CHAPTER-IV DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION Factors, Stress Level & Their Effects Techniques & Coping Mechanisms Comparative Study of Public & Private Life Insurance Companies
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear -Mark Twain Every person is a unique personality which is a result of dynamic interaction of a large number of factors. Some factors create stress while others make the person happy and relaxed. It may not always be feasible to assign a peculiar stress or happiness to a single factor because the state of mind of the person is the sum total of a large number of factors. In this study, we have highlighted almost all types of situations which affect the human being either positively or negatively. All the respondents of this service sectors have been proportionately accommodated in terms of sample size and variations in the hierarchy with a view to obtain the holistic picture of the respondent s life style and perceptions. In this chapter, we have tried to identify the stresses attributable to occupation, the root causes leading to stress and how these stresses manifest in respondent s day today behavior. Work plays a powerful role in people's lives and exerts an important influence on their well-being. Since the 1960s, paid work has occupied an increasing proportion of most people's lives. Although employment can be an exciting challenge for many individuals, it can also be a tremendous source of stress. Consequently, as work makes more and more demands on time and energy, individuals are increasingly exposed to both the positive and negative aspects of employment. The relationship
between work and mental and physical health may also contribute to career adjustment as well as to the productivity and economic viability of companies. Three concepts are important to understanding this relationship: Stress is an interaction between individuals and any source of demand (stressor) within their environment. A stressor is the object or event that the individual perceives to be disruptive. Stress results from the perception that the demands exceed one's capacity to cope. The interpretation or appraisal of stress is considered an intermediate step in the relationship between a given stressor and the individual's response to it. Appraisals are determined by the values, goals, individual commitment, as personal resources (e.g., income, family, self-esteem), and coping strategies that employees bring to the situation. 2 Today s corporate world is facing a challenge of managing its human capital which has become a critical and significant issue. The demand for talent is enormously growing across all sectors in the world. 4.1 MANAGING OCCUPATIONAL STRESS: FACTORS, STRESS LEVEL & THEIR EFFECTS The data has been analyzed as per the objectives of the study. The groups have been formed in accordance with the research objectives of the study as Group I factorcombinations relate the first three objectives i.e. factors, level and effect of stress on the efficiency of the executives at workplace. The Group-I is further classified on the basis of the objectives of the study related to this section of the study i.e. to find out
the organizational and individual factors that causes stress, to study the stress level of the Marketing Executives in the Insurance Companies and to study the effect of stress on the efficiency of the Marketing Professionals. GROUP I :F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18, F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25, F26, F27, F28, F29, F30, F31, F32, F33, F34, F35, F37, F40, F41, F42, F43, F44, F45, F46, F47, F48, F49, F51, F54, F55, F56, F57, F58, F60, F61, F63, F64, F66, F67, F68, F69, F70, F75, F76, F77 Further classification of the scale items among the objectives of study: Objective1 : F5, F6, F7, F10, F13, F16, F18, F19, F21, F22, F26, F28, F31, F32, F33, F34, F40, F44, F51, F67, F68, F70, F75, F76, F77 Objective2 : F8, F9, F12, F14, F15, F17, F20, F27, F29, F37, F41, F42, F45, F46, F47, F49, F54, F55, F56, F58, F60, F63, F66, F69 Objective3 : F1, F2, F3, F4, F11, F23, F24, F25, F30, F35, F43, F48, F57, F61, F64 It is evident from the data (Table-4.1) that the results are very consistent as the coefficient of variation is very less among the respondents i.e. they share the same views about the idea floated among them. The group statistics data does not show the respondent s inclination towards a particular thought or conclusion about the stress level among the marketing executives in insurance sector but shows that they are of the same view and data is consistent enough.
Table-4.1 Group Statistics (All Data, Objective Wise) N Mean Std. Deviation Coefficient of Variation Objective 1 500 2.1445.38145 17.78 Objective 2 500 2.2226.30789 13.85 Objective 3 500 2.0786.41236 19.84 Table 4.1, reveals the group statistics of the data in terms of the objectives of the study. The entire data collected has been categorized into the objectives. Various statistical tools like Mean, Standard Deviation and coefficient of variation were used to analyze the data. Various relationships have been studied and inferences reached. The data on analyses has been found to be consistent.
Table-4.2 objective1 objective2 objective3 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Independent Sample Test (All Data, Objective Wise) t Df Sig. (2- tailed) t-test for Equality of Means Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper 2.804 498.005.18778.06697.05612.31944 2.807 170.067.006.18778.06690.05572.31984 6.640 498.000.26778.04033.18850.34706 7.586 220.878.000.26778.03530.19821.33734 1.994 498.047.07088.03554.00100.14076 1.994 169.695.048.07088.03555.00070.14106 In Table-4.2, the analysis has been made to test the hypothesis of the study by using t-test. In this we have tested the significance difference between means of the two samples (Independent Samples). We have observed that the calculated (when equal variance assumed) significance value is less than the standard 0.05 in all the cases.
