JOB STRESS A GLOBAL EPIDEMIC & ITS DYNAMICS IN BANKING SECTOR

Transcription

1 CHAPTER-3 JOB STRESS A GLOBAL EPIDEMIC & ITS DYNAMICS IN BANKING SECTOR The workplace of the 21st century is a fast-paced, highly invigorating and dynamic environment which brings a large number of returns and opportunities to those who work within it. Along come the ever-escalating requirements in the work sphere which in turn mount the levels of stress, especially for those who are consistently working under pressure such as bank workers. Whilst pressure has its positive side in raising performance, if such pressure becomes excessive it can lead to excessive stress which has negative consequences. Job stress management is emerging to be the most important challenge of every business in the 21st century, banking is no exception. Attention to stress at one s job has intensified in the wake of sweeping changes in the organization of work. Organizational downsizing and restructuring are examples of recent trends that may adversely influence aspects of job design (e.g. work schedules, work load demands, job security) that are associated with the risk of job stress. Job stress is, indeed, a global epidemic that is widespread, as well as infectious, or catching up, and therefore, rapidly increasing, affecting every employee in every 152

2 organization. However, each individual exposed to the same external stimuli reacts differently, job stress being the internal response to external stimuli. This chapter, therefore, seeks to explore the prevalent job stress level in the banking sector and compares it across the three sectors of banks. This chapter is mainly concerned with analysis and interpretation of data collected through questionnaire-cum-scale for job stress and to figure out important and dominant sub variables of job stress variable. The data analysis and interpretation of job stress is as follows: Overall job stress in banking sector. Examining different levels of job stress, i.e. high, moderate and low among the bank executives with their numbers and percentages. Difference in job stress level of public, private and foreign sector bank executives, i.e. inter-bank comparison of job stress level. Sub variable-wise analysis of job stress in public, private and foreign sector bank executives. The following hypothesis has been tested through analysis of data: The executives of public, private and foreign sector banks have different levels of job stress. 153

3 Overall Job Stress in Banking Sector On the basis of questionnaire-cum-scale the overall mean scoring of job stress for total sample (N=400) turned out to be 2.87, S.D.=0.6. This implies that majority of banking sector executives experience moderate level of job stress. So as to study distribution pattern of public, private and foreign sector bank executives across levels of job stress, the respondents were classified into three categories on the basis of their job stress score and were compared in terms of their number and percentage. The results are shown in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Level of Job Stress in Public, Private and Foreign Sector Bank Executives Category No. of Executives High Level of Job Stress Moderate Level of Job Stress Low Level of Job Stress Public Sector Bank (SBI) (10.00%) 161 (80.50%) 19 (9.50%) Private Sector Bank (ICICI (21.33%) 105 (70.00%) 13 (8.67%) Bank Ltd.) Foreign Sector Bank (Citibank) 50 0 (0.00%) 33 (66.00%) 17 (34.00%) Note: The figures given in parentheses denote percentages of executives from all the three banking sectors representing different categories of job stress. The above results are further substantiated by the following figures displaying job stress level-wise categorization of executives from the selected public, private and foreign sector banks in Figures 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 respectively. 154

4 Figure 3.1: Categorization of Executives from SBI as per their Level of Job Stress Public Sector Bank Executives 9.50% 10% 80.50% High Level of Job Stress Moderate Level of Job Stress Low Level of Job Stress Figure 3.2: Categorization of Executives from ICICI Bank Ltd. as per their Level of Job Stress Private Sector Bank Executives 8.67% 70.00% 21.33% High Level of Job Stress Moderate Level of Job Stress Low Level of Job Stress 155

5 Figure 3.3: Categorization of Executives from Citibank as per their Level of Job Stress Foreign Sector Bank Executives 34.00% 66.00% Moderate Level of Job Stress Low Level of Job Stress Table 3.1 shows the number and percentage of highly stressed, moderately stressed and lowly stressed bank executives across three sectors of banks. executives only 20 the case of private experienced by 32 The table reveals that among public sector bank (10%) experience high level of job stress, whereas in sector bank executives the same level of job stress is (21.33%), and there is none having high level of job stress in the selected foreign sector bank. In the moderate level of job stress category, the number of executives belonging to the public, private and foreign sector banks are 161 (80.50%), 105 (70%) 33 (66%) respectively. Considering the low level job stress category, 19 (9.50%) executives from the selected public sector bank, 13 (8.67%) executives from private sector bank, and 17 (34%) executives from foreign sector bank fall in it. 156

6 The table further depicts that in the case of public sector bank under study, majority of the executives, i.e., 80.50% experience moderate level of job stress, 10% executives experience high level of job stress, while only 9.50% executives experience low level of job stress. An analysis of the data pertaining to the selected private sector bank brings out that majority of the executives, i.e., 70% experience moderate level of job stress, while 21.33% and 8.67% of the executives experience high and low level of job stress respectively. Taking into account the foreign sector bank, the results depict that majority of the executives, i.e., 66% experience moderate level of job stress, while the remaining 34% executives experience low level of job stress. Interestingly, none of the foreign sector bank executives experience high level of job stress. Therefore, the overall results indicate that a moderate level of job stress prevails in executives across all the three sectors of banks under study. Out of the three sectors of banks, private sector bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.) has the greatest proportion (21.33%) of high job stress experiencing executives, vis-a-vis public sector bank (SBI) (10%) and foreign sector bank (Citibank) (0%), while foreign sector bank has the highest proportion (34%) of low job stress experiencing executives, vis-a-vis public sector bank (9.50%) and private sector bank (8.67%). 157

