AN ANALYSIS OF JOB RELATED FACTORS AND PERSONALITY TRAITS ON TEACHERS ILL-HEALTH, PERFORMANCE AND JOB SATISFACTION

Syed Gohar Abbas, Associate Professor. Email: abbas.ba@suit.edu.pk

Rabiya Ishrat, Assistant Professor Email: rabia.ba.suit@edu.pk

Waheed ur Rehman, Assistant Professor. Email: rabia.ba@suit.edu.pk

Sarhad University of Science & Information Technology, Peshawar

Abstract. Teachers ill-health & job strains particularly in higher educa-tion sector is usually more deceptive as compared to other professions because of its vague nature of roles and is dissimilar to other professions and has substantial connections with numbers of scholars in class, their numerical assessments, workload issues, miserable organizational practices, job insecurity and inadequate recognition. Moreover, the antecedents and consequences of job related strains varies from person to person because of our different personality types and as we are all unique in our perceptions and behaviors. This exploratory research aimed to investigate & explore the factors at the work environment which have a significant impact on faculty well-being, and the possibilities of improvement of the work environment for academic world with particular reference to a public sector university. The results revealed inverse relationship between job strains and performance. The significant job related factors causing stress for male and female faculty members were different. Furthermore female faculty members and faculty members with Type A personality reported higher levels of ill-health. Type A personality also reported higher performance when compared with Type B & Type AB.

Key words: Teacher, personality, job satisfaction, ill-health

Introduction

Research on physical & psychological ill-health among academe indicates that it is a common phenomenon among teachers therefore the academic work environment needs to be examined and more specifically organizational specific characteristics, like leadership, HR practices, workload and time pressures, uncertainty, lack of feedback, social support etc. (Kinman & Jones 2004; Winefield et al. 2003; Tytherleigh et al., 2005). Job strains refer to a feeling of psychological and/or physical pressures because of being incapable to manage the environmental demands, challenging events and stressful encounters over period of time (Kahn et al., 1964; Lazarus, 1991). In such situations, people are confronted with opportunities or demands related to what they desire but the outcomes are perceived to be both indeterminate and significant (Robbins, 2001) and it can be labeled as both positively and negatively (Selye, 1956). Some reasons which have been identified by different researchers include role conflict, role overload, role ambiguity, and fear of unknown and perceptions of maltreatment by the organization (Srivastav, 2007). For example, an instructor who attempts to conduct an outstanding lecture every day is likely to be prone to exhaustion when his employer does not realize that other aspects of his job (e.g. publication) which might be more important for him as compared to teaching. Moreover, students performance is usually on top priority of good academicians (Shah, Rahman & Abbas, 2015), so dedicated teachers also try their level best to put maximum efforts even for the performance of the low graders (students). Teachers who try to overcome such issueswith less organizational support may end up in low motivation, may cause strain on his/her emotions and physical conditions (Abbas, Shahab & Badar, 2016) which in turn leads to absenteeism & high turnover. The observations mentioned above differ from person to person because each one of us brings unique characteristics to our job and these individual differences determine how the individual will react to a particular situation. Some may recognize these issues as a challenge but the others may take it as a risk. For example Type B personality usually show less concern to stress as compared with Type A. Normally the Type As tend to be over-competitive, outgoing, and also sense impatience most of the time with the speed at which the events take place and dissatisfied with life (Robbins, 2001). Type Bs have less desire to compete; they are not impatient, are less status conscious and also less aggressive.

Literature Review

Nowadays, the organizations job environment considerably differ from the job environment of few decades ago particularly in the academic world e.g. lengthier time at workplace are common nowadays, regular modifications in organizational structure are normal (Locke & Teichler, 2007; Fotinatos-Ventouratos & Cooper, 2005) which in-turn lead to countless pressures on employees.

