial pilot to a sales executive. With change comes stress, inevitably. Professional stress or job (role) stress poses a threat to physical health. Work related stress in the life of organized workers, consequently, affects the health of organizations. Workplace stress is the harmful physical and emotional response that occurs when there is a poor match between job demands and the capabilities, resources, or needs of the worker. The stress may have to do with the responsibilities associated with the work itself, or be caused by conditions that are based in the corporate culture or personality conflicts. Beehr and Newman (1978) had defined stress as a situation which will force a person to deviate from normal functioning due to the change (i.e. disrupt or enhance) in his/her psychological and/or physiological condition, such that the person is forced to deviate from normal functioning. Han Salye, probably the leading authority on the concept of stress, described stress as, the role of all wear and tear caused by life. Stress is associated with constraints and demands. Constraints prevent the person from doing things what he or she desires. Demand refers to the loss of something desired. Stress is highest for the individuals who perceive they are uncertain as to whether they will win or lose and lowest for those who think that winning or losing is a certainty. In 1936 an endocrinologist, Hans Sdye, discovered stress. Stress is present in everybody. It occurs daily in people's lives. Stress is a body condition that occurs in response to actual or anticipated difficulties in life (Rice, 1987). Stress can also be defined as the sum of physical and mental responses our bodies experience in relationship to any change. There are many causes of stress and many different ways to handle stress. Stress can also be harmful to one's health, both physically and mentally. There are two main types of stress, which are distress and eustress. "Unfortunately, stress and distress are used all too often as though they are interchangeable terms. Perhaps this is because the commonsense view of stress is weighted to the negative side. In fact, Selye introduced the terms distress and eustress in order to avoid

this dilemma (Rice, 1987). Distress is the bad stress. It is much the same as a state of anxiety, fear, worry, or agitation. Distress is a negative, painful experience and is something to avoid. On the other hand, there is a good stress, eustress. Eustress is pleasurable and satisfying experiences that people encounter. "Participation in a wedding ceremony, anticipation of competes. Stress is an inherent factor in any type of vocation or career. At its best, the presence of stress can also be a motivator that urges the individual to strive for excellence. However, excess amounts of stress can lead to a lack of productivity, a loss of confidence, and the inability to perform routine tasks. As a result, quality employees lose their enthusiasm for their work and eventually withdraw from the company. Stress-related disorders encompass a broad array of conditions, including psychological disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder) and other types of emotional strain (e.g., dissatisfaction, fatigue, tension, etc.), maladaptive behaviors (e.g., aggression, substance abuse), and cognitive impairment (e.g., concentration and memory problems). In turn, these conditions may lead to poor work performance or even injury. Job stress is also associated with various biological reactions that may lead ultimately to compromised health, such as cardiovascular disease, or in extreme cases, death. When left unchecked, stress can lead to emotional and physical disorders that began to impact personal as well as professional lives. The individual may develop a level of tension that interferes with sleep, making relaxing outside the workplace impossible. Over time, the stress can trigger emotional disorders such as anxiety, depression and in some cases various phobias that further inhibit the ability to enjoy any aspect of living. Andy Ellis, Ruskin College, Oxford, UK, has shown how stress can adversely affect an employee`s performance. In the early stages job stress can `rev up` the body and enhance performance in the workplace, thus the term `I perform better under pressure`. However, if this condition is allowed to go unchecked and the body is revved up further, the performance ultimately declines and the person`s health degenerates. A fundamental premise of occupational stress models is that elements of the objective work environment are evaluated by employees through an appraisal process, which then results in a physiological, psychological, or behavioral response (Jex 1998). As Cox (1978) asserts, job strain does not necessarily result from the source of the pressure but rather from the employees perception of the pressure. Thus, it is generally recognized that there is a

significant variance in the degree to which salespeople perceive job conditions as stressful (Boles, Johnston, and Hair 1997; Srivastava and Sager 1999). This suggests that the same event (e.g., amount of work) may be perceived as highly stressful by some and not stressful by others. Researchers have long argued that stress does not result from the source of the pressure but mostly from the individuals perception of the pressure (Cox 1978). As Payne notes, It is well known that even people in the same jobs, working in the same physical environment, do not see their environment as having the same level of stress

1.2 Causes of Workplace Stress

Job (role) stress may be caused by a complex set of reasons. There are many physical sources of stress such as work overload, irregular work hours, loss of sleep , noise, improper lighting. Psychological sources of stress may be due to a particular situation such as boring job, inability to socialize, and lack of autonomy, responsibility of results, without sufficient authority, unrealistic objectives, role ambiguity, role conflict and dual career marriages. Since people differ widely in age, economic position and level of maturity people react differently to situations. What might be more stressful to one person may be less to another person. Some of the most visible causes of workplace stress are Job Insecurity Organized workplaces are going through metamorphic changes under intense economic transformations and consequent pressures. Reorganizations, takeovers, mergers, downsizing and other changes have become major stressors for employees, as companies try to live up to the competition to survive. These reformations have put demand on everyone, from a CEO to a mere executive. Work Overload Employees report that they are often stressed when they have too little or too much to do. Managers need to divide responsibilities and help employees prioritize work that must be done. Make sure you understand the impact before shifting responsibilities. Take into account the cost of stress before you increase anyone's workload or hire more people. High Demand for Performance Unrealistic expectations, especially in the time of corporate reorganizations, which, sometimes, puts unhealthy and unreasonable pressures on the employee, can be a tremendous source of stress and suffering. Increased workload, extremely long work hours and intense pressure to perform at peak levels all the time for the same pay, can actually leave an employees physically and emotionally drained. Excessive travel and too much time away from family also contribute to an employee`s stressors.

Career and Role ambiguity If people are uncertain about their jobs and careers, there is a feeling of helplessness and of being out of control. In addition to the trusted job descriptions and annual personnel reviews, people need to understand a broad range of issues that affect the company. Role ambiguity is
created when role expectations are not clearly understood.

Technology The expansion of technologycomputers, pagers, cell phones, fax machines and the Internet has resulted in heightened expectations for productivity, speed and efficiency, increasing pressure on the individual worker to constantly operate at peak performance levels. Workers working with heavy machinery are under constant stress to remain alert. In this case both the worker and their family members live under constant mental stress. There is also the constant pressure to keep up with technological breakthroughs and improvisations, forcing employees to learn new software all the times. Workplace Culture Adjusting to the workplace culture, whether in a new company or not, can be intensely stressful. Making a person adapt to the various aspects of workplace culture such as communication patterns, hierarchy, dress code if any, workspace and most importantly working and behavioral patterns of the boss as well as the co-workers, can be a lesson of life. Maladjustment to workplace cultures may lead to subtle conflicts with colleagues or even with superiors. In many cases office politics or gossips can be major stress inducers. Personal or Family Problems Employees going through personal or family problems tend to carry their worries and anxieties to the workplace. When one is in a depressed mood, his unfocused attention or lack of motivation affects his ability to carry out job responsibilities. Job (role) Stress and Gender Women may suffer from mental and physical harassment at workplaces, apart from the common job stress. Sexual harassment in workplace has been a major source of worry for women, since long. Women may suffer from tremendous stress such as `hostile work

environment harassment`, which is defined in legal terms as `offensive or intimidating behavior in the workplace`. This can consist of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct. These can be a constant source of tension for women in job sectors. Also, subtle discriminations at workplaces, family pressure and societal demands add to these stress factors.

1.3 Stress Related Hazards

Job Content Monotonous, under-stimulating, mea n Lack of variety Unpleasant tasks Workload and Work pace Having too much or too little to do Working under time pressures Working Hours Strict and inflexible working schedules Long and unsocial hours Unpredictable working hours Badly designed shift systems Participation and Control Lack of participation in decision making Lack of control (for example, over work methods, work pace, working hours and the work environment) Home-Work Interface Conflicting demands of work and home Lack of support for domestic problems at work

 Lack of support for work problems at home Interpersonal Relationships Inadequate, inconsiderate or unsupportive supervision Poor relationships with co-workers Bullying, harassment and violence Isolated or solitary work No agreed procedures for dealing with problems or complaints Organizational Culture Poor communication Poor leadership Lack of clarity about organizational objectives and structure [Source: Protecting Workers' Health Series No 3 WHO Publications]

1.4 Burnout
When under severe stress, an individual fails to take clear-cut decisions, reevaluate and reassess the priorities and lifestyles, and ultimately, tend to fall into unproductive distractions. This can be described as a classic case of `burnout`. The `burnouts` often engage in reckless or risk-taking behaviors. Chronic Responsibility Syndrome is a kind of burnout where people get mentally and physically exhausted from their workload. The symptom is often described as "there`s simply too much work to do, and no one else can do it but me". Typically it will occur in hard working, hard driven people, who become emotionally, psychologically or physically exhausted. Often burnout will manifest itself in a reduction in motivation, volume and quality of performance, or in dissatisfaction with or departure from the activity altogether.