Table-4.3 ANOVA (All Data, Objective Wise) ANOVA so1 so2 so3 Sg1 Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2.292 3.764 2.298.078 Within Groups 98.391 296.332 Total 100.683 299 Between Groups.565 3.188 1.390.246 Within Groups 40.136 296.136 Total 40.701 299 Between Groups.417 3.139 1.475.221 Within Groups 27.909 296.094 Total 28.326 299 Between Groups.419 3.140 1.903.129 Within Groups 21.715 296.073 Total 22.134 299
Hence the accepted hypotheses are: There are organizational & personal factors exists that cause stress. The stress level differs among the marketing executives in the life insurance companies. There is a relationship between the stress level and the efficiency of the marketing executives in the insurance companies. In table 4.3, the data of the respondents have been taken on the basis of first three objectives classified under the stress among the marketing executives in the insurance companies. The name so1, so2, so3 depicts the data for the statements related to each of the objective and sg1 is the combination of the all three objectives pertains the stress among the marketing executives in the insurance companies. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) allows us to determine whether differences exist among the population means. From the table it is clear that the calculated values are less than the table value for F-values, so the hypotheses are accepted. That means there is no difference in the means of the population in the data. 4.1.1 Organizational and Individual Factors That Causes Stress Newspaper headlines worldwide have heralded an unprecedented concern about the detrimental effects of work stress. The United Nations World Labor Report attributes the source of stress to work places that are unstable, impersonal, and hostile. Since the early 1960s, researchers have been examining the psychosocial and physical demands of the work environment that trigger stress. Research has identified many organizational factors contributing to increased stress levels: (a) job insecurity; (b) shift work; (c) long work hours; (d) role conflict; (e) physical hazard exposures; and (f) interpersonal conflicts with coworkers or supervisors. Reciprocally, elevated stress levels in an organization are associated with increased turnover, absenteeism; sickness, reduced productivity, and low morale.
At a personal level, work stressors are related to depression, anxiety, general mental distress symptoms, heart disease, ulcers, and chronic pain. In addition, many people are distressed by efforts to juggle work and family demands, such as caring for sick or aging parents or children.therefore, any exploration of the relationship between work conditions and mental distress must take into account individual factors such as sex, age, race, income, education, marital and parental status, personality, and ways of coping. To have a balanced approach to understanding work stress, it is necessary to recognize that employment provides rewards that are both internal (intrinsic) and external (extrinsic), (e.g., skill development, self-esteem, money, variety from domestic surroundings, social contacts, and personal identity). Although increasing the rewards of work can offset its stressful aspects, the physical environment and the psychosocial conditions of employment can have deleterious effects on workers' mental and physical well-being How well a person will cope with occupational stress will depend on: the extent to which they fell threatened by the stressor the actions they know they can take to reduce the impact of the stressor their expectations as to how they will be able to cope with the stressor. The number of workers compensation claims being made is increasing and the cost of them to the organization, not just in compensation, but also in lost productivity, is considerable. Many employers are now also taking positive action to prevent occupational stress and the high costs it can occur. The purpose of study is to determine the influence of organisational variables (conflict, blocked career, alienation, work overload, and unfavorable work
environment) on job stress among executives and to examine whether this relationship varies according to the individual's level of neuroticism. Analysis revealed that three of the five organisational variables (conflict, blocked career, and alienation) had significant positive effects on job stress. Implications for managerial practice and future research are discussed. The many challenges in the work environments, characterized by heightened competition, lack of time, more uncontrollable factors, lack of space, continuous technological development, conflicting demands from organisational stakeholders (Hall and Savery, 1986), increased use of participatory management and computerization (Murray and Forbes, 1986), greater uncertainty, and others have resulted in higher job stress. In the pursuit for organisational excellence, managers need to work under highly stressful circumstances. Managers in the manufacturing sector have been found to be experiencing high stress (Jestin and Gampel, 2002). The weakening of the global economy in the past few years has resulted in substantial downsizing and retrenchments. Such events among employees in local and foreign firms are inevitable given Malaysia's reliance on the industrial sectors particularly electronics, which account for 60 per cent of its total exports (Bank Negara Malaysia, 2001). Although there have been several studies on job stress within the Malaysian context (for instance, Kuan, 1994; Bat, 1995; Aun, 1998; Yahya, 1998), these studies have been somewhat fragmented. Thus, the objectives of this study are: (1) to gauge the extent to which organisational variables (conflict, blocked career, alienation, work overload, and unfavorable work environment) affect job stress and, (2) to examine whether neuroticism moderates the relationship between these organisational variables and job stress.