Burnout is one of the most burning issue which leads to ill-health (Lu et al., 2003). It has been considered as a reaction to demanding circumstances at work that leads to physiological reaction manifested by psychometric indications such as coronary artery disease, hypertension, headache and peptic ulcer. According to a survey by Statistics Canada, its not hard work which causes job stress. Rather, its having no control over how, when, or with whom you do your job. Based on survey from 9000 Canadians, psychological distress was found highest among people in job with the high work demands but little autonomy for decision making. People who had demanding professions but also considerable autonomy to make decision were less stressed. Only 27% of them had high psychological ill-health scores. Consistent with other studies, the worst job strain was reported by those, who were supposed to work directly with the public e.g. police, nurses and teachers. Another deduction from this study was that women reported a higher degree of pressures than men. The researchers recognized this to two factors i.e. men usually have more decision-making power in their jobs and women feel less supported by their co-workers as compared to men.

Most of the research on stress among academic staff has resulted from the work conducted in Europe and USA. Blix, Cruise and Mitchell (1994) in their studies reported that 66% of sample of universitys teaching faculty perceived high levels of worries during work at least 50% of the time. They found that most of the issues faced by the faculty was directly related to time pressures and resource inadequacy. Some researchers is defined stress & strain in terms of reaction to situations that results from negative emotions, and particularly teaching faculty are the ones among all the occupational groups which function under conditions of high stress which is frequently caused by many internal and external factors which may include fewer rewards, inadequate environment, performance pressures in limited time, poor motivation, interpersonal conflicts, resources inadequacy, unequal work distribution, lack of community spirit and dearth of support by bosses (Brown & Ralph, 1998; Gmelch, 1993; Travers & Cooper, 1998).

Faculty stress is usually more deceptive as compared to other professions because of its vague nature of roles and is dissimilar to the business profession; the distressing effects are not often counterbalanced by moments of satisfaction (Claxton, 1989). According to Griffith et al. (1999), if other factors remain constant, stress affects younger and less experienced teachers over seniors and ore experienced teachers; single teachers over the married ones; and female teachers over males.

Lackritz (2004); Gillespie et al. (2001) in their studies on teachers burnout revealed that burnout had substantial connections with numbers of scholars in class, their numerical assessments, workload issues, miserable organizational practices, job insecurity and inadequate recognition Moreover they concluded that female faculty members were more burned-out as compared to males. Kyriacou (1998) also identified few major categories as the sources of faculty stress which primarily include time pressures, low status, students indiscipline, poor working conditions, poor motivation and conflicts with colleagues .

Stress produces a range of adverse, costly, and devastating consequences e.g. dissatisfaction and anger; depression; inability to relax; feelings of low self-esteem and self-accomplishment, fatigue and emotional exhaustion; irregular sleeping habits due to insomnia, psychosomatic complaints and cardiac problems (Brown & Ralph, 1998; Hinton & Rotheiler, 1998; Travers & Cooper, 1998). Thus in organizational setting, burnout has become a major contributor to ill-health and performance issues of individuals, and costs a lot to the organizations.

On the positive side, research also revealed that a certain level of stress in academe is unavoidable, even beneficial. Hinton and Rotheiler (1998) pointed out that the enthusiasm and challenge of teaching may cause the adrenaline level to rise which are linked with stress, and Dunham (1992) showed that teachers work at highest efficiency level when the jobs allocated to them are in equilibrium with their perceived coping skills. Interestingly, very little challenge and too much can be harmful. Stress can be temporary or long-term, minor or severe and its impact on a teacher depends generally on how long its causes continue and how powerful they are? If stress is short-term and minor, people may handle it or at least recover from its effects quickly. However extreme outcomes of stress include depression, burnout, workplace violence and decreased performance.

Individual differences and stress performance relationship

Individual differences account for a widespread range of responses to stress; a task viewed as a challenge by one person may crop high level of anxiety in another (Newstrom & Davis, 2003). In the mid-1900s, psychosomatic medicine began to position on identifying precise psychological features that might be considered as genuine risk factors in relation to ill-health. With particular reference to the ways in which employees cope with stress, two separate personality categories characterized by opposing sets of behavioral patterns called as Type A and Type B were found (Friedman & Rosenman, 1959). Research shows that based on individual personality differences, some employees are stimulated by stress and perform better, where as other employees report low performance. In other words, a persons readiness to respond to stress with negative or positive feeling may also be a critical cause of performance. The Type As is the people operating at their maximum possible speed, want to achieve competitive goals and are usually with exaggerated sense of time urgency. They usually consider everything to be a challenge and can handle more tasks at the same time while performing well at them all (Robbins & Judge, 2003). However this over achievement does not come for free and are subject to significant amounts of stress. The other personality is the Type B, who is exactly opposite as they are patient, with no sense of time urgency, do not exhibit their achievements, may play for fun and not to show their superiority. Unlike Type A, they can relax without guilt (Robbins & Judge, 2003).