1.5 Dimensions
In the extensive research study done by Udai Pareek, who is considered to be the Father of Human Resource Development, he has found ten dimensions of Organizational Role stress. This includes Inter role distance, role stagnation, role expectation conflict, role erosion, role overload, role isolation, personal inadequacy, self role distance, role ambiguity, resource inadequacy. These dimensions and the questionnaire on these dimensions developed by Udai Pareek has been widely used by many researchers on Organizational Role Stress Professor Udai Pareek, the distinguished and immensely productive Indian social psychologist, has designed two interesting psychological tests in the important and timely area of role stress analysis. The first of these, the Role Pics test, is designed to measure individuals' strategies for coping with various kinds of role stress. The test itself is, with proper credits, modeled on Rosenzweig's Picture Frustration test. Twenty-four pictures illustrate 8 different role stress situations such as role overload, role conflict and role ambiguity in both work and family settings. The test-takers projective responses are coded in terms of internality-externality and mode of coping, e.g., intropunitive, impunitive, etc., in such a manner that the individual receives a score on each of the 24 situations as well as overall "profile" on coping strategy. The second test and its manual deal with a questionnaire measure designed to assess the kinds and degree of role stress experienced by the respondent. The ORS (Organizational Role Stress) Scale contains 5 items for each of 10 different types of role stress situation, e.g., role overload, self-role distance, resource inadequacy. The test can be used to provide scores for the individual or organization on the ten types of role stress situations. The manual for the test (i) discusses the concept of role, (ii) contains an excellent review of the published literature on stress generally and role stress/conflict in particular, and (iii) reports the author's and colleagues' research on the instrument. As with the Role Pics test, no real evidence of validity is presented. Strangely, an item analysis and a factor analysis are cited as evidence of validity demonstrating some confusion concerning the concept of validity in the assessment of psychological measures. Some evidence of construct validity may be inferred from research reported on the associations between scores on this role stress scale and other social psychological measures; however, neither the magnitudes of these relations nor the nature of the potential theoretical links are

spelled out. It is apparent that this test's primary usefulness, like that of the Role Pics test, will lie

1.6 Stress dimensions taken for the study

Based on the observations at Caplon Pvt. Ltd. the dimensions shown below are considered to be appropriate and taken up for this correlation study between Role stress and Job Satisfaction among the various levels of employees in Caplon Pvt. Ltd, Surat.

Role Ambiguity

Inter-Role Distance Role Overload

Impact on Organizational Role Stress (ORS) Job satisfaction

Role Expectation conflict

Role Stagnation

Role ambiguity: Business Definition It refers to the lack of clarity on the part of an employee about the expectations regarding the role which may arise out of lack of information or understanding. Role ambiguity may occur in newly created posts or in positions that are undergoing change. It may exist in relation to activities, responsibilities, personal styles and norms and may operate at three stages: a. When the role sender holds his/her expectations about the role, b. When he/she sends it, and c. When the occupants receives those expectations.

Role ambiguity denotes uncertainty about the expectations, behaviors, and consequences associated with a particular role. Specifically, a person has a need to know others' expectations of the rights, duties, and responsibilities of the role, the behaviors that will lead to fulfillment of these expectations, and the likely consequences of these role behaviors. Role ambiguity results when these three types of information are nonexistent or inadequately communicated. Organizational factors (e.g., rapidly changing organizational structures, job feedback systems) and individual factors (e.g., information processing biases) may cause role ambiguity. Consequences of role ambiguity may include tension, job dissatisfaction, and turnover. It is useful to distinguish objective role ambiguity from the subjective role ambiguity experienced by the person in the role. A job description is an example of a formal organizational mechanism that may alleviate role ambiguity. Kahn et al. (1964) were the first to extensively develop these elements of role ambiguity within an organizational context. Inter-role distance Inter-role distance is a type of work-family conflict in which the role demands stemming from one domain (work or family) are incompatible with role demands stemming from another domain (family or work) (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). It is experienced when there is a conflict between organizational and non-organizational roles. For example: the role of an individual as an executive vs. as a friend or wife or husband. According to Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964), roles are the result of expectations of others about appropriate behavior in a particular position. Role conflict is described as the psychological tension that is aroused by conflicting role pressures. Role theory suggests that conflict occurs when individuals engage in multiple roles that are incompatible (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Role overload When the role occupant feels that there are too many expectations from the significant roles in his/her role set, he/she experiences role overload. There are two aspects of this stress: quantitative and qualitative. The former refers to having too much to do, while the latter refers to things being too difficult and the accountability in the role. Work overload is rapidly becoming a serious issue in the United States. The Family and Work Institute found that over half of the employees in the United States reported feeling overwhelmed by the amount of work that was expected of them (Web Site 25-Year Trend Data Facts 2008). Robinson and Griffithss (2005) study also found that work overload is the most frequently cited source of

job stress. Organizational restructuring, reorganizing, and an increasing emphasis on productivity improvements have resulted in employees being saddled with increased responsibilities. In addition, managements focus on profit maximization via cost-cutting often results in employee layoffs, which lead to overwork for those who remain in the organization. Finally, advances in communication technology have resulted in information overload, forcing employees to process more information at an ever-increasing rate. Role overload is experienced when the employee is expected to do more than the time permits. Role expectation conflicts This type of stress is generated by different expectations by different significant persons, i.e. superiors, subordinates and peers, about the same roles and the role occupants ambivalence as to whom to please. Role conflict creates expectation that may hard to satisfy Role stagnation It is the feeling of being stick in the same role. Such a type of stress results in perception that there is no opportunity for the furthering or progress of ones career.

1.7 Effects of Role Stress

Stress affects different people in different ways. The experience of role stress can cause unusual and dysfunctional behavior at work and contribute to poor physical and mental health. In extreme cases, long-term stress or traumatic events at work may lead to psychological problems and be conductive to psychiatric disorders resulting in absence from work and preventing the worker from being able to work again. When under stress, people find it difficult to maintain a healthy balance between work and non-work life. At the same time, they may engage in unhealthy When affected by work stress people may: become increasingly distressed and irritable have difficulty thinking logically and making decisions feel tired, depresses and anxious become unable to relax or concentrate have difficulty sleeping experience serious physical problems such as heart disease, disorders of the digestive system, increases blood pressure, headaches, musculoskeletal disorders (such as low back pain and upper limb disorders)

Work stress is thought to affect organizations by: increasing absenteeism decreasing commitment to work increasing staff turn-over impairing performance and productivity increasing unsafe working practices and accident rates increasing complaints from clients and customers

1.8 Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been defined as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job; an affective reaction to ones job; and an attitude towards ones job. Weiss (2002) has argued that job satisfaction is an attitude but points out that researchers should clearly distinguish the objects of cognitive evaluation which are affect (emotion), beliefs and behaviors. This definition suggests that we form attitudes towards our jobs by taking into account our feelings, our beliefs, and our behaviors. One of the biggest preludes to the study of job satisfaction was the Hawthorne studies. These studies (1924-1933), primarily credited to Elton Mayo of the Harvard Business School, sought to find the effects of various conditions (most notably illumination) on workers productivity. These studies ultimately showed that novel changes in work conditions temporarily increase productivity (called the Hawthorne Effect). Some argue that Maslows hierarchy of needs theory, a motivation theory, laid the foundation for job satisfaction theory. This theory explains that people seek to satisfy five specific needs in life physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, self-esteem needs, and selfactualization.

1.9 Models of job satisfaction

Affect Theory Edwin A. Lockes Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the degree of autonomy in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations are/arent met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, his satisfaction is more greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively (when expectations are not met), compared to one who doesnt value that facet.

Dispositional Theory Another well-known job satisfaction theory is the Dispositional Theory. It is a very general theory that suggests that people have innate dispositions that cause them to have tendencies toward a certain level of satisfaction, regardless of ones job. This approach became a notable explanation of job satisfaction in light of evidence that job satisfaction tends to be stable over time and across careers and jobs. Research also indicates that identical twins have similar levels of job satisfaction. Two-Factor Theory (Motivator-Hygiene Theory) Frederick Herzbergs Two factor theory (also known as Motivator Hygiene Theory) attempts to explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplace. This theory states that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are driven by different factors motivation and hygiene factors, respectively. An employees motivation to work is continually related to job satisfaction of a subordinate. Motivation can be seen as an inner force that drives individuals to attain personal and organization goals (Hoskinson, Porter, & Wrench, p.133). Motivating factors are those aspects of the job that make people want to perform, and provide people with satisfaction, for example achievement in work, recognition, promotion opportunities. These motivating factors are considered to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out. Hygiene factors include aspects of the working environment such as pay, company policies, supervisory practices, and other working conditions. Job Characteristics Model Hackman & Oldham proposed the Job Characteristics Model, which is widely used as a framework to study how particular job characteristics impact on job outcomes, including job satisfaction. The model states that there are five core job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) which impact three critical psychological states (experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of the actual results), in turn influencing work outcomes (job satisfaction, absenteeism, work motivation, etc.). The five core job characteristics can be combined to form a motivating potential score (MPS) for a job, which can be used as an index of how likely a job is to affect an employee's attitudes and behaviors

1.10 Aspects related to Job Satisfaction

Communication Overload and Communication Under load One of the most important aspects of an individuals work in a modern organization concerns the management of communication demands that he or she encounters on the job (Krayer, K. J., & Westbrook, L.). Demands can be characterized as a communication load, which refers to the rate and complexity of communication inputs an individual must process in a particular time frame (Faraca, Monge, & Russel, 1977). Individuals in an organization can experience communication over-load and communication under- load which can affect their level of job satisfaction. Communication overload can occur when an individual receives too many messages in a short period of time which can result in unprocessed information or when an individual faces more complex messages that are more difficult to process (Farace, Monge, & Russel, 1997). Due to this process, given an individuals style of work and motivation to complete a task, when more inputs exist than outputs, the individual perceives a condition of overload (Krayer, K. J., & Westbrook, L.) This can be positively or negatively related to job satisfaction. In comparison, communication under load can occur when messages or inputs are sent below the individuals ability to process them (Farace, Monge, & Russel, 1997). According to the ideas of communication over-load and under-load, if an individual does not receive enough input on the job or is unsuccessful in processing these inputs, the individual is more likely to become dissatisfied, aggravated, and unhappy with their work which leads to a low level of job satisfaction. Superior-Subordinate Communication Superior-subordinate communication is an important influence on job satisfaction in the workplace. The way in which subordinates perceive a supervisors behavior can positively or negatively influence job satisfaction. The manner in which supervisors communicate their subordinates may be more important than the verbal content. Individuals who dislike and think negatively about their supervisor are less willing to communicate or have motivation to work where as individuals who like and think positively of their supervisor are more likely to communicate and are satisfied with their job and work environment. The relationship of a subordinate with their supervisor is a very important aspect in the workplace.