Table-4.4 Organisational and Individual Factors Cause Stress ITEM NO. F16 F18 F19 F21 F22 F26 F28 F31 F32 F33 F34 F40 F44 F51 F467 F68 AVERAGE 2.29 1.88 1.83 1.97 1.84 2.12 1.95 2.04 2.38 2.07 1.83 2.38 2.35 2.29 2.2 1.94 S.D 1.03 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.87 0.89 1.02 0.77 0.85 1.07 1.03 0.99 0.93 0.8 KURTOSIS -0.8 0.5 1.2 0.94 1.46-0.7 1.71 0.08-0.5 1.67 2.67-0.5-0.5-0.2 0.38 1.35 MEDIAN 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MODE 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Q1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 Q3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 SKEWNESS 0.35 0.71 0.98 0.83 1.07 0.26 1.04 0.66 0.39 0.83 1.33 0.45 0.33 0.48 0.66 0.89 COVARIANCE 45.2 41.5 44.2 42.4 45.4 40.4 44.6 43.5 43 37.1 46.6 45 43.8 43.1 42.4 41.4 VARIANCE 1.07 0.61 0.65 0.69 0.7 0.73 0.76 0.79 1.05 0.59 0.73 1.15 1.06 0.98 0.87 0.65
Table 4.4 displays the organizational and individual factors that cause stress. Various statements in the instrument were categorized according to the objectives of the study. They were grouped together and various techniques were applied to the data. The Average has been calculated. F16 statement tries to probe if the reduced importance in a job causes stress to an employee. Whether the employee of the insurance company gets affected by taking away the importance from his job. The analysis proves that there is no great impact of the same on an employee. The average score is relatively on the higher side, which goes to prove that the stress levels do not increase if the relative importance is reduced from an individual s job. The above table depicts that the average score is on the lower side of the fivepoint scale, i.e., ranging from 1.83 to 2.38 for all respondents. When we give a deep insight into the data we can see F18 reflects a lower average value of 1.88, means that the stress is higher if the other occupants do not give enough attention and time to an individual s job. If a person feels that his counterparts or his superiors do not give enough attention required for his job, the stress level in that individual goes higher. Apart from this factor, another factor having low average value is 1.83 is F19 i.e. the individual does not have adequate knowledge to handle the responsibilities in a job. The data indicates that an employee tends to be more stressed if he so feels that he does not have the adequate knowledge to handle his job responsibilities. This means that the employees of the insurance sector would feel better and less stressed if they have the adequate knowledge to handle their respective job. The fifth major factor F21 with average value 1.97 relates to is scope and importance of the job. The statement probes the impact of non clarity of the job responsibilities and scope on the stress levels of an individual. The analysis of the respondent data shows that there is a serious effect on an employee. An employee feels stressed out if he thinks he lacks
clarity on the scope and responsibility of his job. It proves that an individual must be made clear about the scope and responsibilities of his job. Apart from this, the factor F22 and F34 show the average mean at 1.84 and 1.83 respectively. F22, i.e. the individual does not get the information needed to carry out responsibilities assigned to him. On analysis of the data it shows that the employee of an insurance company feels stress if he does not get the desired information required to carry out responsibilities and work assigned to him. It becomes obvious from the statement that it is important for an individual to be given complete access to entire information he needs to carry out the responsibilities assigned to him to complete his task. On the other hand F34 i.e. an individual does not have time and opportunities to prepare himself for the future challenges of his job can also create some amount of stress on the mind of an individual. He feels stressed if does not get an opportunity to prepare and equip himself for the future challenges of his job. The figure of 1.83 is relatively on the lower side of the average, which means that the stress level is higher in case the employee of the insurance sector feels that he does not get the ample time to prepare himself for the challenges of his/her job. On further insight into the data we can see F26 reflects a lower average value of 2.12, means that the stress is lower if the individual feels that the functions that should have been assigned to his job have been assigned to some other role. The individual in an insurance company does not take too much stress if he feels that many functions that should have been part of his job have been assigned to some other role. The figure at 2.12 goes to prove that the stress levels are not very high in this case. The individual does not deem this factor as important, and hence does not take much stress. Further, F28 reveals that average is 1.95, i.e. if the individual is more stressed if he feels that there is not much interaction between him and other colleagues. The
figure of 1.95 shows the stress is on the higher side. The statement probes the impact of lack of interaction between an individual and his colleagues and the analysis shows that there is a considerable stress if there is less interaction. The average of 1.95 shows that the individual feels stressed due to lack of interaction between him and other colleagues. Similarly F31 is one such factor wherein the respondent does not feel really stressed out. The statement tries to probe as in how an individual feels if he does not know what the people he works with expect of him. Means the individual is unsure of the expectations of his fellow colleagues. This kind of scenario does not lead to high stress levels, this is what the result analysis shows. The average at 2.04 does not show a higher level of stress. On analysis of factor F32 it further reveals that such issues do not leave the employees under much stress. The statement F32 in the questionnaire tries to probe if the employee feels stressed if he does not get enough resources to be effective in the job. And when we analyze the results of the data collected from the respondents it shows that the employees do not get much stressed due to this particular reason.2.38 average is again not too much stress. The employees in the insurance sector do not tend to take such issues very seriously. They really don t get much stressed even if they do not get many resources to be effective on their respective jobs. On further analyzing the statement F33, i.e. the job does not allow the individual to spend much time with the family, it is found that the employee does feel some amount of stress, but again it is not very high. The statement tries to probe whether the individual working in the insurance company feels stressed or not if he does not get to spend much time with the family members due to being over involved in his/her job. On deeply analyzing the result it puts the average at 2.07, which does not put the stress at a very high level. However the employee does take some amount