Summing up, Type-As are thus more prone to stress and in-turn have a higher chance of getting psycho-somatic illness because of the over competition and performance pressures round the clock. On the contrary, Type Bs has a greater capacity to handle the stressful situations comfortably and in-turn, are less vulnerable to negative stress related consequences.

One of the most vital challenges faced by education sector is to overcome teachers stress related issues by developing a conducive climate where they can understand its pros and cons, take it as a challenge, and needs to be on their discussion agenda both formally and informally (Claxton, 1989). This can be incorporated from three areas;

1-       Teachers must become aware of their stress-full problems they face

2-       They should be allowed to speak publicly about stress-full issues

3-       Their captains should take care of such issues and respond accordingly

Objectives of Research

This exploratory research aims to investigate& explore (1) the well-being of teaching faculty at the universities, (2) the factors at the work environment which have a significant impact on faculty well-being, and (3) possibilities of improvement of the work environment for academic world. This exploratory research aimed to address the following research questions:

  • Which organizational factors have relatively high tendency towards bringing occupational stress among teaching faculty of a public sector university?
  • What is the influence of job related stress on faculty performance of a public sector university?
  • How the different personality types (Type A, Type B), stress and performance are related?
  • What are the gender specific job stress factors?

Research Methodology

The present study targeted the academic staff of a public sector university of Pakistan. Because of shortage of time and resources, convenience based sampling was used and 221 faculty members from various departments were approached directly to collect the data. Tools used for gathering primary data were questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The tools of interview and observation were used to gather facts about their job routine and to know how environmental factors influence the work patterns. This helped us to refine our questionnaire, which we have used as a primary data collection tool. Three of the main variables were used. Two of the variables were independent including job related stress factors and personality. The dependent variable was performance. The variables mentioned above were further categorized into many other sub-variables.

Job Related Stress Factors

It was measured by self-designed questionnaire and defined as sources of stress by Hartrick and Hills (1992) and Michie (2002).Keeping in view the organization of the study; we intended to study the following independent variables:

  • Heavy workload
  • Lack of staff
  • Poor working conditions
  • Lack of acknowledgment
  • Job security
  • Nature of job
  • Time pressure and deadline
  • Lack of training and skills
  • Relationships with coworkers& supervisors
  • Workplace Privacy
  • Autonomy
  • Harassment

A five point Likert scale, ranging from never to constantly was used to measure all scales. At some places reverse scale was also used. The scale was grouped into 10 sub scales; These include Work Overload (WO), Job Description & Role Conflict (JDRC), Communication & Comfort With Supervisor & Colleagues (CCS&C) , Office Environment & Resources (OE&R), Feeling Of Inequity (FOIE), Lack Of Skills & Training Opportunities (TSO), Harassment (HAR),Grievance Handling (GH), Lack of Authority (AUTH) and Job Security (JSEC). These variables have been analyzed to identify the factors that have high tendency towards occupational stress. The summated scores are converted into percentages to get better results as the number of questions varies from indicator to indicator. Percentages are used to make the analysis more meaningful. The summated score ranges from 20% to 100% i.e.

  • 21%-48% lower level of stress
  • 49%-60% lower moderate level of stress
  • 61%-74% upper moderate level of stress
  • 75%-100% high level of stress

As all the departments reported their stress within the same range so conclusions were made in relative terms i.e. relative to other departments stress against performance.