1.11 Dimensions of Job Satisfaction

There is some doubt whether job satisfaction consists of a single dimension or a number of separate ones. Some workers may be satisfied with some aspects of their work and dissatisfied with others. There does, however, appear to be a positive correlation between satisfaction levels in different areas of work. This suggests a single overall factor of job satisfaction. However, it seems there is no one, general, comprehensive theory which explains job satisfaction. Today is still considered by a number of critics to be, a complex concept and difficult to measure objectively. A wide range of variables relating to individual, social, cultural organizational and environmental factors affect the level of job satisfaction. Specifically: - Individual Factors include personality, education, intelligence and abilities, age, marital status. Orientation to work. - Social Factors include relationships with co-workers, group working and norms, opportunities for interaction, informal organization. - Cultural Factors include underlying attitudes, beliefs and values. - Organizational Factors include nature and size, formal structure, personnel policies and procedures, employee relations, nature of the work, technology and work organization, supervision and styles of leadership, management systems, and working conditions. - Environmental Factors include economic, social, technical and governmental influences. 3 Pillars of Job Satisfaction (Alan Skorkin on August 19, 2009) There are many factors involved when determining job satisfaction, some have more effect, and some less (most will have a marginal effect). But there are three factors that stand out above all others. You have all three you are ecstatic, you have none youre miserable. I call them the three pillars of job satisfaction and they are:

money how much you earn people who you work with type of work the type of work youre doing, i.e. whether or not it is interesting to you

Money This includes how much an employee earn and all the perks and bonuses. This is mostly determined by how much he or she worth rather than industry averages or some other kind of metric. If an employee is earning more than he thinks then he will be satisfied and happy and vice versa. The level of satisfaction with this pillar can alter drastically almost overnight. People This is all about the kinds of people you work with. Are you friends with everyone at work, do you like spending time with your work mates socially as well as professionally? If you do then youll be satisfied with this one. You dont have to be friends with everyone at your company, but you do have to like everyone that you closely work with. When you only marginally like the people you work with (i.e. you dont mind them but wouldnt hang out with them), this pillar will hover on the verge of satisfaction. Disliking even one of the people you work with closely, can significantly decrease your level of satisfaction here. The upside with this one is, the more people you really like, the more resilient you are to not getting along with someone (i.e. if youre good mates with everyone, you dont really mind one idiot). As a consequence this pillar is not as susceptible to sudden major shifts like the Money one is. Type of Work This is all about the kind of work you do. It will differ from industry to industry, but in software development it is all about the kind of technologies youre using, what kind of stuff youre learning while doing your work and the kind of impact your work has on the rest of the world. If you work with outdated technology on irrelevant projects and learn nothing new while doing it you will not be happy when it comes to this pillar. If however you get to learn a lot from your work and you think that what youre doing is significant in some way (i.e. there is some bragging power in the work youre doing, like working for a project with name recognition or working for a good cause) youll be happy. This pillar is usually more prone to slow degradation rather than big shifts. The work you do will usually not change significantly in a short period of time, so if youre happy to start with youll usually be happy for a while. However, as you learn all you can from the work that you do (i.e. get across the entire tech) you level of satisfaction may decrease. It will also decrease slowly as the novelty of the work wears off and it becomes routine. Note that if you do consulting work you may

go from wildly happy to wildly unhappy about this one almost overnight by switching projects/clients. The dimensions of Job Satisfaction that has been taken for the study are 1. Type of work This is about the kind of work the employees are doing. The technologies and learning aspects associated with the work are also considered in type of work. Proper training facilities must be provided for employees to enhance the understanding of work type. 2. Co-workers The kind of people the employee work with also influences the level of job satisfaction. Relationship with the co-workers can sometimes be the reason of an employees stress level which will affect the level of job satisfaction. 3. Pay Pay is the monetary compensation that employees get in return for their service to the organization. Employees have to be paid fairly to increase the job satisfaction. Equalization in pay also influences the level of job satisfaction. 4. Supervisor The leadership style of the supervisor can also affect the stress level of employees at workplace. The effectiveness of information passed from higher level to the lower level depends on the skills and ability of the supervisor. 5. Promotion This is the other aspects that motivate the employees to stay satisfactorily in the organization. Fairness and equality should be maintained in deciding the promotions. Unfair promotion can increase the stress level of an employee.

1.12 Role Stress and Job Satisfaction

Role stress has been of central importance to the field of organizational sciences. The belief that stresses experienced by individuals can affect important organizational outcomes (Satisfaction and Performance) is shared by numerous researchers. Ivancevich and Matteson (1980) provided estimates of stress-related costs to the U.S. economy that if reported in present day dollars would be much over 10% of the GNP. Although most of such costs are due to the health-related injuries and mental stresses encountered in organizational contexts, there is considerable loss due to effects of stress on important organizationally valued outcomes, such as job satisfaction and job performance. Relationship between Organizational Role Stress and Job Satisfaction Most of the research on organizational stress has focused on its relationship with job satisfaction. Much of this research has been co relational studies that have used role ambiguity and role conflict to operationalize stress. These studies generally indicate that job stress and satisfaction are inversely related. In addition to these co relational studies, more sophisticated techniques, such as Lisrel and path analysis, have been used to examine the stress-satisfaction relationship. For instance, Kemery, Mossholder, and Bedeian (1987) employed Lisrel to test three models, (e.g., Beehr & Newman, 1978; Locke, 1976; Schuler, 1982) that postulate causal relationships among role ambiguity, role conflict, and organizationally valued outcomes such as job satisfaction, physical symptoms, and turnover intentions. Similar findings of the indirect effect of stress on turnover intentions through job satisfaction have been reported by Hendtix, Ovalle, and Troxier (1985) and Kemery, Bedian, Mossholder, and Touliatos (1985). Hendrix and associates used a stress assessment package developed by them to measure organizational stress, job satisfaction and turnover intentions of employees working for the Department of Defense (n=341) and a civilian hospital (n=29). They did not find a direct, significant relationship between organizational stress and turnover intentions. However, results of a path analysis indicated that job satisfaction was affected by factors such as involvement in decision making, skill variety, and whether work was subject to the whims of supervisors. In turn, job satisfaction was strongly linked to the intention to quit. Kemery and associate (1985) used three samples of accountants, (public n=275, government n=254, industrial n=459), and a sample of hospital employees (n=66) derived from Jackson's 1983 study, to replicate the Bedeian and Armenakis (1981) model of the relationship between role ambiguity and conflict, as well as job tension, satisfaction, and

intention to leave. Using Lisrel, they found that data from these three samples of accountants supported the Bedeian and Armenakis model (1). Stress exerted an indirect influence on turnover intentions through job satisfaction. However, unlike the results of Kemery et al. (1987) and Hendrix et al. (1985), stress also exerted a direct influence not only on job-related tension and job satisfaction, but on the propensity to leave the organization. The diversity of job types, (e.g., university, defense department, hospital employees), as well as the differences in experienced stress levels and in the measures employed could explain these conflicting findings.

Link between Job Stress and Job Satisfaction Several studies have tried to determine the link between stress and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction and job stress are the two hot focuses in human resource management researches. According to Stamps & Piedmonte (1986) job satisfaction has been found significant relationship with job stress. One study of general practitioners in England identified four job stressors that were predictive of job dissatisfaction (Cooper, et al., 1989). In other study, Vinokur-Kaplan (1991) stated that organization factors such as workload and working condition were negatively related with job satisfaction. Fletcher & Payne (1980) identified that a lack of satisfaction can be a source of stress, while high satisfaction can alleviate the effects of stress. This study reveals that, both of job stress and job satisfaction were found to be inter-related. The study of Landsbergis (1988) and Terry et al. (1993) showed that high levels of work stress are associated with low levels of job satisfaction. Moreover, Cummins (1990) have emphasized that job stressors are predictive of job dissatisfaction and greater propensity to leave the organization. Sheena et al. (2005) studied in UK found that there are some occupations that are reporting worse than average scores on each of the factors such as physical health, psychological well-being, and job satisfaction. The relationship between variables can be very important to academician. If a definite link exists between two variables, it could be possible for a academician to provide intervention in order to increase the level of one of the variables in hope that the intervention will also improve the other variable as well (Koslowsky, et al., 1995).