of stress if such a situation arises.f34 goes further to analyze the impact on the stress levels, if the employee does not get time and opportunities to prepare himself for the future challenges of his job. The analysis of the result shows that it does lead to increased amount of stress if the employee of the insurance sector does not get enough time to prepare himself for the future challenges of his job. The average puts the number at 1.83 which is on the lower side which means the stress level is higher in such cases. That means if the employee in the insurance sector does not get ample time and opportunities to prepare himself for the future challenges he feels stressed.f40 & F44 factors on the other hand do not lead to high stress levels in the employees. F40, i.e. the work an employee does in the organization is not related to his interests, probes the stress levels if the employee feels that the work actually does not relate to his interests. On analysis it proves that the employee does not really feel stressful about the same. If the work profile is not related to his area of interest that does not lead to higher levels of stress. F44 also does not lead to increased level of stress. The analysis proves the same. The statement tries to probe the impact of lesser scope for personal growth in a job on the stress level. The statement goes to prove that if the individual feels that there is lesser scope of growth in his job that does not make him very stressful. The figure of 2.35 signifies lesser amount of stress. It clearly implies from the figure of the average that this factor does not lead to increased amount of stress on the individual. It is clear from the table 4.4, that the mean values for all the factorcombinations are less. It depicts that the respondents in the insurance sector feel that there is a high stress level in their organizations. They think that there are some individual and organizational factors exist which causes stress
According to the APA, the top stressors for people in the workplace, in order of importance, are: *Low salaries (43 percent) *Heavy workloads (43 percent) *Lack of opportunity for growth and advancement (43 percent) *Unrealistic job expectations (40 percent) *Job security (34 percent) Additional on-the-job stressors include lack of participation in decisionmaking, ineffective management style and unpleasant work environments that includes disruptive noise levels. In fact, nearly 60 percent of workers in one study reported that noise such as coworker conversations enhanced by open offices caused added distraction and stress, and a study at Cornell University showed that even lowlevel office noise increased stress hormone levels. Longer work hours is another prime stressor. Almost half of employers report business performance is being affected by the stress of employees working long hours, and other impactful factors. Working overtime can result in poor mental performance, increased illness and workplace injuries. Management positions represent only a small proportion of the total workforce, although this job category has grown over the last few decades due to the growth in the service sector. The expansion of this sector has often given more employment opportunities Recent global statistics show that stress level continue to increase in managerial positions, and sometimes discouraging for executives faced with barriers created by attitudinal prejudices in the workplace.
Table-4.5 Adequacy of Salary & Perks (Industry Wise) Industry Type Public Sector Private Sector Total Adequacy of salary & Perks Yes 189 101 290 No 61 149 210 Total 250 250 500 Chi-Square Tests Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.928 a 3.304 In Table-4.5, the chi-square test has been applied to analyze the association between various parameters in the study. In this table the association of adequacy of salary and perks of the marketing executives in the life insurance companies has been checked against the industry type. In order to test whether or not the attributes are associated we consider that there is no association between the attributes. But the calculated value is greater than the standard value 0.05, means there is an association between the variables and the industry type i.e. the views of the respondents in the different industry is different about the public and private insurance companies.
Table-4.6 Time for Leisure activities (Industry Wise) Industry Type Do you ever feel that you do not have enough time for leisure activities Public Sector Private Sector Yes 48 140 188 No 141 41 282 Sometimes 61 69 130 Total 250 250 500 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.168 a 3.405 Total In Table-4.6, the chi-square test has been applied to analyze the association between various parameters in the study. In this table the association of enough time for leisure activities to the marketing executives in the life insurance companies has been checked against the industry type. In order to test whether or not the attributes are associated we consider that there is no association between the attributes. But the calculated value is greater than the standard value 0.05, means there is an association between the variables and the industry type i.e. the views of the respondents in the different industry is different about the public and private insurance companies.
Table-4.7 Security of Job (Industry Wise) Industry Type Public Sector Private Sector Total Yes 196 75 271 My job is secured No 08 101 109 Can t Say 46 74 120 Total 250 250 500 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.919 a 3.404 In Table-4.7, the chi-square test has been applied to analyze the association between various parameters in the study. In this table the association of security of job of the marketing executives in the life insurance companies has been checked against the industry type. In order to test whether or not the attributes are associated we consider that there is no association between the attributes. But the calculated value is greater than the standard value 0.05, means there is an association between the variables and the industry type i.e. the views of the respondents in the different industry is different about the public and private insurance companies.