Job Performance

It is the effectiveness of the individual in carrying out his/her roles and responsibilities related to academics. A self explained questionnaire was a used as the research tool. A five point Likert Scale ranging from 1 to 5 is another tool that was used. This scale is grouped into many other subscales:

  • Knowledge & Skills
  • Job Enthusiasm and
  • Job Quality
  • Research Productivity
  • Job Inputs (Academic)
  • Job Inputs (Co-Curricular)
  • Self Appraisal
  • Appraisal by others
  • Absenteeism

To collect information about the performance faculty members, questionnaires, semi-structured interviews from the faculty members and their reporting officers feedback was used. A traditional rating scale was utilized to determine a summative score for performance. Each Faculty member was rated on the three performance items using a scale ranging from 1 to 5 and these scores were converted into percentages. The summated scores ranged from 20% to 100%.

As all the departments reported their performance within the same range so conclusions were made in relative terms i.e. relative to other departments performance against stress.

  • 20-50% low performance
  • 51-70% medium performance
  • 71-100% high performance

As all the departments reported their performance with in same range so conclusions were made in relative terms i.e. relative to other departments performance against stress.

Personality Characteristics

A revised version of the questionnaire developed by Hartman et al., (2001) comprised of 15 questions was adapted to our sample and was used to conclude the behavior pattern for Type-A, Type-B & Mod A (Type AB).

 

Descriptive Statistics and Data Analysis

Occupational Stress, Personality Type and Job Performance

As mentioned earlier, structured questionnaire were designed to collect data from different departments of a public sector university. Questionnaires from 221 faculty members were collected from the different departments however questionnaires of 200 faculty members were considered for analysis. 21 questionnaires were rejected based on initial screening. The demographic details are presented in the table below:

Table 1: Demographic Details of the Sample (N=200)

Demographic Characteristic

 

Number

GENDER

Female

51

Male

149

POST

Professor

6

Associate Professor

14

Assistant Professor

39

Lectures

141

Status

Married

109

Unmarried

91

Qualification

PhD

48

Non-PhD

152

 

Initial Analysis

Our scales defining various job related stressors, personality types and performance were based on the literature review, observations and on the results of our preliminary interviews. However slight changes were made in the questionnaires to make sure that our respondents can understand the questions clearly. Reliability tests were conducted on our sample for each set of questions and few items were also removed to improve the reliability of the instruments we have used. The questionnaire items finally used in analysis were only those with cronbachs alpha values more than 65%. Significance level of 5% and below has been taken as a standard throughout the analysis.

Overall Stress Factors Impact

The average of all the factors reported that Job Description & Role Conflict, Work Overload, Grievance Handling as the topmost reasons for stress with an average/mean of 56 (approx). Office Environment & Resources was also reported as an important reason of stress with an approximate score of 54. Almost all the departments reported the factors of harassment, lack of training/skills opportunities at the lowest level as a source of stress at an average of 36 and 30 as can be seen in the graph below.

Figure 1 Overall Occupational Stress Factors

Regression analysis revealed Job Description and Role Conflict (JD & RC), Office Environment and Resources (OE & R) and Grievance Handling (GH) most significantly positively related to faculty ill-health.

Table 2: Regression Analysis (N=200)

Factors

Beta

t

Sig.

(Constant)

 

1.758

0.081

JD&RC

0.399

2.119

0.001

FOIE

0.116

1.197

0.234

WO

0.189

2.231

0.027

CCS&C

0.065

0.645

0.52

OE&R

0.223

0.27

0.005

TSO

0.208

2.339

0.081

HARR

0.088

0.994

0.322

GH

0.188

1.784

0.015

AUTH

0.017

0.471

0.344

JSEC

0.114

0.342

0.092

a.       Dependent Variable: ill-health

As shown in Table 4, male faculty members reported the following sources of stress more dominant as compared to females. These include Job Description and Role Conflict, Office Environment and Resources, Lack of Authority and Job Security. Females concern towards the following factors has been reported at high level as compared to male faculty members. These include Grievance Handling, Communi-cation & Comfort with Supervisors and Colleagues, Feeling of In-Equity and Work Overload.