1.13 Theoretical framework of the Study

[Age, Gender, Experience, Marital Status, Educational Qualification, Grade]

Role Ambiguity

Inter Role Distance

Dimensions
Role Overload

Organizational Role Stress (ORS)

Role Expectation Conflict Role Stagnation

Impact on

Job Satisfaction

2.1 Literature Review

1. Title: The Nature of Managerial Work in the Public Sector Authors: Alan W. Lau, Arthur R. Newman, Laurie A. Broedling Year of Publishing: 1980 Link/Source: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3110205 40, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1980), pp. 513-520 Abstract: Under the reform Act, the compensation of the executives in Public sector will be based on the individual and organizational performance and not on the length of service. Pay for the top level executives will be set at one of six levels, with the possibility of lump sum bonuses being awarded to some of the executives. The reform Act abolishes the previous government wide executive performance appraisal system and charters individual agencies to develop appraisal system that specify performance requirements and link personal actions more closely to individual performances. Performance standards are to be based on objective, job-related criteria and systematic identification of managerial competencies associated with carrying out the tasks and functions of executive positions. Other provisions of the reform act charge the Office of Personal Management (OPM), the agency which replaces the Civil Service commission, with the responsibility of ensuring that federal agencies establish programs for the training and development of current and prospective Senior Executive Services candidates. Although there is a large body of literature on what constitutes management and how to select and develop effective managers and executives, little can be applied to the current problem. First, much of the management literature has developed with the private sector manager in mind. Executive activity has received considerably less systematic attention in the public sector. Second, much of what has been written on management Fayol first introduced the notion of POSDCORB (Planning, Organizing, and Staffing etc.) consists of speculation regarding what managers and their subordinates say they do, could do, or should do. Relatively little of this information is empirically based on studies of Public Administration Review, Vol.

managerial job activities. Third, little of the literature pertains specifically to top executives; either it pertains to middle level or first level supervisors, or it treats management as function that is the same across all hierarchical levels or functional areas. Fourth, much of the research has dealt with only one aspect of management, namely, leadership. There are numerous aspects to management (e,g., decision making, resource allocation, negotiation) which have received relatively less attention. Finally, management and leadership theories have traditionally been shortrange and atomistic, focusing on leader group. 2. Title: Reducing Occupational Stress: An Introductory Guide for Managers, Supervisors and Union Members Authors: Janet Cahill, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Rowan College of New Jersey, Paul A. Landsbergis, Ed.D., M.P.H., Hypertension Center, Cornell University Medical College Peter L. Schnall, M.D., M.P.H., Center for Social Epidemiology Year of Publishing: 1995 Link/Source: Presented at the Work Stress and Health '95 Conference. September 1995, Washington D.C. Abstract: This paper focuses on how role stress can be reduced at workplace through various measures. It is majorly oriented towards two major goals viz., identifying the major features of healthy organizational change and developing organizational and individual change strategies. The examples have also been cited to show how organizational changes can reduces role stress. Making a real commitment to stress reduction has been marked as one of the important steps in organizational change that will help in reducing the stress. In non-unionized workplaces, this commitment should be made by top management. In unionized workplaces, both top management and union representatives need to be involved. A healthy organizational change can include Changes that will increase employees' autonomy or control, Changes that will increase the skill levels of level of employees, increasing employees sense of control

and participation in the employees, Changes that will improve physical working conditions, Changes that provide a reasonable level of job demands. Other than organizational change, management can offer an occupational stress workshop that will educate the employees in communicating the stress related issues. This kind of training can be comfortably done in either a half or full day session. An occupational stress committee can also be formed to formulate a strategy for improving the work environment in the organization. Group membership of the committee should include both labor and management. Some of the other steps that an organization can adopt for could be increasing the skill workplace etc. Important Notes: 1. It is assumed that organizational cost can be identified due to high stress levels at workplace and among employees. And there is always an opportunity to improve the quality of work in the organization. 2. Increasing Employees' Sense of Control and Participation in the Workplace 3. Increasing the Skill Levels of Employees 4. Increasing Levels of Social Support 5. Changes that Improve Physical Working Conditions 6. Healthy Use of Technology 7. Maintaining Job Demands at Healthy Levels 8. Changes that Provide for Job Security and Career Development 9. Changes that Provide Healthy Work Schedules 10. Strategies to Improve Personal Coping Mechanisms

3. Title : Personal Psychology Author: Howard J. Baumgartel, JR. Year of Publishing: 1976 Link/Source: Copyright of Personnel Psychology is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited Abstract: This article analyses the two different tests developed by Udai Pareek. One is role pics test and the other is manual test which is done through tested questionnaire. Important Notes: 1. Professor Udai Pareek has designed two interesting psychological tests in the important and timely area of role stress analysis. The first of these, the Role Pics test, is designed to measure individuals' strategies for coping with various kinds of role stress. 2. The second test and its manual deal with a questionnaire measure designed to assess the kinds and degree of role stress experienced by the respondent. The ORS (Organizational Role Stress) Scale contains 5 items for each of 10 different types of role stress situation, e.g., role overload, self-role distance, resource inadequacy. The test can be used to provide scores for the individual or organization on the ten types of role stress situations. 4. Title: A Comparative study of organizational role stress amongst managers of government, public and private sectors Authors: Mohan V, Chauhan D. Punjab University, Chandigarh Year of Publishing: 1999 Link/Source: Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. 1999 Jan-Jul; 25(1-2): 45-50

Abstract: Optimum stress is essential for performing well in one's job. It acts as a drive and can be called Eustress. But once stress exceeds a certain limit it can cause burnout and detrimentally affect work performance. The present study was conducted on 174 middle level managers from Government (50), Public (76) and Private (48) sectors. There were 137 males and 37 females. Overall, the latter were very less in number. These managers were administered Organizational Role Stress (ORS) Scale by Udai Pareek. A t-test was done to find sex differences, if any, on the 10 subscales of ORS and the total score. None of the t-ratios were significant, as such the data was pooled. Simple ANOVA were done for all the 10 subscales and total ORS scores to test the differences amongst the three sectors. The results showed that there were only two significant F-ratios-for Role Erosion and Self-Role Conflict. The managers of Public Sector experienced the maximum Role Erosion and Self Role Conflict, followed by Government and the private sector. The private sector seems to have a better work climate which is giving enough forward orientation in one's job role and also less amount of intra-personal conflictual situations. This can have implications for improvement of work climate in Government and Public Sector. Important Notes: 1. Both role conflict and ambiguity have been linked to negative outcomes in occupational settings, such as increases in perceived job tension, higher job dissatisfaction, greater propensity to leave the firm, and lower performance (Fisher and Gitelson 1983; Jackson and Schuler 1985; Van Sell et al. 1981). 2. A study by Rebele and Michaels (1990) confirmed that both role conflict and ambiguity were negatively related to job satisfaction. Like Senatra (1980), the researchers also found role conflict: to be positively associated with job-related tension. Rebele and Michaels (1990) were the first researchers to also consider the consequences of role stress on auditor performance. While they found that role ambiguity adversely affected job performance, no association was found between role conflict and self-rated job performance.

5. Title: Role Stress, the Type A Behavior Pattern, and External Auditor Job Satisfaction and Performance. Authors: Fisher, Richard T. Year of Publishing: 2001 Link/Source: Behavioral Research in Accounting; 2001, Vol. 13 Abstract: This study examines the relationship between elements of role stress and two important external auditor job outcome variables: job satisfaction and performance. The study extends prior research by examining the moderating influence of the Type A behavior pattern on these relationships. The need to re-examine the linkages between the elements of role stress and both job satisfaction and job performance using theoretically based moderators, such as the Type A behavior pattern, has been highlighted in the role-stress literature. Analysis of survey data confirmed that both role conflict and role ambiguity are significantly negatively associated with auditor job performance and job satisfaction. However, the expected moderating role of the Type A behavior pattern on the relationships between the components of role stress and job satisfaction and auditor job performance was not found. Interestingly, however, a direct positive relationship between the Type A behavior pattern and both job outcome variables was apparent. The latter result suggests that, among audit professionals, Type A individuals tend to outperform and be more satisfied with their employment than Type Bs.

6. Title: Interrelationships of Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity and Work-Family conflict with different facets of Job Satisfaction and the moderating effects of Gender Authors: Boles, James S. Wood, John Andy Johnson, Julie Year of Publishing: 2003 Link/Source: Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management; Spring2003, Vol. 23 Issue 2 Abstract: The effects of role conflict, role ambiguity, and work-family conflict on overall salesperson job satisfaction have been examined in previous studies across work settings. Less attention has been given to the interrelationships between role conflict, role ambiguity, and work-family conflict with various facets of job satisfaction. The moderating role of gender has also received relatively little attention in the sales force management literature than it may warrant. In a study of 129 business-to-business salespeople, it was found that the relationships of work-related role stress and workfamily conflict were different for the various facets of job satisfaction. Further, there were significant differences among these relationships between male and female salespeople. Sales management implications of these findings are presented and topics for future research are identified. Important Notes: 1. Role stress, as originally theorized by Katz and Kahn (1966), results from an employee's role conflict and role ambiguity. 2. There is evidence that stress arising from trying to simultaneously resolve the conflicts between the duties of all of these roles can affect an employee's job satisfaction (e.g., Higgins and Duxbury 1992; Kossek and Ozeki 1998). Further, the ambiguity that arises from being uncertain as to how much latitude in behavior a salesperson has in resolving these conflicts can also reduce job satisfaction (Behrman and Perreault 1984; Fisher and Gitelson 1983).