7 A Comparison among the Executives of Public, Private and Foreign Sector Banks on the basis of Job Stress Level Table 3.1 highlights the division of executives made on the basis of different levels of job stress with their numbers and percentages in public, private and foreign sector banks, whereas Table 3.2 establishes whether the difference in terms of job stress among the executives belonging to the three banks under study is significant or not. This has been ascertained by using the statistical tools like mean, standard deviation, one-way ANOVA and t-test. Mean has been calculated to find out the difference of job stress among the executives of public, private and foreign sector banks. Standard deviation has been calculated for judging the representativeness of the mean scores. One-way ANOVA was calculated to know whether the executives from the three sectors differ significantly on the basis of job stress. Further, in order to determine specific difference paired analysis of the group was performed. This was done using multiple two-sample t-tests. T-test was applied to know the significance of difference among the executives of public-private, private-foreign and public-foreign sector banks on the basis of job stress. The results are presented in Table

8 Table 3.2: Job Stress in Public, Private and Foreign Sector Bank Executives Category No. of Executives Public Sector Bank (SBI) Private Sector Bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.) Foreign Sector Bank (Citibank) **Significant at 0.01 level * Significant at 0.05 level Mean S.D. ANOVA Pub.-Pvt. Pvt.-Foreign Pub.-Foreign F- Sig. t- Sig. t- Sig. t- Sig ** * ** ** The table given above exhibits that the test statistic reported in the analysis of variance column, F=13.79, is significant at <0.01 level. It reflects that there is significant difference in the means across groups, i.e., a significant difference exists in the means across the three sectors of banks on the basis of job stress. In order to determine the specific difference, paired analysis of the group was performed. T-test was applied to know the significance of difference among public-private sector bank executives on the basis of job stress. The results exhibit significant mean difference with regard to job stress, significant at <0.05 level, among the public and private sector banks executives. It is evident from the table that job stress mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=2.99, S.D.=0.50) vis-a-vis public sector bank executives (Mean=2.87, S.D.=0.49). This data indicates that private sector bank executives experience more job stress as compared to those in public sector bank. The t-test was also applied to know the significance of difference among the private and foreign sector banks executives on the 159

9 basis of job stress. The results shown in the table explain significant mean difference with regard to job stress, significant at <0.01 level, among the private and foreign sector banks executives. The table demonstrates that job stress mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=2.99, S.D.=0.50) vis-a-vis foreign sector bank executives (Mean=2.50, S.D.=1.00). This data reflects that private sector bank executives experience more job stress as compared to those in foreign sector bank under study. Further, t-test was applied to know the significance of difference among public and foreign sector bank executives on the basis of job stress. The results provided in the table exhibit significant mean difference with regard to job stress, significant at <0.01 level, among the public and foreign sector banks executives. The table brings out that job stress mean score is higher in the case of public sector bank executives (Mean=2.87, S.D.=0.49) vis-a-vis foreign sector bank executives (Mean=2.50, S.D.=1.00). It reflects that public sector bank executives experience more job stress as compared to those in foreign sector bank. Hence, the analysis provides that private sector bank executives experience the highest level of job stress (Mean=2.99), followed by public sector bank executives (Mean=2.87) and foreign sector bank executives (Mean=2.50). This could be due to the prevalence of greater difference in self-concept and perceived role amongst private and public sector bank executives or could possibly be because of 160

10 relatively lesser work burden and better clarity about role expectations in foreign sector bank executives. Testing of Hypothesis Thus, the hypothesis that the executives of public, private and foreign sector banks have different levels of job stress is accepted because significant difference at <0.01 level is found in the three sectors of banks with respect to job stress, as was confirmed by ANOVA results. Further, significant difference at <0.05 level was confirmed from the paired analysis of the three banks done using multiple two-sample t-tests. It was found that private sector bank executives experience the highest level of job stress, followed by public and foreign sector bank executives. Sub variable-wise Analysis of Job Stress In order to find out the level of job stress in the selected banks and to compare public, private and foreign sector banks, ten sub variables of job stress have been included in this study. Mean and standard deviation were calculated for comparative analysis of public, private and foreign sector bank executives. These sub variables are: 1. Inter-Role Distance (IRD) 2. Role Stagnation (RS) 3. Role Expectation Conflict (REC) 161