 

Table 3: Overall Gender Specific Stressors (N=200)

Factors

Male's Mean

Female's Mean

JD&RC

58

54

FOIE

51

54

WO

57

58

CCS&C

47

52

OE&R

57

49

TSO

30

28

HARR

36

35

GH

56

59

AUTH

55

47

JSEC

52

43

Figure 2: Overall Gender Specific Stressors

Occupational Stress & Performance Relationship (Gender Specific Distribution)

Table 4 Occupational Stress and Performance Relationship (N=200)

Factors

 

Min

Maxi

Mean

Stress

Male

23.33

66.67

30.457

Performance

43.7

84.44

70.4622

Stress

Female

26.67

60

48.3333

Performance

51.85

73.33

54.2222

 

Figure 2 Occupational Stress & Performance Relationship (EE)

Personality Characteristics of Participants

As discussed in the literature review, every person is unique in its perceptions and responds differently to the same situation. Situations which one person smell as challenging and stimulating might be seen as threat and may cause stress among others. Literature suggests that type A personality being over competitive and impatient are more vulnerable to stress, when compared with type B. Out of total 200 respondents, 51 were TypeA, 48 were TypeB and 101 were Type AB.

Table 5 Personality Distribution of Participants (N=200)

 Type

Frequency

Percent

A

51

25,5

B

48

24

Mod AB

101

50,5

Total

200

100.0

Figure 3 The relationship of stress & performance with personality type has been revealed as

Table 6 Personality Type, Stress and Performance Relationship (N=200)

 

Mean

Stress Type A

40.2099

Performance Type A

79.83

Stress Type B

31.6667

Performance Type B

60.22

Stress Type AB

34.0796

Performance Type AB

64.89

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Mean

Type A

Type B

Moderate AB

Mean Stress

Mean Performance

Figure 4 Stress-Performance vs Personality Type

Findings and Conclusion

The results of the study indicate that there is an inverse relationship between occupational stress and job performance. The faculty members with relatively high stress level showed relatively good performance when compared with low levels of stress. Furthermore female faculty members and faculty members with Type A personality reported higher levels of stress. Type A personality also reported higher performance when compared with Type B and Type AB.

The second most important reason reported by almost all the departments as a source of stress was job description and role conflict. In unstructured interviews it was observed that many faculty members were reporting to more than one boss, their job description was not clear to them, and they suffered a lot because of their involvement in other co-curricular activities. Our preliminary interviews also revealed that most of the faculty members with ambiguous and multiple roles felt overloaded most of the time, but were still willing to take other assignments and in parallel they seemed to be more stressed and anxious as compared to others who were only engaged in teaching. These results corroborated with the studies by Caplan et al. (1975) which revealed role ambiguity and workload positively related with depression and anxiety; and it was greatest for Type A people.

Through unstructured interviews and personal observations, it has been observed in almost all the departments that even some senior faculty members faced a lot of problems in getting hold of the resources to complete their tasks. It also has been observed that the faculty members used to pick up and install the Multimedia themselves, thus wasting a lot of time particularly when the devices proved to be out of order. This causes an embarrassment for the teachers in front of the students. Even if the faculty is fully prepared with a power point presentation for some technical lecture, he is not sure whether a multimedia projector will be available or not. This has also contributed a lot towards stress and firefighting on daily basis.

Job security, lack of authority, privacy, time management, office equipment & resources, job description and role conflict have contributed to increase stress in male faculty members more than the females. Females have reported the factors of grievance handling, feeling of inequity, communication and comfort with supervisor & coworkers to be main contributors towards stress, when compared with males. Harassment has been placed at the lower end by both the male and female faculty, as a source of stress.

The results have shown that Type As slightly performed well with slightly highly vulnerability towards stress, but there was no significant difference on stress performance relationship among faculty with different personality attributes. There was no significant difference between the stress level of Type B and Type AB. But stress level of Type A was reported higher from both Type AB and Type B.

Recommendations

With particular reference to stress in academe in higher education, we recommend to formulate a multimodal approach for stress management which will result in a more efficient, broad-based intervention strategy with more chances of success.

In addition, we also recommend organizing such interventions at both individual and organizational level, so as to ensure effective outcomes. Interestingly, some interviewees revealed that if they admit experiencing stress or intend to participate in stress management related activities, it may involve a risk being labeled as weak and unable to cope with the demands of the job. Harkness et al. (2005) suggest that people consider that revealing stress at job is usually perceived by bosses as an expression of weakness or unskillfulness. Such views of the employees should be curtailed and an environment of openness should be encouraged, so employees may talk their hearts out and could benefit from such trainings and sessions.