3. The various facets of Job Satisfaction are type of work, co-workers, pay, promotion, policy, customers. 7. Title: Occupational Stress and Job Satisfaction Among Managers Authors: K. Chandraiah, S.C. Agarwal, P. Marimuthu, N. Manoharan Year of Publishing: 2003 Link/Source: Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine VOL. 7, NO. 2, May-August 2003 Abstract: Age can be explained in the terms, that the individuals matured personality disposition related to the attainment of developmental tasks specific to each developmental tasks specific to each developmental phase and its influence on individuals perception of the situations as stressful or otherwise. The present study was planned to investigate the effect of Age on Occupational stress and job satisfaction among managers of different age groups. A sample of 105 industrial managers working in different large-scale organizations was selected randomly for the present study. The Occupational Stress Index (OSI) developed by Srivastava and Singh (1983) and Job Descriptive Index (JDI) by Smith Kendal (1963) were used to assess the level of job stress and job satisfaction of the sample. The findings of the study reveals higher levels of job stress and less job satisfaction among managers of 25-35 years age than their counterparts in the middle age (36-45 years) and the old age groups(46-55years). The study also found that the age found to be negatively correlated with occupational stress and positively with job satisfaction Important Notes: 1. Extreme stress is so aversive to employees that they will try to avoid it by withdrawing either psychologically (through disinterest or lack of involvement in the job etc.) Physically (frequent late coming, absenteeism, lethargy etc.) or by leaving the job entirely (Beehr and Newman, 1978).

2. It is reported by many researchers that the low job satisfaction was associated with high stress (Hollingworth et al., Abdul Halim, 1981; Keller et al., 1975; Leigh et al, 1988). 3. Young adults experience of high stress might have resulted in their significantly low job satisfaction of similarly low occupational stress experienced by late middle aged might be related to their relatively higher job satisfaction scores than the younger group. 8. Authors: Stavroula Leka BA Msc Phd, Prof. Amanda Griffiths Year of Publishing: 2004 Link/Source: Protecting Workers' Health Series No 3 WHO Publications Abstract: Work stress is thought to affect individuals psychological and physical health, as well as organizations effectiveness, in an adverse manner. This booklet provides practical advice on how to deal with work stress. It is intended that employers, managers and trade union representatives use this booklet as part of an initiative to educate on the management of work stress. Discussed are the nature of stress at work, the causes and effects of stress, as well as prevention strategies and risk assessment and management methods. Also discussed are the role of the organizational culture in this process and the resources to be drawn upon for managing work stress. The advice should be interpreted in the light of the particular problems faced by different groups of workers and what is reasonably practicable by way of solutions for each individual employer. Lists of common causes and effects of stress are included for illustrative purposes. References and suggestions for further reading are listed in Chapter 12.WHO offers special acknowledgement to the authors of the document and to the reviewers who provided assistance in finalizing the brochure. Important Notes: 1. Workers who are stressed are also more likely to be unhealthy, poorly motivated, less productive and less safe at work. Their organizations are less likely to be successful in a competitive market.

2. Causes of Work Stress: Job Content Monotonous, under-stimulating, mea n Lack of variety Unpleasant tasks Workload and Work pace Having too much or too little to do Working under time pressures Working Hours Strict and inflexible working schedules Long and unsocial hours Unpredictable working hours Badly designed shift systems 3. Effects of Work Stress: become increasingly distressed and irritable, become unable to relax or concentrate, have difficulty thinking logically and making decisions, feel tired, depressed, anxious.

9. Title: A Study of Job Stress on Job Satisfaction among University Staff in Malaysia: Empirical Study Authors: Nilufar Ahsan, Zaini Abdullah, David Yong Gun Fie, Syed Shah Alam Year of Publishing: 2009 Link/Source: European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 1 (2009)

Abstract: This article investigates the relationship between job stress and job satisfaction. The determinants of job stress that have been examined under this study include, management role, relationship with others, workload pressure, homework interface, role ambiguity, and performance pressure. The sample consists of a public university academician from Klang Valley area in Malaysia. The results show there is a significant relationship between four of the constructs tested. The results also show that there is significant negative relationship between job stress and job satisfaction. 10. Title: The effect of Self-efficacy on Sales Person Work Over Load and Pay Satisfaction Authors: Jay Prakash Mulki, Felicia G. Lassk, and Fernando Jaramillo Year of Publishing: 2008 Link/Source: Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXVIII, no. 3 (summer 2008) Abstract: As the lines blur between when work ends and home life begins, employees, working longer hours and multitasking, increasingly report feeling overwhelmed by their work. This research note investigates the effect of work overload and self-efficacy on important job outcomescapability rewards and pay satisfaction. Utilizing social cognitive theory, the job demands control model, and the psychological contract notion, this paper provides evidence that role stress and work overload mediate the effect of self-efficacy on capability rewards and pay satisfaction. An empirical study is presented that includes 138 responses from boat and marine products salespeople. Study results and future research are discussed. Important Notes: 1. A fundamental premise of occupational stress models is that elements of the objective work environment are evaluated by employees through an appraisal process, which then results in a physiological, psychological, or behavioral response (Jex 1998). As Cox (1978) asserts, job strain does not necessarily result

from the source of the pressure but rather from the employees perception of the pressure. Thus, it is generally recognized that there is a significant variance in the degree to which salespeople perceive job conditions as stressful (Boles, Johnston, and Hair 1997; Srivastava and Sager 1999). This suggests that the same event (e.g., amount of work) may be perceived as highly stressful by some and not stressful by others. 2. There are individual factors that may explain the way salespeople perceive and respond to their job roles and workloads. This research note suggests that one such factor is self-efficacy. For instance, two salespeople might receive an identical request from management. 3. Sales research views self-efficacy as a critical variable that can influence salespeoples perceptions and responses to challenges and negative situations in the job (Dixon and Schertzer 2005).

2.2 Research Methodology

2.2.1 Hypothesis Statement 1: There is a negative correlation between Organizational Role Stress and Job Satisfaction 2.2.2 Statement of the Problem Due to the competitive nature of the job environment most of the people are spending their time for job related work purposes resulting ignore the stressor those are influencing their work and life. Usually people are more worry about their outcome of their work that can even affect the way they treat other people and how they communicate with their peers. The study focuses on analyzing the various Stress dimensions and its impact on Job Satisfaction among the employees of Caplon Pvt. Ltd. 2.2.3 Scope of the Study The present study is undertaken to analyze the various dimensions of Organizational Role Stress (ORS) like role stagnation, role overload, inter role distance, role ambiguity and role expectation conflict and its correlation with that of the job satisfaction among the employees of Caplon Pvt. Ltd. Organization in turn can use the study to evaluate and design its HR functions to control the stress level of employees and there by attain high level of job satisfaction. This will enhance the organizational capability to maintain satisfied employees and provide strategy to improve the satisfaction level of existing employees. 2.2.4 Type of Research Descriptive Research Descriptive research or statistical research provides data about the population or universe being studied. Descriptive studies are well structured, tend to be rigid in its approach which cannot be changed every now & then. Therefore researcher should give sufficient thought to framing of research questions and deciding the type of data to be collected and the procedure to be used for this purpose. Therefore, descriptive research is used when the objective is to provide a systematic description that is as factual and as accurate as possible.

2.2.5 Sampling Sample Size: Sample size taken for the study is 244. It includes technical and non-technical employees. Total there are more than 280 employees in company but due to the busy schedule of employees some of the questionnaires were not been filled and we were able to collect 244 questionnaire. Sampling Method: Simple Random Sampling has been adopted To represent the population, samples have been taken from Various departments of company. 2.2.6 Sources of Data: The data collected for this study comprises of primary and secondary data. Primary data has been collected by distributing the structured questionnaire on five dimensions of Organizational Role stress and Job Satisfaction to the sampling units. Secondary data has been collected through various journals, articles and books on Organizational Role Stress and its Dimensions. Companys website has been used to study about the company and to get other information. 2.2.7 Objectives of the study Stress is one of the most important factors that influence the efficiency of individual and satisfaction in modern day occupational settings. The objective of the study is To find out the different factors (Stressors) which leads to role stress among the various level of employees in Caplon Pvt Ltd., Surat. To identify the correlation between each identified factors of Role Stress with respect to Job Satisfaction. To study the impact of different demographic factors of employees and their impact on Stress and job satisfaction.