11 4. Role Erosion (RE) 5. Role Overload (RO) 6. Role Isolation (RI) 7. Personal Inadequacy (PIN) 8. Self-Role Distance (SRD) 9. Role Ambiguity (RA) 10. Resource Inadequacy (RIN). These sub variables have been analyzed and elucidated with the help of data collected from the respondents belonging to public, private and foreign sector banks. One-way ANOVA was calculated to know whether the executives from these three banking sectors differ significantly on the basis of above mentioned sub variables of job stress. Further, in order to determine the specific difference paired analysis of the group was performed. This was done using multiple two-sample t- tests. The t-test was applied to know the significance of difference among the public and private sector bank executives, private and foreign sector bank executives, and public and foreign sector bank executives on the basis of these sub variables of job stress. 162

12 1. Inter-Role Distance (IRD) An individual usually performs more than one role and there may be a conflict between these roles. Thus, there is a conflict between the organization role and other roles, i.e., stress due to the conflict of not being able to share time between the work demands and family demands. Table 3.3: Inter-Role Distance (IRD): An Inter-Bank Comparison Category No. of Executives Public Sector Bank (SBI) Private Sector Bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.) Foreign Sector Bank (Citibank) **Significant at 0.01 level * Significant at 0.05 level Mean S.D. ANOVA Pub.-Pvt. Pvt.-Foreign Pub.-Foreign F- 4.24* Sig. t Sig. t- 3.07** Sig. t- Sig Table 3.3 exhibits that the test statistic reported in the analysis of variance column, F=4.24, is significant at <0.05 level. This means that there is a significant difference in the means across the three sectors of banks on the basis of Inter-Role Distance. In order to determine the specific difference, paired analysis of the group was performed. The t-test results shown in the table exhibit insignificant mean difference with regard to IRD, significant at >0.05 level, among the public and private sector banks executives. This data indicates that public and private sector bank executives experience a similar level of Inter-Role Distance. The t- test results exhibited in the table describe significant mean difference with regard to IRD, significant at <0.01 level, among the private and foreign sector banks executives. It is evident from the table that IRD

13 mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=3.11, S.D.=0.64) vis-a-vis foreign sector bank executives (Mean=2.71, S.D.=1.16). This data explains that private sector bank executives experience more Inter-Role Distance as compared to those in foreign sector bank. Further, t-test results demonstrated in the table reveal insignificant mean difference, significant at >0.05 level, among the public and foreign sector bank executives with regard to IRD. We can interpret from this data that public and foreign sector bank executives experience a similar level of Inter-Role Distance. Hence, the data analysis provides that the level of IRD related stress among the executives in private sector bank (Mean=3.11) is similar to that in public sector bank (Mean=2.99), but is slightly higher. Further, the level of IRD related stress among the executives in public sector bank (Mean=2.99) is similar to that in foreign sector bank (Mean=2.71), but is somewhat higher. Therefore, the level of IRD related stress is apparently the highest among executives in private sector bank closely followed by those in public and foreign sector banks. The above analysis leads us to conclude that Inter-Role Distance sub variable of job stress is experienced slightly more adversely by the executives in private sector bank as compared to executives in public and foreign sector banks under study. It suggests that in private sector banks the distance or the conflict between different roles an individual performs 164

14 is faintly more vis-a-vis other two sectors of banks. The executives in the private sector undergo higher stress due to the conflict of not being able to share time between the work demands and family demands. 2. Role Stagnation (RS) As an individual grows older, he also grows in the role that he occupies in an organization. With the advancement of the individual the role changes, and with this change in role, the need for taking up new role becomes crucial. Stress due to few opportunities for learning and growth in the role is known as role stagnation. Table 3.4: Role Stagnation (RS): An Inter-Bank Comparison Category No. of Executives Public Sector Bank (SBI) Private Sector Bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.) Foreign Sector Bank (Citibank) **Significant at 0.01 level * Significant at 0.05 level Mean S.D. ANOVA Pub.-Pvt. Pvt.-Foreign Pub.-Foreign F- 6.70** Sig. t- Sig. t- 3.70** * Sig. t- Sig Table 3.4 exhibits that the test statistic reported in the analysis of variance column, F=6.70, is significant at <0.01 level. This means that there is a significant difference in the means across the three sectors of banks on the basis of Role Stagnation. In order to determine the specific difference, paired analysis of the group was performed. The t-test results given in the table exhibit significant mean difference with regard to RS, significant at <0.01 level, among the public and private sector banks executives. It is evident from the table that RS mean score is higher in the

15 case of private sector bank executives (Mean=2.68, S.D.=0.69) as compared to public sector bank executives (Mean=2.40, S.D.=0.74). The data reflects that private sector bank executives experience more Role Stagnation as compared to those in the public sector. The t-test results given in the table show significant mean difference, significant at <0.05 level, among the private and foreign sector banks executives with regard to RS. It is apparent from the table that RS mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=2.68, S.D.=0.69) as compared to those in the foreign sector bank under study (Mean=2.39, S.D.=1.03). The data depicts that private sector bank executives experience more Role Stagnation as compared to those in the foreign sector bank under study. Further, t-test results given in the table exhibit insignificant mean difference with regard to RS, significant at >0.05 level, among the public and foreign sector banks executives. This data indicates that public as well as foreign sector bank executives experience a similar level of Role Stagnation. Hence, the analysis brings out that private sector bank executives experience the highest level of Role Stagnation (Mean=2.68), followed by public and foreign sector bank executives, which have shown insignificant mean difference amongst themselves with the mean s of 2.40 and 2.39 respectively. The whole analysis leads us to conclude that Role Stagnation sub variable of job stress is experienced more adversely by the executives in 166