Based on the major finding and conclusions mentioned in the above paragraphs, few of the recommendations are advised below. Since the major sources of stress identified are job description & role conflict, grievance handling, work overload, office environment & resources the following specific recommendations are made:

a. Managing Job Description and Role Conflict: Usually the conflicts which arise among people are the role conflicts which according to Antonioni (1996) can be a mask that hides the real person. To lessen conflict between students and teachers, precise descriptions of expectations of all these must be in written and communicated to all. Accurately defining the various roles are very important to reduce conflicts and it must also be kept in mind we all are unique in our interpretations so individual differences must also be considered while incorporating the policies.

As a social being, usually teachers have four roles including administrator and/or teacher, father/mother, spouse, & friend and each of these roles are coupled with some expectations and responsibilities. To be a good teacher, they must define their role to teach with zeal and zest rather than just acting the role of a teacher. Once they add the element of commitment in their job, they may not face the negative consequences of stress. However, over commitment is not the solution but a problem in itself. For example burnout has been related with dedicated and committed workers who feel internal pressure to work (Freudenberger, 1974) and accumulated stresses can force the dedicated educators to burn out. Moreover, the job description and the roles must be fixed at the start of the job as a contractual agreement and it must match the educators interest, experience and academic background.

Furthermore if a teacher has been assigned different jobs at a time, with different roles to play, it must be formally communicated to him/her with clear guidelines and parameters defined to avoid any role ambiguity. He/she should be appraised against the expectations and good work be acknowledged in public at the end of the day to keep him motivated. If otherwise next time if he has to play the same role, not applauded last time, the supervisor may not find the element of commitment but compliance and ultimately resistance in the subordinates attitude. The expected outcomes from clarifying the job description and reducing role conflict in an academic setup will be:

       Negative consequences of stress for the teachers will be reduced.

       Teacher student conflicts in the classroom and will be reduced.

       Congenial relationships between the teachers, the students and the captains of their institutions will be augmented.

b. Grievance Handling: There should be proper grievance handling committee with experienced committee members. The culture of Who brings a trouble is a trouble maker should be avoided and the grievances be welcomed to avoid an atmosphere of stress. Few of the recommendations regarding grievance handling are as follows:

            Grievances should be resolved promptly and in accordance with relevant policy of the university.

            Reasonable steps must be followed to make sure the confidentiality of the faculty member forwarding the grievance and s/he should be protected from victimization.

            The resolution process must be fair and impartial and records must be maintained in a proper way.

Additionally the teacher orientation and socialization which starts right after s/he apply for a job (Shahzad, Khan & Shah, 2015) should not be taken for granted and grievance handling procedures should be made clear to all the new entrants.

c. Office Environment and Resources: Office environment and resources include the physical office environment, ergonomics, availability of equipment i.e. computers, printers, lab equipment, multimedia /overhead projector etc. It also includes the support staff which reduces your work load particularly in handling the petty issues like photocopying of notes, helping you to install the technical devices etc. It is advised that sufficient number of Multimedia Projectors, Printers etc. be available for the faculty. Each department should have its own technical staff to take care of these machines on regular basis. Backup equipment be available to be utilized in emergency. The departments be provided with equipment and support staff (peons) corresponding to the number of faculty members inducted.

Furthermore the offices should be ergonomically designed, with smart office setup to avoid the problems of backache, headache, eye irritations and other problems of muscles and bones due to improper workstation and lighting/heating/cooling arrangements.

d. Supportive Relationships: Supportive relationships, togetherness and lack of conflict with co-workers are considered as a facultys best assetto overcome isolation and overload which is usually considered a major cause of faculty stress. Teams/small groups of faculty can provide valuable support toone another, particularly to new team members who seem to be surrendering to stress, and practicing what Claxton (p. 78) calls "creative ranting and raving". Such teams support the team members by offering constructive solutions to stressful situations, distributing their assignments to reduce work overload. However it should be kept in mind that stress is not only experienced in the early career stage teachers, but also at senior levels so such issues should be addressed at all levels.