2.2.8 Techniques and tools used for interpretation The tools that have been adopted and used for the study are ORS Scale Dimensions. Based on the observation made at Caplon Pvt. Ltd., questionnaire was prepared on the following five dimensions like Role stagnation (RS), Role Expectation Conflict (REC), Role Overload (RO), Role Ambiguity (RA), Inter Role Distance (IRD) and been distributed to the samples. Other than ORS dimensions, questionnaire on the dimensions of Job Satisfaction (JS) like type of work, co-workers, pay, supervisor and promotion were also distributed. The techniques used for analysis and interpretation of the collected data are: 1. ANOVA 2. Correlation 2.2.9 Limitations of the study Due to hesitation of the respondent to reveal the information, data may not represent true representation of the population. Due to the busy schedule of the respondent it was not possible to get true picture of the respondents behavior. The response of employee may be biased as they may get affected by response given by their colleague. The research was conducted within a limited duration.

4. ANALYSIS

1. I am afraid I am not learning enough in my present role for taking up higher responsibility.
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 154

68

4 Strongly Agree

14

Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 4 employees are strongly agree, 4 are somewhat agree, 14 are moderately agree, 68 are somewhat disagree and 154 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees are learning enough in their role for taking up higher responsibility. 2. I am not able to satisfy the conflicting demands of various people above me.

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

154

68 18

0 Strongly Agree

Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that no employees strongly agree, 4 employees are somewhat agree, 18 employees are moderately agree, 68 are somewhat disagree and 154 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees satisfy the conflicting demands of various people above them. 3. My role tends to interfere with my family life.

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

166

64 14

0 Strongly Agree

Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, no employees are somewhat agree, 14 are moderately agree, 64 are somewhat disagree and 166 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees have no role interference with their life.

4. My workload is too heavy.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree 4 2 26 68

144

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 4 employees are strongly agree, 2 are somewhat agree, 26 are moderately agree, 68 are somewhat disagree and 144 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees have feeling of no workload.

5. I am not clear on the scope and responsibilities of my role (job).

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

140

82

18 0 Strongly Agree 4 Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, 4 are somewhat agree, 18 are moderately agree, 82 are somewhat disagree and 140 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees are clear on the scope and responsibilities of their role (job).

6. I am not quite interested in the work I am doing.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 Strongly Agree 6 6 Somewhat Disagree 82

150

Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, 6 are somewhat agree, 6 are moderately agree, 82 are somewhat disagree and 150 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees are interested in the work they are doing.

7. I am not able to perform in my present responsibility to be able to prepare myself for taking up higher responsibilities.

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

84 74

78

2 Strongly Agree

6 Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 2 employees are strongly agree, 6 are somewhat agree, 74 are moderately agree, 84 are somewhat disagree and 78 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees able to perform in their present responsibility to be prepare themselves for taking up higher responsibilities.

8. I am not able to satisfy the conflicting demands of my peers and juniors.

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 Strongly Agree 6 Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree 42 84

112

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, 6 are somewhat agree, 42 are moderately agree, 84 are somewhat disagree and 112 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees able to satisfy the conflicting demands of their peers and juniors.

9. I have various other interests (social, religious) which remain neglected because I do not get time to attend these.

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree 4 6 16 90

128

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 4 employees are strongly agree, 6 are somewhat agree, 16 are moderately agree, 90 are somewhat disagree and 128 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees have various other interests (social, religious) which do not neglected because they get time to attend those.

10. The amount of work I have to do interfere with the quality I want to maintain.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

86

50 40 38 30

Strongly Agree

Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 40 employees are strongly agree, 38 are somewhat agree, 86 are moderately agree, 30 are somewhat disagree and 50 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees have the amount of work they have to do quietly interfere with the quality they want to maintain.

11. I do not know what people with whom I work, expect of me.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree 8 4 14 66

152

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 8 employees are strongly agree, 4 are somewhat agree, 14 are moderately agree, 66 are somewhat disagree and 152 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees know what people with whom they work, expect from them.

12. My co-workers do not share and exchange information and ideas freely.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree 6 2 10 78

148

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 6 employees are strongly agree, 2 are somewhat agree, 10 are moderately agree, 78 are somewhat disagree and 148 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that their co-workers share and exchange information and ideas freely.

13. I do not have time and opportunities to prepare myself for the future challenges of my role.

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree 0 2 34

118 90

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, 2 are somewhat agree, 34 are moderately agree, 118 are somewhat disagree and 90 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees have time and opportunities to prepare themselves for the future challenges of their role.

14. I am not able to satisfy the demands of clients and others, since these are conflicting with one another.

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 Strongly Agree 6 Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree 40

110 88

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, 6 are somewhat agree, 40 are moderately agree, 110 are somewhat disagree and 88 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees able to satisfy the demands of clients and others, since those are conflicting with one another.

15. My role does not allow me to have enough time for my family.

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

156

70

0 Strongly Agree

10 Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, 8 are somewhat agree, 10 are moderately agree, 70 are somewhat disagree and 156 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that their role allow them to have enough time for their family.

16. I have been given too much responsibility.

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

156

60 24 2 Strongly Agree 2 Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

From the above table we can see that the 2 employees are strongly agree, 2 are somewhat agree, 24 are moderately agree, 60 are somewhat disagree and 156 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that they have been given sufficient responsibilities as per their role.

17. Several aspects of my role are vague and unclear.

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 Strongly Agree 0 Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree 34 88

122

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, no employees are somewhat agree, 34 are moderately agree, 88 are somewhat disagree and 122 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that all the aspects of their role are not vague and clear.

18. I do not receive appropriate Praise and Recognition for my contributions in this organization.

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree 8 14 18

114 90

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 8 employees are strongly agree, 14 are somewhat agree, 18 are moderately agree, 114 are somewhat disagree and 90 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees receive appropriate Praise and Recognition for their contributions in the organization.

19. There is very little scope for personal growth in my role.

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree 18 36 92 98

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, 18 are somewhat agree, 36 are moderately agree, 92 are somewhat disagree and 98 are strongly disagree.

On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that there is a wide scope for personal growth in their role.

20. The expectations of my seniors conflict with those of my juniors.

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree 0 2 26

130 106

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, 2 are somewhat agree, 26 are moderately agree, 130 are somewhat disagree and 106 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that the expectations of their seniors do not conflict with those of their juniors.

21. My organizational responsibilities interfere with my extra organizational roles.

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 Strongly Agree 6 Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree 22 98 118

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, 6 are somewhat agree, 22 are moderately agree, 98 are somewhat disagree and 118 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that their organizational responsibilities do not interfere with their extra organizational roles.

22. There is a need to reduce some parts of my role.

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree 2 6 40 84

112

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 2 employees are strongly agree, 6 are somewhat agree, 40 are moderately agree, 84 are somewhat disagree and 112 are strongly disagree. On the

basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that there is no need to reduce some parts of their role.

23. My role has not been defined clearly and in detail.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0 Somewhat Disagree 24 76

144

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, no employees are somewhat agree, 24 are moderately agree, 76 are somewhat disagree and 144 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that their role has been defined clearly and in detail.

24. I cannot speak freely to my Supervisor/ Team Leader on work related and non-work related topics.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree 6 4 20 76

138

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 6 employees are strongly agree, 4 are somewhat agree, 20 are moderately agree, 76 are somewhat disagree and 138 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that they can speak freely to their Supervisor/ Team Leader on work related and non-work related topics.

25. I feel stagnant in my role.

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

78 70 70

22 4 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 4 employees are strongly agree, 22 are somewhat agree, 78 are moderately agree, 70 are somewhat disagree and 70 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that they quietly stick on their role.

26. I am bothered with the contradictory expectations different people have from my role.

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 4 Somewhat Disagree 38 72

130

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, 4 are somewhat agree, 38 are moderately agree, 72 are somewhat disagree and 130 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees are not bothered with the contradictory expectations different people have from their role.

27. My family and friends complain that I do not spend time with them due to the heavy demands of my work role.

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

154

72

2 Strongly Agree

12 Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 2 employees are strongly agree, 4 are somewhat agree, 12 are moderately agree, 72 are somewhat disagree and 154 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that their family and friends do not complain that they do not spend time with them due to the heavy demands of their work role.

28. I feel overburdened in my role.

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

172

52 2 Strongly Agree 18 0 Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 2 employees are strongly agree, no employees are somewhat agree, 18 are moderately agree, 52 are somewhat disagree and 172 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees do not feel overburdened in their role.

29. I am not clear with the priorities of my role.

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 Strongly Agree 0 Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree Somewhat Disagree 28 96

120

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

From the above table we can see that the no employees are strongly agree, no employees are somewhat agree, 28 are moderately agree, 96 are somewhat disagree and 120 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that they are clear with the priorities of their role.

30. Promotion system here is not fair and it is biased.

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Moderately Agree 18 6 4

114 102

Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: From the above table we can see that the 6 employees are strongly agree, 4 are somewhat agree, 18 are moderately agree, 114 are somewhat disagree and 102 are strongly disagree. On the basis of this we can say that most of the employees feel that promotion system is fair and it is not biased. 4.1 Chart 1: Depicting the Mean values of various stressors prevailing among the employees of Caplon Pvt. Ltd.

Mean Values of Dimensions

RS REC IRD 17.41 16.54 15.80 15.49 RO RA

17.15

Dimensions

Role Stagnation: There are total 5 questions for Role Stagnation. So score range for Role Stagnation will fall between 0 to 20. So the Mid-point of this Role Stagnation will be 10 (i.e. 0 + 20 = 20/2 = 10). And we can see from the above graph that mean of Role Stagnation for Caplon is 15.49 which is more than mid-point 10, it means we can say that most of the employees have good Role Stagnation. It means they think that they are not stick on the same job and they have more growth opportunity.