16 private sector banks as compared to those in public and foreign sector banks. It suggests that in private sector banks the feeling of being stuck in the same role is relatively more vis-a-vis other two sectors of banks. The executives in the private sector bank under study, i.e., ICICI Bank Ltd. undergo higher stress for want of ample opportunities to learn and progress. 3. Role Expectation Conflict (REC) Conflicting expectations or demands by different role senders may lead the role occupant to experience this stress. There may be conflicting expectations from the boss, subordinates, peers or clients. Table 3.5: Role Expectation Conflict (REC): An Inter-Bank Comparison Category No. of Executives Public Sector Bank (SBI) Private Sector Bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.) Foreign Sector Bank (Citibank) * Significant at 0.05 level Mean S.D. ANOVA Pub.-Pvt. Pvt.-Foreign Pub.-Foreign F- 3.85* Sig. t Sig. t- 2.46* Sig. t- Sig Table 3.5 explains that the test statistic reported in the analysis of variance column, F=3.85, is significant at <0.05 level. This shows that there is significant difference in the means across the three sectors of banks with respect to Role Expectation Conflict. However, in order to ascertain a specific difference, paired analysis of the group was performed. The t-test results given in the table exhibit insignificant mean 167

17 difference with regard to REC, significant at >0.05 level, among the public and private sector banks executives. This data indicates that public as well as private sector bank executives experience a similar level of Role Expectation Conflict. The t-test results presented in the table show significant mean difference with regard to REC, significant at <0.05 level, among the private and foreign sector banks executives. The table clearly reflects that REC mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=3.13, S.D.=0.71) as compared to those in foreign sector bank under study (Mean=2.76, S.D.=1.38). It can be inferred from this data that private sector bank executives experience more Role Expectation Conflict as compared to those in foreign sector bank under study. Further, t-test results given in the table exhibit insignificant mean difference with regard to REC, significant at >0.05 level, among the public and foreign sector banks executives. This implies that executives from both the public and foreign sector banks experience a similar level of Role Expectation Conflict. Hence, the data analysis provides that the level of REC related stress among the executives in private sector bank (Mean=3.13) is similar to that in public sector bank (Mean=3.02), but is slightly higher. Further, the level of REC related stress among the executives in public sector bank (Mean=3.02) is similar to that in foreign sector bank (Mean=2.76), but is somewhat higher. Therefore, the level of 168

18 REC related stress is apparently the highest among executives in private sector bank closely followed by those in public and foreign sector banks. The analysis given leads us to conclude that job stress sub variable Role Expectation Conflict is experienced slightly more adversely by the executives in private sector bank as compared to those in public and foreign sector banks. It suggests that in private sector banks there is a faintly greater degree of conflict in expectations that different role distributors (highest authority, subordinates, peers or clients) have from the executives. The executives in the private sector bank undergo higher stress due to different expectations by different significant persons about the same roles and the role occupant s ambivalence as to whom to please. 4. Role Erosion (RE) A role occupant may feel that some functions that he would like to perform are being performed by some other roles. Role erosion is the subjective feeling of an individual that some important role expectations he has from his role are shared by other roles in his role set. Table 3.6: Role Erosion (RE): An Inter-Bank Comparison Category No. of Executives Public Sector Bank (SBI) Private Sector Bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.) Foreign Sector Bank (Citibank) **Significant at 0.01 level Mean S.D. ANOVA Pub.-Pvt. Pvt.-Foreign Pub.-Foreign F- 9.52** Sig. t Sig. t- Sig. t- Sig. 4.03** ** 0.000

19 Table 3.6 exhibits that the test statistic reported in the analysis of variance column, F=9.52, is significant at <0.01 level. This means that there is a significant difference in the means across the three sectors of banks on the basis of Role Erosion. However, in order to determine a specific difference, paired analysis of the group was performed. The t-test results provided in the table exhibit insignificant mean difference with regard to RE, significant at >0.05 level, among the public and private sector banks executives. This implies that public as well as private sector bank executives experience a similar level of Role Erosion. The t-test results presented in the table show significant mean difference, significant at <0.01 level, among private and foreign sector bank executives with regard to RE. It is evident from the table that RE mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=2.90, S.D.=0.76) as compared to those in foreign sector bank (M=2.36, S.D.=0.94). This implies that private sector bank executives experience more Role Erosion as compared to those in foreign sector bank. Further, t-test results highlighted in the table exhibit significant mean difference with regard to RE, significant at <0.01 level, among the public and foreign sector banks executives. It is evident from the table that RE mean score is higher in the case of public sector bank executives (Mean=2.89, S.D.=0.79) in comparison to those in foreign sector bank (Mean=2.36, S.D.=0.94). We can infer from this data that public sector bank executives experience 170