Table-4.8 Factors Causing Stressed Out In Organization Sr. No. Stress Factor Public Sector Private Sector 1. Impossible Standards 98 197 2. Working in Changed Circumstances 78 167 3. Experiencing Job Insecurity 4. Working with a Disagreeable Person 5. Too Much Responsibility 50 170 165 189 106 198 6. Too Heavy Workload 101 214 From Table 4.8, it is clear that the public sector employees feel that they are having too heavy workload, too much responsibility and they have to work with a disagreeable person. Where as in private sector insurance companies apart from the above said problems the executives also feel that they have been given the impossible standards to meet with those too under the changed circumstances and also they feel the job insecurity as compared to their public sector counterparts. Various other factors like continuously working under stressful conditions induce stress. The guilt of not being able to look after their children and inability to devote adequate time to their families increases stress level. The fierce competition with other competitors and also within the same company with peers keeps them on their toes and they do not get a clear cut deserving break from the office routine.
4.1.2 Stress Level Of Marketing Executives In Life Insurance Companies Stress is caused by an imbalance between the demands upon an individual and his/her ability to cope with those demands. The demands are perceived as challenges which may arise from either external or internal sources. Individuals have their own personal beliefs that influence their attitudes and actions against such perceived or real threats. In other words, it is apparent that individuals differ from each other in their responses to stressful events in their lives. The foregoing precludes any definite or accurate scale of measurement of stress in the real sense. The currently available stress measurement tests are only arbitrary and should not be considered absolute indicators of stress in an individual. Many studies indicate a direct relationship between the life style events of an individual with that of his/her physical, mental, social and spiritual well being. Holmes and Rahe in 1967 developed a scale to measure stress from the annual life change events. This still remains the best indicator to measure the stress levels in an individual. While measuring stress using the Holmes and Rahe scale, the following should be kept in mind: Stress is only one of the causes of ill health. The stress levels induced in a person depends upon various factors like personality, beliefs, perception of stress etc. An aggressive type A personality person may feel highly stressed when his actions are questioned, while assertive personalities may be more tolerable to criticisms and feel less stressed in similar situations.
Many other general individual habits like diet, alcohol, socializing, exercise etc are interrelated to how a person builds up and handles stress in day to day life. Stress is an inherent and inescapable part of any professional s life. What makes this factor particularly dangerous is that we generally accept stress as an integral part of our professional life and do not even think of taking any steps to minimize or eliminate it. Everybody feels that he is too strong and capable to handle the stress perfectly well and nothing physical or mental damage can happen to him. When the brain is exhausted it becomes difficult to concentrate and making a simple decision may seem like a big problem. If the feeling of tiredness is either neglected or suppressed by drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes we may feel relieved but soon reach a point of diminishing return. Thinking becomes muddled and if we continue to push ourselves, we become either edgy and lose our temper or we lose all perspective and feel completely hopeless. When feeling low, we may withdraw from social interaction. Sometimes people become moody and oversensitive to criticism. Stress affects different people differently.
Table-4.9 Adequate sleep without worrying about work (Industry Wise) Industry Type Public Sector Private Sector Total Yes 202 90 292 Adequate sleep without worrying about work No 14 98 112 Can t Say 34 62 96 Total 250 250 500 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.514 a 3.412 In Table-4.9, the chi-square test has been applied to analyze the association between various parameters in the study. In this table the association of adequate night s sleep of the marketing executives in the life insurance companies has been checked against the industry type. In order to test whether or not the attributes are associated we consider that there is no association between the attributes. But the calculated value is greater than the standard value 0.05, means there is an association between the variables and the industry type i.e. the views of the respondents in the different industry is different about the public and private insurance companies.
Table-4.10 Occupation Stress (Industry Wise) Industry Type Occupation Stress Public Sector Private Sector To Great Extent 96 110 206 To Some Extent 67 47 114 Negligible 50 43 93 Not at all 37 50 87 Total 250 250 500 Chi-Square Tests Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square 14.571 a 9.113 Total In Table-4.10, the chi-square test has been applied to analyze the association between various parameters in the study. In this table the association of respondent s attitude as one of the factor of stress has been checked against the industry type. In order to test whether or not the attributes are associated we consider that there is no association between the attributes. But the calculated value is greater than the standard value 0.05, means there is an association between the variables and the industry type definitely has stress among the marketing executives in life insurance companies.
Sr. No. Table-4.11 Recognition Of Stressed Out in Organization Impact Factor Public Sector Private Sector 1. Over react and get frustrated 116 114 2. Argue 118 127 3. Feel Miserable and dull 67 189 4. Have less energy than usual 88 97 5. Loose your control 119 112 Table- 4.11, depicts that the marketing executives in the insurance companies have approximate same impact factor from where they recognize that they are stressed out while working in the organization. The private sector executives feel miserable and dull more that the public sector respondents in this study.