Role Expectation Conflict: There are total 5 questions for Role Expectation Conflict. So score range for Role Expectation Conflict will fall between 0 to 20. So the Mid-point of this Role Expectation Conflict will be 10 (i.e. 0 + 20 = 20/2 = 10). And we can see from the above graph that mean of Role Expectation Conflict for Caplon is 16.54 which is more than mid-point 10, it means we can say that most of the employees have less Role Expectation Conflict. It means they think that they satisfy the expectation of their superiors, subordinates and peers fairly.

Inter Role Distance: There are total 5 questions for Inter Role Distance. So score range for Inter Role Distance will fall between 0 to 20. So the Mid-point of this Inter Role Distance will be 10 (i.e. 0 + 20 = 20/2 = 10).

And we can see from the above graph that mean of Inter Role Distance for Caplon is 17.41 which is more than mid-point 10, it means we can say that most of the employees have low Inter Role Distance. It means they think that they handling their both life i.e. personal life & work life very well. Role Overload: There are total 5 questions for Role Overload. So score range for Role Overload will fall between 0 to 20. So the Mid-point of this Role Overload will be 10 (i.e. 0 + 20 = 20/2 = 10). And we can see from the above graph that mean of Role Overload for Caplon is 15.80 which is more than mid-point 10, it means we can say that most of the employees have less Role Overload. It means they think that they dont feel over loaded by work.

Role Ambiguity: There are total 5 questions for Role Ambiguity. So score range for Role Ambiguity will fall between 0 to 20. So the Mid-point of this Role Ambiguity will be 10 (i.e. 0 + 20 = 20/2 = 10). And we can see from the above graph that mean of Role Ambiguity for Caplon is 15.80 which is more than mid-point 10, it means we can say that most of the employees have less Role Ambiguity. It means they think that they are clear about their role and responsibility.

4.1 Chart 2: Depicting the Mean values of job satisfaction and stress prevailing among the employees of Caplon Pvt Ltd.

Stress & Job Satisfaction

JS Stress 16.47 12.21

Dimensions

Job Satisfaction: There are total 5 questions for Job Satisfaction. So score range for Job Satisfaction will fall between 0 to 20. So the Mid-point of this Job Satisfaction will be 10 (i.e. 0 + 20 = 20/2 = 10). And we can see from the above graph that mean of Job Satisfaction for Caplon is 12.21 which is more than mid-point 10, it means we can say that most of the employees have good Job Satisfaction in the company. Stress: There are total 5 questions for Stress. So score range for Stress will fall between 0 to 20. So the Mid-point of this Stress will be 10 (i.e. 0 + 20 = 20/2 = 10). And we can see from the above graph that mean of Stress for Caplon is 16.47 which is more than mid-point 10, it means we can say that most of the employees have less Stress in the company.

Interpretation:

There is negative correlation between the Stress and Job Satisfaction. It means when the stress level increases among the employees it will have a negative effect on Job Satisfaction. Negative effect will be decrease in Job Satisfaction. The reason for lower stress level could be many like good clarity in their roles, less overload of work and assignments, less relationship conflict among the employees, having growth opportunity, balancing the professional and personal life etc.

From the table we can say that the stress level of employees is less in Caplon because the mean of stress for Caplon is 16.47 which is more than midpoint 10. In the questionnaire, all the comments are of negative nature and our rating is ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree which ranges from 0-4. Thus, in our study the stress level is low if the score of stress is more.

4.2 ANOVA- Analysis of Variance

4.2.1 Table 1: One way ANOVA showing relationship between RS, REC, IRD, RO, RA, Stress and JS with Gender

ANOVA

Sum of Squares RS Between Groups Within Groups Total REC Between Groups Within Groups Total IRD Between Groups Within Groups Total RO Between Groups Within Groups Total RA Between Groups Within Groups Total JS Between Groups Within Groups .504 1600.496 1601.000 25.284 1483.306 1508.590 38.779 1251.008 1289.787 6.498 1937.256 1943.754 9.229 1176.033 1185.262 1.249 303.669

df 1 242 243 1 242 243 1 242 243 1 242 243 1 242 243 1 242

Mean Square .504 6.614

F .076

Sig. .783

25.284 6.129

4.125

.043

38.779 5.169

7.501

.007

6.498 8.005

.812

.369

9.229 4.860

1.899

.169

1.249 1.255

.995

.320

Total Stress Between Groups Within Groups Total

304.918 308.097 17936.165 18244.262

243 1 242 243 308.097 74.116 4.157 .043

Role Stagnation: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RS and gender of the employees because the significant value is 0.783 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RS they didnt differ in their answer as per their gender.

Role Expectation Conflict: From the table we can say that there is a significant variance between REC and gender of the employees because the significant value is 0.043 which is less than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about REC they differ in their answer as per their gender.

Inter Role Distance: From the table we can say that there is a significant variance between IRD and gender of the employees because the significant value is 0.007 which is less than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about IRD they differ in their answer as per their gender.

Role Overload: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RO and gender of the employees because the significant value is 0.369 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RO they didnt differ in their answer as per their gender.

Role Ambiguity: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RA and gender of the employees because the significant value is 0.169 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RA they didnt differ in their answer as per their gender.

Job Satisfaction: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between JS and gender of the employees because the significant value is 0.320 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about JS they didnt differ in their answer as per their gender.

Stress: From the table we can say that there is a significant variance between Stress and gender of the employees because the significant value is 0.043 which is less than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about Stress they differ in their answer as per their gender.

4.2.2 Table 2: One way ANOVA- One way ANOVA showing relationship between RS, REC, IRD, RO, RA, Stress and JS with Marital Status

ANOVA

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

Sig.

RS

Between Groups Within Groups Total

6.423 1594.577 1601.000 1.475 1507.115 1508.590 5.077 1284.710 1289.787 .654 1943.100 1943.754 2.324 1182.938 1185.262 2.678 302.240 304.918 13.461 18230.801 18244.262

1 242 243 1 242 243 1 242 243 1 242 243 1 242 243 1 242 243 1 242 243

6.423 6.589

.975

.324

REC

Between Groups Within Groups Total

1.475 6.228

.237

.627

IRD

Between Groups Within Groups Total

5.077 5.309

.956

.329

RO

Between Groups Within Groups Total

.654 8.029

.081

.776

RA

Between Groups Within Groups Total

2.324 4.888

.475

.491

JS

Between Groups Within Groups Total

2.678 1.249

2.144

.144

Stress

Between Groups Within Groups Total

13.461 75.334

.179

.673

Role Stagnation: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RS and Marital status of the employees because the significant value is 0.324 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RS they didnt differ in their answer as per their Marital status.

Role Expectation Conflict: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between REC and Marital status of the employees because the significant value is 0.627 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about REC they didnt differ in their answer as per their Marital status.

Inter Role Distance: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between IRD and Marital status of the employees because the significant value is 0.329 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about IRD they didnt differ in their answer as per their Marital status.

Role Overload: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RO and Marital status of the employees because the significant value is 0.776 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RO they didnt differ in their answer as per their Marital status.

Role Ambiguity: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RA and Marital status of the employees because the significant value is 0.491 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RA they didnt differ in their answer as per their Marital status.

Job Satisfaction: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between JS and Marital status of the employees because the significant value is 0.144 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about JS they didnt differ in their answer as per their Marital status.

Stress: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between Stress and Marital status of the employees because the significant value is 0.673 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about Stress they didnt differ in their answer as per their Marital status.

4.2.3 Table 3: One way ANOVA showing relationship between RS, REC, IRD, RO, RA, Stress and JS with Grade ANOVA

Sum of Squares RS Between Groups Within Groups Total REC Between Groups Within Groups Total IRD Between Groups Within Groups 36.600 1564.400 1601.000 15.607 1492.983 1508.590 1.537 1288.250

df 1 242 243 1 242 243 1 242

Mean Square 36.600 6.464

F 5.662

Sig. .018

15.607 6.169

2.530

.113

1.537 5.323

.289

.592

Total RO Between Groups Within Groups Total RA Between Groups Within Groups Total JS Between Groups Within Groups Total Stress Between Groups Within Groups Total

1289.787 .171 1943.583 1943.754 .529 1184.733 1185.262 .335 304.583 304.918 153.279 18090.983 18244.262

243 1 242 243 1 242 243 1 242 243 1 242 243 153.279 74.756 2.050 .153 .335 1.259 .266 .607 .529 4.896 .108 .743 .171 8.031 .021 .884

Role Stagnation: From the table we can say that there is a significant variance between RS and Grade of the employees because the significant value is 0.018 which is less than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RS they differ in their answer as per their Grade.

Role Expectation Conflict: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between REC and Grade of the employees because the significant value is 0.113 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about REC they didnt differ in their answer as per their Grade.

Inter Role Distance: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between IRD and Grade of the employees because the significant value is 0.592 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about IRD they didnt differ in their answer as per their Grade.

Role Overload: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RO and Grade of the employees because the significant value is 0.884 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RO they didnt differ in their answer as per their Grade.

Role Ambiguity: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RA and Grade of the employees because the significant value is 0.743 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RA they didnt differ in their answer as per their Grade.