Some other recommendations based on personal observations and interviews include:

         Recognition and appreciation of even small achievements in public based on equity.

         Unnecessary supervision and control which hurts the ego should be reduced at bare minimum level and less intrusive means should be used wherever required.

         Ensure proper time management at top level and unnecessary marathon meetings be avoided particularly after office hours.

         Unnecessary intrusion into the personal life of employees be reduced unless it is required in special cases where it challenges the organizational culture.

         Faculty from other cities be provided with appropriate accommodation as it has been observed one of the important sources of stress. Though its not occupational stress but its negative effects are trickled down to the performance of the employees.

         Arrangement of transport facilities for pick & drop and official assignments should be streamlined.

         Appropriate orientation be provided to all faculty on regular basis to clarify the procedures regarding dealing with other departments e.g. re-imbursement of bills, etc.

         Time pressure be reduced and enough time be given to faculty to carry on with their transactional academic assignments e.g. paper checking, marks uploading etc.

         Appropriate parking and caf arrangements specifically for faculty be arranged.

         Special arrangements for female sports, aerobics etc. as they cant enjoy the same as male faculty members can do in open play grounds

         Finally, small signs such as words of gratitude during formal gatherings, informal tea clubs, excursion trips and back rubs can help to raise a sense of companionship among teachers.

There are many other individual level effective strategies for overcoming the negative impacts of stress. These include

  • Physical activities (e.g. swimming, working out, jogging, sports, etc);
  • Self-entertainment (reading for pleasure, movies, excursions, concerts); and
  • Personal interests (hobbies such as gardening etc.)
  • Turning to God i.e. offering regular prayers and visits to holy places.
  • Venting of emotions and talking your heart out with friends.

Usually for teachers, drawing a perfect line of separation between work & personal time is difficult as teachers are used to with bringing office work to home e.g. (numerical assessment of students assignments/quizzes, lecture preparation, deadlines to submit research papers/projects). However effective time management strategies can help them to overcome such issues and the habit of procrastination as well. Unforeseen commitments and disturbances must be avoided during office hours so maximum time can be dedicated to office affairs while their stay at the campus. In this way, they can have sufficient leisure time to enjoy with friends and family after the office hours particularly during the weekends.

Study Limitations & Suggestions for Future

From the empirical study perspective, this exploratory research study is subject to some limitations which includes a smaller sample size from only one public sector university, convenience based sampling, less number of female faculty members, data collection just at a point of time rather than a longitudinal research design. We focused more on questionnaires (quantitative methods) and less on interviews and cross sectional data from the office bearers such as Registrar and HR offices. Such inputs/data if involved in the study are definitely invaluable but it was not possible to exhaust these sources due to some administrative bottlenecks and dearth of resources. Summing up, these study limitations were because of limited finances and time constraints. Larger number of respondents if selected randomly from various public sector universities would have been considered as more pragmatic research design, which in turn would have led to more generalizable results. For future research in this domain, we suggest to use triangulation strategy, the data should be collected over a period of time, causal relationships should be studied and advanced quantitative & quantitative techniques should be used.

 

References

Abbas, G., Shahab, M. A., & Badar, K. (2016). Somatization and depression among university students: Antecedents and antidotes. Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences, 2(1), 74-93.

Antonioni, D. (1996). Two strategies for responding to stressors: Managing conflict and clarifying work expectations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(2).

Blix, A. G., Cruise, R. J., Mitchell, B. M., & Blix, G. G. (1994). Occupational stress among university teachers. Educational Research, 36, 157-169

Brown, M. & Ralph, S. (1998). The identification of stress in teachers. In J. Dunham & V. Varma (Eds.), Stress in Teachers: Past, Present, and Future. (37-56). London: Whurr.

Caplan, R. D., & Jones, K. W. (1975). Effects of work load, role ambiguity, and type A personality on anxiety, depression, and heart rate. Journal of applied psychology, 60(6), 713.

Claxton, G. (1989). Being a Teacher: A Positive Approach to Change and Stress. London: Cassell.