Table-4.12 Stress Level among the Marketing Executives in the Insurance Companies ITEM NO. F14 F15 F17 F20 F27 F29 F37 F41 F42 F45 F46 F47 F49 F54 F55 F56 F58 F60 F63 AVERAGE 1.7 1.93 1.97 1.82 2.02 2.31 1.76 2.27 2.48 1.92 2.02 2.18 2.56 1.91 2.29 1.88 2.3 1.88 2.77 S.D 0.69 0.83 0.81 0.77 0.89 0.98 0.93 0.96 1.08 0.76 0.74 0.89 1.07 0.82 1.05 0.87 0.93 0.87 1.16 KURTOSIS 0.3-0.2 0.16-0.2 0.12-0.7 1.09-0.3-0.7-0.8-0.7-0.5-0.7 1.47-0.8 0.78-0.8 0.78-0.9 MEDIAN 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.5 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 MODE 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 Q1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1.75 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 Q3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 SKEWNESS 0.73 0.55 0.59 0.63 0.68 0.27 1.21 0.43 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.42 0.2 0.96 0.36 0.9 0.22 0.9 0.13 COVARIANCE 40.8 43.2 41 42.4 43.8 42.5 52.8 42.2 43.5 39.6 36.5 40.9 41.7 42.8 45.7 46.2 40.3 46.2 42 VARIANCE 0.48 0.69 0.65 0.6 0.79 0.96 0.86 0.92 1.16 0.58 0.55 0.8 1.14 0.67 1.1 0.75 0.86 0.75 1.35
In table 4.12, the combined average value for this factor-combination of respondents is less for all the factors. This means that the factors show that there is a high stress level among the marketing executives in the insurance companies. Further, the variation in the data items reveals that respondents are more consistent. The analysis also shows that the data is not much skewed as the skewness ranges near zero in all the cases. It means that the data mostly fall towards the normal distribution. Table 4.12 depicts the Stress Level among the Marketing Executives in the Insurance Companies. The above table depicts that the average score is on the lower side of the five-point scale, i.e., ranging from 1.7 to 2.48 for all respondents. When we give a deep insight into the data we can see F14 reflects a lower average value of 1.7, means that the stress is higher if respondent feels that he is not learning enough to take up higher responsibility. If a person feels that he is not learning enough to take up higher responsibility job, the stress level in that individual goes higher. It clearly implies that if a person feels that he/she he is not learning enough to take up higher responsibility job, the stress level in that individual goes higher. Apart from this factor, another factor having low average value is 1.93 is F15 i.e. the individual does feels that he is not able to solve the conflicting demands of people above him in a job. The data indicates that an employee tends to be more stressed if he so feels he is not able to solve the conflicting demands of people above him in a job. This means that the employees of the insurance sector would feel better and less stressed if they are able to solve the conflicting demands of people above him in a job. The fifth major factor F17 with average value 1.97 relates to the workload of the job. The statement probes the impact of heavy workload of the job responsibilities and scope on the stress levels of an individual. The analysis of the respondent data shows that there is a serious effect on an employee. An employee feels stressed out if he thinks he is
overloaded with his job. It proves that an individual must not be overloaded with the responsibilities of his job. At the same time, F20 reveals that average is 1.82, i.e. if the individual feels that he has to do things in his role that are against his better judgment. It means that the individual feels that when he has to do certain things in his job that are against his better judgment he feels stressed for the same. In other words it leads to tremendous stress on his mind. The figure of 1.82 shows the stress is on the higher side. The statement probes the impact of doing things in his role that are against his better judgment. The average of 1.82 shows that the individual feels stressed due to the same.. Similarly F27 and F29 are the factors where the average is on little higher side. It means that the respondent does not feel really stressed out. The statement F27 tries to probe as in how an individual feels if the quality of his work is affected by the amount of work he has to do. Means the individual feels that the quality of his work is affected by the amount of work he has to do. This kind of scenario does not lead to high stress levels, this is what the result analysis shows. The average at 2.02 does not show a higher level of stress. On analysis of factor F27 it further reveals that such issues do not leave the employees under much stress. The statement F32 in the questionnaire tries to probe if the quality of his work is affected by the amount of work he has to do. And when we analyze the results of the data collected from the respondents it shows that the employees do not get much stressed due to this particular reason.2.02 average is again not too much stress. The employees in the insurance sector do not tend to take such issues very seriously. They really don t get much stressed even if the quality of his work is affected by the amount of work he has to do.
In depth analysis of the statement F29, i.e. I wish I had more skills to handle the responsibilities of my job; it is found that the employee does not feel much of stress. The statement tries to probe whether the individual working in the insurance company feels stressed or not when he wishes he had more skills to handle the responsibilities of his job. On deeply analyzing the result it puts the average at 2.31, which does not put the stress at a very high level. However the employee does take some amount of stress if such a situation arises.f37 goes further to analyze the impact on the stress levels, if the employee thinks that he has been given too much responsibility on his job. The analysis of the result shows that it does lead to increased amount of stress if the employee of the insurance sector has been given too much responsibility on his job. The average puts the number at 1.76 which is on the lower side which means the stress level is higher in such cases. That means if the employee in the insurance sector is he given too much responsibility on his job he feels stressed.f41 & F42 factors on the other hand do not lead to high stress levels in the employees. F41, i.e. several aspects of his job are vague and unclear, probes the stress levels if the employee feels that the work actually does not relate to his interests. On analysis it proves that the employee does not really feel stressful about the same. If the work profile is not related to his area of interest that does not lead to higher levels of stress. F45 does lead to increased level of stress. The analysis proves the same. The statement tries to probe the impact of conflict between the seniors and the juniors in a job on the stress level. The statement goes to prove that if the individual feels that the expectations of his seniors and the juniors conflict, it does make him very stressful. The figure of 1.92 signifies a high amount of stress. It clearly implies from the figure of the average that this factor leads to increased amount of stress on the individual.