Job Satisfaction: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between JS and Grade of the employees because the significant value is 0.607 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about JS they didnt differ in their answer as per their Grade.

Stress: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between Stress and Grade of the employees because the significant value is 0.153 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about Stress they didnt differ in their answer as per their Grade.

4.2.4 Table 4: One way ANOVA showing relationship between RS, REC, IRD, RO, RA, Stress and JS with Age ANOVA

Sum of Squares RS Between Groups Within Groups Total REC Between Groups Within Groups Total IRD Between Groups Within Groups Total RO Between Groups Within Groups Total RA Between Groups Within Groups Total JS Between 106.308 1494.692 1601.000 96.581 1412.009 1508.590 168.448 1121.339 1289.787 76.299 1867.455 1943.754 3.664 1181.598 1185.262 5.172

df 3 240 243 3 240 243 3 240 243 3 240 243 3 240 243 3

Mean Square 35.436 6.228

F 5.690

Sig. .001

32.194 5.883

5.472

.001

56.149 4.672

12.018

.000

25.433 7.781

3.269

.022

1.221 4.923

.248

.863

1.724

1.380

.249

Groups Within Groups Total Stress Between Groups Within Groups 299.746 304.918 202.494 18041.76 8 18244.26 2 240 243 3 67.498 .898 .443 1.249

240

75.174

Total

243

Role Stagnation: From the table we can say that there is a significant variance between RS and age of the employees because the significant value is 0.001 which is less than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RS they differ in their answer as per their age.

Role Expectation Conflict: From the table we can say that there is a significant variance between REC and age of the employees because the significant value is 0.001 which is less than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about REC they differ in their answer as per their age.

Inter Role Distance:

From the table we can say that there is a significant variance between IRD and age of the employees because the significant value is 0.000 which is less than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about IRD they differ in their answer as per their age.

Role Overload: From the table we can say that there is a significant variance between RO and age of the employees because the significant value is 0.022 which is less than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RO they differ in their answer as per their age.

Role Ambiguity: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RA and age of the employees because the significant value is 0.863 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RA they didnt differ in their answer as per their age.

Job Satisfaction: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between JS and age of the employees because the significant value is 0.249 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about JS they didnt differ in their answer as per their age.

Stress: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between Stress and age of the employees because the significant value is 0.443 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about Stress they didnt differ in their answer as per their age.

4.2.5 Table 5: One way ANOVA showing relationship between RS, REC, IRD, RO, RA, Stress and JS with Education ANOVA

Sum of Squares RS Between Groups Within Groups Total REC Between Groups Within Groups Total IRD Between Groups Within Groups Total RO Between Groups Within Groups Total RA Between Groups Within Groups Total JS Between Groups Within Groups Total Stress Between Groups Within Groups Total 23.929 1577.071 1601.000 7.900 1500.690 1508.590 1.311 1288.476 1289.787 35.439 1908.315 1943.754 .572 1184.690 1185.262 7.847 297.071 304.918 158.090 18086.173 18244.262

df 2 241 243 2 241 243 2 241 243 2 241 243 2 241 243 2 241 243 2 241 243

Mean Square 11.964 6.544

F 1.828

Sig. .163

3.950 6.227

.634

.531

.655 5.346

.123

.885

17.719 7.918

2.238

.109

.286 4.916

.058

.944

3.923 1.233

3.183

.043

79.045 75.046

1.053

.350

Role Stagnation: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RS and Education of the employees because the significant value is 0.163 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RS they didnt differ in their answer as per their Education.

Role Expectation Conflict: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between REC and Education of the employees because the significant value is 0.531 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about REC they didnt differ in their answer as per their Education.

Inter Role Distance: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between IRD and Education of the employees because the significant value is 0.885 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about IRD they didnt differ in their answer as per their Education.

Role Overload: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RO and Education of the employees because the significant value is 0.109 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RO they didnt differ in their answer as per their Education.

Role Ambiguity: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RA and Education of the employees because the significant value is 0.994 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RA they didnt differ in their answer as per their Education.

Job Satisfaction: From the table we can say that there is a significant variance between JS and Education of the employees because the significant value is 0.043 which is less than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about JS they differ in their answer as per their Education.

Stress: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between Stress and Education of the employees because the significant value is 0.350 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about Stress they didnt differ in their answer as per their Education.

4.2.6 Table 6: One way ANOVA showing relationship between RS, REC, IRD, RO, RA, Stress and JS with Experience

ANOVA

Sum of Squares RS Between Groups Within Groups Total REC Between Groups Within Groups 19.540 1581.460 1601.000 83.594 1424.996

df 2 241 243 2 241

Mean Square 9.770 6.562

F 1.489

Sig. .228

41.797 5.913

7.069

.001

Total IRD Between Groups Within Groups Total RO Between Groups Within Groups Total RA Between Groups Within Groups Total JS Between Groups Within Groups Total Stress Between Groups Within Groups Total

1508.590 14.960 1274.827 1289.787 10.342 1933.412 1943.754 9.250 1176.012 1185.262 5.901 299.017 304.918 154.576 18089.686 18244.262

243 2 241 243 2 241 243 2 241 243 2 241 243 2 241 243 77.288 75.061 1.030 .359 2.950 1.241 2.378 .095 4.625 4.880 .948 .389 5.171 8.022 .645 .526 7.480 5.290 1.414 .245

Role Stagnation:

From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RS and Experience of the employees because the significant value is 0.228 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RS they didnt differ in their answer as per their Experience.

Role Expectation Conflict: From the table we can say that there is a significant variance between REC and Experience of the employees because the significant value is 0.001 which is less than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about REC they differ in their answer as per their Experience.

Inter Role Distance: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between IRD and Experience of the employees because the significant value is 0.245 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about IRD they didnt differ in their answer as per their Experience.

Role Overload: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RO and Experience of the employees because the significant value is 0.526 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RO they didnt differ in their answer as per their Experience.

Role Ambiguity: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between RA and Experience of the employees because the significant value is 0.389 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about RA they didnt differ in their answer as per their Experience.

Job Satisfaction: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between JS and Experience of the employees because the significant value is 0.095 which is more than 0.05. It means when employees of Caplon were asked about JS they didnt differ in their answer as per their Experience.

Stress: From the table we can say that there is no significant variance between Stress and Experience of the employees because the significant value is 0.359 which is more than 0.05. It means

when employees of Caplon were asked about Stress they didnt differ in their answer as per their Experience.

4.3 Table 4: Correlation Analysis- Variables (RS, REC, IRD, RO, RA, Stress, JS)

RS RS Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N REC Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N IRD Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N RO Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N RA Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 244 .559(**) .000 244 .292(**) .000 244 .325(**) .000 244 .381(**) .000 244 1

REC .559(**) .000 244 1

IRD .292(**) .000 244 .405(**) .000

RO .325(**) .000 244 .279(**) .000 244 .255(**) .000

RA .381(**) .000 244 .432(**) .000 244 .268(**) .000 244 .408(**) .000

JS -.023 .722 244 -.006 .925 244 -.026 .691 244 -.049 .451 244 -.015 .811

Stress .738(**) .000 244 .762(**) .000 244 .620(**) .000 244 .674(**) .000 244 .696(**) .000 244

244 .405(**) .000 244 .279(**) .000 244 .432(**) .000 244

244 1

244 .255(**) .000 244 .268(**) .000 244

244 1

244 .408(**) .000 244

244 1

244

244

JS

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

-.023 .722 244 .738(**) .000 244

-.006 .925 244 .762(**) .000 244

-.026 .691 244 .620(**) .000 244

-.049 .451 244 .674(**) .000 244

-.015 .811 244 .696(**) .000 244

-.035 .585

244 -.035 .585 244

244 1

Stress

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

244

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Analysis: RS: From the above table we can say that there is a negative correlation between Role Stagnation and Job Satisfaction with the value of -0.023. If we take 0.99 as a level of significance, then there is no significant relationship between RS and Job satisfaction because, significant value is 0.722 which is more than 0.05. REC: From the above table we can say that there is a negative correlation between Role Expectation Conflict and Job Satisfaction with the value of -0.006. If we take 0.99 as a level of significance, then there is no significant relationship between REC and Job satisfaction because, significant value is 0.925 which is more than 0.05. IRD: From the above table we can say that there is a negative correlation between Inter Role Distance and Job Satisfaction with the value of -0.026. If we take 0.99 as a level of significance, then there is no significant relationship between IRD and Job satisfaction because, significant value is 0.691 which is more than 0.05. RO: From the above table we can say that there is a negative correlation between Role Overload and Job Satisfaction with the value of -0.049. If we take 0.99 as a level of

significance, then there is no significant relationship between RO and Job satisfaction because, significant value is 0.451 which is more than 0.05. RA: From the above table we can say that there is a negative correlation between Role Ambiguity and Job Satisfaction with the value of -0.015. If we take 0.99 as a level of significance, then there is no significant relationship between RA and Job satisfaction because, significant value is 0.811 which is more than 0.05.

Interpretation: There is negative correlation between the Stress and Job Satisfaction. It means when the stress level increases among the employees it will have a negative effect on Job Satisfaction. Negative effect will be decrease in Job Satisfaction. The reason for increase in the stress level could be many like lack of clarity in their roles, overload of work, assignments, relationship conflict among the employees etc.