20 more Role Erosion as compared to those in foreign sector bank under study. Therefore, the analysis provides that executives in private and public sector banks, with the mean s of 2.90 and 2.89 respectively, experience a similar level of Role Erosion, followed by those in the foreign sector bank, with the mean of On the basis of above analysis, it can be concluded that job stress sub variable Role Erosion is experienced more adversely by the executives in private and public sector banks as compared to those in the foreign sector bank. It suggests that the executives in the private and public banking sectors are more prone to the feeling that some functions which should actually belong to their role are being transferred to or performed by some other role, leading to greater stress vis-a-vis foreign sector bank. 5. Role Overload (RO) When the role occupant feels that there are too many expectations from the significant roles in his role set, he experiences role overload. Table 3.7: Role Overload (RO): An Inter-Bank Comparison Category No. of Executives Public Sector Bank (SBI) Private Sector Bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.) Foreign Sector Bank (Citibank) **Significant at 0.01 level Mean S.D. ANOVA Pub.-Pvt. Pvt.-Foreign Pub.-Foreign F- Sig. t- Sig. t- Sig. t- Sig ** ** ** ** 0.000

21 Table 3.7 reveals that the test statistic reported in the analysis of variance column, F=20.24, is significant at <0.01 level. This means that there is a significant difference in the means across the three sectors of banks on the basis of Role Overload. In order to determine the specific difference, paired analysis of the group was performed. The t-test results produced in the table exhibit significant mean difference with regard to RO, significant at <0.01 level, among the public and private sector banks executives. It is evident from the table that RO mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=3.20, S.D.=0.50) as compared to those in public sector bank (Mean=2.95, S.D.=0.67). This data indicates that private sector bank executives experience more Role Overload as compared to their counterparts in public sector bank. The t- test results given in the table show significant mean difference with regard to RO, significant at <0.01 level, among the private and foreign sector banks executives. It is evident from the table that RO mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=3.20, S.D.=0.50) vis-a-vis foreign sector bank executives (Mean=2.53, S.D.=0.99). This data indicates that private sector bank executives experience more Role Overload as compared to those in foreign sector bank. Further, t-test results presented in the table exhibit significant mean difference with regard to RO, significant at <0.01 level, among the public and foreign sector banks executives. A glance at the table provides that 172

22 RO mean score is higher in the case of public sector bank executives (Mean=2.95, S.D.=0.67) as compared to those in foreign sector bank (Mean=2.53, S.D.=0.99). These s indicate that public sector bank executives experience more Role Overload as compared to those in foreign sector bank. Therefore, it has been found that private sector bank executives experience the highest level of Role Overload (Mean=3.20), followed by those in public and foreign sector banks with the mean s of 2.95 and 2.53 respectively. On the basis of above analysis, we can deduce that job stress sub variable Role Overload is experienced more adversely by the executives in private sector banks as compared to those in public and foreign sector banks. It suggests that in private sector banks the quantitative or qualitative work burden is relatively more vis-a-vis banks from the other two sectors. The executives in the private banking sector undergo higher stress because they are burdened with extraordinary work and their multifarious duties make them more accountable. 6. Role Isolation (RI) In a role set, role occupant may feel that certain roles are close to him, while some other roles are at a distance. The main criteria of distance are frequency and ease of interaction. 173

23 Table 3.8: Role Isolation (RI): An Inter-Bank Comparison Category No. of Executives Public Sector Bank (SBI) Private Sector Bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.) Foreign Sector Bank (Citibank) **Significant at 0.01 level Mean S.D. ANOVA Pub.-Pvt. Pvt.-Foreign Pub.-Foreign F- 8.03** Sig. t Sig. t- 3.53** Sig. t- Sig. 3.75** Table 3.8 explains that the test statistic reported in the analysis of variance column, F=8.03, is significant at <0.01 level. It reflects that there is a significant difference in the means across the three sectors of banks with regard to Role Isolation. In order to determine the specific difference, paired analysis of the group was performed. The t-test results given in the table exhibit insignificant mean difference with regard to RI, significant at >0.05 level, among the public and private sector banks executives. The data brings out that public and private sector bank executives experience a similar level of Role Isolation. The t-test results presented in the table show significant mean difference with regard to RI, significant at <0.01 level, among private and foreign sector bank executives. It is evident from the table that RI mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=2.76, S.D.=0.68) as compared to those in foreign sector bank (Mean=2.33, S.D.=0.91). These s indicate that private sector bank executives experience more Role Isolation as compared to those in foreign sector bank. Further, t-test 174

24 results given in the table exhibit significant mean difference with regard to RI, significant at <0.01 level, among the public and foreign sector banks executives. It is clear from the table that RI mean score is higher in the case of public sector bank executives (Mean=2.80, S.D.=0.76) as compared to their counterparts in foreign sector bank (Mean=2.33, S.D.=0.91). These s indicate that public sector bank executives experience greater Role Isolation as compared to those in foreign sector bank. Therefore, the analysis provides that executives in public and private sector banks, with the mean s of 2.80 and 2.76 respectively, experience a similar level of Role Isolation, followed by those in the foreign sector bank, with the mean of It can be inferred from the data given above that job stress sub variable Role Isolation is experienced more adversely by the executives in public and private sector banks as compared to those in the foreign sector bank. It suggests that in public and private sector banks the psychological distance between the occupant s role and other roles in the same role set, i.e., the feelings that others do not reach out easily is relatively more vis-a-vis the foreign sector bank. The executives belonging to the public and private banking sector undergo higher stress due to absence of strong linkages of one s role with other roles. 175