Similarly F46 and F47 are the factors where the average is on little higher side. It means that the respondent does not feel really stressed out. The statement F46 tries to probe as in how an individual feels if he thinks he can do much more amount of work than what has to be assigned to him. Means the individual feels that he can do much more amount of work than what has to be assigned to him. This kind of scenario does not lead to high stress levels, this is what the result analysis shows. The average at 2.02 does not show a higher level of stress. On analysis of factor F47, it further reveals that such issues do not leave the employees under much stress. The statement F47 in the questionnaire tries to probe if the respondent feels there is a need to reduce some parts of his job. He feels that there is a requirement to reduce some parts of his job. And when we analyze the results of the data collected from the respondents it shows that the employees do not get much stressed due to this particular reason.2.18 average is again not too much stress. The employees in the insurance sector do not tend to take such issues very seriously. They really don t get much stressed even if they feel that there is a need to reduce certain parts of their job. F49, F55 and F58 similarly are the factors which do not lead to really high amount of stress.f49, i.e. where the respondent wishes that he had prepared well for his job. In such cases if he thinks he is not up to the mark, it does not still leave him with high amount of stress. The average at 2.56 is rather on the higher side signifying lesser amount of stress, which goes to prove that when the respondent feels that his wish of having prepared well for the job is still not fulfilled that doesn t put him in high amount of stress.f54 and F56 on the other side are the factors which cause stress to the employee. Although it is not really high but the stress still exists. In case the employee feels stagnant in the job as in F54 it does lead to some amount of stress. The average at1.91 is an indicator for the same. In case the employee feels that he was
given more challenging tasks to do, and he was not given the same the stress in such a case is still higher. Means that the employee feels that he wanted to have more challenging tasks added to his job. Discussion with young professionals today would result in a seemingly consensual belief that there is always a stress level present in the workplace where the focus is more on performance or qualifications of the individual rather than a person s mental level. Today s workplace dynamics are more tuned towards profit figures, global competitiveness and the overall growth of the organization. However, when probed deeply, some interesting facts are revealed that go hand-in-hand with our perception of stress manifestation in general. 4.1.3 Effect of Stress on the Efficiency of the Marketing Professionals in Life Insurance Companies With the changing global corporate scenario, it is not uncommon to find stress in most of the industries since employees are performing their level best so as to get into the top positions. It is interesting to know as to what extent marketing executives played an important role in the business world of present times. Studies have shown that occupational stressors may result in psychological, physical and behavioral stress reactions, such as burnout, depression and psychosomatic diseases (Houkes, Janssen, de Jonge & Nijhuis, 2001; Lai et al., 2000). The link between unmanaged stress and its negative impact on health and well-being is well demonstrated in stress research and is linked to severe physical consequences, some of which may be fatal (Winefield, Gillispie, Stough, Dua & Hapuararchchi, 2002). Occupational stress could also lead to disengagement, which in turn could affect the organisational commitment of employees (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Low
organizational commitment could be interpreted as an escape from, compensation for, or protest against occupational stressors, which could result in absenteeism (Cohen, 1991; Sagie1998). However, low organisational commitment could also develop when employees fail to cope with occupational stress.
Table-4.13 Effect of stress on the efficiency of the marketing professionals in the insurance sector ITEM NO. F23 F24 F25 F30 F35 F43 F48 F57 F61 F64 AVERAGE 1.77 1.76 1.63 1.92 1.64 2.29 1.91 2.85 2.18 2.84 S.D 0.78 0.71 0.71 0.84 0.76 1.02 0.82 1.15 0.9 1.16 KURTOSIS -0.6 0.03 0.36-0.6-1 -0.8 0.64-0.9-0.6-0.9 MEDIAN 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 MODE 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 Q1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Q3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 4 SKEWNESS 0.6 0.61 0.89 0.49 0.71 0.31 0.78 0.08 0.41 0.06 COVARIANCE 44.1 40.2 43.3 43.5 46.5 44.4 43.1 40.3 41.1 40.9 VARIANCE 0.61 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.58 1.04 0.68 1.32 0.8 1.35 In the table 4.13, the combined average value for this factor-combination is less for all the factors. This means that the factors show high stress level and its effect on the marketing executives working in the insurance companies of both the public as well as private sector. Further, the variation in the data items reveals that respondents are more consistent. The analysis also shows that the data is not much skewed as the skewness ranges near zero in all the cases. It means that the data mostly fall towards the normal distribution.