Dunham, J. (1992). Stress in Teaching. London: Routledge

Dunham, J. & Varma, V. (1992). Stress in Teachers: Past, Present, and Future. (120-138). London: Whurr.

Fotinatos-Ventouratos, R., Cooper, C. (2005). The role of gender and social class in work stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(1), 14-23.

Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). Staff burnout. Journal of Social Issues, 30 (1), 159165.

Friedman, M. & Rosenman, R. H. (1959). Type A Behavior and Your Heart. New York: Knopf.

Gillespie, N. A., Walsh, M, Winefield, A .H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001). Occupational stress in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress. Work & Stress, 53-72.

Gmelch, W. H. (1993). Coping with Faculty Stress. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Griffith, J., Steptoe, A. & Cropley, M. (1999). An investigation of coping strategies associated with job stress in teachers, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69: 517-531

Harkness, A. M. B., Long, B. C., Bermbach, N., Patterson, K., Jordan, S., & Kahn, H. (2005). Talking about work stress: Discourse analysis and implications for stress interventions. Work & Stress, 19, 121-136.

Hartman, S. J., Loudon, D. L., Stevens, R. E. & Harris, O. J. (2001). Organizational Behavior, Taylor & Francis Inc.

Hartrick, G. A., & Hills, M. D. (1992). Staff nurse perceptions of stressors and support needs in their workplace. The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research (Revue Canadienne de Recherche en Sciences Infirmieres), 25(1), 23-31

Hinton, J. W. & Rotheiler, E. (1998).The psychophysiology of stress in teachers. In J. Dunham & V. Varma (Eds), Stress in Teachers: Past, Present, and Future. (95-119). London: Whurr.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational Stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity, New York: John Wiley.

Kyriacou, C. (1998). Teacher Stress: Past and Present. In J. Dunham & V. Varma (Eds).Stress in Teachers: Past, Present, and Future (1-13). London: Whurr.

Lackritz, J. R. (2004). Exploring burnout among university faculty: Incidence, performance, and demographic issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 713−729.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. In P. Perrewe (Ed.), Handbook on Job Stress. USA: Select Press.

Locke, W., Teichler, U. (2007). Introduction, the changing conditions for academic work and career in select countries, Werkstattberichte, 66, 7-14.

Lu, L., Cooper, C. L., Kao, S.-F., Zhou, Y. (2003). Work stress, control beliefs and well-being in Greater China: An exploration of sub-cultural differences between the PRC and Taiwan. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(6), 479-510.

Michie, S. (2002).Causes and management of stress at work. An International Peer-Reviewed Journal in all Aspects of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 59(1), 67-72.

Newstrom, J. W., & Davis, K.(2004). Organizational Behavior, Human Behavior at Work (11th Ed.), McGraw, Hill, New York.

Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational Behavior, 14/E. Pearson Education India.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2003).Essentials of Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Selye, H. (1956). The Stress of Life, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shah, R., Rahman, W., & Abbas, S. G. (2015). An Analysis of Students Academic Performance: A Case Study of Sarhad University, Peshawar, Pakistan. Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences, 1(1), 31-41.

Shahzad, S., Khan, S., & Shah, F. A. (2015). Impact of socialization on organizational commitment of employees: A case study of private degree colleges in Nowshera District, KPK. Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences, 1(1), 42-61

Srivastav, A. K. (2007). Stress in organizational roles - individual and organizational implications, Icfaian Journal of Management Research, 6(12), 64-74.

Travers, C. & Cooper, L. (1998). Increasing costs of occupational stress for teachers. In J. Dunham, & V. Varma (Eds). Stress in Teachers: Past, Present, and Future (57-75). London: Whurr.

Tytherleigh, M. Y., Webb, C., Cooper, C. L., & Ricketts, C. (2005). Occupational stress in UK higher education institutions: A comparative study of all staff categories. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), 41-61.

Winefield, A. H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., Hapuarachchi, J., & Boyd, C. (2003). Occupational stress in Australian university staff: Results from a national survey. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(1), 51-63.

 

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




ISSN 2414-2336 (Print), ISSN 2523-2525 (Online)