25 7. Personal Inadequacy (PIN) This type of stress is experienced when role occupant feels that he is not prepared to undertake the role effectively. Table 3.9: Personal Inadequacy (PIN): An Inter-Bank Comparison Category No. of Executives Public Sector Bank (SBI) Private Sector Bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.) Foreign Sector Bank (Citibank) **Significant at 0.01 level * Significant at 0.05 level Mean S.D. ANOVA Pub.-Pvt. Pvt.-Foreign Pub.-Foreign F- 4.75** Sig. t Sig. t- 3.05** Sig. t- Sig. 2.06* Table 3.9 demonstrates that the test statistic reported in the analysis of variance column, F=4.75, is significant at <0.01 level. It reflects that there is a significant difference in the means across the three sectors of banks on account of Personal Inadequacy. In order to determine the specific difference, paired analysis of the group was performed. The t-test results given in the table exhibit insignificant mean difference with regard to PIN, significant at >0.05 level, among the public and private sector banks executives. The data describes that public and private sector bank executives experience a similar level of Personal Inadequacy. The t-test results provided in the table show significant mean difference with regard to PIN, significant at <0.01 level, among the private and foreign sector banks executives. A cursory look at the table provides that mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=2.97, S.D.=0.64) as compared to those in foreign sector bank (Mean=2.57,

26 S.D.=1.17). These s indicate that private sector bank executives experience greater Personal Inadequacy as compared to their counterparts in foreign sector bank under study. Further, t-test results given in the table exhibit a significant mean difference with regard to PIN, significant at <0.05 level, among the public and foreign sector banks executives. It is evident from the table that mean score is higher in the case of public sector bank executives (Mean=2.86, S.D.=0.79) as compared to those in the selected foreign sector bank (Mean=2.57, S.D.=1.17). These s reflect that public sector bank executives experience greater Personal Inadequacy as compared to their counterparts in foreign sector bank. The data further describes that a similar level of job stress pertaining to Personal Inadequacy sub variable is experienced by the executives in private and public sector banks under study as is reflected by their mean s of 2.97 and 2.86 respectively, followed by those in the foreign sector bank, with the mean of It can be inferred from the above discussion that job stress sub variable Personal Inadequacy is experienced more adversely by the executives in private and public sector banks as compared to those in the foreign sector bank. It leads us to believe that the employees in the private and public banking sector are not imparted training properly and periodically so as to cope with the fast changes that have been taking place in this competitive environment. As a result, they fail to perform 177

27 their functions effectively which is contrary to their expected role. Hence, there is greater job stress related to Personal Inadequacy among private and public sector bank executives as compared to foreign sector bank executives. 8. Self-Role Distance (SRD) Stress arises out of the conflict between the self-concept and the expectations from the role as perceived by the role occupant. Table 3.10: Self-Role Distance (SRD): An Inter-Bank Comparison Category No. of Executive s Public Sector Bank (SBI) Private Sector Bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.) Foreign Sector Bank (Citibank) **Significant at 0.01 level Mean S.D. ANOVA Pub.-Pvt. Pvt.-Foreign Pub.-Foreign F- Sig. t- Sig. t ** ** ** Sig. t- Sig. 8.17** Table 3.10 provides that the test statistic reported in the analysis of variance column, F=42.74, is significant at <0.01 level. It reflects that there is a significant difference in the means across the three sectors of banks with respect to Self-Role Distance. In order to determine the specific difference, paired analysis of the group was performed. The t-test results presented in the table exhibit significant mean difference with regard to SRD, significant at <0.01 level, among the public and private sector banks executives. It is evident from the table that SRD mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=3.25, S.D.=0.74) as compared to those in public sector bank (Mean=3.05,

28 S.D.=0.55). These s explain that private sector bank executives experience more Self-Role Distance as compared to those in the public sector bank under study. The t-test results provided in the table show significant mean difference with regard to SRD, significant at <0.01 level, among the private and foreign sector banks executives. It is evident from the table that SRD mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=3.25, S.D.=0.74) as compared to those in foreign sector bank under study (Mean=2.24, S.D.=0.90). These s describe that private sector bank executives experience greater Self-Role Distance as compared to those in foreign sector bank. Further, t-test results given in the table exhibit significant mean difference with regard to SRD, significant at <0.01 level, among the public and foreign sector banks executives. It is evident from the table that SRD mean score is higher in the case of public sector bank executives (Mean=3.05, S.D.=0.55) as compared to those in the foreign sector bank (Mean=2.24, S.D.=0.90). These s indicate that public sector bank executives experience greater Self-Role Distance as compared to their counterparts in foreign sector bank under study. Hence, the data analysis brings out that the highest and lowest level of job stress pertaining to Self-Role Distance sub variable is experienced by the executives in the private and foreign sector banks respectively. 179