The above table depicts the Effect of stress on the efficiency of the marketing professionals in the insurance. The data analysis shows that the average score is on the lower side of the five-point scale, i.e., ranging from 1.63 to 2.84 for all respondents. When we give a deep insight into the data we can see F23 reflects a lower average value of 1.77, means that the stress is higher if the respondent feels that his job does not leave time to attend to his social and religious interests.the employee of the insurance sector feels that such interests of his feel neglected because of the non availability of time. The stress is further on the higher side if we look at the F24 statement. If a person feels that he is too pre-occupied with the responsibility of his present role that he feels that he would not be able to prepare for taking up responsibility, he takes a lot of stress. The average at 1.76 means that the stress level of the respondent is high. F25 statement probes if the conflicting demands of peers and juniors leads to stress on the minds of the individual. This is made clear with the analysis of the data. In case an individual of the insurance company is not able to satisfy the conflicting demands of his peers and juniors the stress level goes high. He feels stressed out if such a situation arises.f30, i.e. when an employee feels that he is not able to use his training and expertise in his job, he feels stressed. The stress goes higher if the employee of the insurance sector feels that he is not able to use his expertise or the training he has received. The average at 1.92 points towards the increased level of stress.f35 statement probes the impact of not being able to satisfy the demands of client and others since these are conflicting with one another. The analysis shows that the stress level in such a case goes really high. If the respondent feels that he is not being able to satisfy the demands of client and others since these are conflicting with one another. The average at 1.64 shows the stress is on higher side.f43, F57, F61 and F64 statements on the other hand do not show the stress levels
to be relatively that higher. The average in all these statements deviate between 2.18 and 2.84 which does not show the stress to be too higher. F43, i.e. the organizational responsibilities interfere with my extra organizational jobs. The data indicates that an employee does not tend to be less stressed if he so feels that the organizational responsibilities interfere with my extra organizational jobs. This means that the employees of the insurance sector would feel better and less stressed if they have the organizational responsibilities interfere with my extra organizational jobs. The next major factor F57 with average value 2.85 relates to c. The statement probes the impact of being overburdened with the jobs. The analysis of the respondent data shows that there is a moderate effect on an employee. An employee feels stressed out if he thinks he is being overburdened by his job. It proves that an individual must not be overburdened with responsibilities of his job.
Table-4.14 Type of effect of stress (Industry Wise) Industry Type Public Sector Private Sector Total Type of effect of stress on the marketing executives Mentally 99 167 266 Physically 151 83 234 Total 250 250 500 Chi-Square Tests Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.780 a 3.286 In Table-4.14, the chi-square test has been applied to analyze the association between various parameters in the study. In this table the association of various types of effects of stress among the marketing executives in the life insurance companies has been checked against the industry type. In order to test whether or not the attributes are associated we consider that there is no association between the attributes. But the calculated value is greater than the standard value 0.05, means there is an association between the variables and the industry type i.e. the views of the respondents in the different industry is different about the public and private insurance companies
Table-4.15 Problems caused by Occupational Stress (Industry Wise) Industry Type Public Sector Private Sector Total Facing the problems of depression, domestic violence and alcoholism habits Yes 99 165 264 No 151 85 236 Total 250 250 500 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.918 a 3.328 In Table-4.15, the chi-square test has been applied to analyze the association between various parameters in the study. In this table the association of problems faced due to the occupation stress among the marketing executives in the life insurance companies has been checked against the industry type. In order to test whether or not the attributes are associated we consider that there is no association between the attributes. But the calculated value is greater than the standard value 0.05, means there is an association between the variables and the industry type i.e. the views of the respondents in the different industry is different about the public and private insurance companies.
To truly appreciate how seriously stress affects employee safety, it s helpful to understand how stress affects the human brain. The bottom line is this: stress interferes with brain functioning because our brain s ability to function is directly related to our emotional state. When we re in a positive emotional state, our brain works best, enabling us to perform at our best. When we re in a negative emotional state, such as feeling nervous, angry, depressed, or stressed out in any way, our brain works less effectively. This process was labeled Downshifting by Dr. Leslie Hart, an educator who studied student performance under varying emotional states. Dr. Hart s interest in how stress affects the brain arose from his observation that students ability to think and learn decreased as their stress level increased. Just as a car s speed and performance decrease if the driver downshifts from high gear to low gear, the brain s performance decreases when it downshifts. Dr. Hart s research, along with a great deal of other scientific research, shows that when people downshift, their intellectual, psychological, and behavioral responses deteriorate. 4.2 MANAGING OCCUPATIONAL STRESS: TECHNIQUES & COPING MECHANISMS We are living in a world of stress. Beyond doubt, it is part and parcel of today s life. However all stress is not bad. In fact a minimum amount of stress is a must to obtain optimum efficiency and make best use of your potential. Stress is a boon only till the time it is below the threshold level. The moment it crosses the threshold level, it starts affecting negatively. The amount of effect varies from person to person. In the management of stress, the question arises why do some individuals cope well with stress whilst others do not? Stress and stress-related disorders as previously cited in the literature, continually refer to the close working relationship between mind