29 We can infer from this discussion that job stress sub variable Self- Role Distance is experienced more adversely by the executives in private sector banks as compared to those in public and foreign sector banks. It suggests that in private sector banks the conflict between the role an individual occupies and his self-concept is relatively more vis-a-vis other two sectors of banks. Thus, the executives in the private sector undergo higher stress due to the conflict arising out of a mismatch between an individual and his job. 9. Role Ambiguity (RA) If an individual is not clear about the various expectations people have from his role, he faces a conflict which may be due to lack of information available to the role occupant or due to lack of understanding of the cases available to him. Role ambiguity may be in relation to the activities, responsibilities, personal style and norms. Table 3.11: Role Ambiguity (RA): An Inter-Bank Comparison Category No. of Executives Public Sector Bank (SBI) Private Sector Bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.) Foreign Sector Bank (Citibank) **Significant at 0.01 level Mean S.D. ANOVA Pub.-Pvt. Pvt.-Foreign Pub.-Foreign F- 9.25** Sig. t- Sig. t- 3.70** ** Sig. t- Sig Table 3.11 exhibits that the test statistic reported in the analysis of variance column, F=9.25, is significant at <0.01 level. This means that there is a significant difference in the means across the three sectors of

30 banks regarding Role Ambiguity. In order to determine the specific difference, paired analysis of the group was performed. The t-test results presented in the table exhibit significant mean difference with regard to RA, significant at <0.01 level, among the public and private sector bank s executives. It is apparent from the table that RA mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=3.17, S.D.=0.59) as compared to those in the public sector bank under study (M=2.88, S.D.=0.81). These s indicate that private sector bank executives experience more Role Ambiguity as compared to their counterparts in the public sector bank under study. The t-test results presented in the table show significant mean difference with regard to RA, significant at <0.01 level, among the private and foreign sector banks executives. It is clear from the table that RA mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=3.17, S.D.=0.59) vis-a-vis foreign sector bank executives (Mean=2.68, S.D.=1.23). These s indicate that private sector bank executives experience greater Role Ambiguity as compared to their counterparts in the foreign sector bank under study. Further, t-test results given in the table exhibit insignificant mean difference with regard to RA, significant at >0.05 level, among the public and foreign sector banks executives. This data indicates that the executives from both the public and foreign sector banks experience a similar level of job stress regarding Role Ambiguity. The analysis further provides that the maximum level of job stress pertaining to Role Ambiguity sub variable is 181

31 experienced by the executives in the private sector bank under study as is reflected by their mean of 3.17, followed by those in the public and foreign sector banks, showing a similar level of Role Ambiguity with the mean s of 2.88 and 2.68 respectively. The above discussion leads us to conclude that job stress sub variable Role Ambiguity is highly experienced by the executives in private sector bank as compared to those in public and foreign sector banks. It suggests that in private sector banks there is probably lesser clarity of the work mission related with the role vis-a-vis other two sectors of banks. The executives in the private sector undergo higher stress due to lack of understanding of the assigned work possibly due to occupation of roles newly created or roles undergoing change, causing role occupants to be unsure about what is expected from them Resource Inadequacy (RIN) The less or non-availability of resources, viz. information, people, material, finance and other facilities to execute role may make the role occupant prone to stress. Table 3.12: Resource Inadequacy (RIN): An Inter-Bank Comparison Category No. of Executives Public Sector Bank (SBI) Private Sector Bank (ICICI Bank Ltd.) Foreign Sector Bank (Citibank) **Significant at 0.01 level Mean S.D. ANOVA Pub.-Pvt. Pvt.-Foreign Pub.-Foreign F- 9.87** Sig. t Sig. t- 2.85** Sig. t- Sig. 4.25** 0.000

32 Table 3.12 demonstrates that the test statistic reported in the analysis of variance column, F=9.87, is significant at <0.01 level. This means that there is significant difference in the means across the three sectors of banks regarding Resource Inadequacy. In order to determine the specific difference, paired analysis of the group was performed. The t- test results given in the table exhibit insignificant mean difference with regard to RIN, significant at >0.05 level, among the public and private sector banks executives. This data indicates that the executives from both the public and private sector banks experience a similar level of job stress regarding Resource Inadequacy. The t-test results presented in the table show significant mean difference with regard to this variable, significant at <0.01 level, among the executives of private and foreign sector banks. The table reveals that RIN mean score is higher in the case of private sector bank executives (Mean=2.77, S.D.=0.69) vis-a-vis foreign sector bank executives (Mean=2.40, S.D.=1.06). These s reflect that private sector bank executives experience more Resource Inadequacy as compared to their counterparts in the foreign sector bank under study. Further, t-test results highlighted in the table exhibit significant mean difference with regard to this variable, significant at <0.01 level, among the public and foreign sector banks executives. It is evident from the table that RIN mean score is higher in the case of public sector bank executives (Mean=2.91, S.D.=0.68) vis-a-vis foreign sector bank executives (Mean=2.40, S.D.=1.06). These s indicate that public sector bank executives experience more Resource Inadequacy as 183

33 compared to their counterparts in the foreign sector bank understudy. Hence, the data analysis reveals that the highest and lowest level of job stress pertaining to Resource Inadequacy sub variable is experienced by the executives in the public and foreign sector banks under study as is reflected by their mean s of 2.91 and 2.40 respectively. The data further describes that a similar level of job stress pertaining to Resource Inadequacy sub variable is experienced by the executives in public and private sector banks under study as is reflected by their mean s of 2.91 and 2.77 respectively, followed by those in the foreign sector bank, with the mean of The above elucidated data leads us to conclude that job stress sub variable Resource Inadequacy is experienced more adversely by the executives in public and private sector banks as compared to those in the foreign sector bank. It suggests that in public and private sector banks the availability of resources required by the role occupant for performing the role effectively is relatively lesser vis-a-vis the foreign sector bank. The executives in the public and private sector banks undergo higher stress due to hindrance of work execution attributable to insufficiency of resources such as information, people, material, finance and facilities. The following table sums up the above findings displaying the comparative analysis undertaken on the basis of job stress and its various sub variables in SBI (a public sector bank), ICICI Bank Ltd. (a private sector bank) and Citibank (a foreign sector bank). The job stress position 184

34 with respect to these sub variables among the executives in the banks under study is presented at a glance as follows: Table 3.13: Job Stress Position in the Banks under Study with respect to its Various Sub variables Variable/ Position IRD RS REC RE ICICI Bank Ltd. SBI Citibank Insignificant difference between ICICI Bank Ltd. and SBI ICICI Bank Ltd. SBI Insignificant difference between SBI and Citibank Citibank Insignificant difference between SBI and Citibank ICICI Bank Ltd. SBI Citibank Insignificant difference between ICICI Bank Ltd. and SBI ICICI Bank Ltd. SBI Insignificant difference between ICICI Bank Ltd. and SBI Insignificant difference between SBI and Citibank Citibank RO ICICI Bank Ltd. SBI Citibank RI PIN SBI ICICI Bank Ltd. Insignificant difference between SBI and ICICI Bank Ltd. ICICI Bank Ltd. SBI Insignificant difference between ICICI Bank Ltd. and SBI Citibank Citibank SRD ICICI Bank Ltd. SBI Citibank RA RIN ICICI Bank Ltd. SBI SBI Citibank Insignificant difference between SBI and Citibank ICICI Bank Ltd. Insignificant difference between SBI and ICICI Bank Ltd. Citibank Job Stress ICICI Bank Ltd. SBI Citibank Overall Sub variable-wise Analysis of Job Stress The questionnaire included ten sub variables of job stress for which mean and standard deviation were computed for having a comparison among public, private and foreign sector bank executives. The results are presented in the following table. 185

35 Table 3.14: Sub variable-wise Analysis of Job Stress in Public, Private and Foreign Sector Banks Number Sector Public Private Foreign Bank SBI ICICI Bank Ltd. Citibank ANOVA Pub.-Pvt. Pvt.-Foreign Pub.-Foreign Variable Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F- Sig. t- Sig. t- Sig. t- Sig. IRD * ** RS ** ** * REC * * RE ** ** ** RO ** ** ** ** RI ** ** ** PIN ** ** * SRD ** ** ** ** RA ** ** ** RIN ** ** ** **Significant at 0.01 level * Significant at 0.05 level 186

36 Table 3.14 illustrates sub variable-wise mean score of job stress in public, private and foreign sector banks. Evidently, in the case of public sector bank executives, the sub variable called Self-Role Distance (SRD) has the highest score (Mean=3.05, S.D.=0.55), followed by Role Expectation Conflict (REC) (Mean=3.02, S.D.=0.71), Inter-Role Distance (IRD) (Mean=2.99, S.D.=0.89), Role Overload (RO) (Mean=2.95, S.D.=0.67), Resource Inadequacy (RIN) (Mean=2.91, S.D.=0.68), Role Erosion (RE) (Mean=2.89, S.D.=0.79), Role Ambiguity (RA) (Mean=2.88, S.D.=0.81), Personal Inadequacy (PIN) (Mean=2.86, S.D.=0.79), and Role Isolation (RI) (Mean=2.80, S.D.=0.76). However, the sub variable called Role Stagnation (RS) (Mean=2.40, S.D.=0.74) has recorded the least score. In the case of private sector bank executives, sub variable SRD has the highest score (Mean=3.25, S.D.=0.74), followed by RO (Mean=3.20, S.D.=0.50), RA (Mean=3.17, S.D.=0.59), REC (Mean=3.13, S.D.=0.71), IRD (Mean=3.11, S.D.=0.64), PIN (Mean=2.97, S.D.=0.64), RE (Mean=2.90, S.D.=0.76), RIN (Mean=2.77, S.D.=0.69), and RI (Mean=2.76, S.D.=0.68). However, the least score has been registered by the sub variable RS (Mean=2.68, S.D.=0.69). While taking into account the case of foreign sector bank executives, sub variable REC has recorded the highest score (Mean=2.76, 187